You could say, "look how far we've come! We elected a black president."But someone could say, "well, we haven't come far enough! He's not black, he's only part black, so we haven't succeeded until we elect a black man!"
And someone else could say, "well, race is a human category and there's nothing genetic about it, so he's not white or black at all, but a human."
And someone else could say, "right, but lots of whites voted for the other guy because he wasn't black!"
And someone else could say, "yes, but lots of blacks voted for him because he is black!"
And someone else could say, "well, of course, but blacks always vote Democrat!"
And someone else could say, "yes, but it took a black candidate to get the highest black vote for the democrats in history, so it had to be racially motivated!"
And someone else could say, "i hope one day a president will be chosen not based on the color of their skin, white or black, but by the content of their character and political platform."
And they will all be right, and we will all still be in a big pile of shizzle because we have come no farther in this world than where we were in 1963 if it's considered a great achievement for a black man to be elected rather than that a qualified man is elected with no racial preference by whites, blacks, asians, or hispanics and there is not a single news story about it because no one cares. Maybe Obama can achieve that in office. i hope so. i'm waiting to see. i am hoping he can. That's a worthy goal.
3 comments:
I agree that ideally it shouldn't matter what race or gender or whatever a person is when they're elected, but it should be about their character and judgment. But to say that we've come no farther than we were in 1963 is shortsighted and completely ignores the struggles of African Americans over the past decades. The fact is, Obama wouldn't have even come close to a nomination even 20 or 30 years ago, solely because of his race. This isn't the end of racism; we do have a long way to go. But it is a sign of progress.
There's no progress if someone is elected BECAUSE of race rather than IN SPITE of it.
Blacks and whites have certainly made progress towards unity, inclusivity, and equality, but that does not deny the fact that in all likelihood there may have been more people who voted FOR Obama because of race than AGAINST. And NO one is discussing that. NO one is decrying the sad irony of that.
NO one is asking how proud Martin Luther King Jr would be or how ashamed of people voting for a part black, part white man mostly because you perceive him to be black.
i considered voting for Obama way early on the campaign. i decided not to vote for him because of his stance on things like gun control and abortion and health care, etc. i have friends whom i know are completely against his stance on some of those issues, but i know they voted for him because they would never dram of not voting for the first "black" candidate. It's "historic." So is a woman for VP, and frankly maybe more so. That is not progress.
Is it progress that a partially black man was nominated? Absolutely! Is it progress that he was elected largely BECAUSE of race. Absolutely not. i grieve for a country that still SEES race. Do we have to acknowledge the cultural differences of one another? Yes. Should we make it an issue? Should we laud people because of the color of their skin? Well, should we condemn them because of it? i hope the answer for both of those is the same. And i hope it is no.
I agree that racism is still a big issue and that voting for someone specifically because they are black is not much if any better than voting against someone because they're black. But I'm disagreeing with the idea that "we have come no farther in this world than where we were in 1963." In 1963 there would have been riots and who knows what other chaos if a black man was elected president.
Post a Comment