Lincoln, King, Garrison, Douglas, Stanton, and So Many Others are Smiling Tonight
This is not a political endorsement: But it is a celebration of the culmination and success of an earlier fight on behalf of human exceptionalism--Abolitionism and racial equality.
Abraham Lincoln who grew into abolitionism during his presidency, is smiling tonight as the first African-American in history accepts his party's nomination to be its candidate for President of the United States. So is the great William Lloyd Garrison, who not only stood for abolition, but full equal moral worth between blacks and whites--and men and women--at a time when only a very few did either.
Ditto the great Frederick Douglas, who escaped slavery and became a clarion beacon for equality.
And Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who before she was a feminist, cut her teeth in the abolitionist movement.
Also, Booker T. Washington, whose great granddaughter I met a few weeks ago--living history--who at a time of vicious Jim Crow oppression, led the country toward a better time. 
And of course, Martin Luther King, who on this day 45 years ago, gave us a dream we could all embrace.
It took hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of deaths to get here. But perhaps the time has come when those incredible words can at last be spoken without reservation: "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Abolition. Civil Rights. Human Equality
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:00 PM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
Yes It Is.
I may decide later to cast my vote this way, still undecided, but he did raise the populist hairs on my arm several times.
Well said. And I yearn for the day when all those that are different enjoy equality.
Well said. And I yearn for the day when all those that are different enjoy equality.
Sorry to be the dissenting voice, Wesley, but I would hope that those people would care more about the content of the President's character than about the color of his skin. I don't believe in pure racial symbols, and neither should anyone. It's positions that matter.
Yes Issues like ending a needless war of choice for corporate profit, at the expense of 10's to 100's of thousands of innocent victims
Polices against torture instead of committing it and expanding its use through specious definitions of the word.
Policies against Extraordinary Rendition sending people to other countries that have more lax "interrogation techniques"
Policies of diplomacy first, violence last
Respect for basic rights like Habeas Corpus, supporting citizens basic rights to trial
Respect for citizens rights to privacy by not wiretapping their phones
Not politicizing the justice departments objective standards to implement and impeed illegal actions
A policy that does not destroy all conversations and discussions that occur in the white house
A white house with an open energy policy created through the competitive spirit of free markets
A white house that does not take private land from one owner and offer it to another private owner for profit.
A white house that does not attempt to rule with fear based propaganda (whatever ever happened to that colored threat chart?)
A president that does not abuse his privilege of signing statements to bolster his cronies
just a few
Oh yeah a white house that wont lie about getting sexual favors from interns too.
Dark Swan--wow, your comments are nothing less than awesome
Look, chaps, I know perfectly well that you disagree with me about policies and principles. That's not the point. The point is that I don't think, and probably _you_ don't think either, that we can just all go into fits of rejoicing and say that all these great men of the past are "smiling" because we have a black candidate for President for a major party, _aside from_ a consideration of what he stands for. No doubt _you_ wouldn't all be cheering in the aisles if the Republicans had chosen a black candidate who stood for policies _you_ think are horrible and monstrous--a war hawk, for example, or someone who favored torture of terrorists, or whatever. Imagine your worst nightmare of a conservative candidate, imagine that he's black, and then imagine how you would react to this post. I think you, too, would want to say, "Now, wait a minute. We can't just say that Abraham Lincoln, Booker T., and all the rest, would be so happy to see this day _just_ because the candidate is black. We need to consider what he stands for, too."
Lydia: I disagree with you completely, and that is rare. O represents a large percentage of the views of this country. He received 18 million votes in the primary. Whether one likes or dislikes his politics, he has achieved a magnificent thing in becomong the nominee, and indeed, of the party that used to be the Slavery Party.
I think all of these great civil rights leaders would be very pleased. Civil rights isn't just for those with whom we agree, but for everyone.
And this makes the cancer on the American Spirit, e.g. racism, closer to full remission and eventual extinction.
Repeat: Nobody should vote for him because of this, but I think it is something to celebrate for the country, and is a remarkable invididual achievement.
Is there _anything_ he could stand for or do that would make you change your mind, Wesley? Surely, there must be something. Please remember that these aren't just "political" issues, they are moral issues. Think of the issues you fight for. What if we were talking about a candidate who was enthusiastic about, I don't know, active infanticide a la the Netherlands and, just to make it really bad, wanted the organs of all those children taken while they were alive or something. I mean, make up something as bad as you like. Would Abraham Lincoln _still_ be smiling over the candidacy just because the guy was black?
I say that this means that you don't really think Obama is that bad, or you wouldn't be saying this. If the candidate were bad enough in your opinion, I think--and I really hope--you wouldn't say it.
Lydia: I didn't write that I was going to vote for him! Indeed, I said it wasn't an endorsement. And I said no one should vote for or against him due to race, but based precisely on issues and character.
I was recognizing that this is a wonderful step in finally doing away with scourge of racism in this country. That is worth celebrating.
Have no fear: I will vote consistent with my positions on the issues we discuss here. For example, I support strongly the Infant Born Alive Protection Act.
I see two sides to this. On the one hand, yes, I think they would be pleased to see that race was "not" an issue in the candidacy.
On the other hand, I think they would be appalled at the positions of the candidates. Yes, that was plural.
You know, of all the non"white" people who could have been chosen, I think this was one of the poorest choices that could have been made.
So, yeah, I think they would like the fact that a non"white" person has a chance, but I think they would be saddened that it could not have been someone like Alan Keyes who represents more of what they actually believed in. Alan is avidly pro-constitution, including the prolife part of it.
Just my thoughts. I am writing my candidate in, if I have to. I refuse to vote for anyone who I believe does not represent real good for this country. Don't want the lesser of two evils anymore.
I think Hillary Clinton's achievement is probably greater than Obama's.
But the point is beyond partisan politics; we have come a long way in recent decades, but we still have a way to go.
From my good friend Tony C. Hill: who is a historian of the era: "I agree that the historical figures you mention would be pleased by Obama's nomination, as would so many others who gave the full measure of devotion to the causes of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality before the law. However, I find your list both a bit short and too predictable. So, let me add four more. George Washington would see Obama's nomination as a validation of his decisions not only to free his slaves in his will, but more importantly, to allow Afro-Americans to fight in the Continental Army. Thomas Jefferson, his fabled arrogance notwithstanding, would welcome that history has proven him wrong both in his views about the inherent inferiority of blacks and the impossibility of blacks and whites living peaceably as equal citizens in the Republic to which he gave its first and most enduring voice. While Jefferson might be discomfited by the likelihood that his personal life would have disqualified him from being elected President in this age, he would take comfort that eloquence has made a comeback in our polity. Charles Sumner, who did more than any figure on your list to enfranchise men of color and invest them with equality before the law, would take pride that it is a fellow graduate of Harvard, an institution of which he was often harshly critical who made this breakthrough. Last but not least, Fannie Lou Hamer is tripping the light fantastic at the thought that the Democratic Party has redeemed the sacrifices that she and so many others who put their lives on the line in that dark night of the human soul that once was the Mississippi Delta."
I agree I should have mentioned Sumner. Washington would never have occurred to me. Jefferson I have trouble forgiving because he knew slavery was wrong but wouldn't reduce his imecunious but extravagent life style built on debt and slavery. After his death, his slaves paid the price be being sold South--except for the Hemmings family.
As aggravating as I find this election, it really has had some amazing landmarks:
* Black man nominated as Presidential candidate
* Woman running for President
* Second-only time that woman is nominated as Vice-Presidential candidate
* Potential oldest President (the Life Extensionists should love this one!)
* Vietnam veteran nominated as Presidential candidate
* Presidential campaign run largely on Internet (Ron Paul)
* Several large states shifting primaries earlier
...and it ain't over yet!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home