Many naive White Americans think that an Obama presidency will put paid to complaints about 'racism' and discrimination. The usual way it is framed is that if Obama is elected, it will be because large numbers of Whites voted for him. He cannot be elected simply by the votes of nonwhites, even if every last one voted for him; White votes are necessary for anybody to win the Presidency, no matter what the renegade old media imply. So Obama's election would show that most Whites were willing to have a black President, and this, supposedly, would silence all the cries of 'racism' in this country.
Imagine that happening. The silence would be deafening. I can barely remember such a world.
But would that happen? Not if these representatives of the 'African-American community' are an accurate sample of blacks' thinking. Race-obsessed CNN asks Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans?
and various blacks answer:
...Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.''
At 'no cost to their own notions of skin privilege?' Tell me more about this skin privilege business. In my experience, the only 'skin privilege' goes with dark skin.
But let's hear the rest of the race-card playing:
Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.
Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.''
Ahh, systemic racism. I had actually forgotten that sub-category of racism; silly me. I recently listed off the various brands of 'racism', such as unconscious racism, subconscious racism, and 'institutional racism.' I learned these things back in the 70s from my militant black sociology teacher in college. It seems I need to be sent back for a refresher course in black victimology. So I'll let the all-knowing Ms Gillespie bring me up to speed on White Racism 101:
It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.
Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.''
Well, some say these 'intractable problems' (credit to Gillespie for at least admitting that they are intractable) are due to, ahem, differences between the races. But I have a feeling that's not the desired answer.
Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.
"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."
It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.
"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.''
It's their fault? Imagine anyone saying that. Who would make such a scurrilous judgment? Racists, of course.
So no, it's obviously not going to happen that blacks will wake up the day after election day, should Obama be elected, and thank their lucky stars that America is no longer an evil racist nation where Whitey keeps the black man down. No, life will go on as before, and unless I miss my guess, the old tattered race card will be flourished with increasing frequency. The only difference will be that Obama himself will probably be leading the chorus of accusations, and encouraging more of the same.
Granted, we haven't had a President who unequivocally represents majority White America for decades now, but does anybody on the right seriously think that Obama would even feign impartiality or neutrality?
In this piece, the columnist mentions talk of 'civil unrest' in the event of an Obama defeat in November.
... I’m not a conspiracy theorist or alarmist. But I do believe that current cultural and political conditions are such that a McCain “victory” in November could create, at the very least, some significant tension in our society, if not outright civil unrest. Much of my concern has to do with a rather skewed, subjective, and selfish view of the notion of “injustice” that Obama himself has propagated throughout his campaign.
Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama’s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices. ''
In other words, if the idea is widely accepted among blacks that Obama's election is the only way for their myriad grievances to be addressed or corrected (an impossible task, in any case), then they will likely react with great bitterness should he be defeated.
And if he's elected, will the situation be any better? I think race relations can only be further polarized and inflamed with Obama in office.
But if this is the case, then the 'worse is better' theorists believe worsened race relations would galvanize Whites and cause a new solidarity to develop. I am not convinced that this would be the immediate effect.
But if Obama's defeat would lead to civil unrest, as some posit, could that not be sufficient to wake up our somnabulists? I think that would be a far less risky gamble than placing our bets on an Obama presidency as a strong dose of reality tonic for most Americans.
And it seems clear that the single most intractable thing is the insatiable demands of the perennial victims. It has truly become a way of life, this constant complaining and demanding, so that no objective change for the 'better' will ever be sufficient. And unfortunately, our adversaries' idea of 'better' is objectively worse for us.