People who are comfortable talking about race don't need the encouragement, and those who feel threatened by the subject will find ways to tune out.
Really? How about those that feel the most comfortable with race don't feel the need to talk about it, yet those who feel the least comfortable about it do?
How many more white people need to espouse that they have black friends, among other silly pronouncements? How many more blacks have to worry about being called Uncle Toms (or worse) if they don't toe the Democratic party line?
Not even three months have passed since President Obama's historic inauguration, and already it tends to slip the nation's collective mind that the first black president of the United States is, in fact, black. There may be hope for us after all.
Well, alrighty then. This is the post racial president, no? I am happy the all of the important issues Mr President is having to deal with aren't distracted by irrelevant racial influences. You're on quite a roll Eugene. Maybe this wasn't such a racist country after all, even with Ruben Navarette around.
Eric Holder, our first African American attorney general, touched a nerve in February when he said we are "essentially a nation of cowards" in our hesitance to speak frankly to one another about race. Less attention was paid to the rest of his speech, in which he celebrated the vast progress we have made on racial issues but also lamented the way we tend to segregate ourselves in our private lives.
Here we go. Eric Holder didn't touch a nerve so much as he showed where his heart and mind is, at least to me. But for others, maybe he did touch a nerve: that Common Sense funny bone that some of us still seem to have.
Is Eric Holder 'comfortable talking about race' or is he 'uncomfortable' about race and thereby needing to talk about it? He's the AG, not Race Czar, so he should not be dealing with it anyway, but I digress. So what if we segregate ourselves in our private lives. I segregate myself from a whole bunch of people in my private life just as many others do, and it's their right to associate with whomever they please for whatever reason they please, even if it makes Mr Holder uncomfortable with his view of Racial Nirvana.
Holder was right in his call for a frank, meaningful dialogue about race in this country, and I wish I could be confident that something of this sort might actually take place. I doubt it will, though.
Indeed. Would this frank discussion include how insane it is for white people to have to pronounce that they have black friends (in hoodspeak or hip hop-ese no less), or that blacks should not feel ostracized if they consider conservatism relevant or despise Sharton or Jackson? Frankly, I'd love to discuss that idiocy.
While Obama himself went racial when convenient on the campaign trail with more Straw Men speeches about 'they (this) and they (that) about me looking different' than a P-Diddy tour bus, he's taken a step back from that because, well, it's unnecessary for him to do when talking global economics with Frenchmen in London and maintaining the buffer between the bankers and the pitchforks. What's clear is that whether or not Obama brings up race or not, much like the Obama Fascination is a larger story than the man himself, his presidency is the Mos' Racial presidency because of Eric Holder and Eugene Robinson and their accolites.
I'd like to have a frank discussion about the content of men's character and not the color of their skin, or anybody else's skin for that matter. I'd like to have a discussion about men and their character without their skin color, if at all possible. I thought that was being 'post racial.' Is that possible with Holder or Robinson?