The US went so far as put a hopelessly unqualified man in the White House simply because he could pass for black. And now, animosity between races is worse than it’s been in a couple of decades.
Let me confirm…you think Obama made race relations worse?
Meanwhile, do you think Trump is helping the situation?
I wonder who would be a very qualified President from your viewpoint.
In the words of the great man himself I think Rowland is bleedin` out of his mind.
This is not a fringe view in the U.S. In fact, it’s the majority view.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/obama-race-relations-poll/index.html
I think the North was just as dirty. Were the slaves treated any worse than the migrant Irish in New York or Boston? Better in most instances I would argue. Secondly, when the Confederacy had a Jewish Secretary of State during the Civil War, General Grant was enacting anti-Semitic Directives. States such as South Carolina had a long history of religious tolerance and cities such as Charleston had large freedmen populations. Today, I would argue the South is much better integrated with lower crime rates than the industrial North, which is heavily segregated in terms of inner city and white flight (look at Detroit etc.). African americans have a higher GDP per capita than Canadians. Spare me your outrage and focus it on how Canadians treat their natives ---- 1000 times worse!!!
Men’s rights? It’s just that the term “government” in languages that come from Latin is usually masculine, and every now and then I forget that English works in a different way.
Expectations/values don’t grow up in a vacuum. We generate our ideas first from what we learn from our parents and family, then we model them according to our personal experiences over the course of our lives. If you teach your kids that gay people are a sin against god and should not be allowed to exists, once the kid grows up he’ll very likely follow that idea until his personal experiences start to tell him otherwise. The same thing works both ways, though. By that I mean that if you grow your kids telling them:“All people are the same, no matter the race or religion” and then during the course of his/her life the kid gets only bad experiences when dealing with race X or religion Y, those ideas inherited by the parents may be modified or replaced by something different.
It’s a very basic mechanism of self defence and it’s not something for which I can blame people because it’s hard wired in our brains. If every time a kid goes outside he\she gets harrassed or beaten by an X group people, with X being a race or members of a religion or whatever, the kid will try to stay away from group X unless later on people from the same group will prove him otherwise.
Blockquote
I read that before…noting that this article is not blaming Obama for worsening race relations. The focus is statistics which also play off the various shootings by police. Of course, race relations worsen with so much news about shootings…and various other issues.
[quote=“IbisWtf, post:85, topic:161382, full:true”]
Expectations/values don’t grow up in a vacuum.[/quote]
Of course not, but the pace of change can be shocking because a generation that’s already “grown up” struggles to change things one way or another while things are different for another generation in a way that makes it seem to them that “of course that’s how it is” and so on. The influence of parents seems to be at a historic low right now, caught between state education and social media. (I’m not saying this is good or bad.)
Can we all agree that he didn’t improve race relations?
We all agree this is boring though. Very boring.
Can we say it aloud: haveing a dark skinned president scared the bejeezus out of white people? That and omnious reports regarding that they would be a minority in “their own” country in about 20 years. Mainloy because we Latinos were reproducing like rabbits, not African-Americans.
I always found it so interesting that my Florida cousins were so adamant to call Obama “el negro”, while not looking at their own curly black hair. Well, let me see if I can dig out a very inetresting piece about the history of race relations in US,. It was written under the premise that racism was a tool by the elite in order to separate and conquer. becauswe when people start asking for their rights to be respected, things change.
When all people are given a chace to be participants in the economy, like a body using all its parts, the whole body is healthier and goes faster and further. But for what 300 years the US has been fighting against its own, negating the priciples it was built on and stepping on human rights, literally trying to eliminate poverty by stamping out the poor, and using color as diversion and sacrificial lamb. It is teh 21st century and you still have cities divided in checkers: this side white, this side black. Not even money lines, though they do try to insure it stays down. A whole town was poisoned with chemical water which has effects that will last egenrations and yet, it si hard to tell it was because of poverty or color.
In the worst case of reactionary jerk spasm, they elected someone that represents the whole tide wave of the crest of getting back to 1950. All fend for themselves, while the elite makes it with the common man’s money and future.
And before anyone says I have no right to criticize, well, let me tell you: it is all quite common in the 3rd and 4rd world, I have seen it before many times, and this is way too familiar.
The viewpoint that refusal to design a certain cake is discrimination, bigotry, or prejudice against people is promoted by the left, but is totally deficient in the reality of the case.
The bakers only refuse to design certain products or merchandise, not because of hatred towards anyone, but because of their firmly held beliefs that such is displeasing to their God. They would not make such a product for anyone, whether they were gay, straight, or professing Christians. It really doesn’t matter who the customer is, but what the creation of their own hands is.
I totally sympathize with this viewpoint, for example, they wouldn’t want to make Halloween cakes with ghouls, ghosts, goblins, or other creatures, even if it were ordered by self-professing Christians. So bigotry doesn’t have anything to do with this case, other than leftists trying to make it appear so.
If this court case were to succeed, then these bakers would have to design Satanism cakes with pentagrams and what-not or else be deemed prejudiced against another religion. I don’t agree with that at all.
The point is that this bakery limits the merchandise, not the customer base. If gay persons want a cake designed within the limits of the merchandise provided, they wouldn’t/shouldn’t be rejected. In this day and age, it is relatively easy to find bakers who are willing to do such.
It’s a little bit like asking a Mexican owner/chef who has the ability to cook really good Italian or French food to offer such, just because he has the ability to do so. Who knows if the cook has a personal distaste or even beliefs against certain foods (like Jewish/Mulsim Indian owners who don’t offer pork, and Hindu owners who don’t provide beef), the point of the restaurant is to offer a certain product, and if you have something more specific in mind, there are others to meet your demands.
I love beef keema, but if the owner is Hindu, I can just settle for mutton, or find a comparable Muslim owner, or just do without. But how ridiculous would I be, to sue and complain that the owner is prejudiced against me a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim) because I can’t get beef Keema, which is consistent with my beliefs?
Not all white people think the same and I think this issue is more about people forcing their viewpoints or people who don’t agree on a personal level. I was traveling in China when Obama was running for president the 1st time, and I was frequently asked if I thought it would be possible for Obama to win. The real question they were asking me is if it would be “allowed”. I told them “of course”. I didn’t vote for Obama but I did think it sent a message to the people in the US and around the world that people can aspire to be what they want. I’m proud of my country and the system we have even with it’s imperfections. So if I don’t agree with Obama’s ideas does that make me a racist? I think the TPP is a disaster and I don’t agree with spending taxpayer dollars on the Paris Climate Accord. I think it just means that I have different views and I don’t agree with the content.
If one does not agree with Obama’s ideas or decisions based on your own critieria, you are a critical voter, a “political person”, someone who expresses an opinion based on his own conclusions. No one could argue with that. It is the correct way to oppose. However, if one’s only argument against him is “el negro ese”, that ain’t right. There are many good arguments to criticize. Birther, Muslim, etc. are not.
Of course. I don’t think I’m the only person who thinks this way.
There are several million that agree that TPP is a disaster. 
Opposition to Obama based in concept is not so rare as you make it to be, and voting for racist reasons more rare than you imply, at least among the white population; I don’t even know of a single instance personally. In fact, what I’m amazed at is the number of Taiwanese friends who assumed that I didn’t vote for Obama because of racism factors, as if that were the only issue at stake in that election, which I think is a very superficial way of looking at politics and thinking in general, and this is actually more common unfortunately. So common, that I think it pressured a great many white people into voting for Obama, who definitely wouldn’t have if skin color weren’t an issue at all.
But you may be correct that it is common among other sectors of the population, whose voting trends I’m not as familiar with.
I just tell Taiwanese to demonstrate the folly of their thinking, that if the Republican were black and the Democrat were white, I would simply vote for the black candidate. It’s not that hard.
I am not saying it is rare to have opposition based on concept. I wish it was more prevalent. And the non conceptual one is too common in certain socioeconomic circles that should know better, which leads me to believe they do know better and just use it for the power hereby derived by leading gerbils off a cliff.
[quote=“jotham, post:91, topic:161382, full:true”]
they wouldn’t want to make Halloween cakes with ghouls, ghosts, goblins, or other creatures[/quote]
Did they say that?
There are a few 2 or 3 of these cases floating around, this one in Colorado, and another in California, and perhaps a Canadian one too. I don’t know which is which, but yes, it seems one of them mentioned in their case that the same cake shop would turn down requests for Halloween. Whether or not that is true in this particular case, it’s a very plausible situation in the Christian community as it is closely deemed synonymous with Satanism or occultism.