This isn’t to focus on race; it’s about double-standards for Republicans vs. anyone else. Example:

What if the black candidate was prayed over by a witch hunter, had unwed pregnant girls, verbally abused his wife, said the economy was sound during a meltdown, and graduated bottom of his class?

Answer: he’d be a nothing. Not even on the radar. Hell, he wouldn’t even be allowed to talk to people who’ve seen the radar.

But it’s McCain/Palin, so they’re “real”, and “down to earth”.

A brilliant piece. It reminds me of a great point I heard the other day:

If Obama and Michelle showed up with a seventeen-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter at the democratic convention, what would the Republicans have said about it? Would they have left the issue alone because it was a ‘personal’ matter?

[ White Privilege | zcommunications.org ]

Image from maxitees.com

Many white people I speak with have a visceral reaction to Obama. Their faces crinkle up when even considering the idea of him being President. Yet when I ask them what policies of his they don’t like, I get the gaze of nothingness. Many of these same people can’t name the three branches of government.

So what’s the real reason for the near-hostile reaction?

Try this thought experiment: What percentage of white people who severely dislike Obama (for whatever reason) would feel comfortable with their daughter, under any circumstances, marrying a black guy?

Let’s be clear: I’m not saying that anyone who doesn’t like Obama is definitely making the entire decision based on race; that’s a severe overextension. What I’m saying is that if:

1. You “really” don’t like Obama, in an emotional sense, and…
2. You’d be highly adverse to having your daughter marry a black guy (regardless of who he is)…

…then you should re-evaluate your thoughts/feelings regarding Obama. In short, if both of the above are true you are likely making a significant portion of your decision based on race—not consciously, but subconsciously.

Don’t feel guilty about it. It’s quite natural to make these sorts of background-process decisions about risk and danger. It’s built into us. But it’s the job of our logic and reason to try and counteract these impulses when they are unfounded.

I ask only that you consider it.:

From this NY Times piece:

According to a July New York Times/CBS News poll, when whites were asked whether they would be willing to vote for a black candidate, 5 percent confessed that they would not. That’s not so bad, right? But wait.

The pollsters then rephrased the question to get a more accurate portrait of the sentiment. They asked the same whites if most of the people they knew would vote for a black candidate. Nineteen percent said that those they knew would not.

This is what causes the Bradley Effect, which is where a minority candidate leads in the polls leading up to an election but loses by a surprising margin when people actually vote. In short, it’s White people saying publicly that they’re going to vote for the minority and then voting for the White guy when protected by anonymity.

It’s why my prediction has been stable for the last several months. Obama will lead by approximately 10% in the polls going into the election, and he will lose by roughly that same amount. That’s a 20% swing, caused by latent racism.

Let’s hope I’m wrong.

Links

[ The Bradley Effect | wikipedia.org ]

The article.

In Washington, more than 80 percent of HIV cases are among black people, that’s one in 20 residents.

…If black Americans made up their own country, it would rank above Ethiopia (420,000 to 1,300,000) in HIV population.

In America, AIDS is a Black problem.

[ Racist Reporting Source ]

I found an article on CNN yesterday that severely bothered me. It’s by a Black professor by the name of Michael Eric Dyson. His article is typical of the 90’s theme of high victimization and low responsibility. Here are a few choice excerpts:

There is a vicious prison system that hungers for young black and brown bodies. The more young black and brown folk are thrown in jail, the more cells are built, and the more money made.

This is sickening. I just threw up in my mouth. “Black and Brown” bodies don’t make any more money than White ones. Nobody gives a shit what color the inmates are. Prison systems get money based on capacity needs. Period.

It has been well documented that we spend far more money on penitentiaries than university education for poor black and brown males.

Well, sure, that’s because if they choose not to go to school (often for free), none of that education money that’s available to them is ever spent. Yet if they choose to commit a crime then the money that’s available to lock them up will get spent. And this is precisely what’s happening all over America.

We would permit no other population of American citizens to be locked away with such callous disregard for the educational opportunity that might help stem the tide of incarceration.

There are legions of studies that show that young Black males who embrace intellectualism and education are shunned by their peers. There is also plenty of research that shows that the Black household — even when accounting for income — doesn’t promote academics the same as White and Asian households.

These are the reasons they aren’t succeeding in high school and going on to college. The system itself doesn’t care who participates; in fact, it’s biased heavily in the favor of Blacks. The problem, and solution, is deeply cultural. The cycle of failure is built into the system.

Try this: go to any city in the United States that is roughly half Black and half White on a Friday night. Go to the local book store. Count the people. Do the math. My anecdotal numbers, taken many times, show approximately 2-5% black. Quite simply, going to the book store on a Friday night, as a hangout, because reading is fun, is a “White” thing.

Until that changes, and intellectualism becomes part of the Black culture, professor Dyson will have plenty more opportunity to completely misdiagnose the problem.:

Summary: White University professor denied tenure at a Black University because he failed too many students that deserved to fail. He was essentially told to pass approximately 70% of his students regardless of what they do. He refused and was punished.

This has been a theme of mine lately: pretending to help people by artificially lowering the standard does NOT help them. All it does is make the person lowering the standard feel better. But the student/child still suffers because they remain equally unable to compete in society.

Sickening.

[ How NOT to Equal the Playing Field | insidehighered.com ]

So, speaking from a general perception standpoint, Indians are considered Asians because they’re on the Asian sub-continent. Well, at least to non-Americans. Most Americans think Indians are from the Middle East, but that’s another post.

The question is, if Indians are considered Asian, why not Russians? Russia has like 4x the land mass in Asia that India has. Hell, it has roughly the same land mass as China, Japan, Korea and India combined.

But “Russians” are European?

Here’s what I’m thinking:

1. Most Russians we see look like Europeans. Maria Sharapova doesn’t strike me as Asian, for example, and neither does Fedor Emelianenko or my dean of CS in college named Boris.

2. Moscow, and other large cities are in the European part.

These make sense, but it just strikes me as weird that the majority of a country’s ¹ mass could be in one continent but the people are considered to be from the small part.

Any input from my European or Asian friends?

Notes

¹ Yes, I know Russia isn’t a country.