I'm sure PJABBER will be finding an equivalent article discussing the GOPs diversity problems soon. I await with baited breath.
The term "post-racial" is a myth. We are no where near a society that is post-racial, not in our laws, not in our institutions, and not in our minds. Pretending otherwise is laughably naive. Expecting it to be President Obama's responsibility to forward the discussion on race simply because he is the first black president is in itself RACIST. Why isn't it the job of all of our leaders, regardless of their skin color?
We should not "pretend" that we are all the same. That is like the alcoholic family that ignores the "pink elephant" in the room. We need to learn to celebrate and respect our differences.
There is no such thing as the "race card." It's a made up term created by the privileged group to imply that racial minorities have an advantage (i.e., the "race card" that provides special benefits) that simply does not exist.
The same goes for "reverse racism" for that matter, it is impossible for a minority group to be "racist" since the requirement of being racist is belonging to a dominant group. Since people of color are the minority, they cannot be racist. They CAN be prejudiced or discriminatory, but that isn't the same concept.
For what it's worth, I can't find a single quote from Obama saying anything about being a "post-racial" President...can someone else try looking?
If that bizarre definition of the limits of racism were to stand, then racism would be not about behavior but about which group is in the majority. In that case, the majority group should embrace racism, since anything that made another group the majority would simply make them racist in turn. Even if rules were scrupulously fair, minority groups would control less resources than the majority and only a minority who actually controlled more resources per capita would be non-racist. Thus the majority would always be racist no matter what its behavior, thus freeing the majority to behave as it damned well pleases. In other words, if minorities cannot be racist then the term has zero meaning beyond a facile attempt to justify empowering government. If a country were 49% white and 51% black, by your ludicrous definition the whites could be virulently anti-black, even keeping blacks as slaves (because they are just too inferior to be free), and yet not be racist.
Clearly blacks are the dominant racial group in South Africa today. Your definition requires that the Afrikaners who a decade ago oppressed blacks almost unto slavery are now magically no longer racist, even though they likely hate blacks even more now, simply because they are no longer the dominant group in that country. That kind of muddled "thinking" is common among progressives trying to justify the unjustifiable, but frankly you'd make more sense if you just claimed that racism is inherent to whites and can never apply to blacks because an evil sorcerer created white people to bedevil the noble black man.
Racism: The belief that one race is inherently superior to, or inferior to, another race or races.
Prejudice: Judging non-superficial traits based on superficial traits, before the non-superficial traits are properly evaluated.
Discrimination: Differentiating behavior or privileges based on group characteristics rather than on the individual. Note that discrimination is not even necessarily bad; it depends solely on the criteria used to discriminate. Disqualifying child care workers based on child abuse convictions is a good thing, whereas disqualifying child care workers based on skin color would be a bad thing.
To wit: accepting that black men as a group tend to be better professional heavyweight boxers than do white or Asian men does not logically imply that a particular man would be a good professional heavyweight boxer simply because he is black; that would be prejudice (albeit a very mild and non-injurious version.) Believing that no white man could ever be a good professional heavyweight boxer because the white race is inferior would be racism. Barring all black men from being professional heavyweight boxers to protect the interests of white would-be professional heavyweight boxers would be discrimination.
True diversity is achieved when minority candidates can run and win in districts not hand drawn to get a particular minority group elected.
Look at the Republican minority candidates elected this cycle. They are notable for NOT being elected from gerrymandered minority districts. (For that matter, look at Obama, who could not have won without substantial white support.) It hardly represents the Democrats' diversity problem, but it is a good start in solving the Republicans' diversity problem.
Facebook
Twitter