I must say that I was extremely frustrated by some of the comments made in class today about Barack Obama's race speech. Not only frustrated, I was sincerely disappointed by the willingness of some others to dismiss his views because of his background. I heard one student announce that Barack is white-washed. What does that even mean? He has become too involved in the white culture and can therefore no longer relate to black-america? Are we really that segregated still? And if we are, isn't he the ideal candidate to bring us together? That was the point of his speech. He was not seeking pity upon bringing up slavery, as another student discussed. He was simply seeking the opportunity to address a past that has undoubtedly shaped America today. And it is this America that he seeks to change. And of course he has the right to discuss slavery, even if no ancestor of his was a slave because slavery is part of the nation's history, not just the ancestors of specific people. It is that past that is a large contributor to how black Americans live today, and he is a black-American. As Barack Obama said, in South Carolina they still wave the confederate flag, and you don't think that affects black people everywhere?
3 comments:
In my opinion, which is clearly debatable, your ideas hold in a perfect world. I admit I was rather un-interested in Obama's speech, but I won't deny I didn't find parts of it inspiring. My only problem with his mentioned slavery and segregation is that he's a politician. Maybe as a societal influence, I can't take politicians for what they say at face value. I don't think it's not his right though, just as much it's mine to talk about slavery or disagree with him, but that's that. I'm glad you put forth these views as otherwise I would have difficulty seeing what the other side thinks, so thank you for that. All we can do now is wait(at least in my situation as I don't have a vote yet)and hope that democracy will work and that hopefully Obama is all some people think he is and would be for this nation.
Liesl, I definitely agree that some of the comments made in class were a bit frustrating, but mostly the one about Obama not being able to talk about slavery just because he isn't a direct descendant of one. In reality, if we weren't "supposed" to talk about things that didn't directly affect us or that don't apply to our lives, I think that life would be pretty boring. The fact is that if that were the case, much of history would be moot, and eventually things like slavery and the holocaust would be forgotten. I think that in bringing up the topic of slavery, Obama was trying to make the point that even now, after this many years of being slave free, there are still aspects of racial discrimination, descending from slavery, that impact our world today.
Though I come late to the show, I feel the need to comment, as I remember feeling the exact same frustration. I feel like it's all too common for people to look at the quotes on a news show, whatever one, and never take the time to figure out the source of it, or the whole story. Often the quote that they eventually talk about gives a total different meaning than what it originally looks like.
And even if he, nor his relatives, were ever slaves, even if your relatives were, it's means very little now, in all honesty. The people with relatives who were slaves have the exact same experience NOW as the ones who didn't, except that they may have a slightly more personal feel towards it. But everyone will still feel it. Regardless of your background, because nobody checks your lineage before they throw out a racial epithet.
And if I may say so myself, I think it's entirely contemptible when people bring up hard times for pity, but it's just as bad to automatically assume that people talking about their troubles is asking for pity. If anything, this damn world needs more people talking about their troubles, not less.
Post a Comment