In These Times

Latest Comments view all 24

• • 12 May 08
  • 10:39 am

  Wolf: Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)? In the case of Black folk, it's not an assumption. Barack Obama did NOT automatically get the Black vote. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite among Black folks when the campaign started. She lost that support through the behavior of her own campaign, and her decision to keep Mark Penn in a central role after his validation of Shaheen's 'drug dealer' smear and Kerrey's 'madrassa' smear. I hope …

  Posted to Acknowledging the Race Chasm

• • 12 May 08
  • 10:46 am

  whattheheck: While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side. Sorry...folks got tired of waiting for inclusion, so they made their own. And there are very few Black-oriented organizations that actually exclude white folks. What happens is people see "Black" or "African American" or "Negro" in the name and assume they can't participate (with the notable exception of BET). Historically, Black folks have wanted nothing more than inclusion.

  Posted to Acknowledging the Race Chasm

• • 13 May 08
  • 11:37 am

  Is there any doubt what would happen if someone were to start a White Entertainment Television channel? Do you have a complaint that hasn't been made and answered a couple of thousand times? I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color. Can you watch them without SEEING their skin color? Can you understand, given all the Black people whose skin tone is pink, that race isn't about skin color? Can you look at Bill Cosby and not know he's Black? OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn’t alter the effect. …

  Posted to Acknowledging the Race Chasm

• • 13 May 08
  • 11:43 am

  Oh... My only point is that we should NOT designate ANY racial listing which is inherently exclusive by title. Why put any of the ones you list in the name at all? It was the only way Black people knew they could participate in such when the organizations started. Context (particularly historical) helps a lot if you're trying to understand rather than just compel compliance. Books, programs or businesses should be able to stand on their performance alone. Should be. But can they? Their performance varies according to who uses them...audiences are as targeted now as they were in 1850. Not …

  Posted to Acknowledging the Race Chasm

• • 13 May 08
  • 2:15 pm

  Do you not think it is better to have an NBA rather than a BNBA? I think it's better not to invoke trivialities. But for the record, there were no Black players when the NBA started...and it was not necessary to put "white" in its name to make it so. True or not? As for organizations with Black, African or Afro American or Negro in their names, let's pick a real one, go back to its origin and see if there was any way to know Black people could participate in them without being informed by its name. And let's see …

  Posted to Acknowledging the Race Chasm