2001 poll. When did you think there would be a black president?

[cheerfulgreek]

I was reading "USA Today" this morning, and I saw a poll that was done in 2001. I'm not sure how many people actually took the poll, but from 2001, 36% said there would be a black president within 10 years.

25 years: 43%
After 100 years: 2%
Never: 8%
Within 100 years: 9%

I guess for me, I was always sure history would have eventually happened. I just didn't think I would have been around long enough to witness it.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I was reading "USA Today" this morning, and I saw a poll that was done in 2001. I'm not sure how many people actually took the poll, but from 2001, 36% said there would be a black president within 10 years.

25 years: 43%
After 100 years: 2%
Never: 8%
Within 100 years: 9%

I guess for me, I was always sure history would have eventually happened. I just didn't think I would have been around long enough to witness it.

Agreed.

[ree-Xi]

Honestly, and I am not giving the "I don't see color" cliche here, I never thought about it before. I hope that I can explain this without sounding trite or ignorant or naive.

I understand the historical significance of a black president - given that not too long ago, a black person (african american?) didn't have the right to vote, sit in the front of a bus, etc., let alone be elected into the most powerful office in the largest superpower in the world. I get why this is so monumental. But I never thought that it was something that we necessarily had to "be ready for".

I have heard similar questions about when we'd expect the first female president, and if the country was ready. Given that women are so different - biologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. - I think it's more likely that people would question "if we were ready" for a woman to be president. Women are biologically predispositioned to give birth, are innately more nurturing, etc. I have heard people joke that what if a female president had PMS and decided to (insert some horrible decision) based on her emotions.

Men are men, and will almost always be seen as the likelier candidate for any position of power. But there is no difference between how a black man and a white man "operates", if you get what I mean. Does that make sense?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

I have heard similar questions about when we'd expect the first female president, and if the country was ready. Given that women are so different - biologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. - I think it's more likely that people would question "if we were ready" for a woman to be president. Women are biologically predispositioned to give birth, are innately more nurturing, etc. I have heard people joke that what if a female president had PMS and decided to (insert some horrible decision) based on her emotions.

Men and women aren't as emotionally and psychologically different as patriarchy and sexism have socialized us to believe.

The stupid jokes you've heard show the hypocrisy of it all. It's just a matter of which is the most salient structural inequality, racism or sexism.

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Men are men, and will almost always be seen as the likelier candidate for any position of power. But there is no difference between how a black man and a white man "operates", if you get what I mean. Does that make sense?

Men are men because patriarchy and misogyny unite men across race, ethnicity, culture, language, and socioeconomic status. However, research shows that concepts of manhood, power, and masculinity differ for white men as compared to black men. Being of the gender power majority but of the racial power minority is what is called "intersectionality" of race and gender. We can already see that Obama has been received differently than past presidents for reasons beyond politics. Examples of this are comments like "he's such a great orator" and suspicions that he's going to advance the causes of black people over interests of Americans, in general.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Honestly, and I am not giving the "I don't see color" cliche here, I never thought about it before. I hope that I can explain this without sounding trite or ignorant or naive.

I understand the historical significance of a black president - given that not too long ago, a black person (african american?) didn't have the right to vote, sit in the front of a bus, etc., let alone be elected into the most powerful office in the largest superpower in the world. I get why this is so monumental. But I never thought that it was something that we necessarily had to "be ready for"

I agree. I wouldn't say it was something that we are "ready for" or not. I was just saying that I didn't think I would live to see it based on how color struck this country has been and in a sense still is. But the words "ready for" doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying you're not making sense, it's just those two words that were forever being used while Obama was running for office.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I was reading "USA Today" this morning, and I saw a poll that was done in 2001. I'm not sure how many people actually took the poll, but from 2001, 36% said there would be a black president within 10 years.

25 years: 43%
After 100 years: 2%
Never: 8%
Within 100 years: 9%

I guess for me, I was always sure history would have eventually happened. I just didn't think I would have been around long enough to witness it.

Welp, ironically, if the poll was taken pre-9-11 people thought hijacking planes would take you somewhere to be ransomed, too... Suffice to say, those polls are not as scientific and/or the people answering them are not as globally adept as we would like to think about them...

The other issue is PEBO had not won his senatorial position at that time. While he was doing what he had to do to get elected to his first Federal position, he may have had it in the back of mind, but it was not marketed to the American collective consciousness.

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Honestly, and I am not giving the "I don't see color" cliche here, I never thought about it before. I hope that I can explain this without sounding trite or ignorant or naive...But I never thought that it was something that we necessarily had to "be ready for"...But there is no difference between how a black man and a white man "operates", if you get what I mean. Does that make sense?

I think that you are still coming from a naivete about who Obama really is as a person. I think he has a realistic view of what needs to be done. But I think the American media outlets who often do not deal properly with cultural shifts because they are in the business selling news.

I do agree, IMO, with what you said with what do we need to "be ready for"? Obama is a Columbia graduate, Harvard educated lawyer, Editor of the Harvard Review and chose a rather mediocre career position rather than a corporate lawyer. And enamored Michelle... I know I am are ready for it and you might be, but I think people's fears are solving "all the world's problems" during his first term... People see these problems as insurmountable. And when we are collectively overwhelmed, we want to give up... We've been addicted to "giving up" when times are hard because why wait? IDK?

I think you are missing the cultural experiences that Obama has. Significantly diverse upbringing I think that gave him compassion for people different from his own background. The reconnecting with American Black's and not being alienated as so often many are. Having great patience, the astuteness to look bigotry in the eyes and to hear pain in the voices of those suffering and corral them to his cause, and to seamlessly propel the American "can do" Spirit back to relevancy, I think there are monumental differences between Obama and the last president, especially...

It would have to be a persuasive Caucasian man to have the effect we see now... Not even Bill Clinton has that deep connection. Look how many people are in the background at the Inauguration and the "festival party-like atmosphere"...

Even the media is taken aback by the sheer number and volume of people.

But like all things, the Honeymoon will soon be over... Maybe not in 2009, but definitely later... IDK?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

But like all things, the Honeymoon will soon be over... Maybe not in 2009, but definitely later... IDK?

It will definitely be over.

[AGDee]

I have made the comment "He's such a great orator" and it's not related to his race, it's a fact. Clinton and Reagan were also great orators. GW was horrendous. It got to the point that I could barely listen to him and his Bushisms. Obama has a way of inspiring me and giving me hope about our future, something I haven't been able to say since 9/11.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I have made the comment "He's such a great orator" and it's not related to his race, it's a fact. Clinton and Reagan were also great orators. GW was horrendous. It got to the point that I could barely listen to him and his Bushisms. Obama has a way of inspiring me and giving me hope about our future, something I haven't been able to say since 9/11.

It's an opinion. I am not the only person who doesn't like Obama's speech style.

More importantly, this isn't about whether some people were talking about race when they said it. Clinton and Reagan were noted orators but their oratory skills were not as emphasized and celebrated as Obama's have been. There weren't long discussions about how Clinton and Reagan were "so articulate" or "speak so well." Instead, the emphasis was on motivating the masses with the assumption that someone with the education and/or expertise of Clinton or Reagan would be articulate and speak well. People weren't particularly shocked.

Lastly, Obama was accused of elitism, which is funny because almost every (if not, every) POTUS has been of the elite class. Obama is a POTUS with a more modest background than most but a class-race double standard is at play. These dynamics won't end after this afternoon. Things will go back to "normal" by tomorrow morning after the excitement and alternate-reality of this goes away.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I have made the comment "He's such a great orator" and it's not related to his race, it's a fact. Clinton and Reagan were also great orators. GW was horrendous. It got to the point that I could barely listen to him and his Bushisms. Obama has a way of inspiring me and giving me hope about our future, something I haven't been able to say since 9/11.

It's not really a fact, but more so your opinion and your personal feelings in listening to Obama. I think he's an ok speaker, but I wouldn't say he's "great." I think Clinton and Reagan were better speakers, in my opinion.

DrPhil - do you think that those same race-class issues play into why Obama's background has been more discussed than say Clinton's (where he had a rough home life and an alcoholic father)?

[AGDee]

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

KSig: You're right, it is an opinion. I don't quite know how to express what I was trying to say. I guess, simply "In my opinion, he is a great orator and race has no bearing on that opinion". You see, I am not a great orator!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Along the same lines, you can't separate Obama's race from his speaking style - people are going to filter their opinions through the lens of his race (and his attractiveness, and his timbre, and his family, and...).

One example: watching Obama's speech on election night was moving for me personally, but that was mostly because of the context of it being historically important. Reading the speech on paper the next day, it didn't hold nearly the same power, and seeing sound bites later, they seemed stilted and unnecessarily 'preaching' in tone, although otherwise fine.

I'm kind of rambling, I realize, but I feel like it's important to be complete, and I think it explains something about the disconnect. It's important to realize that things like attractiveness, gender, race, etc. all matter when judging credibility, charisma and speaking quality. More specifically, expectations matter. If you expect Bush to say something sloppy or dumb, you'll look for that and won't excuse missteps.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

DrPhil - do you think that those same race-class issues play into why Obama's background has been more discussed than say Clinton's (where he had a rough home life and an alcoholic father)?

I think it's race-class and experience. Clinton was more known than Obama so he had played the game long enough to get a pass.

Obama was a newbie. So he was a newbie, had his family and class background, had his name, and was relatively young in addition to being black. The "great orator" stuff was used to buffer the effect of the criticisms.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

Those discussions weren't held on a larger scale. His Conservative Republican agenda was the catch, the great orator stuff was icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I guess, simply "In my opinion, he is a great orator and race has no bearing on that opinion".

Maybe. Maybe not. It could be subconcious so that's neither here no there for the point being made.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Along the same lines, you can't separate Obama's race from his speaking style - people are going to filter their opinions through the lens of his race (and his attractiveness, and his timbre, and his family, and...).

One example: watching Obama's speech on election night was moving for me personally, but that was mostly because of the context of it being historically important. Reading the speech on paper the next day, it didn't hold nearly the same power, and seeing sound bites later, they seemed stilted and unnecessarily 'preaching' in tone, although otherwise fine.

I'm kind of rambling, I realize, but I feel like it's important to be complete, and I think it explains something about the disconnect. It's important to realize that things like attractiveness, gender, race, etc. all matter when judging credibility, charisma and speaking quality. More specifically, expectations matter. If you expect Bush to say something sloppy or dumb, you'll look for that and won't excuse missteps.

You aren't rambling.