Last week it was posited that “They,” is the worst word in the English language. Whenever we lump people into groups we rob them of their individuality, dehumanize them, and degrade their essential uniqueness.

Pigeon holing is cruel. We see big breasts and assume small minds. White men can’t jump. Mormons are clicky, Red Staters are anti-gay.

Sometimes these stereo-types are accurate. Often they are not. Even if it’s a mathematical probability that a social group will act in a predictable fashion—teenage boys are obsessed with sex—that doesn’t mean that this one boy’s actions on this day at this hour can be attributed to this natural obsession.

Stereo-types led us to “identity politics.” In an attempt to respect others’ identities we have straight-jacketed our thinking and forced others to live up to our expectations, rather than allowing them to be themselves.

It is normal for groups to band together and identify with members of their own sect. They need to defend themselves against the “Other,” be it the majority or competing minorities.

In most societies, minorities entered by choice (or in our case force) to do the labor that the majorities didn’t want to do themselves.

To move up the economic ladder, they were (and are) under heavy pressure to assimilate. How many successful, Immigrant entrepreneurs never learned English?

Racial, ethnic, or religious pride is the outgrowth of groups wanting to maintain their identity as they succeed. In boxing’s heyday, it was perfectly natural that blacks rooted for Joe Louis, Italians for Rocky Marciano, or Jews for Barney Ross.

The turning point of our own Civil Rights movement wasn’t when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, it was when Stokely Carmichael shouted “Black is Beautiful.”

That proclamation was Epic! He created a positive identity. Back then, “White” was beautiful. Blacks “conked” their hair to look white, dressed white and generally tried to assimilate. Who wanted to offend “the Man?”

Soon Afro’s were the rage, nappy was “in” and a whole generation walked taller.

Finally, an Identity was formed—one in which folks could openly take pride. It was followed by America’s embracing a separate identity for Native Americans’, Pacific Islanders’, women, to say nothing of all sorts of gender identities. The downside was that America found itself Balkanized by dozens of “identity” based groups.

Rather than being Americans first, we were (my group) first. And as Obama said, “words matter.”

It’s why few of us from the Civil Rights movement use the word “African-American.” Marchers were bludgeoned, that the word “Black” might be accepted. Is a Black woman born in Vancover “African-Canadian?” But I digress.

Look what happened to our Supreme Court? First there was the Jewish seat, then the Black seat, then the Women’s’ seat. No doubt we are headed to the Muslim seat to say nothing of the Gender Neutral seat. Is it our destiny to go from 9 to 99 justices, so more groups can be represented?

This is the quandary we find ourselves in today with regards to the candidacies of Hillary and Obama.

We need a woman president, we are told. But what is a woman?

America is ready for a Black president. But what exactly is a Black?

Were Maggie Thatcher and Nelson Mandela great because of their gender or color?

Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s Pastor tells us Hillary doesn’t know what it is like to be black. Duh! Did Roosevelt know what it was like to be poor and unemployed?

Having been raised in a multicultural society in Hawaii with a black father and white mother, does Obama know what it is like to live in an inner city ghetto?

Does the reverend Wright know what it is like to be a white woman?

Does he have any idea what it is like to grow up with a Black father and white mother?

No one knows what it is like to be the “other.” But men and women of good faith can “imagine,” what it might be like, and act accordingly.

Identity politics is a zero sum game.

That’s why this election is so elucidating.

Blacks in South Carolina originally favored Hillary by a significant margin. They switched to Obama. Why?

Did his skin color change? Apparently, many Black voters made intelligent, cogent decisions that he was worthy of their vote. They changed their minds over time. Had it been a “black thing,” as Bill Clinton tried to make us believe, why was he once trailing?

In “Identity politics,” how is the Black woman supposed to vote?

Is she a woman first, or Black first?

Identity politics is the new racism. It requires us to think in terms of “They.”

To vote for me because I am a woman, or because I am black, demands that the voters revert to that racist bromide and embrace the good ‘ol “They.”

What this election season has taught us is that once again, Dr. King had it right. It is not the color of a man’s skin that counts: It is the content of her character.

If we vote because we want a woman, or a black, or a humble guy from St. Helena, we will reap what we sow. This election cycle is teaching us what Washington and Jefferson always knew. It’s not the cut of one’s jib. It is the content of his character.

The trick is to transcend “Identity Politics” and vote for the best person, regardless of race, creed or gender. Soliciting votes based on “Identity” is as racist as it gets. Once again, Dr. King nailed it: Character.




















Jeffrey Earl Warren
James Warren & Son
1414 Main St.
St. Helena, Ca.
94574
707-963-2748