DISQUS

The concept of "race relation" is a fundamental part of why people with white skin and people with black skin find ourselves so divided in the first place. We are divided by the spurious and utterly political concept that there are different "races" in the first place.

When white kittens and black kittens are born in the same litter, do the discriminate against each other on the basis of fur color? It seems like a stupid question, but an even more ridiculous question is whether they discriminate against each other on the basis of "race." They obviously are of the same species if they share the same parents, just as Barack Obama is of the same species both of his mother and of his father.

As we realize that this subject of "race relations" (a term I have always hated) is really a question of the SKIN-COLOR aroused ideation, emotion and behavior that each of us brings to the table, we will reduce the spurious biological question of "race" to its proper size: A big, fat, zero.

"Race" doesn't exist, and so neither do "race relations." Skin color and ethnicity exist, as do political, cultural and even psychological battles that use skin color and ethnicity as the monopoly money of the game. Monopoly money cannot be spent in a store any more than "race" can be the basis of a serious or meaningful scientific or sociological discussion.

If Barack Obama's bi-color and poly-ethnic heritage can lead to improved inter-colorgroup and intra-colorgroup relations, then we will have achieved quite a lot on that level alone.

This is really horrifying. It shows that even in the middle of a depression, Americans can be brought to a homicidal frenzy by the idea of having just one more consumer item.

Many people call the United States the "First World", but we have to question the measures and criteria by which we come to that conclusion. We are first in guns. That's good. We are first or second in gun deaths. That's also good, right?

We are first in using up the world's petroleum, and we are first in spending money on our military to make sure that the petroluem keeps flowing at prices and levels that couldn't be sustained without constant use of force.

As Rorysmamma says, "We love things more than we love people", otherwise we would see that our infant mortality rate of 17.7% among Blacks in the South was far too high compared to the infant mortality rate of 7% just ninety miles away in Cuba. So, why don't we fix our broken health system. Because a few people are afraid of losing some of their money streams that come from the broken system.

I prefer to live in the third world. At least I can afford to visit the dentist.

One of the things that I appreciate most about the Obama presidency is that it compels the media to put the Obama's front and center, in a positive light. I'm old enough to remember when Black people almost never appeared on television and in the newspaper, and so we screamed to everyone to run to the television if a Black person was on the screen.

So, to see the media compelled to put perhaps America's most positive and powerful Black man on the front page of the newspaper everday is a tremendous victory for our public image as a group.

The same is happening overseas, for example, in Brazil. President Obama will be the foremost maker of news from the United States for at least the next four years, and people here in Brazil are universally positive about him and happy that he has been elected.


I might as well mention the dress that Michelle Obama wore on Election Night, since the media does so often. I think she should wear whatever the hell she wants to wear. The woman is an Ivy League educated lawyer and her thoughts and advocacy are far more interesting to me than the color of her dress.

i don't want John Kerry to be nominated for Secretary of State or for any other position where clear communication to the public is essential. Kerry is an inveterate bungler of public communication..

Remember his "joke" about how the troops in Iraq must not be very intelligent (or they wouldn't be there in the first place)? That might be true, but it didn't help John Kerry's standing with the public.

And remember when he stood by as a questioner at one of his speeches was tazed by police for questioning Kerry on Iraq? If obama selects Kerry as Secretary of State, it will be the biggest millstone around his neck, that will end in Kerry's resignation and embarrassment for Obama.

Bill Richardson is much more qualified, and the only reason that the press is talking up Kerry instead of Richardson is that Kerry is white while Richardson is half Latino.

I voted a few days ago, sending in my ballot from Brazil.Type your comment here.

Things look good for Barack and it's a good sign that McGrampy's team is aleady admitting that they'e probably lost. If they were smiling like Karl Rove before the 2004 election, that would be something to really worry about.

All of the historical precedents mentioned above came to my mind too as I read this disgusting Ashley Todd news. I would tell my friends in Brazil about it, but the US color arousal culture is so different, with such different historical precedents, that few people here one would know what I was talking about. Ashley Todd's crazy story belongs in a comic book, not in a newspaper.

For instance, in the part of Brazil where I live a white woman just told me (hitting on me in the midst of a group of people) that blondes here prefer Black men. Now she was certainly saying that because she is blond, but where in the United States can you here people making comments like that? It runs directly against the stereotype that the Todd woman was trying to access. And yet you can see so many bichromatic couples in Brazil that is more common than lasagna and pizzerias in this part of Brazil.

So, the woman was trying to access a stereotype that wouldn't even resound here. These stories from the United States never ceases to amaze me, even though I left it partly because it never ceased to horrify me.

At the same time, I read the "culture" section of a large Brazilian newspaper today, saw 29 photographs, and none of them in that section was of a Black person, even though this country is 49-50% Black..

And the US is on the verge of electing its first Black president, the importance of which cannot be imagined fully.

Next door to the Internet cafe where I'm writing, there is a pizzeria owned by a Black man. Has anyone else been to a pizzeria owned by a Black man? It's these things that make me wake up in a new world every day, in Brazil.

I'm glad they didn't round up every six-foot Black man in Texas before they discovered that this Todd story was a color-aroused hoax.

I've got hope as I review the polling numbers that say that the more people see of Palin and McCain, the less they like them, particularly when they are doing nothing but making fatuous and patently false accusations.

But, the photograph above shows that people with white skin are not inherently afraid, etc., of people with brown skin. That kind of color arousal has to be carefully taught. It'll be harder to convince children and adults that Blacks are "inherently stupid and dangerous" when Barack Obama is president and has an international forum from which to demonstrate the contrary. Electiing Barack Obama will be a public relations coup for Black people, more important than the "I Like Mike" campaign for Nike Sneakers (?), in fact the most important product endorsement in the history of America, with Black excellence as the product.

McCain on Don Imus! What a great forum to show that he has the intellectual weight of his opponent. Or is this just another attempt to get "Joe the White Plumber" to the polls to vote for the party that thinks it's bad to have a Muslim name.

Nobody's harassing John McCain about having an Irish name, even though the Irish Republican Army went on a decades long bombing campaign that included bombing the 10 Downing Street. Why is McCain palling around with people who have names like the names of those who bombed 10 Downing Street?

The first endorsement was great. The second one is a recommendation that, as between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, people were urged to vote for Barack Obama back in February. That's great, but will the Houston Chronicle urge its readers to vote for Obama over McCain. Probably so, if they are consistent, since the reasoning that caused them to pick Obama back in February is all the more compelling as against McCain in November.

I'm so glad that the WaPost has endorsed Obama. It's not so important that they endorsed Obama. It's far more important that they DIDN'T endorse and legitimize McCain.

I expect a number of other editorial endorsements will follow which, again, are mostly important because the alternative would have been to legitimize McCain.

If it weren't for John McCain, I never would have realized that "Hugo Chavez" was an Arab name. Thanks JSM! I can only imagine how much more you'd teach American if you were ever to become president.

I have a feeling you'd want to teach us how to rain nuclear bombs on Iran without the fallout crossing Iran's national borders. But if you can make Hugo Chavez into an Arab, I'm sure you could resolve that problem as well.

What in the heck is McCain doing at the Global initiative anyway? He doesn't believe in global warming, votes against family planning funds (I would be willing to bet), and voted with Bush 90% of the time over the last number of years. So, what does McCain bring to the table, except the attention of voters who arent going to vote for the Democratic ticket under any circumstances.

And how can McCain find time for the CGI while he has no time to debate his opponent six weeks before the election? Something stinks! The Clintons had better taking that rotting fish out of their trunk!

Well anyone, including myself, who believed that Bill Clinton was down with Black people has been brutally disabused of that misguided notion in the year 2008. This is the year that we realized (all of us at once) that the Clintons are NOT our friends.

I blame Hillary for this as well, because Bill says the things that Hillary cannot say. As far as I'm concerned, everything that comes out of Bill's mouth should be considered tantamount to a press release from Hillary Clinton.

And Bill Clinton is saying, effectively, 'I can't see any good reason to strongly and visibly oppose McCain's candidacy and I can't see any real reason why I should show support for the Democratic ticket.'

Well, Bill Clinton can go "F himself, and take his stupid "save the world" conference with him! He says he wants to help Africa, but everyone is Africa is pulling for Obama. If he wanted to give voice to the aspirations of Africa, he'd be on the campaign trail telling Bubbas to vote for Obama, instead of giving Bubbas the nod to vote for McCain.

I'd love to update our widget that says "Concede Now, Hillary!" to say "Screw You, Bill!", but that would be more divisive than Bill himself, and would distract attention from getting our nominee elected - even without the help of Bill Clinton, that little broken rear view mirror!

Stop trying to run the plantation, Bill! The slaves done migrated to the North!

Any time a Bushie gets up there and starts yelling about how we have to move NOW, and it's a BIG CRISIS, it makes wonder what's in the fine print.

This is just like the run-up to the Iraq War. Bush demands virtually unlimited authority to spend from the US treasury, with virtually no oversight. Then, he'll dole out hundreds of billions of dollars to those who are well-connected, with special no-bid commissions for those who handle the worthless debt the Government is buying.

Whatever system Paulson puts together for handling this useless paper will include numerous ways for lobbyists and their clients to receive cash from the US Treasury hand over fist, in excess of the debt that's out there.

What a bank robbery!

First, thanks for the "I Am A Community Organizer" name for our international publicity action of tomorrow.

I agree with much of what each of you is saying, because on the one hand organizing means identifying a challenge that needs to be faced; developing a consensus plan of action; determining the action steps and objectives needed to implement that plan; and then carrying those steps out; and then reviewing the success of the strategy to see what was optimal and what can be improved. As someone who organized before the Internet and other virtual tools were available, I can definitely attest that an e-mail list is MUCH, MUCH more effective than a Rolodex (remember those?) in terms of quickly reaching national and international consensus about what to do and how to do it.

As Yobachi says, just expressing an opinion online does not, in and of itself, constitute organizing. And yet providing information online and by e-mail, MSN, Twitter, ooVoo, YouTube and so many other electronic means, forming consensus online, and e.g. gathering money online to facilitate community goals CAN be just as effective as meeting in a church basement to accomplish those goals and objectives.

But, what Yobachi is saying is true. Unless you develop a plan, a consensus, goals and objectives and implement them, it doesn't constitute organizing. And yet the beauty of the Internet and other electronic communication is that someone in California can design and post (and thereby disseminate) a widget that IS part of an organized plan of action, and even catalyzes action that didn't exist before.

So, let's continue to decide what we're going to do and then use our blogs as well as brick and mortar means to do it. For example, if the purpose of a march is to impress decision-makers that we do not approve of their policies, we may be able to accomplish the same thing much more quickly and efficiently by selecting NEW decision-makers online and collecting money to help them achieve their goals. I voted for Barack Obama in the primaries online, so I know that I was part of an online organizing effort to determine the next president of the United States, with a goal, objecives, strategies and action steps that can be implemented online. (Some people say choosing a president isn't that important, but if Palin were elected they'd birch like hell about her for the next eight years.)

Thanks to you and to ALL of the blogs that are participating in the "I Am A Community Organizer" day of blogging for justice on Monday, September 8, 2008!

What a great logo that is above! We're going to post that logo over at the Afrosphere Action Alert blog, and I hope it encourages more AfroSpear and afrosphere bloggers to post the Afrosphere Action Alerts blog widget, so that all the crucial actions that are announced are automatically visible at blogs across the AfroSpear and afrosphere.

Here's a thought: General Motors spends (action step) literally billions of dollars in advertising (motivation) trying to convince people (organizing them) to buy (action) their products, and more and more of that advertising is online. In fact, it is now possible to buy a car online (I think), and so everything that General Motors is trying to accomplish can be accomplished online.

You can certainly mortgage and lose your house online, right, and you can commit crimes for which you would be imprisoned or help prevent those same crimes from being committed online. You can give money online to someone who doesn't have food to eat, individually or as part of an organized action.

The issue is whether we have goals, objectives, implementation and evaluation. Where we do that might not be as important as THAT we do that. I think what Yobachi is saying is, "By all means, DO something!"

Great press release. And I really like your new blog layout and aesthetics.

Is Biden REALLY the best that American has to offer for a vice president, or is his just another white man, and that's what would put him at the front of the list. Having knowledge of national security isn't very helpful if everything that comes out of your mouth is insulting and embarrassing to the US and to international constituencies.

One advantage of nominating Biden is that it would show white people that Obama doesn't hold a grudge against whites who have specifically insulted Obama based on his skin color, i.e. by calling him "eloquent" and "clean". Nominating Biden shows that Obama has gotten over that, and can get over most any insult.

Well, that's certainly an advantage in the United States, but I don't think it worth giving him the vice presidency, just to prove Obama has thick skin.

Obama should nominate Bill Richardson, who speaks fluent Spanish, spent like half a dozen terms in the US Congress representing a Latinos state, and was Ambassador to the UN as well as a Secretary in the Clinton Administration. THAT's experience and bringing something to the table.

Obama should NOT pick ANY v.p. candidate simply because that person is a white man, anymore than Obama himself should refuse the nomination because Obama himself is not a white man. Being a white man is no longer a threshold qualification for the presidency or the vice presidency.

As soon as I see the title, "Black & Blacker", I know it's ridicule. The New York Magazine is NOT the New Yorker. It's not an urbane magazine for liberals; it's a color-aroused hate-house.

I'm sorry. I can't read this article. I've read your excerpts from it, and your commentary, and that's quite enough for me.

John Edwards lost because people were tired of believing that just because a candidate was white and male, that he would necessarily have better solutions than a Black man or a white woman. When you took away that white male supremacy paradigm from John Edwards' list of rationales, there really wasn't anything left.

He said he wanted to end poverty, but wouldn't giving a Black man or a woman a chance at office to more to end the poverty of Blacks and women than would electing the 44th white male president. That's why John Edwards lost. His candidacy simply didn't make any sense to the Democratic base.

Well, his assertion is based on the assumption that if Edwards were not in the race then white people would all have voted for Clinton, instead of splitting white votes between Clinton and Edwards. The problem with this reasoning is that when Edwards got OUT of the race, all of his financial supporters and many of his voters switched to Obama while continuing to revile Clinton.

I agree with Field. If we don't impeach Bush, even after all of his unlawful and unconstitutional behavior, then we are implicitly saying that we have the president we deserve.

You're so right with this post. It's like saying, "I'm not an alcoholic" when everyone sees you laying down drunking in the street, peeing on yourself. Call it what you will, but the facts speak for themselves, and many people, myself included, are going to pay much more attention to what Bill Clinton has DONE over the last year than to what he says are his motives for doing so.

Maybe Robert Byrd wasn't a "racist" color-aroused individual back when he was a Klan leader. Maybe he was just a Klan leader because it was politically expedient at the time, as a way to jump start his political career. I'm not knocking Robert Byrd now, but I'm saying that if he told America, when he was a Klan leader, that he was not a "racist", that wouldn't have meant very much to many of us.

Why should I spend my time trying to psyche out what someone "is" when it is so much easier and more objective to document, as we have what someone has DONE, as in the case of the Clinton/Obama wiki and the color-aroused campaigning that ended in Clinton losing virtually every Black vote in the country.

I did NOT have sex with that woman (who was under my desk)!

It seems to me that McCain's strategy against Obama will be similar to Hillary's strategy, except that McCain doesn't have to try to win liberals, so he will not be as careful about seeming color-aroused and color-arousing. And because he will go about it much more intentionally and slyly, McCain may be more effective at doing it subtly, as with his Paris Hilton ad, whose only logic is to place Obama in the same ad with young white women.

Thanks so much for covering this issue!

Police always say that they shoot Blacks because they think we're dangerous, right? I recently did some research into what police do when they see a six-hundred pound bear walking through a shopping center. You know what they do? They call the game warden and the game warden comes and shoots the bear with a tranquilizing dart, and then the game warden carries the bear back to the woods. Alive, and not in need of emergency medical care. They don't electrocute bears with 50,000 volt electrocution devices. Should police treat Black peope so much more brutally and dangerously than they treat 600-pound wild bears?

When I compare that to what they did to the guy in MO, stun-to-kill, it's clear to me that the police are more concerned for the welfare of wild animals, like bears and moose, than they are for the welfare of Black people who are members of the human public.

If I called the police because my cat was stuck in a tree, would the police electrocute the cat to make him fall out of the tree? Of course not! That would cause an uproar! But, if I called the police to tell them my uncle was in a tree, would they taser my uncle. Clearly, for some reason, they would think that was a perfectly normal response to seeing a human being at risk. Taser him!

They've done it to pregnant women, mentally ill people in bathrobes, deaf people standing in their own kitchens in a bath towel, and the causin of Mychal Bell, assassinated by repeated electrocution while he was in handcuffs in police custody.

I once read in the newspaper of a case where a man who was in prison had a kitten in his cell. One of the prison guards took the kitten and twisted his head off. When they asked him why he had done it, he said it was "a judgment call". Clearly, there are some law enforcement people in our society who need to have some of their "judgment" latitude taken away.

I personally believe we need to work toward there should be a moratorium on the purchase and use of police pre-trial and extra-judicial electrocution devices, until we can discover why so many people (at least 300 in the US and Canada) have died from their use, and why a third of those who are electrocuted require hospital treatment afterward.

I believe there should be a moratorium on the use of electrocution devices by police until we can discover whether and why Black people are being disproportionately electrocuted in situations in which whites are not electrocuted.

I believe there should be a moratorium on police pre-trial and extra-judicial electrocution and execution of members of the public, at least until the US Supreme Court has decided whether, in the year 2008, it violates the due process and other Constitutional rights of the public to repeatedly electrocute and potentially execute people who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.

(Can it be arguably unconstitutional to electrocute and execute those convicted of murder, but still be constitutional to electrocute and potentially execute those convicted of nothing at all?)

There should be a moratorium on police pre-trial and extra-judicial electrocution of members of the public until it can be determined whether electrocution devices are being used as instruments of torture rather than as instruments of law enforcement.