- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
CNN said:Why Obama doesn't dare become the 'angry black man'
By John Blake, CNN
June 9, 2010 1:26 p.m. EDT
....
Some of the same people crying for Obama to show more emotion would have voted against him if he had displayed anger during his presidential run, says William Jelani Cobb, author of "The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress."
"It would have fed deeply into a pre-existing set of narratives about the angry black man," Cobb says. "The anger would have gotten in the way. He would have frightened off white voters who were interested in him because he seemed to be like the black guy they worked with or went to graduate school with -- not a black guy who is threatening."
....
Obama, though, has spent a lifetime trying to rewrite that script, says Street, who says he worked with Obama in Chicago.
"He is Mr. Equanimity and Mr. Consolation," says Street. "That's how he negotiated his way through multiple worlds, and reached out across bridges."
In his 1995 memoir, "Dreams of My Father," Obama explained why he thought such negotiation was necessary when he met white people as a young man growing up in Hawaii.
"People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry."
If Obama wants to go down as a great president, though, he may have to discover the political value of rage, others say.
CNN is telling the truth, the angry black man is personified by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and if Barack Obama looked like them, he would be nowhere.Why Obama doesn't dare become the 'angry black man' - CNN.com
So CNN is now making the excuse that Obama cannot show genuine anger without offending white voters who would view him as an "angry black man". The Presidents inaction, inability to lead and his inability to show genuine anger is all because of whitey or more succinctly - white discrimination. When all other excuses fail... the media has to play the race card, right?
CNN is telling the truth, the angry black man is personified by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and if Barack Obama looked like them, he would be nowhere.
CNN is telling the truth, the angry black man is personified by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and if Barack Obama looked like them, he would be nowhere.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton display the "Angry Black Man" when trying to deamonize white people as racists over issues they don't know any of the details behind (Duke Lacrosse for example).CNN is telling the truth, the angry black man is personified by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and if Barack Obama looked like them, he would be nowhere.
Good Point. Me either.Hey guys.
Why should Obama display anger anyway? Would that help him getting policies through? Do you think displaying anger somehow is a requirement for good leadership?
I'm not sure I understand what the article is getting at.
I could have predicted you would fall in line with this.and that is what pisses off the racists
Why is it any time some one even perceived as liberal mentions race, they are "playing the race card"?
CNN is telling the truth, the angry black man is personified by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and if Barack Obama looked like them, he would be nowhere.
Why is it any time some one even perceived as liberal mentions race, they are "playing the race card"?
When one uses race as an excuse, its displaying the race card.
Get over your race, and get a better excuse.
That goes for anyone.
Because it's true. That's why.
The, "race card", is just about all the Leftists have to beat anyone up with, when it comes to defending Obama, or any other Libbo politico, for that matter.
There is no excuse here. There is an explanation as to why it would be politically bad for Obama to be publicly angry.
It's conservatives who seem fixated on race. I rarely bring it up.
Malice and hatred may be one basis for racism, but much more often, it's simplistic thinking, reliance on apparently harmless stereotypes and very subtle attitudes.
Gotta admit. When Obama spouted that he be looking "for some ass to kick" he did get met with a bit of ridicule blowback ( not sayin' that was bad, and i was part of it). And the ass kicking line did sound kinda silly and out of character for him (Obama).
There is no excuse here. There is an explanation as to why it would be politically bad for Obama to be publicly angry.
Whether or not this is ridiculous, Obama himself believes it.
He expounds at length about it- as well as other aspects of race and identity and how these factors shaped him into who he is- in his memoir (which, I always feel it's important to note, was written before he was 30; before he could've possibly entertained any realistic presidential aspirations).
In his memoir, Obama does not present these ideas as excuses why he has to pretend to be someone else or keep his feelings in check, but rather to explain why he is who he is.
He is a reserved man.
It is not an act. He is not "hiding his rage". He is not prone to emotionalism.
He is a bit of a cold fish, a bit of a bloodless, pedantic intellectual, and he knows it; and part of the reason for that is these racial factors he grew up with.
It's not that racial factors are presently forcing him to live a lie; it's that the version of himself he presents to the world is in fact his true self, and one of the factors that shaped him into the person he is, is the racial prejudices and stereotypes of the society in which he grew up.
He observed/intuited from an early age- late childhood or early teens- that whites (including his own grandmother) are sometimes threatened by and/or distrustful of unknown black males because of their skin color.
This realization affected him profoundly, and caused him to develop into a type of black male that society would not be threatened by.
It's not an act, and I believe that the issues he cites as factors are legitimate.
Not wanting to jump in by accusing anybody of anything. Just a thought:
I think we all can agree that racism does exist. Also, racism, in many cases, does not come along with malice or awareness. Those who proudly claim white pride or consciously say "whites are better than blacks" are a tiny fringe minority. Maintaining too generalizing stereotypes that necessarily have influence on our actions, even without being aware of them, is probably the most dominant form of racism these days. You often hear people say things like "of course I don't hate blacks, I even have black friends, but ...", and of course they believe that, and don't think they are racist ... but what follows makes soon obvious they still have a certain stereotype in mind. Malice and hatred may be one basis for racism, but much more often, it's simplistic thinking, reliance on apparently harmless stereotypes and very subtle attitudes. Racism must not be blatant. In fact, most of the time it is not, and comes with many seemingly harmless disguises.
Maybe we should keep that in mind when accusing anybody of racism, or accusing anybody of -- implicitly without justification -- "playing the race card".
Just my two cents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?