Not to play the "that sounds racist" card, but... that sounds kinda racist. You really think that the President of the United States bases his policy decisions on some conditioned black fear of "rocking the boat"? I mean, you tried to temper it a bit with the whole "because they [black people] are forced to be on the defense," but still, that doesn't make it any less reductive. To boil the President's entire executive philosophy, which is actually pretty nuanced and informed by years of academic and professional experience, and tempered by the very real and well-chronicled limits of the office itself, and write it off as a fear of white backlash? That's, uh, racist.
It is a country based on white supremist ideology how could his actions not be tempered by racism?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "it is a country based on white suprimist [sic] ideology." Care to clarify? Do you mean in terms of slavery? Jim Crow? Because those parts of our history, while significant, do not equal the whole of American history or the basis of our political institution. Or do you mean the socioeconomic disparities that remain between white and non-white communities? Because those boundaries are a lot more fuzzy and complicated than your statement accounts for. Can't fairly summarize by just saying, "America is based on white supremacy." When I hear "country based on white supremacist ideology," I think, like, Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa. Do we have a ways to go here? Of course, always. But, I mean, come on. In regards to how this informs Pres. Obama's actions- I think there's a difference between suggesting that some of his decisions are tempered by the consideration of a racially-charged history (for instance, not acting "too black" in front of mainly white electoral rallies, not acting "too white" in front of black electoral rallies), and suggesting that his actions are directly "tempered by racism." One suggests political acumen in a world that's not really post-racial; the other implies some sort of weird power holding the president in its thrall. Also, there is no factual or even, to the best of my knowledge, indirect circumstantial evidence of the latter. However. Given the nuances. I can comfortably say that chalking the whole of a President's executive policy up to "he's a successful black man, ergo he doesn't want to rock the boat/does everything by the book/accepts received wisdom" comes off as hilariously patronizing and, yes, racist. And trying to paint it in pseudo-progressive terms ("our country is founded on white supremacy") doesn't really justify the caricature you're hoping to paint.
Well good thing you have no idea of what I am trying to say. But since you seem to be in love with your construct of my intentions why don't you just go with that.
For full disclosure I cribbed the Idea from Cornel West, Shelby Steele and Toni Morrison. Further reading that reinforced the view was The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison I am not willing to parse your rant and I am unsure you really desire to know what I think. But I am glad to answer thoughtfully worded questions.
Still unclear on what was so unacceptable about my request for clarification/rebuttal. I'm familiar with Cornel West and Toni Morrison, less so with Shelby Steele. Care to direct me towards specific references that address your point? The Invisible Man, while powerful, doesn't really speak to the President's executive policy. It was also written at a time when the threat to black Americans was much more immediate, pronounced and widespread. Seriously man, I'm totally cool with an exchange of ideas. I just happen to find appeals to reason more convincing than personal attacks.
Read our exchange where did I make personal attacks Jack-ass. <- hint first one on my part ;) . remember when you point a finger at another person you have 3 more pointed at yourself.