Christian Schneider Weighs In
So congratulations to the Democrats - but remember things are cyclical. Enjoy this historic moment. (Incidentally, I know this election was “historic” because all the cable news stations were telling me OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER. Has there been any presidential election that wasn’t historic? Are there textbooks that have holes in their timelines during the Chester A. Arthur years?)
This morning I woke up to someone on the news (I think it was CNN radio) intoning that “Americans will remember where they were last night when history was made” (not an exact quote, put this is pretty close to what I recall).
I remember where I was when Kennedy was shot, but hopefully I will live long enough that this election won’t seem any different than all of the others - at some future time, it will probably be like what I remember about the elections from 1972-2004: trying to stay awake long enough to hear some results & commentary before calling it a night and going to bed.
Sometimes the media is too full of themselves - oh well, wait until after January 2009 when they need to make the news interesting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2008 at 1217 hrs
That parenthetical remark is more than a little snotty. Anyone who doesn’t appreciate the actual—really!—historic nature of Obama’s victory has some serious blinders on. The media are reporting it that way? Well, gee, I wonder why?!
Posted by scott on November 05, 2008 at 1218 hrs
What’s historic about it? If its the fact that a black man won, then are we judging this election by the color of someone’s skin or by the content of their character?
Posted by Matt on November 05, 2008 at 1355 hrs
What’s historic about it? If its the fact that a black man won, then are we judging this election by the color of someone’s skin or by the content of their character?
Yes, it is the fact that a black man won. But I don’t know exactly what you mean by “judging” the election by it. You seem to be of the opinion that recognizing the importance and historic nature of his candidacy and victory amounts to de facto racism. This is of course nonsense. I’m sorry if it pisses you off that people are talking about it, but you really can’t go around calling such people racists.
Posted by scott on November 05, 2008 at 1405 hrs
No high school has taught about Chester A. Arthur in at least 20 years, actually.
Posted by HeatherRadish on November 05, 2008 at 1406 hrs
This election is obviously more historic than most. Christian Schneider’s point is idiotic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2008 at 1413 hrs
Yes scott but what is more historic is that for the first time in the history of the country a whole demographic admitted that they are racist to the core and proud of it. When you hear the interviews about people that voted for the one not just because of the amprphic change mantra but rather because he was black, it defines racism. They did not vote for McCain because they disagreed with him but rather because of the color of his skin. Kind of sad to see that while I would not vote for the one because I fear an underdefined change or possibly change for the sake of change, the other side mobilised masses that voted for him because he was not white. Funny that you project what you are on others. Race was a factor in this election but unfortunately the only ones that won were the racists.
I will quantify this by saying that I know you scott going way back and I would not consider you among the racist group just like I would not paint many here with such a broad brush. I just find it interesting that nobody attacked the one because he was black and yet the other side constantly reported, accused, and harried the country that to not vote for him would prove racism. I also find it interesting how often the plight of the black person was brought up in interviews or how he understood the black plight because of his color. I have a feeling no one will remember how the Palins were treated if the Dems front a woman next time.
Posted by fishaddict on November 05, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Would we be hearing the same sardonic musings if McCain/Palin had won and the historic nature of the first female vice-president were being extolled?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2008 at 1528 hrs
apc: yes, I expect so. But i think race relations is an even hotter issue than sexism, so perhaps it would not be quite as much. Also, she’d be the vice president, not the president, so perhaps that would take it down a notch as well. Generally speaking, however, yes—you would be hearing about the historic nature of it. The media was saying as much for the last week: one way or another, it’ll be historic. Did you not hear these kind of statements?
fishaddict, there are so many things I disagree with in your previous remarks that I don’t know where to start. Perhaps I’ll just limit myself to saying that this:
nobody attacked the one because he was black and yet the other side constantly reported, accused, and harried the country that to not vote for him would prove racism.
is simply not true. It’s not an accurate characterization of either side.
Posted by scott on November 05, 2008 at 1532 hrs
Wow, lighten up a little. Of course I recognize how historic Obama’s election is. Just two days ago, I wrote:
Also, I’m not an idiot, so I obviously recognize the historic importance of what we’re about to do. Electing a half-African American man as President isn’t something I ever thought I’d see in my lifetime, and it signals a great deal of progress.
It’s just that everyone already knows it’s historic, and it seems just a little condescending for the cable news stations to keep saying it over and over - as if we’re all idiots.
Posted by Christian Schneider on November 05, 2008 at 1537 hrs
Heh. Television insulting people’s intelligence? No way!
Posted by scott on November 05, 2008 at 1540 hrs
I question that any of the mainstream attacked him because of his color. Many have raised questions about Muslim ties early on but those were shot down early on as well. The crackpot fringe does not count because as many have stated here and elsewhere they are the crackpot fringe. I have seen lit on the web but when you look at the source you have to ask are they on the same level as say a Jesse Jackson? Not too many KKK grand Dragons or whatever they are called are made guest commentators on CNN. When something with the profile of the Times or Newsweek has a headline saying that he should not be elected because he is black then I will agree with you. The fact that both the Times and Newsweek as well as many prominent members of govt. and the national community had headlines and made statements asking if and claiming that America is too racist to elect a black man tells a different story. Couple that with Michelle making statements like the black community will vote for barrack because they get each other. They come from the same place and share the same soul. Wow, can you imagine if someone, anyone much less his wife, came on MSNBC like that and said that whites should vote for McCain because he is white and understands where they come from and they share the same soul?
I won’t call it spin but rather a different view on things. I see racism not in the white world or the black world as much as in the minds and hearts of those that claim to be the victims. I see racism in the folks that view the Black Panthers outside the polling place to be silly and stupid but see the requirement to prove who you are when you vote as suppression. I see racism in the people that can watch a student with a 4.0GPA, hundreds of hours of sacrifice to community service, and numerous letters of recommendation get put on a waiting list for a school they want to get in and can succeed in so that the school can spend millions begging the proper minorities to attend.
I see the world as needing to be color blind so that anyone with the determination, drive, experience, and love for what they do can succeed rather than a need to meet an arbitrary number of people divided by race. I view people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.
Posted by fishaddict on November 05, 2008 at 1614 hrs
Sorry, Christian. I wasn’t familiar with your other stuff. I stand chastened and corrected for using the somewhat pejorative sardonic to describe your take.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2008 at 1641 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134029
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 03:59 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 04:59 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).