Marie Arana's Washington Post

Her article was very well made as she introduced alot of good points in their, as well as being funny at the same time. But I do not neccisarily like the wording of the underlined of her conclusion:

"In other words, the color of a president-elect's skin doesn't tell you much. It's an unreliable marker, a deceptive form of packaging. Isn't it time we stopped using labels that validate the separation of races? Isn't it time for the language to move on?"

I do not think that our languagge has anything to do with this, just the people using it. People can use language to both sides of this fight, and with that statment sshe is claiming that it is mostly against her. I think it more fit traditional customs better since that is where the statments "one-drop rule" and "Part-black is all black" came from, so why not get rid of that, trying to block out the words only makes them stronger. But with that aside, the statment is very good, explaining that we need to get rid of the root of the problem before it becomes a weed.

If their goals as a race are set low, then their life expectations may reflct that, minorities are usually kicked in the mud so that when they are being made fun of, even in a joking mannor, it may slowly eat away at their expectations in life. Even though the person may know its joking, if they hear it enough, they start to consider it. And which concidering it, loweres goals within itself. Its just not good to do it anyway.