“When you start to lose your temper, remember: There's nothing manly about rage. It's courtesy and kindness that define a human being- and a man. That's who possesses strength and nerves and guts, not the angry whiners.”
― Marcus Aurelius
So they're arranging human beings like beads on a massive mosaic. A good tidbit to show to whoever insists our modern usage of the word "diversity" has something to do with human dignity.
One wonders what they would have to show in response.
Human dignity? I have to say I've not heard that one. I've heard about "proper representation" and "vestiges of racism" and other code speak for quotas, set-asides and the like but not "dignity"
Honestly, this doesn't bother me that much. (Does this take me out of the running for "best people"?) Having been involved in a racially divided campaign, much like Obama and Hillary are right now, I can sympathize.
It's not that they're objectifying white people, but that Obama's people are trying to show he has white support to keep him from being branded as the "black" candidate." We were in a similar siutation in 1996, when I was running the campaign of a white Republican against the first black mayor of Wilmington. We certainly made no appeals based on race, but through no fault of our own, we were stuck with a racially divided electorate. To show that we weren't appealing just to white voters (despite what the News-Journal claimed, even after we complained to them multiple times about their stating that), we made a definite effort to put our black supporters front and center. (We even held off on announcing our "Democrats for..." until we could find a black person willing to put their name as a member of the leadership team. We had plenty of black Democrat support, but many were afraid to put their name out publicly.)
That's all that Obama is trying to do here: show that he has white support, which is factually true. It's about controlling the message and images the campaign is displaying. Race is a means to that end in this case, not an end in itself and therefore not objectionable, in my opinion.
Comments
One wonders what they would have to show in response.
It's not that they're objectifying white people, but that Obama's people are trying to show he has white support to keep him from being branded as the "black" candidate." We were in a similar siutation in 1996, when I was running the campaign of a white Republican against the first black mayor of Wilmington. We certainly made no appeals based on race, but through no fault of our own, we were stuck with a racially divided electorate. To show that we weren't appealing just to white voters (despite what the News-Journal claimed, even after we complained to them multiple times about their stating that), we made a definite effort to put our black supporters front and center. (We even held off on announcing our "Democrats for..." until we could find a black person willing to put their name as a member of the leadership team. We had plenty of black Democrat support, but many were afraid to put their name out publicly.)
That's all that Obama is trying to do here: show that he has white support, which is factually true. It's about controlling the message and images the campaign is displaying. Race is a means to that end in this case, not an end in itself and therefore not objectionable, in my opinion.