So..you accept and understand...but what are you doing about it?

This is a fair point and gets to perhaps another common disconnect between racial groups.

Maybe it is the media's doing- but I and many others who are white get the sense that the CBC and a handful of leaders like Sharpton and Jackson frame the national discussion on African-American issues.

In real life and in person I know it does not work like that (I have yet to meet one African-American who I have known well enough to talk politics who had anything nice to say about Jesse Jackson), but there is definitely a sense that there is a leadership there which will make all judgement calls about how a person is to be treated based on their political orientation and not by some objective moral criteria- using the race card when in fact it is politics and not race that is in question.

But again, maybe the media is creating that to stir people up. I have to admit I do not know the answer.

It wasn't just a response to his pastor...it also put to the forefront of what people have been tiptoeing on eggshells ever since this thing started...which you just said...it's about bringing the issues of race or any kind of -ism to the forefront and start having frank discussions on what we can do to fix our own house before we go traipsing into another selling 'democracy'.

To hell with this "brand new race talk." America isn't going to address race any differently after this damn speech or if Obama is elected.

Therein lies part of the problem...the media and most of it white run, when they want a comment on race issues, go straight to them first, as if Jesse and Al are the voice for us all when tere are so many others out there that just as versed if not better versed on issues in the Black communities....when is the last time has white media called on folks like Tavis Smiley, Cornell West or many others to speak on certain issues?

If they left those same two alone, maybe they wouldn't have the general public hating them so much...

All I can do it live it- in my hiring decisions and in who I do business with.

I learned very early in life that results matter. And I hire and promote people based on results, period. I am very comfortable stating that and standing by it.

In a broader sense, it is harder because there is so much vitriol out there to contend with when one goes public.

When I meet someone, they have the same "chance" with me as everyone else in the context of the developing relationship- be it personal or professional.

But as much as I despise the "Bob Jones" mentality, I also despise the "Reverend Wright" mentality because I see them as one in the same.

Yet it is hard to be up front about that since you never know if someone will be the same or let personal biases influence their relative views. And maybe to an extent I have my own biases I don't even recognize.

I have worked with people who told me to my face they hate blacks, Mexicans, Asians etc. But I have also worked with minorities who I have seen use their racial status and legal favor of their status to force themselves into being treated specially beyond what they deserved.

And this is where people get defensive and scared. And whether you get defensive or scared depends on what your views are, the views of the other person and where the power is in that relationship (ie who works for who etc.)

On a national scale- the answer is that the media needs to stop promoting racial tension to achieve TV ratings. There is a fine line between exposing hidden injustice and talking up non-issues, but I think that line has been crossed.

How you do that is hard to say. The media does this to make money- and in a capitalist society, any society really, the goal is to make a good living for one's self.

So all you can do is your part to keep your little piece of the earth as it should be.

Yes, it was.

Pardon me for stopping the parade but I'd rather listen to Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gon' Come" than hear anymore rhetoric and the resulting cheerleading squad rants. People need to stop blowing smoke up his ass and making him the savior. Let him run his campaign and save the "state of the racist union" for a presidential acceptance speech. If he is elected.

I'll agree to that in general and at the present time, but I think what we can hope for is different conversations 15 to 20 years from now when grade school kids have grown up with an african american or a woman in the White House and that's what they've known. Their attitudes might be different and thus their conversations will hopefully change. People learn what they live, supposedly, so if they live with a not-a-white-male leader of the country, that's what they'll learn.

Well, having met Jesse Jackson in person a few times and a close friend of mine having gone to Howard with his son, the reality is everyone and he probably capitalized on the fact that when MLK was assassinated, he was right there with him and know all his intimate details of his "dream"... The reality is he doesn't, but he leveraged that throughout his pursuit of greater good.

He is a great motivator for young people. Kids who are unsure on themselves and what they can do. His leadership ability is absent. Which is different from Obama.

Obama is NOT part of "the establishment" or the Bourgie class. The AfAms you probably interact with are "MAYBE" a part of that... Nowadays, everything is all different from when I grew up, so I don't know, it depends.

I am part of the post-Civil Right's babies... Grew up during Affrimative Action
Days but still suffered under bigotry and racist attitudes by authoritative figures--like doctors, teachers and yes, sometimes police. The humiliation from those encounters are seared into my memory. But, I have worked to forgive people to. My hope and goal is to "judge someone by the content of his or her character".

that reminds me....how often this year as opposed to other election years has it been emphasized as to the breakdown of what race is voting for who?

That sickens me...and it insults my intelligence....

Drinking a glass of wine with that song too?

No.

heh

It is a new thing in the general media with this election. Ann Coulter likes to bring up race and voting blocks all the time, but in the past this has not been a staple of general media reporting, or even among many advocates/pundits.

I share your sense of being sick and feeling my intelligence has been insulted.

At the end of the day, this is how I see the Obama situation with regards to Reverend Wright,

1. Obama made a strategic decision early in the race to focus on a very high level approach to campaigning. This avoided specifics and a degree of substance, but also kept him free to avoid getting mired in details over specific comments that in the modern media can come back to bite you. A good example is McCain and the 100 years in Iraq comment.

2. This strategy served him very well early on- and still is really. However, he came into this situation with Wright as the candidate a lot of people did not really have a good handle on. This is in part due to the fact that he deliberately took a very high level message approach in his speeches, and also due to the fact the other 2 major candidates have very long and well known public records.

3. At a certain point, he made it very clear that his church and his pastor were a major force in his life.

4. Then the Wright stuff comes out- a perfect media story full of hate and sensationalism. And then a LOT of people who don't personally identify with Obama or understand where he is coming from are going to automatically, and unfairly, associate him negatively with Rev. Wright.

I think that is the bottom line here. Race pervades this in a sense, but it is not the fundamental issue. The media making it an issue- and bringing out pundits who defend Wright in part- just makes it harder on Obama.

I have to admit this made me laugh- now that I have calmed down a bit.

Somehow I get the feeling we would get along a lot better in person.