For a man obsessed with race, columnist Courtland Milloy is stunningly clueless about the meaning of the civil rights movement [“Obama’s new attitude invigorates the barbershop,” Metro, Nov. 19].
As Martin Luther King Jr. said so eloquently and simply, all Americans should be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Civil rights means black people today can become ambassadors, presidents and even journalists without race holding them back.
But civil rights also means that these accomplished people can be criticized without race being used as a crutch.
Mr. Milloy complained of “unprecedented disrespect” for President Obama in his first term.
Seriously? I thought the disrespect for Mr. Obama’s predecessor set quite a precedent. Criticism of Mr. Obama is based on what he does, not how he looks.
Mr. Milloy cheered Mr. Obama’s defense of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as “a black man defending a black woman from attacks by two white men.”
In other words, black people are immune from fault-finding by white people. Otherwise — racism! That logic itself is racist.
Gary Parker, Washington
The Nov. 23 editorial “The GOP’s bizarre assault” was itself bizarre because it attempted to reinforce the Congressional Black Caucus’s accusation that those members of the House of Representatives opposing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s possible nomination for secretary of state are doing so because she is African American.
The editorial noted that of those GOP signatories to a letter challenging President Obama’s potential choice, “nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.”
In other words, sons are guilty of the sins of their fathers. Shame on The Post.
Anthony F. Milavic, Reston