Ok. One more time.
To say that is to say that racial groups (which are biologically imaginary) represent a monolithic interest group. They don't.
No, that is not what it says. However, it does acknowledge that ethno-racial groups, particularly minorities do often share collective interests (which is not even close to the same thing as being monolithic). Do you deny that, for example, Hispanics either share or perceive themselves as sharing specific political interests related to their ethnicity? How about blacks and their "race"?
You are driving in the notion that racial groups are inherently divided, and they should remain that way. You are actually encouraging social racial segregation. We've been doing this for a long time now and it hasn't been working out for us. Racial tension remains extremely high in much of the country, and racial minorities remain under-educated and under-privileged, because they feel ostracized and distrustful of "white" society because we keep insisting the races should continue to be divided and view each other as adversaries because we view race as indicative of monolithic interests that are exclusive to that race.
No, there is nothing in his arguments that drives the notion that "racial groups are
inherently divided." He may believe that, I don't know, but his comments thus far have only acknowledged that ethno-racial groups often share political interests or perspectives that are not represented in government. That has nothing to do with "inherent divisions" as most of those differing interests/perspectives are societal in nature.
You are promoting that. If you honestly believe skin color or sex chromosomes dictates political beliefs, you're part of the problem. And that's what you're saying if you think that just having more brown people and people with vaginas will automatically equal better representation.
Skin color and sex chromosomes do not dictate political beliefs. However, how society treats people with of certain races and genders certainly influences peoples' experiences and in turn, their political beliefs. This is why Hispanics, blacks, women and gay Americans often perceive themselves as sharing interests with the other members of their groups and why politicians understand them as unique voting blocks.
Having representative numbers of people with superficial characteristics does not a representative government make.
Yes and no. It's not the superficial characteristics that make a more diverse government more representative of the people. It's the experiences and perspectives that often lie behind the superficial characteristics that make a more diverse government representative of the people.
How in touch with typical black people do you think either Obama or Herman Cain is? Honestly?
Wait, first you get on him for apparently saying that racial groups are a monolithic interest group and then you start talking about "typical black people." Which one is it? And if you believe that there is a "typical black person," then the implication is that there is are "typical" black political interests.
If we become socially integrated and equal enough that we wind up with equal numbers, that's great. That would be an indication that opportunity is, in fact, equal. But going into it with the goal of "we need X people who are this color" rather than "we need a society where all people can achieve" is the wrong goal, and will continue to perpetuate the very problem you're complaining about.
Acknowledging that the government is not representative of the people in terms of ethno-racial groups is not "perpetuating the problem," it's acknowledging the problem which is the first step to solving it. Brushing a problem under the rug by pretending that ethno-racial groups don't often have shared experiences and political interests, like you are doing, is just counterproductive.
