Three years ago, the NAACP buried the N-word. The word isn’t as forgotten as Middle English, but it did seem to alleviate some racial tension. Yet I don’t think we should focus our efforts on a genocide of racial epithets.
What I think this country is ready for is not giving attention to racial rhetoric as we seem to do, ripping people for the slightest racial faux pas, but rather a scenario without the concept of race (represented as skin color as it often is) altogether.
Yes, this subject is touchy. Yes, I’m a hodgepodge of eight European groups. But dialogue goes two ways. You can always flood the newspaper with letters.
America has taken a special focus on Glenn Beck-esque waterworks rhetoric and little things, like single words and technical terminology (i.e., “illegal immigrant”). But why are we spending time on this? Does this make progress on racial issues? Is it what we’re down to focusing on in race relations?
It’s tough to concretely say where we are on race relations. But something is wrong when the NAACP says it serves all races, yet it, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use skin color as a litmus test for whether to rush to cases like those of Crystal Mangum — accuser in the Duke lacrosse case — and, as Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition did, offer full tuition regardless of whether the accusations were false.