Trinity UCC, Jeremiah Wright & Black Christian Activist Tradition

by: rikyrah

Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 17:36


(A welcome antidote to a whole lot of ill-informed BS that's floating around on this subject.   - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

I am a regular blogger at Jack and Jill Politics   and Mirror on America.

Here is what I wrote there:

I know that most of the Black readers on here understand that the attack on Trinity is basically an attack on the best traditions of the Black Christian Church. For our non-Black readers, here is my take on Trinity UCC.

rikyrah :: Trinity UCC, Jeremiah Wright & Black Christian Activist Tradition
Trinity UCC is about empowerment. It is not full of 'radicals'. It's full of 'Strivers' like Barack and Michelle Obama. It is full of what has to be called ' The Talented Tenth'. These folks are not radicals; they are the most connected to 'The System' within the Black community.

Dr. Wright is an old-fashioned Black preacher; not one of these Prosperity Gospel Sellout Hustlers. His Jesus is the one that helps the sick, the poor, the least amongst us. In fact, I believe, with conviction, if Wright WERE a Prosperity Gospel Hustler, then Faux News and Others wouldn't be saying JACK about him.

Wright demanded of his congregation that they have an active part in the world in which they live. Trinity is one of the most affluent congregations, regardless of race, in the entire state. That they show some self-respect; that Dr. Wright, and now Rev. Moss challenge them to give back - how is that a bad thing?

They are about self-reliance; doing for one's self. Not expecting anyone else do to for you what you won't do for yourself. Sounds like pretty conservative values to me.

When they were building their new multi-million sanctuary, they could have gone anywhere in the city or suburbs - they would have been welcome. THEY CHOSE to locate, literally across the railroad tracks, from a housing project. This was a display of their commitment to the community. Jews send their children to Hebrew School on a weekly basis; what is the purpose of that, if not to reinforce a sense of pride, values, history and tradition in their children.

That is what Trinity provides for its members - a sense of community, and pride. A source of religious inspiration that reinforces the conservative values that many of the parents are attempting to raise their children with, despite being surrounded by a BET/Hip Hop culture. A church that reinforces to their children that respect for family and community and education are not, nor have they ever been, the exclusive pervue of Whites. To surround their children with living and breathing examples of Black professionals who have 'achieved' doing something other than dribbling/carrying some sort of ball, or shuffling in front of a microphone degrading themselves. That success in America is quite attainable, through education and hard work. For Black children to SEE those examples up close, on a consistent basis, is invaluable. To have a sense of self-worth and pride be instilled in them will make them more productive citizens as they grow up in this society. Part of the development of that self-worth is to provide those children for a context about the world in which they live. Only by admitting and confronting White Supremacy and all the traps that it can set for their children, will their children be provided with the armor to go forth and succeed in this world. It's the time honored lesson of ' how to get over' that has been passed from generation to generation in the Black community. Jeremiah Wright just wrapped it up in a bow of Pan-Africanism.

When I see the 'reports' on Faux News and elsewhere, it's obvious that they are getting their information from people who have never been to Trinity, spoken to members from Trinity, and are getting their gross mischaracterizations from people who obviously have nothing but ill-intentions towards Senator Obama. The members of Trinity are not unlike the professional African-Americans in your office. The same middle-class, upper middle-class folks that you work with......do you really believe that THOSE folks leave the office and turn into the second coming of Angela Davis and Huey P. Newton on Sunday morning?

Puleeze.

No different with Barack & Michelle Obama and the nearly 10,000 members of Trinity UCC.

*******************************************************************

As for Senator Obama denouncing the parts of Rev. Wright's sermon that he disagrees with, I'm not happy about it, but Black truthtellers have never been appreciated...we all know that.

I also wanted to add:

Obama spoke about what Wright SAID.

He did not and would not repudiate Wright himself and made that clear.

Hasn't been a Black religious agitator YET, in the history of A-MERRY-CA that hasn't been labeled as UNpatriotic....by a bunch of folks, that, if they'd had their say, my Black behind would STILL be the back of the bus.

The best discussion that I saw was on Anderson Cooper between Roland Martin and David Gergen. Roland Martin brought up that it was the Black tradition through religious acitivism to improve the life of the Black community. Bringing up Apartheid and the ANC, and how Dick Cheney justified his vote against cracking down on Apartheid because the ANC was a Communist organization, while refusing to acknowledge that it was OUR own CIA that helped the White South Africans imprison Nelson Mandela for 27 years. Black folk  in America didn't give a rat's ass about the ANC being a Communist Organization - Apartheid was Jim Crow, South African Style, and that's the only lens with which we could view it as the complete injustice that it was. Martin brought up King's speech at Riverside where he took on the wrongness of the Vietnam War, and was villified for it. Make no mistake; the Prosperity Gospel Hustler is NOT the Black Christian tradition. Jeremiah Wright and his social activist agitation IS.

It was GERGEN that brought up that Blacks and Whites see the attack on Wright completely differently, because they hear totally different things when they listen to Wright.

It was stunning to hear just how deeply Gergen GETS IT.

When he brought up the July 4th Speech by Fredrick Douglass in 1852, when he told his White hosts that Black folk see July 4th ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THEM. That it is no day of celebration for them.  And, then, brought it full circle by talking about students of his - Black students - who tell them that TODAY - their families do not celebrate July 4th, because of the history of Blacks in America, my mouth was open....for he actually went THAT DEEP. And, then, to add that you cannot attack Dr. Wright's patriotism because it was as deep as anyone else's and only wanted America to fulfill up to its promise, I was like, ' Wow - he gets it'.

Questioning Black folks' patriotism is one of oldest slanders in the book, and it's not something that I tolerate. Unlike many of his critics, Jeremiah Wright actually put his life on the line in service to this country as a member of its Armed Services - the Marines. YA THINK that seeing war, and the effects of  what couldn't be considered as anything BUT an unjust war, might color his view as a minister? Ya think? Ya think, spending his life working with those that this country scorns and discards - poor Black folk - might color his views as a mininster? Ya think?

My father was FORTY-THREE YEARS OLD before he was afforded his FULL CITIZENSHIP LEGALLY in this country. And, this was AFTER he had put his life on the line for this country in 2 military conflicts. So, I have little patience with folks who wrap themselves in flags and slogans, and think they're going to cast aspersions on someone's patriotism because they want to challenge these myths and feel-good notions that you have about America.

They hate the Dr. Wrights of the world because they put up a Mirror and say, ' slow your roll...this country isn't what it should be. '


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amen - I think people are starting to (4.00 / 2)
come around, as they talk to their black friends... I put a dairy up on Kos earlier about Black Theology, and there have been a bunch of other ones on Wright.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...


Wow! Thank you for this post. (4.00 / 3)
I knew Wright and Trinity UCC is a lot about social justice or liberation theology, so I have always seen his remarks and the Obamas' participation through that lens.  But you have gone far beyond and given what to me is the definitive take on this whole thing.

Gergen!  Wow!  Who woulda thunk.  Not that he hasn't been somewhat insightful through the years on again off again in Dem administrations, Republican administrations, and various media roles.  He's just often very inconsistent.  Nice to see he hit some good notes on this issue.


Well said, great diary (4.00 / 4)
I like the way Obama's handled this as well.  Denounce the comments, but defend the man.  The media's coverage of Wright has been predictably shallow: search through years of sermons, find incendiary comments, play them without any context to the man, the church, or even the entire sermon as a whole.  I disagree with some of his comments, particularly on Hillary, but the "God damn America" comment seemed a legitimate expression of anger against injustice.

Moving on, and this is a tiresome point, but again, where is the outrage over Hagee?  It seems that his denouncing of Catholics as the "great whore," and clamoring for Armageddon did not get one tenth the coverage in the MSM as Reverend Wright's "God damn America" comment.

But I guess Hagee is white, evangelical, and conservative and therefore his American-ness cannot be questioned, and he shouldn't be bothered with.


Obama's handling (4.00 / 4)
Good post, good copmment.  I also liked Obama's focus on Wright as a man of a generation deeply scarred by the frustrations of the civil rights movement, and himself as a man who, by standing on the shoulders of those of Wright's generation, could see beyond to a less racially polarized society.  It was an opportunity for Obama to give Wright his due but also to focus the debate on the future not the past, and to offer a way out of the racial demonization that Ferraro and the right wing have plunged us into once again.  This is one of Obama's great strengths IMHO,--the ability to focus things beyond himself and onto something larger.

And I applaud David Gergen for his insights.  One has to spend some serious time with poorer black people to understand just different the world those kids grow up in is, and how important religion can be in fostering the very values that middle class whites say they want Black folk to espouse, whether you agree with the theology or not.  

And the double standard!  Hagee and Roberston can say that God hates America enough to send us 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina to punish us for our faults and that is ok.  IOKIYAR and especially a white one.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
"shuffling in front of a microphone degrading themselves" (4.00 / 2)
I agree that this is a great post,  EXCEPT for the part denigrating entertainers. Seriously. I make a living playing in a blues band. Countless numbers of my heroes are black entertainers. Their music means a lot to me, and I think that comment is bullshit. Otherwise, great post.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
While others are clutching their pearls . . . (4.00 / 4)
 . . . over a house blessing, it's great to see OpenLeft bring new information and perspective.

I have one measure I use for my blog reading: did I learn something useful?

Thanks.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.


Questions (4.00 / 2)
How long did you think this election was going to avoid the race issue in America?

I am African American. Yes, I familar with liberation theology. But that theology, at least for black folk, is about liberation from the oppression of the white majority. When you peel it back, that's from where  the tradition grows.

For the record, some of Rev Wright's comments were pretty bad, but they wren't any worse than one hears in general in the American landscape from other groups.

But, I think most of this primary people have been deluding themselve with all this post partisan talk in to believing that race wasn't a factor or that Obama could go on being the "magic negro" to which no one attributes any race. Now, personally, you may not have thought that (since that's the common retort) but look the guy or girl next to you- what are they thinking about race? Have you asked on a deep level such as this where you can say what Wright said? This isn't for the sake of provocation. It's for the sake of discovering who people are.

Pardon the pun, but I think many of you have been faith based this election cycle. What did you think was going to happen? What did you think Obama's response was going to be? When he faces this in the WH (as he almost certanly will), if he wants a second term, what do you think his responses will be? This question goes to the whole "he's going to deliver when he's in office" theory. Did you think the white majority in America had changed? Didn't you notice that race really hasn't been vetted ? I mean sure- they see his black, they understand this intellectually, but emotionally, did they think "he's one of the good blacks?" Does this puncture that view? If so, what does it say about where our country really is on race right now?

These aren't meant to be easy questions. I have a lot more. ie, I keep asking " would you vote Obama were he a white candidate with his record?"  Do we have  a strategy for winning that doesn't depend on there not being any racial flare ups?


A bit off the subject... (4.00 / 1)
But in response to "Would you vote for Obama if he were a white candidate with his record?" (because I've heard it many other places as well)

Absolutely. I don't care what race he is, he stood against the Iraq War from the start, something that couldn't be said for any other candidate but Kucinich and Gravel. He showed Democrats that they could WIN elections by opposing this war, and his 2004 win paved the way for our 2006 candidates.

I think it is easy now to forget those days, see things from where they are now and rewrite the events that led to this point. There was a point in the campaign where the question was "is Barack black enough?".

Lastly, no matter how much I want a non white male to be president, had Russ Feingold ran, I would be supporting him.  


[ Parent ]
Answers (4.00 / 1)
You write:

But, I think most of this primary people have been deluding themselve with all this post partisan talk in to believing that race wasn't a factor or that Obama could go on being the "magic negro" to which no one attributes any race. Now, personally, you may not have thought that (since that's the common retort) but look the guy or girl next to you- what are they thinking about race? Have you asked on a deep level such as this where you can say what Wright said? This isn't for the sake of provocation. It's for the sake of discovering who people are.

Well, I think you're wrong about people not expecting race to be a factor -- it's America, race is always a factor in politics, as in life. As for the post-partisan stuff, I know it irks a decent number of people in the netroots, but I just consider it almost anti-dog-whistle kind of stuff -- it's his method of allowing people to vote for a liberal Democrat without having to admit to themselves that they like liberal, Democratic positions and ideas. The conservative noise machine has so destroyed that word/brand, that I think most average voters (i.e. not the political junkies like us that spend crazy amounts of time thinking about, talking, and reading about politics online and/or actively participating in local party events) still need that 'out' to vote for a liberal Democrat, even if they agree much more strongly with his/her positions. It's why his appeal to independents is so strong.

I'll even cede the point that a not-insignificant number of Democrats, maybe especially younger ones and people new to the process and the system, really believe that stuff. But I still don't really see the problem. The landscape on January 20, 2009, will be much, much different than it is today, and there will be many fewer Republicans around. I don't expect drastic and radical change to ever be easy, but it will be easier with a Democratic trifecta with greatly expanded operating margins in both Houses of Congress.

As for the 'magic negro' stuff, frankly, that's a construction that I've seen you use here before, but I don't see it. I mean, the man is obviously black. He's married to a black woman, and they have black children. They are black. The hope of a 'post-racial' America is and never was that we'll look at someone and not see their race -- race is too much of a person's identity to be dismissed, and frankly it would ridiculous and offensive to do so. The hope is/was that, having recognized that someone is of a different race or creed or religion than you, that you will not prejudge or discriminate against them based solely on that difference.

Pardon the pun, but I think many of you have been faith based this election cycle. What did you think was going to happen? What did you think Obama's response was going to be? When he faces this in the WH (as he almost certanly will), if he wants a second term, what do you think his responses will be? This question goes to the whole "he's going to deliver when he's in office" theory. Did you think the white majority in America had changed? Didn't you notice that race really hasn't been vetted ? I mean sure- they see his black, they understand this intellectually, but emotionally, did they think "he's one of the good blacks?" Does this puncture that view? If so, what does it say about where our country really is on race right now?

I didn't end up supporting Barack until after Iowa, when it became clear that Dodd had no chance. Before settling on Dodd in late 2007, I was still hoping Clark would run, or Feingold. Barack was obviously superior to either Hillary or McCain based upon his foreign policy ideas, ideals, and judgments. I also really like his rhetoric and his ability to inspire people with great oratory. It is in fact a very valuable and necessary skill for a politician to have. His oratory and rhetoric is probably what convinced a number of his supporters to support him -- I guess that's 'faith based'? Look, EVERY person that supports someone for President is in essence making a leap of faith that that person will end up acting in office like they say they will during the election season. So I don't find that argument very persuasive.

As for the rest ... you seem to have very little faith that any black person can be elected President even today in 2008, which is a plausible argument. Maybe there are 40% of whites that will never do so (I think the number is probably around 25-30%, but 40% isn't unbelievable). But here's what I think about that -- I'd rather nominate the best candidate and see him lose because of America's inability to conquer its racism than not nominate that candidate because of his/her race/religion/sexual orientation out of the fear that such qualities will be rejected by our society. I'd rather know it straight up.

This is why Geraldine Ferrarro's argument is prima facie ridiculous. I don't even know that it's racist as much as it's just plain stupid and bespeaks a very limited worldview. I mean, the only way we have a black candidate that's able to be elected President in 2008 is because Barack Obama exists. This candidate would have to be either a Senator or a Governor. He/she would have to be unimpeachably smart and well educated -- going to Harvard Law wouldn't be enough, because of the wink/wink affirmative action whisper campaign. No, that candidate would have to have earned the straight A's needed to run the freaking Harvard Law Review. He could not have deviated much on his life path, spending his 20s drifting like most of the rest of us do. He would have had to run almost a perfect life, always being the best, never taking a break. He would have to be religious in order to appeal to most Americans (make that Christian), and in order to gain traction in the black community. He would have to deal with nonsense like, "Is he too black, or not black enough?" that plenty of achieving African-Americans in this country have to deal with. And he would have to be able to demonstrate humility and compassion in dealing with issues like these in order to not be labeled 'angry' (wink, wink) when he confronted these issues. Then, on top of all that, he'd have to run a near perfect campaign to up-end the entire establishment based on an admittedly thin record of achievement in federal politics, and do so based on his ability to inspire young people and new voters. And all of that would only have been possible had he been picked to give a keynote address in 2004.

The whole scenario of there even being a Barack Obama capable of doing all that would be unbelievable had I not been watching it actually happen the past six months. It's still pretty inexplicable even in spite of all that. And the only explanation is the idealism he's preaching, and how it compares to the messages of the other candidates in the race.

You finish with:

These aren't meant to be easy questions. I have a lot more. ie, I keep asking " would you vote Obama were he a white candidate with his record?"  Do we have  a strategy for winning that doesn't depend on there not being any racial flare ups?

I think that question about a white Obama is a straw man framing. Barack Obama is who and where he is because of the totality of his life experiences and abilities, and also because he was very smart in picking a partner. You can't separate a person from his/her race. There have been plenty of untested politicians in America that have been strongly considered by the electorate and even elected to the Presidency -- George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and the Kennedys in the past 50 years.

As for the strategy of winning, I continue to believe either Clinton or Obama will win the Presidency this fall, but by different paths. There are probably 5-10 states that a black person cannot win, no matter the matchup, and he won't win those. Ohio and Pennsylvania may even be two of those states  (I don't think this is true, but it's a plausible theory). The reason I think he's the best candidate to win, possibly in landslide fashion, is that he presents the best contrast to McCain. Once the nomination is settled and we have 4 or 5 months to define McCain, he'll be finished.

I hope I'm not mis-reading your opinions, but I confess that I don't really understand where you're coming from. Would you be arguing this about any credible black candidate in 2008, or is it just the combination of Obama's message and his story that raises red flags for you?  


[ Parent ]
I find it ironic that you call discussing white perception of Obama (4.00 / 1)
versus black perception of Obama a strawman in the context of this diary and the subject we are discussing.

[ Parent ]
No, I didn't (0.00 / 0)
I wrote:

I think that question about a white Obama is a straw man framing.

That's completely different than what you apparently thought I wrote. [And anway, Mimi gave a good answer to that specific question you asked.]

The only straw man I accused you of was in the specific context of a white Obama. The entire rest of my response to you was in fact implicitly talking about the different ways Barack is viewed and judged by various slices of the electorate. When I said that some decent sized plurality of the white populace, anywhere from 25% to 40%, will not vote for a black man for President, what else was I referring to?

This is what I frankly find so amazing about this man in this moment. He has consolidated near unanimous support from the black community, while still winning white majority support in Democratic contests a number of crucial states (Pacific Northwest, Plains and Midwest, Virginia, Maryland, and perhaps others). That's a coalition that can win, regardless of what happens in the South and Appalachian states.  


[ Parent ]
A white candidate with Obama's record and political gifts (0.00 / 0)
Record alone, no.  But with his record plus his political gifts, his ability to articulate something beyond indentity politics and narrow self interest, his invocations of idealism and activism, certainly.  

I think that large parts of the white majority have clearly grown to accept a mixed-race politician.  Younger people, urban creative class voters, suburbanites outside the South, midwesterners of various kinds.  Interestingly, Jews are seeming somewhat problematic a subset, given their history of liberalism.  The vast majority of those who won't wouldn't vote Dem anyway.

The question isn't whether a majority of the white majority will vote for Obama.  The electorate is sufficiently non-white that that has not been encessary for years for a Dem to win.  But a substantial and sufficient part, possibly a majority, will vote for him, I think.

And better he deals with this now than in October.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Being Jewish myself (4.00 / 1)
(as, I imagine, you are, given your name), I'd say that in my experience Jewish Americans are roughly divided into two camps. One is more traditional, religious, conservative and older, and more inclined towards voting for Repubs or more conservative Dems like Lieberman and Clinton, and the other is more secular, liberal and younger, and more inclined towards voting for Dems and progressives. It's not one big monolithic group.

I belong to the latter group, and needless to say, my politics and voting patterns fit the latter stereotype, and I have absolutely no "problem" with Obama's race, heritage and background. Some of my relatives lean more towards the former group, and although their politics and voting patterns lean more towards the former stereotype, they're more open to Obama's candidacy than I would have expected (and they're not liking Hillary so much right now).

Whatever one thinks of its sincerity, depth, substance and long-term chances of success, I think it's clear that Obama is doing something new and exciting in American politics, that is bridging divides that were formerly viewed as unbridgeable. The question is what are these bridges made of, and will they last, and be able to carry the load that they would have to carry to be of lasting positive impact on our country and society?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


[ Parent ]
Well, that settles it. (2.00 / 2)
That explains why I should be perfectly ok with Wright preaching "God Damn America" and I should tell my seventy year old neighbor to be ok with it too.  

Or maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it is a reason for me and my seventy year old neighbor to dislike Obama.  Because, although Obama says he never heard any of this hate, the real truth is that hate is okie-dokey with certain people - hate is "liberation theology."  If Obama didn't understand that, and won't stand up for the hate he so rightfully embraces, he's a coward.

Hater, or coward, or both?  


What's the solution? (4.00 / 4)
Do we solve the racial problems that exist in America by telling your neighbor that there aren't any? Just curious, you mention the problem, but not the solution. Maybe that's up to Obama, but since you bring it up, I think it's fair to ask you too.

[ Parent ]
My solution. (2.00 / 2)
People can believe what they want.  If hate (or anger) is part of what lifts you above your circumstance, then I don't have a problem with it, as long as you channel it into useful energy.

There is a place for anger, for radicalism, absolutely.

However, I don't know what place it has in Obama's life.  Whatever liberation theology means to him, he is attempting to disavow it far too late in the game to be convincing.  But he doesn't want embrace it, because he knows it won't fly in white society, no matter how bloggers explain it.

So, it leaves me the same issue, which I will state more delicately than before:

In some way, Obama is caught between two worlds, and neither one can completely trust him at this point.  I don't think the political solution he tried to craft is going to work for him, becaue he made his choice too late, spent too much time trying to be all things to all people. This is a real problem for him that he can't erase.

For Obama, there is no solution.  And maybe the message for America is that we still can't get beyond race.  Depressing, but this has been a depressing election cycle sometimes.


[ Parent ]
And.... (0.00 / 0)
I confess I just don't understand Obama here.

His mother is white, and he had a diverse upbringing, was able to travel, a bright kid, etc.

I understand he had struggles, but I don't know why a man of his success and experience would identify, in his forties, with this message from Wright.  It is a message that has its place in society, and maybe had its place in Obama's life, but I have no idea why it would resonate with him now - and it clearly does.  He was unable to let go of Wright until too late.

I'm pretty critical of him on this score, but at the same time, I think it's part of a dynamic that I don't understand.


[ Parent ]
Because he's a Christian. (4.00 / 1)
Have you read Obama's response to the Wright controversy in the Huffington Post?

It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Obama is a member of that church because he believes in actually putting into practice the Gospel Jesus message of love and compassion for our less fortunate brothers and sisters. It's not his problem. It's your problem for not understanding it, and it's all of our problems if it prevents us from electing a good president. What are we going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? I humbly offer the suggestion that you start with an earnest effort to understand the dynamic that you admit that you don't understand.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
I humbly offer the suggestion that you stop talking nonsense (1.00 / 4)
Wright is a racist.

Racism is not a Christian value.

Jesus was not black.

Whether Wright's brand of racism does more good than harm in this society is another question.

I don't want Wright for President.  Nor do I want someone who thinks like Wright, or who considers him currently a spiritual mentor.

Obama's been telling everyone for years now that he's post-racial.  Obviously, that's a lie.  Had he used Wright as a stepping stone in his life, I'd have no problem with it.

I do have a problem voting for someone who's entire spirituality is racialized, and who has a racial chip on his shoulder, handing us all a fairytale about being post-racial and a unifier.  And it ISN'T because I don't understand Christianity.


[ Parent ]
How do you know Jesus wasn't black? (4.00 / 5)


[ Parent ]
My personal opinion is that Jesus didn't exist at all. (4.00 / 1)
The predominant view is that this likely fictional person would have looked like everyone else in the middle east:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...


[ Parent ]
Well you stated it as a fact (4.00 / 2)
so it seems weird that you yourself think he never existed. In any event, if, according to the "predominant view" that he would've looked like everyone else in the Middle East, well, then according to our definition of "black", which includes both Barack Obama and Reverend Wright, then surely Jesus if he was an American, would be considered black.

Even if you adopt a more limited view of "black", i.e. dark-skinned African, Palestine/Israel was of course at the crossroads of three continents, with people from each intermixing, so there's no reason to think that he could not have been black, though it's not necessarily the case that he was. But he we do know for a fact (well, at least if we take the Bible on its own terms) that he was a Jew, and the Jews did spend hundreds of years as slaves in Egypt, and Moses was able to pass as an Egyptian as a child, so it's not hard to imagine that there were Jews who were black.

So, again, I'm not saying that he was black. But to say definitely that he was NOT black, seems to be unsupportable.


[ Parent ]
More to the point (0.00 / 0)
The question in my mind is whether the Bible is very effectively interpreted through the lens of race.  Modern ideas of race are not particularly applicable to the world as it existed 2000 years ago.

I don't know how Wright views Paul.  Paul wasn't about race; he was about inclusion beyond the Jews.  If you take Paul away and count Jesus as black, I still don't see a story of Europeans v. a black Jesus.  Jesus' problems were among his own people first - he wasn't racially oppressed.


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Agreed that looking at the Bible through the prism of race per se makes no sense, but you can make analogies between the rulers and the oppressed in either case. Jesus wasn't racially oppressed, but he was a member of a group (the Jews) who were oppressed (by the Romans). It happens that he directed much of his attention toward the corrupt elements within his own group who were essentially allied with the Romans in the oppression.

[ Parent ]
Looking At The Bible Through The Prism Of Race Makes Perfect Sense (4.00 / 2)
The Bible is permeated with concerns for social justice, and race is at the top of the list of social justice concerns in our society today.

It would be nice if that were not the case.  But what's nice and what's real are two different things.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
No, I totally agree (0.00 / 0)
But "social justice" and race are not universally always entertwined. That's why I said that the concerns in the Bible are analogous to today's racial issues; but it doesn't necessarily make sense to think about the events in the Bible in literal racial terms.

[ Parent ]
Then you must be (4.00 / 1)
unfamiliar with the parable called "The Good Samaritan." Race and its problems were very much a concern of those who wrote the Bible.

Wright gets that, it sounds like you don't.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Hey, we agree on something! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
more "nonsense" (4.00 / 3)
Wright is a racist.

I guess we disagree on what racism is. I don't consider a black man who has lived his life in a racist country to be a racist for not keeping quiet about the racism of his country. This may come as a surprise to you, but Rev. Wright grew up in a nation where he wasn't allowed to vote, wasn't allowed to live or eat with whites, wasn't allowed to marry a white woman, etc. etc. The laws have changed, but not the attitudes. I'm sure that your response to such indignities and injustices would be much more dignified that Rev Wrights unseemly raising of his voice during his sermon.

Racism is not a Christian value.

Yeah. Think about it.

Jesus was not black.

How do you know?

I don't want Wright for President.

He's not running.

Nor do I want someone who thinks like Wright, or who considers him currently a spiritual mentor.

God forbid we have a president who believes in building up the community and ministering to the sick and poor.

Obama's been telling everyone for years now that he's post-racial.

I don't remember Obama ever calling himself "post racial." Maybe you're confusing him with Stephen Colbert.

Obviously, that's a lie.  Had he used Wright as a stepping stone in his life, I'd have no problem with it.

I do have a problem voting for someone who's entire spirituality is racialized, and who has a racial chip on his shoulder, handing us all a fairytale about being post-racial and a unifier.

Now who's talking nonsense?

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
I get it (1.00 / 4)
Obama and Wright are saints.  They minister to the sick and poor.  If they say something harsh or unfair, it's only because they've been mistreated more that I can imagine. If anyone takes offense at their words, it is entirely the fault of the listener.

That's settled, then.  Thanks for clearing that up.


[ Parent ]
Not a saint, (4.00 / 3)
but a prophet.

Saints are famous for being nice, prophets for telling the truth. Especially the truths no one wants to hear.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
How long does one get to stay angry? (0.00 / 0)
There are many egregious things that happen to us in our lives that really hurt and make us righteously angry.  But, righteous anger only goes so far, at least it is suppose to.  

The fact that Obama is religious at all is a problem for me.  I think Methodists go too far, let alone Mormons, Seven Day Adventists, Baptists, Scientologists, and the Rev. Wright.  An association with any of these would give me pause.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
just get over it (4.00 / 3)
Yes. Isn't it time for Blacks to just get over it? Especially since racism and discrimination are now a thing of the past!

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Please, anger is misplaced. (0.00 / 0)
I am not saying we have achieved equality of any sorts in any way. I am not saying to stop working and fighting for better.  I am simply talking about anger and what it does to the holder and the people around them.  People can be dedicated, focused, hell bent - without being angry.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Water Doesn't Have To Be Wet, Either (0.00 / 0)
It can always be ice.

But how much ice can you drink?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
sarcasm, not anger (4.00 / 1)
I'm not angry. I was being sarcastic. I understand that it's easy to misread emotions and tone in this medium.

Anyway, as to this:  

People can be dedicated, focused, hell bent - without being angry.

Sure they can. My question is, why does it bother you that some may be a little angry too?

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
Okay- ratings- why is the response to my comment (4.00 / 1)
hidden? This person disagrees with people here, but says nothing particular outrageous other than he disagrees with us. SO what. let him speak. Can someone please remove that hidden comment rating? It's not constructive.

[ Parent ]
You say it's a dynamic that you don't understand (4.00 / 1)
But you don't hesitate in making pretty damning judgments.

He identified with Wright because he preached a social gospel as rikyrah said: "His Jesus is the one that helps the sick, the poor, the least amongst us."


[ Parent ]
Really, give me a break (0.00 / 0)
There are thousands of Christian churches that help the poor, practice charity, etc., that aren't racialized, and plenty of spiritual leaders for an aspiring President would wouldn't give a sermon on how God should damn America.

[ Parent ]
Most of those churches also have policies and views we disagree (0.00 / 0)
with in the form of the pastor. One of my friends attends a church where the pastor is a bush supporter and was for the Iraq war. My friend disagrees.  Are you telling me that everyone who attends the church is therefore in favor of Bush? I think your analysis dumbs down what people are saying here. It certainlywill work well in some parts of white America to say what you are saying, but its somehwat dishonest in that at least for me, it's not what i am saying. i am not saying I agree with the controversial things Wright has said, but i am saying its far more complicated than you describe.

[ Parent ]
The answer to your question: (0.00 / 0)
"Are you telling me that everyone who attends the church is therefore in favor of Bush?"

We aren't talking about everyone in the church.  If the pastor is intensely political, and we were speaking of a parishioner who attended the church for 20 years, donated $20,000 to the church last year, and named a book after one of the pastor's sermons, I would say the odds are pretty high that the parishioner and the paster share many common political views.


[ Parent ]
What The Hell Does "Racialized" Mean??? (0.00 / 0)
Sounds like you're pulling a Ward Connerly here--equating being aware of, and consciously responding to racism with racism itself.

And, of course, if one accepts this ludicrous premise, then it's possible to take a collection of separate facts out of context and create an utterly false picture.

This appears to be your entire modus operandi.

Now, I'm not saying you're a racist.  But you are certainly echoing racist arguments that have been used to roll back anti-racist gains since at least the late 1970s.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Racialized (0.00 / 0)
Let's take, again, Wrights comments on the elections.  If you haven't heard them, they are all over the net.

Wright essentially says that the powers that be don't know how to react to Obama because he "doesn't fit the mold" of being white and wealthy.  But, of course, that isn't true in the slightest.  Obama is well to do - wealthy by most standards.  He is endorsed by people in the top levels of government.  Millions of white people are voting for him.

Although race has been injected in to the campaign unfairly, and one could argue that race costs Obama votes, what the good reverend said is factually indefensible.  The apparent reason for the presentation of the facts in this way is to foment racial animosity among his audience.  I can't think of any reason to lie about whether Obama is accepted by the establishment, and to claim an imaginary or at least exaggerated rejection based on his race.

Hence, Wright - undeniably - is interjecting a false interpretation of current events, that gives an exaggerated and indefensible view of the racial dynamics at play in the nomination.  That is what I meant by "racializing" - making issues a struggle against the white oppressor in a way that has no relation to reality.


[ Parent ]
Scary Black Men are (4.00 / 1)
really not scary to black people. I don't have a problem with what Wright said but I'm black. The vomplaints seem to be based on knee-jerk patriotism and wilful blindness.

[ Parent ]
As I said (0.00 / 0)
I understand from where he derives,b ut I do think much of what is quoted from Wight is well a bit crazy. It's like the whole AIDS is a conspiracy thing. I have friends who believe everything is a conspiracy- they are entitled to believe it, but I tell them I think you all are crazy to believ ethat. This doesn't mean I don't respect their effort or what they are trying to do to improve lives either. It's just a more balanced look, for me, of whats happening. The problem in part is this black/white (pardon the pun) approach to all of this that makes dialogue hard to impossible to have.

[ Parent ]
It IS A Bit Crazy... But Also True (4.00 / 2)
The CIA's role in bringing drugs into the country was confirmed by the CIA Inspector General's report which the (white) M$M utterly ignored after destroying Gary Webb's career.

Many folks do vastly overstate the extent of the government's role--but any role at all is surely utterly indefensible.

The AIDs conspiracy theories are a different kettle of fish.  But, then, considering the Tuskegee Experiment, it's not hard to see why folks are so willing to believe it.

If there's any such thing as rational craziness, the black AIDs conspiracy theories would have to qualify, IMHO.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Yeah, re Tuskgee (0.00 / 0)
I get all that, but it is a crazy theory.  

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you and your neighbor (4.00 / 2)
should worry less about Obama and more about your reflexive patriotism which weakens the country you apparently feel can do no wrong.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you should think about the meaning of "kanzeon" (4.00 / 1)
Buddha taught compassion.  It includes understanding the totality of someone else's suffering and position, and the suffering in the world, not reflexively rejecting what someone different than you says because it sounds "hateful" to your ears.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Very odd (0.00 / 0)
What I've said is plain.  Instead of responses to my point, I get questioning of my compassion and comments about my blind patriotism.

I'll try this again.  Wright seems quite incendiary and divisive.  I haven't seen anyone realistically try - eg, with some footage - to show that isn't his usual style.  He's very good at what he does.

I have admitted that there is a place for hatred and anger in society, especially among oppressed groups, and that anger and hate can be productively channelled.  That doesn't make it not hate - just possibly not destructive.

I've raised a very specific issue with Obama.

One - is he a supporter of Wright's liberation theology and racism?  If he is, he should say so.  And this goes to the relevance of the article.  If Obama just never heard him say anything like he said on the video and didn't know he was practicing liberation theology, but just thought he was sweetness and light, then it doesn't matter for purposes of the discussion what Wright stands for.  Of course, no one really buys this: Obama's not stupid - he knows what Wright says, and to pretend otherwise is an insult, IMHO.

Two - In the alternative, why does Obama embrace hate at this time in his life?  Is it helpful to him?  In this regard, I consider Wright's riff on Hillary v. Obama helpful.  He characterizes Obama as a poor black man, and Hillary as a rich white woman.  But that is completely false.  Obama didn't grow up with the sort of black identity Wright did.  He struggled, but far less than most blacks and many, many whites.  He is of mixed race.  So why - in his forties, having attained a Harvard education, living in a rich neighborhood, being a Senator - does he continue to relate to an oppressed black identity, and to abandon this obviously damaging connection so late in the game?

THAT is what I confessed to not understanding, and to viewing as an option between hate and cowardice.

But, as mentioned, discussion isn't tolerated very well around here....


[ Parent ]
Wright Isn't A Racist (0.00 / 0)
I regret to inform you that there is a fundamental asymmetry in American history, such that when white folks talk about blacks as a collective source of threat, they are being paranoid and racist, but when black folks talk about whites as a collective source of threat, they are simply being realistic.

Sad, but true.

Thus, the entire premise of your rants here is mistaken at best, and racist at worst, as it serves the purpose of demonizing blacks simply for being realistic about their social, economic and political predicament.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Incomprehensible comments (0.00 / 0)
1.  Did I, at any time in my comments, deny that there is a fundamental asymmetry in American history?  There is not a word to indicate that this is a "fundamental premise" of my posts.

2.  Do you care to defend the notion that "talk of white people as a collective source of threat" as you call it - as opposed to, for example, "talk of the power structure and institutionalized racism" - ISN'T racism (whether it is harmful is another matter)?

3.  Do you care to defend the notion that Wright's sermon on Obama - in which he refers to Obama as "poor and black" and alienated from the power structure, when in fact he is purely none of these things - is being "realistic?"

Does it just give you a sense of moral superiority to call people "borderline racists" whenever they disagree with you, regardless of what exactly their position is?



[ Parent ]
Simple Answers To Tendentious Questions (0.00 / 0)
(1) It's implicit.

(2) Ordinary people of all races engaged in populist discourse do not distinquish between things such as "power structure" on the one hand and collective group impact on the other.  By itself, that linguistic practice does not automatically make any of them racist.

(3) Wright talking about the campaign falls into a different category.  I doubt if any minister in America would have a realistic view of the race if their parishoner of 20 years standing were one of the contestants.

[Unnumbered]  No. I know I'm morally superior to folks who indulge in witless accusations of racism against uppity blacks.  But that's not saying very much.  Certainly not enough to give me greater comfort than a good cup of hot coffee. Speaking of which....

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Unsupported (0.00 / 0)
1.  Saying it's implicit doesn't advance your argument.  It isn't implicit in anything I've said, so far as I can see.  Perhaps you might point to a sentence of mine, and explain how the sentence implicitly relies on the supposed premise.  Otherwise, you're just labeling my posts with your perceptions, without proof.

2.  My contention here is clear - claiming "white people" are a "threat" is quite different than claiming that there is "institutionalized racism perpetrated by certain white people in power."  This isn't a hard concept for "ordinary people" of any ethnic background to understand and respect.  My contention is that this distinction makes the difference between a statement that is racist and one that isn't.  You don't address that contention.

3.  You've just evaded the question.  I have indicated that Wright's sermons are unhinged from reality, and given a specific.  If Wright doesn't accurately perceive Obama's background and place in the power structure, it is a reflection of his world view being skewed, and not just out of personal affinity.  In fact, I would more expect someone of Wright's background to argue that the fact that the first viable minority Presidential candidate is biracial and has largely distanced himself from racial controversy was a further symptom of America's racism, instead of twisting Obama into a storyline that does not fit the facts.  Your contention was that I was somehow offended that Wright had realistically protrayed the black experience.  You give no examples - your proof is apparently limited to saying "he's black, and he said it."


[ Parent ]
Thank you for sharing this :) (0.00 / 0)


I think you're right, (0.00 / 0)
black and white Americans will see this issue and this discussion very differently. This is a very interesting post -- I don't know how many words it is long, but it's quite a few -- and if that's what it takes to put Wright in context, then I think your's is going to be a losing argument with the vast majority of American voters. And whether it's fair or not, the 30 second clips of him damning America, or referring to the "United States of KKK," or basically saying just days after 9/11 that we were asking for it, well those things are immediately resonant in a very negative way. And I'm sorry, even having read your post, I don't think it in any way excuses his statements.

Barack Obama is running a campaign selling us unity and a way of moving past the forces that divide us -- then we find out that his spiritual mentor believes very strongly in terms of black and white -- and in his world view, white is always out to oppress black. This isn't moving beyond the forces that divide us, this is reinforcing the divide.


"Just get over it." (4.00 / 4)
I understand your point about the political reality. I hope you understand that you are describing the reality of continued racism. Blacks have been oppressed and continue to be oppressed, but they are just supposed to get over it and go along to get along, because bringing it up at all really brings everybody down. It's like "Yeah, I really screwed you over, but why do you have to be such a jerk by calling me on it?" "How is it moving beyond the forces that divide us to talk about continued oppression? Your such a downer!"

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I don't think you understand what my point is. (0.00 / 0)
My point is that one has only to watch a very short clip of Wright to see him in no uncertain terms, suggesting that there be divine damnation of America. Any number of very short clips of him show him to be racially divisive and rabidly anti-American. rikyrah spent quite a bit of time explaining why we should see those comments in a different context. Most people aren't going to wait around to hear the explication that no, really Wright is a patriot, and his words are actually an expression of some sort of tough love.

There are two burdens to overcome in order to convince people that Wright's statements are not as they seem: one, as I said above, it takes a whole lot more to contextualize his statements than it does to watch them once and feel revulsion. And two, even after his statements are contextualized, it doesn't make a difference. He still at his core believes that all white people are out to oppress all black people, end of story. I don't have to ignore the reasons for his anger to find the expression of his anger repugnant.  


[ Parent ]
Gotcha!! Gotcha!! Gotcha!! Gotcha!! Gotcha!! Gotcha!! (4.00 / 4)
If this election is going to be decided on 30-second, out-of-context "gotcha" video clips, then the MSM can manipulate voters to pick the candidate the MSM wants in office. For media strategy in 2008 we are going to find out if swiftboating is the surefire path to victory or if the counterpunch and talk rationally strategy can wipe it out.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (4.00 / 1)
He served his nation as a Marine I believe. So it seems his patriotism stands on a bit more solid ground than many who would have an issue with him.

Do you think he believes that his long time friend Fr. Pfleger wants to oppress black people? Do you think he believes that the whie people that preach at or attend Trinity want to oppress black people?  


[ Parent ]
I have no idea what he thinks. (0.00 / 0)
I can only respond to what he says. And talk about strawmen -- are we going to say that all people who have served in the armed services are by default patriotic? And whose definition of patriotism are we going to use here? There are numerous reasons for a person to sign up to serve, and I have no idea what the circumstances of Wright's service were. Do you? There are an enormous number of men of Wright's age who served not by choice, but because they were drafted. The fact of military service alone is not enough to convince me that a person does not feel enormous ill will towards this country -- and please, do we have to start in on a list of men who have served in the military and then gone on to commit heinous crimes? Military service is laudable and often noble, but it does not free someone from scrutiny about their patriotism or any other subject.  

[ Parent ]
Get Real! (0.00 / 0)
There's this obscure saying, "Actions speak louder than words."

The fact that someone's willing to risk their life to defend their country speaks just a little louder than their words of criticism because the political system has failed to defend the whole country with similar selflessness.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
So... (0.00 / 0)
Do you know if he was drafted or if he enlisted? I don't. If he was drafted, then like so many other men at the time, there's a very good chance it was not his choice. The whole selfless argument kind of disappears when one is being forced to do something. Seriously, do you know the answer? Was he drafted or did he willingly enlist?

[ Parent ]
Yes, drafted. (0.00 / 0)
While the vast majority of marines enlisted, there was a small percentage who were drafted. Look it up. But why do you insist on responding in such a sarcastic and combative manner? Are you able to engage in a discussion with someone who doesn't automatically agree with you without scorn and dirision? I ask you again, do you know the circumstances of Wright's military service? I have admitted I do not, and you have yet to answer the question.  

[ Parent ]
I'm Sarcastic Because You're Repeating Racist Arguments (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying you're a racist yourself.  But you are repeating racist arguments that have, in one form or another, been around for decades, if not centuries.

Blacks have died defending liberty since Cyprus Attucks was the first casualty of the American Revolution, yet they still do not enjoy the full fruits of American freedom.

After 240 years, shit like this just gets old.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Nobody is denying the contributions of African Americans. (0.00 / 0)
But if you think my arguments are racist, then address those issues, don't tell me how lame I am and then ignore the question that I have repeatedly asked. You are saying that in questioning Wright's patriotism, something that you believe is unquestionable based on his service in the marines, I am furthering racist arguments. You are positing that the question in and of itself is racist. I don't agree. Yet when I raise questions about the circumstances of his service, you do not address those questions but instead attack me. I don't see how anybody is served by this sort of discourse. You haven't even tried to actually consider the question, instead you are perfectly content to dismiss out of hand my points and questions as being racist and thereby beneath your civility and consideration. If you can't even conduct a conversation with someone who is ostensibly on your side (the side that wants to see a Democrat in the White House) how on earth are we going to win this election?

That last question is a rhetorical one, and I don't really need an answer. But the oratorical question about whether or not Wright was drafted or enlisted is one that I would still like an answer to, if you have it. It seems to have touched a nerve and I am truly curious about the answer if for no other reason that it has been ignored as often as it has been asked.  


[ Parent ]
So your claim to (0.00 / 0)
being a superior patriot is based on what? Reflexive nationalism? That's  certainly not patriotic.

You should do some research on what those white people think then.  


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry (0.00 / 0)
I didn't realize that I'd written anything about my patriotism. Can you point me to my comment where I made this claim of superior patriotism?

Your second statement seems a non sequitur -- what white people are these that you would like me to research?


[ Parent ]
Great diary (4.00 / 4)
The problem is that sociological truth and political truth are two separate things and by that I mean that being "right" about something from a sociological perspective doesn't mean a hill of beans if it's the wrong answer politically. And at this point in history, and probably forever more, politically, America is not going to elect a black man to be President IF that black man expresses and/or embodies the righteous anger that black Americans feel about their collective experience in America.

Yes, most Americans want to unite across racial lines to solve the problems that we face, including (presumably) those that arise out of our history of slavery and racial inequality, but the anger and bitterness, the attempt to castigate all white Americans as somehow complicit, well, that's just not going to play well on the national political stage.

I think Obama's doing the best that he can to address the issue aggressively. The fact is, ANY black politician with ANY degree of legitimacy WITHIN the black community would be associated with people who have at times expressed the kinds of sentiments expressed by Reverend Wright. Barack Obama didn't create the racial divide in America; he's just the one who's looking for a way to bridge it. Hopefully both sides will give him a bit of slack, because take it from me, as a person of biracial descent, it ain't an easy thing to do.


Imagination (4.00 / 4)
I'm a white male, but find it takes more imagination to understand the outrage towards Wright's comments then to understand why African Americans find his most extreme sermons empowering, though neither opinion reflects my own.

In science, you are always building upon the knowledge gained by those before you; standing on the shoulders of giants, they say.  But quite often for science to progress, the theories and models of the past generation must be rejected in the light of new data.  This seems like a contradiction, for how can you simultaneously reject and build upon those who came before you?  But it isn't a contradiction; in fact, both parts are completely necessary.

The same seems to be true, here.


This country is not yet ready to talk about race, (4.00 / 6)
discrimination, poverty and injustice. Not openly and honestly at least. For too many people, it's simply too painful and difficult, so they just sweep it under the rug, as has been done since well before the Civil War. We're not unique in this. No society likes to acknowledge, come to terms with and solve its darker side. And all societies have them. ALL societies.

So when someone like Wright says what he said, he's denounced, not because what he said was necessarily wrong, but because one simply isn't supposed to say such things in polite American society. And when one hears someone says such things, one is supposed to reject and denounce it, is one is to be allowed to remain in society's good graces. Especially if one is a black man running for high national office. Obama knew that, and did what he had to do, even though in his heart, I'm not sure that he really likes what he just had to do. But if he didn't do it, his chances of becoming president would likely have gone WAY down.

Change in any society comes from both the inside out and the outside in. Many of us are trying to change things from the outside. Obama is trying to do it from the inside. And to do that successfully, you have to know how to play the insider's game, like it or not. You can bend or change some of the rules, but only if you observe the other rules. This is what Obama is doing. He has no choice, I believe. Maybe someday we'll have moved past this stupid and wasteful game of pretense. But we're simply not there yet.

So let the false piety continue, and let Obama do what he has to do to get inside, where, hopefully, he will change the rules of the game, even if only just a bit. Each time someone does that, it gets a little bit easier for the next person who comes along. We're getting there, slowly, partly from the outside, and partly from the inside. And the game's just played differently there. So let Archie Bunker have his day. Doesn't matter. We're moving past him, and there's nothing that he can do about it. He can delay it, but he can't stop it.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


Truth In A Bodyguard of Lies, Eh??? (0.00 / 0)
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
    --Winston Churchill
 

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The dynamic of resentment and anger (0.00 / 0)
goes both ways and everybody needs to stop.  As I said above, how long can people embrace righteous anger without it turning against them.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I am not angry, but I do get why he is (4.00 / 2)
That's the point.

[ Parent ]
I can get it, it just isn't healthy. (0.00 / 0)
I also think it makes his goal of justice harder to reach.  His rhetoric pushes away the very people who should be listening to what he has to say.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
It's been my experience that language isn't a factor in (4.00 / 1)
race discussions. I really wish it was. But then, as Rosenberg will probably tell you- I'm a pessimist about America right now. I really wish it were a matter of using the right words and frames. Its about the fact no one wants to have the conversation so people become increasingly desperate as they watch their communities dying. Are his words crazy? Sure, but I can see how that may drive someone over the edge. At the end of the day, people have to want to meet you half way, and I don't see people wanting to meet black people half way on  issues of race. i wish I were wrong, but the data an d my own anecdotal knowledges says I am not.

[ Parent ]
Do you think (0.00 / 0)
it would make more sense to ignore the ignorant and reach out to those who are willing to listen?  I think race relations have come a long way, particularly among the young.  I suppose Rev. Wright is an old timer set in his ways.  We all have an Uncle, brother or father like that.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Do You Have ANY Idea What You're Talking About??? (4.00 / 1)
Wright's words were delivered as part of a sermon, and as a very experienced preacher, they no doubt had a very specific context.  Now I don't know--and don't pretend to know--that specific context, because the coverage I have seen says virtually nothing about it.

So I go to my default knowledge about the nature and history of race relations in America and the historical role of the Black Church as a foundation of Black survival, and I find nothing particularly unusual or astonishing in what he said, which seems a common enough exhortation not to drink White America's kool aid.

If you can provide additional context--such as a transcript of the entire speech, and a reliable account of the social context at the time, then you might be able to make a reasonable argument that Wright was/is somehow out of line.  (Hey, I'm not denying for a second that someone who did say those words could be an out-and-out fool.)

But to argue as you are doing here--utterly devoid of any specific context, but instead invoking a narrative of great racial progress that flies directly in the face of information I've posted at this site this same weekend--that will only play on CNN or some other white-dominated information-starved venue.

So long as hundreds of thousands of black youths are incarcerated in NYC alone for petty marijuana possession charges, who would not have been arrested in the 1980s and 1990s, we are not moving forward, but backward, and the argument you are making here only serves to underscore your own utter ignorance of the basic facts involved.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
This is very true.... (0.00 / 0)
So long as hundreds of thousands of black youths are incarcerated in NYC alone for petty marijuana possession charges,  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Speaking as a white woman (4.00 / 1)
I would just like to say I really really hate it when men try to shush women.

I imagine black people also do not like it when white people try to shush them.

It's something to think about.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Double standards... (0.00 / 0)
People can shush anybody they want.  Land of the free and all that.  We just need to make sure that it works both ways.  When it doesn't is when the anger and resentment sets in.  

I think we all need more honesty, more tolerance, and more space. Until issues that negatively impact some can be formed in a way to improve the lot of all, they're doa.  Same is true with Social Security.  If you means test, you kill it.   What is so hard about broadening the argument to equality and justice for all.   It creates unity.  Anger creates divisiveness.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
When White Men Are A Powerless Minority In The US (4.00 / 1)
then, you'll have a valid point.

Now?  Not so much.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Just tell me why, out of the entire range (0.00 / 0)
of human emotion, you would wish, want, suggest or recommend anger for anyone, flash or long term?  I don't disagree with the reasons, the goals, the righteousness; I just don't recommend or support anger as a solution or a state of mind for anybody, black or white.  Sorry.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Because It Might Save Their Lives??? (0.00 / 0)
Just tell me why, out of the entire range

of human emotion, you would wish, want, suggest or recommend anger for anyone, flash or long term?

Seems like folks on edge of extinction who fight back at least have a fighting chance.

Those who act "reasonable," not so much.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I see emotions as something to heed (0.00 / 0)
and watch out for.  They are symptoms, road maps for the brain. Emotions are useful but not to be wallowed in.   I can't control the world, but I control myself.  It is my understanding that some version of this kept hope and spirit alive in the people in the concentration camps.  Jews in prison camps couldn't afford the luxury of anger and live.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
This Is Getting Delusional (0.00 / 0)
Feelings just don't work like that. Anger is not something you can will away just because you are in a concentration camp.

What you do with your feelings, you may have some control over.  What feelings you have?  Not so much.

Only years and years of spritual discipline or the like can gain much control there, and any such discipline would, for most folks, be overwhelmned by the concentration camp experience.  Only a sociopath could remain unmoved in such a situation.

Your statements are becoming further and further removed from reality.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
All I am trying to say is that MLK said it better. eom. (0.00 / 0)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Wrong question (4.00 / 1)
because it's not my place to "wish, want, suggest or recommend" any emotion that someone else feels or might want to feel. What is my place is to try to understand what they DO feel, and why. I'm not sure that you do. I'm frankly astounded that anyone would seek to wish or ask away an emotion as powerful as anger, especially one based on such profoundly valid reasons, or expect it to just go away when the sources of this anger have not gone away, or been made up for. As a Jew (and, well, human being), am I supposed to stop being angry over the Nazi Holocaust? I don't exactly spend every waking moment being actively angry over it, but on some level, it's always there, and always will be there--and always MUST be there, I believe. The issue is not whether one should be angry, but what one decides to do with this anger. So perhaps you might want to rephrase your request to be "I understand and sympathize with your anger, and its legitimacy, but still wish that you'd ultimately use it for good, and not just let it sit there and stew and dominate and destroy you".

Because I think that that's precisely what Obama has decided to do. As have many others.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


[ Parent ]
That's just it. (4.00 / 1)
This is not the Land of Free for everybody. That's what Wright is saying. That's what you're calling "hate" while at the same time calling for more "honesty," and adopting a pose of being "above it all."

It's tiresome.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
That's true-- its like they are saying (4.00 / 3)
I dont want to hear it even while pretending that its bout how you are saying it. There is no proper way that this can be said that won't arrive at the same reaction. I really wish that weren't the case, but it is.

[ Parent ]
Both ways? Huh? (4.00 / 4)
White America is as angry at black America as black America is at white America? If that's true (and I don't see it), then it's not justified. More accurately, I think that it's much fairer to say that large segments of white America are as fearful of black America as large segments of black America are angry at much of white America, and that the fear manifests itself as anger. But these are two very different kinds of anger. White anger, as I stated, is fear-based. As well as, I think, resentment-based, and guilt-based. I.e. such white people fear black crime, and vengeance for centuries of oppression, resent what they view as special treatment, and are guilty over, well, being white and privileged (even if they don't acknowledge this guilt consciously). Whereas those sections of black America that are angry at white America are angry for basically one reason, as I see it: centuries of oppression, legal, physical, psychological, cultural, economic, social, professional, political, etc. And black anger is, I believe, more justified than white anger. They operate on two vastly different planes.

And I oversimplify here, and probably get some of this wrong. My point is that this "dynamic of resentment and anger" that you refer to is a lot more complex than you acknowledge, and simply calling for a cease fire on all sides is not only simplistic, but unrealistic, and even offensive. As a white American, I have absolutely no moral right (as opposed to the legal right you alluded to below) to ask a black American (or gay American, or female American, or Latino American, etc.) to effectively "chill out". That would not only be deeply offensive and misguided, but it would likely only increase their anger by marginalizing it and its causes. It makes ME angry just to think about how offensive it would be to do this (and also being a Jewish American, I think I know a thing or two about oppression myself, collectively and historically speaking). There are some very understandable reasons for black Americans to be angry at white Americans, and however one might view such anger, to deny its legitimacy and ask for its cessation is absurd, offensive and simplistic.

So no, I'm not going to accept your request for everyone to just chill out. Everyone should do what they think and feel is the right thing for them to do, and I would never ask anyone to do otherwise. If Wright is deeply angry at white America and wants to express it verbally, then that's his prerogative. If Obama is also deeply angry, but chooses to sublimate this in order to have a chance at getting elected, then that's his prerogative. And if he's not as angry, and feels no need to lash out, then that's his prerogative too. But just because a black man running for president needs to distance himself from the very understandable anger of a black leader in order to have a chance at getting elected, because contemporary American politics all but demands this, doesn't mean that the anger that he's distancing himself from is illegitimate and excessive. It's not. And it angers me for anyone to imply that it is.

So instead of asking black Americans to stop being so angry, I think that it would be more constructive to work towards ending some of the reasons for this anger. And one of the easiest ones to end is the tendency of many white Americans to minimize, deny and talk down the legitimacy and persistence of black American anger towards them. Instead of telling black Americans what to think, feel, say and do, maybe we should be doing more listening--to them, as well as to our own consciences. Less patronizing, more sympathy, if not empathy.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search