Racism:

Is the NAACP a racist organization? From the point of view that they are dedicated to the advancement of one race, arguably yes. That doesn't mean their purpose isn't a good one, though. It also doesn't mean that a lot of their activities are politcally motivated and not as altruistic as they could, or should be.

Are people who follow (or refuse to follow) Obama based on race not thinking properly? Arguably yes.

Is this racism? From what I read in every dictionary, I would say no.

Is the sole purpose of this thread to stir the pot and start trouble? Looks that way to me.

While your interpretation of racism leaves something to be desired in this context, I will agree that the original poster was certainly attempting to "stir the pot" as it were.

But I find it disturbing that a 90%+ approval rating, unprecedented amongst any cultural group in at least modern US politics is apparently deemed to be too controversial for discussion here. Honestly, despite the OP's intent, I find this to be, in the least, extraordinarily fascinating.

There is indeed an apparent racial element here that should be explored. Why we are afraid to explore it and discuss it here for reason of inflammation is precisely what is wrong with the race politics of this country today.

The so-called "black community" loves to express itself as the "black community" and benefit from being the "black community", but it continuously positions itself as immune from criticism towards the "black community" on the grounds that it is the "black community". If the "black community" is indeed supposed to be exempted from said criticism than it would follow that there is a reason for that exemption. As that would be an exemption in and of itself, it would follow that they would be in a superior position to anyone who doesn't qualify for said exemption. Hence, racism.

I suppose would could ignore all of that logic, but really? We're going to play that game? Turn it around and make it whites attempting the same thing. Would that not be discussed?

I agree it can be discussed (I almost said "should", but I'm not convinced of the necessity). I just question the motives of many who say they "just want to talk about it".

I don't know - I think the dictionary agrees with me on this one. Again, I agree that there do seem to be race-based motivations, but it also sounds like the accusation during the election that "many are voting for him based on race", to which the only honest answer was that the opposite is also true - many voted against him for that same reason. I have a bad habit of questioning the motivations of anyone who says things like that, because there is always a suspicion that, while there is some truth there, many of the accusers want it to be true, if for no other reason than that they can feel superior and 'right'. And of course that brings up the question of their motivations.

They don't call them "hot button" issues for nothin'.

yes do tell.Was it bloody? lol

Thats because it is a different english language.
Words that are considered vulgar or offensive on british TV are used on broadcast over here on the news reports and on childrens TV shows.
On the same vein that was posted about the US broadcasters allowing the word bollox to be used as they didn't know what it meant there are cases where they have banned the word "feic" because they thought it was something else which is also different to the word "****" which the British broadcasters used when they made father ted.

edit....wow this forum thinks **** is swearing too

LOL This thread still going on?

IMO

To assume that everyone who approves of Obama is racist or not racist based on there skin colour is kinda racist in its self (though its more retarded than anything else)

However, aknowledging that are some blacks like Obama because he is black and some whites dislike him because he is not white, is not racist or judgmental because it is bound to be a fact! There will be quite a few out there who are that way inclined.

It just gets moronic when you start making assumptions about ALL black/white people, based on there like/dislike for Obama ...or the Republicans.... or baseball ...or fried chicken ...or whatever.
Everyone is bloody indervidual ffs, they can like or dislike something or someone for any number of reasons.

And all survey statistic are bull crap anyway as they just based on probabilty and assumption.

Good point. I don't like to think of it as racism, it's more of an ethnocentric issue, say, race-favoritism. I wish people would loosen up a little and agree it's not a deadly sin to admit favoring their own race, in non-harmful ways. It's why 90% of blacks support Obama, they want to support one of their own. It's how OJ got turned loose. It's why every decent white boxer is hyped and supported out of proportion to his skill set. It's why a good white defensive back (rarer than unicorns) would be front page SI material.

Every one is terrified of being labeled the next Hitler if they admit they prefer one race over another. It doesn't mean you wish harm or substantial advantage over other races. People like what they like. And most people like their own race/ethnicity. It's no crime to be honest about it.

I'm afraid that this is a sugar coat to racism. I will liken it to illegals but use undocumented immigrants to describe illegals. No matter how you cut it, they are still illegal. If you are favoring a particular race then you are displaying a racial disparity.

These are excellent points you make, Neal. Is preferring someone from your own race racist? Is bias wrong?

You're right, people like what they like. I don't believe that is necessarily wrong or even a bad thing.

Now, I also agree with AVG's point. So back to my question in that earlier post. Is racism always wrong? In the sense that I've been referring to as racism (what you correctly called race-favoritism) at least, perhaps it isn't always wrong.

On the other hand, that begs a larger question about the black community - why are they clearly more focused on the ethnicity of the man in office than the policies the man represents? I always found no small irony in that the black community is so heavily Democratic to begin with despite the fact that they are typically more socially conservative than most. But all of that substance and nuance is overlooked in the face of skin color which is, pun intended, skin-deep.

Okay, perhaps "racist" is a poor label - but doesn't this represent SOMETHING at all about the black community? Surely this is an extraordinary statistic - and for the life of me I can't find anything good out of it.

Well I kind of agree with AVG here but theres a catch,

Sure, I guess the trouble is that if you prefer your own race even to the smallest degree, there is a very fine line between 'preference' and 'superiority' meaning that if you prefer you own race, you automatially dont value other races equally..... which is technically mild racism (like it or not.)

But while racial preference is still racism, its just how alot of people are wired all over ther world.
human beings tend to be 'pack animals' who like to identify with a large group / nationality /race / team / whatever, its more empowering than being a mere indervidual.
Thats just human nature and the fact is that its just not reasonable to expect people to cast aside their (reletively harmless) pride for the sake of political correctness.