You have to listen to this NPR report about Amanda Jones, a 109-year-old black Texas woman whose father was an emancipated slave. This living link to slavery never thought she'd see this day. Back in the day, they used to have to pay to vote. "We would pick cotton and save our money" to pay the poll tax, she said.
And now look. Are there any words to describe how magnificent this is, that she lived to see this -- and not only to see it, but to participate in it? She cast her vote for Obama.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's an amazing day for our sense of race, to be sure. It's always in the background in America, and the awareness is more prevalent than in any European country I've lived in. Specific attitudes vary considerably depending on demographics, but as a culture, it remains a factor, for good or ill.
But now, the President-Elect is, by the American definition, a Black man. I don't know about the rest of you, but I just feel a little surge of pride today when I see a little Black or ethnically mixed boy or girl skipping ahead of their parents as they walk down the sidewalk. The child has no more or less potential than he or she did the day before yesterday, but somehow, it just makes you smile because of what has happened. I hope this change motivates young Black men in difficult circumstances to hold their heads up and look beyond a popular culture which so often glorifies nothing more than social standing and instant gratification (to be perfectly fair, our wider culture does the same, just with fewer rap artists;) .)
More and more of us younger Americans are ethnically mixed, with relatively open attitudes towards race. 66% of voters 18 to 30 years old voted Obama. And with that percentage it's obvious the vote was about more than politics. Mixed heritage will become more and more commonplace with each passing decade. Obama just managed to arrive a bit early.
> Now, more than any time in American history, European Americans must stand together. Our white brothers and sisters need us.
Thank God that Jesus was neither European or American!
We need to remember that we celebrate a middle-eastern religion and worship a middle-eastern God who has graciously grafted the European tribes into his Kingdom.
As Christians, it means nothing to say that we are European, American, or even white. What matters is that we show the world God's love for ALL peoples, ALL nations, ALL tongues!
Amen.
"My post refers to Rod's original piece, not the inane post by 'anonymous.'"
Inane? I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant to write "insane." Cf., "Our white brothers and sisters need us."
Franklin, your comment is helpful but still doesn't quite answer my question.
I'll put it another way: why is it considered acceptable that blacks voted for Obama 98% to 4%, but if whites had voted for McCain in anything remotely close to those numbers, the cries of "racism!" would be echoing all across the land at this point?
Isn't this in itself a subtle form of racism, saying something along the lines of, "Well, we expect those dumb coloreds to blindly vote for one of their own"?
I guess I find this whole thing odd because the race of a candidate doesn't figure into my calculations whatsoever. My opposition to Obama has to do with his socialism, not his color, and if Condi Rice or Colin Powell would have been his opponent instead of McCain, my opposition to Obama would not have lessened one bit.
Rob, I guess your question is not answerable, at least in the context we have here. In my cynical view, it starts and ends with identity politics, which "makes sense" only to those who affiliate with the given identity. If the "-ism" is the starting point, if debate is restricted to the "-ism", then there is no room for rational disagreement.
In 1974, my home town converted from a state-charter township to a home-rule charter city with a mayor-council structure. It was (and still is, though not so much) a Republican-machine town. My mother, long a registered Democrat, decided to run for an at-large council seat. The Republican party bosses recognized her strength as a candidate, and in true "-ism" fashion approached her: reregister Republican, and they'd give her a seat. That's a bald way to put it, and the connotations of corruption are unfortunate, but I'm trying to be brief. ;-)
I accompanied her in hours of door-to-door campaigning. The typical experience (especially in a household with children) was immediate recognition, sincere enthusiasm that she was running, constructive conversation about the issues, and an abrupt end to the conversation upon learning that she was running as a Democrat. Doors were not slammed in her face, but there was no way that party loyalty could leave any room for someone not willing to violate her principles and lie about her party affiliation.
Is "partyism" the same as racism or sexism? My cynical heart says "you betcha!", but these were real people, with real outlooks on local issues and a nearly intimate sharing of concerns and attitudes. She was not a Republican, so not worthy of a hearing on any of the rest.
BTW, Mom came in "first" of the at-large candidates who did not win a seat. Clearly some of those Republican loyalists had some sort of pang of guilt over their "partyist" knee-jerk rejection of her.
The short answer: I just dunno. Let's go have a beer and find something to not be depressed about. ;-)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.