Resolved: Barack Obama Represents The Apotheosis Of "Tokenism."

Posed as a debate topic. I'll take the affirmative, and start with the definition of terms as they always tell you to do in 'forensics':

Tokenism:

refers to a policy or practice of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, usually creating a false appearance of inclusive practices, intentional or not. Typical examples in real life and fiction include purposely including a member of a minority race (such as a black character in a mainly white cast, or vice versa) into a group. Classically, token characters have some reduced capacity compared to the other characters and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Instead, their difference may be overemphasized or made "exotic" and glamorous.

The "Affirmative" rests. Any questions?

This is NOT to suggest Obama supporters are anything other than sincere. They are devoted to the idea of his candicacy, mebbe even the reality of it.

But it seems to me they are blind to the historical situation.

MIDDULL Murka--the great unwashed, white, ill-educated, ill-informed, ill-paid, overworked, overtaxed, un-resourced (savings? health?) working-class--does NOT want as ITS "Preznint" some smart-ass, really young (nearly juvenile-looking) BLACK dude with BEEG ears and "Who-sane" for a middle name. And THEY are not gonna elect him.

They're satisfied--well, no, they're really freaked right the fuck out and uneasy, but they can live--with the fact that Obama's got the nomination.

As long as it doesn't go any further.

That alone, they reckon, should be enough to still all those (pesky, naggingly true) complaints from all them furriners about endemic, systemic USer racism. Their logic: Would a really racist country nominate a Kneegrow for the highest office in the land? (Rhetorical answer to rhetorical question: Of course it would--see "tokenism", above...)

Who's got the "Negative?"