Condoleeza Rice today

I find it compelling to comment on Secretary Rice's comments today. I know the Mumia lovers uniformly hate Condi (while concomitantly complaining - loudly - that Conservatives can't get away from groupthink). I also know that she has experienced more of the Black experience than people like Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, who's moving into a 10,000 sq ft hovel.

Secretary Rice said the following:
"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy."

What I would argue is that Obama-like Blacks do not have that legacy. Senator BH Obama in particular does not have long enough Black roots in this country to have that legacy. And I must quietly remind all of Black America that none of their compatriots have any living memories of slavery. By the way, neither do/did their parents. And only a few of their grandparents did, if any. So we're stuck with the quandary that so many Blacks have flat-screen (and might I add, black in color) tv's and car loans while simultaneously complaining that they're oppressed by racist White America. At the same time, their ancestors' struggle with lives of slavery is cheapened. It is cheapened because their outspoken leaders like Obama might as well be White for all of their family history devoid of slavery.

I must add one more point. The whole idea that modern-day Blacks are kept down by the legacy of slavery goes against all things American. Let me draw the line for you: We do not believe in being tied down or promoted because of our forefathers' success or failures. We do not believe in rulers who inherit their mantle. We do not punish children for the mistakes of their fathers. There are exceptions but they're generally in the private sector (i.e., Ivy League legacy admission traditions). These rules generally hold fast. If we are not beholden to our parents' successes and failures, then it is against all tradition to point to our lot in life and say it is the direct result of one person's situation 150 years ago.

I hate how many tangents I'm seeing and chasing, but I must bring up one more point. For the same reasons as I've outlined in the previous paragraph, I am completely against giving people benefits for their paternity. For example, in the State of Hawaii there are tremendous pecuniary benefits reserved for those with Hawaiian blood. I can perhaps understand why pure-blood Hawaiians would have a benefit or two - they'll all be gone sooner or later anyway. But it is incomprehensible that private and public moneys should be set aside for someone whose grandfather's grandfather happened to have Hawaiian blood, but their other 29 ancestors all happen to be Chinese, White, Portuguese and Filipino. Completely ridiculous.

Let me take this back to the point at hand. If your grandfather' grandfather was a slave, but your other 29 ancestors were all European, non-slave African, and Asian, it is completely inappropriate to assign you reparations. And yet it is very likely that a reparations system would pay people on a combination of skin color and provable slave roots.

As a point of note, some of my paternal ancestors owned slaves. I, however, did not benefit in any way from that ownership. I would argue, in fact, that at several turns I have suffered for that ownership. Does that make me a victim or an angry white male?

It makes me work harder. How about you?

(I'm remiss, posting every spare thought while my compadre is getting himself ready to post as well. I'll try to resist till his arrival on the scene...)

-EMN.