Race is becoming an outdated concept.
Tiger Woods son has no race: he is "post-racial."
His grandmother is Asian. His grandfather is an African-American, with a touch of native American. Tiger Woods married a very white Nordic supermodel to yield Charlie. He is a good-looking kid, as you would expect from two attractive parents.
But what is his race? Who knows? More importantly, why should anyone care?
If it comes to equity policy, how much of a "share" does Charlie Woods get? He is one-eighth black, so according to the "intelligentsia" of the 19th Century slave-holding South, the poor boy is an "octaroon" - essentially low-class white person "stained" with African blood. But his mother - half of his genes - is white - the same race as American slaveholders! (1)
This is how the "racial essentialists" think. Should we follow that esteemed reasoning? (2)
Or should we follow the vision laid out by Martin Luther King? He felt that character was a person s defining characteristic, not skin color. His Christian faith was clear about the immorality of judging people for things over which they had no control.
Discussion
By posting you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.