₦airaland Forum

Uche2nna:
A quick question tho,

Was Reid echoing his own feelings or was he talking about the feelings of a majority of the electorate?

Reid's words were regrettable but it was devoid of malice. Compare that to what Clinton said when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama and U will see a huge difference.

I don't know what is in the man's heart per say (none of us do about anyone unless their actions prove otherwise), but that he felt that White society would be more accepting of Obama because he possessed those qualities. That is what I meant by saying he also felt that way.

I am not saying that anyone's statements are no worse or better than the other. I am not really trying to qualify them.

cold:
But then again it is not only Reid that has made allusions to light skinned blacks being more acceptable to 'white skinned' Americans.Colin Powell also admitted that the reason he rose thru the ranks in the white house was bcuz he didn't speak lyk the average negro & in his own words-'i aint that black'.

I don't think anyone is saying that Reid is the only one who actually thinks that is the case, many in American society do as well. All Harry Reid did was to confirm that he also felt that way as well. With others, you don't know.

Negro_Ntns:
Lazy, thanks for clarifying your position. I disagree that the underlying factors for Obama victory was obvious. If it was he would not have won the white house. The journey had to be shrouded using mainstream media's help. Just because you understand it does not mean everyone else out there did.

Well you might be right, most ppl are not good observers.

JeSoul:
I think that is infact what he is arguing . . . right Lazy?

@JeSoul You are right that I am saying it is a Double Standard and I was just saying the reason why is that the "leaders" have tied themselves to the Democratic party because they feel that is in the best interest for what they represent.

Now, I disagree with that and just say that it is the more like the Democratic party is in the best interest for Themselves. I feel that one should be party neutral and really focus on the issue/issues at hand period. To me this just shows a double standard and bias.

Negro_Ntns:
lazy,

. . .doesn that then constitute a double standard, a selective tolerance to racial infractions?  If that's the case, then its not Reid who is in the wrong. . .its the collective Black voices who are shielding him from censure.  

Mark my word, this episode will come in future to mock Blacks.  Obama said Reid was praising him.  Not only that. . .Reid, with this statement has vindicated the conspiracy theorists who all along had maintained that the mainstream was allowing in Obama what they would not allow in Sharpton or Jackson because he Obama had no legacy right to demand any political reimbursement from America because he did not rise out of that slave legacy. Blacks generally in the nation are now awakening to that truth but not comfortable admitting it.

I don't disagree with you and praise, as Obama put it, is really the wrong word if you can praise someone by saying they are "lightskinned" and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect. It is going back to the theory that the closer "European" you are is better than African weather it is looks, culture, etc.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that Obama had many things that allowed him to be more acceptable to mainstream.

I was just stating the obvious and the double standard that exist because the "leaders" have tied their bed to Democrats and that provides a base of power, money, influence for them as they see it.

Uche2nna:
True.

However, the difference is that a republican will not make those remarks with the intention of highlighting Obama's political appeal.

Reid showed poor judgement with very poor choice of words; however his intentions was to highlight why Obama will be accepted by mainstream America even tho he is black.

You are right that he was trying to highlight why he would be accepted but I don't know if it was a poor choice of words because what other kind of words he could have used say what he did. I am going to try and say what he did in a very Politically Correct Way:

Obama has a good chance because he has a lighter complexion among AAs and he doesn't use African American Vernacular English unless he wants to.

I even think that would still have caused an uproar.

Negro_Ntns:
Why do Blacks always have to be the ones that yield their collective interest to others?  If you wonder why I am a foot soldier for Black cause that's the reason. . .I oppose our default mentality.

They don't have to, They just do because the ppl who are "leaders" feel the collective interest is best served in supporting Democrats. I am not saying it is right but that is the truth as I see it.
Now we all know if a Republican said the same thing folk would be screaming in the streets! LOL!

agathamari:
^^^^ then if a mixed person cannot be described by a race then why are people like obama, hallie barry, tiger woods described as black? they are mixed are they not?  the idea of race is manmade.


take your adverage nigerian.  youruba is thier ethnicity, nigerian is thier nationality (can also be ethnicity) black is thier race
                                                mayan is the ethnicity, peruvian is thier nationaliy (can be ethnicity) and hispanic/latino is thier race

You really lost me again?

The Mayan civilization is not in Peru?? That was the Incas?  Since you brought up Peru, here is the actual break down in Racial Demographics in Peru:

Peru's racial structure can be classified as 45% Amerindian, 37% mestizo (mixed Amerindian and European), 15% White, and 3% African, Japanese, Chinese, and other.

Amerindian =  term for Native Americans

The country is mostly populated by Native Americans and people mixed with European and Native American

I don't see any Hispanic/Latino there. Those terms are used in the States as an Ethnic grouping for people that come from Spanish Speaking Countries, no matter what your "Race" is.

Here is another Afro-Cuban that is signing a deal with the Reds to pitch for them, His name is: Albertin Aroldis Chapman de la Cruz

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/sports/baseball/12chapman.html

agathamari:
La·ti·no n:  Latino, the male form, or Latina, the female, are general terms for people from any of the Latin-American or Spanish-speaking countries, or of Latin descent.
His·pan·ic adj. 1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.

yes latino can be MIXED as can a black, white, oriental, asian, pacific islander, native american,

I am not following?? If a White person is mixed then how are they White and not mixed?? and you can put that same sentence with all the categories (Black, etc) you stated.

Ethnic Group Definition: An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness.

Race Group Definition: The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. The physical features commonly seen as indicating race are salient visual traits such as skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture.


You are stating Latino as a Race which it is not, per the definition you just offered up it says it is an Ethnic group.

agathamari:
cuba cuba is a latino country like puerto rico

Latino is not a Racial group but an ethnic group.

Latino's can be Black, White, Native American, Mixed Raced, etc,

Laz Alonso is an Afro-Cuban Actor: http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/files/2009/08/laz-alonso.jpg

@Superego

Loved the document provided? Is that your work?

ezeagu:
Could you explain what you meant please? I don't know the point you were trying to get across.

I was just saying that the idea of a linkage with Slavery sounded interesting and I really had no idea if is could have some validity or not.

It is true that the African Diaspora ( decendants of enslaved Africans in the Western Hemisphere) are not normally seen taking part in much water sports. However, that mere observation really isn't anything concrete.

I am just enjoying seeing what information is brought up in this thread.

That is an interesting hypothesis? I have no idea,

adconline:
@Lazy

In the context of this discussion, she is myopic in  her view of Africa since there is no evidence to show an entire continent was happy when their fellow brothers and sisters were called refugee in their country. Its myopic to infer that knowing a handful of "Africans"  qualifies you to think that All Africans are alike. Its myopic to think that Africa is a homogenous society. Its myopic to say that " Africans" don't love African Americans- that's why they rejoiced when African Americans were struck with natural disaster. Its myopic to think that Africans glorify at the peril of AA's

If that is the context, then I absolutely agree with you.

adconline:
_{Alot Africans had the audacity to laugh at the african americans who were victims of hurricane katrina and say they were lazy and waited on the government to help them}

Another myopic view of Africa.  You sound like Sarah Palin who does not know that Africa is a continent. Africa also has Caucasians and Arabs- so what's their connection with Katrina? Knowing a handful of folks who seem "African" should not be a parameter for judging a continent of about 800million peoples .

I honestly don't think the person was having a myopic view but really didn't express themselves correctly. For instance, there are many different groups of people that live all over the world. There are minority groups of people on every continent(all 7, 6, or 5 continents depending on which nation-state you went to school). However when describing a group of people, individuals refer to the majority in that location. When specifying the minority they will place something in front of it. I am not saying it is correct but it is just the reality

An example is what just happened in India. I know you might have heard of the Jewish Center there and that people died there, Obviously, there were Jewish people living there and having kids there etc, Would you refer to them as Indians probably not ,

davidylan:
sistawoman, this is as shortsighted as the woman who demanded an "oyinbo" doctor. Without the oyinbo man would you even have anything like the dollar? What if whites chose to spend their own dollar only within their communities, would you not be the same ones yelling "racism"?

For the most part, they do. They just don't broadcast it on forums.