So what distinguished the two?
Both were always going to be a first in the US, though interestingly not the world.
The world's already had a prominent black national leader, and his claim to fame is far more impressive than I'm-only-half-black-and-that-half-isn't-even-descended-from-the-US-slaves Barack Obama (note: not that it matters at all if he was descended from the actual slaves, none of them are alive anymore anyway but it serves my point that his race isn't exactly all that repressed in relative terms in contemporary times. Compare them to Aboriginal Australians for God's sake).
Nelson Mandela
And plenty of female leaders
Margaret Thatcher
Helen Clarke
What does this show?
That America is more or less the least progressive nation in the world.
And that just perhaps racial tolerance has surpassed the development of women's rights. Sounds about right.
In any case this man should be throned emperor of the world.
Not because I'm a Republican, in either sense (I'm not American, but if I was I'd be a Democrat). Not because I'm racist (I'm not white but if I was I still wouldn't be racist). Not because I'm sexist (I...am a male but if I was a female I probably wouldn't vote for the woman who humiliatingly had her husband's affair broadcast to the world).
But probably because of all of the candicates, Republican or Democratic, that were running, he has the most in common with Nelson Mandela (yes, even more than colour-brother Barack Obama) as a POW and importantly because he is against pulling the US troops out of Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment