re: #27 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I wouldn’t, because it’s purely symbolic. If true, one does not need to imbue any old black person with that kind of symbolism, which is what tokenism is. Tokenism and using Black individuals as race-shields may be an improvement over the signs, waterhoses, and dogs, but anything is an improvement over that.

Especially if they are striving for some kind of race-redemption via the person of Herman Cain or other Black Walnut of the month. ///

But both parties (HC and the bigots of the GOP who he has allowed to somehow bestow him with such Black Authenticity) got themselves into this boat. I just wish they could play these games at some other time, when we’re not in the kind of economic shape we are in.

I’m not sure that it would be purely symbolic.

For example, I don’t think that it was purely symbolic that Obama won the election.

Having two black candidates running in the election would be a message of significant importance to black youth, to racist whites, as a porjection around the globe about racial intolerance.

I’m not rejecting that there are elements of what you describe at play - but I don’t think that they are all that are at play. There is more to racism than what is simply overt, but combating overt racism is a significant achievement at multiple levels. Institutional racism will continue to exist at multiple levels whether Cain is the nominee or not. I don’t see where Cain as a nominee will increase the negative impact of institutional racism. Implied racism is infused in much of conservative ideology, and Cain’s nomination would not, IMO, increase or decrease it much one way or the other. But it might have the positive benefit of undermining overt racism to some degree. And there would be other, ancillary benefits.