Some stories about Katrina

Quote:

---

My uncle was very excited that it was a free-for-all--white against black--that he could participate in," says the woman. "For him, the opportunity to hunt black people was a joy.

---

There was a lot of stuff said at the time, on TV, on the internet, about people shooting at helicopters and various other insanities. As far as I know, they were all proved to be untrue. There was a lot of anger here on this website about looters. Well, this group of whites in Algiers found a way of dealing with looters - or blacks - they're all the same, and heck, we can use the 'n' word too when we cheer eachother for gunning them down and leaving them on the side of the road.

Anyways here's a link that reminded me of Romero's "Land of the Dead". I hope that a few people here will read it, and realize that there's a lot of shit in the world worth fighting against:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
There was a lot of stuff said at the time, on TV, on the internet, about people shooting at helicopters and various other insanities. As far as I know, they were all proved to be untrue.

---

Really? I've seen actual video of this happening on the news. Not just once, but 10+ times at least.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Because to me, it sounds like the premise is "Black people are perfect and never do anything wrong. White people make up lies about black people committing crimes, and then white people go out and gleefully murder blacks."

Is that really a message worth discussing?

Do you actually think this is true?

I really can't see any possible good from this thread. Maybe I missed something. Or maybe I'm just so sick of race baiting and racial politics that I'm hypersensitive to the tactic.

Quote:

---

Or maybe I'm just so sick of race baiting and racial politics that I'm hypersensitive to the tactic.

---

This. Really this.

An event happened in America and many people died. Events like this happen all over the world with depressing regularity. The thing that struck me about Katrina at the time was how quickly incredible reports about eating corpses, raping children, shooting at helicopters and so on were reported – over and over again – and especially by the ‘liberal media’ elements like Oprah. Many of these reports were restated by Nagin (democrat) at the time too.

I imagine that in the absence of communication, rumours about gang murders in the astrodome and so on, were used to fill the vaccum. I don’t necessarily believe that the escalation of these rumours was race motivated, and was just as likely to be ratings or possibly even genuine concern.

I think there is a value in setting the record straight though, or at least attempting to correct some of the more egregious errors. A lot of normal people, normal people with normal families and normal dreams had their lives upturned during Katrina. The legacy of the reporting at Katrina tells us that these normal people were looters and helicopter shooters and rapists and cannibals. Not only were most people NOT looters in Katrina, they were also not rapists and helicopter shooters and cannibals.

I think history needs to remember this, because it’s an outrageous legacy for normal people to carry, normal people who lost their normal lives who – by making a bad decision (to stay in New Orleans) are not only victims of Katrina, but victims of slander.

Quote:

---

Because to me, it sounds like the premise is "Black people are perfect and never do anything wrong. White people make up lies about black people committing crimes, and then white people go out and gleefully murder blacks.

---

. I never said or inferred anything about black people being perfect. I think the media as a whole made up lies about black people in Katrina, and some of the most alarming reports came from Black people. I think that the report I originally linked to DOES suggest that white people went out and gleefully murdered blacks.

If white people really did that, then isn’t that worth commenting on? Why should it be forgotten? It’s a serious thing that happened.

Anyways, I think I’m posting this discussion more for the lurkers than for the two people who replied. I’m sorry if that offends you Ari, Maelgrim, but I wouldn’t ever expect you to be interested in such a discussion.

PS: A simple google search will return lots of results about shooting at helicopters and eating dead people. The first one I hit was this:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36327.html

Topic : ??????????

Mans inhumanity to man?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

I think there is a value in setting the record straight though, or at least attempting to correct some of the more egregious errors. A lot of normal people, normal people with normal families and normal dreams had their lives upturned during Katrina. The legacy of the reporting at Katrina tells us that these normal people were looters and helicopter shooters and rapists and cannibals. Not only were most people NOT looters in Katrina, they were also not rapists and helicopter shooters and cannibals.

---

The majority of people who suffer tragedy are normal people, especially in their eyes, but most tragedies get ignored unless they are newsworthy. I'm a bit unsure how your link is supposed to clear up any misconceptions. It seems rather like it would add to it and stimulate race wars. Most people are not racist dickheads who think they can go post on the internet or mouth off without repercussion, and most white people did not feel glee in a chance to beat up black people during Katrina. Tons of churches and schools in my area alone took in 400-500 refugees each. We were packing up toys, dry goods, blankets, spare clothing, and everything else we could get our hands on in order to help Katrina victims. The schools pitched in. Children were educated on the tragedy and encouraged to give up their own toys or allowances to help out.

We live in the South where all the racists supposedly live, and if there were people around here that were glad to be beating up black people in Louisiana after a natural disaster, they were smart enough to keep their pie holes shut.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

I think history needs to remember this, because it’s an outrageous legacy for normal people to carry, normal people who lost their normal lives who – by making a bad decision (to stay in New Orleans) are not only victims of Katrina, but victims of slander.

---

Please keep in mind that there WERE people shooting helicopters. It was captured repeatedly on film. There were looters. This was also captured on film, and looting often occurs during natural (and sometimes un-natural disasters). The point is that Katrina was a chaotic mess and a horrible tragedy that struck many, many people. There were looters who were only looting because they were afraid they'd have no other supplies, and heck, Walmart wasn't actually open to make those supplies available. Lastly, the looters were white, black, hispanic, and asian. Again, it was a pretty terrible time for everyone there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

. I never said or inferred anything about black people being perfect. I think the media as a whole made up lies about black people in Katrina, and some of the most alarming reports came from Black people. I think that the report I originally linked to DOES suggest that white people went out and gleefully murdered blacks.

If white people really did that, then isn’t that worth commenting on? Why should it be forgotten? It’s a serious thing that happened.

---

Because, honestly, when you phrase it that way and the entire way the article was written, it reduces Katrina to nothing more than a race war. LOTS of people were affected by Katrina negatively. LOTS of people did really horrible things, and LOTS of people did really amazing and wonderful things. I'll bet you, out of those LOTS of people on both sides, many of them were white, black, hispanic, asian, mixed blood, cajun, etc. In the end, though, I feel pretty confident that the number of people doing really good things after Katrina far outweighs the number of people who do really bad things. Guess who makes the news, though?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

Anyways, I think I’m posting this discussion more for the lurkers than for the two people who replied. I’m sorry if that offends you Ari, Maelgrim, but I wouldn’t ever expect you to be interested in such a discussion.

---

Actually, it's only a discussion if people actually participate. Most of the time, the people who participate are the people who are interested. Now, if you're just looking for people to agree with the article and say, "YEAH! White people suck. Poor black people, so misrepresented by everyone!" then I guess you won't get a discussion.

In the end, I'm interested in this discussion simply because I think the media's STILL trying to create a race issue off a tragedy that occurred 3 years ago based on the article you posted. Why do I think this? Because, if it's not a race issue, then the crime itself of this poor man getting shot through the throat should be noteworthy. The fact that it hasn't been prosecuted is noteworthy. The fact that tons of the crimes that occurred during Katrina have been completely overlooked is something very much worth discussing. (Because, seriously, this isn't the only crime that wasn't prosecuted. This isn't the only thing that was overlooked.)

Granted, I think the people of Algiers Point deserve some insanely bad press assuming all that is written is true, and this article does give them that. I really, really hope that this article does serve to get the people involved in these murders. They are disgusting people because of their actions not because of their race or because they shot up black men. They shot up people who were seeking aid and help from a horrible disaster, and they should be punished for it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

PS: A simple google search will return lots of results about shooting at helicopters and eating dead people. The first one I hit was this:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36327.html

---

I went to that link. Couldn't read it because I couldn't get the ad spam off the page. The problem with the internet is that you don't have to write a reputable article to actually get ranked high in google. You just have to know all the tricks and get enough traffic to get ad revenues. Considering the hideous grammar and writing in the parts I could read, I don't think this is much of a reputable article. :) Granted, perhaps the fear is that someone less educated or less well-read might not know that and take the article as fact. That's the problem with any news nowadays, though. How reliable is it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

Anyways, I think I’m posting this discussion more for the lurkers than for the two people who replied. I’m sorry if that offends you Ari, Maelgrim, but I wouldn’t ever expect you to be interested in such a discussion.

---

It doesn't offend me at all, but again, I don't see how your post - the way it was presented - was truly intended to spur "discussion." I think you verify that suspicion when you say you posted it "more for the lurkers."

The truth is that I actually find the general topic extremely real. I find it interesting because the interesting issue here is not race. The real issue is one of humanity. As much as we like to think we are spectacular, special, enlightened beings, the ugly truth is we are only a couple of missed meals away from the jungle. You put people under enough stress and difficulty and they quickly revert to some really frightening, base motives.

That is why I love books like Lucifer's Hammer. It is extremely interesting to postulate or examine how people would behave when the niceties of civilization start crumbling down. It reminds me of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:
<blockquote>
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
</blockquote>
Focussing on the racial element is easy, lazy, hackneyed, and boring. Situations like Katrina are about something far larger and far more sinister.

Articles like the ones you linked to are simply after the fact journalistic profiteering. It is a quick way to stir some emotions, generate some attention, and make a little money. Facts be damned when there is a political goal to be furthered or a few bucks to be made off news. At some point, journalists stopped being journalists and they became capitalists and politicians. That is when we stopped being able to trust our newspapers, magazines, news anchors, and other members of the media.

It's kind of funny how, after all the years of real racism that occured against blacks in the past, the media now chooses to totally spit in the face of all that history and has begun to actually turn it into a reverse racism that constantly assumes whitie is out to get coloured people.

I find this hilarious personally. Why? Because we have an African American president elect who was elected by a land slide. America, as a whole, has moved past it's racism, and I am proud of that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle

As much as we like to think we are spectacular, special, enlightened beings, the ugly truth is we are only a couple of missed meals away from the jungle.

---

This is why I feel that Humanity's attempts to civilize itself are pointless. We can only achieve so much and in the end whatever we do achieve is still fraught with it's own brand of terror instilled by other human beings.

We're all just walking along, jerking each other off until one day someone will press the big red button and we'll never have to worry about it anymore. Or at least I won't. Humanity is a very hardy animal though, and it won't go extinct quietly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle

The truth is that I actually find the general topic extremely real. I find it interesting because the interesting issue here is not race. The real issue is one of humanity. As much as we like to think we are spectacular, special, enlightened beings, the ugly truth is we are only a couple of missed meals away from the jungle. You put people under enough stress and difficulty and they quickly revert to some really frightening, base motives.

---

I agree with this 110%
. I say this to people all the time, during a conversation, and they look at me as if this could not happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
It's kind of funny how, after all the years of real racism that occured against blacks in the past, the media now chooses to totally spit in the face of all that history and has begun to actually turn it into a reverse racism that constantly assumes whitie is out to get coloured people.

I find this hilarious personally. Why? Because we have an African American president elect who was elected by a land slide. America, as a whole, has moved past it's racism, and I am proud of that.

---

A couple of things here Kemosabi. First off, what is real racism? I'm not completely sure what you were meaning here. If you could explain a bit more I'd greatly appreciate understanding your point of view of this. Secondly, You stated that Obama was elected by a landslide. This statement is only correct if you are talking electoral votes. In the popular vote Obama recieved 66.8 million (53%) and Mccain recieved 58.3 million (46%). This isn't really a land slide. Furthermore, I really can't see the correlation that you've made about the end of racism based on electoral results. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/ (apologizess for posting a liberal link)


I've said this before the election, and I've said this after the election. By electing Obama doesn't mean that America automatically is racism free. Nor does it mean that things will automatically be great for everyone. Is his election a symbolic event in the history of America? It most certainly is. Does his election signify a huge step for mankind in America? Most definitely, but his election doesn't mean racism does not still exist, nor does it mean that people of all races, creeds and cultures must stop refining, and developing themselves into better people for the sake of humanity.

In closing, the thought that racism no longer exist based on presidential exit poles is absurd. I'm a registered member of the RNC, I voted for McCain. I'm black. Does this mean I'm a racist because I didn't vote for Obama?

:eek

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
It's kind of funny how, after all the years of real racism that occured against blacks in the past, the media now chooses to totally spit in the face of all that history and has begun to actually turn it into a reverse racism that constantly assumes whitie is out to get coloured people.

I find this hilarious personally. Why? Because we have an African American president elect who was elected by a land slide. America, as a whole, has moved past it's racism, and I am proud of that.

---

I take it you don't live in the south then, where even in a somewhat (and I use this lightly) democratic city like Birmingham where even now, racism is extremely prevalent and easily spotted. America has definately not moved past it's racism. The majority of it has simply changed its target from blacks to latino because of the illegal immigration, and those of Mid-Eastern origin thanks to 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
First off, what is real racism?

---

I consider 'real racism' to be a lack of equal rights for people based on their ethnicity. I don't consider that to be an issue in America anymore. There is, however, still a great deal of racial stereo typing of all races, as well as prejudice in more isolated cases. But pure racism is gone.

Quote:

---

In closing, the thought that racism no longer exist based on presidential exit poles is absurd. I'm a registered member of the RNC, I voted for McCain. I'm black. Does this mean I'm a racist because I didn't vote for Obama

---

Not at all. The fact that Obama WAS elected is not really the point, rather that the American people were WILLING to elect him, and did so by a much larger voting turn-out than has been seen in quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
I consider 'real racism' to be a lack of equal rights for people based on their ethnicity. I don't consider that to be an issue in America anymore. There is, however, still a great deal of racial stereo typing of all races, as well as prejudice in more isolated cases. But pure racism is gone.

---

I would have to disagree with you on this. Racism is alive and well in many areas such as employment, marketing, finance, housing, media and politics. I will agree racism is not as blatant as decades gone past, but it still exist at higher levels of corporations, military and most certainly politics. There is simply to much money being made from racism to allow it to just disappear. (For the record, I'm talking about racism across the board. Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Religion)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh

Not at all. The fact that Obama WAS elected is not really the point, rather that the American people were WILLING to elect him, and did so by a much larger voting turn-out than has been seen in quite a while.

---

Okay I'm not sure which side you are coming from now. Last post you stated it was about Obama and how he won by a landslide which was not an accurate statement. Now you are saying that a much larger voting turn-out was the reason? This is also not accurate. The voter turnout for the 2008 election percentage wise is lower then the increase of the 2004 elections which had a tremendous percentage increase over the 2000 elections. And if you want to go by the sheer numbers, the numbers increase is not much either.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ng/004986.html

http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html

In closing, I'm not really sure what you were trying to say with this post?

I think instead of "real racism", a better term would be "institutional racism." For the most part, if not completely, institutional racism does not exist in the USA. Ultimately, that is the most important step. The rest simply takes time as people slowly start to understand and embrace each other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
I would have to disagree with you on this. Racism is alive and well in many areas such as employment, marketing, finance, housing, media and politics. I will agree racism is not as blatant as decades gone past, but it still exist at higher levels of corporations, military and most certainly politics.

---

You and I seem to have a very different definition of Racism. While I believe there are still issues of race and ethnicity in America, I think that they are mostly isolated cases of prejudice, rather than racism since equal rights have been realized by every ethnicity in America.

To analyze the difference, let me give you a personal example of mine: As a white, I have had other ethnic groups make the assumpation that I viewed them differently based on their race, and thusly was treated differently. I would view this as an aspect of racial stereo typing or prejudice, but not racism because racism has never been considered to be an issue for whites in America.

Quote:

---

There is simply to much money being made from racism to allow it to just disappear. (For the record, I'm talking about racism across the board. Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Religion)

---

Now I'm really confused. What do you mean here exactly?

Quote:

---

Okay I'm not sure which side you are coming from now. Last post you stated it was about Obama and how he won by a landslide which was not an accurate statement. Now you are saying that a much larger voting turn-out was the reason? This is also not accurate. The voter turnout for the 2008 election percentage wise is lower then the increase of the 2004 elections which had a tremendous percentage increase over the 2000 elections. And if you want to go by the sheer numbers, the numbers increase is not much either.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ng/004986.html

http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html

In closing, I'm not really sure what you were trying to say with this post?

---

Actually, what I said was completely accurate, and the sources you cited failed to indicate the margin that President-Elect Obama won versus Senator Mccain as opposed to the margins of previous years, so let me help you out there:

1992 results

1996 results

2000 results

2004 results

2008 results

If we go back all the way to 1992 we see that former president Clinton won the popular vote versus George Bush Sr. by a margin 5805256 total votes. In the following election, Clinton won again versus Bob Dole by a margin of 8203602. In the next, Al Gore won with a margin of 543895 over Geore Bush Jr. While in the next election, Bush Jr. won against Kerry with only 3012166 votes over. Finally, in 2008, in Obama versus Mccain, we total out with 9522083 popular votes as the margin between the two competitors.

You'll also notice that in each of those statistics, following 1996, each of the TOTAL amount of voters altogether voting in the presidential election is higher.

Put simply. More people voted in the 2008 election than any of the elections in the past 16 years and only in the years 1992 and 1996 (when Henry Perot had participated) were there greater percentile margins of victory for the winning candidate. And I only went back to the election of 1992 to find this out!

America chose Obama to lead the country by a very large margin. Greater than has been seen in the last decade. The presidential election is, if anything is, the strongest indication of whether or not America is willing to trust in a coloured citizen.

Does that mean prejudice is over, gone, and done with? No, I wouldn't argue that. But racism has been totally defeated in this country.

The sad truth of the matter is that racism will always exist in the minds and hearts of people with little exposure, lots of hate, or just the need to belong by exclusion. There will always be people like that, and no matter how much you preach against it or rail against it, you will not be able to change the minds of many of those people. What's important is to fight against the institutionalization of racism.

This includes the distinction of human behavior, good or bad, by race, and it's why I object so strongly to how this article was written. Katrina was an insane, chaotic disaster, so was the tsunami that killed tons of people in Asia. Natural disasters of that magnitude tend to have that effect. What the people in Algiers Point, a community of 40-50 people, was wrong and inhumane because they shot and killed people seeking aid regardless of the races of the people involved. Once you start judging murder by a white man killing a black man or a black man killing a white man or an asian woman killing a latino woman, you start getting into the area of what is a "worse" crime simply because of race, and that simply shouldn't be. Murder is murder. Human life is human life.

I guess I fight so hard against the constant uproar about racial issues is I believe very strongly that the propagation of the race war has become extremely profitable to many people. Some people's jobs and financial fortunes depend on it. Because of that, the schism between people based solely on skin-color will always exist. People are making money off it and getting votes from it.

Please don't get me wrong. I read through the entire article, and again, I'm glad the militia was outed for shooting victims and acting like a bunch of murdering lunatics. I even went further by trying to research the people involved and Algiers Point itself. I just have a serious problem with the way the article was written. I feel it's misleading, mentions race way too much, and shifts the focus of horrific incidents towards race because it can get the most hits and most rise out of people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh


There is simply to much money being made from racism to allow it to just disappear. (For the record, I'm talking about racism across the board. Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Religion)

Now I'm really confused. What do you mean here exactly?

---

I think Kailen and I might mean the exact same thing here. I addressed it a bit in my previous post. It's amazing that we see the same thing because we come from pretty different backgrounds and have never discussed racism between us. We just happen to both be minorities living in America.

People are making crazy money and gaining votes off of the race war. Part of what keeps people on the welfare system is because they have no idea how to break out of it, regardless of race. They have no idea how to open a checking account. They have no idea about how to get a mortgage. Many of them have no idea what the value of education is let alone how to apply for grants, loans, and scholarships. They do not know to shop to get better insurance rates (if they even know to get insurance). They have no idea how to shop for better interest rates. Some people have no idea what interests really means. It's shocking but very true. Part of the reason that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor is because of this huge gap in knowledge on how to develop a financially sound life. Financial independence gives you so much freedom in the way of choices, and the financial freedom of many people is what many politicians fear.

Have you ever heard of the old addage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"? It's very true. If you teach people out to move out of poverty, SOME of them are going to make it. Possibly a LOT of them are going to make it. But if you're the person who's giving the man a fish, you have power over him in some form or another. He has to keep coming back to you for more fish. Also, what's easier? Writing a check for a nameless face, or really getting in there to set up programs to give people the tools to give them the freedom and the knowledge they need to break the cycle? Is it easier to buy votes or to educate people for them to be able to process the information given to them to make an informed decision?

Lastly, there are people out there who make tons of money because of the race war. They go around suing for perceived racism. They hit up the media and scream for political correctness. You have people out there treating other races as the "weaker" race that needs to be protected and coddled to get votes. There's a lot of people out there in very powerful positions who want to turn everything into a race issue to further ensure the chasm stays. The more people dependent on a handout, the better. The more people trapped in the cycle of poverty the better. Because now you've got a section of the population who can now vote themselves money by electing you. Believe me, there's a crapload of money involved in racism.

And don't get me wrong, there's a ton of racism towards every race out there. I see it everyday when the entertainment media or some visitor wants to make fun of the South, rednecks, hicks, or hillbillies. As soon as someone hears I'm from Kentucky, they start in with the jokes about how uneducated my neighbors must be, their lack of shoes, or they just simply laugh, shake their heads, and say "Kentucky?" like I must be nuts to live there. That's simply why I just don't think that emphasizing race is the right thing to do. Again, it's the actions that should count, not what everyone's race is.

Maybe Kailen and I aren't talking about the same things, but if we are, it's really quite interesting that we both see it the same way.

Well if he meant discrimination rather than racism, then yes, that makes perfect sense. Although I thought this was a discussion about racism directly rather than discrimination in general, which is why the sexuality/gender/religion threw me off.

IMHO that trio has far less equal rights and leverage considered for it than any ethnic group does in America currently.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
You and I seem to have a very different definition of Racism. While I believe there are still issues of race and ethnicity in America, I think that they are mostly isolated cases of prejudice, rather than racism since equal rights have been realized by every ethnicity in America.

To analyze the difference, let me give you a personal example of mine: As a white, I have had other ethnic groups make the assumpation that I viewed them differently based on their race, and thusly was treated differently. I would view this as an aspect of racial stereo typing or prejudice, but not racism because racism has never been considered to be an issue for whites in America.



Now I'm really confused. What do you mean here exactly?



Actually, what I said was completely accurate, and the sources you cited failed to indicate the margin that President-Elect Obama won versus Senator Mccain as opposed to the margins of previous years, so let me help you out there:

1992 results

1996 results

2000 results

2004 results

2008 results

If we go back all the way to 1992 we see that former president Clinton won the popular vote versus George Bush Sr. by a margin 5805256 total votes. In the following election, Clinton won again versus Bob Dole by a margin of 8203602. In the next, Al Gore won with a margin of 543895 over Geore Bush Jr. While in the next election, Bush Jr. won against Kerry with only 3012166 votes over. Finally, in 2008, in Obama versus Mccain, we total out with 9522083 popular votes as the margin between the two competitors.

You'll also notice that in each of those statistics, following 1996, each of the TOTAL amount of voters altogether voting in the presidential election is higher.

Put simply. More people voted in the 2008 election than any of the elections in the past 16 years and only in the years 1992 and 1996 (when Henry Perot had participated) were there greater percentile margins of victory for the winning candidate. And I only went back to the election of 1992 to find this out!

America chose Obama to lead the country by a very large margin. Greater than has been seen in the last decade. The presidential election is, if anything is, the strongest indication of whether or not America is willing to trust in a coloured citizen.

Does that mean prejudice is over, gone, and done with? No, I wouldn't argue that. But racism has been totally defeated in this country.

---

I think you missed the edu link that displayed the voter turnout for 2004, versus 2008.. When you look at the margins in percentage increase it really isn't that huge of gap.


Anyhow, this voter turnout could be another thread topic....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena

Maybe Kailen and I aren't talking about the same things, but if we are, it's really quite interesting that we both see it the same way.

---

Dalaena and I are talking EXACTLY about the same thing, and the points that you made were some of the things I was eluding too.