The media is beaming. "This is an historic day!" They are expecting twice the number of people to show up for this event that showed for the previous record -- Johnson's inauguration. The amount of money being spent on this event is stagggering. And why not? It's an historic event!
Now, to be up front and clear, this is not about politics. It is not about who got elected. My concern here is not any of that stuff, so don't go there. I'm thinking about something else.
"Discrimination" is a bad word to most of us. There is, however, a definition of the word that isn't evil, but standard -- we all do it. That definition is something like this: "the power of making fine distinctions". When we pick out a bird's song from the cacophony of a city, that's discrimination. We can find the tall guy in the crowd by discrimination. Terms like "almost", "not quite", and "exactly" are terms of discrimination. We need discrimination. It tells things apart from other things.
So what is it that makes this an historic event? What is it that discriminates this day from others? Well, the answer that the second question is that we are installing President of the United States. That doesn't happen every day. But, while this day is different from most in that respect, there is a shower of praise being laid out that makes this an historic event instead of just another Inauguration Day. What is it that discriminates this inauguration from all the previous ones? Well, it's abundantly clear -- we've elected a black president.
How sad! There is so much to be said. Some might say, "We've elected the worst president ever" or "We've elected the best president ever." That's not what makes this event historic. Some might say, "He'll save us from our problems" and others might say, "He'll destroy the country." That's not what makes this event historic. There's his plan to save our economy -- some are suggesting it will cost something in the area of $8 trillion, a phenomenal impact to our debt -- but no one is offering that as our reason for considering this historic. There is Obama's selection of religious folks that will be at the event. He has a conservative Christian, a gay bishop, a female pastor, three rabbis, and the head of the largest Moslem organization in the country (who is also a woman) participating. That doesn't make this historic. (But, seriously, doesn't that sound like a set up for a joke? "A conservative Christian, a gay bishop, a female pastor, three rabbis, and a Moslem woman all walk into an inauguration ..." I guess you'll have to supply your own punchline.) Indeed, he has been spoken of in terms approximating the Messiah, so much so that he and his supporters have made jokes about it, but that's not what makes this historic.
What makes this event one of the biggest in American history? His skin color. Well, sure, it's that we've elected him to be the most powerful leader of the free world, but it's historic because he's a black man. I never much cared about his skin color. Whether he was red or yellow or pink wasn't part of my decision-making process. I, like the idealist some make me out to be, like to think that a man is a man, that skin color is irrelevant. And then the world throws this in my face. "It's one of the biggest events in our history because we elected a black man to be president." Sigh. I hoped that we had gotten past all that racial discrimination, but that's still the fine point that makes this president distinct from all the rest, isn't it? It makes me believe that racism in America is more prevalent than I would like to think. I wish it were not so.
3 comments:
The point is well taken regarding discrimination, but there is more going on in that term in context than spotting a tall man or a type of bird. The question is, do we discriminate and deny? I'd have to say that, in the past, we have. We descriminated and denied black men the right to vote until 1868, and women until 1919. Likewise, our list of 43 former presidents reflects to a debatable degree that discrimination and denial.
Since my daughter was 5 she's had this breakfast placemat with cameos of all 43 presidents. I'd often ask her, What's wrong with this picture? Now, it wasn't that there was something wrong with the picture per se. Thomas Dewey's face didn't appear where Truman's belonged, but the answer was There are no women and no black people. This "wrong" is in the sense of "that which is missing".
So just as the first black man participated in voting in 1868, it is historic to see the first black man to participate as president. It is a positive step toward the goal of reaching that central tenet of our national conscience, "All men are created equal".
There is more than one definition of "discrimination". The first definition listed in most dictionaries is along the lines of "to make a distinction in favor of or against ..." That's not the discrimination I was talking about. I was talking about the "tell the difference" kind.
Still, I have a problem with "it is a positive step toward the goal ..." Here's my point (and I'll stick with the standard use of "discrimination" here). If the goal is the elimination of keeping people from achieving or obtaining things based on their race ("racial discrimination"), we should see an "evolution", so to speak. The ones discriminated against receive new rights previously denied. Then they receive more. Then they receive more. By the time they reach the pinnacle of non-discrimination, it would hardly be noticed because they have already received everything they were originally prevented from receiving. Now, one would think that the pinnacle in our case would be "President of the United States". However, if that was the case, it should be "Huh? Why is it remarkable? We already agree that there is no significant difference between one race or another. So what's the big deal?" Instead, it's "Oh, WOW!! A black man is President!!!" In other words, apparently there is a long way from here to go before we no longer reckon a difference in skin color to be significant. To me, there is no real significance in the fact that a black man became president because to me he's just another guy in that respect. The fact that it's "historic" or (as I heard one interview of a history teacher of all things) "the most important event in American history" (I mean, seriously, the most important event?) or, in your words, "a positive step toward the goal" simply says to me that the vast majority of Americans are still mired in serious racism without any possible end in sight. (I mean, if becoming President isn't the pinnacle, what is?)
I agree that it isn't the "most important event" by a longshot. But it is historic in that he's the first black president. Prior to 1868, he wouldn't have been allowed to vote. That is not evolution, because our Declaration that made us equal predates the right to vote. Our goal, to live in a land where all men are seen as created equal is higher than we may ever attain. But we do move on toward that goal as a people and that's a good thing. Now we have proven that a gifted man can become president even if he is black. One day women will be able to point to the first woman president and that will be historic. By the way, I predicted many years ago a black male would predate a female of either color as president were history to repeat itself. It has.
Tomorrow it's back to business as usual.
Post a Comment