Quote:
Originally Posted by myboynoah
Does no one else find it interesting that Obama's heritage carries none of this history?
Furthermore, that after all this talk of "change," Cali focuses on race versus what this means in terms of future direction of the United States. Did race trump substance? Was Ferraro right?
|
Don't be silly. The magnitude of the moment last night existed because Obama is black. That doesn't mean he was elected BECAUSE he was black and that race trumped substance. To the contrary, race appeared to not matter at all in most states, which is precisely why the moment was so beautiful. While undoubtedly many still voted on race, most Americans voted on substance irrespective of race. If Obama were white, I would still be thrilled with the election precisely because of the substance of Obama's ideology, but it wouldn't be a momentous event in American history. It would be just like any other election where some ideas win and some lose. His race added another dynamic never before experienced in this nation. If you don't get it now, you never will.
And don't try to claim that Obama's heritage carried none of the history of civil rights problems in our nation's past. You don't need to be a descendent of slaves to share in that history. He was the son of a black father from Kenya (where many slaves, by the way, were captured and transported to the US). He has experienced racial injustice and the effect of this nation's struggle with civil rights as well.