Hacker News Reader

Comment by flexie | Hacker News Reader

I think he will be mentioned on the same page as Warren Harding.

And also again in the chapter about notable African Americans. Let's not forget that getting elected president as the first African American is an achievement in itself, and one which I believe benefits the African American community, even if Obama's performance as a president doesn't live up to our initial hopes.

View on HN

Yeah but he hasn't done fuck all for all those people who are persecuted because they are black in America. Look at the prison system and the way drug cases are prosecuted. In fact just watch this TED talk - this black president is for the 65 year old white corporate executive more than anyone:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_abo...

One would argue it was the only way a black person could be elected US President: by being whiter inside than white old men. Someone threatening like Jesse Jackson never stood a real chance; in fact, giving the electoral system, no real reformer will ever have a chance: old white people from rural states are overwhelmingly over-represented, the game is rigged in their favour.

It's like the football/soccer rule-changing committee being structured in a way that nobody can change anything if British federations don't agree.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- Guess Who

Was that from "American Woman" or "These Eyes"?

>being whiter inside than white old men

>Someone threatening like Jesse Jackson

Be careful of this kind of talk. I understand and probably agree with what you probably mean to say, but reifying whiteness as some sort of meaningful quality of the soul, and by contrast characterizing blackness as "threatening" is not a good way to think about it.

You're using "white" and "black" here as stand-ins for something else. It's easier for everyone if you just refer to the actual qualities that you intend to refer to, rather than implying that there's a proper ways for people to behave or be that are appropriate or inappropriate in relation to their skin colors.

sorry:)

sorry, I apologise if I wasn't clear. By "whiter inside" I meant "unquestioningly faithful to institutions and systems that purposely (an occasionally violently) discriminate not-whites, not-rich and not-Americans". Which I think fits the current US President quite well at the moment, regardless of his skin.

>One would argue that was the only way a black person could be elected US President:by being whiter inside than old white men.<

Can you explain how exactly one acts "white"? Are you suggesting being educated and well-spoken are inherently white characteristics?

No, "acting white" is about unquestioningly serving a system that purposely discriminates non-whites.

I believe this sort of language had been debated to death, btw.

Thank you for the link. I am not African American (neither African nor American) but when I lived in America it always struck me how racially divided the country still is, even in New York, and how poor many African Americans are.

What do you suggest he do? He cannot even close Gitmo, real reform of the prison system requires buy in from Congress. About the only thing they were able to squeak through was reducing the penalty gap in mandatory sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine. Then the GOP took control of the House and any further legislation seen as being soft on [non white collar] crime have nearly a 0% chance of passing.

Health reform alone will land him in a nice place in the history books. Even against the immutable recalcitrance of congressional republicans he has managed to accomplish a lot.

I think most people don't recognize how accomplished Obama is because 1) the rapid news cycle and 2) Obama himself doesn't run around telling everybody what he's done.

I don't like this NSA crap either, but overall Obama is an amazing president.

You mean amazingly.bad right?

You certainly have a strong point, Democrats have been trying to accomplish this since Harry Truman right after WWII, and e.g. Hillary! infamously botched it.

On the other hand, that chicken is not yet hatched, e.g. while it's been airbrushed out of Wikipedia, look at the single thing Dan Rostenkowski is most remebered for: https://www.google.com/search?q=dan+rostenkowski+angry+senio...

And e.g. if Obama's "trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see" cause a fiscal collapse of the Federal government including Obamacare, Obamacare will be a footnote aside from explaining why he focused on it as opposed to the fiscal health of the government like Clinton did.

Yes there are still ways for the law to be hurt, beyond Republicans pointlessly voting to repeal it 40 times. Long story short however, the law will survive mostly in tact, which is definitely for the better in my opinion.

By the way, the federal deficit under Obama has gone down.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+deficit+last+ten+yea...

The "reckless spending" thing is just another example of the style of politics that republican politicians are good at. You'll notice, for example, that "spending" wasn't an issue until Obama was president. And if anything, there hasn't been enough spending for the sake of the economy.

Please don't move the goalposts. While they're of course inextricably linked, I'm talking about the issue of "reckless borrowing", i.e. that stuff we have to pay interest on.

And I don't care so much how they're trending down as how they're still above a trillion dollars. By the same token, should we give Bush and the Republican Congress credit for reducing deficits 2005-7? With 2007 still above 2002..?

As for spending, debt etc. being an issue, while it certainly matters what "Republican politicians" say and do, "conservatives" and libertarians have been raising as big a fuss about it as we can since the days of Nixon, and I gather longer (I became politically aware during his Administration so I can only vouch for it starting then).

Isn't that a bit patronizing? It doesn't matter if he sucks at his job, because being black and doing it is accomplishment enough? I know this is what some people actually believe, but it just sounds racist to me.

If you put it in those terms, yes. But you are the one who put it in those terms. No one said a black president has lower standards for the job, they said it was notable that a person from a community who has been historically marginalized by American society reached the highest office in the country by winning a majority vote.

No, it's the opposite of racist. I am saying that it is such an acomplishment to be voted president of the US as an African American and that it will inspire other African Americans irrespective of how he actually performs.

On a side note: You should't accuse people of racism or other terrible character traits unless you are sure about it.

He's not really an African-American in the strongest sense of this term, he doesn't have black American ancestors who lived through slavery, or even the civil rights movement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com