Lest We Forget: Social Equality Then and Now
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’”
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a champion of civil rights and racial equality. Dr. King’s push to bridge the racial divide marked a watershed in American Political and Social History and will be forever known as the Era for Civil Rights.
Although remembering the life of Dr. King is important, what is far more essential is the principle in which he and the Civil Rights movement, as a whole, symbolizes — not so much that racial equality should be given to just African Americans, but to all Americans, regardless of sex, race, color, or creed. Dr. King made a profound stand for humanity against the ill will of an ignorant and malicious force — racism. As successful Dr. King’s fight for social justice was, the battle is not over. To this day, the battle for social justice and equality rages on. The principle set forth some 40 years must not be set aside; we must continue to hold certain truths self-evident.
“I choose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction: toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.”
Racism and discrimination directed towards minority social groups in the U.S. is still a prevalent issue. However, I genuinely believe in the potential for change and the prospect of a better, more socially equal America. Senator Barack Obama gives me this hope; he inspires me with unconventional rhetoric that rings of the very principle that Mr. King stood for — equality amongst all Americans.
If America is to elect this Black man to the seat of President of the United States, what an achievement we will have accomplished. In the 1960s, to even imagine that a ethnic minority would be running our country would be nothing short of madness. We have made great strides in the fields of social equality, but the battle is not yet over. I honestly believe in Mr. Obama when he talks of tearing down the wall that internally divides America between the majority and the minorities. Mr. Obama inspires hope and the prospect for real change. Let us move forward towards a better America and honor the principle of equality, set forth by people like Dr. King, lest we forget.
Obama may very well want to remove walls and bridge divides, but much of his past suggests that he is not above taking advantage of racial polarization for personal and political advancement. I don’t blame him for doing so, but I do think that it casts some doubt on the authenticity of his post racial message.
“If America is to elect this Black man to the seat of President of the United States, what an achievement we will have accomplished.”
Well said. Isn’t it time?
Could not the same be said of Mr. Obama’s current opponent?
A couple of things:
What does it mean to take advantage of racial polarization for political advancement? I am very well aware of his messianic rhetoric of self-sacrifice and human equality (especially amongst race), which has made itself manifest in this “New Messiah” political image. It’s very possible that it’s all empty rhetoric — that doesn’t escape my consideration.
However, I think Obama’s message is appropriate and well founded. Hasn’t most of Obama’s professional life, both the inner-city and legislative aspects, been centered around working with or for the minorities? Wouldn’t it be an affront to abandon what he’s fought for? So, I don’t think he’s manipulating (or taking advantage) of racial polarization — I think he honestly wants to fix it. But maybe I’m wrong; it wouldn’t be the first candidate to fool the American youth.
To be frank, if Obama didn’t embrace the “suffering candidate” role, would he even be in the race?
“If America is to elect this Black man to the seat of President of the United States, what an achievement we will have accomplished.”
“Could not the same be said of Mr. Obama’s current opponent?”
Insert Woman in the place of “Black man,” and you have an equally legitimate statement, no doubt.
I know your’re passionate for Hillary, kolby. I respect that, I really do. I think Clinton has certain attributes and capabilities that Obama lacks. The experience/exposure gap may be a factor far overlooked.
Clinton is a Washington professional, and if it weren’t for the composition irony this year for the Democratic ticket, I am sure she would be doing just fine against an opponent like John Edwards or another Howard Dean.
“Could not the same be said of Mr. Obama’s current opponent?”
A very valid point. Both would be an incredible accomplishment and, hopefully, turning point in US history.
I just don’t think that white women, especially political professionals, have walked the same mile in the same shoes as African Americans have in this country.
So, I guess I think it would be more of an achievement for Obama than it would be for HRC.
I didn’t know until today, but John McCain actually voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday way back in the day. They were showing clips from all of the candidate’s speeches, and his was a bit of a downer, since the crowd was booing him at one point.
Political Points from Martin Luther King Day:
Obama: +2
Clinton: +1
McCain: -2
What does it mean to take advantage of racial polarization for political advancement?
Let me clarify (this statement sounds rather ignorant, at second glance). At what point is Obama just using race, gender, and inequality as a political ploy? Is his rhetoric of the self-sacrificing Christian humanist just rhetoric? Meaning he talks like the Messiah of politics, but doesn’t actually believe his own rehtoric.
Obama’s history of taking advantage of racial polarization is founded primarily in his decisions earlier in his life to self-identify with the African American community (and particularly an angry, grievance based faction of it in the form of his church). Those decisions can be totally justified, but they do not wash with his persona on the national political stage. His work in Chicago was admirable, but his record should identify him as a different kind of politician than the one he claims to be. His refusal to repudiate his more radical assertions shows an understandable desire to have it both ways. A transcendent, post-racial candidate cannot countenance Revered Wright. He has to choose.
Also, playing the comparative grievance game between minorities and women isn’t productive. They have both ridden in the back seat for most of the American experience, and to some extent both still do. They may not have walked the same mile, but their paths have been similar. And the women walked it in less comfortable shoes.
“And the women walked it in less comfortable shoes.”
Really? Women were swinging from trees because of their skin color? Really?
Women had separate bathrooms, separate dining areas, separate public seating arrangements, separate drinking fountains? Really?
Women may have taken a ride in the bus that is America, but I don’t think it was in the “back of the bus”.
“Women walked it in less comfortable shoes”…. was a joke.
And don’t women usually have separate bathrooms?
“And don’t women usually have separate bathrooms?”
No.
I think women’s bathrooms are usually at least “separate but equal.”
“And don’t women usually have separate bathrooms?”
Uhhh…..ooops! That’s all I have for that…..
I’d like to suggest that women having separate bathrooms is one of the cardinal achievements of human civilization. In fact, they’re probably separate but superior in most cases.
Don’t you folks remember the “Potty Parity” demonstrations of the 90’s?
And all the protest marches against “Big Porcelain” and the septic/industrial complex?
And the slogan “We shall overcome (the odor)”?
And the speech about “I had a dream (then someone put my hand in a bucket of warm water)”
:-) (I could go on, but then I would be accused of being a potty-head)
I know that some people got freaked out by the Equal Rights Amendment and tried to scare others into believing that it would outlaw separate bathrooms for men and women.
Of course, that was nonsense, just like most of the other objections to the ERA. Perhaps the only legitimate observation was that it could be applied to sexual orientation, since the wording was “…shall not be denied on the basis of sex…” But I think that would be fine. One of the very first posts I wrote on this blog was proposing a Gay Rights Amendment, actually.
продам Форд-Фокус 2008 года за 200 тр. торг возможет. срочно!!!
+7 960 200 9209