Re: Is it white guilt or white FEAR that accounts for white people's support of Obama and other idealized blacks?

On Aug 19, 7:01 pm, RSF Group <aegisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's been commented by many that the reason why so many white
> liberals--and even many conservatives--support Obama is due to white
> guilt. Remember that many conservatives dearly wished for Colin Powell
> as president in the 90s.
> But, how much of this is about guilt? Or, is it really guilt masking
> fear? Or, is it guilt masking racial submission before the superior
> negro?
>
> I'm not convinced that guilt is the main factor behind Obama's
> popularity among whites. After all, how do we account for the great
> support Obama's gotten from Jews, young people of all color, and
> highly educated people of all backgrounds. Most of these people--and
> their ancestors--had nothing to do with American slavery and racial
> discrimination. Many of them came and settled in the North where most
> of the factories were or they moved westward.  Far fewer immigrants
> went to live in the South than stayed up in the north, moved to
> midwest, or westward.  Of course, one could argue that ALL Americans
> benefitted directly or indirectly from black labor--during slavery and
> post-slavery. But, the same could be said of any other group. Many
> generations of whites toiled on the land, farming night and day. They
> cleared the forests, made the land safe for law and order, and built
> farms and factories.  Many worked for little pay and did backbreaking
> work. Yet, they built the heavy industries which benefitted all
> Americans. After all, the reason why the Union won the Civil War was
> because of advanced industry in the North. Who worked in those
> factories under conditions which were often less humane than what
> black slaves experienced in the South?  So, the end of black slavery
> had much to do with white toil in the factories in the North.
> Also, westward expansion had much to do with the railroads, and all
> Americans greatly benefitted from them, not least blacks who found
> jobs as porters. Who built the bulk of them? Chinese-Americans, and
> these people worked under conditions far worse than what black
> Americans experienced. It's estimated that up to 10% of the Chinese
> labor forced died from working on the tracks. They also had to face
> much racial hostility and violence. But, it's thanks to them that we
> all benefitted. All peoples--white, black, Hispanic, etc, etc--were
> able to move from East to West or vice versa. So, should we all pay
> reparations to all Chinese-Americans in the US because they were
> worked like slaves for a pittance and then were discriminated against
> until after WWII?(Oddy, affirmative action in California favors the
> descendants of whites who oppressed the Chinese over Chinese students
> whose ancestors had been treated as third-class citizens or non-people
> in this country.)  And, of course, America wouldn't have been possible
> if American Indians had been kicked off their lands. It's because
> Indians were kicked off the lands that America went from a vast
> continent of nomadic savages to a united national state ruled by law
> and order. But, it was a sad story for the Indians who lost their way
> of life and their sacred ancestral lands. But, do we lose sleep night
> and day worrying about Indians? I don't think so.
>
> So, how much are black-related issues really about guilt? If Americans
> are so guilt-conscious, would they be as swept up in the Obama
> campaign if he were an American-Indian candidate? Or, a Chinese-
> American candidate whose ancestors worked on the railroad?  Or,
> Japanese-Americans whose ancestors were imprisoned during WWII?
> Somehow, I don't think so.  Though Americans treated Chinese-Americans
> miserably, 98% of Americans say they would not vote for a Chinese-
> American candidate--even if his ancestry in America goes back to the
> 19th century when the first Chinese arrived to toil on the railroad.
> Now, notice the excitement over Obama whose black ancestry isn't even
> American but purely African. So, Obama's black ancestors never
> experienced slavery under whites. Indeed, Obama's black African
> ancestors may have been slave-owners of fellow black Africans; Obama's
> black side of his ancestry never experienced American slavery under
> whites. If anything, his American side is entirely white and had owned
> slaves long ago; so, Obama is has slave-owners on both sides of his
> family--white slaveowners and African slave-owners.
> It would be fair to say that the people who suffered most in the US
> were American Indians. The majority of them were wiped out by disease.
> And, then their lands were taken from them from the whites. Though
> blacks were brought here as slaves, their ancestral homeland always
> belonged to blacks--even during the age of imperialism--and today
> black Africa is nearly all black, especially after brutally kicking
> out whites and Asian-Indians.  American Indians, on the other hand,
> really lost their homeland to other peoples. They ended up on
> reservations. They were mistreated. They're still some of the poorest
> people in this country--though recently casinos helped them some. But,
> do you hear much about American guilt over Indians? Would there have
> been such a wild excitement about an American-Indian president?
> Surely not.
>
> If white liberals are motivated by guilt, how come there isn't much
> emotional commitment to Chinese-Americans and American-Indians?
> American Jews suffered far less than Chinese-Americans and American-
> Indians, but far more Americans--96%--say they would vote for a Jewish-
> American candidate for president than a Chinese-American
> candidate(even one whose American ancestry goes back to the 19th
> century) or a American-Indian(who lived in the Americas 1000s of years
> before the arrival of whites).  The Holocaust wasn't committed by
> Americans. If anything, over 400,000 Americans died fighting the
> Nazis. (Jewish gratitude for this has been to compare white American
> treatment of blacks with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Notice that the
> Jewish-run media will not tolerate anyone comparing Israeli treatment
> of Palestinians with past American treatment of blacks.  Also, if
> anything was comparable with Nazi treatment of Jews, it was communist--
> often domianted by Jews--treatment of the 'class enemies'. But, we
> don't hear much of that from liberal-Jewish dominated PBS, NPR, and
> such ilk.) So, guilt is not the main motivating factor for white
> excitement for a black candidate.  After all, if guilt was such a
> motivating factor, why were most white Americans unwilling to vote a
> black guy for president in the past when there was greater reason for
> white guilt?  Surely, Americans had more reason to feel guilt in the
> 40s, 50s, and 60s than they do now. Back then, there were still racial
> discrimination or vestiges of it.
>
> It seems to me that the main factor for the wild support for Obama has
> more to do with fear than with guilt. But, admitting fear is far more
> difficult than professing guilt.  Expressing fear means that you're
> afraid, chicken, and cowardly. Or, it could mean you're paranoid,
> prejudiced, or hostile. Professing guilt implies that you still have
> control over your feelings and values. It also means that you're
> motivated by moral principles than by animal emotions--as in the case
> with fear. But, would there be such a desperate desire to have a black
> president if not for the fear of blacks? To be sure, it's fear mixed
> with guilt. (Whites want to embrace blacks and make amends but find
> many blacks fearsome and obnoxious. The white heart wants to love to
> negro but the white body wants to run from the negro... yet at the
> same time, it wants to put out to the studly negro.  Among white
> women, there is both the fear AND fantasy of black rape. One of the
> biggest hits among white girls was 'niggaz for luv' which was about a
> gang of blacks raping a white girl.)
> It's not just the presidency but in just about everything. White
> people try to put a 'model black' atop a pedestal, even above more
> qualified whites? Why?  One reason is the desire to show society that
> you're not 'racist'. You can say, 'see, I not only allowed a black guy
> into my club but put him above me. So, I'm no bigot'.  But, the bigger
> reason seems to be the hope that such a sterling 'role model' may goad
> all those not-so-nice blacks to start acting kind, decently, and not
> scare whitey.  In the past, the black role model has to be 'perfect'--
> a black guy who acted totally white. But, such is now considered
> 'uncle tom'-ish and culturally imperialist. So, the liberal concept of
> the ideal black guy is one who retains the black hipness and jivey
> coolness BUT smiles more than grimaces, shouts with joy more than
> hollers in rage. Will Smith is the archetype of this breed of the new
> negro.  At times, we allow him to get angry or lose it, but he always
> has a GOOD reason for his rage or fury; we want to convince ourselves
> that rage among good blacks is always righteous--and charismatically
> masterful.  And, once he's made his 'black power' gesture, he goes
> back to smiling at us. Obama is no less a Hollywood creation than Will
> Smith. If he didn't exist, he would have to be invented, which he, of
> course, was.
>
> The thing that worries most Americans is 'race'. But, 90% of racial
> worries involve blacks. The worries about Mexicans is more about
> culture and nationality than about race. Whites are not racially
> afraid or fascinated with Mexicans. Most white people see Mexicans as
> short, funny-looking, and decent people--when there aren't too many of
> them. Racially, whites don't feel threatened by Mexicans--unless their
> numbers are overwhelming--, and whites aren't fascinated by the
> Mexican style. Americans mostly like Mexican food. And, there isn't
> much racial problems with Asians or Arabs either. Arabs could be a
> cultural problem--like in Europe--, but Arabs--or Muslims of whatever
> kind--are mostly invisible in the US.   So, 'race' is really a code
> word for the Black Problem. There is a black problem because (1) there
> are many blacks and their numbers keep expanding (2) they are
> naturally stronger (3) they are naturally more aggressive, self-
> centered.   We might also add the fact that blacks are
> ...
>
> read more »
stockholm syndrome, especially in large metropolitan areas..
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]