Re: outgroups. Oh yeah, and.

it is the women and their offspring who are “imprisoned” by men’s minds,

Oh yes, of course. I thought that went without saying.

Surely the men are imprisoned too though? Less of a prison, of course, but if their pain is caused by a false logic and a lament for an imaginary bloodline (rather than the sight of loved ones suffering) then surely it is their own minds that are causing them hurt?

And to your second point, no, Rob. It means “same” is associated with safe, and “different” is associated with risk. What that translates as depends on who is assessing the risk to whom. It is not racist at all. Unless you think someone’s race is somehow more important or special than any of the other dimensions on which they could be the same or different to you. Now that would be racist, in my view.

As for Clinton being a risk because she is a woman - she’d only be a risk in the way we’ve been discussing, to men. But it’s not a fair analogy though, because the relationship between the genders is quite different to the relationship between the races.

It does seem to me though that when an “outgroup” person is elected, that only happens when they can persuade the “ingroup” that they are not a threat. cf Thatcher. And yes, the examples of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who failed in this regard.

On the war-rape thing, I do not think it is the men who are “imprisoned by their own minds”. Though the logic is indeed flawed in the ways you mention, it is the women and their offspring who are “imprisoned” by men’s minds, though I think that’s too nice a word for the kinds of brutality that get done to them.

It’s also perfectly rational, too, if you are risk-averse. Which many rational people are.

But this means that ‘black’ is equated with ‘risk’ and ‘white’ is equated with ’safe’. Which is racist, surely? People are only being ‘rational’ here if you accept the intial, racist premise. Its not overt, KKK racism, sure, but a kind of second order, unspoken prejudice which is more prevalent than the overt kind. As the commenter says, its the last bastion of racism, still found within the liberal middle-classes. Now, since there are few policy differences between the campaigns, Clinton has been playing to that underlying fear in an attempt to win votes. Noticably, the colloray - that Clinton is a risk because she is a woman - is not a meme that has been propagated by Obama or his surrogates.

Regarding rape as a weapon of war: This is definitely a case of men being imprisoned by their own minds. Because they feel they ‘own’ their women, and because they have an irrational attachment to a non-existent ‘pure’ bloodline, they are therefore hurt and offended should anyone violate these emphemeral things (as opposed to just being sad that their daughter has been traumatised). Any resulting progeny are then regarded as a permenant offence to the culture and the people, because they are regarded as of ‘impure’ blood. Whereas in reality, these children share as much DNA with their relatives as any other ‘pure’ child. And since DNA has no culture, any dilution is purely in the mind of the community.

Obama is a perfect example of the last point. He was brought up ‘white’ and had to learn his ‘black’ culture much later in life. Is one diluted by the other? Or can one make the other stronger?

I see your point about Obama, but I beg to differ. He may well be the US Nelson Mandela, but it’s still an act of faith for white people - and given the USA’s history on race, you could forgive them for feeling it’s a leap of faith too far. His stated and implied views notwithstanding (and let’s not forget, people promise all kinds of rubbish if they think it’ll get them power), there is room for another reason Rob, beyond the tired old cry of racism. It’s also perfectly rational, too, if you are risk-averse. Which many rational people are.

It would be nice if things like race and gender could be irrelevant in politics, but until they cease to be issues in policy, that’s unlikely to come true, isn’t it?

On the bloodline point, I see you are envisaging a consensual situation. But let us not forget how rape is used as a weapon of war, for men to hurt men, with women the unfortunate conduit…Yugoslavia, anyone? Somalia?

In the case of Obama, I do not think that white people have a legitimate point in worrying about whether he will represent them properly. He is not such an unknown quantity in US politics for those sorts of questions to be legitimate. His leglislative record, and the platform of unity he is running on, points in the other direction.

(For example, on the Civil Rights Movement, when someone said to him “That was a great moment in African-American politics” he replied “No, it was a great moment in American Politics”).

So, the fear of whites that Obama will not represent them equitably is groundless, in a way it might not have been for former black candidates such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who preached a much less inclusive message. To persist with this worry is at best ignorant, at worst racist. Either way, it is certainly irrational.

Indeed, The Daily Dish’s central point is that Obama’s message of inclusivity, of recognising that white people’s concerns are as legitimate as black people’s, is something of a rebuke to the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.

Meanwhile, your point about the daughter’s consent does, I think, strike at the heart of the blood-line meme. As if the father has a say over who his daughter breeds with, on the basis that ‘his’ blood-line is at stake. Odious.

If it’s ok for non-white people (say) to fear or feel that a white president would not represent them as well as a black one, if it’s ok for women to fear or feel that a male president would not represent them as well as a female one, then it’s ok for a white person to fear or feel that a non-white president might not represent them as well as a white one. The only difference in this latter case is that it is untested. I think history tells us that non-white people and women have a jolly good point, wouldn’t you say?

This post at DD looks to me like a load of tosh, and unpleasant, divisive tosh at that. I’m off to have a look.

ps Is it wrong to wonder where my daughter’s consent figures in this chap’s nice graphic metaphor?