The Right to Rule (or not)

I recently came across The Huffington Post article titled: No, We Can’t: The Impossibility of a Black British Head of State. I immediately thought to myself 'Obama! Obama!' (in unabashed American hubris), but this article wasn't about the British PM. It is, interestingly enough, about the British figure-head, the Monarch.

The article pretty much states that because the British Monarch is chosen on the basis of bloodlines, it makes “the current method of appointing the head of state racist by default.”

Now, I’m not claiming to know much more about the royal family or how monarchy works for our friends across the pond other than that William is the hotter prince (and he is). So, when I read this next bit I was a little confused.

“Equally appalling, this exclusion of non-white Britons excites no public outrage, not even from liberals, the left and African British ant-racist campaign groups. They just accept it as ‘the British way’ of doing things. Only the Green Party is calling for a democratically elected head of state.”

Doesn’t an elected head of state, whether powerful or powerless, make a country, essentially, a democracy? I’m all for equal rights but this article, by Peter Tatchell, seems to warp a few important details.

Tatchell touches lightly upon the idea of what would happen if a Black person (for that matter an Asian, Middle-Eastern, Hispanic, Muslim or Jewish person) were to marry into the royal family and produce an heir. The article even goes as far as predicting when the death of the prince would be and thus bring about the rule of the next possible bi-racial king or queen.

My question regarding this entire argument is why Tatchell is not questioning the British Prime Minister's race? In addiciton to this oversight, there is no mention in the entire article that the House of Lords, to this day, is not an elected congressional body. By the way, both the House of Lords and the PM hold more power than the British Limited Monarch.

What Tatchell is selling is not an idea of equal rights for the British races but one of democracy. He goes on to write about Ireland's democratic presidency and How Britain's could work similarly. It's obvious that this writer doesn't really care about the civil rights of non-whites, he's just manipulating the idea of injustice to push his own political agenda.

In my opinion, this is an example of the worst kind of commentary on civil rights when it comes to the internet/new media. It comes from a noted, reliable source, is written by someone who should know what he's writing about and yet it still offers very little in terms of real reference-able information. It robs the reader of what he/she wants most from the internet (not porn); something they can quote in coffee shops to sound smart.

To put it briefly; It's rubbish.