And PS: I would most decidely agree that we are not “post racial”

I don’t even know what that means.

I don’t even know that that means.

Claudia;
I’ve got to pursue this comment a bit. It reminds me of so many statements that follow looking back on racist incidents in the past and “how we’ve changed”. Usually the last statement is “we still have a long way to go.” On its surface, I don’t have a quarrel with the statement or your’s. (And maybe this is a “glass half full/ half empty” argument.)

But I can sure remember a time when it was unheard of to have a Black in the administration; when a nationally elected Black official was exceedingly rare and never from the south. I can remember when the idea of a black head coach was outrageous. I can recall when black folk had to “act respectfully” to be taken seriously. I can go on.

We have come A LONG WAY. And I can’t say that our “further way to go” is much different than any other nation’s. I see ethnic conflict not only in “3rd world countries” but in many “1st world countries”. I see race played in “the opposite direction” in some countries (i.e. Zimbabwe). I see whites killing whites for ethnic reasons (Bosnia) and I see blacks killing blacks for ethnic reasons (Rwanda). Ethnic hatred, or more explicitly, the desire of men to feel better of themselves by distinguishing themselves from the “others” seems an inherent “sin” in all men.

Having said that, I think we’ve come a very long way in America. Are there some who will vote in this election based on skin color, yes (unfortunately both black and white). I deeply believe that is a distinct minority of the voters in the US. Forty years ago I could not say that.

The subject itself is a bit of a red herring I think. I seriously doubt there is anyone in America who REALLY believes America is "post-racial". That a country is in the position to possibly elect the first black president does NOT make it "post-racial" it merely means it’s not as bad as it used to be (it used to be unbelievably bad).

Blacks will vote for Obama in huge numbers, because he’s the ultimate combination, democrat and black (if you think they only pay attention to color, consider what would happen if Condi ran, anyone who thinks the black vote would go to her is smoking). Plenty of Appalachia voters won’t because he’s black also. Race is and will be used both to play the victim and to victimize in this election and others.

The main point though is that we, and all media, are discussing a controversy that does’t really exist. Pretty much anyone awake knows that America is anything but "post-racial". At the most we can hope it’s getting better. But until "let’s talk about race" is met with confusion and the question "why talk about race?" we won’t be past the subject.

All this anger for someone reading a clearly anti-KKK book by someone who claims the KKK runs Indiana?

If I were the administration, I might be looking a little more deeply into that person’s background.  Personally, the way it was said (and perhaps it was taken out of context) is rather disturbing to me.  As if a threat rather than information.