Are We Living In A Post-Racial Age?

[Jasper]

All across America in 2008, people had been ranting and generally paying an inordinate amount of attention to the Democrat Candidate's skin color. In the primaries he was called a "long shot" candidate by some because he wasn't an elderly white guy like the rest. Interestingly, Obama's campaign has gotten more attention because of his race than any other factor. He's supremely likable as a person, and has a good speaking voice. He seems aware of the world around him, and he's not a vaguely reptilian old white guy.  Things have been bad.  This country is still hung over from what is being called the worst presidency ever.¹

If there are people seriously saying we live in a "Post Racial America", their voices are lost in a sea of rebuttal. If you can, search Google  for "we are living in post racial America" and you will see five pages of not a single person saying so. Google isn't definitive, but it's good for reading trends. Every article I read refers to "the absurd talk about post-racial America."²  The serious lack of people actually professing that we are past race leads me to suspect that reactionaries invented it as a straw man argument.  That we are not living in a Post-Race America is a commonplace observation.  That there are people who truly believe it is the real myth.

It's a great thing that the United States has finally matured enough to elect minorities.  It is not such a great thing that we are not by any stretch leading the way in this.  Other countries have opened their highest office to women and minority alike for some time.  While Obama's election is a good thing, it's bittersweet.  Why is everyone so shocked and apprehensive?  If we're an enlightened society of freethinkers, why are allowing racial tension a voice in modern politics?

While I admire the hopeful Progressive naivete in suggesting that Obama's election might herald a Golden Era of political colorblindness, I can't buy it.  This last election was a farce; The choices were to waste our vote on a long shot 3rd party candidate, a couple of average seeming Democrats, or a nearly dead Republican and his horrifying VP. The office of the President is as much a figurehead as it is a position of power, and the only suitable option was to at least restore America's dignity with someone who didn't giggle and stutter on stage.



1) Tom Head. "Worst. President. Ever?"
<http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/12/26/worst-president-ever.htm> December 2008

2) Fred McKissack. "We still aren't in a post-racial society"
<http://www.progressive.org/mp/mckissack110508.html>  November 2008.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Honey

your optimism is delicious.

I hope that this is a harbinger for a unified, post-racial America

but hope is not always the same as optimism.

[AFK]

I think it's a part of the human condition to be hung up on superficial nonsense.  It's hard to imagine a time when we're ever rid of race being such a prominent element in how we treat each other. 

[Jasper]

Thanks, guys. 

The intention wasn't to spread optimistic thought.  The message is: We're not that enlightened, it's a straw man, we focused way too much on race this election, and the election was a farce.

What can I change to remove the scent of optimism?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think you should be optimistic.

Racism isn't gone, I doubt it ever will be... its just another presumptive stereotyping based on labels... the programs of the ancient human beings still run in our brains.

HOWEVER, if this same election cycle happened in 1969, 1975 or even 1986... I don't think Obama would have won. I remember people I grew up around seriously believing that 'coloreds'  were genetically inferior (and therefore wouldn't have voted for Obama), they're not as smart, not as capable, they have a 'black agenda' etc etc. Yet some of those same people voted for Obama and no longer say such things. I figure that they're probably still racist... they probably still prejudge and stereotype on race... but the views they hold seem to have softened.

I think, if the trends continue, racism will soften to the point that its on par with most of the other stereotypical labels. Hippies, Women, Men, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Native Americans, Atheists etc.

So, unless the sole factor to judge progress on is the abolishment of all stereotypes, I think we should be pretty damned optimistic.

But then, having lived in a town where I remember burnt crosses... maybe my perception is skewed.

[Jasper]

Optimism is the wrong tone for the points I'm trying to make, but hope is good though.

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic. 

Mostly for my own sanity.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Optimism is the wrong tone for the points I'm trying to make, but hope is good though.

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic. 

Mostly for my own sanity.

Hell Yes

Either one is optimistic and it gets better/worse
Or one is pessimistic and it gets better/worse

Either way, the destination is the same, so I might as well feel better about the ride.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Optimism is the wrong tone for the points I'm trying to make, but hope is good though.

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic. 

Mostly for my own sanity.

Hell Yes

Either one is optimistic and it gets better/worse
Or one is pessimistic and it gets better/worse

Either way, the destination is the same, so I might as well feel better about the ride.

OTO - Pessimists are never disappointed and occasionally, pleasantly surprised. Optimists are frequently disappointed

I find pessimism suits my cynical nature much more comfortably although I have lapsed into optimism from time to time.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Optimism is the wrong tone for the points I'm trying to make, but hope is good though.

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic. 

Mostly for my own sanity.

Hell Yes

Either one is optimistic and it gets better/worse
Or one is pessimistic and it gets better/worse

Either way, the destination is the same, so I might as well feel better about the ride.

OTO - Pessimists are never disappointed and occasionally, pleasantly surprised. Optimists are frequently disappointed

I find pessimism suits my cynical nature much more comfortably although I have lapsed into optimism from time to time.

I find that I am pessimistic about human organizations, but optimistic about humans in general. Everything else depends on how stoned I am

[Jasper]

The intention wasn't to spread optimistic thought.  The message is: We're not that enlightened, it's a straw man, we focused way too much on race this election, and the election was a farce.

What can I change to make that clearer?

Fixed.

[AFK]

I think it may be that first line in the 3rd paragraph that is drawing the focus on optimism.  Also, maybe focus a little more on the fact that so much attention was placed on race during this election.  Because it is absolutely true.  Sure, a lot of it was the feel good, "he's the first black President evar" variety, but it was still putting so much importance on him being the first black President.  The important focus was the fact that he wasn't George W. fucking Bush.  NOt that he was the first Black President.  He can be the fucking San Diego Chicken just bail this fucker out before we join the Titanic. 

[Jasper]

I'll rewrite it to emphasize the overemphasis on race.  Thanks, man.

[Seth_The_Fallen]

Just to clarify something. Everyone is racist it is all on how much you are. I don't like seeing a bunch of mexicans waiting outside of a home depot speaking spanish and not know a single word of English. It makes me want ot go to them and make them learn English (the hard way).

I believe alot of things and this is one of them. To believe is for you to deiced. To die without a corpse is the war of war and hate....Just a random saying out in the open....Don't steal it.


Oh hell I must be out of my dirty, unholy, FUCKED up mind to be typing all this on here.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What if they're in front of a Home Depot in South Texas, which has been predominantly Spanish-speaking since before it was a U.S. state?

Maybe you're unaware that English is NOT the official language of the USA?

[Honey]

All across America in 2008, people had been ranting and generally paying an inordinate amount of attention to the Democrat Candidate's skin color. In the primaries he was called a "long shot" candidate by some because he wasn't an elderly white guy like the rest. Interestingly, Obama's campaign has gotten more attention because of his race than any other factor. He's supremely likable as a person, and has a good speaking voice. He seems aware of the world around him, and he's not a vaguely reptilian old white guy.  Things have been bad.  This country is still hung over from what is being called the worst presidency ever.¹

If there are people seriously saying we live in a "Post Racial America", their voices are lost in a sea of rebuttal. If you can, search Google  for "we are living in post racial America" and you will see five pages of not a single person saying so. Google isn't definitive, but it's good for reading trends. Every article I read refers to "the absurd talk about post-racial America."²  The serious lack of people actually professing that we are past race leads me to suspect that reactionaries invented it as a straw man argument.  That we are not living in a Post-Race America is a commonplace observation.  That there are people who truly believe it is the real myth.

It's a great thing that the United States has finally matured enough to elect minorities.  It is not such a great thing that we are not by any stretch leading the way in this.  Other countries have opened their highest office to women and minority alike for some time.  While Obama's election is a good thing, it's bittersweet.  Why is everyone so shocked and apprehensive?  If we're an enlightened society of freethinkers, why are allowing racial tension a voice in modern politics?

While I admire the hopeful Progressive naivete in suggesting that Obama's election might herald a Golden Era of political colorblindness, I can't buy it.  This last election was a farce; The choices were to waste our vote on a long shot 3rd party candidate, a couple of average seeming Democrats, or a nearly dead Republican and his horrifying VP. The office of the President is as much a figurehead as it is a position of power, and the only suitable option was to at least restore America's dignity with someone who didn't giggle and stutter on stage.



1) Tom Head. "Worst. President. Ever?"
<http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/12/26/worst-president-ever.htm> December 2008

2) Fred McKissack. "We still aren't in a post-racial society"
<http://www.progressive.org/mp/mckissack110508.html>  November 2008.

The serious lack of people actually professing that we are past race leads me to suspect that reactionaries invented it as a straw man argument.  That we are not living in a Post-Race America is a commonplace observation.  That there are people who truly believe it is the real myth.

Are we past race?  My opinion based on, as you said, commonplace observations, is no.

Was this notion created by reactionaries as a straw man argument?  Possible, based on the desperation of those reactionaries, more like a red herring maybe?

Are there people who truly believe it?  Possible but not bloody likely.  I think there are "true believers" of many ilk.  I don't think it's possible to underestimate the power of denial.  "There's no such thing as a conscious hypocrite."  & "Real courage is risking one's clichés."  Takes guts to continue to live with what you unearth.

If we're an enlightened society of freethinkers, why are allowing racial tension a voice in modern politics?

Because it's easier to be in denial about these things.  I know I'm overstating the obvious here, but gimme a shot?  Fast forward to World History 101 perspective, maybe 100 years from now.  Do you think people will note more than a coincidental correlation to the fact that (in earlier years & elections) more than half the population was not eligible to vote for representatives (& all the other bullshit this notion was based on – for more on this, see Jim Crowe Laws years 1876 and 1965 – surely this is not ancient history?)?  Do you think future pundits will see this as a straw man or red herring argument?  Or will we, as peoples, have learned how to harness the power of denial as an aid in remembering the past & thereby controlling the future?  "Power (of denial) corrupts, absolute power (of denial) corrupts absolutely?"  Based on present day views, I hope (in the future) people see the causal relationship & have moved on past it.

About 40% of the eligible population still doesn't vote, even a mediocre president would be an improvement over one of the worst.

(Having some trouble remaining logged on here, so I'll say so long for now.  I liked the OP.)