If only it meant an end to racism.

Unfortunately, we were provided with proof to the contrary, when a black, Muslim teen was beaten on Staten Island on election night.

Links: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/11/05/2008-11-05_gang_angry_at_barack_obama_win_beat_me_s-1.html

http://gothamist.com/2008/11/06/after_obama_win_black_muslim_teache.php

I woke up in the middle of the night on Wednesday thinking about this exactly. Here's what I wrote about it: "It’s often said that people who aren’t white males have to be twice as smart and work twice as hard to achieve the same things that white males do. If there’s anyone who exemplifies that, it’s Obama. I am thrilled to have a smart, hardworking president-elect. If he runs his presidency with the same attitude and self-discipline as his campaign, things are gonna be OK. In the middle of the night the cynical thought occured to me that we won’t be a post-racial society until it’s possible to elect a nonwhite person who is as stupid and pathological as George W. Bush, let him/her tear the country apart for four years and then re-elect him/her. Of course, when we’ve reached that point, hopefully there will be better ways of proving it."

The standard retort I've heard against this is that it's been 20 years since the UK elected Margaret Thatcher, and that hasn't meant women aren't being paid less than men over there right now.

but don't forget class distinction!

It's a line that must be tread cautiously ... in no way does one want to detract from the perception and understanding of the systemic hardships endured by other groups. Too often, it is used as a catch-all retort: "well, white-males don't all have it easy either" ... as if the presence of inequality in that group somehow negated the presence of, pretty well unequivocally *worse* inequality suffered by other groups.

That caveat stated: there are plenty of white-males born and raised in poverty, living in community housing ... their skin color and gender will certainly be an aid to them, say, getting a job at the local mechanics shop and getting paid more than someone else for the same work ... I'm oversimplifying, but my point is this: that man will never be president. Red or yellow, black or white - the white man can go further more easily than others in his social class, but a person born to a middle class family will go exponentially further on less effort and ever moreso someone born in a well-off family. And there is I should think, a 'glass ceiling' effect as well.

Of course another reading of this same argument, is that when class and color/gender conflate ... things become even harder.

In any event. I don't mean to co-opt the thread... I've just always wondered why class wasn't made a bigger issue of, at large.

Back on topic - it's also funny to note that in Canada, where we are ostensibly more "liberal" than the United States, with our universal health-care and largely accepted gay-marriage and generally peaceful ways ... politically it feels like we're a long way off from being able to elect a prime minister that is not a white dude. Which I suppose is a function of demographics ... the major cities - our Toronto/Montreal/Vancouvers might be able to select such a candidate with little reservation - but as we've seen in our last 2 elections - under our electoral system the needs and wants of our cities get the royal shaft.

On election night I was watching CNN and heard Bill made this comment and thought to myself "what the hell is wrong with this guy?" Yes, this is momentous achievement for racial equality in the U.S., but this one action does not negate the current difference between the racial (and social classes) that exist. This is truly a great leap forward, but on single leap will not get us to where we need to be.
Bill Bennet and others like them will always promote the up by the bootstraps motto as an excuse to lay the blame on those unable to do so.
Regardless of individuals like this, I truly am proud to be an American at this time.