After talking about "Tokenism" on dramas on TV during class, I became more critical of tokenism in real life. My parents brought up tokenism in the Senate, mostly surrounding the appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's senate seat. Today was the day that all the newly elected officials in the Senate were set to be sworn in. Roland Burris was expected to be one of them; he was not sworn in because Jesse White, the secretary of state in Illinois, has not signed off on his appointment. At least that is the reason that the Senate is claiming for not swearing him in. But my dad asked if the Senate should swear him in just because he is african american? I do not believe that they should make their decision based off his race and whether or not he is a minority. Blagojevich, however, did make Burris a token in the Senate. He replaced an african american with another african american just because of the race. He made the decision based off the fact that Burris was african american and no based off the fact that he may have been qualified. That is my honest opinion of what he did and why he did it. I do not disagree that he should appoint someone, but the fact that one of the reasons he chose Burris is because he is african american just disgusts me. I would have thought that in the government, there was not tokenism, or at least hoped but I am wrong. And I can't believe that it is not only in TV show, but it is also in the US government. What do you think? Do you think that Blagojevich did this to make Burris a token? Do you think that he did it because Burris is African American?
No comments:
Post a Comment