Obama and Singapore, 50 years ago and now

I was pondering, just before dozing off last night, as I normally do about a host of things from philosophy to tech, how America has advanced so much in 50 years.

50 years ago, the great John F. Kennedy, in 1963, had to call out the army to enforce the right of 2 Afro-Americans to enroll in the University of Alabama. About 50 years ago, Singapore was a multicultural state with no overt discrimination or institutionalised racism as was the case in America. Well, 50 years after, America has its first black president and black saviour rescuing the world in 'Independence Day', whilst the Singapore government claims that singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister.

I’m led to wonder, ‘what are the greater evils delivered via relatively subtle and unspoken of discrimination that seems to turn the proscriptions on overt racism into a facilitator of subtle ones, and which delivers much more bigotry than the former?' What do these two events say about the governments and peoples of both these states…..



  1. I wanted you to have this:
    Well, that was what the traffic was about… Since we were having a state dinner with dignitaries from India, he is lucky that he wasn’t shot. http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/man-protests-on-van-in-northwest-dc-112409

    I know that my mantra has been that the general public can be better journalists than our current media, but to sit there and take video with your iPhone (for your own sick amusement) in a situation like this is foolish. It spirals into folly when those same idiots were egging him on!

    Perhaps we should compare 50 years of Canada... They're slightly less of a dichotomy. We're a little bit too busy trying to undo any progress that we might have made to analyze it.

    It might help to remember that our president is NOT black. He is mulatto. The "One Drop" rule is one of the most shameful things about our culture. His features and mannerisms are very homogenized. It almost says to a black person, "if you want to be accepted by whites, this is what you have to be." It reminds me of your discussion of Miss Singapore (whom I think is very cute, but her cuteness doesn't negate anyone else's. Don't get me on my beauty pageant soapbox, you may think you want to go there but you don't.) Anyway, I think that using the Obamas (it suddenly has somehow become a "matter of import" that there is caucasian blood deep in Michelle Obama's lineage) as a litmus test for racial progress introduces too many variables that make it too convenient for one side or the other to support their points for presenting the state of racial relations.

  2. Point taken about Obama not being entirely 'black'. I was aware of that actually. But given his 'resemblance' to the Afro-American, it still can be considered a major step given that there would be a good chance of his being lynched in the deep south some time ago despite his protestations about his other bloodlines;)

    With regards to the link you supplied. I would be busy snapping away at those snapping away at the scene. Their calling out for 'more' is not unlike a scene at the coliseum where dismemberment is preferred to mere death. For goodness sakes.

    But you have to pity them. If they weren't deprived of significance in this increasingly vicarious life, they wouldn't be capturing the 'kodak moment' for hits via their blogs, youtube accounts and parties.

    By the way, do you have a site of your own, if you do, i would like to see you 'getting started' on your 'beauty pageant soapbox'.;)


  3. You have a great point there. Not only would he have been lynched in the deep south not too long ago, but if it had come out that one of his parents was white, it would have been worse. The only thing that people like that hate more than a person who is black is the idea that "one of their own" would see fit to have a child with a black person.

  4. Very true Nik,

    Brings to mind Sidney Poiter's 'Guess who's coming to dinner'.


Post a comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts