Lash wrote:sozobe wrote:Who's shying away?
I'm curious about what constitutes "too much."
Most people seem to agree that it hasn't happened yet -- do you concur?
I'm trying to do a couple of things at once--it's possible the Blatham, soz, Thomas convo was dipping around in the "will that matter"--and (maybe just me) but there seemed to be a bit of pressure to say talk of race wouldn't matter.
I think
too much is in the eye of each beholder--some will say it wasn't enough, no matter how much it turns out to be.
I haven't heard enough to say if he seems to be more of a black candidate, or not, to "your average person." Not even sure what this would constitute for me.
Not sure what you've been pointing at in your last two posts, lash.
To clarify, I have no problem with the racial matter being raised by a candidate or others where he or they are african americans. I think we all understand how positive it will be to finally have a female as President or an african american as President (or even if it is just a truly viable candidacy). Quite outside of partisan preferences, it would have been a leap forward had Powell broken one of these two barriers. Or Condi Rice, or Hillary, etc.
Either barrier broken will be understood as a positive precisely because both women and african americans have been previously disadvantaged as regards achieving positions of power merely on the prejudicial basis of gender or race - a clear injustice and violation of the principles of equality.
But as soon as we acknowledge the above, the door opens to charges that the individual is counting on our sympathies for an inappropriate "leg up". In other words, to the charge that something opposite to justice and equality are being served after all - rather, those values are being thwarted by this "leg up". It is an inescapable dilemma here.
To sort through who is or who is not proceding with integrity can be a bit tough, but not all that tough.