Interesting post/question. The guidelines say not to race unless it is central or required, yet in the article referenced the second to last sentence reads:

>>>"This is the highlight of my career," said Craig, the city's first black police chief.<<<

If it were either central or required, wouldn't it have been in the beginning rather than the end of the story?

I don't know what I think about this issue (or those guidelines). It comes up frequently in feminist discussions as well - mentioning "first woman" is sometimes seen as problematic - focusing on someone's gender itself as an accomplishment when it's her merits that got her the job and should be talked about.

Ideally, and ideologically, I can see how we would want to ignore race, gender, religion, etc. and focus only on merit - but the truth is that we haven't in the past - and so the first step to getting past our racist and sexist pasts is to acknowledge that we have them. And after we get over all the damage we've done - when we have the first black, gay, jewish, female police chief... hopefully we really can be post-whatever.

and we do keep track of numbers in other, non-demographic areas as well... Obama is not only the first black president but the 44th overall. Nobody is up in arms about pointing THAT out! except those who call him 43... ;)

Wow, I think this is a really interesting question for discussion.

Capt. Craig had some good quotes about this when they interviewed him on 207 on Tuesday night. Something along the lines of he's the right person for the job, regardless of race.

Take Gary Locke, the nominee for Commerce Secretary. Back when he spoke at my graduation from Boston University eleven years ago he was introduced as "the first Asian American governor in the continental United States". That's kind of a mouthful. Recently I've also seen him referred to as "the first Chinese American governor in the United States".

While these are neat tidbits, are they defining features? I guess, were you a Chinese American, you might be proud (or maybe sad it took so long)?

But what if the article was about celebrating the Lunar/Chinese New Year? Then is it relevant?

I mean, heck, as a lefty I'm proud that Obama is the eighth left-handed President, but has that ever been a title of an article? Would it be weird if it was?

I personally am annoyed at the constant use of race to describe someone. I do not think it is necessary except in describing a person for identification purposes. I feel that it does take away from the personal achievement of being hired for a job, or winning an election. I do understand the need to check off the box for historical note, but after it was noticed that Obama is an African-American and that was checked off the list of things that hadn't happened yet, history had been made and any further mention of it was no longer historically significant and really just annoying. I voted for Obama, but not because he is an African-American. Obama won but not because he is African-American, but that's how the media made it feel to me with it's constant need to point it out.

Tuan (the only American-Asian to post a reply to this)

I think it is important to mention race, gender, etc. when it is of historical importance or significance. And it IS significant that Capt. Craig is African-American. Since its formation, Maine, like the US at large, has been led primarily by white dudes. And when a position of power is earned by someone who does not fit that description, that's a "first" and that's pretty cool and it should be pointed out. Those "firsts" can only be a good thing in terms of distribution of power in general and in terms of strengthening the specific organization of which he/she is a part.

I, too, am frustrated by being constantly made aware of someone's sex, race, color, religion. If you want me to take you seriously - in ANY capacity - then you need to write, speak and read well. When I listen to someone like Kid Rock speak, I sometimes have to remind myself that he IS white, however hard he attempts to generate a multi-ethnic personae.

It also brings to mind the recent past of "affirmative action". I understand the use of it in prior years, but I believe that with the huge number of lawyers and overly-PC-sensitive individuals today, anyone who even SMELLED like they might discriminate is putting themselves up for some kind of negative reaction - and in some cases, with good reason.

Being a woman who works at jobs not traditionally issued to women (blue collar trades) and being a female business owner, I have often seen, heard and been on the wrong end of discrimination. I believe that being the best at what I do proves those biased to be in the wrong. It isn't an easy road, and the battle is by no means won, but our footing is sure and that is the most important thing.

I feel that the race-card is overplayed and only serves to negate any forward movement made by those who have gone beyond it.

I'm hoping our President will be a shining example of why highlighting race should be a thing of the past.