Faithfully Execute
Congratulations President Barack Obama. I'll always remember this inauguration for a number of reasons:1. FHS tried to show it to all students (something I agree should be done with every presidential inauguration), but they did it over the log-jammed, frequently inturrupted internet resulting in large numbers of students being shuffled around from one viewing place to another and back again as connections came and went.
2. Though I didn't live during the civil rights movement and am sure that I don't appreciate this occasion as much as those who did, I am happy that hate in the U.S. has subsided enough in certain arenas to elect a black man as president.
3. For whatever reason, the flubbed oath of office will likely also be a fixture in my mind. When watching live I thought that Obama paused first because he forgot the line, and then they sort of tripped over each other's words. As it turns out, Chief Justice John Roberts messed up the line that he prompted Obama with in the first place, which is why Obama paused. We all know how it ended, so I'll just let the conspiracy theorist in me say that Roberts did it on purpose to get back at Obama for not voting to confirm him despite his nearly flawless qualifications as well as his senator befuddling responses at his confirmation hearings.
As it is such a rare event in the history of the world, the peaceful transfer of leadership of a superpower leaves me in awe. I'm not sure that I can say that I'm excited about the start of the Obama administration, but I will say that I am moved at seeing how many other people around the world are.
Comments
My first thought is always "why does the media keep talking about Bill Clinton?"
My second, serious thought, is that electing the first black president is really only significant if you think that Americans are still racists. If I'm remembering correctly, John Kennedy was the first Irish president. I don't, however, think his Irish heritage was a big deal at the time. In fact, if I remember correctly, he boasted about his Irish ancestry during his presidential campaign. Thus, despite historic prejudice against Irishmen, people just didn't find the election of the first Irishman that significant of an event.
Of course, slavery and institutional racism against blacks was far worse than anything suffered by the Irish, so the intensity of the discrimination makes the election of the first black president more significant.
However, it seems to me like most talking heads deemed this election particularly significant because it symbolizes America's break with racism. (Remember how Americans' racism was going to sink Obama's campaign; how the Bradley effect was the explanation for Obama's defeat in New Hampshire; etc.)
Of course, you can only break away from racism once. Thus, implicit in this narrative is that Americans continue to be racists or have recently been racists. I don't think this is a racist country, and I don't Americans, even in the south, have been racists for a long time. For that reason, I tend to think the election of Obama has no special significance.
In fact, your statement that you don't appreciate the significance of Obama's election sort of proves my point.
--rdh
I think that expression of hate towards certain groups becomes unacceptable in some circles, but that often the underlying dislike for that which is different remains. In America it is no longer ok to put down someone because they are jewish, black, catholic, or a woman, but muslims, scientologists, jehovah's witnesses, and even mexicans to some extent still seem like they are fair game.
In terms of politics, however, I would phrase the question of racism as follows: Will people vote against Candidate X because of his race? My life experience and the polling on this question lead me to the following conclusion: Americans do not vote against a candidate because of that candidate's race. 50 years ago they probably did, but not today, and probably not for at least the last 25 years. That is why I do not think the election of a black president is particularly significant.
In fact, I think that Americans today are so eager to prove they are not racists that they will prefer the minority candidate even when he is the lesser of the two candidates. In fact, I remember Obama himself saying that he thought his race actually helped him in the election. (Of course, that could have been insincere posturing.)
I think this rule goes for almost every race.
Religion is an entirely different matter in my opinion.
rdh
As far as religion being a different matter, do you feel that religious persecution is alive and well?
Religion is different. To some extent I think religion should be different. That's because you choose what you believe to a certain extent. It makes more sense to judge someone based on something they can control, like religion, than to judge them based on something they can't control like skin color.
I do believe that religious bigotry is alive and well. That's largely because the scolds that get to decide what is PC and what can be ridiculed are all on the left. Religion is inherently conservative, and, therefore, it is absurd and can be ridiculed. But don't you dare suggest that some indigionous tribe in south America is backwards because then you would be a bigot!
Actually, I don't think I agree with my last paragraph.
Rdh
You said this election was historic because it shows that American's have repressed their anger/hate (lets just say racism) enough to vote for Obama, and that this holds some significance for civil rights.
My counter point was that this election is only significant if you think American's have recently been racists. Since I do not believe any significant portion of the population has been racist for a while, I don't think this election is that significant. (Of course there are enclaves of racism, but Jessie Jackson didn't lose because he was black; he lost because he was Jessie Jackson.)
You then ask, "what do you mean by racism?" (The implicit argument is that if you define racism broadly, then Americans may well have been racist in the recent past/currently). My answer is, racism in election politics means to vote against (or refrain from voting for) a candidate because of his race. In other words, I don't think Americans say, "hey, Obama is black, and I hate blacks, so I won't vote for him!" Thus, my argument is that Americans aren't voting based on race. Your counter argument is that there is some sort of underlying prejudice that does not manifest itself in the vote because of social pressures.
I guess I have two responses to that. First, if the prejudice never manifests itself, then how do you know it exists? if they act like the like Obama all the time, even when they vote anonymously, when do Americans tip their hands that they actually harbor racial prejudice?
Second, remember, my initial argument was that this election is not significant because Americans, on the whole, are not, and have not for a significant period of time, been prejudiced (at least when voting). But if your point is that people are still secretly prejudice, then how do you justify calling this election significant? I thought you were saying this election proved something about racism/prejudice in America? It seems to me that if Americans still harbor secret prejudices that do not manifest themselves at the polls, then Obama's election does not disprove American racism or prejudice, and, therefore, it is not very significant.
rdh