Congressman: Obama's Senate Replacement Must Be Black

blacbird said:

Historically, we've been conditioned to believe that a certain highly non-diverse appearance (white, male) is a God-given signal of talent and merit. We've finally moved out of that paradigm, most of us, anyway, but it remains a work in progress, and won't be without its lumps and blemishes.

Click to expand...

That's swell. But many of "us"--likely most--moved out of that paradigm and right into the one William just described.

robeiae said:

That's swell. But many of "us"--likely most--moved out of that paradigm and right into the one William just described.

Click to expand...

So . . . you object to my observation on what grounds?

caw

blacbird said:

So . . . you object to my observation on what grounds?

caw

Click to expand...

I don't object to it. I just don't think it's relevant in the here and now. Schools--by and large--are not designing curriculum based on your paradigm. The government is not creating specific programs to foist that paradigm on the citizenry. In contrast, there are curriculum that are supposed to teach the glory of inclusion, that are supposed to present every cultural difference as valid and therefore allowable. There are government programs--to bring it home--that mandate diversity, all else be damned.

In other words, it's no longer 1926.

*nods head in agreement*

Like in Party of Five.

Click to expand...

Do what? That was one of the whitest shows ever. Not that I don't miss the heartfelt indie soundtrack with the sensitive guitars and the postgrunge clothes and the bulldog and Matthew Fox before he turned into a scruffy feral asshole on Lost.

Damn it, now I miss the nineties.

robeiae said:

I don't object to it. I just don't think it's relevant in the here and now. Schools--by and large--are not designing curriculum based on your paradigm.

Click to expand...

Christ, Robs, I don't even know what my "paradigm" is. I simply made an observation. To whit: Bobby Rush is being a dope. And there's a flip side to Haskins' comment, being that the U.S. has a long history, thankfully receding, of being a place where white males have had an enormous sociopolitical advantage. And the U.S. Senate remains a place with a sparse history of minority presence.

That's not "relevant in the here and now"?

And I haven't got a flarking clue what "relevance" your school curriculum comment has to anything I said, or anything Haskins said, or anything anybody else in this thread said. Or even anything Bobby Rush said, that I'm aware of.

And that, somehow, what I said got your back up. Maybe you need to look into why that response happened.

caw

My back's not up.

But sometimes I forget my place, I guess.

Bill Cosby

I can kind of understand where Bobby Rush is coming from, but since he's the guy who beat Barack Obama when Obama ran for his seat, I don't think he's motivated out of any great love for the guy.

Plus, it's time to put to bed this "Black seat/White seat" crap. It's damn near 2009: Who needs token hires based upon complexion and not qualification?

The most important considrations that the governor should make in appointing Obama's successor is (a) Can they do a good job representing the citizens of Illinois and (b) Can they hold onto the seat when they have to stand for election in 2010?

If Jesse Jackson Jr. or some of the minorities I've read mentioned as possible replacements meet those two criteria, then go for it.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in Illinois. But if I did, my pick would be Tammy Duckworth who is a minority as well on several levels and has a terrific and heroic life story.

She's currently the Director of Veteran Affairs for the state of Illinois and has been mentioned as possibly filling the same role in The Obama Administration. But she could be a far greater asset in the U.S. Senate.

Obama didn't run as "the Black candidate" and I doubt he would like the suggestion certain political offices are restricted to one race over another. Wasn't that one of his reasons for running for the presidency in the first place?