Is Wright Right About Racism?

You asked, “Is Wright Right About Racism?”

Check out the church’s website. It looks like Hannity is right on when he says, “[The church] is all about the black community,” Hannity thundered, claiming that means Wright supports “a black-separatist agenda.”

Wright is nutty, but he is not running for anything (i fact, i believe he just retired). He lived through bad times that most blacks under 40 can barely imagine. So what? He’s just a kook, like Falwell, Robertson, et al. Let him fade to obscurity with little fanfare as did the KKK and other racist organizations.

(In this country, playing with religion can burn you. Anyone remember Sinéad O’Connor tearing up a photo of the Pope on Saturday Night Live? Never saw her again. . . )

Actually, I agree with almost everything Jeremiah Wright said, and I’m white. And if anyone, including Sirota, were to write about this controversy with a bit of honesty, they would admit that what really brought all this to a boil was Wright’s temerity in suggesting that Israel might be in the wrong in its criminal treatment of the Palestinians. The rest is a smokescreen.

opeluboy - Just out of curiosity, are you for are against Obama? Even he found much of what Wright said despicable (as did i). I give him a pass for the same reason i might give any racist a pass. Times have changed and their experiences differ from mine in a huge variety of ways. But i hope each generation improves on the last. . ..

Although Obama wants to change the focus to racial problems ( and has largely suceeded), the issue is not what Wright thinks or why he thinks it. The issue is to what degree Obama is conciously or unconsiously influenced by twenty years of associating with Wright.

What if a candidate had a Clansman as his “mentor” and friend for two decades — wouldn’t that give cause for concern? Would we simply say, Well he had bad experiences with black people and it has influenced his attitude?

Read the stuff at the church’s website and substitute white supremist each time it says black or African.

I voted for Obama here in Illlinois, but am far less impressed with his governmental ideas and proposals than I had expected to be. He is a good speaker and a great campaigner, but is either totally naive (I doubt that.) or just making the usual political promises knowing full well there is no way to fund them.

Israel is mostly about having a “friend” in the oil patch. If Wright’s influence comes through will we drop them in favor of some African country.

Sure, if they have oil.

not all racism is created equal

it’s dangerous to ignore the power structure dynamic when evaluating one’s attitudes, words and deeds.

those a part of a violently oppressive culture and those violently oppressed experience life in different ways.  does this fact not matter?

whattheheck, there is no excuse for likening Jeremiah Wright to a klansman.  you seem someone willing to dig deeper than most, and i hope you understand i say so not as a reprimand, but as a reality.

Seems to me that all Sirota’s really done here is demonstrate his own willingness to make excuses for bad behavior, that is when that behavior is practiced by the leader of a large constituency group supporting his particular candidate.  Just as his opposites might rush to excuse dopey sermons about Katrina being God’s will, or gays and lesbians being responsible for God letting his guard down on 9/11.

I think Obama would have been better served politically, and would have better served the black population, had he used this opportunity to point out just why this kind of divisive, hateful and just plain out-dated preaching/teaching is so counterproductive, and poisonous to one’s outlook and chances for success.  He should have admitted being human like Hillary and having a lapse in judgement in staying associated with this church for so long.  He should have announced his leaving the church, and spelled out why.  I really don’t think there would have been much fall-out within his black constituency, in fact he can say pretty much anything, and his supporters, of whatever color, nod their heads in approval.  He could have gained even more supporters.

What a valuable teachable moment this could have been for the “great uniter”.  He missed it.  And Mr. Sirota missed an opportunity to simply condemn hateful manipulative teaching, instead of laughably accusing critics of the racist Wright of being racists themselves, and trying to justify and excuse by saying “look, they do it too, why don’t you go after them?”

How would it have looked if Obama just up and abandoned something he’d been a part of for 20 years? What would that say about his ability to work under pressure and handle scrutiny and criticism?  That is a key to being a great politician ... standing for what you believe in and what you’ve been a part of.

I think Obama’s reaction to this was stellar ... it showed integrity and ability to stand up to the scruntiny that will consume much of his political career. This was just one hurdle ... and he passed it with ease.

Sirota brings up great points about the two other candidates and there relationships with other not-so-respectable characters. But, of course, that’s not in the news.  And right now, nobody is focusing on McCain (just wait for August-November) and HRC is safe for a few weeks since Bill complained about her getting picked on. Now that he’s got a chance at being in some kind of powerseat, he’s sticking up for the woman who will get him there ... remember Monica? Why wasn’t he thinking about his wife then?! Clintons seemed to be a little bit hypocritical. At least Obama is up front and takes responsibility for things in his life.

ACCoop,

Re: degrees of racism:  OK, many of the clan guys resorted to lynching and to the best of our knowledge Wright has not advocated that. But listen to him.  Watch him. Notice the similarity to the pre-WW2 speeches of Adolf Hitler. They are both whipping up emotions with a scapegoat target. I don’t believe Der Furher ever mention concentration camps and ovens in his speeches, but the Hitler Youth brought up with his hateful sermons were quick to get with the program. It is not going to solve any kind of division to condone such behavior either explicitly or implicitly.

Anyway, IMO it is not the colors Black and White which are our universal problem today — it is Red and Green. The maneuvering in Washington and Wall Street is coloring many people’s budgets red just so the guys who committed the greatest fraud in history can keep their green. There was absolutely no NEED to do back the J.P. Morgan/Bear Sterns deal, to take on the bad mortgages or any other bail outs.

Most, but not all those capitalizing on Globalization are “rich white men.” People of all colors are in the same boat now, as we evolve into a two class society. Blacks and Whites have been able to make a good living for several generations on our manufacturing jobs. The call for retraining programs is just another dodge of the sellout of good jobs to make corporate management super rich. Bill Gates is whining that he needs to import more foreign tech people. I guess at least he realizes you can’t retrain the 50 to 60 year-olds whose jobs were exported. The cost of college is now beyond many families and more foreign visas are being issued to import people willing to work for less than a recent U.S. grad would need to pay off student loans.

hl223,

I agree with Natalie — there is no excuse for bad behavior. But what you see as a plus is exactly what I see as a problem.

You say, “How would it have looked if Obama just up and abandoned something he’d been a part of for 20 years?” and… “That is a key to being a great politician ... standing for what you believe in and what you’ve been a part of.”

That is THE PROBLEM as far as Wright goes…
Obama was a part of it for twenty years and saw no reason to leave.  If that’s what he believes in, then I won’t vote for him again.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Obama’s pastor said some things a lot of people here disagree with (I’m assuming most of it has to do with Israel). And as such he should have left this church, and nothing he does now can change your mind.

So, you will vote for a person instead who shares responsibility for the deaths of 4,000 US soldiers and the wounding of another 50,000. A person who has the blood of 1.000,000 dead Iraqis on her hands, and has enabled the exile of another 4,000,000 and who was the ONLY Democrat in the race to sign onto Kyl-Lieberman, designating the entire Iranian military a terrorist entity and giving Bush the go-ahead to now attack Iran.

In a nutshell, why the Democratic party is a reeking corpse. Good work, guys. Really good work.

“How would it have looked if Obama just up and abandoned something he’d been a part of for 20 years?”

I think it would have looked quite good, considering exactly what he’d be abandoning.  The mistake is assuming that Wright’s stances are somehow right, they’re not.  It may have been a little rough at first blush, but had he continued on and explained just why Wright’s message is so bad for African Americans, it would have gone from rough to fabulous.

What a fantastic, powerful and high profile message it could have been to all the Wrights of the country.  Stop preaching victimhood, helplessness and blame, and start preaching forgiveness, cooperation, love, good ‘ol fashioned hard work and family integrity.  Oh, and the Gospel if there’s time.

“What would that say about his ability to work under pressure and handle scrutiny and criticism?”

The way to handle scrutiny and criticism is not to first pretend you didn’t know anything about it, and then to say that yes, you kinda knew about it, and to then go on to try to have it both ways in condemning certain parts of a person and then insulting our intelligence by saying that these parts are not integral to that person’s mindset.  He didn’t meet the problem head-on with honesty, he prevaricated and dodged. 

“.....standing for what you believe in and what you’ve been a part of.”

But he hasn’t stood for what Wright believes in.  At the same time however, he’s made excuses and played the relativism game.  He’s attempted a Jedi mind trick and lowered the pedestals of people like Geraldine Ferraro and his own grandmother, and raised that of Wright, until they reach the same level in our minds.  That is very wrong and unfair to these people. 

George Bush has stood for what he believes in.  But everybody said that if he would just admit he was wrong, that would be a great thing.  I’m confused.

opeluboy,

Well, I’m beginning to see your problem — too many assumptions, too little perspective.

My view that Obama’s 20-year assocaition with a bigoted, emotionally motivating preacher has nothing to do with Israel. It is his racist totally attitude, broad generalizations and anti-American rhetoric. Not the kind of long-term influence I want in a candidate. By not leaving Obama gives tacit approval.

You seem also to assume I will vote for Hillary — not in a million years. In some ways for the same basic reason as Obama. By staying with Bill (a person I told a friend prior to being a presidential candidate is “morally bankrupt") she shows her presidential aspirations outweigh everything. I think they are political twins.

I will vote for John McCain.

Your regurgitation of the MSM death toll figures ignores far too much to delve into here, but I suggest you:

• ONE — check into historic casualty comparisons

• TWO — face the importance of oil

The Iraq invasion is admittedly a supreme example of what not to do, but we are there and running away will make things worse. We have torn open a hornet’s nest and must deal with the consequenses.

Our military has performed amazing well in an impossible situation. Decades of bad judgment by both parties and continued energy dependency have created this nightmare.

Whoever is in office will have little choice but to do whatever needed to keep the oil flowing. I expect when if office and reading the day to day situation reports many of us would be much more understanding.

I will vote for John McCain.

And may write in Natalie for VP. She makes a lot of sense.

Hi WTH - Does McCain’s pandering to the religious right (Falwell, et al) bother you? I think part of the problem with the Bush presidency is due to either/both of his religious convictions and/or religious influences from the RR.

That said, i agree with you on Hillary. If she runs, i will waste my vote on a third party candidate (which one matters not, it will simply be a vote of no confidence in the major parties).

If the FOX mouthpieces find the contents of Rev. Wrights’ sermons “controversial” they’d have a stroke if they had heard some of the sermons our pastor delivered when I was growing up in the late 60’s/early 70’s.  Like Rev. Wright my pastor survived Jim Crow, the depression, was a Vet of the segregated military during WWII, attended theology school and was ordained but he also had a day job, as a foreman at a foundry.  Quite often he used his experiences on the job to relate to parables in the Bible as the basis of his sermons and to drive home his point he’d extend that relationship to local, national and international events, both current and historical.  And, while these sermons started off with Pastor in a teacherly demeanor using big flowery words, his emotions would rise as he proceeded until he boiled the message down to a point he could use plain words any and everybody, even kids like myself, could easily understand.  By the end of his sermons the church was in an uproar, the pews in turmoil, everybody not only understood Pastor’s point but felt it too.  But what caused many in the congregation to “get happy” was not that the message was delivered but that the ideal of truth came out, that truth was painful, that it angered us, that we felt some shame and vulnerability, the truth humbled us and made very clear our connectedness to each other and to God.  These truths were in fact a spirit, an entity unto itself that we all were a part of, a spontaneous shared experience that Pastor drew from within himself and ourselves that took us back to Eden.

Unfortunately, in 2008, this spirit of truth is offensive to some people so they want to shoot the messenger.  Whether its the truth about racism or whatever, the truth is not something those currently in power want discussed.  Too bad, the truth is a beautiful thing to all who hear it.

theloneous - interesting post. To some of us, there are “multiple truths” and they even conflict with each other.

It is sort of like the truth that an elephant is like a tree (if you feel only his leg). This truth conflicts with the truth that an elephant is like a snake (if you feel only his trunk). Both conflict with the truth that an elephant is like a rope (if you feel only his tail).

While Wright may have spoken “the truth” in similar terms as your childhood paster, it seems to me that his truth was/is incomplete. To speak this same truth now seems to be both incomplete and, perhaps, counterproductive.

Perhaps pastors of all stripes should seek to enlighten, rather than merely entertain or obtain emotional responses from their congregations? Surely enlightenment comes from seeing as much/many of the truths as one can. . .

Just a thought.

Wolf,

McCain’s endorsement by the religious right is not a plus as far as I am concerned, but as far as I know he is not a fundamentalist Christian and don’t expect him to be influenced as strongly as Bush who apparentlly thinks God has called him to a mission.

We have to go with whoever is least objectionable to each of us. I haven’t voted FOR anyone in a long time — almost always against someone I see as probably worse.

I believe (hope?) McCain will be more likely to put the nation first than Hillary (who wants it too badly) or Obama (who’s naive in thinking everyone is reasonable and Yes, we can!).

Thelonious,

I would welcome more “truth” from politicians, but apparently a really truthful person cannot be elected — the media would turn his honesty against him.

I am aware that black churches have a different style of preaching (more emotional and more congregational response), but the examples of Wright’s anti-white and anti-Jewish IMO negate whatever positive thoughts he may present.

I was very involved in church for many years, but no longer buy into any organized religion.

If we are ever going to set aside petty things like someone’s skin color we need to concentrate on those things which unite us. I see the United States of America as the most important and effective in world history. It is far from perfect, but I know of none where I would rather be.

Today we can’t get a party to represent either business or labor, rich or poor, right or left — everyone seems to know what they don’t like but not what they do.

I have to tell you something I always think of when I see your signature.
Many years ago I heard a song request on the radio. The caller asked them to play something by “The Lonliest Monk.” :-)

wolf & whattheheck

By “truth” I mean in more of a confessional way than as factual.  Rev. Wright spoke honestly, from his heart, based on his life experiences, not necessarily from what he learned in school or what he thought his congregation wanted or needed to hear or what would be politically correct, but from his own unique perspective.  I guess my point was that America seems offended when anyone expresses views on a matter without first taking into account what the prevailing media condoned perception might be, and then that person is bold enough to not be browbeat into conceding their individuality.  Why be offended?  Does a citizens’ “self” threaten America?  Even if “facts” might be disputable should we be discouraged from being “true to thyself”?  I think not.

theloneous - good points and nice post. An important aspect of tolerance is understanding, thanks for providing light here.

I didn’t really so much take offense at what he said; I shuddered at what damage he’s done to younger black Americans, or any color folks who attended his church. 

It’s one thing to maybe write a book, give a lecture or start a blog to express your anger and contempt.  But to lead a huge congregation for decades, and to apparently put forth rather forcefully, and as a pastor extremely authoritatively, his messages of anger, blame and victimhood is not only sad but IMHO irresponsible and inappropriate.

This is the kind of reverse racism attitude he’s helped to spawn.

Sometimes you love someone who has a foul mouth. They may have been very good to you personally, guided you in a way you know led to the improvement of your quality of thinking and maybe your quality of life. It may sound sappy, but too bad; you don’t always choose who you love and even loved ones can act pretty stupid or mean. It doesn’t mean you divorce them.

Well, sometimes you do, but not quickly or glibly, and it hurts even when it’s necessary.

The main message I got from Obama’s speech about Wright was exactly that. He had things he admired and loved in the man, but knew also that he could get venomous (the life-context justifiability of Wright’s venom should also be considered, ya know). He did put himself away from the harsher sentiments of Wright’s (and, as thelonious mentions, maybe the more brutally honest, unsanitized sentiments… life-context justifiability, yes?) because as we know they’re quite bitter and divisive and Obama portrays himself as neither of these and his life story and public profile seem to bear him out. He said with his own mouth what he thinks about Wright’s angry words, and what he thinks himself about those sensitive and divisive matters.

Personally, I prefer to be held responsible only for the stupid things I do and say, they’re numerous enough, without being held to task for someone else’s.

I would never say “take it easy” on anyone who wants the Oval Office, since as must be obvious I distrust power and those who seek it, especially eloquent ones. But I’ve got attachments of my own to certain individuals who helped me be a better person, though I see that they have facets of their own that are frankly offensive (mainly it’s elder family members and a couple of adult advisors from back in the youth group days who have foolish racial or sex-orientation attitudes I don’t like… but I also am not going to divorce them, doesn’t mean I endorse those mean things they say, and yes I have argued with them).

I suppose this is all too personalistic to fit well in a presidential campaign, but you don’t make every relational decision in your life thinking about how it might look if you decide to run for president some day. Let’s criticize Obama on the substance or lack of it that comes from his own mouth, that’s the lead consideration.

Theloneus and Wolf,

I realize it is impossible for me to truly identify with Rev. Wright’s feelings due to differences in our life experience. His “truth” in confessional mode and mine will never be the same with regard to racial issues.

However, he is a person in a position of influence and as such should realize his “self” revelation is bound to play a strong part in shaping the perceptions and lives of others — especially the young.

His condemnation of our country matches Hitler’s rants against Germany’s conquerors post WW1. Even though I am of a similar view regarding those who manipulate our country’s economy, his interjection of “White” exonerates any “Black” participants and extends our racial problems into the next generation. His anti-Jewish views echo those of Adolph Hitler and singling out “rich” and “white” and the same generalization style which Hitler used to inflame the crowds in the 1930s.

My house was burglarized by a black man. My office the same. A woman was shot by a black man a block from were I worked for twenty years and a black man held up the ATM across the street three times.

For me to shout this out would be unwise, unfair and unworthy. It ignores the kids I knew by name in school, the couple we knew (from where my wife worked) when first married who were simply Becky and LeRoy. The kids who used to come home from school with my son. The many people we all know who have served in the military, medicine, science and other high profile positions who were black too.

Rev. Wright should not be excused for overlooking the responsibilities of the effects in presenting or accepting such “truth” as an accurate description worthy of national condemnation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has not been able to repair more than a century’s bad relations, but at least, it and other attempts have been made.

I expect Obama will have turned off many more prior supporters who believe his 20-year association is detrimental for one seeking the office.

Perhaps Wright is cathartic to some black folks, who am i to judge?

I prefer the Dali Lama - his message is one that i can embrace, at least in theory (and attempt to embrace in practice as well).

But to each their own. (I imagine a candidate who claimed the Dali Lama as their spiritual leader would be essentially unelectable, though in many important ways Christ had a very similar message.)

“However, he is a person in a position of influence and as such should realize his “self” revelation is bound to play a strong part in shaping the perceptions and lives of others, especially the young.”

Excellent, excellent point WTH.  Might I expand on it slightly by asking just what gives Wright the right to dump all his negativity about the country and white people on OTHERS, especially young people, who simply do not share his life experiences, and otherwise would hopefully have begun to escape this cycle of blame and victimhood that folks like Wright seem intent on perpetuating?

Natalie - i know your question is rhetorical, but we all have freedom of speech, which allows (i.e., gives us the right) by its very nature speech that some find objectionable. While i find the snippets of hate spewed forth by Wright to be both objectionable and *counterproductive*, i could say the same about many on the conservative right (Falwell, Robertson, etc). As WTH points out, McCain is not a “true believer” or these sort of religious folks (to his credit), but then again, Obama has disavowed the hate spewed from Wright, even though he still respects Wright as a pastor and individual

I have read that Wright has done good deeds for other United Church of Christ churches, including white congregations and parishioners, but cannot find very much supporting this on the web. Perhaps it is not news, or perhaps it is simply a misreported story. The closest i could come up with (after looking rather briefly) was: http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/weblog/2008/03/reverend-wrig-1.html.

If nothing else, discussions like this make me even more grateful for the separation of church and state.

PS - a few quotes from link above (in an attempt to demonstrate that this story, as do most, has multiple sides):

From a white Wright parishioner:

“But never---NEVER-have Milt or I felt unwelcome or unloved at Trinity because of the color of our skin. To the contrary, we consistently have felt loved and embraced because of our oneness with our sisters and brothers through Jesus Christ..”

“Then, part way through the service, we noticed that Rev. Wright was again speaking in German, welcoming the German guests (in addition to the usual warm welcoming of all guests).”

On the starting up of a black congregation in Milwaukee:

“All this support, financial, spiritual, physical, material, came out of one visit to Jeremiah Wright’s office. A new congregation. A critical new ministry to a large north side African American population came from one visit.”

Frpm a man who knows Wright personally:

“The most disappointing thing about the Rev. Wright incident is the complete failure of our news media. I was familiar with Wrights preaching before the brouhaha, so when it happened I was truly puzzled. How could anyone draw an opinion of a mans, and especially a pastors words with just a 10 second sound bite, and from that sound bite draw the conclusion that the speaker is hateful, or a racist. I knew then that no one who did actually had seen or read a Wright sermon.”

Wolf,

Of course Wright is entitled to free speech, just as he is entitled to his feelings — but…

• What good could possibly come from such a vitriolic outburst as was shown? The latest is the report of “No apologies,” attributed to Rev. Wright.

• With the idea to day that a greater punishment should be given for a “hate crime” we also are in danger of being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Anyone speaking publicly should be very careful.

While the quotes you posted may be true, the Talking Points listed on their website give a different picture.
Example:

“• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.

• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.”

The points are contradictory in that one cannot deny claiming superiority and at the same time generalize that European-centered thought is claiming superiority — the implication that the Europeans in general have an inferior view.

As I mentioned before much of the information on the website should not claim to be theology, but rather a social or political creed.

HI WTH - The two points that you quote above do not seem to be contradictory to me. To say African or African American *people* are not superior (or inferior) to European people does not imply that the *cultures* are on an equal footing. That said, i think that both African-American-centered thought, and European-centered thought both think that they are superior to the other (and probably in general as well). Furthermore, just to play devils advocate, if technology causes a serious and deleterious global cataclysm (nuclear war, global warming, who knows what?), then perhaps western culture was a net loss to our species.

I agree with your last paragraph but note that black churches have historically been rather political. And that the Moral Majority wished white churches to become so, but is, imho, failing, at least currently.

Lastly, if Wright’s church members became violent in mass (perhaps a la McVeigh) then such speech would in fact become bannable (is that a even a word?). But from what i can tell, no such thing has even been implied to have happened (in fact, his congregation seems to have been a helpful crew, from the reports i have read, but perhaps others have read differently?).

Again, i favor the philosophy of the Dali Lama. The way to rid oneself of enemies to to make them your friends. Putting this into personal practice seems doable to me, but how to put it in politics seems more than a little problematic to say the least.

Wolf,

You may have a valid point re the perceptions of Euro and Afro superiority since almost everyone, individual and as a group, tends to lean toward “my ideas are better than yours.” Certainly from the general economic footing there is a European advantage in recent centuries. Although Africa had a good head start and, of course, all subsequent societies are built on the experiences and discoveries of the prior ones.

Even though I fear no outright uprising from Wright’s congregation, it is the insidious unmeasurable foundation of anti-white bias passed on to the next generation which concerns me.

My own experiences have made me far more racially negative than I was as a kid. I had no contact with anyone of any race other than caucasian until jr. high school. I would say from then through my army service my opinion was neutral toward other races (except for the WW2 anti-Japan propaganda). I had both good and bad experiences with people regardless of color.

I thought the civil rights movement was overdue and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (if enforced) would begin to equalize all. Then the affirmative action attempts to compensate began. Busing school kids, followed by a discrimination lawsuit here costing $200 million has us more divided than ever and police are needed in the hallways.

Our neighbors now (We’ve lived here 41 years.) include black, white, brown and yellow without any protests, blockbusting or other tactics.

But as I mentioned earlier the crime aspect now makes me far more aware of the color of strangers. When the drug gangs (black) moved into my business area I began keeping a gun in my pocket or under my drawing board. Hardly a day passed without some incident in our building or surrounding area — shootings, panhandlers (with v. creative tales), a burglar chased by my landlord one noon hour, several items stolen, cars pilfered.

I think the economic division is major factor. The busing put kids from far different incomes together. One of the factors in the school lawsuit held against us was the fact that our upper-middle income PTA had raised money to buy audio video equipment which some schools could not afford.

I grew up in a time when the kids in my neighborhood school all had about the same income level. We had no car, no TV, not even a phone. The radio commercials and news didn’t show us what we didn’t have that others did.

The Dali Lama has a common sense approach with the friends idea. It’s much easier to be accepting of people you know personally and the reverse — to distust those you only know s a category.

IMO the current changes in the overall U.S. economy may end up uniting people and bridging racial issues as we all are being divided into upper or lower with few in the middle. At least I hope so.

Interesting discussion. Thanks.

Hi WTH - I enjoyed the discussion as well. Thanks.

Wright and his church aside, (and if they’ve been taken grossly out of context, then I and a lot of people owe them an apology) I think it’s high time for all the race hustlers out there, who have profited and gained profile from essentially keeping slavery alive, to go the way of the VHS tape.

I really feel it’s time for a turning point.  After decades of affirmative action and black history month and congressional black caucuses and black student unions and “unashamedly black” churches, this stuff is reaching a point of diminishing returns. It’s time for black Americans to simply become Americans. 

That’s the initial feeling I got from Obama, and that was the one (and probably only) source of his appeal to me. 

I’m having trouble deciding whether or not Obama is simply lying, and deeply shares Wright’s mindset, or if he really just joined for the coffee, donuts, and fellowship.  Or whether this church really has been falsely portrayed, and on balance it is indeed a positive, healthy influence on its members.

Somehow I have trouble believing that, when I watch them go absolutely bonkers jumping and screaming during Wright’s anti-American/anti-white rants.  (not to say he’s like KKK racist, but I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable sitting in his pews.)

I guess at this point we’ll have to continue to look for clues as to the truth of this church and Obama’s true mindset on race relations.  Not to mention his true position on the good idea - bad idea scale, which really should be how we judge him.

If WTH became a preacher, built up a large following of mostly white people, and loudly and emotionally yelled from the pulpit:  “It’s the poor black people, the poor black people who have been murdering us, robbing from us, and who keeps us living in fear”, that would be unfairly damaging others in the audience who may not share his experiences and history.  He would be planting improper generalizations and biases in their minds.  Wright shouldn’t do the same with the races reversed, not in today’s society, IMHO.

Natalie - i agree with your post above. What the black community (really any community) could really use is a leader who speaks a message emphasizing personal responsibility, even (especially!) in the face of adversity (who amongst us has not encountered adversity?). Life is not fair for a variety of reasons. Rather then complain or riot or give up, one needs to deal the hand they are given to their best advantage.

I note in passing that we collectively have not managed to elect political representatives who are able or willing to deal with such huge known uncontested upcoming catastrophes such as Social Security and Medicare. We seem to like to elect politicians that sugar coat the issues excessively. Perhaps this is a similar aspect of our human natures?

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful posts. This thread was one of the best i can recall in a long time.

The Dalai Lama wants autonomy for Tibet.  Imagine if Obama’s spiritual advisor/mentor was the Dalai Lama.  Critics would think that probably Barack wants autonomy not only for Tibet but also for Black America!  As Barack says, there would always be one distraction after another year after year.  And when we follow these distractions, nothing will change, because we would be discussing the distractions ad nauseum. Healthcare will remain undone, energy solutions would be pushed to another generation, the national debt will be passed on.... nothing will change.
Not this time.
This time we will bypass the tangential, and get to the central issue of solving the problems the American people want solved.

The bottom line is that birds of a feather flock together.  Obama has been given a free ride by the press.  His positions are not known as he speaks in generalities and the fact that he would attend a church, week after week, month after month, year after year and expose his children to that kind of propaganda is telling.

How can we heal the racial divide in this country when one side is preaching hatred towards the other.

This is tantamount to the same thing practiced by the KKK.  If you look at some of the statements by infamous KKK leaders it is the polar opposite of what they were saying but in the same tone.

Black liberation theology is a crock.  MLK would NEVER have supported that scam nor would he have supported affirmative action, racial preferences, etc.  King wanted equality and assimilation of the black culture. That brings us to Obama.

Obama is no MLK or Kennedy or FDR.  Get over it.  He is the equivalent of Tony Robbins; an inspirational speaker who knows which buttons to push to get an emotional reaction.

Obama lied when he stated to the press that he was never present at any of these sermons.  At that time Wright was a member of his campaign’s religious council.  Then he admitted that he was present at those sermons.  That is similar to “I never had sexual relations with that woman”.  Same thing.

“Not This Time” would like to sweep the tangential under the rug to “get to the central issue of solving the problems the American people want solved”, but the issue is that only about 1/2 of the people want those kind of solutions and Obama has proven that he is just as slippery as the rest of the politicians in Washington.

Natalie and Wolf,

What this country needs is NOT another President, but a triumvirate. Where should we meet for the first town meeting :-)

Kidding aside, the best racial unity comment I have heard lately was from Morgan Freeman. (I believe it was in the AARP magazine.)

When asked about being a popular black actor his reply was simply, “If you won’t think of me as a black actor, I won’t think of you as a white reporter.” (paraphrased)

NotThisTime,

I wish I still had some of your faith that it will be different, but as you get older, or if you read a lot of history, you will notice that people in positions of power — both nations and individuals — form similar stupid beliefs and make the same stupid decisions. At my last big zero birthday I was asked, “How does it feel to be 70?” My immediate reply, “Like everything is a re-run.”

Unless we can break the pattern of Congress as a lifetime career, special interest lobbying influence and electability based on financial strength — it will be the same old, same old.

Right now the subprime mortgage/derivatives puppet show is a perfect example of how our system works. Many of our elected and appointed watchdogs come from the very profession they are assigned to monitor.  All of the remedies instituted and proposed so far have been designed to distract and divert from how it happened and protect to themselves and the perpetrators.

We are told that without a rescue the whole banking system would have collapsed. If one financial institution’s failure would bring down the entire U.S. banking operation that is a pretty poor setup.

How could that be? 

Consider this: If Bear Stearns had been allowed to enter bankruptcy only the shareholders and their creditors would have suffered, but all the details would have been made public. It would have revealed the grand fraud which had been allowed to grow over the last several years.

Money-center banks, mortgage companies, mortgage insurers all banding together to cover each others’ negligence or complicity. The scheme was deliberately complex — the same is being done by the members of the repair crew.

We don’t need new regulation. We had it — they dumped it.  (This took place over multiple administrations under both Republican and Democrat Congresses.) We need honest people willing to enforce regulations.

Whoever is the next President will not change this.

Poptown :-

Obama has not been given a free ride by the press.  Have you read the Chicago Tribune.  That paper and other Illinois papers have investigated Obama to death and have found nothing incriminating or untoward.  The Chicago articles were done during his run for the Illinois State Senate, the US Senate and the US presidency.  The NY times has also come up short in their investigations, stating that at the end of one “investigative” piece the only thing they could find was that Obama probably exaggerrated his drug use in his book because they could find no one to corroborate his drug use!  Even Ashley Baia (mentioned in his “Perfect union” speech said that she investigated Obama after his 2004 Democratic Convention Speech to find out if his words matched his record, and found him clean; and so she volunteered for his campaign.

Also note that at the beginning of this campaign, Obama was practically dismissed by the larger media outside of Chicago as unelectable and very early on this same media practically crowned Senator Clinton the presumptive nominee.  Even Bush, Rove, and Gringrich were saying that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee and they were gearing up to run against her. I remember that the first time Barack said “when I am President” in one of the early debates, there were a lot of derisive giggles in the audience.  Even most Black Americans said they would not vote for him.  It took lily-White states like Iowa and New Hampshire to validate his candidacy for Black America. (Which I think is a shame because it shows either that Blacks still don’t believe in themselves sufficienltly even when one of their own is qualified or that African Americans have simply indicted the American system as having an impenetrable glass ceiling for them).

Now Black Liberation Theology (BLT) speaks truth to power.  MLK, contrary to what you think, was a believer in BLT.  BLT emerged when Black (negro) christians found out that the Christianity as practised by Whites was not in keeping with the true teachings of Jesus Christ.  “Love thy neighbor as you love yourself”?  But the White christians treated blacks less than humans while treating themselves as humans.  BLT was an attempt to make Jesus’ teachings an uplifting event, a changing experience here on Earth. That brought about MLK.  What was the good of Christianity if Blacks were made to sit at the back of the bus, to be 3/5th humans according to the constitution, to be constrained to live in poverty for the rest of the lives, to have no way to vote to change the politics that held them down.  These are the things that BLT - and MLK - espoused.  So don’t tell me MLK would have condemned BLT.  He was living it. 

Now you said that Obama is “just an inspirational speaker”.  But I am telling you man, after the tortuous 7 years of Bush, this country needs some inspiration.  Otherwise we would be mired in dispair.

But I grant you that Obama should have gone further in his reaction to Rev Wright’s controversy.  But that would have taken another speech.  That other speech would have outlined bold and practical solutions to remedy the ill effects of race and poverty in America.  But that was his challenge to us.  And that challenge was taken up by, believe it or not, New Gingrich, in his March 27,2008 speech in Washington DC at the American Enterprise institute.  That speech was entitled “Answering the Obama Challenge”.  Here is the link to that speech:

http://newt.org/MediaCenter/tabid/61/Default.aspx

To Whattheheck:-

I think it’s OK to share my faith (that things can change) because if Obama continues to build this coalition and with the discussion engaged as per Newt Gringrich (see link above), things will change.  But yes, like all politicians, we have to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, lest he forgets Gethsemane

To Poptown

(I didn’t mean to gloss over the Pastor Wright issue.  just ran out of space.  Below is my comment):

Now re Obama’s pastor and his sermons.  Obama said he was not in the church when those particular sermons that were played over Fox News were preached.  Even Bill Krystol was forced to admit that he had been proven wrong when he stated that Obama was actually in the church when one of those sermons was preached:  it was proven that Obama was in Miami at the time. ( Obama did admit in his “Perfect union” speech that he was in church when other controversial sermons were delivered.)

So, again, Not This Time.  This time America wants to provide healthcare for all, minimize our dependence on foreign oil, improve US productivity and provide jobs for all, repair our failing schools, reduce our crime rates....This time we would look at the Gingrich Model using proven success methods as benchmarks, even if they are politically incorrect. That is how we stay in it to win it! And in the process, perfect our union.

http://newt.org/MediaCenter/tabid/61/Default.aspx

Not This Time:

Obama is the media darling of this election.  Tony Rezco, Jeremiah Wright and his far Left agenda will not unite people.  He will represent a far leftist fringe.

BLT is the equivalent of the KKK.....King was a uniter and would NEVER preach the way Wright did...NEVER.

Obama is not qualified, not a statesman and has a lack of understanding of world events.  If elected it will be 4 painful years for over half of the population.

We need someone in the presidency who has run something.....Obama was an activist.

It also makes me sick when his wife shows here true colors.  Imagine Ivy League graduates upset about paying back student loans that left them in the position of power they are in today.

NO ONE running is qualified to be president....Obama is the least qualified!

I guess I’m really not sure if NotThisTime is an Obama supporter or a Gingrich supporter, or both. That’s a great speech you pointed us to, but if you hear it, and applaud it, it’s hard to imagine voting for Barack Obama.  Gingrich is diametrically opposed to the approaches embraced by the left, and Obama if nothing else is surely a man of the left:

“There are two things profoundly wrong with the Left’s approach to culture and prosperity—which is to raise taxes, increase government, and essentially allow people to avoid effort by insisting that they be taken care of. The first is: if your ethnic group is poor, the number one thing you want them to do is to go into business because that’s where they’ll create wealth. And when they create wealth they’ll hire their relatives, and they’ll hire their neighbors. And a generation of entrepreneurs can mop up poverty at a rate no bureaucracy can imagine. And yet, nowhere among current left-wing critiques of America, and nowhere among those who most publicly spend time worrying about the poor, do you hear a constant drumbeat that says: Let’s try to turn every young person into an entrepreneur. Let’s try to teach them how to create a business. Let’s try to help them grow as rapidly as possible. Let’s see if they can’t bring wealth into the community by earning it, and in the process they will mop up the poverty by the act of hiring everybody they went to school with. This has worked for every ethnic group that has risen in American history, including, by the way, genuine African-Americans who come from Africa, or Caribbean-Americans who come from the Caribbean. As long as you focus on earning a living in America, and you focus on being prudent, you rise. People have risen whether they were Jewish, Irish, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistani. It’s astonishing in America how many groups rise. But they rise by learning the rules of rising. And the first rule is to make business and the development of wealth and the creation of economic opportunity more important than politics and to focus resources on encouraging people to go into business, not bureaucracy.”

His speech is a polite, yet powerful smack-down of the institutions and theories that control and animate the Democratic party, (Obama) and using racism as an excuse for failure. (Wright)

Gingrich and many others have been “engaged” for a long, long time.  It’s not like Obama is some kind of magical mechanism for people starting to discuss things.  The only new factor may be that the media, discovering that someone is trying to challenge their chosen one, may be compelled to report what they’re saying.  That would admittedly be one positive “change” arising out of his candidacy.

Poptown,

You seem to be set in your beliefs/opposition to Obama.  I think you would remain there if you do not open your mind to possibilities.  Obama = possibilities. Note also that how Barack has conducted his campaign is antithetical to the snippets played about Rev Wright’s sermons.

Now I’ve already answered your media issue and your BLT/MLK issue.

Now re qualifications for presidency - and you say no one of the candidates is qualified to be president, especially Barack.  This question was posed to Barack by potential supporters BEFORE Iowa. Barack’s response to them was that he would show them how qualified he is to run the White House by the way he would run his campaign.  And he has proved it.  More than a year later, he is one of two out of ten(?) still standing; he has united millions of people of every race, age, and gender and he leads in the popular vote and the delegate count, much to the frustration of the Clinton Machine.  And I think that machine is losing because it is content to be called a machine.  Obama refers to his campaign as an ORGANIZATION.  As long as the opposition has a machine and Obama has an organization, Obama will continue to win.

Natalie,

I agree that Gingrich issued a scathing critique of some points in Obama’s speech and about the left in general. But in the process he went beyond just explaining the conundrums of race and poverty in America as Obama did, but he went on to offer real bold solutions and challenged Obama, the left, the right, and the general public to come back to the table to discuss the solutions.  This is the next step.  A third step would be finding a set of solutions suitable to both the right and the left, and the independents; and the final step would be implementing those solutions.

Note though that Gingrich began his Challenge Speech by praising Obama’s speech and saying that his (Gingrich’s) speech is NOT a refutation of Obama’s speech, but a means of “reengaging” and continuing the dialogue, and getting away from the “pure feelings” that an Obama Speech can engender.  This time, he’s saying to Obama and us all “let’s talk turkey”.

Not This Time,

The question begs.....can we afford to take a chance on an Obama. 

Listen to the things that his wife has said.  Yes, she is not running but she will have influence.  America has been very good to her but she is ‘ashamed’ of this country.  She talks of racism, sat in the church with children while racism is preach by Reverend Wright.

ANYONE can run a well organized and clean campaign....ANYONE.  Does that mean that you can lead?  I think not.  We need a leader but we also beed a ‘manager’ and Obama is clueless in that regard.

Other issues that bother me with Obama refer to race as well.  If he believes in Black Liberation Theology will Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have access to the white house?  Will Obama represent everyone or will he continue draconian preferential policies or even expand them?

Possibilities does not = a wholesale change in our free market, capitalist system in my estimation.  Obama is Left, far Left, MoveOn.org Left......too much of a sudden change for this country.  Although I agree that we need change, his version is extreme.

Here are a couple of facts.  Obama leads Clinton by 700,000 votes.  600,000 of those votes were cast in Illinois (Obama’s home state) and 460,000 of those votes are in Obama’s district.  Therefore, only 140,000 votes seperate them when you total all of the other areas.  That is hardly consensus and the press NEVER mentions that.

I am not a Clinton or McCain supporter.  NONE of them is qualified to lead.

Obama injects emotion into his speeches and that resonates with those who view themselves as more enlightened than the rest of us but he is masking his lack of experience with words.  Words will not solve our problems and to have a rank amateur at the helm of the greatest country on earth is dangerous and could have ramifications that could impact us for a very, very long time.

NotThisTime,
Sure it’s OK to share your opinion on Obama. It’s not a question of holding Obama’s feet to the fire. My point is just that Congress, not the President (whoever may win) decides — or more often refuses to decide to attack the real problems facing the country. They’d rather investigate and form a task force to diddle away the time in hopes people will forget. And we usually do.
Many Americans would be hard pressed to name the last five Presidents and most don’t know the first five. They pay more attention to what the latest Hollywood bimbo blather.

Poptown, Natalie, Notthistime,

While I agree with many of the principles outlined in the Ginrich speech, especially: “...to make business and the development of wealth and the creation of economic opportunity more important than politics and to focus resources on encouraging people to go into business, not bureaucracy,” the devil is always in the details.

Most of what passes for economic policy is based on economic theory. As Einstein said, “In theory and practice and theory are the same. In practice they are different.”

Here are two basic economic theoretical ideas…

• Competitive advantage advises buying from someone else that which they can do better or more economically than you can.

• Supply side economics says tax cuts are good for everyone because it allows the money to be invested and will increase productivity, create jobs and produce more profits.

We can find historical examples which prove the above to be trueand good for Americans.  Unfortunately with the rush into globalization by multiple administrations and congresses, the millions of jobs have been created in foreign countries, not in the U.S. This continues to be the case.

The low cost of wages and freedom from the restrictions our companies face has shown high increases in “productivity” and made big profits for the richest corporations and individuals. The average American has been losing ground for thirty yeas.

Americans want the list of things Notthistime listed, but I expect Congress to give lip service, the media to parrot their laudable comments and very little actual action on any of these items. Politics feeds on money and bureaucracy just gets fatter.

Like the lawyers most of them are — delay is their primary tactic.

Whattheheck,

I just read your response and have come up with some ideas that are think are entirely original, as far as I can tell.

I agree with your basic economic theory of competitive advantage, which is that companies move their production to developing economies because those countries have a competitive advantage over US companies: they have lower wages and lower cost of production.  I do not see the US competing with these economies because there is increasing upward pressure on our wages (eg democrats have increased the minimum wage) and our health care costs are continually rising.  These two costs are a big part of production costs and they are higher in the US and substantially lower in developing countires.  We are therefore at a competitive disadvantage in these two areas. Granted. 

We are also not producing enough of the highly skilled labor to man out hightech industries; hence we are bringing computer engineers/programmers, even nurses here to work.  One of the reasons advanced for this is that we have failing schools, that not enoough people are going into the sciences. As a result US kids rank very low when compared to kids from Europe and even some developing countires like China and India.

But I think what is saving us is that we must have a higher CREATIVITY index.  That is why most Americans get most of the Nobel prizes in the sciences and economics.  That is why the age of the computer came about in America,and then Silicon Valley came about.  Suddenly there were lots of wealth created (granted, some bogus, witness the tech bubble). 

But this creativity index leads to a high LABOR UTILIZATION index.  just looking at the tech/information industry, we are unable to satisfy the labor input needed to feed this tech industry: hence the high level of importation of highly skilled foreign labor.

In other words, what will save us is our Creativity index.  This index is not only seen in IT, but also in music - witness rap music, a totally new genre of music created in the 70’s.  For all its negative side, the rap music industry has produced a lot of jobs and immense wealth for many poor African Americans and has spread around the world , also producing a lot of wealth for artists around the world.

If we lose this cretivity index - some call it our ability to re-invent ourselves - we would bd done for.

I think the US has a competivity advantage on creativity.  I think that is why most of the new ideas come from here.  This creativity leads to higher job creation, sometimes so high we are unable to satisfy it from our own labor pool.  The result is an importation of highly skilled foreign labor, many of whom are lining up to come here anyway.  The challenge is for us not to let this labor undermine US wages.

I think i am running out of my 4000 words, so more on this later.

To Whattheheck,

Continuing on the Creativity index

This is what I think Obama is alluding to when he says that there is no problem we cannot solve if we put our minds to it.  Take energy independence.  There are many ideas out there - many already tested -, in the American arena and produced by Americans, that relate to energy independence.  But until we can focus our creative juices on solving this problem, it won’t get solved.  there would just be a bunch of scattered ideas out there.  Obama’s idea of building a sort of Change Majority would allow us to coalesce these ideas to produce the change we need, because the Change Majority will be pushing for this type of change and will hence elect into office - meaning CONGRESS - those who we need to effect these changes.

Re Supply side economics (SSE) and tax cuts

I think SSE, which I think came to political prominence during the Reagan administration , has failed.  SSE is trickle down economics which basically says that give me the tax breaks and trust me, I will use that money to invest in jobs for the people.  Reagan tried it and left the country in a huge budget deficit.  I do not think high taxes is the way to go either since it woud lead to disinvestment or lower incidence of investment.  I think Bill Clinton -with hisproject of reduction of govennment waste - and the Republicans low tax methods were able to find some kind of happy compromise since we experienced a long period of economic growth and high job creation during the 90s.

I agree with you that we need a congress AND a president dedicated to solving the problems I outlined in my previous postings.  But then a new problem may arise.  Suppose the congress and the president are of the same party? Lots of problems may be solved, but how do we guard against a tyranny of the majority? Against Irag-like and constitutiion-breaking decisions being rammed down our throats? 

I think someone said somewhere that the price of freedom is constant vigilence!

Notthistime,

The primary reason foreign wages are lower is their lower standard of living. Many of the things we take for granted have never been instituted in Mexico, China, Africa. Things which took generations to put in place for the benefit of our society as a whole — child labor laws, environmental controls (EPA), safety rules (OSHA), and benefits like retirement plans, sick leave and vacations.  We could compete with Europe and Scandinavia because they operated along the same lines.

Back in the mid 1980s a client of mine that made fasteners began outsourcing the standard items such as screws and nails to Asia. First it was Tiawan, then India and finally China — each one underbidding the previous. At that time they were dumping plating solution out the back door into a rice paddy. (Something which would not only bring fines here, but could be prosecuted as criminal behavior.)

Now we are importing human and pet foods, prescriptions and toys and I wouldn’t be surprised if we are getting rice ground in plating solution. 

Many of our former local customers have moved operations — G.E., GM Electro-Motive, Avery Dennison used to be here in Illinois — all shifted to where the restrictions allowed far higher profits in Mexico. The treatment of Mexican workers is disgusting. For a picture of what I mean read, “Who will tell the people?” by Richard Greider.

I know 55 individuals who lost their jobs, within the past ten years. Some are now working as “contract workers” for the company which fired them. This means doing the same job without any benefits. My cousin’s son has lost two programming jobs to India. He’s 45 and not likely to find a comparable job in a creative field.

Our city was a major manufacturing center since before WW2, but in the 1990s companies began getting rid of the most experienced (highest paid) employees and hiring entry level workers and outsourcing many operations to try to compete with others who had already shifted to cheaper labor markets.

Bill Gates has moved many jobs to Canada where they have more workers from Asia available. Bill needs to make a larger profit?

“Creativity” leads more often to fewer workers rather than to jobs using more labor. Why should any American train for a tech job our go to college (at great expense) when there is no national loyalty? I can think of no job category for people in their middle years with college age kids to train for.

My 42-year-old son is earning less than half of what he earned ten years ago. He is making per hour what I charged my first year in business in 1966.  By the way this is a creative field — I was an illustrator and graphic designer.

Our present situation has come about at the expense of our middle class and has made the already wealthy, disgustingly wealthy. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 have all contributed to the decline of the American economy. While talking tax cuts they have increased taxes in many ways:

Shifting Federal responsibilities to states. States pushed them down to cities. Mental health facilities have been closed — Illinois put over 300,000 patients out a decade ago — now they are “street people.”

The Social Security tax has been steadily increasing while benefits have been decreasing. My two sons will not be eligible until age 67. As my business evaporated shortly before I became eligible I did a comparison and found…

In 1998 I made ten percent less than in 1988, but my income tax and Self-Employment Tax (Soc. Sec) cost me 4.5% more. We haven’t benefitted from cuts — the taxes have just been disguised.

My guess is that whoever is elected will last one term like Carter did when the economy was a lot like today’s.

There is a critical issue here that needs to be discussed. the actual film clip was a phony cut and paste job by Fox and Hannity. The American Goddamn comment is actually a quote of David Pick the American Ambassador to Iraq during Clinton years and the whole sermon is on Youtube.com Here is the URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related

No one in the media took the time to look for the entire film before criticizing Rev. Wright. Here is a brief Bio:

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy’s premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief’s medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America’s biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades.

Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him.

We’ve seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright’s many sermons.





Some of the Wright’s comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him “unpatriotic,” let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country. 

How many of Wright’s detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, so do actions.

Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.

As usual, the progressive side champions military service when it benefits them to do so.  Then, in expected form, they play the deferment card to make a point that their candidate is superior and the critics who may not have served are unqualified and their arguments invalid due to their lack of service.

Reverend Wright is unpatriotic.  It does not matter if a man or woman has served but it does matter what they say and do after their service.

A great example of this is John Kerry.  He erased his service when he testified about third party innuendo before Congress upon his return from Vietnam.  One can appreciate his service but that does not excuse a person for life from being criticized and judged for their actions.

Wright clearly stated on many occasions:  “God Damn America”.  He stated that he hates whites and he now lives in a gated white community in an affluent area of Illinois.  He lives the life of luxury while most of his ‘flock’ live paycheck to paycheck.  Yet he criticizes the lifestyle that he ultimately lives.

Patriotism is more about love of your country than serving it in the military.  That train of thought is equivalent to being in good health but smoking and taking a vitamin to say:  “see, I live healthy.” What if you joined strictly for the education benefits given to you in the military but you hated your country?  Are you still a patriot?

While we are at it, let’s talk about the church.  Any church that injects politics into their agenda, sermons, etc.  should be TAXED!  That is only fair......the Left cries about the separation of church and state, but, in this case has no problem condoning a preacher from selling their talking points.

Reverend is a despicable piece of humanity and Obama, allowing his children to sit their week after week and be brainwashed with hatred and rhetoric that divides people to then say that (he) is a uniter is ludicrous.  And allowing that to happen in front of his children is not too much different than the programming allowed by that Mormon temple that is in the news in Texas right now.  Not the sexual part but the programming and brainwashing.

Now to the tapes.  They were excerpts and it does not matter if the whole sermon is not viewed....he said those things.  Actions speak louder than words!!!!!!

Baraka,

In reading your list of Wright’s virues I see the claim, “What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.”

The U.S. military was integrated by President Harry S.Truman more right after the war (WW2). I’m not going to back track all the other historical info, but this statement does cast some doubt.

Rev. Wright’s military service is not an issue and should be respected, but as poptown indicates, excuses nothing. Whether he was using someone else’s quote to make his point or expressing his own view through use of that quote is irrelevant. The only way it would make a difference is if Wright were expressing disapproval and disagreement with the comment. This is pretty obviously NOT the case since he has done or said nothing to deny the idea itself.

He can freely express his opinion, but if HE were to run for president he wouldn’t have a prayer (pun intended).

Obama blew away my vote by maintaining his membership and trying to switch the issue from demagoguery to race. Such continued hateful talk ignores decades of attempted change and impedes further progress. From what his wife has expressed she seems totally in tune with Wright — grab the good life and then continue to emphasize the lack of perfection.

Whattheheck
I doubt if you ever has an interest in voting for Obama or anything he stands for. Your interest seems to be in disqualifying Rev. Wright and ths issues he stands for, equality and justice. You have stated your own evaluation of Rev. Wright’s position or the assertions and statements he made. There is no dispute that previous US governments did murder thousands of innocent civilians over the last 100 years. From Granada and Panama to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This country, my country too, also was carved out of the genocide of the indian wars and resettlement by the twenty million Black people that they enslaved. We are a warrior nation. David Peck said that and Rev. Wright quoted him to underscore biblical scripture.

As to the integration of the services, there is still prejudice in the armed forces and although Truman declared illegal in 1952 even thirty years later the bias and inequality of the military was just as virulent.

I don’t know who you are voting for but the empty shill of once being an Obama supporter is revealed by the racist rationales that you so aptly create out of your sense of privilege. Obama didn’t blow away your vote. Its hard to believe that you ever had an interest in Obama. My guess is that your money is on McCain and the right wing religious Rev. Heggie(?) who has expressed his intolerance for other christian sects.

Now if you can be dishonest about your political affiliations is there any thing you say that one can see as honest? Perhaps intolerant but honest? I don’t think so.

Poptown
Please, at least be honest in your quoting of Rev. Wright. You are lying (or misquoting) him by saying that he said he hates white people. he never said that although you might have made that assumption out of your own guilt. He didn’t lie when he catalogued the policies and practices of white politicians that dealt in slavery and conducted the holocaust or native Americans. But you lied in attributing hatred to this good man of the cloth who quotes the (your?)bible.

Perhaps its your guilt, or the guilt of your fore fathers that lynched and murdered their way to a beloved state of privilege that now makes you uncomfortable and resentful.

Finally, his sermon was not political, it was a moral speech based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The problem lies in the behavior of the government that acts in defiance of Christ’s word. When the government acts immorally then the church and its ministers should speak out against immoral behavior. He is not championing one politician over another, he is stating the moral high ground to which all politicians should aspire. If its not in your playbook then I can see how you would want to tax a church that doesn’t agree with your point of view or moral position.

This is an immoral government and we all need to speak out against its behavior. We the people are the government and We need to get our act together and take back our government from the oligarchs that send our children to war for their own interests.

When I compare the eloquence of Rev. Wright to the illiterate and unintelligible statements of the “C” student from Yale that we have for a President I recognize that we are in big trouble. When we are slaves to the stupid and the insipid we are in trouble.

Baraka, You Stated:
Please, at least be honest in your quoting of Rev. Wright. You are lying (or misquoting) him by saying that he said he hates white people. he never said that although you might have made that assumption out of your own guilt. He didn’t lie when he catalogued the policies and practices of white politicians that dealt in slavery and conducted the holocaust or native Americans. But you lied in attributing hatred to this good man of the cloth who quotes the (your?)bible.

ANSWER:
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are ‘men of the cloth’ or more accurately, flim flam artists and Wright does not fall to their level but he refers to whites in negative ways.  Get over slavery and holocaust of Native Americans.  I am not responsible for that and neither are you.  That is a childish and naive thought process.

Baracka You Stated: Perhaps its your guilt, or the guilt of your fore fathers that lynched and murdered their way to a beloved state of privilege that now makes you uncomfortable and resentful.

ANSWER
My forefathers lynched no one.  In your twisted immature view of the world we should probably go to Truman’s relatives and imprison them because he dropped the atomic bomb.

Baracka You Stated:  Finally, his sermon was not political, it was a moral speech based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The problem lies in the behavior of the government that acts in defiance of Christ’s word. When the government acts immorally then the church and its ministers should speak out against immoral behavior. He is not championing one politician over another, he is stating the moral high ground to which all politicians should aspire. If its not in your playbook then I can see how you would want to tax a church that doesn’t agree with your point of view or moral position.

ANSWER
Immorality in your brainwashed, ignorant version of the world?  No church should be allowed to politicize anything without exception…Right or Left.  He did speak of Obama in his sermons as the best candidate….check the tapes.

Baracka You Stated:  This is an immoral government and we all need to speak out against its behavior. We the people are the government and We need to get our act together and take back our government from the oligarchs that send our children to war for their own interests.

ANSWER
What a crock……if you believe that you can reason with third world thugs then go over there and make nice.  When you say “WE” you are referring to you and a small group of well programmed idealists desiring to live in a dreamscape society where everything falls into line with your perfect version of life.

Baracka You Stated:  When I compare the eloquence of Rev. Wright to the illiterate and unintelligible statements of the “C” student from Yale that we have for a President I recognize that we are in big trouble. When we are slaves to the stupid and the insipid we are in trouble.

ANSWER
Eloquence proves nothing.  Wright is a racist who plays to the stupid and insipid of which you are an obvious member.  People like you cause divide and add little to the discourse due to your dogma and doctrinaire rhetoric.

You sound like a student who is the lap dog of some Socialist professor.  You illustrate why this time you will not win.  If your side does win, the pendulum will swing even fast to the middle again.

Baraka, Poptown, Whattheheck,

Listen, this discourse is getting heated and angry.  It is obvious that Poptown and Whattheheck have made up their minds against Obama because of the statements of Rev Wright.  Plus Poptown feels that Obama is simply too green to be president of the US.

But as obama said we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now that it is clear that we have disagreed on the Obama/Rev Wright issue, let’s move to solutions to the country’s problems because that’s what it all boils down to in the end.  I think the starting point may be seen in the speech by Newt Gingrich which engages the dialogue engendered by Obama’s Perfect union Speech.  That speech is entitled “Answering the Obama Challenge”.Once again here is the link to that speech:

http://newt.org/mediacenter/tabid/61/default.aspx

Whattheheck has read the speech and come up with some interesting comments. Baracka, I think you and Poptown should read that speech and post your comments so that we can be about the business of solutions instead of hurling recriminations around.

I once kinda thought of Obama as maybe being someone who could inject some sanity into the African-American race debate that has so dominated our politics, legislation, and even personal behavior for the last several decades.  So it disappointed me that he was willing to hem & haw and excuse and equivocate when it came to Wright—someone who is clearly counterproductive in the effort to put race behind us.

But then this: Obama blows it again, failing to seize the moment and demonstrate what I once, for some reason, thought he had in his heart—a little common sense and fairness when it comes to race and political correctness.  Instead of speaking out in this woman’s defense, and using the mindless zombie-like reaction to what she innocently said as an example of how NOT to advance the cause of creating a truly color-blind society, she’s fired.  He cut the cord on her, for no good reason whatsoever besides political calculation, (wrong in my estimation) yet he won’t similarly cut the cord on his church and his pastor, who have behaved in blatantly separatist and spiteful ways.

This guy is anything but courageous, and I’m starting to think anything but principled.

Another fabulous teachable-moment opportunity blown by the “great uniter”.

I doubt very much Obama will respond to Gingrich in any kind of substantive way.  I think he’s too sympathetic to the “government program savior” part of himself, and too afraid to speak out against that similarly minded constituency.  Too bad McCain isn’t capable [if he’s even desirous] of bringing Gingrich’s exquisite points, at least I don’t see any evidence thereof.

Baraka,

As I noted in an earlier post here, I did vote for Obama in his run for the Illinois Senate. 

I will vote for McCain even though I am not impressed with his economic expertise.  I trust him more than the others to do what he thinks best for the country. (None of the candidates has a realistic picture of the economic situation.) As for religion: Haggie endorsed him, but is not his pastor.

I have honestly stated the above before which you will find if you read from the beginning of this thread.

As far as prejudice still in the military, of course, I know that — I had a black sergeant in basic and a black lieutenant later who dished it out. (My service was 1959 to 1965.) No human organization is never going to be perfect.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but don’t get your skivvies in a knot if someone disagrees. Expressing an alternative view does not make someone a liar.

You might stop and read your own comments to Poptown and me.

Fortunately we don’t have to choose between Rev. Wright and George W. Bush.

Placing blame on whites in general for behavior of past generations or even present day policies — “an immoral government” — would be like me blaming all black people for the crimes I mentioned earlier which I experienced or witnessed.

You seem very quick to form opinions based on little knowledge or evidence. If that is not prejudice — what is?

IMO Notthistime makes a good point by wanting to stick to the discusion and avoid the personal accusations. Natalie, Wolf and others have generally done so.

BTW:  Natalie’s link shows just how petty people can be. (It occurs to me that if we had had such a wackie PC approach to possible personal slights a few decades earlier, I could have been among the super rich for some of what I have been called. To quote Cheer, “Snap out of it!” (from the movie “Moonstruck")

Whattheck
I applaud your previous support for Obama and I honor any choice you make in the future.
Some details:
McCain sought out the Haggie endorsement not the other way around.

I’m interested in which of my comments and opinions seemed to have been formed with little or no evidence?

let me be clear about the behavior of previous generations. I’m not blaming the current generation for participating in rape or murder but I wanted to bring to the attention of the current generation that the previous generations put in place systems that continued to benefit following generations in a multitude of ways to the detriment of this generation of minorities. Economic, educational, legal and health disparities were not initiated by the current generation but this generation benefits from those historic behaviors and this generation perpetuates these institutionalize disparities. I am blaming the current generation for gaining from these inherited inequities while claiming innocence and perhaps indifference.

I have enjoyed our differences because they inform me as to the details and minutia that contribute to my understanding you and your opinions. Keep up the good work and say more about your opinions. If you don’t I will ask more pointed and detailed questions, for example. Could say more about your opinion of Rev. Dr. Wright and specifically how his accurate quotes inform your opinions. That would help me parse the connection you made between Obama and minister.

As a Catholic I continues to go to mass although priest were abusing young boys and the church continued to protect them and put more children at risk with that protection. It is not the same as the issue with Rev. Wright, who I understand and agree with in his condemnation of historic American acts of persecution. Like him I served my country in spite of these historic acts and want to make it a better place.

I don’t support bias and prejudice of anyone or any group, and my own experience informs me as to how earlier events contributed to current bias and inequality. I regret my own prejudices and I try to expose them and remove them from my own behavior and attitudes.

Both Poptowm and whattheheck have helped me understand some of my own behaviors. Thank you and all those who have disagreed with me so eloquently. I’ll listen and ask questions about your opinions and assertions so that I can get a better grasp of how white people think and feel about these issues. I hope you will take the time to answer me as best you can.

Natalie,

The woman who made the “racial” remark was RETAINED by Obama and his campaign, after they investigated the incident and found that she meant no harm. Herewith:

“ Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski, the Carpentersville woman who was accused of racism for comparing two African-American children climbing a tree to monkeys, was told today she would be allowed to keep her position as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. After it initially appeared as though Ramirez-Sliwinski, also a village trustee, would “voluntarily” step aside, it seems that the campaign actually, you know, examined the facts and cooler heads prevailed. Obama spokesman Ben Labolt said, “It is clear that the incident was a misunderstanding.” No kidding. Still no word yet on the $75 disorderly conduct ticket, which Ramirez-Sliwinski said she will challenge. [Trib]”

Source:http://chicagoist.com/

Baraka,

“I’m interested in which of my comments and opinions seemed to have been formed with little or no evidence?”

The specifics are not as important as the apparent underlying attitude. Rev. Wright’s generalizing is similar, but all the more disturbing due to the influence of his role as pastor and role model to his congregation, community and especially the kids.

You are both attributing continuing guilt to whites in general, for a list of historical events as if the country were an individual with a single personality :

• “There is no dispute that previous US governments did murder thousands of innocent civilians over the last 100 years. From Granada and Panama to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This country, my country too, also was carved out of the genocide of the indian wars and resettlement by the twenty million Black people that they enslaved. We are a warrior nation.”

(I could dispute many of these and others you mentioned, but it would be pointless.)

You choose not to list any good the country or individuals have done — only what you don’t approve — and even throw in the holocaust for good measure.

• “Economic, educational, legal and health disparities were not initiated by the current generation but this generation benefits from those historic behaviors and this generation perpetuates these institutionalize disparities. I am blaming the current generation for gaining from these inherited inequities while claiming innocence and perhaps indifference.”

We all are individuals. I will accept responsibility for my own actions only. That I benefit from some of the past events is true. Most directly I benefit from my own ancestors who had nothing when they came here, couldn’t speak the language and still made life a lot better for the next generation. I see no guilt related to those benefits.

In spite of all the unfair and wicked circumstances which confront any minority, in some ways almost all are better off in the U.S. than if still in the country of their ancestors. Would you be happier to be somewhere in Africa today?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights set out high goals — not guarantees. It is a plan which will never be finished because no group of human beings will ever permanently maintain such an ideal. We need to continuously monitor what is going on.

We are now in a period of extreme national trial due to a lack of monitoring by those charged with the responsibility. Perhaps we will overlook past racial divisions and be united by the economic hardships we will be facing.

Whattheheck,

So how are we to have a discussion if your assumptions about his underlying attitude is not supported by verifiable facts? So when I present facts you ignore them as “pointless” how should I answer you?
Does even a clear statement on the systemic behavior of institutions seem to get you befuddled and angry, or is that guilt ?

I don’t know who you are and only a bit of what you believe in from what you have written and I’ll accept the notion that you could dispute the statements I’ve made, so why haven’t you? Your comments are all couched in half truths and evasions. When you suggest individual responsibility for your self you deny Senator Obama the same individuality and condemn him because of his minister. The minister’s comments were not about you I assume but perhaps it was about your forefathers or the Generals and politicians that commanded those acts to take place. Are you defending them or your own white pride? I am not blaming you for for racism or race hatred I am asking to you to look at the benefits that you have from those horrific acts. My people were here long before your recent migration but duration has little to do with it. It is the perpetuation of privilege unearned and abused that the Rev. Dr. Wright is bringing to all our attention.

He asks that we confront it not just get beyond it and that is what seems to be most painful to you. You want to get beyond it not confront racism.

Your ancestors were not slaves. Your mother and father were not treated as animals. You were not sold upon being born like a calf. You could own land you were allowed to learn how to read and write you and they were always assumed to be human beings. Qualities that you are still unable to attribute to me now in the 21st century. They came here of their own freewill and made it possible for you to argue,clumsily, with the offspring of slaves - you must be so furious that white people have come to this.

When the system created by white so