Comments from the Fray Editor
Two obvious themes dominated the threads: church--"Why is Hitchens singling Obama's church out for being "crackpot" when Hitchens is rabid in his belief that all churches are crackpot?" asked pwoxby—and race--lolacat wanted to know "Would this country elect a truly angry black man running for President?...Does Obama's race limit his rhetorical range?" Look for discussions of the exact status of the UCC here and here; and the question of race is all over, but we can recommend a good thread, and this post from renatam. And well done to aquaman for a novel line "I find myself drawn to Chris Hitchens much like I'm drawn to Holden Caulfield, he really gets at all the phonies out there."
Many of the items below are excerpts from longer posts, or part of extended, interesting threads--Arlington, for example, compares Obama with JFK to good effect—and the whole Fray is highly recommended.
Comments from the Fray
People are a lot more pragmatic about race these days than we used to be. We still have our prejudices, but we're not willing to dismiss a political candidate of another race because we've had so many neighbors, co-workers, etc. of other races and they proved to be just fine, better than some of the people we know who belong to our own race. We're trying to be cooler than we really are about Obama's race, pretending it doesn't matter. If we pretend effectively enough, maybe it won't matter.
--arlington
(To reply, click here)
This article disappointed me. I am a supporter of Obama, and I have been for several months. I am also white and gay; I attend a church in Dallas that has a congregation of primarily LGBT people, and its primary outreach is to those individuals. I propose that my church is then similar to Obama's. Does that make whatever I do or the leadership of my church do decidedly slanted toward a 'homosexual agenda'? If I were to run for president, I would certainly run as a homosexual (just as Obama is running as a black man) but that would not be all that I would be running as (neither is Obama). What Hitchens fails to grasp here is that there is a fundamental difference between embracing one's heritage and certain group of oppressed people (which can be liberating) and completely losing categories, groups, and differences.
—acrooswimmer
(To reply, click here)
Being black is simply too significant a factor in first impressions in American society to ignore, unfortunately for Obama's maternal relatives. And as any African American who has watched someone do a double take when they meet you after having spoken on the phone can tell you, assuming that one does not use a "black" accent, skin color overwhelms all consideration in this society. Although Asians of various descent, South Asian, Far Eastern, etc. can attest to similar experiences, thanks to the particular historical path of American history they simply don't have as high a hurdle to surmount.
--Q-Tip
(To reply, click here)
This election is, on a higher level, a war of competing mythos. We are electing a figurehead, someone who the majority of Americans believes (and this is an issue of faith, not reason or logic) reflects this nation as a whole…I believe Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Dickerson, Ms. Clinton, and most everyone else misses the point when they analyze this election from a basis of logic and reason. We're not looking for the candidate that makes logical sense, we're looking for a candidate we can put our faith in. And that makes all the difference in the world.
--Xaedalus
(To reply, click here)
(1/8)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: Obama Should Pay More Attention to India and Less to Pakistan
Would the World Be a Better Place If We All Acted More Like Churchill?
Dubai Assumes It's Too Big To Fail. It May Be Wrong.
The Only Good Way To Get Rid of Unused Prescription Drugs
The Fancy Vodka That's Making Great Ads About the Recession
Kid Won't Shut Up? Give Him Your iPhone.
Comments from the Fray Editor
Two obvious themes dominated the threads: church--"Why is Hitchens singling Obama's church out for being "crackpot" when Hitchens is rabid in his belief that all churches are crackpot?" asked pwoxby—and race--lolacat wanted to know "Would this country elect a truly angry black man running for President?...Does Obama's race limit his rhetorical range?" Look for discussions of the exact status of the UCC here and here; and the question of race is all over, but we can recommend a good thread, and this post from renatam. And well done to aquaman for a novel line "I find myself drawn to Chris Hitchens much like I'm drawn to Holden Caulfield, he really gets at all the phonies out there."
Many of the items below are excerpts from longer posts, or part of extended, interesting threads--Arlington, for example, compares Obama with JFK to good effect—and the whole Fray is highly recommended.
Comments from the Fray
People are a lot more pragmatic about race these days than we used to be. We still have our prejudices, but we're not willing to dismiss a political candidate of another race because we've had so many neighbors, co-workers, etc. of other races and they proved to be just fine, better than some of the people we know who belong to our own race. We're trying to be cooler than we really are about Obama's race, pretending it doesn't matter. If we pretend effectively enough, maybe it won't matter.
--arlington
(To reply, click here)
This article disappointed me. I am a supporter of Obama, and I have been for several months. I am also white and gay; I attend a church in Dallas that has a congregation of primarily LGBT people, and its primary outreach is to those individuals. I propose that my church is then similar to Obama's. Does that make whatever I do or the leadership of my church do decidedly slanted toward a 'homosexual agenda'? If I were to run for president, I would certainly run as a homosexual (just as Obama is running as a black man) but that would not be all that I would be running as (neither is Obama). What Hitchens fails to grasp here is that there is a fundamental difference between embracing one's heritage and certain group of oppressed people (which can be liberating) and completely losing categories, groups, and differences.
—acrooswimmer
(To reply, click here)
Being black is simply too significant a factor in first impressions in American society to ignore, unfortunately for Obama's maternal relatives. And as any African American who has watched someone do a double take when they meet you after having spoken on the phone can tell you, assuming that one does not use a "black" accent, skin color overwhelms all consideration in this society. Although Asians of various descent, South Asian, Far Eastern, etc. can attest to similar experiences, thanks to the particular historical path of American history they simply don't have as high a hurdle to surmount.
--Q-Tip
(To reply, click here)
This election is, on a higher level, a war of competing mythos. We are electing a figurehead, someone who the majority of Americans believes (and this is an issue of faith, not reason or logic) reflects this nation as a whole…I believe Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Dickerson, Ms. Clinton, and most everyone else misses the point when they analyze this election from a basis of logic and reason. We're not looking for the candidate that makes logical sense, we're looking for a candidate we can put our faith in. And that makes all the difference in the world.
--Xaedalus
(To reply, click here)
(1/8)