Wondrous, Revealing, and Misleading
There are qualities that are wondrous, revealing, and misleading embodied in the above depiction.
Wondrous speaks for itself. That a man with African American genes guiding his core can walk up the White House steps guarded like the precious commodity he is, rather than doing the guarding, or the gardening, the cooking, or the cleaning, is a wondrous thing. But it’s only wondrous because of the evil that preceded it.
What’s revealing is that there was a gigantic blind spot in the genius of the founding fathers. That they somehow saw women as second class citizens, and people of color as not even human, and therefore not deserving of basic human rights, made them, in certain respects, not unlike the Muslim extremists of today.
What’s misleading is that Obama is depicted as being dwarfed by the White House and, by implication, dwarfed by its challenges. Don’t underestimate this man. He knows what he knows, and is secure enough to ask for help in areas in which greater expertise is required. He’s not dwarfed at all.
I understand the message that the image is attempting to convey. I applaud it. But not without reservation.
8 Comments
Additional comments powered by BackType
It’s a building. In which way are large buildings not usually bigger than people?
Because he’s black, so its racist. Get used to this attitude.
But on a lighter note, congrats on making it onto stumble
thanks. Brendan. and you’re right, a white president-elect would probably not be depicted in the same way.
stay in touch. LK
Obama was born in Hawaii, and is therefore black, not african-american
dont use that PC bullshit when talking about how great he is, it makes your statement ring completely hollow
you’ve clearly got the idea that the term African-American can only refer to people who were born in Africa and emigrated here. in which case there aren’t many African Americans. however, i know a large number of people who, although born in the US, consider themselves to be one, the other, or both. i don’t understand the basis for your distinction aside from your own declaration of such, and don’t get the vehemence of the presentation.
but stay in touch as i’m interested in where you’re coming from. maybe i’m missing something. LK
I WANT TO BE CALLED EUROPEAN-AMERICAN, SINCE IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO LIST THE CONTINENT ONE COMES FROM. WHAT HAPPENED TO JUST BEING AN AMERICAN? IS THAT SO BAD? LABELS SERVE TO ONLY SEPARATE, NOT UNITE, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED IN THESE MEDIA-HYPED TROUBLED TIMES. WHO CARES IF HE IS AFRICAN AMERICAN, CAMBODIAN AMERICA, OR RUSSIAN AMERICAN, AS LONG AS HE DOES HIS JOB?
The founding fathers didn’t have a blind spot. The issue came up throughout the debates that formed the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. They could see that there would be no ‘union’ of the colonies if they attempted to enumerate the emancipation of the slaves. There were progressive women throughout the lives of these leaders. The case is a bit harder to make for the notion that they’d considered women for suffrage as well, though. Certainly, the intent of making each slave “3/5″ of a person was groundwork for further revisions at a time when the union wasn’t divided by the issue – which came about almost exactly as they’d predicted, some eighty years later.
I’m of mixed heritage. I don’t care much about what color people are. If I have to choose one, Then I’m light brown. I think that African-American refereeing to immigrants of African origin is logical. If you were born here than your just a plane old American. If not then you get a dash. Go you, holder of the “dash”. If however we take a vote and decide that everyone gets a dash then I want to be an Ohio-American!