Headline: "To many whites, race still matters."
Accordng to exit polls, Barack Obama got 90% of the black vote in Kentucky, while Hillary Clinton got 72% of the white vote. Yet it is the whites who vote for Hillary, not the blacks who vote for Obama, who are subjected to this news-feature scrutiny and the not-so-subtle imputation of bigotry.
When blacks show such a decided preference for a black candidate, is that just taken for granted? Is there no term to describe it?
Blacks are not voting for Barack in spite of Hillary's skin color.
ReplyDeleteWhites are voting for Hillary in spite of Barack's skin color.
I am not saying I disagree with your assessment that the coverage is unfair. Both are forms of racism.
Robert: I found the following on the net at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mexica-movement.org/
whatisracism.htm
It clearly outlines the twisted logic of how whites are racists while non-whites aren't. It's all dependant upon the subjective use of semantics, not on fact or reason. (oops! there I go again thinking like a white Westerner... damn those Greeks with their logic and reason.) So, I am guilty because some historial European--Hitler, King George, or Pierre the caveman living at Lascaux--thought that he was superior to some non-European. Right....
"Racism is defined as: the belief that one "racial group" is superior to another [We Nican Tlaca, the Indigenous people of this continent do not consider ourselves superior or inferior to Europeans. Europeans on the other hand have historically claimed to be superior to all non-white people];
It also refers to the racist practices of the self-proclaimed superior group to maintain its control, usually colonial, over those that they see as the inferior group. Racism is often defined as a combination of the power of controlling the society of those it considers inferior [We Nican Tlaca do not control European colonials on our continent],
and discrimination to keep the "inferiors" from power or wealth
[We Nican Tlaca are not keeping "whites" from power or wealth]."