Park Life

Exactly. Next Fop will be telling us he's a black man. Would it matter? More importantly would it hold you back?

Nothing from the point of pragmatic politician, but quite a lot from the point of a messiah. The myth of race. Oh my fucking Christ! The boy is evidently glistening in cats piss.

Exactly. Next Fop will be telling us he's a black man.

Fop swimming in the sheening clarity of codswallop. The rogue.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse. Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)? Not being a black man in America it would be impossible for me to define 'that moment'. That moment before my blackness is colonised. Being black is wholly about the moment your 'otherness' is colonised. These are the basics of race identity. qv the Bangladeshi community in North London, qv the Arab community in Sweden. I think behind all this bluster you have a valid point if it is only about erasure, I'm guessing your tallking about that. Racism isn't just about how others define you ("positively" or "negatively" - both are the same in the end), but it's also about how you define yourself to others. If he was the man that could bring sweeping change he had a massive opportunity to do so (even if it cost him the election - which I don't think it necessarily would), but he took a different tack. Not necessarily and evil tack, just the most pragmatic one. Which is why I don't think he will change the world, he'll probably just rule it. Of course that is the process that defines your blackness if you like. Obama is well aware of that. He is also aware that he needed to be inclusive to win. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him. This was obvious pages ago. I know mate, but you have to drum it into some.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse. Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)? Not being a black man in America it would be impossible for me to define 'that moment'. That moment before my blackness is colonised. Being black is wholly about the moment your 'otherness' is colonised. These are the basics of race identity. qv the Bangladeshi community in North London, qv the Arab community in Sweden. I think behind all this bluster you have a valid point if it is only about erasure, I'm guessing your tallking about that. Racism isn't just about how others define you ("positively" or "negatively" - both are the same in the end), but it's also about how you define yourself to others. If he was the man that could bring sweeping change he had a massive opportunity to do so (even if it cost him the election - which I don't think it necessarily would), but he took a different tack. Not necessarily and evil tack, just the most pragmatic one. Which is why I don't think he will change the world, he'll probably just rule it. Of course that is the process that defines your blackness if you like. Obama is well aware of that. He is also aware that he needed to be inclusive to win. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse. Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)? It's a difficult one Fop I concede. But I suspect he feels more black than white in many ways because he would have more in common with other black/mixed race people in terms of common prejudices faced, common historical injustices faced by family members and so on. Obviously that's pure guesswork coming from a white person from the NE of England but if you turn back the clock to the time before the civil rights movement he'd have been considered a 'negro' or whatever then and it's people who are of mixed race like him who are still at the wrong end of society's injustices in the United States. I don't think he should be defined purely by his colour but it's naive to say it shouldn't be an issue when it is bound to be. That's because we all have our little prejudices I suppose, some far more than others. And countries as a whole have them which is why you've never had anyone 'black' as president before. And he is seen as black, rightly or wrongly (given his mixed race background). Yes he is aware mainly because the dominant culture overall erases that moment of blackness. Obama will have had to continually re-colonise his blackness. In simple terms he has to continually ask himself who he is....Not something most of us have to worry about.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse. Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)? Not being a black man in America it would be impossible for me to define 'that moment'. That moment before my blackness is colonised. Being black is wholly about the moment your 'otherness' is colonised. These are the basics of race identity. qv the Bangladeshi community in East London, qv the Arab community in Sweden. I think behind all this bluster you have a valid point if it is only about erasure, I'm guessing your tallking about that.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse.

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer. Give us the ans clearly one more time fella.

It actually is, but IMO he's polarised into what people want (and he plays to that), rather than what he is (or should be). I actually think he's doing more to sustain racism (perhaps not in the "traditionally" Western perceived way) than he is to destroy it. Could you actually put that into plain English please? That would be racist. Obama can't destroy racism, he's not trying to either. The fact that he was even able to run and has succeeded shows that race is now a small enough issue that the fight is already won. Oba has bigger fish to fry now, whatever kind of percentile you insist should be applied to his 'brother' credentials. See my sig. Wahey. Another WU bites the dust. Did you really think I couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist? Or did I just you as usual? I was responding to the only "point" I could decipher in your original post, that "he's doing more to sustain racism than he is to destroy it." That's why I started my reponse as i did. I didn't thing you "couldn't put it more plainly because it was racist", I assumed (like everyone else) you don't have a clue what you're on about yourself so have taken to filibustering by responding to older posts rather than respond to what's been asked of you now. Check. I'm guessing he was trying to say Obama isn't black enough but then felt a bit embarrassed and backed off.

actually mean You answer your own question. Fop man explain your position on this in normal words so we can all follow it.

It must be a fantastically complex point as it seems to have no recourse in common parlance.

I reckon he's just so moved by the result he is rambling.

He nailed it. The first quote is massive, when I heard it I had to really fight back a little man cry.

What are you on about Fopster?

I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Yes, probably (unless you are the second coming), but that makes you a consummate politician, not crusader or anything like it. A politician will sell (or use) their Granny to get the power they want, but that doesn't make it right or them anything else other than a clever and ruthless politician. Some politicians can have a modicum of principle. Personally I like Tony Benn. I saw Tony Benn speak a couple of times in the eighties. He was magnificent, cogent persuasive inspiring. In hindsight I think he convinced me black was white to a large extent - but I still view the old nutter with a lot of affection Yup.

I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. I have a strong sense that the politician might have won the election, but 'the man' will be the president.

The revelator can only work that way.

This is still what I mean, but there's clearly no fighting it. Go with it baby, you know it feels good.

It's almost as much fun. If you mean Obama, nope I'd just agree with everyone and then do whatever suited me best. If you mean manc-foplite, then it's still no I'd just whip myself into a frenzy before slinking away for a few months. That's a nice attempted to divert the issue to something else, but nothing to do with the point. How you think of your nephews would be at least something to do with the point, but even so not really. Lets get back to the point; what do you define as "black" or "white" and what do you want Obama to be? Does it matter? To me? Nope. To most people? Yes, quite clearly it does. It's actually quite important too, different inequality (or prejudice) isn't the same thing at all as equality or non-prejudice, its still just inequality and prejudice. The ethnicity of Obama is significant because of the recent history of the country he is now president-elect of, don't you think? Of course it is significant, but the signifier is that he has transcended that. The way the avatar works is that he is the polar opposite of the reigning force whence he arrives. It is written. For me the irony here is that a black man will lead Americans out of their mental chains.