Apparently, according to the LA Times.
This has to be one of the weirdest articles I have ever read - I'm shocked that it was even published (though, on second thought, I shouldn't be - nothing should really come as "shocking" anymore...).
The article's main point is that not only is Barack Obama running for President of the United States, but he's also "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.'"
Not only a Negro - but a Magic Negro...fascinating!
Columnist David Ehrenstein draws the basis of his comparison from information off Wikipedia - a website which just recently reported that comic Sinbad was dead and describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont has banned the use of Wikipedia in citations due to numerous errors.
So, though the information Ehrenstein presents may be accurate, it should, at the very least, be viewed skeptically. It also seems to be a lazy way to conduct research, given the known inaccuracies of the site.
But the two main problems I have with this piece really don't have to do much with its factual content, per se. One, Ehrenstein plays the "white guit" card when describing why whites would find Obama a desirable candidate. And two, its explicit use of the word "negro." Let's examine both reasons a bit more closely.
Ehrenstein characterizes "white America" as "desiring for a noble, healing Negro." Personally, I don't know what he's talking about. The implication here is that a white person who sides with Obama politically does so out of a longing to see a black person save the country (at least, I guess that's what he means). I would give Americans much more credit than that, believing that, if they support Obama, they do so absent of his race, but on his views...like universal health care, raising taxes on oil companies, raising minimum wage, more money for education, in favor of Roe v. Wade, immigration reform, etc...
Not that white people or anyone else should be supporting those ideals...
The second, and perhaps more major, issue I have with this article is the accepted use of the term "negro," - or, more accurately, the lack of objection to the term's usage from the Left.
What if Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else the Left despises said something like this? Or what if the Washington Times or even the Boston Herald published this "opinion" piece? Wouldn't there be demands for apologies (maybe from both sides, just like in Coulter's case of the use of the word "faggot")? Wouldn't they be branded racists? Wouldn't it point to the continued lack of intolerance in this country for minorities? Wouldn't it point to the HATE the Right feels for anyone/thing that isn't White, Christian, Pro-Gun, Anti-Illeglas, etc???
The hyprocisy is what's outrageous here. The fact that there is no outrage for this from the left exactly makes the point that the Left doesn't care if someone is racist, homophobic, or anything else...the Left only cares if you're CONSERVATIVE.
Then, watch your back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment