And you know if the roles were reversed and it was a GOP presidential candidate conveniently shrugging off one heritage to claim another for political points, the knives would be out in the media 24/7….
Yes, conquistador blue blood ancestry and yes very accurate descriptor. The Latin American countries are quite strict about not marrying outside the class or race - even to this day — can personally attest to that!
I didn’t read too many NYT comments but I find one that supported Trump:
“Joe picked Kamala (as he did Justice Brown) in part because of her race. That makes the issue of her race fair game. And given that she is almost certainly more Indian than African, it’s worth questioning her when she wears the mantle of a member of not just one but two victim classes.”
See 14:30 for the Trump appearance and the "DONALD TRUMP: Our Next President?" magazine-cover.
"Suddenly Susan" is a sitcom centering around sometimes-disgruntled staffers of a San Francisco magazine. In this episode they try to start a new magazine. They try to pitch to Trump's ego to win him over, to get him to buy in. (Interesting.)
This episode of "Suddenly Susan" featuring Trump as president aired in May 1997, well before the famous "Simpsons" prediction (March 2000). But Trump was a celebrity-billionaire and pop-culture comedic since the late-1980s.
Stripped of all positioning on issues and Trump's actual or perceived "meaning" in our politics, the Trump political-career since 2015 may be remembered in part as a sign of cultural stagnation. Here you have a celebrity from the 1980s and 1990s, but who is still front-and-center in the 2020s and could be U.S. president until January 2029.
Can we imagine a big-talking pop-culture figure of the 1880s and 1890s successfully running for president in the late 1920s? I'm not sure. It seems implausible.
On the other hand, people doing this kind of semi-satire in the 1980s or 1990s never even dared "predict" something like a Kamala Harris; in a word, What Wokeness Hath Wrought.
While Trump was indeed famous in the 80s, his big resurgence was when The Apprentice debuted in 2004. Also, I distinctly remember Trump being asked by Barbara Walters, Oprah Winfrey, and Larry King during interviews in the late 80s about potentially running for president. So when Suddenly Susan and The Simpsons made reference to this, it wasn't completely out of left field.
Has someone come up with the earliest source or origin of the idea/suggestion/implication that Trump running for president would be a good idea? It may be related in some way to the ethos of "the Eighties." No one would have suggested someone like Trump be president in the 1970s.
You are correct that it was an extension of the 80's ethos of Greed is Good that would cause someone like Trump to think of running for president which would have been unthinkable in the 70's. The movie Wall Street came out in December 1987, which is the same window in which the two interviews took place.
“She has spoken extensively about growing up in what she described as a Black community in Berkeley, Calif.” Berkeley was and is a city of communists and their red-diaper offspring … nothing else. Aren’t we talking here about sister city Oakland, whose black community these nutcases corrupted and destroyed with leftist politics … their urban field of experiment?
Her mother was obsessed with blacks, she joined a black activist group in Berkeley even though she wasn’t black. That where she met Kamala’s father. She likely stayed active in such groups. No wonder she considers herself black.
The mother of Kamala (1938-2009) was from Madras (Chennai), a place known to have a strong Christian presence, although she was a usual overachieving diasporic-elite high-caste Hindu.
The mother was sent to Berkeley in summer 1958, and left with a PhD by late 1962 but stuck around to work for the university. In fall 1962 semester, she met the Jamaican Mr. Harris at Berkeley and married him in 1963.
By this point, by 1962/63, Berkeley is well on its way to being the far-left, quasi-autonomous-zone-like, internal political commune within the USA that it has been known as for the past sixty years.
The mother of Kamala was swept up in this mental "Berkeley" of the 1960s, as young women often tend to get. The black-Jamaican father was not immune, but he was less swept-up in the hype. He has been on record in the past ten years criticizing Kamala for her egomaniacal ambition and demagogic, manipulative tendencies. Kamala is a clear degeneration of what idealism there was in the 1960s.
In any case, DJT is right: Kamala's two foreign parents saw the USA through a very distorted lens: namely, that of 1960s-Berkeley. Political-cultural "deep-Blue" White areas of our time are the descendants of 1960s Berkeley in part. Seeing this trend, ambitious demagogues like Kamala see their personal biases as vindicated, and Berkeley really is the USA, with those opposed out outside that range dismissible. Free to crush these Middle-America bigots are those who have inherited the Right to Rule, like her (being a high-caste, of a favored-race stock, a woman, and with a left-wing Berkeley pedigree).
Berkeley itself, by the 2010s/2020s, is a strange and somewhat-depressing place. Standards, basic laws, and White-Western norms have long stopped being enforced. Theft from stores is constant (with 1/4 or more of all goods in stores now behind lock and key). Piles of trash on streets. Homeless. Clouds of marijuana smoke. But the anchor of the prestige university helps keep land-prices really high. You're either in the high-elite or you're scraping by, perhaps semi-homeless. There is no middle. And Kamala knows which side she's on: the high-elite.
It was clear what Trump meant: Kamala and the media spent a ton of time playing up her Indian ancestry in the past - Trumps just riffing on that - so are we calling her black again/now? That's it.
These NYT articles that act like we need them to decipher his hidden racist codes are so patronizing.
Is it not enough to just acknowledge what he meant and critique that? I mean all they had to do was point out she's biracial and feels she's been equally shaped by both - and insinuate he's stupid for thinking you have to pick. It's not the best critique but it makes more sense then telling me I'm stupid before replying to 5 other things he almost certainly did not mean.
The glib comment about Trump being hard to interpret or whatever is just laughable. He's like their little rorschach test - look at this inkblot and tell me all the ways it's racist.
What Trump says should be easy enough for liberals to push back om. They don't need to cook up even more windmills to joust.
Within the past ten years there’s been a controversy in LatAm about using the phrase “mejorar la raza” to describe someone marrying up in the world. Nearly everyone uses it in a joking, friendly way, like an American saying “wow, you really outkicked your coverage with her!”, but of course that’s not good enough and it must now be extirpated from the language. Afuera!
You might have to be from New Jersey to get this joke, but the way we knew that Kamala considers herself to be black is that she went to Howard. After all, if she considered herself to be Indian she would have gone to Rutgers 🤣
Among full-time students, the main Rutgers campus is 31.5% white US citizens and 33.5% Asian US citizens. Of course the latter includes both east and south Asians but walking around campus as a white person you will feel outnumbered. I can't pinpoint exactly when the worm turned but I can tell you that Middlesex County (where Rutgers is located) has the largest percentage of Indians of any county in the US.
The crossover-possible point for the Asians > White-Christians at Rutgers looks to be the late 2010s. (This factoring in "Non-Residents" and "Unknowns"; factoring out those classified as "White" who are not of European-Christian origin.)
In the early 2000s, the ratio was at least 2:1, White-Christians:Asians. In the early 1990s, it had been at least 4:1. And by the early 1980s, it grows upwards towards infinity (above 20:1).
The point is well taken that "on the ground feel" may have inflated the felt/visible/impactful presence of South Asians, for various plausible reasons, making the "felt" crossover-point some years before the technical one. If the technical crossover-point was, say, 2018; the "felt" crossover-point may have been more like 2008-10 already. This itself would be a product of Whites feeling "on the run" and lacking community.
Rutgers dropped below the "15% White-Christian male" threshold at some point in the early 2020s. Up to the early 1970s, the school was 100% White-male, or very-nearly so..
We are now being deluged with pro-hypodescent op-eds by blacks and pretend-blacks (like the very white Danzy Senna) whining about the alleged injustice of having a claim to "blackness" questioned (unless, like the much maligned Rachel Dolezal, you don't possess the fatal "one drop" of "black blood").
Of course, we are supposed to pretend that the obvious "black blood" in Latinos and Arabs does not exist.
Tribalism as a Political Art Form. Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) would approve.
And you know if the roles were reversed and it was a GOP presidential candidate conveniently shrugging off one heritage to claim another for political points, the knives would be out in the media 24/7….
Yes, conquistador blue blood ancestry and yes very accurate descriptor. The Latin American countries are quite strict about not marrying outside the class or race - even to this day — can personally attest to that!
I didn’t read too many NYT comments but I find one that supported Trump:
“Joe picked Kamala (as he did Justice Brown) in part because of her race. That makes the issue of her race fair game. And given that she is almost certainly more Indian than African, it’s worth questioning her when she wears the mantle of a member of not just one but two victim classes.”
https://www.cbr.com/donald-trump-suddenly-susan-kathy-griffin-prediction-presidency/
"TV Legends: Did Suddenly Susan Predict Donald Trump's Presidency?"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0712721/
Suddenly Susan S01E22 I'll See That and Raise You Susan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRqzIjy7j4w
Responding to Steve's question, the man in the picture is indeed Mr. T. However, the picture is from 1997, not 1999.
See 14:30 for the Trump appearance and the "DONALD TRUMP: Our Next President?" magazine-cover.
"Suddenly Susan" is a sitcom centering around sometimes-disgruntled staffers of a San Francisco magazine. In this episode they try to start a new magazine. They try to pitch to Trump's ego to win him over, to get him to buy in. (Interesting.)
This episode of "Suddenly Susan" featuring Trump as president aired in May 1997, well before the famous "Simpsons" prediction (March 2000). But Trump was a celebrity-billionaire and pop-culture comedic since the late-1980s.
Stripped of all positioning on issues and Trump's actual or perceived "meaning" in our politics, the Trump political-career since 2015 may be remembered in part as a sign of cultural stagnation. Here you have a celebrity from the 1980s and 1990s, but who is still front-and-center in the 2020s and could be U.S. president until January 2029.
Can we imagine a big-talking pop-culture figure of the 1880s and 1890s successfully running for president in the late 1920s? I'm not sure. It seems implausible.
On the other hand, people doing this kind of semi-satire in the 1980s or 1990s never even dared "predict" something like a Kamala Harris; in a word, What Wokeness Hath Wrought.
While Trump was indeed famous in the 80s, his big resurgence was when The Apprentice debuted in 2004. Also, I distinctly remember Trump being asked by Barbara Walters, Oprah Winfrey, and Larry King during interviews in the late 80s about potentially running for president. So when Suddenly Susan and The Simpsons made reference to this, it wasn't completely out of left field.
You're right, ScarletNumber.
Has someone come up with the earliest source or origin of the idea/suggestion/implication that Trump running for president would be a good idea? It may be related in some way to the ethos of "the Eighties." No one would have suggested someone like Trump be president in the 1970s.
AFAICT Larry King brought it up in September 1987 to Trump directly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8wJc7vHcTs
In December 1987 Barbara Walters asked his first wife Ivana about it, and she said that he wouldn't run for at least 10 years.
https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/trumps-presidency-30-years-ago-today-51740749
You are correct that it was an extension of the 80's ethos of Greed is Good that would cause someone like Trump to think of running for president which would have been unthinkable in the 70's. The movie Wall Street came out in December 1987, which is the same window in which the two interviews took place.
Kamala Harris impersonater:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ8XImZm0YY
Excellent work by that woman.
“She has spoken extensively about growing up in what she described as a Black community in Berkeley, Calif.” Berkeley was and is a city of communists and their red-diaper offspring … nothing else. Aren’t we talking here about sister city Oakland, whose black community these nutcases corrupted and destroyed with leftist politics … their urban field of experiment?
Her mother was obsessed with blacks, she joined a black activist group in Berkeley even though she wasn’t black. That where she met Kamala’s father. She likely stayed active in such groups. No wonder she considers herself black.
The mother of Kamala (1938-2009) was from Madras (Chennai), a place known to have a strong Christian presence, although she was a usual overachieving diasporic-elite high-caste Hindu.
The mother was sent to Berkeley in summer 1958, and left with a PhD by late 1962 but stuck around to work for the university. In fall 1962 semester, she met the Jamaican Mr. Harris at Berkeley and married him in 1963.
By this point, by 1962/63, Berkeley is well on its way to being the far-left, quasi-autonomous-zone-like, internal political commune within the USA that it has been known as for the past sixty years.
The mother of Kamala was swept up in this mental "Berkeley" of the 1960s, as young women often tend to get. The black-Jamaican father was not immune, but he was less swept-up in the hype. He has been on record in the past ten years criticizing Kamala for her egomaniacal ambition and demagogic, manipulative tendencies. Kamala is a clear degeneration of what idealism there was in the 1960s.
In any case, DJT is right: Kamala's two foreign parents saw the USA through a very distorted lens: namely, that of 1960s-Berkeley. Political-cultural "deep-Blue" White areas of our time are the descendants of 1960s Berkeley in part. Seeing this trend, ambitious demagogues like Kamala see their personal biases as vindicated, and Berkeley really is the USA, with those opposed out outside that range dismissible. Free to crush these Middle-America bigots are those who have inherited the Right to Rule, like her (being a high-caste, of a favored-race stock, a woman, and with a left-wing Berkeley pedigree).
Berkeley itself, by the 2010s/2020s, is a strange and somewhat-depressing place. Standards, basic laws, and White-Western norms have long stopped being enforced. Theft from stores is constant (with 1/4 or more of all goods in stores now behind lock and key). Piles of trash on streets. Homeless. Clouds of marijuana smoke. But the anchor of the prestige university helps keep land-prices really high. You're either in the high-elite or you're scraping by, perhaps semi-homeless. There is no middle. And Kamala knows which side she's on: the high-elite.
It was clear what Trump meant: Kamala and the media spent a ton of time playing up her Indian ancestry in the past - Trumps just riffing on that - so are we calling her black again/now? That's it.
These NYT articles that act like we need them to decipher his hidden racist codes are so patronizing.
Is it not enough to just acknowledge what he meant and critique that? I mean all they had to do was point out she's biracial and feels she's been equally shaped by both - and insinuate he's stupid for thinking you have to pick. It's not the best critique but it makes more sense then telling me I'm stupid before replying to 5 other things he almost certainly did not mean.
The glib comment about Trump being hard to interpret or whatever is just laughable. He's like their little rorschach test - look at this inkblot and tell me all the ways it's racist.
What Trump says should be easy enough for liberals to push back om. They don't need to cook up even more windmills to joust.
Within the past ten years there’s been a controversy in LatAm about using the phrase “mejorar la raza” to describe someone marrying up in the world. Nearly everyone uses it in a joking, friendly way, like an American saying “wow, you really outkicked your coverage with her!”, but of course that’s not good enough and it must now be extirpated from the language. Afuera!
You might have to be from New Jersey to get this joke, but the way we knew that Kamala considers herself to be black is that she went to Howard. After all, if she considered herself to be Indian she would have gone to Rutgers 🤣
When did Rutgers become "Indian"?
Among full-time students, the main Rutgers campus is 31.5% white US citizens and 33.5% Asian US citizens. Of course the latter includes both east and south Asians but walking around campus as a white person you will feel outnumbered. I can't pinpoint exactly when the worm turned but I can tell you that Middlesex County (where Rutgers is located) has the largest percentage of Indians of any county in the US.
Here is what the Unz College Demographics tool says:
https://www.unz.com/enrollments/?r&ID=186380&Institution=Rutgers+University-New+Brunswick
The crossover-possible point for the Asians > White-Christians at Rutgers looks to be the late 2010s. (This factoring in "Non-Residents" and "Unknowns"; factoring out those classified as "White" who are not of European-Christian origin.)
In the early 2000s, the ratio was at least 2:1, White-Christians:Asians. In the early 1990s, it had been at least 4:1. And by the early 1980s, it grows upwards towards infinity (above 20:1).
The point is well taken that "on the ground feel" may have inflated the felt/visible/impactful presence of South Asians, for various plausible reasons, making the "felt" crossover-point some years before the technical one. If the technical crossover-point was, say, 2018; the "felt" crossover-point may have been more like 2008-10 already. This itself would be a product of Whites feeling "on the run" and lacking community.
Rutgers dropped below the "15% White-Christian male" threshold at some point in the early 2020s. Up to the early 1970s, the school was 100% White-male, or very-nearly so..
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the pet "black" (actually, half-white) of the New York Times, has more racial nonsense to impart:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/magazine/kamala-harris-black-identity-history.html
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the pet "black" (actually, half-white) of the New York Times, has more racial nonsense to impart:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/magazine/kamala-harris-black-identity-history.html
We are now being deluged with pro-hypodescent op-eds by blacks and pretend-blacks (like the very white Danzy Senna) whining about the alleged injustice of having a claim to "blackness" questioned (unless, like the much maligned Rachel Dolezal, you don't possess the fatal "one drop" of "black blood").
Of course, we are supposed to pretend that the obvious "black blood" in Latinos and Arabs does not exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/opinion/kamala-harris-biracial.html