With the upcoming anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, activists are marching on Washington to commemorate the event held fifty years ago. The problem seems to be that the speakers invited all appear to be of one political persuasion and the subject matter does not appear to be related to the content and central subject of the Kings speech.
Instead of celebrating and promoting, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”, the subject matter appears to be about division and divisiveness and attacking a particular party’s political agenda.
What are the reasons behind demonizing a party that were the champions of civil rights? Simply put, to gain power and to hold on to power.
Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker in her column in the Washington Post seems to outline the problems with civil rights leaders and the so-called post racial president, Barack Obama.
President Obama had a chance to bring America together but instead he chose to push division rather than unity and prejudice instead of impartiality. Obama focused on the color of skin rather than the content of character.
Sadly, Polls show that the country is more divided now under President Obama than under President Bush. How could that be?
Here is a portion of Parker’s column to shed a bit of light on the issue:
If I Had a Son, a Father
If I had a son, he would look like Christopher Lane, the 22-year-old Australian baseball player shot dead while jogging in Oklahoma.
If I had a father, he’d look like Delbert Belton, the 88-year-old World War II veteran beaten to death in Spokane, Wash.
And yes, if I had a son, he’d look like the white teenager who police say drove the getaway car in the Oklahoma killing.
These are all true statements if we identify ourselves and each other only by the color of our skin, which, increasingly seems to be the case – including our own president.
Barack Obama helped lead the way when he identified himself with Trayvon Martin, shot by George Zimmerman in the neighborhood-watch catastrophe with which all are familiar. Stepping out from his usual duties of drawing meaningless red lines in the Syrian sand, the president splashed red paint across the American landscape:
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
In so saying, he essentially gave permission for all to identify themselves by race with the victim or the accused. How sad as we just commemorated the 50th anniversary of the march Martin Luther King Jr. led on Washington that even the president resorts to judging not by the content of one’s character but by the color of his skin – the antithesis of the great dream King articulated with those words.
Obama went even further after the Zimmerman verdict, expressing his self-identification not as leader of a racially diverse nation – or as the son of a white mother – but as a black man who remembers women clutching their purses tighter when he entered an elevator, and being followed in department stores. All because he was black?
Even today, I am followed when I go to the second floor of a boutique in Georgetown. Apparently, store policy requires that an attendant be upstairs when a shopper is. The way department store clerks follow me around, you’d think my face was plastered on a “Wanted for Shoplifting” poster. This is especially so if I’m dressed like a slob.