Sooner or later, we have to acknowledge that our country is running on two different tracks.
When it comes to diversity, whenever we think we have a win we have to be prepared for the other side to argue the point from a protectionist perspective. I just had an experience to explain what I mean:
I was walking by a lounge area and passed a circle of eight people in what appeared to be an organized discussion group. One woman, who was late twenty-something leaned in and asked a question that I overheard. "But, don't you think it's wrong that someone is getting invited to the White House when people are being shot and killed?" she said.
I assumed she was referring to the invitation that President Obama gave to the young clock maker with the Muslim name, Ahmed Mohammed. If so, that was a daring, I thought, because I could swear I saw at least two ethnic people in the circle.
Before I heard the response, I had already mulled the question over and reached my own conclusion. Her statement was a logical fallacy. One thing had nothing to do with the other. It failed because it was tainted with the kind of protectionism that I associate with racists. They use their fears the way we use facts. In her mind, young Ahmed was guilty, because, just like his teacher, she thought he was a threat.
We will never shake them from this reference point, because this is how they were taught to think. Fear weighs heavily in the thought-process of a racist. And, even today, they are rewarded for it. So, the only way to protect our rights is to have someone in authority legally define the line where their fears are prohibited from encroaching on our civil rights.
Getting back to the discussion circle, I was almost out of hearing range when I heard the response to her question: "Well, if the person is shot and killed, how can the president extend an invitation?"
Probably more consideration than she deserved.
= new reply since forum marked as read
