The reason discussions like this even come up is because of the closet (or not so much) creed of most of white american: they must win--at all costs. They are not accustomed to things not going their way, so they know how angry, belligerant and down-right nasty (isn't this what we're seeing in the McCain campaign and from the people who frequent his campaign stops?) they get when they don't get what they want. Even the many in the press have repeatedly suggested that McCain "has not other choice" than to turn on the venom since he's losing. Where's all the press coverage of the black press person being racially slandered at Palin's campaign stop? Why did I have to come all the way over to Newsweek online to find out about the hanging incident in Oregon? Why isn't there an outcry about this? Why do these "good boys" get a slap on the wrist and their identities protected?
And isn't it normal for people to assume that if they have a particular bent toward reacting a certain way, then surely someone else will react the same way, given the opportunity and the same type of circumstances? Except what's forgotten is that black folk are used to dealing with the status quo. We react much less "violently" to suffered wrongs than our white counterparts. I mean, how many of us show up in sheets at night when someone we don't like moves into the neighborhood?
So much of this is projection, though, as the writer admits, it will paint us for the backward, racially ignorant country we are if, given our 2 choices McCain does anything but lose, and badly. So should blacks be angry? Americans should be angry--at themselves.
And to the comment about "blacks deserving to have a black president win", the writer shows his bias and misses the point. Isn't that the only possibly reasonable way that McCain hasn't lost all of his support, with his participation in the financial problems we are having and his incredibly stupid choice of Sarah Palin, that he "deserves" to be president? After all, he's a "war hero" (debatable by those who were there). He "attended" congress (missed a lot of critical votes for which he's taking credit)! Why is the shoe ok on that foot and not on the other, I mean, if we're going to go there?









Discuss