I was born the year after the last recorded lynching in the USA which took place in 19 47, many people will no doubt be shocked to read that black people, mainly men were being lynched in their life time, there is a misconception that these things took place a long, long time ago. They didn’t, racism was so common and so acceptable that black people lived in fear constantly, a great many Americans of my generation have parents and grand parents who would have been involved in this barbarism, and very few were ever brought to justice. It’s an ugly part of American history but, we can’t point the finger at anyone, our own history is even more bloody because for one thing we were at it longer, in fact we made the American racists look like amateurs.
All the more reason now to say to Americans, you can be the great country that you have always strived to be, in a short space of time you have gone from the unspeakable cruelty of slavery and murder of people because of their skin colour to the brink of electing one of those former put upon black Americans to the highest office in the country and, the most important leader in the world.
The knuckle dragging racists and the fundamental republican right wing bible bashers will foam and rant but America is about to stand tall despite them, America is big enough to take them on and win. The corporate gangsters like Cheney, Bush etc. are at last losing their grip, no more Bush, Reagan, Nixon, America is better than that, America strives to be cleaner than that.
The bravery of Rosa Parks still shines like a beacon along with MLK, Paul Robeson, Ali, James Baldwin and the countless others whose names we will never know who suffered and died under racist laws. Still today the black population of America is approx. 1/3 rd. While the population on death row is 90 % and this in the greatest country in the world ? what could America have achieved by now if all it’s citizens of every colour and background had always been given equal treatment ? Science, medicine, sports etc. what a waste, the same happens here in Britain because of class, and that will change also some day.
I have many relatives in America and some of them read my blog and I’m now saying to them, remember why you went there, remember the discrimination you faced, remember the arguments we have had over the years about America’s role in the world, remember the many times you have been shocked by what I have said about your country, here’s your chance to shut me up, at least for a little while, here’s your chance to do the right thing, prove that “all men should be judged, not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character” MLK.
Vote for Barack Obama !
Monday, November 03, 2008
I HOPE ROSA PARKS IS LOOKING DOWN ON AMERICA TOMORROW.
Posted by Cllr Terry Kelly at Monday, November 03, 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Do you want Obama to win because of his colour, or because he is the best choice? (In your opinion)
Forget America, let's look at Glenrothes.
Fife Council says it has recieved 7000 requests for postal votes. This is around thirty percent more than is usual for a by-election.
Far be it from me to raise any queries, but Labour do have form on Postal votes
Is it because I's a war veteran?
here’s your chance to do the right thing, prove that “all men should be judged, not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character” ... Vote for Barak Obama !
But why? What makes you think he's better than John McCain? The only difference between the two contestants you've mentioned is the fact that one of them is black.
So... you'd be judging him by the colour of his skin, rather than his character, perhaps? MLK would be proud!
If Obama was a republican I would not want him to win, you are making the same mistake again of applying your own rancid standards to other people.
I’m sure that Glenrothes will be very closely watched as it is such a news item, are you suggesting that Labour would cheat on postal votes ? I have been involved in approx. 30 elections and I’ve never seen anything like that.
What kind of political people do you associate with, really !
(John McCain) 17:32
No it’s because you are a “war monger”
“The only difference between the two contestants you've mentioned is the fact that one of them is black”
Just for you "Mr. Carlie" I’ll spell it out, the most important thing about these two contestants is that McCain is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat.
The fact that Obama is on a different planet intellectually and he is about to smash down historic race hate barriers are great bonuses.
Win lose or draw Obama is about to make it harder for people like you to hide behind your white hoods.
'Are you suggesting Labour would cheat on postal votes.'
That's a terrible thing to say Terry. Still, now that you've mentioned it, they DID introduce postal votes and they do have 'previous.'
“all men should be judged, not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”
It begs the questioned posed by your other correspondents and I have just read your answers carefully.
a: You state that "character" is the only criterium by which the candidates should be judged.
b: But you then contradict yourself by stating that the political party they belong to is the deciding factor.
Which is it?
c: You imply, wihtout offering any evidence, that McCain is a warmonger but it is Sen. Obama who has promised military action against Pakistan.
What is he?
You claim Obama is the best man for the job.
You then go on to say 'If he was Republican. I would not want him to win.'
This, despite his 'being the best man for the job.'
Typical Labour bigotry, Party before Country every time
(David Duff) 04/11/08
“The content of their character” is an appeal to set aside past bigotry, you seem pretty thick, either that or untrustworthy.
People can have strength of character, honesty, diligence decency and still be wrong about politics and many other things; you need to sharpen up a bit.
The stuff about the political party is drivel, I consider voting Democrat as better for the USA than voting Republican, same as voting Labour here, that’s why people join political parties, do you actually know anything about politics?
McCain the war monger? He loves it, it defines him.
It’s a terrible thing to say if that’s what you are saying.
Are you saying that Labour introduced postal voting so that they could cheat ?
Is it only Labour who have previous ?
“Typical Labour bigotry, Party before Country every time”
Putting the democrats before the Republicans and Labour before the other parties is putting your country first.
Obama being vastly superior to McCain is a bonus.
"Putting the democrats before the Republicans and Labour before the other parties is putting your country first. "
Councillor, can you spot the glaringly obvious here?
Putting your own party before other parties is putting the country first? How exactly? Please explain.
(Bob Flowers) 17:21
“Councillor, can you spot the glaringly obvious here?”
Actually I can’t but, I’m used to that with you.
The democrats are better than the Republicans and Labour are better than the other parties which means that putting them before other parties to govern is putting the country first.
That’s about it I’m afraid, are you confused by this ?
"McCain the war monger? He loves it, it defines him."
Given his experience of war I doubt somehow that he is madly keen to engage in another.
However, my question, which you avoided with your usual, er, dexterity, was not concerned with McCain but Obama. *He* is the one advocating strong attacks into Pakistan which Bush has begun on a small scale.
So what does that make Obama?
"The democrats are better than the Republicans and Labour are better than the other parties which means that putting them before other parties to govern is putting the country first."
Councillor, I think it is you wo us confused. In YOUR opinion democrats are better than republicans. In the republican's opinion, they are better than democrats. Do you see?
It is only political opinion. Putting one's country before all else puts politics to one side. Do you think our brave soldiers would refuse to do their duty because they don't like Gordon's politics?
No. They put THEIR country first and do the duty they have signed up to do.
I'm not confused at all. I have served my country before and would do so again regardless of who resides at No10.
You will be delighted to know that Barack Obama-rama-lama-ding-dong, appoined Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
Rahm Benjamin Emanuel, dual-citizen Israeli-American, whose father was a member of the Irgun in the 1930s and 40s, a terrorist organisation that murdered British troops in Palestine.
By their friends shall ye know them.
(David Duff) 05/11/08
It does not make Obama a war monger, perhaps you don’t understand the term.
A president McCain would have made the world a more dangerous place, that’s one of the reasons he was so strongly rejected.
Perhaps you should have listened to some of McCain’s recent rhetoric, then you wouldn’t make such stupid statements, or maybe I’m being too kind to you.
(Bob Flowers) 06/11/08
“In YOUR opinion democrats are better than republicans”
you are getting there at last that is my opinion.
“Putting one's country before all else” That’s what millions of patriotic Germans did in the Second World War – it’s the road to dictatorship.
“Our brave soldiers” wearing a uniform does not make you brave, they used to shoot soldiers for cowardice, and some of them had lovely uniforms.
“I have served my country before” Not in the Intelligence Corp. I take it.
There are young Israeli’s in prison today because they refuse to join the Army in protest at the treatment of the Palestinians, many young Americans did the same over Vietnam, Quakers, Conscientious Objectors, and Pacifists did likewise before that. In My Opinion they were very brave indeed.
(Daniel Dravot) 10:47
“By their friends shall ye know them”
Is your middle name McCarthy by any chance ? Do you find Obama’s name offensive ?
You are creating a nauseating picture of yourself.
"It does not make Obama a war monger, perhaps you don’t understand the term."
Always happy to be re-educated by you, Councillor, but advocating an attack into the territory of another country must be described by some term or another - what is it?
(David Duff) 15:32
“Always happy to be re-educated by you”
I’m quite capable but, some tasks are way beyond me, and most others I suspect. To be re-educated you would first have to be educated.
Advocating an attack on another country does not make you a war monger, enjoying that attack, relishing the conflict, that’s what makes a war monger, I really don’t think you have grasped this.
Is it stupidity or dishonesty ?
"“Our brave soldiers” wearing a uniform does not make you brave, they used to shoot soldiers for cowardice, and some of them had lovely uniforms.
“I have served my country before” Not in the Intelligence Corp. I take it. "
Once again, Councillor you bluster and blather and assume rather too much.
One does not have to don a uniform to serve one's country.
(Bob Flowers) 17:02
Not much of an answer Bob. Do I take it you agree with me ? I of course agree that you don’t need a uniform to serve one’s country.
So by your definition, Blair is not a warmonger. In fact he so dislikes war that he must really have wrestled with his conscience when he sent our troops into Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do forgive me, Councillor, but your skills as a re-educator, or even, dare I say, as an educator, are less than impressive. In despair at drawing forth from you a sound definition of what constitutes a "warmonger" I have turned to the OED:
"warmonger: noun; a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare towards other nations or groups."
So when, as he says he intends to do, 'Oprah' Obama sends in the marines, or some similar action, to the Hindu Kush inside Pakistan, what will you call him?
(Daniel Dravot) 06/11/08
How often do I need to explain it? A war monger enjoys war, likes conflict, wants to go to war, do you get that ?
That is not Blair, Believe me BTW I’m no fan of his.
(David Duff) 13:37
“what will you call him? “
"Do forgive me, Councillor, but your skills as a re-educator, or even, dare I say, as an educator, are less than impressive. In despair at drawing forth from you a sound definition of what constitutes” Etc.
I digress but, is there a reason why you write such drivel ? are you trying to impress, no one speaks like this.
"Words, words, words", as that gloomy Dane was wont to complain, but they do matter, you see, particularly when politicians, like you, use them. If you use them deliberately incorrectly then you are on the way to falsehood. If you use them incorrectly through ignorance or carelessness it indicates a combination of stupidity, laziness and mental confusion.
For example, you wrote, apropos my writing style, that "no one speaks like this". Indeed, that is almost always true, but I was not *speaking*, I was *writing*.
"How often do I need to explain it? A war monger enjoys war, likes conflict, wants to go to war, do you get that ?"
Can you provide any evidence that Sen. McCain, a serviceman of proven courage in war, matches the description you offer above? And I do mean evidence, Councillor, you know, quotations or recordings, that sort of thing. I really must insist on it because you are somewhat prone to making assertions of a libellous nature without ever backing them up (see, Duke of Edinburgh, passim).
Hate to break this to you, but there was a US President with black ancestry long before Obamalamadingdong was a glint in the Masai warrior's eye.
Not telling yet, but consider it homework to find out.
(Daniel Dravot) 09:28
The colour of his skin seems to rankle with you, would that be correct ?
Do you have a carefully ironed white hood and gown in your cupboard. Just waiting for the good ole days to return ?
"Can you provide any evidence ...?"
Take that as a 'no', shall I?
(David Duff) 08/11/08
Why do I need to provide you with evidence ? I regard McCain as a war monger, that’s how I see him,
You have a problem here, I am prepared to print your drivel but you can’t make me take you seriously. Your attempts to appear superior are risible.
"Your attempts to appear superior are risible."
No, no, Councillor, I am not attempting to appear superior, I am simply me. I think it is yet another example of your inherent confusion because it is your obvious sense of inferiority, whether deserved or not I leave to others to judge, that leads you to assume that I am attempting to be superior.
So, we have established that you have no proof to substantiate your claim that McCain is a "warmonger". Now, does that make you superior or inferior, do you suppose?
"The colour of his skin seems to rankle with you, would that be correct ? "
Absolutely not Councillor, what does rankle is the mass hysteria of the press and the American people.
That somehow, Barack being "black" and elected is some sort of "miracle", whilst completely ignoring the fact that his mother is a white woman. So, what does constiture someone being black, half-black or even slightly black?
The press also choose to ignore history. Barack is not the first mixed-race President. Warren Harding had two black grandparents.
Personally, it makes no odds to me. I'm not American and have no desire to ever live there. What the Americans do is entirely their business.
(David Duff) 09/11/08
I do not concur with your assertion that you are not endeavouring to give the impression of superiority’ nor do I acquiesce with your jibe that I have an innate sense of bemusement, nor am I subordinate in any way, certainly not to you, that would be intolerable.
Like you I am delighted to permit observers to diagnose your objectives.
“we have established” have ‘we’ indeed ? is that because you say so ?
“Now, does that make you superior or inferior”
I don’t find these terms agreeable at all but, juxtaposed with you, I would have to go for the former.
(Daniel Dravot) 08:29
I don’t believe you; I think it is the colour of his skin that makes you angry.
You could have chosen to ignore it but you decided to try to ridicule him, you are a bit obvious, crawl back under your stone along with the other “good ole boys”
"Why do I need to provide you with evidence? I regard McCain as a war monger, that’s how I see him"
Sorry to interject, but I find this style of argument a bit objectionable. It opens the door to saying ludicrous things about whoever you like, with no need to back up assertions with evidence. What's the use in debating a point like that?
I’m sorry you find this objectionable but, I have already explained why I regard McCain as a war monger and Mr. Duff is trying to take the argument into a convoluted semantic discussion, he enjoys this type of thing because it gives him the chance to massage his ego but I’m not going to oblige.
I regard McCain as a war monger because that is his reputation he has always portrayed himself as a ‘hawk’ on military matters and he cranked up the ‘gung ho’ rhetoric throughout the recent campaign.
He continually tried to label Obama as weak on terror while he was the strong man; I find it difficult to believe that anyone who followed the election would see it differently.
That’s my position and if doesn’t suffice then I’m sorry but, I don’t have the time or the inclination to indulge Mr. Duff.
Post a Comment