Obama win symbol of skulduggery

Letter to the Editor
 
 
Published: 11/26/2008 12:03 AM

Contrary to your editorial, I do not see why Americans should be congratulating themselves on the election of a black president. Are we supposed to believe that this represents a defeat for racial politics? The Democrats pushed Barack Obama for president specifically because he was black. If he were not black, with his thin resume, no one would have looked at him twice. What kind of social change does this represent, electing a man because of his ancestry?

And his African ancestry does not even make sense in the context of race relations in America. Obama's ancestors were never slaves on American soil. For all we know, his ancestors may very well have sold the slaves to American colonists. The whole idea is so absurd it boggles the mind.

Obama is a trick candidate in the same way that Hillary Clinton was a trick candidate. At least nominating Clinton would have made some sense. More than 50 percent of the population consists of women. More women than men vote. Blacks make up only 13 percent of the population. The numbers do not show any shift in favor of fairness, they suggest a rigged election.

We expect Kenya to elect a black president. We expect Nigeria to elect a black president. We expect Iran to elect a Muslim president, as we expect Isreal to elect a Jewish president. If Israel elected a Muslim president, we would have a right to be suspicious.

John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in an overwhelmingly Protestant country by a population that harbored anti-Catholic sentiments for centuries. They did not hold such views because they thought that Catholic-Protestant differences were unimportant or incidental to the public good. America was not better off with electing a Catholic president, and I say that as a Catholic.

Obama's election is not a symbol of great progress, as you have claimed. It is rather a symbol of political skulduggery and manipulation.

George Kocan

Warrenville