Historical Significance of the Obama Inauguration

This post provides me the opportunity to comment upon two of my interests at the same time: politics and language, which is the purpose of this blog.

The media and liberal commentators and politicians keep referring to Barak Obama's presidential inauguration as "historic." History is the memory of what men do. Therefore, all human activity is "historic." What they really mean is "historically significant." It is a common error to say the former when the latter term is meant.

However, all inaugurations are "historically significant." What the media and other liberals really mean is that Obama's inauguration is of particular historic significance insofar as it is the first of a black. In other words, the day after celebrating the federal holiday for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. whose main point they reminded us is that we should not judge each a person based upon the color of his skin, the media and others cited the historical significance of Obama's inauguration because of the color of his skin.

The media and others have managed simultaneously both to overstate and to minimize the significance of Obama's election in ethnic terms. First of all, Obama is not the first president who is the son of immigrants. Second, he is only half black. Specifically, as the son of a Swahili-speaking Kenyan father, Obama is of Bantu ethnicity, unlike the descendants of American slaves who are of Sudanese (specifically West African, not East African like Kenyans or Southern African) origin. Third, Obama is not even the first president whose ethnicity is at least half other than "Anglo-Saxon" (Germanic); several Celts have ascended to the presidency. Note: to the extent that there even is such a thing as race within the human race, there are actually many races, not the handful normally considered as such; therefore, Celts are actually of a different race than Germanic people, making Obama not even the first president of a different race than the majority of most Americans and their presidents.

On the other hand, Obama is the first president whose ethnicity is at least half non-Northern European. Indeed, he is even the first whose ethnicity is significantly non-Western, a point which is of greater ethnic significance than his level of melanin.

Yet I doubt that the media and other liberals would have noted the historical significance nearly as much of the election of a Slav or Greek or some other non-Northern European. Given public opinion polls that reflect negative stereotypes Americans associate with Italian-Americans and the noticeable lack of any corresponding outcry against the many examples of prejudice against Americans of Italian ethnicity, I would regard the election of an Italian-American to the presidency as at least as extraordinary as that of a black, especially one who is only a half Bantu versus one that was primarily descended from slaves.

The election of Obama reflects more of a less anti-immigrant and anti-black prejudice on the part of the American population than it does any accomplishment by Obama himself. Obama benefited politically in the election from his skin color because of white guilt about past mistreatment of blacks.

As an ethnic-American, I can understand the affirmation this moment in history provides for blacks. Obviously, it proves that anyone can aspire to even the highest level in America.

I pray that Obama will carry out God's will and that God would continue to bless America.