African Immigrant Speaks About America
Derrick gained national attention the other day when he responded to a reporters question about why he supported Barack Obama. The reporter’s original intent was to show Obama’s supporters as dreamy and without substance. But Derrick confounded the reporter. Instead of gushing emotion, Derrick elaborated in great detail the respective positions of Obama and Clinton on health care, setting forth why he favored Obama’s plan over Clinton’s.
Now Derrick has posted his own video on YouTube to explain what the presidential election means to him as an immigrant coming from West Africa. His story is a powerful illustration of what America means to people around the world.
Since coming to the US, Derrick has become a naturalized American citizen. His comments are a good reminder of the love and esteem the world holds for this country. Even with our failings, America is still the “world’s dream.”
Comments are closed.
But I thought the U.S. was a “rogue nation” and not anything special?
A voter who prefers one candidate to another based on their proposed policies? Isn’t that supposed to be naive, or something?
But I thought the U.S. was a “rogue nation” and not anything special?
Not everyone here holds the same opinion. Be sure not to conflate statements from multiple contributors.
Tim, I am not sure of your motives, are you joking or are you trying to cause trouble? As for my intentions I am just wondering and casting no judgment just tyring to figure things out.
enjoy Lent
peace to all
But I thought the U.S. was a “rogue nation” and not anything special?
Not everyone here holds the same opinion. Be sure not to conflate statements from multiple contributors.
It’s also important that Tim not mindlessly misrepresent what particular contributors think. To hold that America is a rogue nation does not mean that there are several reasons why folks from other countries would want to live in the U.S. I’ll give you one thing, Tim, you are consistent in your dishonesty.
I’m commenting on previous, applicable discussions had here at Vox-Nova. Apparently the contributors/commenters don’t like their tactics on display by someone other than themselves.
MJ – I’m not the one being dishonest. You’re one of the harshest critics of the U.S. and have called it a rogue nation more than once here, yet you concede that people may in fact want to come here and be part of the greatest country on earth (last emphasis mine).
Back to the video:
I noticed he’s a LEGAL immigrant. If I never went anywhere other than here, I’d have guessed that was impossible. At least that’s what I read here!
Also, it’s all fluff. B. Hussein Obama talks a good game and gets people to say “Yes, We Can”. Can what? Murder children? Implement “universal”, er, I mean garnish people’s wages?
For the record, not everyone here is as amazed as Gerald apparently is to find an African immigrant whose political acumen matches or exceeds his own.
Gerald should be commended, however, for suppressing any urges he might have had to specifically comment on how “articulate and bright and clean” the man might be. He at least dodged that particular bullet, if just barely.
HA, you and I know that’s whats going through the mind of most folks that have seen the guy. “Oh, he speaks sooo well!”
Also, does anyone see anything suspect about the way Gerald describes the overall setup?
Apparently, the original video came by way of some confrontational cracker-sounding “reporter” who was racist enough to hone in on a black man in his efforts to demonstrate what air-heads the Obama forces are — at least that’s what Gerald tells us. Then, when the interviewee holds up under questioning, Cracker Mike not only warms up to him, but then goes on and posts the video anyway. What’s more, it just so happens that a day or two later, Derrick is ready with a career-promoting Youtube video of his own. It’s not impossible, but what are the odds?
Anyway, that’s all a lot more notable than than some guy from Africa who has bothered to memorize Obama’s talking points, no matter how much the latter concept might amaze Gerald.
Some of the comments on this thread are best left without response, as they speak for themselves. I hope this does not turn into a long and fruitless argument with certain commenters.
HA, you need to get more often…really.
What a delight to hear from M. Alkon again — such steadfast support of Gerald is heart-warming to say the least, and he certainly could use it. Though, come to think of it, that didn’t do all that much good the last time we tangled, did it?
i mean more fresh air will do wonders…
I’m not the one being dishonest. You’re one of the harshest critics of the U.S. and have called it a rogue nation more than once here, yet you concede that people may in fact want to come here and be part of the greatest country on earth (last emphasis mine).
With the exception of the “greatest country on earth” part, I do not disagree with you.
Here’s me being honest: the United States is a rogue nation, yet there are many reasons why people from elsewhere would want to live in the U.S.
[shrug]
I guess you’re the one with the problem.
Ah, and arewak is back as well — such an expert into what’s going on “in the mind of most folks” (but most certainly not Gerald’s, no, perish the thought.)
This is one of the nastiest exchanges I’ve ever read on any blog–and, lo and behold! it’s on a so-called “Catholic” one!
I’m afraid Digby’s sense of outrage is rather selective. Earlier, when M. Alkon was giving us unique insights into the pro-life psyche – about how all they want to do is imprison single mothers and poor people and anyone who is lost and desperate — there was certainly nothing nasty about that, was there?
By the way, that was on the same thread in which Digby’s opponents, i.e. the cranky, right-wing, spewers of hatred, of a sizable cash donation to Obama which Digby is sending out of sheer outrage that Catholics, of all people, would heed the Vatican, even to the extent of using the “coercion of the ballot box” as one of the ways with which to fight abortion. How dare they!
But that wasn’t nasty in any way, was it? It seems some people fail to be nasty no matter what they do. “arewak”, who is confidently aware of what most people think about certain matters, seems equally sure that Gerald is an exception. This, by the way is the same Gerald who uses words like “verbally crippled” in referring to the language of his adversaries. A real master of political correctness, that Gerald is. Are such words insensitive, much less nasty? Of course not. When those who follow the proper orthodoxies say what they wish, it is felicitously referred to as “speaking truth to power”, or some other such buzz-phrase.
So, that being said, is there any other meta-commentary some other paragon of civil discourse wishes to offer? Because I’d be happy to continue, and there’s nothing like a good digression when the original discussion get uncomfortable. Or shall we move on to the censoring stage? – that’s often a favored option in circles like these. Or else, maybe we could go back to opining on how a vote for Mr “Partial-birth-abortion” a.k.a. “Born-alive-but-not-quite-alive-enough” Obama is actually a vote in *favor* of ending abortion. That never ceases to delight the crowds here on this “so-called ‘Catholic’” blog, as Digby calls it.
What I said was not about people who are “pro-life.”
It was about people who claim to be “pro-life” while mindlessly voting for Republicans who systematically enact violence against the poor.
I said several times in that thread that my problem is not with people who support legal restriction on abortion.
It is with people who vote Republican, because they promise legal restriction. This vote would make sense, IF the Republicans weren’t servants of the massive corporations that are currently impoverishing people around the world; IF the Republicans weren’t avid celebrants of war and televised mass murder; IF the Republicans didn’t persecute illegal immigrants, etc., etc.
My point was that Republican policies impoverish mothers. If you vote to impoverish mothers, and then vote to subject them to legal sanction when they abort their children, you are in fact voting to hurt young mothers.
If you support the social conditions that make abortion seem like a good option, and then you make abortion illegal, you are not effectively “pro life.”
Again, as I said over and over again in that thread, the idea of legal restriction is not incoherent to me. What is incoherent is the pursuit of legal restriction apart from a consistent ethic of life.
GK Chesterton said the same thing a long time ago (GK Chesterton, much loved but little read by “conservative” Catholics):
————
I could fill this book with examples of the universal, unconscious assumption that life and sex must live by the laws of “business” or industrialism, and not vice versa; examples from all the magazines, novels, and newspapers. In order to make it brief and typical, I take one case of a more or less Eugenist sort from a paper that lies open in front of me … a man writes to say that the spread of destitution will never be stopped until we have educated the lower classes in the methods by which the upper classes prevent procreation … [He] concludes by saying, “When people have large families and small wages, not only is there a high infantile death-rate, but often those who do live to grow up are stunted and weakened by having had to share the family income for a time with those who died early. There would be less unhappiness if there were no unwanted children.”
You will observe that he tacitly takes it for granted that the small wages and the income, desperately shared, are the fixed points, like day and night, the conditions of human life. Compared with them marriage and maternity are luxuries, things to be modified to suit the wage market. There are unwanted children; but unwanted by whom? This man does not really mean that the parents do not want to have them. He means that the employers do not want to pay them properly.
… the turn of their mind is to tell the child he is not wanted, as the turn of my mind is to tell the profiteer he is not wanted. Motherhood, they feel, and a full childhood, and the beauty of brothers and sisters, are good things in their way, but not so good as a bad wage.
(From “Eugenics and Other Evils”, 1917)
Duly noted: you were referring to “mindless Republicans” (assuming not too many people here find those words redundant) when you spoke of those who want to lock up poor women along with anyone who is lost and desperate. I am happy to stipulate to the distinction if you wish, though I might add doesn’t alter my overall argument. Furthermore, let it be affirmed that you yourself have no problem with those who oppose Obama’s candidacy — you merely rush to defend those who glory in it, and who speak admirably even of his abortion rationale.
Got it. Loud and clear, I think.
Not defending them.
Attacking you.
Prohibiting abortions not good enough to justify killing Arabs and poor people.
Voting for McCain is voting for killing Arabs and poor people.
Get it?
Not defending them. Attacking you.
Yes, and my, what a crack assassin you’ve turned out to be so far. What with that keen political insight, your sympathy towards Gerald is much clearer now, thank you. But with regard to killing Arabs, you might wish to warn Gerald of Obama’s own sabre-rattling in that regard. Then again, perhaps dead Pakistanis are not worth getting upset about. Besides, as noted above, those who chime out all the right platitudes are exempt from having to answer for what they do and say.
Hmm, let’s try that link again. If it doesn’t work, I suppose I could just rattle off some slogan ripped off a picket sign at the latest Moveon rally. I bet at least some people here would be impressed.
Given the company he keeps, Derrick’s performance is all the more impressive.