Yeah. I've noticed that also. I would like to imagine that some sense of "okay our blatantly oppressive and discriminatory ways have brought us to the brink of disaster...maybe we should try something new" is contributing to people's willingness to promote less privileged groups. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to make someone who seems "other" an easy scapegoat as this claims.

I read something similar in the NYT at one point. I have to say, I agree with you.

I think that the worldwide economic crisis is a big part of why we've seen more minority leadership in the US and abroad. We might see our heros fail because times are hard and there wasn't really any chance of success.

However, I'd rather see my heroes fail than not have anybody worth calling a hero.

I also read an article showing a 5 year study that showed that women are given those roles because they are actually more effective leaders. Sometimes a company will just collapse, and there's nothing that anyone can do to prevent it.

Maybe it takes being backed in a corner before a corporation (or country) will finally try something besides selecting white male members of the good ol' boy network.

You may need to reconsider heroes then. Someone who jumps up and grabs the helm as soon as the good ole boys need a minority to take the fall, someone who chose to be a part of the oppressive system just for the privilege of picking up the good ole boys' castoffs, might not be the best hero.

Maybe, instead, you could reject the notion of heroes. Or you could find heroes who are unsung, low-profile champions of alternative modes of government/economics, rather than firmly entrenched in minority auxiliaries of the dominant sociopolitical system of suck.