Rhetoric Blogger Gets Slightly Picky about Obama's Farewell Address

If I gave a speech that introduced a section in three parts (everything feels better in threes), and the three parts were:

• Apples
• Oranges
• Fruits

...you might thing something odd about the structure.  After all, Apples are fruits.  Oranges are Fruits.  That third section, spent talking about fruits, could very well have been spent talking about the tomato, the fruit that dares not speak its name, or some veggie or legume.

And yet, Obama did just that last night, and so missed a real opportunity.  Obama talked about:

For blacks and other minorities, it means tying our own struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face – the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender American, and also the middle-aged white man who from the outside may seem like he’s got all the advantages, but who’s seen his world upended by economic, cultural, and technological change.  

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; that when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders promised.  

For native-born Americans... 

And as I heard that, half-listening while sorting Magic: The Gathering Cards in my living room, what I thought I heard was a president I admire, preparing to address indigenous people in a way that acknowledged that they were not simply minorities, but a unique group in the American experience, whose rights are defined by treaty.

Instead, Obama gave me:

For blacks and other minorities, it means tying our own struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face – the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender American, and also the middle-aged white man who from the outside may seem like he’s got all the advantages, but who’s seen his world upended by economic, cultural, and technological change.  

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; that when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders promised.  

For native-born Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, Italians, and Poles.  America wasn’t weakened by the presence of these newcomers; they embraced this nation’s creed, and it was strengthened. 

I translate that as:  For blacks and other minorities, for whites, and for a third category that includes blacks, whites, and minorities... but fails to recognize indigenous people.

And to be honest, I'm not sure I wouldn't have noticed it if he hadn't led with "native," which confers to blacks, whites, and minorities a status that is at best complicated.

Is this my radar, living in Duluth with the friends I call friends, catching something he never thought about?  And is it worth thinking about, in an otherwise excellent speech?