For those who haven't read or heard the Rev. Wright's whole sermon, the latter part of which contained comments criticizing America, it was delivered on Sep.16,2001 in response to the bombing of the WTC and he quoted first Ambassador Peck's use of the phrase "chickens have come home to roost.":
"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out - did you see him, John? - a white man, he pointed out, ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.
We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism - we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians - babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers. We bombed Gadafy, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head against the rocks.
We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy - killed hundreds of hard-working people - mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school - civilians, not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yards.
America's chickens are coming home to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.
A white ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism; an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and who's trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.
Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days."
Pastor Wright's sermons are usually in the tradition of mainstream black liberation theology. See, for example, What Makes You So Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A Wright Jr, and Good News! Sermons of Hope for Today's Families. Both are published by Judson Press, the publishing arm of the American Baptist Church (as distinct from the Southern Baptist church; the American Baptist Church is moderate-to-liberal in orientation).
Those seeking more evidence of Wright's venom will be disappointed. Indeed the 18 sermons in those books don't have the kind of provocative hate in them shown in some YouTube clips. There are passages where he talks, sometimes bluntly, about the black race's unique burden in America, and America's cruel treatment of black people over history. And in general, the passages like this don't dwell on the history for its own sake, or for the purpose of bringing his audience to a hatred of America. The ill-treatment is usually stated as a given that the parishioners will know and agree with already. From there, he tends to move on to optimistic messages, urging his listeners to put their faith in Jesus and stay on course.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 101
Looking at reality, at our nation's past, with clear, honest eyes is not wrong, or a sin, or an act of a traitor, or a hater of this country. It is an act of love and respect and the first step in trying to right the wrongs of the past and create a better future for all Americans.
Good stuff.
I will repeat it. He was saying our foreign policy caused 9/11, anyone discounts that?
Sensible people knew that when the dust settles and you examine his speech, this will not hurt Obama.
They may well succeed...and then, may God help us all.
The American Concept, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution was unique in all the world. It was the FIRST attempt at genuine liberty. I guess that it still could use a little tweaking to get it perfect. BUT, the idea that discrimination against anyone on the basis of any outside factor is just wrong.
I have many friends who are Republican and they send me drivil all the time: The 'illegal aliens' are taking our jobs, they are getting health care and welfare; Hillary is the devil; Obama is Muslim and will take over our Country for the Muslims; and the latest was that Obama & Clinton all voted against making English our official language. I have been subjected to bans and boycotts against Harry Potter movies and books as well as The Golden Compass and please boycott the Moment of Silence for those who have died of AIDS. On most of them I get on my little soapbox and fire back some missive - but some of the time they just lay in my mailbox like some rancid item.
It has gotten so that I don't want to hear the phrase "Yes, America did some bad things but....." followed by all the rationalizations and then the phrase "but, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but AMERICA.
What Pastor Write did or did not say, how he said it and in what context does not define Barak Obama. The media should let it drop, but every day brings a new pundit somewhere talking about it. Most have never seen anything but the snippets on YouTube. I was for Edwards but not one media outlet covered him worth a damn because they were concentrating on Obama & Hillary. People have got to at some point wake up and think for themselves!
Thanks for letting me rant.
GJK
Politicans may think they are God, but they are not.
If my Preacher started telling me who to vote for or preaching politics instead of scriptures I would just get up and walk out of the church.
I did not mention Obama in the article. He made clear in his political speech that his views differ from the 1960's black liberation theology of his mentor.
I think it's good that most of the Rev. Wright problems are getting aired now. They should have less impact during the election, if Obama is the nominee. There are a couple of things that haven't seen too much light-of-day yet, however.
Obama's major edge as the nominee may come in the debates, if McCain makes the mistake of taking him on.
"In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam. This was facilitated through the church's publication Trumpet Magazine and presented at their end of the year awards gala. The award dubbed the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet" Award is named after the head pastor that married Barack and Michele Obama nee Robinson."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/528635/barack_obamas
_church_honors_nation.html
Why is this group of purported christians doing honoring a notorious Islamist racist? Should I sit still in my pew if my church decides to honor David Dukes?
"Jeremiah Wright also helped to organize the Million Man March, spearheaded by the anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-Catholic Minister Louis Farrakhan. Wright also, accompanied by Farrakhan, visited Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya. In an interview about whether this kind of activity might hurt Obama's prospects, Wright said, 'When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli (to visit Qaddafi) with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080320/cm_uc_crlelx/op_245586;
_ylt=AkS5WV2uKHhfLARB7PNSOHXSos4F
"The removal by the Barack Obama campaign from its official website of an endorsement from the black supremacist New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, was decided upon for "understandable political reasons," according to the party's national chairman.
"It's the game of politics," the NBPP's Malik Zulu Shabazz told WND. "The Obama camp's move to remove our blog doesn't mean much because I understand politics. We still completely support Obama as the best candidate."
Shabbaz, who has given scores of speeches condemning "white men" and Jews, said today Obama "is the best guy to bring the kinds of racial changes supported by our community at the New Black Panthers."
The NBPP, which inherited its name from the Black Panther Party of the 1960s, is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and anti-white activism. The organization's own website also was taken down today too."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=
PAGE.view&pageId=59398
"The same folks who once whispered that...Obama was a mole for radical Islam are now decrying his links to an even more anti-American cult: the United Church of Christ.
And it wasn't Honolulu, or Jakarta, or Nairobi that put Obama in touch with folks supposedly bent on undermining heartland values. It was the heart of the heartland's biggest city: the South Side of Chicago, where Obama launched his political career. The South Side is responsible for the black nationalist preachers and violent radicals-turned-professors whose sound bites and rap sheets have now mired Obama in the worst patch of his presidential campaign. But without them Obama wouldn't have had a seat in the state Senate, much less a shot at the White House."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/18/hyde_park/
It's not just Obama's relationship with Reverend Wacko it's the other relations that have brought him to this juncture in his' career that concern me. Guilt by association? You're darn right! Tell me who you hang out with and I will tell you who you are.
Thankls Clarke for reprinting this.
But based upon a lot of words I read on Gather, the first group I mentioned is well represented by a few voices here on this thread, and they are extremely over-righteous I would say ... their piety is disgusting ... could that be because they are white ?
A great and true article Clarke, what Chalmers Johnson called "Blow Back" ...
Find peace within your self and seek and share that with others. Be the solution you want to see and went it is found enlightenmet will bring to you peace of mind.
And if you want help be humble enough to ask because there is plenty enough we have that we can always give to each other.
Why does everything have to be a race issue????
"I saw today that people are seriously callin Chelsea Clinton on the rebuff that she gave some idot for asking her what she though of the Dad's fooling around in the white house!"
You (and the media) have misconstrued the entire meaning and intent of the individuals question. He was asking how this instance shows the strength and determination Hillary has within her.
Evan Strange interviewed about why he asked Lewinsky scandal question youtube video
Katherine M., Mar 30, 2008, 8:29am EDT "
Because the "color" white IS the best descriptor in the context of the discussion, as is the color black ... WHY NOT TELL the TRUTH when discussing issues of differentiation ??? Race is what it is ... what ones perception about the VALUES of THAT, is only their personal opinion ... I was only honestly making known my personal opinion ... it was NOT a RACE ISSUE in the sense that "you" would place it ... IMnsHO.
Despite the apparent see-saw battle on Gather about whether the Wright "issue" has hurt Obama, Andrew Kohout at the Pew Research Centre indicated Friday that following Obama's great speech, polls have shown no decline in his popularity. In other words, the American people "get it."
I only hope that greater understanding of issues around both race and American foreign policy can have further intelligent airing--which will apparently have to come from Obama, since few else on the national scene seem up to either task.
Obama Drops in Polls After Speech on Race
WASHINGTON (AFP)--Democratic U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama suffered in the polls Thursday after a much-acclaimed speech on race that, pundits said, had failed to defuse voters' anger over rage-filled sermons by his former pastor.
Waging an acrimonious battle against Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the Illinois Senator confessed to being bruised by the controversy surrounding his longtime Chicago preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/?story=
ON-20080320-000851-1252
Of course I am disturbed over the apparent blindness of Mr, Obama to the sort of "not" racism of those he has associated with. I will not condemn him for the words of others, but I am made leery of his "neutrality" of condemnation and praise. Not a hopeless state (mine), but a skeptical one. Mr, Obama has every opportunity to relieve me of my doubts, but will not accomplish it with vague words, only direct and unequivocal ones.
He can speak of the wrongness of this incessant concern for one's "race", just as well as I, no doubt. I fear though, that far too many who support him will be disappointed if he does, and that is understandable too. Politics is like that. Leadership, is not.
I assume that you read or saw the March 18 speech, JK. Therefore I'm confused at how you judge his words to be neutral. Confronting the misapprehensions of others and raising the level of conversation to an examination of race relations in the US is what leadership is like.
Well, I thought the speech was rather good, and contained some rather "direct and unequivocal" language, and was fairly well reassured by it. I don't expect much more than that, but it would be nice to see him maintain that level of "anti-racism" in a fervent manner. He does have an opportunity, even if he does not become President, to help rid this country of the echos of foolish "me-ism" (us-ism and them-ism), and I hope he does so. He seems a rather thoughtful and decent fellow.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Mr. Obama courageous at this point. That speech also contained some not so clearly "anti-racial" comments, such as mentioning that his white grandmother had spoken of feeling some fear when encountering groups of young black males on the street. That to me smacks of the sort of "politically correct" approach to the problem, which is in fact a form of subtle racism. A group of young black males can be a very real danger, and no person ought to be spoken of as wrong or racist for feeling fear in the face of something potentially dangerous. If a black woman felt fear when confronted by a less than secure encounter with a group of young white men, I would NEVER suggest for an instant that she ought to be dismissive of her feelings. There really and truly are dangerous groups of bigoted young men roaming about, and some of them are racially intolerant.
By anti-racism, I do not mean anti-realism, or "mind-police" attitudes. Mr. Obama did not have to make that statement, and it left me still wondering just how unpolitical his "stand" really is. It looked to me like he was "using" race at that point, but as I said, he has every opportunity to speak further.
sins of the fathers are sins of the son.
the reason why americans won"t have an honest to goodness talk about race is that it is just to terrifying.
it"s scary to look into the dark mirror of the past and own up to all the things you"ve done.
in fact it"s safe to say that the only people who have done anything close to that are friends of Bill.W.
the white man in the NORTH and South have to face what their forefathers did. We are a country of rainbows who have screwed ourselves and others to get what we want.
Indians killed Indians, white men killed Indians, black men killed Indians.
black men killed white men, black men killed black men, black men killed orientals,...etc etc.
we as a nation are terrified of responsibility of our own actions, especially in today"s morally degragaded times.
until we finally stand up as a nation and face our fears we will never be free from the wretched chains of our past.
this whole "me" society must be dealt with, the idea that "everything" wrong in our country is someone else"s fault must be eliminated,
Religion in America must change...the last great bastion of racism is the church and it will continue to be till we finally "drive the devil out of the temple".
Hatred of people is so easily justified when it comes dressed in holy robes and is bearing the name of god.
If you have sinned in your heart, I suggest you ask forgiveness in the name of our Lord. If another has sinned, and you have failed to rebuke them, for fear of retribution or ostracism, ask forgiveness, in the name of our Lord, and repent, and sin no more. Voting for a man, because he is of some race or another, will not do the trick, I fear. Nor will attempting to make the innocent feel guilt for sins they have not committed. It just don't work that way.
Come to think of it, how dare you characterize my choice for Pres or the reasons for it? I haven't announced my choice. You need to review what was said here and while you're at it, read some W.E.B. DuBois. (That was a joke, but just barely.)
It would be interesting to hear opinion on what a "centrist" on race relations consists of, in white and Black communities. I'm not afraid to have a discussion, as if it's some insane aunt locked in a closet. I know that if I'm white, I may be labeled as "guilt-ridden" for bringing it up. If I'm Black, I may be labeled as "uppity" or worse yet, some kind of suck-up. That's the cross to bear--are you too chicken-shit to make a difference?
"How dare you characterize Granny's remarks, or Obama's description of them, without having heard the words or the (possible) hate imbued in them?"
I haven't, but it appears you have.
The fact that a man in wherever USA has done some sinful thing, has nothing whatsoever to do with me, I am just a man. The fact that that man is a racist, or any other irrational thing, has nothing to do with me, I am just a man. It also has nothing to do with Mr. Obama, or his qualifications to be the President. That he would speak of such things is, to my mind, an attempt to exploit the vicarious guilt of persons such as yourself, who have not come to realize that the sin of another, is not your sin. And no benifit comes of imagining oneself doing terrible things, in some fantasy world wherein one pretends they are an indian killer, or a slave master, or a bigoted highway patrolman. It's delusional thinking, and I denounce it in perfectly clear conscience. I believe it causes you at this very moment to accuse me of sins I have never committed. And false accusation IS a sin, and not a courageous act.
I have stood in the dead of night alone before a group of angry young men, and scolded them for being bigots, while choking down fear for my very life. And some of those young men later thanked me, and stood on my behalf before a similar gang of hooligans, and called me their brother. I have lost employment, and been made an object of ridicule and hateful gossip, for telling people that they were racist and needed to come to grips with that. I have walked the walk, and care not for dreamy visions of doing so. I stand before you now, prepared to speak the truth as I see it, and will not be silenced by any extra special judges, who pin the badge of courage on someone, for exploiting the gullibility of believers in the magical powers of collective guilt. It's baloney.
I await any quotation of any sort from the Book, which contradicts what I say. That, I will defer to, but not political correctness.
What Hermann Goering did would apparently have been of no concern to you, JK, in the 30's-40's. I'm reminded of this because he has been quoted recently on Gather and I reviewed some of his "accomplishments" in that era.
www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977297550
I'll quote myself from above: "White America (that is to say, a significant portion of the white population) sees problems with race relations as centered on, or owned by Blacks. It's not a problem for them, so the thinking goes."
Well, you've got your dander up, and all I have accused you of is making a decision about Granny, without knowing her words, or tone, or the face she made. Granny is good with you, I get that. Nevertheless, as a teaching example, Granny was a courageous, apt, and poignant case for Obama to have been willing to share. That you have a problem with the captioning of this teaching example within Obama's race for the presidency or his relative position of power and influence relative to you (and me) says nothing at all about my psychology on race relations. You've cherry-picked that comment as a shibboleth of dissemblance by some standard that you cannot defend.
Here's your take on what Obama said about his grandmother:
"...his white grandmother had spoken of feeling some fear when encountering groups of young black males on the street."
Here's what Obama actually said:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
You probably forgot the part about the racial slurs that occurred on "MORE than one occasion" (emphasis added).
If Obama is a cold, unfeeling shark in the water, I suppose racial stereotypes being hammered into him by his own grandmother would have been of no consequence. That it came to mind to the professor as a teaching example, when a response on race in America was demanded of him, does not surprise me. This was not a cup of his choosing, but he was willing to drink from it, and whether he makes it or not this year, I think America is better for it.
I am surprised and dismayed that someone as perspicacious as yourself would decide that Obama's discussion was purely an attempt to create a sense of guilt in the American population. That would have been heading in the wrong direction, and I'm reassured by the news that most of America did not take that away from his speech, as revealed in many interviews and polls taken over the past couple of weeks.
You know, I am troubled by this conversation, John. You've done here that of which you've accused others with acrimony, that is, to suppose to know your mind, or heart.
I AM going to pray about this.
Ps. 23, Ps. 71, Ps. 103
"You probably forgot the part about the racial slurs that occurred on "MORE than one occasion" (emphasis added)."
Not at all, I just didn't forget that I did not actually hear Mr. Obama's grandmother say anything at all. Did you?
So, am I being accused of NOT judging a woman I do not know, harshly? Ought I to have assumed that if Mr. Obama implies she was bigoted, she was? Is Mr. Obama now incapable of presenting a self serving depiction of others, when trying to explain why he did NOT confront Mr. Wright about what he now calls "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike." ?
That's what I was looking for, an indication that Mr. Obama spoke up to the man he was close to, who he knew to be saying things he found unhelpful, in getting beyond these racial insanities. I did not see it. He had opportunity, and presumably motive, but did not, apparently, challenge one who was doing wrong in his eyes.
I know that moment, when what is right, and what is safe, are not reconcilable. If you know that moment, tell me; Why did not that man do what was right, and yet you call him courageous? Why do you call him courageous for giving a convoluted, and very much self serving, explanation of all sorts of things, but not that moment?
Uh huh, sure ...
So, you don't think that most civilized human beings are doing something of that nature, intent wise, anyway? Is this not expected to one degree or another?
No, it's always been about Obama. It's only about granny as a device to diminish the validity of Obama's message, as in "That speech also contained some not so clearly 'anti-racial' comments, such as mentioning that his white grandmother had spoken of feeling some fear..."
The answer to your latest question is simpler than some of your other rabbit-trail puzzles. Obama knows the man better than you or I. From Clarke's article: "Those seeking more evidence of Wright's venom will be disappointed." We don't know precisely what truth to (pulpit) power Obama spoke or when (and how condescending and "self-serving" would that account have sounded?) Unlike you, I found his insistence on standing with his friend and mentor the more principled and infinitely more courageous stand. As I've said here and elsewhere, he went beyond that to explain Black Liberation Theology, segregated churches, the power of Christian teachings in the African American experience, the generation of Blacks who came of age in the 50's and 60's, how Black America and White America see things differently and some directions that can be followed. Five days earlier, some thought that they had heard him duck the issue when he made statements to the effect that he had not been attendance for particular sermons that had made the rounds of YouTube, blogs, and TV in sound bites. Those that don't want to listen closely now attempt (erroneously) to call that a lie.
All of that said, Obama is a politician and cannot be considered a saint. That he offered this degree of candor is refreshing. I believe that it is the country's good fortune that he chose a career of public service.
As far as rhetorical flourishes that occur in a "demanding" conversation, I'll offer this: if either of us can learn something, even if we don't agree, there is value in the discussion. You've offered some slight indication of mistrust in this candidate and I'll certainly take that under advisement. Thanks for your comments.
But earlier in my reading a comment stood out which I copied then to paste here, I think it still applies:
" There is just so much "junk" thought around that the issues get confused. I think that there has been a war on reason in this country for quite some time. In the end, that's why race is never really discussed in a responsible way.
Joe T., Mar 31, 2008, 12:09am EDT "
Meaning to me that people are afraid to speak their truths, so everything gets hidden under the mantel of "politically correctness" and is thus endlessly shuffled from here to there without resolution ... I did not see Obama doing "that" ... IMnsHO.
Yes, it is worth some "bruising" to arrive at a deeper understanding, I think. It is difficult to speak of what one sees as probable error in an other's reasoning, without causing some distress to that other. Such is the nature of the beast, and your awareness of that is reassuring to me.
I do, in fact, perceive what to me is error on your part, though I'm not attempting to say your basic assessment of Mr. Obama is wrong or irrational. It's a question along the lines of maintaining at least a "slight distrust" of a person who lives in the world of politics, with it's incredibly strong pressure to always appear infallible. This to me is insanity anyway, since we all know without a doubt that none of us is anything at all resembling infallible, but enough of the public buys into such non-sense apparently, that to be truly frank about one's failures is virtually forbidden. A very sad state of affairs, no doubt.
"It's only about granny as a device to diminish the validity of Obama's message"
No, granny was a devise used to enhance the validity of Mr. Obama's message, by that man himself. It was an attempt to offer a plausible reason he did not distance himself from Mr. Wright, and as I said, he did not have to bring her into the picture. Clearly, the intent was to get folks to do precisely what you did, in generating your own images and concepts of a well meaning but "damaged" person, we could all see as "salty", but harmless. A forgivable bigot. We are then to transpose that imagery to Mr. Wright, unconsciously, and agree that Mr. Obama ought not have "disowned" such a person.
The problem is, no one was asking why he didn't "disown" Mr. Wright, but simply do what he did when pressed, in the present circumstance, which is to speak of his error, or get that error prone voice away from his own. By bringing that vague imagery of "his" grandmother into the mix, he asked us to judge his (and our) grandmothers harshly, and himself, sympathetically. When I did not do so, you, a well meaning person, saw me as in some way attacking Mr. Obama.
He did not have to put you and I in such a contentious juxtaposition, and could have taken on the situation he faced directly, and realistically, with regard to Mr. Wright himself. It is a form of stereotyping, involving all sorts of personal assessments and potential prejudices, about people we do not know. He invited us to sin, and become embittered toward those who would not, or who sinned in a different way than ourselves.
To think that such an invitation is necessary, or incidental to a righteous and courageous "stand", is naive, I know. These folks don't say a word that has not been thoroughly analyzed, and integrated into the "message". You know that too, and with other politicians have your "fudge-o-meter" in place, no doubt . . . but here ? Here, you spoke of events, which were just words, and people, who were just words, and courage . . .
Turn on your fudge-o-meter, or at least stop accusing those who do, of being sinful, please. We do not know this man, and we are in perilous times. The mere fact that the mainstream media have without a doubt been extremely generous toward him, and the opposition has taken various steps to assist his nomination, has my fudge-o-meter on high. Something ain't right, and I will continue to look for "that moment", if you don't mind.
Very well said, say I. ; )
In short, I disagree with your "salty damaged bigot" premise as a motivation for that passage. If granny was a bigot, the results seem not to have damaged Obama in that way. Sorry, I didn't feel that I was being drawn into a pit of inequity where grannies everywhere were suspect and poor Barack was lucky to get out alive. I don't believe that pointing out racism is bigotry. I wonder what other palpable examples Obama may have considered in discussing the Black experience of racism in America?
Still, there is your cynical planogram for the speech: whiteys embarrassed about their own bigoted granny giving Wright, or the relationship with Wright, a break. I have to go into right-wing speech here (or as it is now known on Gather, Reich-Wing speech): "If Obama wanted to throw his grandmother under the bus to save his ass, it didn't work. Lying about his knowledge of this guy's message after 20 years, and then admitting it, and then admitting how much he and all Blacks hate whites, didn't win over any swing voters." There is a range of thinking out there that we dilettantes may have difficulty capturing.
Throwing Wright himself under the bus would have gone farther with "swing" (and here I'm thinking of rope slung over a branch) voters than any cool metaphors. Here, I'm a fairly sentient being with a postgraduate degree and even I didn't get that granny was a metaphor for Wright. Besides, I did not understand that analysis from your first comments--take a look.
Why did he not? There's the entire spectrum of opinion, bias, hatred, disbelief, mistrust. I said that I believe he knows Wright and, I believe, he draws strength from that knowledge. We are not discussing Rodney King or a serial murderer here, in Wright or Obama. The racial enmity toward Obama is limited to about 9 or 10 percent of the population, while a much greater portion of the population is discomfited about being bothered with anything having to do with race. Yes, I'm suggesting that many do not want to confront the stuff that Blacks in America confront every day, and the vast majority do not consider themselves at all racist. They have a comfort zone, if you will.
And there's your requirement for Obama: "to speak of his error..." Maybe it wasn't an error, John. Ever think of that? I have heard things from my pastor that made my hair turn a brighter shade of gray than previously attained through years of effort. I've reported him to the District Superintendent. I would not quote under threat of torture the email I received from my pastor after that one. You seem so willing to accept facts not in evidence when they support your thesis, but stingy about stuff that seems reasonable to imagine, even if we don't have documentation.
You know, John, I'm on record on Gather as citing this speech as one of the greatest political speeches in American history. I'd give that assessment up in a second if you could prove to me that that message, that puck shot into the corner of America's rink, was not a high water mark for healing, for questioning, for compelling us to discuss where we are right now with race in America. At that level I don't care whether it helped or hurt him.
I ask your forgiveness for my implying any sin on your part here, and for my lingering doubts about your appreciation of the racial divide in America. I'll try to fix that. And I forgive you for my discomfort over the whole "guilt" issue. God bless you and keep you, John. I for one see the good works. I may not always like it, but I'm a man; what do you expect?
"I didn't get that granny was a metaphor for Wright."
Then you didn't pay very close attention, it is not even questionable;
" I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, . . . and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."
"Throwing Wright himself under the bus would have gone farther ..."
But sir, he most definitely DID "throw him under" the bus (once he became a serious liability to have riding it) ;
On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.
Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems ...
We would be making the same mistake that Rev. Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
We can dismiss Rev. Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
These are not words which will allow Mr. Wright to simply carry on as though merely "separated" from the Obama bus, as would have been the case if Mr. Obama would have faced "the moment", when it came.
And he didn't stop there, but slandered many more;
For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.
Mr. Wright has been thoroughly "disowned", and humiliated, and perhaps rightfully so, in some eyes, but there was NO good reason to drag many people who have overcome the bitterness of those years into the picture, and dis them, in a very serious way. I have know older "black" folks, who were as sincere in their forgiveness as any I have ever known. Who went out of their way to assist me personally at times, and with whom I felt as free to speak and laugh, as with my "flesh and blood".
I heard many rather suggestive statements, which "capitalized" on what others have done, and clearly were intended to;
Those stories -- of survival, and freedom, and hope -- became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears
And that is simply not true. That is not reality, and neither the suffering of others, nor the sins of others, belong to we who simply imagine these things. To carry such baggage, is to continue racism, not end it. We are what we are, not what we imagine. Others are what they are, not playthings for our amusement or exploitation. I do not say these words casually, they are the fruit of the words our Lord planted in me. When he said forgive, he meant really.
Let the dead, bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God
To feel bitterness about discrimination and hate is not racism. You slander the oppressed even by denying their existence.
"As William Faulkner once wrote, 'The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past.'"
The play "A Raisin in the Sun" (1959) by Lorraine Hansberry, who lived on the south side of Chicago was a fictional play based on real-life conditions in the community. At its Broadway run, it won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award.
---------
Ruth: Would you like another chair -- you don't look comfortable.
Lindner: No, thank you very much. Please. Well -- to get right to the point I -- I am sure you people must be aware of some of the incidents which have happened in various parts of the city when colored people have moved into certain areas -- Well -- because we have what I think is going to be a unique type of organization in American community life -- not only do we deplore that kind of thing -- but we are trying to do something about it. We feel -- we feel that most of the trouble in this world, when you come right down to it -- most of the trouble exists because people just don't sit down and talk to each other.
...
Ruth: You should hear the money those folks raised to buy the house from us. All we paid and then some.
Beneatha: What they think we going to do -- eat 'em?
Ruth: No, honey, marry 'em.
Mama: Lord, Lord, Lord...
---------
...and hate now...
The end of 2007 brought to a close another year marked by staggering levels of racist hate in America. Even as several major hate groups struggled to survive, other new groups appeared, and the radical right as a whole appeared to grow.
The latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in America rose to 888 last year, up 5% from 844 groups in 2006. That capped an increase of 48% since 2000 — a hike from 602 groups attributable to the exploitation by hate groups of the continuing debate about immigration. And it comes on top of some 300 other anti-immigration groups, about half listed by SPLC as "nativist extremist," formed in the last three years.
At the same time, FBI statistics suggested that there was a 35% rise in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2006. Experts believe that such crimes are typically carried out by people who think they are attacking immigrants.
www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=886
Since then-U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott got into political hot water in 1998 over his cozy relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), national politicians have generally avoided the white supremacist group like the plague.
The Conservative Political Action Committee called the group racist that same year and barred it from its meetings. The Republican National Committee "forcefully" condemned the CCC in 1999, urging Republicans not to join or attend its functions.
Since then, the group has become even more extremist, writing that blacks are "a retrograde species of humanity," attacking "Jewish power brokers," publishing anti-Semites like Edgar J. Steele, and comparing pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape. But none of this has stopped politicians in four Southern states, especially Republicans in the CCC power base of Mississippi, from attending and speaking at local CCC functions.
www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=315
Excerpts from "In Hate's Wake" by Stephen Stuebner:
For decades, [the] leafy, overwhelmingly white town [of Martinsville, Indiana] has been trying to overcome a racist reputation so well established that blacks and others have long avoided the area.
"There are places that are not comfortable for people of color, gays and hippies, and Martinsville has a reputation for drawing that line more sharply than any other town in Indiana," says James H. Madison, a professor of history at Indiana University...
The Martinsville Chamber of Commerce has hired a diversity consultant and its president, Bill Cunningham, recently announced plans to "undertake a county-wide initiative to address what I like to call making everyone feel welcome here."
But correcting Martinsville's image problem may be easier said than done.
It hasn't helped that Assistant Police Chief Dennis E. Nail's outspoken views on gays and religious minorities are more in line with those of a nearby hate group than Martinsville's more fair-minded citizens. Or that, after he expressed these views in blunt terms to a local newspaper, the city council responded not with a reprimand but with a standing ovation.
And it hasn't helped that a few miles south of town an occasional candidate for public office, Robert J. Farrell, runs the state chapter of a national hate group, the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).
Or that a local church, calling itself a "home for Christian warriors," promotes Farrell, a version of the anti-Semitic theology of Christian Identity, and the CCC...
It was also bad news when the local high school lost its right to host any sporting events between January 1998 and the fall of 1999 after an angry white mob verbally assaulted black basketball players from Bloomington. (That incident led to the formation of a local diversity club that had grown to 25 members by [2002].)
"We do confess that there are folks in our community who are prejudiced, even racist," school superintendent James Auter wrote in an open letter to the community following the basketball incident.
"However, many individuals and organizations, including the schools, have been working very hard to obliterate the reputation that we have as a community. We felt that considerable progress was being made."
www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=44
"I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world."
I'll take this opportunity to mention that the Southern Poverty Law Center offers some terrific "anti-bias education" materials in their "Teaching Tolerance" program, including Pre-K-12 school classroom activities, and even grants to school districts.
www.tolerance.org/teach/?source=redirect
You have not, to my mind, come to understand the folly of all that imaginary stuff, planted in you by human beings, with personal agendas, and cultivated by us, with our own personal agendas. I have, and won't be falling asleep to reality, in preference to the mythologies and rumors of my "culture".
One man says 'X' is true and important, another says 'X' is not true, or irrelevant. One voice finds it's way into a book, or TV program, and you call it reality. It is not, and no amount of rationalizing will alter that fact. What to you is "the way it is", is littered with rumour and hearsay and your own imagination's reactions. Attempting to sort it all out, and declare who is righteous and who is not, based on such things, is arrogance. You can dress up that arrogance with any words you like, I can't. I judge no man by anything I do not myself witness and understand. I am not a god, but a man.
Consider; Two years ago, according to polls, 32% of Americans believed that there were substantial amounts of WMD found in Iraq by "us" after invading. That's one third, who accept what I have seen no evidence at all for, and have heard the President say was not true. To that third, it is perhaps a great cause that "we" have been engaged in, and have graced the "ungrateful" world with.
Today, that percentage is at half.
History is "written" not by objective god-like beings, but men. There is no way to grasp the complexities and "guilt" of those we simply imagine to have done this or that. Of course some aspects of the past are reasonable to conclude are reasonably well recorded, but what would one say, if in ten years the history books we give our children, said that WMD were found upon invasion, and the US had served a great cause? How will you explain what had occurred to those children, or justify your disagreement that Mr. Bush was a great President?
I'll tell you how; You will explain (try to anyway), what I am trying to explain to you. We do not see "America" when we look within our thoughts and images, we see what human beings wanted us to see, for whatever reasons they had. If one producer of movies wished to depict a great injustice to "native" Americans in some instance, they will create a movie that depicts precisely that. If a different person wishes to show that in that instance a pack of war-like and barbaric men were confronted by brave soldiers, that is what will be shown.
Both these things occurred in "reality", I believe, and many other variations, some quite violent, and some quite harmonious and compassionate. It is not possible to form an over-arching true picture of the totality of what happened here, for it is gone forever, except in the mind of the One who can judge rightly, and He will. I will not be sorting through the detritus of other men's interpretations and agendas, to pass judgment on imaginary people I have no way of actually observing, or comprehending. Or on myself or you. It's a waste of perfectly good time.
And, I will not be joining you in believing anything an arrogant Presidential candidate speaks as if his were the voice of God himself, I really won't. I may vote for him, but I can see as plain as day that he declares things to be facts, that he knows one half of what I know about, and could not rightly speak with such finality, and he is not in any way persuasive to me. He's a young man from Chicago Illinois (my home town, too, by the way), playing out the bizarre ritual of my insane nation, wherein they speak these lofty "truths", and we are to forget they are just people like us, pretending to be something else.
Just LOOK at his words, and you can see he is boasting wisdom and insight he cannot process. Has he forgotten how to say; "I think", or; "It seems to me", or "I have met some" ? He is not a god, but a man. Yet he speaks as if a god, and that is a very poor example for young ones to see. I denounce it as corruption.
I appreciate the pastoral concern you've shown me at points here. I'll confess that I can't quite believe what I'm reading from you about the racial divide in America, however. Christian love and service is nothing if not in the world. How many people do you now personally know--30? 100? 300 or more? Is "the least of these" limited to those that you can palpably touch with your fingertips?
How about the connectional church, JK? Or is that all vague political poppycock that should be avoided at all costs? Mission? Secular caregiving organizations? Relief organizations and NGOs?
If the TV tells you that there is a humanitarian crisis do you believe it? Ever act on it?
I'm not trying to trip you up here. I'm just curious about how you reconcile the Great Commission and the answer to the disciple's question, "who is my neighbor?" with your apparent rejection of any secondary information source.
I'm not rejecting anything, I'm trying to keep it real. I really and truly think it is a huge problem that we have come to this incredibly stupid state of pretending some people are like gods. I don't fault Mr. Obama in particular, but until I see that he actually understands how incredibly wrong it is that we do this insane thing, I will not believe he can "save" us from ourselves.
I understand that it is highly unlikely that any person who does not play this stupid "pretend I'm guided by God sorta, kinda, to be your leader" game, could ever become a President within the current sort of delusional climate we find ourselves in. I really do, but I will NOT call a bunch of self serving rhetoric "courage", or declare this or that crime I know virtually nothing about; my fault (or yours). You may believe that to "solve" racism. a bunch of silly psychobabble and phony ass self flagellation will be necessary, but I simply see NO reason to believe that. It is, in fact, more likely to my mind, that such non-sense will simply result in another generation of gullible people, who cannot comprehend that they are real live people, and what they are actually seeing, and those they actually meet, are where action can be taken. Folks just don't get it, I'm sure. I can hear it here, just as plainly as you heard it in that thread we both spoke to about "Olduvai theory". It's just that these theories are ones you have come to accept, and I have not.
I have no doubt at all that you are a decent man, and take action where you feel it is just, and care about the welfare of others quite sincerely. I am not accusing you of any immorality of any kind. But, you seem to be saying that if I don't participate in some sort of mystical "collective consciousness" judgmental-ism, I am not a good person in some way. Why? Has God told you to do this thing? Is this His plan of action? Did He not send us His son, in sacrifice, that we might depart from such rationalizing and speculating, to KNOW that to conduct ourselves humbly, and with His will at heart, is to be His child? Are there not sufficient sins in the real world to be forgiven, that we ought to dig into fantasy worlds for more? Have not my sins been blotted out, in the moment I repent in our Lord's name? Is it not a FACT ?
Is guilt the thing that will save the world, or is that a myth ?
Sorry, I don't see that the act of recognizing racism is either a mechanism to induce guilt or a form of self-flagellation. I would have thought that it could serve as an inspiration for each of us, in our own way, and not by making a display of it or strutting about, to find opportunities for community service. You know, in the way that where there is flooding nearby one could fill some sandbags; that sort of thing.
I'm not asking you for anything other than to avoid labeling me as guilt-ridden or racist, or now, masochistic, for stating my belief that there are real, palpable problems out there in the community that could use some work. Nothing mystical there. I haven't found the specific locus of this difficulty in our dialog. ML King used to speak of a "sickness." In his last night alive (by the way, we're at the 40th anniversary of that day) he spoke of Mayor Loeb of Memphis as needing a "doctor." Where is the healing?
www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976885381
" I don't see that the act of recognizing racism is either a mechanism to induce guilt or a form of self-flagellation."
"Nothing mystical there."
OK, please let's "slow this down" a bit. I am saying that Mr. Obama had EVERY opportunity to "recognize racism". And, supposedly, he did. So . . . what did he do? Did he speak with that man of what he saw? Did he spend the time and "capital" of friendship he had with that actual, living, breathing, instance of what he saw as racism, to help that man, whom he knew to be doing something unhelpful in regard to all this? Did he act on what HE witnessed and believed, and could possibly effect in the real world of his existence?
No.
It does no good to make those aware of the wrongness of something so superficial and faultless as one's race, feel they are doing something special by bitching about anonymous "thems". Racism, like any other irrational or immoral thing, is a problem of understanding and human foolishness. You do not "cure" a racist with vague talk of people half a world, or a thousand years, away. You do not legislate, or regulate, or inspire-ate it into submission. You speak and act directly on the mind you have before you, and "force" it to approach itself, and stay with it, and sooth it, and love it, as it learns of itself, and the harm it is doing, to itself and others. You reason with it.
Institutional racism, such as Mr. King assaulted, is not at all the same thing. That battle was won by true courage, and he and his compatriots, of all stripes, are never to be forgotten or ignored. What remains, of the "problem", will either be dealt with by those with the "ailment", or not. If those, such as Mr. Obama, who have some influence with a "leader" who is spreading this insidious thing do not act personally, expending whatever they can "afford", all the fancy words and vicarious glory they gather to themselves in the name of such fallen heroes as Mr. King, will mean nothing. Replacing racism with nationalism, or authoritarinism, or unity-ism, or science-ism, is a complete waste of time, and might very well lead to worse things.
You have a very selective view of qualities of leadership. Apparently imagery and inspiration can't be part of a speech. Sheesh!
I have a different take on his reminders of the people who are, to you, so remote and imaginary. Obama HAS INDEED opened up a conversation on race in America and people are talking. Maybe there is some hurt. Maybe eggs are breaking. Maybe some of us are in denial and more comfortable with the blame game. But prove to me that positive change will not and cannot flow from this leadership, that it is less likely than the alternative. You can't do that.
Obama made a political speech. He defined his views in relation to the Rev. Wright's.
In a March 13, 2008 interview with DER SPIEGEL the Rev. Wright spoke of Obama's candidacy. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-471221,00.html
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH BARACK OBAMA'S PASTOR
Is America Too Racist for a Black President?
Even before he was supposedly "humiliated" he gave a level-headed and incisive interview. Huh. Truly, what I expected when I clicked on the link, from what I already knew.