I picked up on one particular part of the story that I feel compelled to share here. The article reporting the news in the Las Vegas Review-Journal includes an emailed statement from the National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh: "For those who hope to one day live in a color-blind nation, it appears Harry Reid is more than a few steps behind them."
I have become relatively familiar with Mr. Walsh's views during his tenure with the NRSC, and he typically does a fine job crafting the Committee's messages. However, I think this statement does grave disservice to anybody who cares about issues of race and ethnicity.
Implicit in his statement is an assumption that the end state for improving "race relations" is the inability to see, or perhaps just the state of ignoring, the color of a person's skin. This unfortunate view is probably held by a wide swath of society that is truly disgusted by racism, but has not fully considered what that means.
For various reasons that I have since typed and deleted, I disagree with the notion the word "race" conveys. But to somehow assume that we all want to get to the point where we ignore the color of a person's skin, and thus the richness of ethnicity, tradition, and cultural celebration that often comes along with it, is to assume that we want a bland, one-dimensional society.
Conversely, I think the appropriate end state is a world in which people are not treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that a person's skin is darker or lighter than mine; the problems occur if I ascribe to that comparison a relative social ranking. One of the finest officers with whom I've served in the United States Navy is a first-generation American with East African parents. Prior to becoming a Naval Officer, she was enlisted in the Marine Corps, where she was able to use her fluency in Swahili to help Marines working in Africa. The color of her skin is only one aspect of a rich cultural heritage and dynamic set of skills that I could only wish to possess. Why would I want to be blind to one specific aspect of the many that make her who she is?
I truly think that Mr. Walsh meant no harm when he made his statement, but as a prominent political spokesperson, he should remain mindful of the power of the pulpit.
Posts
I think we would all do well to remember the "power of the pulpit" as social media--this blog, for instance--gives everyone a platform on which to share ideas, opinions, and criticism. I am a fan of this blog, in particular, for your ability to first remain objective in providing facts and pointing your readers toward non-partisan resources, and then to also provide personal insights that are clearly labeled as opinion. As for Mr. Walsh, I believe he was using "color-blind" in the context of being blind to a person's ethnic background as a measuring stick for intelligence, competence, and ability; or, as Random House Dictionary puts it, "showing or characterized by freedom from racial bias." I doubt Walsh meant it in a literal way. Of course, if he did mean it literally in terms of photography, he would have been stating that for those of us who hope to live in a world which is sensitive only to blue, violet, and ultraviolet rays, Reid has some catch-up to do. I for one am terrified of Smurfs, Barneys, and UV rays, and considering I'm not a big fan of Harry Reid (with the exception of his surname, of course) I doubt his sensitivies to such things will ever affect me in a measurable way. Just sayin'. ;)
ReplyDelete