Affirmative action is, by definition, state-sponsored racial discrimination, with the justifications offered up in its defense tenuous at best. Although no longer part of the national conversation, one has to wonder how much of a future it has should Barack Obama receive his party's nomination (and the smart money seems to currently be on him, with 3 wins likely today in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia). Indeed, as Jeff Jacoby has written, Obama's skin color is most likely an asset and at worst an irrelevance. (Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would have nearly the popularity if he was white? It certainly isn't Obama's platform that distinguishes him.)
If a black man can be nominated by a major political party for the office of president, how can the case be maintained that skin color is such an obstacle that racial discrimination must be employed to advance the cause of blacks? If one is to cite the obstacles inherent in growing up in a ghetto environment (which Barack most certainly did not), are these not primarily economic in nature and apply to all racial groups?
What is interesting is the character of some of the most high-profile blacks (I consciously avoid use of the term African-American) in America today: Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell. None of them define themselves primarily by their race or can be confused for public figures in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Kweise Mfume mold. There seems to be a lesson there.
And yet we live in a society that seeks to emphasize racial divisions and differences through phenomena such as Black History Month and Kwanzaa. Is this a formula designed to promote individual success? Success as a country?
If a black man can be nominated by a major political party for the office of president, how can the case be maintained that skin color is such an obstacle that racial discrimination must be employed to advance the cause of blacks? If one is to cite the obstacles inherent in growing up in a ghetto environment (which Barack most certainly did not), are these not primarily economic in nature and apply to all racial groups?
What is interesting is the character of some of the most high-profile blacks (I consciously avoid use of the term African-American) in America today: Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell. None of them define themselves primarily by their race or can be confused for public figures in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Kweise Mfume mold. There seems to be a lesson there.
And yet we live in a society that seeks to emphasize racial divisions and differences through phenomena such as Black History Month and Kwanzaa. Is this a formula designed to promote individual success? Success as a country?
No comments:
Post a Comment