Obama makes reference to the "typical white person."

His wife is very radical compared to Obama himself. Don't think that a first lady doesn't carry a certain level of power in the Whitehouse. (Hello... Hillary!)

Thats exactly the point I have been trying to make since this Pastor thing first broke. I don't think Obama himself is this way, but his wife (who we can assume is the closest person to him), his pastor (who is also very close to him) seem to very quite radical and quite the opposite of what Obama appears to be.

Once again, I know he's not responsible for his wife's statements, but something just doesn't jibe.
 
I think then...and I can only speak for myself, the concern is that when you have two very close and radically opinioned people in your life, some of their views would reasonably influence yours. He (Obama) admits his Pastor has been his mentor, friend, and advisor for 20 years. I am sure his wife carries as much if not more influence. Sure, Obama is his own man, so I will give him some credit, but certainly a red flag has been raised.
 
I think then...and I can only speak for myself, the concern is that when you have two very close and radically opinioned people in your life, some of their views would reasonably influence yours. He (Obama) admits his Pastor has been his mentor, friend, and advisor for 20 years. I am sure his wife carries as much if not more influence. Sure, Obama is his own man, so I will give him some credit, but certainly a red flag has been raised.

My wife was sayng similar to that. There will be people that have his ear. You know his wife will and I'm certain his nutso pastor will as well as others. I was watching the news two nights ago and it had a tape of Obama speaking at some metting (not sure what it was, other than to a black crowd). The news didn't talk about it but my wife and I both looked at each other at the same time. He sounded like I had never heard before. He was cutting off the ends of his words, sluring a bit, not his usual eloquent self. Drunk? No don't think so. Then I did some searching and found that I am late to the dance on this. There is even a parody song about him sounding different when he talks to certain groups of people. He just seems to say (and sound) what people want to hear. I still have yet to see much from him other than just promises. I just don't think he has what it takes to unite our nation and change the things that need to be changed. I won't be voting for him.
 
The government made you black dude. I blame the government.

the govt. invented color. It was a conspiracy. Before they did this, we were all mauve. but then someone figured they could get rich off the melanin and pigment industry. The rest is history.
 
Regardless of these nit-picky discussions of the sentence structure, the use of the word "typical" is the bottom line. This statement was a stereotype, no ifs, ands, or buts.

It was a complicated sentence, and not one delivered clearly, on a touchy subject, so it is no wonder that people disagree about what it meant and are reading whatever they want into it. It would be very interesting indeed to know where the first quoted variant originated. It is one thing to argue over the meaning of a man's words, yet another to edit them and attribute the changed version to him. However, on listening to the exchange carefully I can see that the second version has also been cleaned up a bit, to remove stutters and other noise, although not a key word. In the interest of complete and utter fairness, here is my own transcription of the exchange from this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4s45v_obama-typical-white-person_news
complete with all stutters, repeats, and other warts. In general I have not attempted to add punctuation unless that was pretty much unambiguous. The first paragraph is from the interviewer, the second from Obama:

You gave an amazing speech on on Tuesday. We were actually at the constitution center, but not giving as eloquent a speech as you were, believe me. And you talked about your white grandmother, and how there was a time when even she feared black men, and that she even occasionally would use a racial or ethnic stereotype. What is she saying now about you being so close to the presidency?

Well, you know, she's extremely proud. And the uh the the point I was making was not that my grandmother uh harbors any any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a uh typical white person who uh (you know?) if [[slowly]] she sees somebody [[/slowly]] on the street [[pause]] that she doesn't know [[pause]] (you know?) there's a reaction that's been been bred into uh our experiences that that don't go away and that sometimes uh come out in in the wrong way and that that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. And what(s) makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling [[pause]] a little bit less like that.

The two [you know?] phrases are almost subliminal they are so fast and slurred together, with the second one being much less distinct than the first. I'm not 100% confident about that part of the transcription, but the rest seems to be right.

Having now listened to the silly thing 20 something times it has pretty much lost all meaning to me. Since the question partially concerned his grandmother's reported "fear of black men" (something left out of the original post) it appears that what Obama was saying was that his grandmother is "typical of white people" in feeling threatened by [some][unknown] [young] black men and has some [unspecified] reaction to the situation. That's so vague that even if we accept it as a statement of a "typical white person" stereotype, I'd be hard pressed to accurately describe what that stereotype is.

Certainly that vague stereotype would apply to me. I'm not at all happy when encountering a group of young men I don't know, in exposed circumstances, which could indicate a risky situation. The key factors aren't their race though, it's their gender, whether or not I know them, their age, demeanor, and clothing. I mean, you don't have to be racist to recognize gang colors, and you'd be nuts not to avoid a potentially hazardous situation just because somebody else might think you were racist. If those same guys appeared to be employed, married, or going to school, they wouldn't bother me at all. It isn't a race thing, it's more of a "does that guy look dangerous" thing. Admittedly when the style becomes "let's look dangerous" things can get a bit confusing. I'll really be screwed if the muggers ever start wearing suits and ties.
 
the govt. invented color. It was a conspiracy. Before they did this, we were all mauve. but then someone figured they could get rich off the melanin and pigment industry. The rest is history.

I was once white and boring..so I got some tattoos. Now I am tattooed and boring. WTF? (lol2)
 
and this means what? How would it affect his ability to govern?

Presumably we would want a president to have a nuanced view of the people he represents so that, when dealing with white people on a daily basis, he would not make unwarranted assumptions about them.


It is one thing to argue over the meaning of a man's words, yet another to edit them and attribute the changed version to him.

I still believe that the edit was minor and did not change the substantive meaning of the statement. To me, the statement is unequivocal, and it's pretty hard to misinterpret the words "typical white person." Listening to the recording again, the tone in which he uttered those three words jumped out at me. It's a very cynical, condescending tone - the kind of tone I would use when saying something like "oh God, here we go again." And I certainly resent the statement that all white people perceive blacks as dangerous.
 
He never said what your last sentence does. Our international rep continues to shine brighter while we debate such BS as a country. Lately that has been typical!
 
I was once white and boring..so I got some tattoos. Now I am tattooed and boring. WTF? (lol2)

Kick ass artwork I might add Killer.

This brings me to the movie "The Jerk" when Steve Martin is saying "I was born a poor black child":D
 
It was a complicated sentence, and not one delivered clearly, on a touchy subject, so it is no wonder that people disagree about what it meant and are reading whatever they want into it. It would be very interesting indeed to know where the first quoted variant originated. It is one thing to argue over the meaning of a man's words, yet another to edit them and attribute the changed version to him. However, on listening to the exchange carefully I can see that the second version has also been cleaned up a bit, to remove stutters and other noise, although not a key word. In the interest of complete and utter fairness, here is my own transcription of the exchange from this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4s45v_obama-typical-white-person_news
complete with all stutters, repeats, and other warts. In general I have not attempted to add punctuation unless that was pretty much unambiguous. The first paragraph is from the interviewer, the second from Obama:



+1

It's pretty obvious to me it was altered to have the effect it did on some folks. That's politics. And yes one simple omission, whether it be a simple utterance or just one single word CAN change the intended meaning or of a sentence. No one has any business 'cleaning' any thing up.


Anyway it's funny how people tend to ignore the half white side of the man. Our society just refuse to see anything in between. Whether some people accept it or not, the man IS half white. So if he's really trying to 'insult' white people, then he's insulting himself to some degree.
 
Interesting quote from Obama on the campaign trail yesterday, which I'm sure some of you have heard of. In reference to his major speech on race, in which he described his grandmother's occasional racist remarks, Obama said the following:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know - there's a reaction in her that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through..."

Now, I'm sure there are arguments and counterarguments as to whether we should make a big deal out of this quote. But there's one thing that I don't think anyone can possibly deny: if Hillary or McCain had made reference to the "typical black person," the nation would be in uproar. And that would be the end of the campaign, period.

I should mention that Obama's campaign has attempted to clarify Obama's statement by saying that he was merely referring to the prevailing attitudes of his grandmother's generation - not every single white person. That is a cop-out if I've ever heard one. Obama used the present tense and specifically stated, "our experiences...nature of race in our society." It is a stretch to read the past tense into these statements...he was without a doubt referring to present-day white people, implying that they are all afraid of black people.

Double standard?
 
Once you go black you can`t go back so maybe we will have 300 years of black presidents:)(drunk)(laugh)(rockon)
 
We need to quit worrying about race, because with all the inter-racial couples springing up everywhere there won't be a white, black, asian, hispanic, native american, or any of that here in America in about 200 years. It'll be a country full of mutts.
 
+1

That's politics. And yes one simple omission, whether it be a simple utterance or just one single word CAN change the intended meaning or of a sentence. No one has any business 'cleaning' any thing up.

Sound bite politics do pretty much the same thing - they are frequently used to distort the intended message by presenting just one section of a longer speech out of context. This is beautifully illustrated by Rev. Wright's "chicken's coming home to roost" snippet. The surrounding 10 minutes is available uncut here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4676818472580064036

I'm not going to comment on the sermon itself. but at least from the longer piece one can see the context from which the shorter section was drawn. Notably, and I only learned this from watching the longer piece, Wright segued into that section by referring to similar words used by an ambassador on Fox earlier in the week.

Fox is a very European sort of news outlet, in that it has a very strong bias and isn't above twisting the truth a bit to get its viewpoint out. (Yes, I know the others are more liberal, but it's a slightly different thing, read on.) The way Fox operates is pretty much the norm in some other countries, just not so much here. For instance, when I lived in Spain for a while the conservatives (really conservative, remember they had a fascist government for a long time) had one newspaper, and the socialists had another. Sometimes their descriptions of events were in such wild disagreement there was no way to tell what had actually transpired. News was not so much something to report as fact, but rather something to report within the social and political views of the media outlet. Here the more liberal broadcast networks' bias tends to show up in how much they cover something (more coverage of liberals, less of conservatives), whereas Fox's bias shows up in how they cover something, as here.
 
Back