- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
But in addition to my relatively subjective judgment of taste, I would argue from a more objective point of view that treating the body or a part of the body of a ruler as "symbolic" in whatever way, as this author does (and as many of her defenders in this comments area do), is some seriously flawed thinking.
Leave sex out of it, and imagine that someone had written an article saying that Michelle Obama's facial features were symbolic of an authentic, naturally aristocratic strain in the African genetic pool, and isn't that wonderful.
Wouldn't this alone be extremely worrisome and objectionable?
That kind of talk is very easy, and it sounds fun and unserious...but to see a relatively long piece in an online magazine as prominent as Salon that argues this way...I dunno, it just seems like a big callous step away from democratic (lower-case "d") thinking.
Yes, the Obamas are celebrities--McCain said it, and the point struck because on some level it's true. (I say this as a passionate Obama supporter--I would not have said it three weeks ago.)
But to try to reclaim their celebrity as a virtue, now that Barack has won? Is that really what "black culture" has to offer? Is that what you're arguing?
Think first, then write.
