America as Post-Racial, or Post-Racist? - Michael Eric Dyson

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/10/01/Michael_Eric_Dyson_No_Dreams_Deferred

Author and commentator Michael Eric Dyson discusses white Democratic racism towards Barack Obama, and contrasts the idea of a "post-racist" society with a "post-racial" one.

-----

Michael Eric Dyson addresses the Georgetown community in a lecture titled, "No Dreams Deferred?" Professor Dyson is an outspoken scholar who exploded on to the national scene in a public dispute with Bill Cosby over poverty and the black underclass - Georgetown University

Michael Eric Dyson, named by Ebony as one of the hundred most influential black Americans, is the author of sixteen books, including Holler if You Hear Me, Is Bill Cosby Right? and I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King Jr. He is currently University Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University. He lives in Washington, D.C.

His most recent book is April 4, 1968: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Death and How It Changed America.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• barack
• obama
• black
• white
• african
• american
• americans
• race
• racial
• racists
• racism
• voters
• voting
• vote
• minority
• majority
• culture
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[Mr40acresandamule]

My question I have is is this. Why is it that black politicians running for public office like Obama did have to be post racial? No one asks white politicians to be post racial.

[HeCameHeSawGROID]

@Ryooken Yeah, I know what 1% is, thanks. Their genetics are 1-4% prevalent in modern non african populations. "their genetics are prevalent at all. " Did you mean "their genetics are NOT prevalent at all" uhhh, they are 1-4% prevalent. Your reasoning is subjective and scatter brained.

Show me an academic source for your claims that:

A) Dominant genes are older.

B) African genes are dominant.

[Ryooken]

@HeCameHeSawGROID Actually it's not significant at all. What it is a small variant on a strain. Much as you would like it to be more. 1% of 500000 is just 5000 and as we have seen they died out rather quickly and their genetics are prevalent at all. In fact, this is why I asked you about dominant genes. You claim that it's bs that dominant genes aren't more original clearly shows that you know nothing about genetics or gene dominance.

[HeCameHeSawGROID]

@Ryooken AT LEAST 1-4% is very significant. I don't even know what else, did all the rest come from africa? Evidence?

Recessive/Dominant is just a fact of chemistry. Recessive genes become common because they code for something useful and are selected. It does not tell you how old the gene is.

"Let's be clear here the more original the genes are the more dominant they are."

This is just retarded bullshit. This "dominant" argument is a distraction. Are African genes even dominant?

[Ryooken]

@HeCameHeSawGROID Wrong again. If there was significant contributions then the gene pool would reflect that. It doesn't. In fact, if you had bothered to do your research, you would know that the DNA of the Neanderthal is almost non-existent. You claiming it's irrelevant that European genes are recessive only shows your lack of understanding. Let's be clear here the more original the genes are the more dominant they are. You should know this.

[HeCameHeSawGROID]

@Ryooken I am not denying that there has been gene flow from Asia and Africa. I am not saying that Europeans are the "progenetors". I do not even know how much the various contributions are. All I am saying is that a significant contribution came from Europe. "Out of Africa" replacement model is wrong. Recessive genes are compatible with that, actually they are largely irrelevant.

[Ryooken]

@HeCameHeSawGROID Sorry Charley the evidence isn't conclusive on that score. Since the Ice Age destroyed some of the sites that were in and around Africa, you cannot claim that it's the European Neanderthal and not the African Neaderthal that were the progeneters of modern man. In fact, genetically it clearly shows that Africa and Asia have been contributing to European genetics for quite some time and again I ask you if the Europeans are the progenetors then why are European genes recessive?

[HeCameHeSawGROID]

@Ryooken It is you that is deflecting the issue. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Neanderthals developed in Europe, and contributed to modern non-Africans. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that is simply dishonest.

"You are claiming that white people developed outside of Africa and therefore have no gene equivelent present day people that are non-white. "

Does that make sense? Is English your first language?

[Ryooken]

@HeCameHeSawGROID No, this is call you trying to deflect this issue. What we were discussing is the origin of the species. In other words who came first the chicken or the egg? You are claiming that white people developed outside of Africa and therefore have no gene equivelent present day people that are non-white. My point is that white people came from Africa and with contributions from Asia but still started off the way all African people do and that's black. Either way you fail.

[HeCameHeSawGROID]

@Ryooken This is called psychological projection. You've gone to 2 million years ago. Shall I find a European common ancestor from 5 million years ago? What a waste of time.