Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is president of Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She has been a professor of theology at the seminary for 20 years and director of its graduate degree center for five years. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Thistlethwaite has been working diligently to promote peace, including a presentation at the U.S. Institute of Peace, which appears in one of their special reports. Most recently she edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
President, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is president of Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She has been a professor of theology at the seminary for 20 years and director of its graduate degree center for five years. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation.
more »
Are you mad? Willful ignorance? The umemployment rate (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) for "blacks" is 8.3. Willful ignorance? You are guilty as charged.
....And by the way, since you are not Catholic, quote your own denomination.
As I read the comments posted here I'm struck by the number of "sinners" who are guilty of "willful ignorance". The common thread of many comments is that black Americans constitute the only racial or ethnic group that has suffered/is suffering the effects of discrimination. I think Native Americans, Orientals, Hispanics, and members of virtually every other ethnic group in this country would disagree-- yet those groups are willfully ignored.
A point in case-- Ms. Thistlethwaite has the temerity to suggest that slavery is the "original sin of this country" while willfully ignoring the virtual genocide to which Native Americans were subjected. She has also chosen to ignore the discrimination faced by every immigrant group in this country.
A well-grounded, analytical perception of Ferraro's ignorant statement, notwithstanding the fact that the article, like every article I have ever read WRITTEN BY WHITE AMERICANS ABOUT THE CODITION OF BLACK AMERICANS, is skewed ever so slightly to WRONG. It indicates, once again, that white Americans cannot quite grasp what has, and is, happening to us in this racist society.
Perhaps Geraldine Ferraro is wrong, but so is Ms. Thistlethwaite.
Ferraro did not say that all black men are lucky to be black; she said that the fact that Obama is black has buffered him from the sort of criticism and skepticism that someone with his record who was not black would face if they ran for the Presidency. This seems to be the case, given the bland reporting of the media, their failure to examine his record in the Illinois legislature, and a tendency to spring to his defense and condemn the Clinton campaign whenever the question of "race" arises -- regardless of who brings it up.
Certainly, blacks have higher unemployment rates than whites, they make up a disproportionate share of the urban poor, and as a group they have been severely disadvantaged.
But not all blacks live in urban ghettoes, nor are all blacks poor and disadvantaged, just as not all whites are privileged and not all whites live in MacMansions in gated communities. Indeed, some blacks are part of various elites in this country and not only wealthy but powerful. To ignore this reality is to perpetuate myths, not engage in analysis. Ms. Thistlethwaite might remember that Gerta Lerner wrote something similar with regard to women in The Creation of Patriarchy, reminding her readers that upper class women may have been less powerful than upper class men, but they were able to exercise power over both women and men of the lower classes.
Whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President, it is clear that he does not live in a ghetto, nor is he poor, nor is he disadvantaged because he is black. So to assume that his situation is comparable to that of blacks trapped in the ghetto is an enormous, and questionable leap of logic, not a coherent argument.
Similarly, to assume that whites as a group are responsible for slavery and the current situation many blacks find themselves in is to display a willful ignorance of history that is staggering -- a 'sin' in Ms. Thistlethwaite's lexicon. By doing so, of course, she also perpetuates the polarization of white and black in this country.
But the historical realities are much more complex than this piece would suggest. In the 1920s, a quarter of the population of the United States was foreign-born or the sons and daughers of immigrants, and many of these came from eastern and southern Europe, so their forefathers were not only not in the country when blacks were enslaved, very often they were themselves serfs (the European equivalent of a slave) and suffered various sorts of discrimination and oppression. These 'hunkies' and 'greasers' and 'eyeties' were not welcome in this country and themselves were the target of native American racism. Nor did most hispanics and Asians and Eskimos fare much better.
By making the 'race' question a black-white issue, Ms. Thistlethwaite effectively precludes any truly informed discussion of the problem of race and ethnicity and makes it more difficult to resolve the problems arising from this country's history of manipulating racial and ethnic differences.
The problem of 'race' is intimately tied up with other problems in the United States, but to discuss the 'race' problem as one that is also part of economic and social structures that are less than equitable for most Americans would require serious thought and radical change, something neither Obama nor Clinton seem inclined to effect, given their respective political programs, and something Ms. Thistlethwaite does not address. Instead, she dwells on incarceration rates, which, if they are a function of poverty and racism, can only be remedied by addressing the causes of both poverty and racism -- not offering another monocausal explanation and yet another invitation to condemn whites as a group for the suffering of blacks as a group.
But Ms. Thistlethwaite seems more interested in imputing guilt to whites as a group and to Ferraro in particular. She imagines Ferraro's motives, then extrapolates from a single quote and elaborates arguments that Ferraro not only did not make, but has specifically disavowed. She then seeks to belittle Ferraro by implying that she is a failure and should not assume other women are as well.
I do not know what prompted Ms. Thistlethwaite to write this op. ed. piece, but I suggest that she and others who, wittingly or unwittingly, directly or indirectly, reinforce efforts to make race the focus of the campaign to the exclusion of other matters need to refocus on the problems that all of us in this country face and examine carefully not only the qualifications of the candidates, but their respective programs. That way lies informed decision and intelligent voting; engaging in polemics merely keeps everyone busy being willfully ignorant.
Obama may well emerge as the best candidate based on his programs and his experience, but we will never know for sure until we have examined his background and his programs as thoroughly as we should examine those of Clinton and McCain.
Iam reading the comments some saying Ms. Fearro comment where right , some said she was wrong. why did she mention his race in the first place. this shows me there is a problem. when i look at Senator Obama i see a man, a humanbeing that wants to be president. so to me theres is a problem because we are talking about this.this is a great time in our history where we can make the changes that need to happen.
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
I enjoyed listening to you speak in a trip a few years ago to my North Carolina Seminary (Hood Theological Seminary); however, you--like many other liberal leaning folks who have weighed in--have taken her comments out of context and twisted their meaning. I am no fan of Geraldine Ferraro, but she told the truth--politely--and meant no disrespect for Obama when she made the comment as far as I can tell. Despite many attempts to get me to see it otherwise over the course of my seminary training (I studied theology under one who studied theology under you), it still seems to me that, for supporters of Liberation Theology, racial comments are only allowed if made by those in racial minorities--otherwise, the one who made the racial comment (no matter how true) is labeled racist.
Though I doubt you would agree with labeling Ms. Ferarro as racist, your comments lend support to those who do.
what does any of this have to do with faith... unless it to underscore the american people have no faith in polititians who mouth the words but do not actually do the proper things when they have the opprotunity. this is what hillary is seeing in the american people they just dont believe her anmymore she needs to dump her policy guru. she is getting beat on policy not personality and the two candidates are no where near the same when you compare what they state they actually want to do. niether of the two have nearly the programs spelled out that john edwards did. if they dont watch out and quit playing cute then nader has a real chance. he after all has the real record of accomplishments that non of the candidates including mccain have in working for the american peoples good. lets maybe get these discussins back to where they belong. who picks these anyway? we are talking politic not religion or faith .
Brilliant!!! Very well said. Unfortunately, there will never be a museum of slavery, because so many whites today are under the thinking that slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans. It got them out of Africa. And then too, there will never be a museum because no one really wants to see the atrocities committed by "good white god-fearing" christians. Would you want to see a woman's back of scars after 30 lashes of a whip?
I've heard this so many times. And when I do, I counter with the true history. At the time when slavery was gathering full steam, Africa was a blossoming mecca. There were institutions of higher learning and most Africans spoke a minimum of 3 languages other than their own native or tribal dialects. This went on for centuries while Europeans were dying of plagues and living lives of sin and decadence that would make Lucifer blush.
I live in a state where blacks are less than 1% of the population. There is plenty of media bias. When a black man commits a crime in this state, they post every picture they can find of him. I've seen family pictures, prom pictures and pictures taken with various girlfriends throughout the years in addition to their mugshot. But, when a white man commits a crime, you get his frontal mugshot. Our country feeds on this and it feeds the ignorance and hatred.
Slavery was one of the biggest sins of this country. No one will fully understand its magnitude until they truly start believing and living their lives according to the very bible they used as a weapon to enslave millions.
Bill O'Reilly made a comment about lynching Michelle Obama. This, not long after the President, whom he is one of his greatest supporters made a speech about it after a commentator made a similar comment regarding Tiger Woods. He was not called on this and made an offhand comment about it being merely words. This was the same man that claimed words were the most powerful weapon we have. I don't think he would've liked it much if someone had casually said something about lynching his wife, sister or mother.
You're right, it is "willful ignorance". But, it is sustained because of guilt. People that speak such things are battling their own guilty feelings of the wrongs they've thought or perpretated against other groups. Geraldine exemplifies the worst kind of racist. She lost in her first campaign because she put her foot in her mouth then. That comment about her husband and Italians showed a level of racism I'm sure he wasn't aware of. We all came from someplace and no one in this country is a true native unless you are a fullblood descendant of the Native Americans. But, she will continue to spew ths madness until the public finally realizes just how dark her heart is and how deep her hatred runs of all that is not white.
I don't agree with the term African-Americans. If you are born in this country, you are an American, period. This is the only country in the world that categorizes it's people by their ethnic background. African-American is like saying, you're not quite American but you would've been had you not had darker skin. You will find that there are plenty of people sitting in high positions that feel the same as Ferraro. This country will steadily regress until we recognise every citizen as our brothers and sisters and not as a color and call them on the carpet for their openly racist thoughts and actions.
There is a new movement going on right now of people that want BET taken off the airwaves and Black History Month taken away. Of course, these zealots have no knowledge of the history of blacks in the media and they certainly don't want it out there of just horrendous slavery was.
You would think after so many centuries and such a long struggle with race relations in this country, we would've gotten it by now. But, as long as we have people like Ferraro, O'Reilly and a few others spewing racist remarks and keeping them out front for the whole world to see, we will continue having new immigrants coming to this country thinking the worse about blacks.
I found Ms. Ferraro's comment to be completely inappropriate.
Having said that I've noticed a pattern to the Clinton campaign. But before I go into that lets all remember how this started. Obama wasn't much of a threat. Clinton enjoyed a top spot because she had a platform and was the wife of a previously popular president among democrats. Until the primary season started she wasn't really tested by other candidates. Much was assumed. Lets be honest about it.
Since Iowa there seems to be a rotation around race, religion, and experience as the weapon of choice used by the Clinton campaign. This week Obama is winning because he's taken her support of the black vote because he's black. Last week it was that Obama should be her Vice President. The week before that it was that Obama dressed like a muslim while visiting his father's homeland. The week before that it was that he was inexperienced. Before that he attended a muslim activist school. Before that he was a fantasy. Before that he was really a muslim. Anybody spot the "why hillary should be president" in those messages? If there was one it was drowned out with the hate speech.
What message does this send to the voting public? I'll tell you what message it sends. Don't vote for Barak because he's black. Don't vote for Barak because he has an unconventional name. Don't vote for Barak because his father was a practicing muslim. Don't vote for Barak because I think I have a super delegate lead which is yet unproven. Don't vote for Barack because he arguably has less experience. etc... etc... With redderick like that what exactly is so attractive about that message to an african american community? Or a community of differing faith? Or a community of differing culture? Is there any wonder there has been no change in her status among these communities?
Meanwhile Obama has been making gains her traditionally strong demographics. So, clearly he's doing something about his perception problem while she is not. I don't know how one can put this one on Obama because he's black. She's the one out there with this poorly constructed message and strategy for which Obama has had no hand in.
Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.
Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.
Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.
Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.
As an African American man, I was offended by Mrs. Ferraro's comments. I can't believe that once I was willing to vote for her. I expected better of her. This is more than ignorance; it is good old fashioned racism. Let's see: if Barack were not a black male, he would not be the leading Democratic candidate for president. Well, can Mrs. Ferraro name all the black presidents from the past? There have been none in our nation's history nor has there been a woman president. So it seems that Mrs Ferraro is simply angry that finally a black man has gotten this far. She seems to be using the old affirmative action label to tar Obama. Sometimes, it seems like a black man just can't win. When he first announced his candidacy, some people asked was he black enough. Now, Mrs. Ferraro refuses to give him credit for raising a record amount of money and running a smart and effective campaign. Shame on you Mrs. Ferraro! We all expected better coming from you.
Thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious to thinking Americans everywhere. The Clinton campaign and their surrogates (Ferraro)used this as a calculated, intentional attack on Obama simply because he had to respond in some way. His thoughtful response was brillant and should have ended the matter. They kept it up and accused the victim of the "crime". I am stunned that Geraldine Ferraro would participate in this kind of tactic, but I am no longer surprised that Hillary Clinton did. This has been going on since SC and it is NOT imagined, it is a campaign strategy. I do not believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton or Ferraro are racists, but that makes their campaign decisions all the more unforgivable. Win-at-all-costs is unacceptable and certainly not worthy of the Democratic nominee.
Oh dear. Reverend Thistlethwaite has gone too far this time by daring to suggest that centuries of African slavery have any moral equivalence to the Jewish Holocaust.
Exactly one year ago, a delegation of German bishops visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, and then crossed through the high concrete wall that separates Israel from the Palestinian "territories." One bishop compared photographs of the Warsaw Ghetto to "Ghetto Ramallah." Another who had lived through Nazi and then Communist occupations said "something like this is done to animals, not to human beings... I never in my life thought to see something like this again."
Reaction to the bishops was swift. The Anti-Defamation League called on the German Catholic Bishops' Conference to repudiate the remarks. The Central Council of Jews in Germany and the Israeli Embassy lectured the bishops on their "alarming lack of knowledge about history." Avner Shalev, chairman of Yad Vashem, wrote that they were seeking "to lessen European responsibility for Nazi crimes." Within days, Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Germany's top cardinal) was forced to censure his bishops by writing that it was inappropriate to "connect contemporary problems or situations of injustice in any way with the National Socialists' genocide of the Jews."
Hell hath no fury like Israel scorned. Even the ugly "anti-Semite" was thrown into the fray. In an opinion piece for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, correspondent Eldad Beck said the bishops' comments raised the question of "just how tainted with anti-Semitism... the Catholic church and German society remained." What the bishops saw first-hand, and what they tried to tell the world, was successfully obscured in a frenzy of name-calling.
Reverend Thistlethwaite, you must repent for this terrible sin of having suggesting that anyone other than Jews have suffered horrifically. Are you a closet anti-Semite? Throw yourself upon the mercy of Saint Geraldine Ferraro and beg her forgiveness. And may the great goddess Hillary have mercy on your soul...
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
The Clintons (and I dont like them at all) have a long and accomplished history with the black community, thats why they always could count on there vote. Obama , what has he done ? yet as soon as he shows up , the blacks ditch the Clints who've worked there butts off for civil rights and vote for Ob .Why ?? it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. Isnt voting solely on a persons skin color racist ?.But you cant say that, its not PC. The more you Ferraro bashers talk, the more evryone sees that the emperor has no clothes. All you have to do is admit it and move on, but no, you guys go through painful gyrations to deny an honest opinion by fer.
Obama is aiming to unite and not divide -races, ethnic groups, genders, et al. _E pluribus unum_ in the best sense. He is a Lincoln patriot.
As a Black person, my hat is off the the millions of White people who are responding to his unity message. Obama is giving them a chance to demonstrate the anti-racism that is in the hearts of many, the desire to show that American's are not racist.
Obama is this generation's Martin Luther King. It takes much courage to take the risk he is taking.
Geraldine Ferraro's comments and thinking are pitiful. She doesn't even have the sense to apologize (!) What deep rooted racism and ignorance.
Thank you for proving Winston Churchill right when he said, "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
To remark that you would never vote for a Republican is ignorant. I fully understand that you probably have leanings towards one party or the other, but what about John McCain would prevent you from voting for him? Am I to assume that you also thought JC Watts, a former black Republican congressman, was also be unworthy of your vote?
My guess is that you probably have been fooled into thinking that the Democratic party is somehow for all the hard working middle and lower class people. What a bunch of bunk. What exactly have they accomplished since they regained control of the House and Senate? Nothing. They promised to end the war and bring the troops home. Seen any movement on this front lately? Nope. Instead, they trotted out the great increase to the federal minimum wage. Whoopee. I'm sure the dozen or so people that were substantially impacted by that are very appreciative.
Obama is right. Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas. Easy choice isn't it? Wouldn't you rather play for the team that tried and failed instead of the team that doesn't even bother to show up?
When u win 80 to 90% of a group that comprises 12%
of the population, thats a major edge.
Notice how I didnt mention a color, lets say they are "purple". It's pretty obvious purple will vote
for purple , organge for orange, again thats human nature.
Thank you for your insightful article. A museum on slavery based on the Shoah (Jewish and others Holocaust) is a long overdue idea!
You were much to kind to Ms. Ferraro, and of course you failed to include Hillary Clinton in this equation. The Clinton's have inserted ugly racism into this campaign that I have not seen or heard coming from a Democratic candidate for President...ever. I am a 60's feminist who during the 90's defended the Clinton's on all accounts. Now they are openly promoting racism, and it is a very dangerous road they are leading this country down, and will surely add to the destruction of this country.
I feel like my head might explode.
All you out there that say being a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama is a shoe in for the office of President...are you nutz?
And as far as the black folk voteing for another black...so how much is the black population in this country? 12%. How much was the black population in Mississippi? 37%. How much was the republicans that voted for Hillary, sent by Rush Lumbaugh? 26% How much did Hillary get in Mississippi? 38%.How much did Obama get? 61%.
As a white, 59 year old woman who voted for obama...and hope to vote for him in the National. Obama has more experience then Abraham Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt,and most of the best presidents...and for you Reaganites out there...just how much experience did He have?
Ferraro's statement was racist...oh I do not think she realized it was...I do not think she understands what she is saying at all...nor that some of the folks on here that are making the same kind of statements understand that they are makeing racist statements. Do racists know they are racists? Isn't it that they do not know it?They make exuses for how they feel. To say that the only reason that Barack Obama is where he is is because he is black, is ignorant. And the reason why so many blacks are voteing for him, was the racism spouted by the people of the Clinton campaign. So how many blacks in Utah? Before Bill Clinton made his stupid remark, Clinton had African Americans...remember them saying he was not "black" enough? Each bit of racism brings more Blacks to Obama...they want the best...they have families and terrible needs, they can not afford a vanity vote. Maybe they are researching his qualifications...maybe those on here should also.
I simply think that Hillary wants the power..and is willing to give the Democratic Party a million cuts until we bleed to death. She does not care...she wants Madam President.
Thanks Susan for pointing out somethings most of white america would like to pretend don't exist. If it were left up to some folks blacks would still be slaves. Let's face it, we live in America and racism still exist. To the person who said that with nearly 100% of the race voting for OB, you're really out of touch with reality. Every one should know that if only blacks voted for OB, he would never win the presidancy because of the number of blacks in America or in the southern states. There are far too many people who would rather see OB dead than in office. Give the black race some credit, we know who we should vote for and who holds our best interest. It's definately not a Republican of any race.
You overgeneralize but do not consider causes for any of things about which you complain. Not unusual in sermons but not useful in analysis. And not very logical, but logic has been accused of being racist by some college professors (who are, after all, just trying to sell textbooks and destroy minds?)
1. Do you say with a straight face that Ferraro is incorrect? I do not mean "wrong" in that she said something uncomfortable or "wrong" in that it was "not nice?" But incorrect. Would Obama be where he is in the presidential race were he not a well-spoken mulatto (and you can choke on that one, but it is true)?
What about an analysis of whether white women would find Obama as desirable if he were darker? Or had a Southern accent? Or a pure white wife? Or were gay? Hmmmmm.
You jump Ferraro for stating her opinion that is not nice but is truer than you want to accept. You don't have to like it. It does not have to make you feel good. It is either valid or it is not valid. And the fact that she made the same observation about Jesse Jackson may make her boring but not incorrect.
And is it some sort of attack on affirmative action?
Ponder this: ere you to speak with black physicians (and I have) you would find many of them being given the "ol' hairy eyeball" (as we used to call it) by other black folk and by everyone else because there is always the suspicion that they got where they were because of affirmative action misused and not by merit. That is a problem because it can lead to the professionals trying to get into more affluent areas to practice, thus making the delivery of services more scarce in the very areas that need help most. This is not just for physicians but other professionals.
As to the museum idea: The Holocaust museums are generally specific in content (try Yad Vashem) and are also educational facilities. We don't need more memorials---we need education. But we don't need the sort of thing that is pretend education in our schools today.
Were you to design a slavery museum, what would you put in and why? Who would run it and why? And if it were not self-sustaining would you want taxpayer money to keep it going (or ask for a tithe)?
Using taxpayer money to build a politically correct Museum of Slavery is simpleminded at best.
Using taxpayer money to build professional stadiums and ball parks is not right, either.
How about soliciting foundation money for your slavery museum instead? My grandparents (all four of them) escaped to the United States in 1906 from the Tsar and his killers and I don't recall having any slaveholders in the family.
But, then, the idea of using taxpayer money for assorted children's museums, a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a Woodstock 1969 museum, a Golf Hall of Fame, a Country Music Hall of Fame, or to restore Lawrence Welk's boyhood sod home is also a misuse of money earned by someone else. It would be like using taxpayer money to build a Ku Klux Klan Museum (after all, they were politically in the North as well as the South), a Mormon Museum, a Catholic Museum, a Lynching Museum (with lifesized figures of Leo Frank, perhaps, with the leaders of Cobb County, Georgia), a miniature golf museum, or even an educators' museum to explain the adoption of foolishness? Why not a Crapper Museum with working commodes on display (and rooms of those that don't?)
Why not more noise and passion about Darfur, female circumcision, honor killings, illiterate high school graduates (or low percentages for high school graduation), women not allowed to vote, women not allowed to work outside the home, women not allowed to divorce after being physically abused?
Were you to look at family statistics for those in prison you would find a higher than average number of inmates from broken or shattered homes. The lack of strong male (yes, male) positive influences cause problems. This is not to say that the problems cannot be overcome, but it makes life more difficult. Single mothers are more likely to live in nastier neighborhoods and more violent neighborhoods with worse than average schools. Teachers in these schools have to spend more time as surrogate parents and less time as teachers. Moral of the story: don't have kids if you are not married and don't have kids you cannot support.
But, then, that is a bad idea unless you are looking at everyone else's pocket to pay for your education, your food, your children---and your museum.
Many Ferraro apologists here are so sensitive to her nuanced statement (not) that they actually know what she meant, as opposed to what she said. She has been terribly misinterpreted - the fact is, another rich NY 'liberal' had a little temper tantrum when someone got 'above their raisin' as they say in the South.
Who said these elitists were all lovable?? Her rich NY pal Senator Chuck Shumer is another one - a real sleight of hand artist that says one thing and does another and a well-known Bush enabler often enough...the rich love the rich, first, last, and foremost. The NYC Club is 'members only' lest you commoners forget.
Geraldine is no political greenhorn, and she knew exactly what she said. You can't take it back, and every seasoned politician knows it - she had every intention of leaving a lasting impression as she departed....message sent loud and clear. No apology needed - the fact is, the GOP will pick this up and run with it, and that prediction doesn't take a crystal ball. She apparently said this on Fox News - enemy camp of the first degree.
Politics is politics and perceptions are perceptions. Winner take all. In the end, the choices for Geraldine Ferraro and other incensed democrats that are offended at the unfairness of Obama's ascendency are either vote for a democratic president, or vote for a white president......you will get exactly what and who you vote for, and after the last 8 years you really should be well educated to that fact. And you are what you vote - no way around that either.
If you vote for McCain, please NEVER consider yourself a democrat again - in good conscience you can't possibly be something you're not.
If Hillary is the loser, it's only because she's not the winner - really, it's that simple.
Nothing complicated like when ....say, Al Gore lost, for example. Remember who and what you're voting for when you vote for McCain as some kind of protest vote - of course there's always Ralph Nader for the truly disenfranchised.
The percentage of African American males who are unemployed is greater than 50%? It's hard to take SBT very seriously when she includes such gross information in her essay.
I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?
the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?
I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?
the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?
Folks, a little reality check please. If someone from the Republicans side made this comment, all hell would have broken loose. The truth is that Democrats are as low, conniving, and prejudiced as they accuse Republicans of being. By the way, where's Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Why haven't they attacked Ferraro's comments? Could it be they are hypocrits themselves? Comments made by Democrats are "the truth" where the same comments made by Republicans are "racist"! That's hogwash!
Senator Biden was much closer to the truth when he implied (and was roundly attacked for it) that the attractiveness of Obama the candidate to white voters is due to the contrast between Senator Obama and whites' perceptions of most black men and previous black candidates.
Were Senator Obama not black, this contrast wouldn't exist, and his appeal to white voters would be far weaker. As it is, they can feel good liking a black man.
And what isn't there to like about him? He isn't angry at whites. He doesn't rage at them for slavery and its fallout. He would never in a million years initiate something like your "Museum of Slavery and Its Consequences" (though he might go along with it if it seemed politically safe). Senator Obama is just like white voters' successful, well-educated, white suburban neighbors, only with somewhat darker skin. As a candidate, he's a two-fer: Vote for him and you get a white guy and a black guy. But Ferrraro is correct: without that "black guy" dimension, Senator Obama is only a competent, run-of-the-mill senator, not a compelling presidential candidate.
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! And as an attorney, let me tell you....it all comes down to interpretation of words! People misinterpreted Ferraro and that is why they are angry. Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!
Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol
I believe what she was refering to had more to do with his lack of experience. He's a two term STATE senator and a first term senator who decided to run after serving 1 year.
She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!
Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol
Many moons ago one of my child hood buds made it into Yale. I'm not white and neither is he. We grew up in a pretty dirt poor section of NYC. We both knew he didnt get into Yale purely on merit, his scores and achievements were not even close to the average white Yaley freshman . But I was happy for him and he was thrilled. We had alot of that in our neighborhood, programs that gave you preference because of yr skin color/ethnicity. Nothing wrong with that as it gave us all our shot. We coudnt afford SAT prep or have schools with varsity teams in 5 diff sports so it was some sort of equalizer. But we knew we got cut a break and we took it. Ob has some disadvantages and advantages in being black. Telling him his advantages is not racist, its honest. My guess is that many white liberals grew up in all white neighborhoods and kinda dont see the reality of What is happening. They beat themselves to death to try to prove they are not racist. Thats ok, but if there isnt any racism, you shoudnt call it as such. Geraldine wasnt being racist, just making an honest observation.
Agreed, it is tough to be a black man, injustice was done to the african american community. It is hard to achieve being black. But there is some truth to the statement made by Geraldine Ferraro.
Barack Obama is different from among the blacks who are in jail or under achievers. But he was editor of Harvard law review. That changes the dynamic. This very fact that he is balck and highly educated makes him attractive. A state senator would not be key note speaker at the democratic convention if he were not black. Liberal media would not project him as the saviour of america. Liberal media loves him and a lot of white people vote for him because they think it will make america look good. They think by electing Obama white america can feel less guilty about slavery. They are not voting for him because he is the best candidate.
Same is true for Hillary Clinton. She is an amazing politician and a person who really cares about people and a fighter. But she would not be where she is wihout being Bill's wife.
So please dont attack Geraldine Ferraro for speaking her mind. There is truth in it. And many people agry with her on that.
It doesnot mean I disrespect Obama, I like him and respect him. He is going to be a great politician.
Ferraro's recent comments are absolute, in-your-face evidence of the racism and sexism fundamental to US culture, not to mention her being the perfect model for the arrogance of the ruling class. These conditions cannot be cured with criticism. The majority must remove power from these bad examples and resolve, over the long term, to give power to those whose behavior better reflects the democratic values of this country. Getting the power out of their hands will be a problem.
Wow! Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's article is mudslinging, with Ms. Ferraro as the target. It's as if Ms. T could read her mind - there was a time such behavior as Ms. T's was attributed to her committing the sin of PRIDE.
I think Ms. F told the un-PC truth, and now is being socially executed for it. But that doesn't change the truth that Mr. O's popularity is not due to his hefty experience or intelligence, but rather only to the combinaiton of his race, physical attractiveness, and empty-but-eloquent rhetoric.
Many blacks find Mr. O attractive at least in part simply because of his race - contrary to ML King's hoped-for measure of a human being: the content of one's character. Many whites find Mr. O attractive because of his race - it allows such racial-guilt-ridden whites to say to themselves "I can't be racist because I support Mr. O."
Racial prejudice still exists in the U.S.A., and the success of Mr. O's campaign is shouting that fact to the world for those who wish to hear it.
Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).
Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).
Geraldine was right on with her non rascist remark. If Borack Obama was white he would not be in the position he is in. It is just human nature for women to vote for Hillary Clinton and black people to support Obama. If Obama was white, Oprah would be backing Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. It is my opinion and I am not a rascist. I am entitled to my opinion because I earnt my citizenship the hard way.
All Comments (276)
Are you mad? Willful ignorance? The umemployment rate (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) for "blacks" is 8.3. Willful ignorance? You are guilty as charged.
....And by the way, since you are not Catholic, quote your own denomination.
Thanks so much
March 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 25, 2008 15:19
As I read the comments posted here I'm struck by the number of "sinners" who are guilty of "willful ignorance". The common thread of many comments is that black Americans constitute the only racial or ethnic group that has suffered/is suffering the effects of discrimination. I think Native Americans, Orientals, Hispanics, and members of virtually every other ethnic group in this country would disagree-- yet those groups are willfully ignored.
A point in case-- Ms. Thistlethwaite has the temerity to suggest that slavery is the "original sin of this country" while willfully ignoring the virtual genocide to which Native Americans were subjected. She has also chosen to ignore the discrimination faced by every immigrant group in this country.
March 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 21, 2008 18:01
Thank You for your insight and it would be a great thing for America to establish a museum and work from within!
March 18, 2008 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2008 22:23
"YAWN.....sigh...."
March 18, 2008 3:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2008 03:14
A well-grounded, analytical perception of Ferraro's ignorant statement, notwithstanding the fact that the article, like every article I have ever read WRITTEN BY WHITE AMERICANS ABOUT THE CODITION OF BLACK AMERICANS, is skewed ever so slightly to WRONG. It indicates, once again, that white Americans cannot quite grasp what has, and is, happening to us in this racist society.
March 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 17, 2008 12:48
Perhaps Geraldine Ferraro is wrong, but so is Ms. Thistlethwaite.
Ferraro did not say that all black men are lucky to be black; she said that the fact that Obama is black has buffered him from the sort of criticism and skepticism that someone with his record who was not black would face if they ran for the Presidency. This seems to be the case, given the bland reporting of the media, their failure to examine his record in the Illinois legislature, and a tendency to spring to his defense and condemn the Clinton campaign whenever the question of "race" arises -- regardless of who brings it up.
Certainly, blacks have higher unemployment rates than whites, they make up a disproportionate share of the urban poor, and as a group they have been severely disadvantaged.
But not all blacks live in urban ghettoes, nor are all blacks poor and disadvantaged, just as not all whites are privileged and not all whites live in MacMansions in gated communities. Indeed, some blacks are part of various elites in this country and not only wealthy but powerful. To ignore this reality is to perpetuate myths, not engage in analysis. Ms. Thistlethwaite might remember that Gerta Lerner wrote something similar with regard to women in The Creation of Patriarchy, reminding her readers that upper class women may have been less powerful than upper class men, but they were able to exercise power over both women and men of the lower classes.
Whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President, it is clear that he does not live in a ghetto, nor is he poor, nor is he disadvantaged because he is black. So to assume that his situation is comparable to that of blacks trapped in the ghetto is an enormous, and questionable leap of logic, not a coherent argument.
Similarly, to assume that whites as a group are responsible for slavery and the current situation many blacks find themselves in is to display a willful ignorance of history that is staggering -- a 'sin' in Ms. Thistlethwaite's lexicon. By doing so, of course, she also perpetuates the polarization of white and black in this country.
But the historical realities are much more complex than this piece would suggest. In the 1920s, a quarter of the population of the United States was foreign-born or the sons and daughers of immigrants, and many of these came from eastern and southern Europe, so their forefathers were not only not in the country when blacks were enslaved, very often they were themselves serfs (the European equivalent of a slave) and suffered various sorts of discrimination and oppression. These 'hunkies' and 'greasers' and 'eyeties' were not welcome in this country and themselves were the target of native American racism. Nor did most hispanics and Asians and Eskimos fare much better.
By making the 'race' question a black-white issue, Ms. Thistlethwaite effectively precludes any truly informed discussion of the problem of race and ethnicity and makes it more difficult to resolve the problems arising from this country's history of manipulating racial and ethnic differences.
The problem of 'race' is intimately tied up with other problems in the United States, but to discuss the 'race' problem as one that is also part of economic and social structures that are less than equitable for most Americans would require serious thought and radical change, something neither Obama nor Clinton seem inclined to effect, given their respective political programs, and something Ms. Thistlethwaite does not address. Instead, she dwells on incarceration rates, which, if they are a function of poverty and racism, can only be remedied by addressing the causes of both poverty and racism -- not offering another monocausal explanation and yet another invitation to condemn whites as a group for the suffering of blacks as a group.
But Ms. Thistlethwaite seems more interested in imputing guilt to whites as a group and to Ferraro in particular. She imagines Ferraro's motives, then extrapolates from a single quote and elaborates arguments that Ferraro not only did not make, but has specifically disavowed. She then seeks to belittle Ferraro by implying that she is a failure and should not assume other women are as well.
I do not know what prompted Ms. Thistlethwaite to write this op. ed. piece, but I suggest that she and others who, wittingly or unwittingly, directly or indirectly, reinforce efforts to make race the focus of the campaign to the exclusion of other matters need to refocus on the problems that all of us in this country face and examine carefully not only the qualifications of the candidates, but their respective programs. That way lies informed decision and intelligent voting; engaging in polemics merely keeps everyone busy being willfully ignorant.
Obama may well emerge as the best candidate based on his programs and his experience, but we will never know for sure until we have examined his background and his programs as thoroughly as we should examine those of Clinton and McCain.
March 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 15:58
Iam reading the comments some saying Ms. Fearro comment where right , some said she was wrong. why did she mention his race in the first place. this shows me there is a problem. when i look at Senator Obama i see a man, a humanbeing that wants to be president. so to me theres is a problem because we are talking about this.this is a great time in our history where we can make the changes that need to happen.
March 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 14:57
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
March 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 11:16
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
March 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 11:16
this is a great time to be an American .we can mould this country into a true demorocy for all people. we need to look deeply at what needs to be change. we must have the courage to face the negative things we have done as a country. we need to learn our true history and not be affaird to face it. yes we need a museum of salvery so we can truely understand . we must truely face this. we must also face the things that we have done to other people from around the world . we need to show the world we made mistakes and that we understand how we change to make this world a peaceful place. what a great time to be an american.
March 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 11:15
I enjoyed listening to you speak in a trip a few years ago to my North Carolina Seminary (Hood Theological Seminary); however, you--like many other liberal leaning folks who have weighed in--have taken her comments out of context and twisted their meaning. I am no fan of Geraldine Ferraro, but she told the truth--politely--and meant no disrespect for Obama when she made the comment as far as I can tell. Despite many attempts to get me to see it otherwise over the course of my seminary training (I studied theology under one who studied theology under you), it still seems to me that, for supporters of Liberation Theology, racial comments are only allowed if made by those in racial minorities--otherwise, the one who made the racial comment (no matter how true) is labeled racist.
Though I doubt you would agree with labeling Ms. Ferarro as racist, your comments lend support to those who do.
March 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 09:46
what does any of this have to do with faith... unless it to underscore the american people have no faith in polititians who mouth the words but do not actually do the proper things when they have the opprotunity. this is what hillary is seeing in the american people they just dont believe her anmymore she needs to dump her policy guru. she is getting beat on policy not personality and the two candidates are no where near the same when you compare what they state they actually want to do. niether of the two have nearly the programs spelled out that john edwards did. if they dont watch out and quit playing cute then nader has a real chance. he after all has the real record of accomplishments that non of the candidates including mccain have in working for the american peoples good. lets maybe get these discussins back to where they belong. who picks these anyway? we are talking politic not religion or faith .
March 14, 2008 12:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 00:24
Brilliant!!! Very well said. Unfortunately, there will never be a museum of slavery, because so many whites today are under the thinking that slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans. It got them out of Africa. And then too, there will never be a museum because no one really wants to see the atrocities committed by "good white god-fearing" christians. Would you want to see a woman's back of scars after 30 lashes of a whip?
I've heard this so many times. And when I do, I counter with the true history. At the time when slavery was gathering full steam, Africa was a blossoming mecca. There were institutions of higher learning and most Africans spoke a minimum of 3 languages other than their own native or tribal dialects. This went on for centuries while Europeans were dying of plagues and living lives of sin and decadence that would make Lucifer blush.
I live in a state where blacks are less than 1% of the population. There is plenty of media bias. When a black man commits a crime in this state, they post every picture they can find of him. I've seen family pictures, prom pictures and pictures taken with various girlfriends throughout the years in addition to their mugshot. But, when a white man commits a crime, you get his frontal mugshot. Our country feeds on this and it feeds the ignorance and hatred.
Slavery was one of the biggest sins of this country. No one will fully understand its magnitude until they truly start believing and living their lives according to the very bible they used as a weapon to enslave millions.
Bill O'Reilly made a comment about lynching Michelle Obama. This, not long after the President, whom he is one of his greatest supporters made a speech about it after a commentator made a similar comment regarding Tiger Woods. He was not called on this and made an offhand comment about it being merely words. This was the same man that claimed words were the most powerful weapon we have. I don't think he would've liked it much if someone had casually said something about lynching his wife, sister or mother.
You're right, it is "willful ignorance". But, it is sustained because of guilt. People that speak such things are battling their own guilty feelings of the wrongs they've thought or perpretated against other groups. Geraldine exemplifies the worst kind of racist. She lost in her first campaign because she put her foot in her mouth then. That comment about her husband and Italians showed a level of racism I'm sure he wasn't aware of. We all came from someplace and no one in this country is a true native unless you are a fullblood descendant of the Native Americans. But, she will continue to spew ths madness until the public finally realizes just how dark her heart is and how deep her hatred runs of all that is not white.
I don't agree with the term African-Americans. If you are born in this country, you are an American, period. This is the only country in the world that categorizes it's people by their ethnic background. African-American is like saying, you're not quite American but you would've been had you not had darker skin. You will find that there are plenty of people sitting in high positions that feel the same as Ferraro. This country will steadily regress until we recognise every citizen as our brothers and sisters and not as a color and call them on the carpet for their openly racist thoughts and actions.
There is a new movement going on right now of people that want BET taken off the airwaves and Black History Month taken away. Of course, these zealots have no knowledge of the history of blacks in the media and they certainly don't want it out there of just horrendous slavery was.
You would think after so many centuries and such a long struggle with race relations in this country, we would've gotten it by now. But, as long as we have people like Ferraro, O'Reilly and a few others spewing racist remarks and keeping them out front for the whole world to see, we will continue having new immigrants coming to this country thinking the worse about blacks.
March 13, 2008 11:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 23:32
I found Ms. Ferraro's comment to be completely inappropriate.
Having said that I've noticed a pattern to the Clinton campaign. But before I go into that lets all remember how this started. Obama wasn't much of a threat. Clinton enjoyed a top spot because she had a platform and was the wife of a previously popular president among democrats. Until the primary season started she wasn't really tested by other candidates. Much was assumed. Lets be honest about it.
Since Iowa there seems to be a rotation around race, religion, and experience as the weapon of choice used by the Clinton campaign. This week Obama is winning because he's taken her support of the black vote because he's black. Last week it was that Obama should be her Vice President. The week before that it was that Obama dressed like a muslim while visiting his father's homeland. The week before that it was that he was inexperienced. Before that he attended a muslim activist school. Before that he was a fantasy. Before that he was really a muslim. Anybody spot the "why hillary should be president" in those messages? If there was one it was drowned out with the hate speech.
What message does this send to the voting public? I'll tell you what message it sends. Don't vote for Barak because he's black. Don't vote for Barak because he has an unconventional name. Don't vote for Barak because his father was a practicing muslim. Don't vote for Barak because I think I have a super delegate lead which is yet unproven. Don't vote for Barack because he arguably has less experience. etc... etc... With redderick like that what exactly is so attractive about that message to an african american community? Or a community of differing faith? Or a community of differing culture? Is there any wonder there has been no change in her status among these communities?
Meanwhile Obama has been making gains her traditionally strong demographics. So, clearly he's doing something about his perception problem while she is not. I don't know how one can put this one on Obama because he's black. She's the one out there with this poorly constructed message and strategy for which Obama has had no hand in.
March 13, 2008 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 23:08
Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.
Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.
March 13, 2008 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 22:36
Ms. Ferraro thinks everybody has misunderstood the remarks she made about Obama. She is suffering from 'I am never wrong' syndrome. It is hard for her to accept that she has made a mistake. Look at her arrogance-she resigned because she did not want Hilly to suffer because of her. (not because she has blundered.) I did not have any respect when she accepted the vice presidential nomination in 1964. I am also glad that she did not win.
Persons who have attained greatness are very humble not like her-arrogant and uncouth.
March 13, 2008 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 22:36
As an African American man, I was offended by Mrs. Ferraro's comments. I can't believe that once I was willing to vote for her. I expected better of her. This is more than ignorance; it is good old fashioned racism. Let's see: if Barack were not a black male, he would not be the leading Democratic candidate for president. Well, can Mrs. Ferraro name all the black presidents from the past? There have been none in our nation's history nor has there been a woman president. So it seems that Mrs Ferraro is simply angry that finally a black man has gotten this far. She seems to be using the old affirmative action label to tar Obama. Sometimes, it seems like a black man just can't win. When he first announced his candidacy, some people asked was he black enough. Now, Mrs. Ferraro refuses to give him credit for raising a record amount of money and running a smart and effective campaign. Shame on you Mrs. Ferraro! We all expected better coming from you.
March 13, 2008 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 22:31
Well stated. Thank you.
March 13, 2008 8:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 20:24
Thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious to thinking Americans everywhere. The Clinton campaign and their surrogates (Ferraro)used this as a calculated, intentional attack on Obama simply because he had to respond in some way. His thoughtful response was brillant and should have ended the matter. They kept it up and accused the victim of the "crime". I am stunned that Geraldine Ferraro would participate in this kind of tactic, but I am no longer surprised that Hillary Clinton did. This has been going on since SC and it is NOT imagined, it is a campaign strategy. I do not believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton or Ferraro are racists, but that makes their campaign decisions all the more unforgivable. Win-at-all-costs is unacceptable and certainly not worthy of the Democratic nominee.
March 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 19:25
Oh dear. Reverend Thistlethwaite has gone too far this time by daring to suggest that centuries of African slavery have any moral equivalence to the Jewish Holocaust.
Exactly one year ago, a delegation of German bishops visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, and then crossed through the high concrete wall that separates Israel from the Palestinian "territories." One bishop compared photographs of the Warsaw Ghetto to "Ghetto Ramallah." Another who had lived through Nazi and then Communist occupations said "something like this is done to animals, not to human beings... I never in my life thought to see something like this again."
Reaction to the bishops was swift. The Anti-Defamation League called on the German Catholic Bishops' Conference to repudiate the remarks. The Central Council of Jews in Germany and the Israeli Embassy lectured the bishops on their "alarming lack of knowledge about history." Avner Shalev, chairman of Yad Vashem, wrote that they were seeking "to lessen European responsibility for Nazi crimes." Within days, Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Germany's top cardinal) was forced to censure his bishops by writing that it was inappropriate to "connect contemporary problems or situations of injustice in any way with the National Socialists' genocide of the Jews."
Hell hath no fury like Israel scorned. Even the ugly "anti-Semite" was thrown into the fray. In an opinion piece for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, correspondent Eldad Beck said the bishops' comments raised the question of "just how tainted with anti-Semitism... the Catholic church and German society remained." What the bishops saw first-hand, and what they tried to tell the world, was successfully obscured in a frenzy of name-calling.
Reverend Thistlethwaite, you must repent for this terrible sin of having suggesting that anyone other than Jews have suffered horrifically. Are you a closet anti-Semite? Throw yourself upon the mercy of Saint Geraldine Ferraro and beg her forgiveness. And may the great goddess Hillary have mercy on your soul...
March 13, 2008 6:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:37
She's not ignorant...she's honest wrote:
"Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding!"
In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of the black vote. So now what?
March 13, 2008 6:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:26
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
March 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:23
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
March 13, 2008 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:22
The Clintons (and I dont like them at all) have a long and accomplished history with the black community, thats why they always could count on there vote. Obama , what has he done ? yet as soon as he shows up , the blacks ditch the Clints who've worked there butts off for civil rights and vote for Ob .Why ?? it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. Isnt voting solely on a persons skin color racist ?.But you cant say that, its not PC. The more you Ferraro bashers talk, the more evryone sees that the emperor has no clothes. All you have to do is admit it and move on, but no, you guys go through painful gyrations to deny an honest opinion by fer.
March 13, 2008 6:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:12
Very good commentary.
Obama is aiming to unite and not divide -races, ethnic groups, genders, et al. _E pluribus unum_ in the best sense. He is a Lincoln patriot.
As a Black person, my hat is off the the millions of White people who are responding to his unity message. Obama is giving them a chance to demonstrate the anti-racism that is in the hearts of many, the desire to show that American's are not racist.
Obama is this generation's Martin Luther King. It takes much courage to take the risk he is taking.
Geraldine Ferraro's comments and thinking are pitiful. She doesn't even have the sense to apologize (!) What deep rooted racism and ignorance.
But we _shall_ overcome !
March 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 18:07
Debra,
Thank you for proving Winston Churchill right when he said, "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
To remark that you would never vote for a Republican is ignorant. I fully understand that you probably have leanings towards one party or the other, but what about John McCain would prevent you from voting for him? Am I to assume that you also thought JC Watts, a former black Republican congressman, was also be unworthy of your vote?
My guess is that you probably have been fooled into thinking that the Democratic party is somehow for all the hard working middle and lower class people. What a bunch of bunk. What exactly have they accomplished since they regained control of the House and Senate? Nothing. They promised to end the war and bring the troops home. Seen any movement on this front lately? Nope. Instead, they trotted out the great increase to the federal minimum wage. Whoopee. I'm sure the dozen or so people that were substantially impacted by that are very appreciative.
Obama is right. Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas. Easy choice isn't it? Wouldn't you rather play for the team that tried and failed instead of the team that doesn't even bother to show up?
March 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 17:48
When u win 80 to 90% of a group that comprises 12%
of the population, thats a major edge.
Notice how I didnt mention a color, lets say they are "purple". It's pretty obvious purple will vote
for purple , organge for orange, again thats human nature.
March 13, 2008 5:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 17:36
Thank you for your insightful article. A museum on slavery based on the Shoah (Jewish and others Holocaust) is a long overdue idea!
You were much to kind to Ms. Ferraro, and of course you failed to include Hillary Clinton in this equation. The Clinton's have inserted ugly racism into this campaign that I have not seen or heard coming from a Democratic candidate for President...ever. I am a 60's feminist who during the 90's defended the Clinton's on all accounts. Now they are openly promoting racism, and it is a very dangerous road they are leading this country down, and will surely add to the destruction of this country.
March 13, 2008 5:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 17:09
I feel like my head might explode.
All you out there that say being a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama is a shoe in for the office of President...are you nutz?
And as far as the black folk voteing for another black...so how much is the black population in this country? 12%. How much was the black population in Mississippi? 37%. How much was the republicans that voted for Hillary, sent by Rush Lumbaugh? 26% How much did Hillary get in Mississippi? 38%.How much did Obama get? 61%.
As a white, 59 year old woman who voted for obama...and hope to vote for him in the National. Obama has more experience then Abraham Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt,and most of the best presidents...and for you Reaganites out there...just how much experience did He have?
Ferraro's statement was racist...oh I do not think she realized it was...I do not think she understands what she is saying at all...nor that some of the folks on here that are making the same kind of statements understand that they are makeing racist statements. Do racists know they are racists? Isn't it that they do not know it?They make exuses for how they feel. To say that the only reason that Barack Obama is where he is is because he is black, is ignorant. And the reason why so many blacks are voteing for him, was the racism spouted by the people of the Clinton campaign. So how many blacks in Utah? Before Bill Clinton made his stupid remark, Clinton had African Americans...remember them saying he was not "black" enough? Each bit of racism brings more Blacks to Obama...they want the best...they have families and terrible needs, they can not afford a vanity vote. Maybe they are researching his qualifications...maybe those on here should also.
I simply think that Hillary wants the power..and is willing to give the Democratic Party a million cuts until we bleed to death. She does not care...she wants Madam President.
terra
March 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:46
Thanks Susan for pointing out somethings most of white america would like to pretend don't exist. If it were left up to some folks blacks would still be slaves. Let's face it, we live in America and racism still exist. To the person who said that with nearly 100% of the race voting for OB, you're really out of touch with reality. Every one should know that if only blacks voted for OB, he would never win the presidancy because of the number of blacks in America or in the southern states. There are far too many people who would rather see OB dead than in office. Give the black race some credit, we know who we should vote for and who holds our best interest. It's definately not a Republican of any race.
March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:38
You overgeneralize but do not consider causes for any of things about which you complain. Not unusual in sermons but not useful in analysis. And not very logical, but logic has been accused of being racist by some college professors (who are, after all, just trying to sell textbooks and destroy minds?)
1. Do you say with a straight face that Ferraro is incorrect? I do not mean "wrong" in that she said something uncomfortable or "wrong" in that it was "not nice?" But incorrect. Would Obama be where he is in the presidential race were he not a well-spoken mulatto (and you can choke on that one, but it is true)?
What about an analysis of whether white women would find Obama as desirable if he were darker? Or had a Southern accent? Or a pure white wife? Or were gay? Hmmmmm.
You jump Ferraro for stating her opinion that is not nice but is truer than you want to accept. You don't have to like it. It does not have to make you feel good. It is either valid or it is not valid. And the fact that she made the same observation about Jesse Jackson may make her boring but not incorrect.
And is it some sort of attack on affirmative action?
Ponder this: ere you to speak with black physicians (and I have) you would find many of them being given the "ol' hairy eyeball" (as we used to call it) by other black folk and by everyone else because there is always the suspicion that they got where they were because of affirmative action misused and not by merit. That is a problem because it can lead to the professionals trying to get into more affluent areas to practice, thus making the delivery of services more scarce in the very areas that need help most. This is not just for physicians but other professionals.
As to the museum idea: The Holocaust museums are generally specific in content (try Yad Vashem) and are also educational facilities. We don't need more memorials---we need education. But we don't need the sort of thing that is pretend education in our schools today.
Were you to design a slavery museum, what would you put in and why? Who would run it and why? And if it were not self-sustaining would you want taxpayer money to keep it going (or ask for a tithe)?
Using taxpayer money to build a politically correct Museum of Slavery is simpleminded at best.
Using taxpayer money to build professional stadiums and ball parks is not right, either.
How about soliciting foundation money for your slavery museum instead? My grandparents (all four of them) escaped to the United States in 1906 from the Tsar and his killers and I don't recall having any slaveholders in the family.
But, then, the idea of using taxpayer money for assorted children's museums, a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a Woodstock 1969 museum, a Golf Hall of Fame, a Country Music Hall of Fame, or to restore Lawrence Welk's boyhood sod home is also a misuse of money earned by someone else. It would be like using taxpayer money to build a Ku Klux Klan Museum (after all, they were politically in the North as well as the South), a Mormon Museum, a Catholic Museum, a Lynching Museum (with lifesized figures of Leo Frank, perhaps, with the leaders of Cobb County, Georgia), a miniature golf museum, or even an educators' museum to explain the adoption of foolishness? Why not a Crapper Museum with working commodes on display (and rooms of those that don't?)
Why not more noise and passion about Darfur, female circumcision, honor killings, illiterate high school graduates (or low percentages for high school graduation), women not allowed to vote, women not allowed to work outside the home, women not allowed to divorce after being physically abused?
Were you to look at family statistics for those in prison you would find a higher than average number of inmates from broken or shattered homes. The lack of strong male (yes, male) positive influences cause problems. This is not to say that the problems cannot be overcome, but it makes life more difficult. Single mothers are more likely to live in nastier neighborhoods and more violent neighborhoods with worse than average schools. Teachers in these schools have to spend more time as surrogate parents and less time as teachers. Moral of the story: don't have kids if you are not married and don't have kids you cannot support.
But, then, that is a bad idea unless you are looking at everyone else's pocket to pay for your education, your food, your children---and your museum.
March 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:16
Many Ferraro apologists here are so sensitive to her nuanced statement (not) that they actually know what she meant, as opposed to what she said. She has been terribly misinterpreted - the fact is, another rich NY 'liberal' had a little temper tantrum when someone got 'above their raisin' as they say in the South.
Who said these elitists were all lovable?? Her rich NY pal Senator Chuck Shumer is another one - a real sleight of hand artist that says one thing and does another and a well-known Bush enabler often enough...the rich love the rich, first, last, and foremost. The NYC Club is 'members only' lest you commoners forget.
Geraldine is no political greenhorn, and she knew exactly what she said. You can't take it back, and every seasoned politician knows it - she had every intention of leaving a lasting impression as she departed....message sent loud and clear. No apology needed - the fact is, the GOP will pick this up and run with it, and that prediction doesn't take a crystal ball. She apparently said this on Fox News - enemy camp of the first degree.
Politics is politics and perceptions are perceptions. Winner take all. In the end, the choices for Geraldine Ferraro and other incensed democrats that are offended at the unfairness of Obama's ascendency are either vote for a democratic president, or vote for a white president......you will get exactly what and who you vote for, and after the last 8 years you really should be well educated to that fact. And you are what you vote - no way around that either.
If you vote for McCain, please NEVER consider yourself a democrat again - in good conscience you can't possibly be something you're not.
If Hillary is the loser, it's only because she's not the winner - really, it's that simple.
Nothing complicated like when ....say, Al Gore lost, for example. Remember who and what you're voting for when you vote for McCain as some kind of protest vote - of course there's always Ralph Nader for the truly disenfranchised.
March 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:11
The percentage of African American males who are unemployed is greater than 50%? It's hard to take SBT very seriously when she includes such gross information in her essay.
March 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:09
I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?
the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?
March 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:05
I'm afraid you miss the point---the point is, how many Senators who have been in office only THREE YEARS are in the running to be president?
the ONLY reason Mr Obama is the very very rare 3 year's experience senator with a chance at the nomination is because he is [half] Black and thus fits a nice profile for being the candidate. It goews without saying, of course, that 3 years in the Senate is a woeful lack of qualifications for ANYONE to be president, whether blacvk, white, male or female. Let us at least admit that. This is the best we can do?
March 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 16:05
Folks, a little reality check please. If someone from the Republicans side made this comment, all hell would have broken loose. The truth is that Democrats are as low, conniving, and prejudiced as they accuse Republicans of being. By the way, where's Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Why haven't they attacked Ferraro's comments? Could it be they are hypocrits themselves? Comments made by Democrats are "the truth" where the same comments made by Republicans are "racist"! That's hogwash!
March 13, 2008 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:54
You're Mistaken Ms. Thistlethwaite
Senator Biden was much closer to the truth when he implied (and was roundly attacked for it) that the attractiveness of Obama the candidate to white voters is due to the contrast between Senator Obama and whites' perceptions of most black men and previous black candidates.
Were Senator Obama not black, this contrast wouldn't exist, and his appeal to white voters would be far weaker. As it is, they can feel good liking a black man.
And what isn't there to like about him? He isn't angry at whites. He doesn't rage at them for slavery and its fallout. He would never in a million years initiate something like your "Museum of Slavery and Its Consequences" (though he might go along with it if it seemed politically safe). Senator Obama is just like white voters' successful, well-educated, white suburban neighbors, only with somewhat darker skin. As a candidate, he's a two-fer: Vote for him and you get a white guy and a black guy. But Ferrraro is correct: without that "black guy" dimension, Senator Obama is only a competent, run-of-the-mill senator, not a compelling presidential candidate.
March 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:30
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
March 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:21
Geraldine Ferraro isn't wrong - Here is why - If Hillary were running against a white man - She would be getting the majority of the African American votes - but because Mr Obama is a black man he is winning the black vote, the African American voter wants to vote for the African American candidate. However the older African American women voters that I have meet still support Hillary. They know who has been there for them.
March 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:21
I'm sorry, but this article reflects willful ignorance of what Ms. Ferraro actually meant.
March 13, 2008 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:03
She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! And as an attorney, let me tell you....it all comes down to interpretation of words! People misinterpreted Ferraro and that is why they are angry. Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!
Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol
March 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:02
I believe what she was refering to had more to do with his lack of experience. He's a two term STATE senator and a first term senator who decided to run after serving 1 year.
March 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:00
She’s right on target. She’s not saying that Obama has an advantage b/c he’s black…she’s saying that black people are voting for him because he’s black and that gives him an advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! Sorry folks but its true and if you don’t like to hear the truth…too bad. Look at the exit polls and election results of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY state. Obama is winning the black vote 80% to Hillary’s 20% (or thereabouts). The proof is in the pudding! So african americans can either quit playing the race card, or quit voting for Obama and proving people like Ferraro right!
Also, while your checking out the above referenced statistics and proving me right, why don’t you take 5 mins and stop blaming Hillary Clinton. Before Barrack came along, black folks loved the Clintons….Well, NEWS FLASH- they haven’t changed and they still fight for the minority communities so show some appreciation and respect even if you don’t vote for her! The only thing that has changed is the fact that a black person is running against a Clinton and I guess “BLACK” trumps “CLINTON” in their eyes (b/c they surely aren’t voting based on Obama’s impressive political record!) lol
March 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 15:00
Oh, good grief.
March 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 14:41
You're gonna get arthritis from all that hand-wringing.
Lighten up.
March 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 14:28
Many moons ago one of my child hood buds made it into Yale. I'm not white and neither is he. We grew up in a pretty dirt poor section of NYC. We both knew he didnt get into Yale purely on merit, his scores and achievements were not even close to the average white Yaley freshman . But I was happy for him and he was thrilled. We had alot of that in our neighborhood, programs that gave you preference because of yr skin color/ethnicity. Nothing wrong with that as it gave us all our shot. We coudnt afford SAT prep or have schools with varsity teams in 5 diff sports so it was some sort of equalizer. But we knew we got cut a break and we took it. Ob has some disadvantages and advantages in being black. Telling him his advantages is not racist, its honest. My guess is that many white liberals grew up in all white neighborhoods and kinda dont see the reality of What is happening. They beat themselves to death to try to prove they are not racist. Thats ok, but if there isnt any racism, you shoudnt call it as such. Geraldine wasnt being racist, just making an honest observation.
March 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 14:12
Agreed, it is tough to be a black man, injustice was done to the african american community. It is hard to achieve being black. But there is some truth to the statement made by Geraldine Ferraro.
Barack Obama is different from among the blacks who are in jail or under achievers. But he was editor of Harvard law review. That changes the dynamic. This very fact that he is balck and highly educated makes him attractive. A state senator would not be key note speaker at the democratic convention if he were not black. Liberal media would not project him as the saviour of america. Liberal media loves him and a lot of white people vote for him because they think it will make america look good. They think by electing Obama white america can feel less guilty about slavery. They are not voting for him because he is the best candidate.
Same is true for Hillary Clinton. She is an amazing politician and a person who really cares about people and a fighter. But she would not be where she is wihout being Bill's wife.
So please dont attack Geraldine Ferraro for speaking her mind. There is truth in it. And many people agry with her on that.
It doesnot mean I disrespect Obama, I like him and respect him. He is going to be a great politician.
March 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:55
Ferraro's recent comments are absolute, in-your-face evidence of the racism and sexism fundamental to US culture, not to mention her being the perfect model for the arrogance of the ruling class. These conditions cannot be cured with criticism. The majority must remove power from these bad examples and resolve, over the long term, to give power to those whose behavior better reflects the democratic values of this country. Getting the power out of their hands will be a problem.
March 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:53
Wow! Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's article is mudslinging, with Ms. Ferraro as the target. It's as if Ms. T could read her mind - there was a time such behavior as Ms. T's was attributed to her committing the sin of PRIDE.
I think Ms. F told the un-PC truth, and now is being socially executed for it. But that doesn't change the truth that Mr. O's popularity is not due to his hefty experience or intelligence, but rather only to the combinaiton of his race, physical attractiveness, and empty-but-eloquent rhetoric.
Many blacks find Mr. O attractive at least in part simply because of his race - contrary to ML King's hoped-for measure of a human being: the content of one's character. Many whites find Mr. O attractive because of his race - it allows such racial-guilt-ridden whites to say to themselves "I can't be racist because I support Mr. O."
Racial prejudice still exists in the U.S.A., and the success of Mr. O's campaign is shouting that fact to the world for those who wish to hear it.
March 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:42
Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).
March 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:35
Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely correct re Obama's
political succcess to date. His experience is in no way comparable to a state governor's (example:
Bill Clinton, or any other two term governor).
Governors work extensively with both state and
federal entities on a myriad of financing, support, and legislative issues and policies that
directly affect their citizens. Foreign policy experience is also part of their agenda, as they
often travel overseas - - often with nationally
elected leaders - - regarding business and trade
oppoetunities for their respective states. In my
home state of Indiana our governor (a Republican)
has made several overseas trade trips already
this year (since January).
March 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:35
Geraldine was right on with her non rascist remark. If Borack Obama was white he would not be in the position he is in. It is just human nature for women to vote for Hillary Clinton and black people to support Obama. If Obama was white, Oprah would be backing Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. It is my opinion and I am not a rascist. I am entitled to my opinion because I earnt my citizenship the hard way.