|
hisannabelle -> RE: Does Obama's win prove we are colorblind? (1/7/2008 2:06:16 PM)
|
greetings all,
OBVIOUSLY race is going to be the issue. this is the only black man ever to have a viable chance at being president. it's just as much of an issue if we actually had a non-christian with a viable chance at being president. or, in hillary clinton's case, a woman.
what i don't understand is what people don't get about the fact that saying he's a "black candidate" versus a "candidate who happens to be black" is not fair. every white candidate (that is, all of them, ever) has always gotten to be a white candidate, not a candidate who happens to be white, and they've never gotten shit about it. but all of a sudden a black man actually gets a chance, and it's all, "oh, he's a BLACK candidate." in hillary's case, she's the "female candidate." nobody ever says that about male candidates - it's not, "oh, he's the MALE candidate." he's just a candidate. women and people of color do not get that luxury. voters who are female and of color do not get that luxury, either - it's about getting the "black vote" and the "women's vote" - why do we never hear someone talking about getting the "white vote" and the "male vote"?
the other thing that gets me is that he's supposed to "represent black people." white people do not have a "white people's candidate." the idea that there is a "black person's candidate" who can speak for the "black community" is just asinine - about as asinine as saying there's a "white people's candidate" who speaks for the "white community." (or a "women's candidate" who speaks for "women.")
respectfully,
annabelle. who is pale as pale can be, by the way. and will probably be voting for obama since he's the only candidate with a snowball's chance who even comes remotely close to representing her beliefs on major issues - and even then, misses by a mile some of the time.
|
|
|
|
