Forgetting Race?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_forgetting_blackness_analysis

Above is a well-written analysis of the latest Chris Matthews gaffe in which he said that during the State of the Union Address, Matthews forgot that Obama was black. It is the latest in a two year series of bizarre remarks by Democrats about Obama. Bill Clinton claimed at one point that Obama would have been getting him coffee two years ago. Harry Reid praised Obama at one point for lacking a "Negro dialect," whatever that means. Others praised Obama for being articulate, a compliment that strikes blacks as insulting because it insinuates that most people of that race are not.

Liberals seem to have more trouble with race issues these days than Republicans. Why?

Matthews himself provides part of the answer. His experience with race issues comes from the 1960s. Ways of thinking about race and black individuals have gone by the wayside. The 21st century idea is to acknowledge race, understand that blacks have pride in where they come from, but to also judge on merit rather than appearance.

The article above, consciously or unconsciously, paraphrases Martin Luther King Jr. when describing the position of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and black conservatives, that people are to be judged by their merit, not color. I have a sneaking suspicion this is a conservative subversive in the mainstream media.

Conservatives in recent years have much less trouble with race discussions because they normally do not have them. They never tripped over the idea of having two black secretaries of state. George W. Bush picked the most qualified individuals available to him, their skin color was incidental and never was made an issue except by liberals in the media. Condoleeza Rice is one of the most intelligent human beings in the United States. Conservatives would rather discuss her accomplishments as an academic, a diplomat, and a person who rose from abject poverty more than they want to obsess over skin color.

The fact is that it is liberals who remain stuck in the past on race issues. Conservatives have demonstrated the proper and acceptable way to deal with the issue. Judge people as individuals only. Discuss them as individuals only. If they have merit, they rise. Simple as that.

Save the Males

When is the last time you saw a masculine character beat down or at least put some fear into the bad guy in an action movie, a la John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery, or Harrison Ford?

Likely it was either Denzel Washington or an octogenarian Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Other than that, masculinity is dead in Hollywood, at least as far as good old fashioned good guy versus bad guy flicks are concerned.

You'll still see the idea of masculinity mocked. George Clooney does it subtly and Will Farrell does it much more crudely. They make the message clear that strong male types are outdated, foolish, and relatively useless. They join the stereotypical bungling father of situation comedies over the past fifteen years. Patriarchal symbols of wisdom such as Bill Cosby disappeared, replaced by men who could not outwit their more enlightened children.

Some see this as an attempt to create balance between the sexes in media culture. Men dominated power roles for so long, why not have women shown as powerful for once? I agree that there is nothing wrong with powerful women in strong roles, beating bad guys, protecting their families, or the country depending on the movie. But that does not mean that they must be accompanied so often by weak and/or incompetent men. The James Bond series has changed with the times most effectively. Bond preserved his womanizing and ability to win his fights, but was accompanied more and more often by capable female sidekicks.

What do the movies matter? The problem is that the assault on masculinity goes beyond culture. A child received an initially draconian sentence of forty five days in a dangerous alternative school. The young boy simply liked using a Swiss Army knife with his packed lunch. He was treated like a psychopathic killer. Boys playing war with guns used to be commonplace. Now it is seen as inciting violent tendencies. Even active boys in school often get misdiagnosed as ADHD simply for being boys.

Some of this actually comes from the memory of the Bush presidency. Bush was seen and described as an alpha male type leader, which he probably would not have disputed. Liberals don't care for John Wayne anyway, but presidents such as Reagan and GWB convinced many that powerful males in leadership roles led to nothing positive.

Males as they grow from boys to men play rough, wrestle, fight, and occasionally accidentally break things as they learn about the world. Some when they become men take risks, take on challenges, and dare to do great things. We should not discourage boys from being boys and men from being men. We should certainly fight the liberal media and culture that tries to impose its own anti male stereotypes.