Gillipig wrote:As much as I agree with you I feel like I need to say that this really has got nothing to do with race. It's always okey to favor the minorities in a society.
This is one of the BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS out there and leads to the whole idea that "some prejudice is OK".
The "song" is that minorities are always oppressed by the majority and therefore, giving them a "leg up" is OK, to equalize the "natural imbalance". The problem? MANY, however the primary one is that you just have it backwards.
The absolute worst oppression is NOT the majority opressing the minorities. It is MINORITIES that have to subjugate the MAJORITY in order to stay in power. They use nefarious means to do so, because they cannot "afford" equality. When a group is in power, it can afford to be "magnanimous", can afford to "be nice". This is, ironically enough, one reason why civil rights began up north and not down south. Too many southerners were plain and simply afraid of the idea of "all those black overrunning their society".
The
second issue (well, third and fourth, too because it all gets intertwined) are the difference between individual abilities and achievements, group abilities and achievements and definitions of groups. It is not cooincidence that Obama got to be a strong black man by being raised partially outside the US. That does not mean, as many wish to insinuate, he "has muslim leanings" or any such thing. It means that he escaped some of the unconscious, institutional racism that was (and probably still is in many places) prevalent here in the US. He was allowed to gain a "pride of self" .. and "sense of self worth" outside of and apart from the American "black community". That said, he is also very much a part of white America, through his mother. So, while he absolutely is black and in many regards fully represents "Black America", in another regard, he does not .. BUT, in truth, no one person can truly represent a whole group anyway.
So, you have multiple questions .. how "black is Obama?", "how important is color to Obama's experience?", "how significant was Obama's color to most of the US?"
The real truth is that groups change and meld over time. Some traditions stay, some traditions die. Some culture leave and are replaced by others. This is now happening much faster than in the past, due to TV, radio, etc. The sheer speed frightens many and is a not of caution for others. The real truth is that who is oppressed and who is in control shifts contstantly through time and that is why most "give this group a favor" programs wind up being more harmful than good, in the long run. The exceptions are very careful programs targeted not at promoting one group, but at simply allowing a group to exist. (i.e. the Amish, etc.)
In the end, the truly remarkable part about Obama is not that some blacks voted for him because he is black and some whites voted against him because he is black, its that most people voted for him for purely political reasons, at least as best they can determine in their own minds. Beyond that gets into complicated psycological stuff that is about as significant as asking if someone wearing blue is more likely to be elected than someone wearing green. That is, something you might want to know if you are running, but not really indicative of how people think about politics.
That's why black people can say they voted for Obama because he's black but white people can't say they voted for McCain because he's white! It has got nothing to do with their actual skin colour but with the fact that their skin colour is a minority! At the same time when you say you vote for someone because of their skin colour you lower yourself into second class citizens!
