Aha Cyrena:

I thought you would turn out to be an interesting, lively and concerned person with more in common with me than you realize. I havn’t told you the half my my South African story.  I used to go to multiracial work camps and travel on the trains third class which was supposed to be reserved for those with darker skins than my own. I met Mahatma Gandhi’s son Manilal Gandhi at a rally we attended and paid a visit to his ashram in Natal South Africa. He wasn’t there at the time and his son Arun was in charge for my three or four day visit. It was a puzzling and somewhat upsetting since Arun was nothing like his grandfather. We have this vision of Gandhi (the elder) being this almost wizened thin man whos body showed the effect of much fasting. Grandson Arun was nothing like that but very much an Indian copy of Arnold Schwarzenegger—lifted weights and all that stuff. Anyway the sad thing is that he told me he was off to India to find a wife since there were not enough women of the right caste available in South Africa. So much for following in grandfather’s footsteps. His sister was much more in tune with granddad.
Thanks for the concern about the environment and the state of America in general. Those who don’t share such concerns need their heads read. 
And good for you in going back to academia.

Ted,

Thanks so much for the history. I is truly an amazing one. Even exciting, though surely not particularly stress free for you or your family.

But man oh man, thank God you don’t have to live under Mugabe. As paradoxical as it may sound, while I say ‘thank God’ for that, I also look on people like him, (though not him alone) as proof that there must not BE a ‘god’. What sort of a God could possibly allow for such evil, and for so long?

That’s what has a tendency to sometimes annoy me about the people that I dearly love here in the West..family and friends alike. They do all of this worshiping from afar, while humankind suffers terribly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe and all of the other places where evil reigns, seemingly unaware of that suffering, caused by US!

Anyway, I was finally able to visit South Africa myself, just about a decade ago, after Apartheid had ended. It’s such a beautiful place. And, I thank you for your activism. I remain active myself, to the extent that I can at this point in my life. Having returned to academia after a 27 year career in the commercial airline industry, my studies have allowed me to ‘catch up’ so to speak, on the things that are happening on the global level, which is pretty much my passion at this point.

But, as a native American (and an African-American since that’s our latest ‘classification’ now - again…without my permission, but I think I can live with it ) I’m overwhelmingly concerned about the serious decline of the US in general.

And, it is an overall horrific decline. Our physical infrastructure as well as our social infrastructure is as broken as the economy. Even right here in my Native California, we seem to be burning up. Wild fires are blazing throughout our beautiful state, and have been for weeks now. It makes me sad.

Anyway, thanks again for that history, and please accept my apologies for the tirade. I suspect that even I’m on edge these days, though I’ve generally been relatively even keeled for the majority of my life. It was a must in my former career.

Since your question about dual citizenship has nothing to do with Obama I assume it is in order to answer it—given that it may well have more connections with populism. 
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa and am thus by birth a South African. As a youth I was a pretty active campaigner against apartheid and, after getting my first Ph.D. in chemistry I took a job at the newly founded University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (a branch of London University)—to get away from apartheid. That is where I got married and that is where all four of our children were born. I alwasy felt that it was important to be an active citizen in whatever country I was located. So, I became a Rhodesian citizen after the minimum three years. I did not want to relinquish my South African citizenship but writing to the SA embassy got me nowhere and they turned me down flat.
From then on the story gets truly bizarre.  After Ian Smith declared UDI I traveled to Britain and had my passport seized at Heathrow airport and was told to get a valid British Passport before returning to Rhodesia. And they duly made me an honourary British citizen for six months. Since I had no way of getting a more durable British passport I found out that SA had a guilty conscience or something that they were willing to give me my SA citizenship back. So, my wife and I and all four of our children became SA citizens. Each child has a pair of birth certificates—one Rhodesian and one South African!
Anyway, we came (as a family) to Canada (because of my research and a job offer) in 1977 and now all have Canadian citizenship. But my son Nicholas worked for a while in Boston and his wife is American (from New Hampshire—up freedom!).  So, their three children are American since she is American but they are also Canadian since they were born in Canada and Canada is very accommodating when it comes to dual citizenship. And, for some reason the US is willing to allow dual citizenship under these circumstances.
We are glad not have had to live under Mugabe’s despotic and truly evil rule.

Well Ted,

My tirade began innocently enough with just the explanation of the ‘it’ that you were confused about, since it did seem like a legitimate question. Looking back, I realized that I hadn’t actually ‘spelled out’ the US as the ‘it’ that I was referring to, which had been inhabited for so very long prior to the invasion of the Euros.

So that’s how it all began. And then I simply became more and more astonished at your premise that Obama should try to convince people that he wasn’t black.

I’m still astonished by that.

Meantime it seems curious that as a Canadian, you wouldn’t have known what I was referencing, since Canada was also inhabited by the same Native Americans that inhabited what became the US.

Curious about the dual citizenship that you’re family members hold. How does that work? I wasn’t aware that such a thing was allowed, except for the many Americans that hold dual citizenship in Israel as well. Or maybe I should call them Israelis that hold dual citizenship in the US.

I’m curious because my grandfather was a Canadian, (at least that’s where he was born and lived in his youth) but he lived in the US for most of his life, and as far as I know, he never acquired US citizenship. I always assumed that it was because he couldn’t have both, and wasn’t particularly inclined to go through the trouble to change it over. But..maybe I’m wrong.

One of my cousins was born in Hong Kong, simply because her father was in the military there at the time. The deal with her, (as I understood it) was that she could chose one or the other, (US or Hong Kong) but not both. Same with my cousins that were born and still live in the UK. Since they live there more often than they visit here, they’ve just maintained that citizenship. Again, it’s always been my understanding that one couldn’t hold both.

So, I’m just curious about that scenario with your family. Presumably it’s because they were born in the US, (which would automatically grant such US citizenship) and Canada is willing to allow them to claim that as well. That would be the most reasonable thing I can think of. And, since my grandfather’s situation was the opposite, (born there, and am Indian to boot) the US would most likely not have been willing to grant him citizenship. Again, that’s a guess.

Anyway…just curious.

Troublesum, so sorry about the conversation on Obama. I’ve noticed that YOU post FAR more references to him than I do, so maybe you just wanna be the only one to address his candidacy? I can’t think of any other reason for your response.

And now that I’m realizing that, (how much info you post on Obama) I’m curious about why that is. It seems like you’d be trying to rehabilitate your OWN party’s candidate (John McCain) in the eyes of the electorate. You DO want him to win, don’t you?

P.T.:
I assume from your post that you have actually read the Postel book which was reviewed by Ruth Rosen (unlike the rest of us) and having read the very helpful things you say I am no longer so sure it would be worth my while to read the Postel book.
siamdave:
Have clicked on your proffered web address which carries details of the Green Island pair of books.  As you rightly point out the books are very germane to the topic of populism. But having read the extracts on these books they are not high on my priority list.
Felicity:
Bless you.  Your quote from Churchill: ““You can count on Americans to do the right thing after theyÂ’ve tried everything else.” sure rings a bell with me.
I am not a US American but it sure does seem to be the case that the US can rise to the occasion when push comes to shove. It is in all our best interests to have the US climb out of its current doldrums. And if revived populism is what is needed then bring it on, Those of us who are not US citizens sure wish the US well.  I do have a superb daughter-in-law who is American and all three of her (and my son’s) children are joint US/Canadian citizens—a state of affairs which makes my wife and I very happy.

All Obama all the time.

Wow Cyrena:
I thought you had vowed not to speak any more about Obama on this forum and yet you have bombarded me with a very spirited pair of rebuttals and explanations—even after accusing me of hijacking or some such. I am not rising to the bate and will stick to my vow of trying to focus on the populism issue. All I will say is that your latest two contributions seem to be a lot more nuanced than some of the things you said before an maybe we have more in common than you would be happy to admit right here and now.  I am not a nssty person and don’t bite.

I’ve always thought of the ‘populist’ movement as merely another expression of the age-old struggle for power on the part of the common man.  Sometimes a few gains are made; sometimes they actually become engrained in a culture, but the struggle is never-ending.

The continuing American story at this point seems to echo what Churchill said about us, “You can count on Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else.”

Re reply to Ted #167247 and #167278
Part 1 of 2

Not a whole lot of harm done Ted, at least not yet. It obviously could have become that though. Meantime, I was so disgusted that I failed to answer what I guess is a legitimate question from you here:
I said: “Least we forget, it belonged to an entirely different race of people prior to that.”

And YOU said: “Sorry.  YouÂ’ve lost me Cyrena. What does the “it “ stand for and which entirely different race are you talking about.  I do know that we are all descended from Africa if you go back far enough.”
Ted, I was referring to what is now referenced as the United States. Prior to the invasion and occupation of the Euros, (specifically Britain, France and Spain, though there were others thrown in as well) this portion of what is all of North American was occupied by Native Americans (non-white) for at least 10,000 years. That was the ‘itÂ’ I was talking about. This place where the people call themselves Americans, but really mean United Statesians. 
~~~

“I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has been the least bit ‘discourteous’ to his grandparents.”

•  “Did he not accuse his grandmother of racism? “
No, I don’t recall Obama ‘accusing’ his grandmother of racism, because while I’ll paraphrase here, he was far more diplomatic. If I remember correctly, he said that he would sometimes ‘cringe’ when he heard his grandmother use racial epithets, or other indicators of a negative attitude toward people of color.

If ALL he did was ‘cringe’ then I’d say he wasn’t the least bit discourteous or disrespectful of his grandmother, who was OBVIOUSLY indulging is some racist mentality if that’s what she did. (and why would he lie and say that she did, if she didn’t?)
I am quite familiar with both the Caucasian and Black members of my own family, indulging in the same thing from time to time, and I do more than ‘cringe’. I call ‘em out on it, each and every time, because it’s simply not acceptable. Period.

So, if his grandmother indulged in this name calling or anything else, then she was being racist, and it is what it is. If ANYTHING, she was the one being discourteous and/or disrespectful of her daughter and her grandson.

Part 2 of 2

Ted, here you say this:

•  “But he has been and still is in a postion to say that he is not black—in much the same way thst Tiger Woods says he is not black but cablinasian. “
I can’t imagine anything much more ridiculous than Obama wasting time trying to tell the people of the US that he is “not black”. In fact, that’s even more stupid than whatever Tiger Woods has come up with to call himself. (cablinasian??? What the hell is THAT? - besides a DENIAL of being black?) Why is this so important to you? I find it very neurotic.

However, if it makes you feel any better, (and I don’t suspect that it will) there WAS a time, when there were other terms used to describe people of mixed ancestry. The term I’m most familiar with is Mulatto, a term resultant from the very ‘rule’ that you so despise. So if it makes you feel any better, call him that.

The other term that was used to prior to Negro and then Black, was simply ‘colored’. For those linguists among us, that might be a more appropriate term, and I certainly never had any trouble with it myself. But Negro, (which is the same as black) was the ‘official’ term for most of the nation in respect to official documents and record keeping. Although, if I remember correctly, a friend of mine born in Louisiana just a couple of years before I was born in California, has his mother’s race listed as ‘colored’ whereas both of my parents are listed on my birth certificate as ‘Negro” even though Mulatto or ‘colored’ may have been more appropriate..again for those who like to be really literal about the thing.
I specifically remember when the “Negro” changed to Black, because lots of black folks preferred to be called black in English rather than Spanish. It was more about the political times than anything else.
Eventually, that sort of blurred over to African-American, and in none of these cases did anybody ask ‘my’ permission. Like I said, colored was fine with me, and covered anybody that wasn’t white. We could have stayed with that, and maybe you wouldn’t be so bent out of shape. But, I doubt it. I think your issues run far deeper than what terms should be used to distinguish any person’s genealogy.
Now I have relatives similar to Tiger Woods, who have chosen to just breed the black genes right out of the line. By the time he has grandkids, (given they all keep marrying and/or bearing children with white people) there will be no trace of the black stuff. For some, that is the preferred alternative. For Obama (and myself as well) he seems perfectly happy being black, and having a black wife and black kids. His mother was obviously perfectly happy being married to a black man, at least for as long as it lasted. Her second husband was Indonesian, which makes his half-siblings a mixed ancestry as well. To each their own, eh?  Should we not respect the choices of others?

Like I said, no harm done Ted, as long as you aren’t trying to force an identity on someone that they don’t choose for themselves, or trying to make a far bigger issue out of their race than they deem necessary – THEMSELVES.

Because, while Obama seems to be of the 21st Century, and hoping to put such petty distinctions aside, and call us all the HUMAN race, there are those who would appear to hold the utmost importance to the ‘categories’ and race distinctions, even while they’re claiming the opposite.

Meantime, Obama would appear to be a total moron in complete denial if he was running around claiming NOT to be black. I do have relatives who do that, and thereÂ’s no doubt that they have some serious psychological problems attached to their identity/personhood. Pity.

The book review does not pay sufficient attention to the Populist demands as expressed in their platform:  free coinage of silver, abolition of national banks, a subtreasury scheme or some similar system, a graduated income tax, plenty of paper money, government ownership of all forms of transportation and communication, election of Senators by direct vote of the people, nonownership of land by foreigners, civil service reform, a working day of eight hours, postal banks, pensions, revision of the law of contracts, and reform of immigration regulations.

My aplogies Cyrena—to you and others on this forum  
It was you who chose to link Obama to the discussion of populism and I confess to having been carried away. I certainly have no problem with the US having a non-white president or a black president provided he or she is the best candidate.
Will also try to read the book since we do at least share the view that it sounds interesting.  I will not say any more about Obama on this forum.

“It seems to me you are backtracking just a little for which I am duly grateful.  At last we seem to have a point of solid agreement.”

Actually Ted,

We DO NOT have a point of solid agreement. What has happened here, is that you’ve highjacked a thread on a website for the purposes of pursuing your own personal agenda in an argument/discussion about race, which has nothing to do with the topic of this article. NOTHING.

Admittedly, I took the bait, because you specifically addressed your comments to me. However, it appears that you have some serious issues with race, (and the prospect of a Black president) and I cannot help you with those issues. Even if I could, I wouldnÂ’t. So, I wonÂ’t continue to engage in any topic of race on this particular thread, with you or anybody else.

The article is an excellent piece, and when time allows, I plan to read the book. At some point, there may be more conversation on this thread, since the article truly deserves engagement, ON THIS TOPIC. But your obsession with ObamaÂ’s race (or anybody elseÂ’s) is a discussion killer for anyone who might want to discuss the article.

I noticed that siamdave posted a link that IÂ’ve also not had a chance to look at. So, thatÂ’s what IÂ’m planning to do now. If it looks like the discussion ever gets back to the topic, then I may engage myself. Otherwise, there are other discussions of things that are actually very urgent to the times that are now, and rational people willing to engage in those topics.

You say:

“Are you SURE you arenÂ’t familiar with that poster I mentioned?”

Call me an ignoramus if you wish but I really do not have any idea what poster you are referring to.

“And no, I certainly donÂ’t think that the genes that create the black race are ‘contaminatedÂ’, and that ‘ruleÂ’ or ‘lawÂ’ is as phony as race categories are. But then, I didnÂ’t come up with that. Your ancestors did, back to the time even BEFORE this country was taken over by them.”

It seems to me you are backtracking just a little for which I am duly grateful.  At last we seem to have a point of solid agreement. I concur totally that the 1/16th rule/law is “as phony as race categories are”. And slowly on. Those who thought up such an indefensible and ridiculous rule were no more my ancestors than they were your ancestors. As a matter of fact I was a Quaker for 20 years and I know that the Quakers in America did as much as they could to fight against such nonsense.   

“Least we forget, it belonged to an entirely different race of people prior to that.”

Sorry.  You’ve lost me Cyrena. What does the “it ” stand for and which entirely different race are you talking about.  I do know that we are all descended from Africa if you go back far enough. 

“Be that as it may, I donÂ’t think Obama needs to identify himself as anything other than Barack Obama.”

That is a nice strong phrase and there is definitely a sense in which it is true. I have enjoyed interacting with you and am sorry you feel less than comfortable with my suggestions.

SEE BELOW

By cyrena, July 5 at 9:09 am #

Ted,

“I donÂ’t believe for a moment that Obama has been the least bit ‘discourteousÂ’ to his grandparents.”

Did he not accuse his grandmother of racism?

“Wanna suggest why Obama should have made these ‘indications”. Has anybody else ever made these indications? How doe such a ‘responsibilityÂ’ fall to him?” 
No other presidential candidate prior to Obama has been in a position to give a credible indication that he doesn’t abide this nonsense of 1/16th black means you are black,  It is not Obama that went around plugging the notion that he is potentially the first “black” president but the darn journalists.  But he has been and still is in a postion to say that he is not black—in much the same way thst Tiger Woods says he is not black but cablinasian.   

** And of course Obama looks black to me, and would to anybody else.”

Anyone else but me???  I know numerous other people whom I respect who—just like me—do not feel he looks black—though quite definitely coloured.  We will simply have to agree to differ on this.  But, let me ask you a question.  Would you be upset if Barack Obama were to openly declare that he is not black?  And if you would be upset, why would you be upset?

“IÂ’m black, and his is a darker skin color than my own.”
Surely the truth really is that you regard yourself as black—given that you simply accept the fact of the 1/16th rule and seem to regard it as irrevocable. I don’t know if you are 1/4 or 1/8th or what have you but whatever the percentage I am sure—if I saw you—I would not be alone in wondering why American society persists in regarding you as black. 

“Nobody would ever assume me to be a white person.”
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that what you say is true and I have no reason to impunge your honesty. But why do you wish to deny me the option of regarding you as neither black nor white?  Why does everyone have to go into one or other of these boxes?

” And I donÂ’t know a single soul, white or black, that gets hung-up on such trivialities. No, there is no box on any form that allows one to check half black and half white, aside from the occasional one that suggests mixed race. “
Of course there is no such box on census forms because the number of boxes would need to be infinite. And that is precisely why many Canadians of multiracial origin refuse to fill in any of the available boxes.

And when you say this:

• “So all I am asking from Obama is a don’t box me in attitude.”

It sounds like youÂ’re one of them.

Am not sure if you are trying to have a dig at me. Despite my multiracial heritage I look Caucasian .  Yet I refuse to fill in a box with this label and write over such boxes “mixed origin”. Perhaps you would be kind enough to withdraw your dig. 

“It would appear that ObamaÂ’s thinking is quite different from yours, and similar to my own. We donÂ’t get hung up on the very CREATED bullshit of race. And yes, it IS a ‘createdÂ’ phenomenon, with a very old history to it. So, if Obama doesnÂ’t feel ‘boxed inÂ’ by it, I canÂ’t quite fathom why YOU would. He certainly seems to feel comfortable enough in his own skin, and I know IÂ’m comfortable in mine.”

As far as I can tell from our conversation I don’t feel boxed in any more than you feel boxed in and I don’t get the sense that Obama feels boxed in either.   

“Anybody who makes such as issue out of it obviously has a problem.”

What problem do I have pray tell. I wouldn’t want to accuse you of having a problem so why do you suggest that.  All I would like to see is that race stops looming so large as an important issue.

A few years ago the appologists for the neo-cons in the msn were saying that politics was probably not a good thing for the general public to be involved in. Instead, they should put their time and energy into things like the PTO, the rotary club, charity organizations, etc.  That’s what this sounds like to me.  I don’t think that the people who were getting their heads busted in the labor movement at that time were interested in the sewing circles Postel pesents here.

Sounds like the rotary club to me.  No thanks.

Ted,

I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has been the least bit ‘discourteous’ to his grandparents. When is the last time you’ve heard a candidate mention his/her grandparents in the course of a campaign? Same here:

“…But he does seem to have been discourteous about his grandparents and sure could, in many ways, indicate that labellings people as black, white red or yellow—as if this is the most important thing about them—is counter productive.

Wanna suggest why Obama should have made these ‘indications”. Has anybody else ever made these indications? How doe such a ‘responsibility’ fall to him?

And of course Obama looks black to me, and would to anybody else. IÂ’m black, and his is a darker skin color than my own. Nobody would ever assume me to be a white person. And I donÂ’t know a single soul, white or black, that gets hung-up on such trivialities. No, there is no box on any form that allows one to check half black and half white, aside from the occasional one that suggests mixed race. And, who cares, (besides those who tabulate the results for demographic and ethnographic research) whether one checks the box or not? The only other folks that would ever indulge in making that big of an issue about it are people hung up on race.

And when you say this:

•  “So all I am asking from Obama is a donÂ’t box me in attitude.”

It sounds like youÂ’re one of them.

It would appear that Obama’s thinking is quite different from yours, and similar to my own. We don’t get hung up on the very CREATED bullshit of race. And yes, it IS a ‘created’ phenomenon, with a very old history to it. So, if Obama doesn’t feel ‘boxed in’ by it, I can’t quite fathom why YOU would. He certainly seems to feel comfortable enough in his own skin, and I know I’m comfortable in mine.

Anybody who makes such as issue out of it obviously has a problem.

Are you SURE you arenÂ’t familiar with that poster I mentioned?

And no, I certainly don’t think that the genes that create the black race are ‘contaminated’, and that ‘rule’ or ‘law’ is as phony as race categories are. But then, I didn’t come up with that. Your ancestors did, back to the time even BEFORE this country was taken over by them.

Least we forget, it belonged to an entirely different race of people prior to that.

Be that as it may, I don’t think Obama needs to identify himself as anything other than Barack Obama.

Thank you Cyrena for your courteous and detailed reply to my post. I think you misunderstand my post—at least to some extent. You say:

“Most black people in the US have some white blood, some more than others. But the long ago established legality there was that 1/16th of black blood made one black. I donÂ’t believe that Obama dragging his deceased white mother into the equation was going to change anything at all, and I donÂ’t believe that it should be NECESSARY for him to do that, in order to be more ‘acceptedÂ’ by the majority population.”

Let me just say that it is equally true that a lot of white people have some black blood. (in my own case I have Irish, English, Dutch, French, German, Swiss, Malay and black blood).  It is precisely the notion that even 1/16th black blood makes you black that I find appalling. It suggests that somehow, if you have any black blood, you have been contaminated.  What a ridiculous notion. We are what we are when it comes to our racial make-up and racism is simply the idiotic notion that our race is the most important thing about us and should take precedence over everything else. It is the kind of lives we live tha make us worthy or unworthy and not our race or culture.
I am in no way suggesting that Obama should “drag his white mother into the equation”.  But he does seem to have been discourteous about his grandparents and sure could, in many ways, indicate that labellings people as black, white red or yellow—as if this is the most important thing about them—is counter productive.
You further say that: “People of mixed race in this country are generally forced to identify with one or the other. Obama looks black, because he is black, and thatÂ’s just the way it is. ”  I find this absolutely ridiculous. Why should people be forced to do anything of the sort. Obama does not look “black” to me (nor to you I am sure) but looks—most certainly —exactly what he is: half black and half white.  My understanding is that cross-cultural and cross-racial marriages are increasing in the US and I know that many people in Canada refuse to answer questions on census forms which try to force them into a racial box. So all I am asking from Obama is a don’t box me in attitude.
As for having all too many lawyers in government I think your defense of it is feeble. You don’t need to pack the house with lawyers to have adequate constitutional knowledge on tap. In China the politburo is packed with engineers—which is an imbalance of another kind—and all such imbalances are unhealthy.
I am sorry but your reference to a nasty poster goes right over my head.

Well Ted,

I dunno. I respect your opinion from what I presume is your experience, but it might be as lacking as that of so many AmericanÂ’s who donÂ’t personally experience the racism that has been existent since the beginning of this nation.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of the fact that Barack’s mother is white, the American society does NOT see any black person as anything other than a black person, if they have a skin color that dictates that they are black. It’s really that simple. Most black people in the US have some white blood, some more than others. But the long ago established legality there was that 1/16th of black blood made one black. I don’t believe that Obama dragging his deceased white mother into the equation was going to change anything at all, and I don’t believe that it should be NECESSARY for him to do that, in order to be more ‘accepted’ by the majority population.

I think Obama did more than anyone else ever has or could have, when he gave his excellent speech on race some months ago, after the big blow up on his church and Rev. Wright. To suggest that he should have made it a point to let everybody know that his mother was white seems to be an encouragement of saying that somehow, that makes him less of a reject, because he has white blood. People of mixed race in this country are generally forced to identify with one or the other. Obama looks black, because he is black, and thatÂ’s just the way it is. It doesnÂ’t mean that he is denying his white ancestry, but his presidency certainly should not be about something as superficial as needing to assure the world that he had a white mother. The world doesnÂ’t see him as white, so whatÂ’s the point? I think his speech on the subject was enough. My father doesnÂ’t wear a sign indicating that he is black, even though he looks white. We know what he is, but more importantly, we know WHO he is. And, itÂ’s obvious to me that Americans are finally getting away from this hangup on race. It would be OK with me if all of those who remain stuck on it simply moved to their own little island.

As for there being too many lawyers in government for it to be a populist government, I’d have to disagree there as well. It makes sense for people to know the Constitution if they’re going to be in government, and to have some knowledge of the laws that are connected. I don’t know that it needs to be a ‘requirement’ and the Constitution doesn’t make it a requirement. But I’d like to think that if more of our Congress members actually knew the laws, they might not have been so willing to allow them all to be trashed (along with the Constitution) these past 8 years.

But, who knows. Maybe not. I guess weÂ’ll never know.

Funny, you remind me of another posterÂ…at least in terms of your opinions on those particular issues. That guy was truly bad newsÂ…a psychopath actually. Now thatÂ’s not to suggest that YOU are. Only that your opinions on the issues seem similar, which is what brought him to mind. (sort of a bad flashback)

Anyway, thanks for the comment.

- for a good story of the populist vision in action in a modern setting, try Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html - a story of a modern ‘we the people’ democracy, and the attempted (inevitable) regime change, and an intervention from a ‘higher power’ who decides it’s time to put all of humanity on trial for gross crimes against Truth and Beauty - the dark horse read of the summer - NOT to be found on mainstream book lists….

To Cyrena;
It certainly does sound like a really interesting book. How wonderful it would have been if capitalism had taken a different ocourse—with more female gender participation.

I wish I could share your sense that Obama has been attempting to move towards a ” RATIONALIZED, NONPARTISAN AND BUSINESSLIKE governance” with “OBJECTIVE and REALISTIC” thrown in.
He is a lawyer (with a wife who is also a lawyer) and the overabundanc of lawyers in governance is a grievous denial of populism. And he has already failed the test of being rational and objective since he did nothing to dampen the media’s obsession with the irrational contention that, if he does bcome president, he will be the first black president.
He knows and we all know that he is 50% black and 50% white. If he had emphsized this by speaking of himself as multicultural or non-white it would have done more to rise above racism than any other single thing he could have—but has not—done.

Wow! This is a great review. (Makes me wanna read the book) but then Ruth Rosen always writes great stuff. And as usual, there are always parts that I specifically like to repeat and comment on.

•  “Postel demonstrates that the women and men in the Populist movement largely valued “business methods, education and technology” and embraced the ideas of modernity and progress.”

•  “…“the Alliance movement attracted large numbers of women because it raised the prospects of a more independent and modern life.”..

A more independent and modern life. WhatÂ’s not to like about that?

•  “By scrutinizing their politics, Postel also reveals that the Populists, who decried the corruption of the traditional political parties, sought “a new type of politics that would deliver rationalized, nonpartisan and businesslike governances.”

RATIONALIZED, NONPARTISAN AND BUSINESSLIKE governances.

To this I will add (though itÂ’s probably redundant) OBJECTIVE and REALISTIC.
And, this is exactly what I sense that Barack Obama has been attempting, but the ideologues have no idea how to interpret this. The irrational partisanship has become so ingrained that people have lost all measure of any common sense. They accept and/or reject whatever policies or ideas that might be presented, based on….NOTHING that can be identified as the ‘goal’ or objective. Rather, they base it some emotional grey area of subjective likes or dislikes. And, therein lies the danger, because it is those undefined and changeable ‘feelings’ things that can be exploited by others. And, they usually are.

Which is how this happens..

•  “..PostelÂ’s great insight is that the particular way American capitalism developed was not “predetermined.” The Populist struggle to develop a more regulated and equitable capitalism, he argues, was not defeated because it was a backward, traditional, agrarian movement. The Populist vision of progress lost because its participants could not defeat the more powerful political and economic interests they battled.

They lost because they couldn’t defeat the more powerful interests they battled. And the reason they had to battle those more powerful interests, was because of the greed that exists in human nature. In other words, it shouldn’t have been a ‘battle’ with more powerful political and economic interests, and these battles wouldn’t exit, if ALL humans favored a balance of power and resources. But, there is a large percentage of the human population that does NOT. That results in a system of winners and losers, and 99.9 percent of the time, the smaller part becomes the winner, and holds the majority of the power.
No, it doesnÂ’t make sense, but that depends on what the goals are, and that is largely subject to human nature.

Anyway, this sounds like a very good book. Usual thanks to Prof. Rosen.