Barack’s own words make me think he’s the same way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk

Reply to this: comment | thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

Reply to this: comment | thread

Thanks, Sal, for posting the videos. I believe as you do about Barack himself, and I intend to delve deeper into this for a blog in the very near future.

Reply to this: comment | thread

You write:
“the Obama campaign, under pressure, ultimately gave in to Politico.com”
Politico has something rather different to say in the very article you link to:
“The Obama campaign, however, quickly responded to a request for the thesis by Politico.”

It doesn’t take much to see that the Stokely Carmichael quote that you cherry pick to support your assertion that her tone is “bitterly pro-segregation and racist” was used to to provide historical cultural context at the time most of her survey subjects came of age in the late 60s and early 70s. You may wish to sweep it under the carpet, but it is worth remembering that lynchings of blacks and violence against civil rights workers wasn’t that distant a memory in those times.

You repeatedly assert that she is segregationist, and by extension, racist, but fail to provide any evidence in that regard. You say:

  “Much to her chagrin, the results she obtained from her survey taken for the study were not what she had expected (or hoped for.) The Black alumni of Princeton who responded to the questionnaire did not overwhelmingly share her views on segregation. “

It’s true that her study didn’t lead in the direction she expected, but the result is that she reexamines her preconceptions, and formulates a proposes a new hypothesis for further study. It’s hard to see why someone would find fault with that kind of intellectual honesty, perhaps its just complete unfamiliarity with the concept?

As to what she’d hoped for?  Well, the first line of her introduction lays it out rather plainly:
  “The purpose of this study is to examine various attitudes of black Princeton alumni in their present state and as they are perceived to have changed over time.”  It seems to me that she fulfilled that hope.  Why do you think otherwise?

Beyond that, she seems like someone who earnestly wants to understand herself and her place in society.  She seems like someone who wants to do good, and who is concerned about raising more blacks out of poverty.  Why do you find it objectionable that a college senior in 1985 should care about such things?

How, exactly, do you think that her senior thesis, written more than two decades ago betrays a threat to civil rights progress made four decades ago?  Perhaps more interestingly, why do you worry about civil rights advances made four decades ago, without any concern for advances made since then?

I don’t think I agree that her thesis is a “must read for every voter,” but I do think that the country would be better off if the voters spent the time to at least read the introduction for themselves, rather than relying on biased interpreters to explain it.

Reply to this: comment | thread

First off, why don’t you think the thesis is a “must-read” for every voter? Why should they only read the introduction? Are you insulting the American voters’ intelligence and inferring they might not understand it? I agree, they shouldn’t rely on biased interpreters to explain it. And that’s exactly what those who listen to the mainstream media (MSM) do. They need to read the entire thesis themselves, not just the intro.

Why do I feel the progress made in civil rights in the ‘60s could be reversed? What I was getting at is that racial tensions have eased substantially since then. Isn’t there the possibility that these tensions could arise again if we have an administration that constantly brings up the issue of race? It seems that Mr. & Mrs. Obama don’t look at the voters as “Americans”, but rather in the context of “Black” or “White”.

Regarding Stokely Carmichael, she refers to him as a “leader”. If I were to write a paper on a white supremacist and call him simply a “leader” without using an adjective such as “violent”, you’d call me a racist. She could easily have referred to Carmichael as a “violent leader”. Instead, the feeling one gets is that she condones any means that would justify an end, including violence.

Reply to this: comment | thread