- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I love how every letters section of any Clinton/Obama article just merely picks up from where the last one did, irrelevant of whatever the actual article is talking about.
Addressing what the article is talking about, I disagree that the election of black (or female, or x whatever) candidate can be seen as a victory for the group in question. No place better demonstrates this than South Carolina itself, where most of its black legislators are impotent, due mostly to gerrymandering that guarantees them a safe seat, but a permanent minority in both Houses of the legislature. I'm not saying this is their fault (the lines, after all, are drawn by the party in power) but their almost rampant inability to either effectively use what power they have, and the fact that they will never face any serious challenger, renders their presence useless.
This gets into larger issues of what representation means, and dovetailing with the Clarence Thomas article, what ones group identity means. Is it (or was it) ever enough to be black/female/gay/Asian/etc? Is it better to vote in a conservative, Pro-life, family values woman or a pro-choice, feminist male? Is a white progressive better than a black conservative when it comes to advancing ones own identity group? I find many of the arguments preceding about Hillary's gender and Obama's race to be absurdly reductionist, and presuming (and almost rallying for), biologically determined factors being the driving force of identification, and not even something as coherent as ideology. Its gotten to almost absurd levels.
