Hacker News Reader

Comment by david927 | Hacker News Reader

I don't even think about President Elect Obama being black, and I'm shocked that people factor it in to his message of hope, as if that's partly what it's about: that a black man can be president. It's nothing of the sort.

What inspires me is that he'll actually change things. Nearly all politicians will give lots of lips service to lots of things and in the end keep everything the same. I (and many others) strongly believe he's different.

That's why people are in the streets. That's why they are excited. That's why this is big.

It's not about the color of his skin but the content of his character.

View on HN

That needs to be considered in the context of this nation's history.

Slavery, lynchings, poll taxes, segregation. It wasn't until the 1960s that African Americans had a real right to vote.

The election of a black man President of the United States of America is a momentous moment.

real social progress will be when the presidents color is of no concern.

yes, but that will be history of social progress at that point...this is progress in the making ;)

I'm saying that the nation giving itself a collective pat on the back for being so open minded isn't progress at all. it is an impediment to real progress.

I think I understand what your saying, but we do need to celebrate ours victories along the way. I don't think anyone that is pushing for meaningful change thinks the job is done.

Obama's win was hard fought. Despite how electoral math works, I do not consider his victory a landslide. The popular vote spread is around 6 points. That is not a big margin.

I am from south Georgia. I know black-white racism all too well. Despite the fact that Georgia went to McCain, this was an historic win and I think it should be celebrated and the momentum should continue.

I agree with you completely. The focus on race in this election is preposterous, and it shows that racism isn't dead, it's just more benign than ever.

I thought that the big deal here was that we see Obama as a politician, not a "black politician." But it seems that many people have yet to get beyond this point. That being said, and as another commenter mentioned, there's a difference between voting based on race and appreciating the historical significance of a minority, let alone a black man, holding office in America. And contrasted with this nation's history, that is remarkable.

in an idealistic view of things, i agree with you. but if he never changes a thing (which i hope he does) he will already have changed the history and promise of this country.

From the Guardian:

Inevitably, Wednesday's headlines were all about Obama's skin colour and the historic milestone of the first black presidency. For the United States and the rest of the world, that is a fact of huge symbolic importance, but it is the least of Obama's true credentials. What America has succeeded in doing, against all the odds, and why we cried when it happened, is to elect the most intelligent, canny and imaginative candidate to the presidential office in modern times - someone who'll bring to the White House an extraordinary clarity of thought and temperate judgment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/08/obama-ra...

Each person sees and hears what he wants, I suppose.

Whether you think about it or not, Obama's skin color is of great importance to many Americans, particularly black Americans. It isn't important to me, but I don't see any reason to deny it or minimize it either.

Just because that's how it should be doesn't mean that's how it is.

To me, Obama is better than black. He is black AND white. That represents more the true value of american society.

To me, Obama is a half-black half-white, non-practicing Muslim - not that I think him any lesser for it. When a fully black or fully devout Muslim candidate wins the election, that would be very interesting. It is not fitting to congratulate Obama on the race card just because he's different to his predecessors.

Where by "non-practicing Muslim" you mean "Christian."

Not really. More specifically, I'd say a "non-practicing Muslim, practicing as a Christian." Or rather, now he is apparently practicing as a Christian, and was thus previously for 20 years via Pastor Wright whilst also being a Muslim Apostate.

I take my viewpoint whereby just as Jews are said to receive there religious status through the mother (whether they like it or not) Muslims are said to receive it through the father. As an analogy: Michael Jackson may look white .... but he started off black. He may or may not be in denial about this fact, just as his fans may or may not acknowledge it too.

Some here on this forum may have been misled or duped (either willingly or via manipulation) on the notions now discussed.

"In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama's present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named "Hussein" began life a Muslim. Should Obama become president, differences in Muslim and American views of religious affiliation will create problems."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0808/pipes082508.php3

Except that he's explicitly Christian, not Muslim.

I liked Colin Powells take on that one:

"I'm also troubled by not what senator McCain says, but what members of the party say - and it is permitted to be said - such things as "you know that Obama is a muslim". The correct answer is that he's not a muslim, he's a christian, he's always been a christian. But the reallyright answer is: what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? The answer is no. That is not America. Is there something wrong with some 7 year old muslim american kid believing he or she can be president?"

I think it more likely that Americans would elect a Muslim than an atheist. We still have a long ways to go in overcoming our prejudices.

Explicitly a Reverend Wright 'God Damn America' type Christianity, who Obama has since distanced himself, and if so, does that mean Obama is still a Christian, or did that go when he distanced himself from Wright?

As an atheist, I find Jeremiah Wright no fundamentally different than John Hagee, for one example. Pastors say controversial things to rile up a crowd - it's part of their job. Further, his comments are biblically defensible in the context of Jeremiah, Joel and other prophets who decried the treatment of the "widow and the orphan."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135385 for the underreported Hagee controversy.

Really? I thought he was Muslim (not that I follow politics). Him being Christian is just downright boring.

How do you figure he is a non-practicing Muslim?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim...

Obama is not responsible for the change in mainstream american views on race, but he is commendable for how he has (mostly not) approached race as a political topic in his campaign.

Others have already said it, but to quote Mr. Obama directly: "As a starting point, it means I believe in [sic] that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him."

http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-...

This would carry more weight with me if he weren't a politician. Let's hope he practices what he preaches.

Wow, for an apparently worthless comment, it sure has generated a lot of discussion!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com