PDA

View Full Version : What an interesting view of Rev Wright.


Logical
03-26-2008, 10:52 PM
This guy is interesting if you just have the patience to listen to

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OymxUZevLZM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

I tried to embed it but it would not work

Logical
03-27-2008, 12:10 AM
OK now it is embedded in the thread post, don't know why it would not work earlier

jAZ
03-27-2008, 12:29 AM
Great clip... and thoughtful analysis.

Logical
03-27-2008, 01:20 AM
Great clip... and thoughtful analysis.
Yes, I doubt we get too many Rev Wright bashers to listen to it.

jAZ
03-27-2008, 01:22 AM
Yes, I doubt we get too many Rev Wright bashers to listen to it.
It doesn't cover everything, but it certainly covers the racially charged stuff.

Logical
03-27-2008, 01:32 AM
I love Wright's slam on Bush at 8:08, classic

BucEyedPea
03-27-2008, 10:02 AM
I love Wright's slam on Bush at 8:08, classic

Was that the C student in the White House?

If so I got a chuckle outta that one. :D But McCain was a poor student too.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2008, 10:07 AM
A few thoughts of my own:
•He was talking to a black audience. So he speaks from their viewpoint.
•I think the word "anger" is more appropo than "hate" for Wright.
•He said he "loved his enemies" because that's what Jesus taught.
•I don't think Christ was black but some say he was.
•I say JC was ethnically Jewish which is of the semite peoples or the same gene pool as the Arabs.
•However, I wouldn't say Obama is unpriveleged or poor. He was invited into a school of the privileged for a privileged education most whites don't even get...and he makes a heck of a lot more too.
•Other than civil rights, I think racism cannot be handled by govt. It's a social problem.
I still think blacks can rise above it though. And I don't think left-progressivism is the answer—for another underprivileged group or anyone.

Duck Dog
03-27-2008, 10:55 AM
****ing blame whitey. Another self loathing moron. Rev Wright is a racist M'Fer and Obama is one of his sheep. Spin it, try to put it into context all you want but the bottom remains same, he incites blacks to hate whites.

patteeu
03-27-2008, 11:14 AM
****ing blame whitey. Another self loathing moron. Rev Wright is a racist M'Fer and Obama is one of his sheep. Spin it, try to put it into context all you want but the bottom remains same, he incites blacks to hate whites.

I agree. It's not what's in his own heart that is necessarily the worst thing about what Rev. Wright says, it's what he's spreading to the hearts of his congregation. He may even be trying to teach a positive lesson at times such as self-reliance, but he's doing it in a pretty negative way by stoking the passions of racial resentment and by exploiting the emotions of victimhood.

Logical
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Was that the C student in the White House?

If so I got a chuckle outta that one. :D But McCain was a poor student too.
Yup, great line.

Logical
03-27-2008, 03:02 PM
A few thoughts of my own:
•He was talking to a black audience. So he speaks from their viewpoint.
•I think the word "anger" is more appropo than "hate" for Wright.
•He said he "loved his enemies" because that's what Jesus taught.
•I don't think Christ was black but some say he was.
•I say JC was ethnically Jewish which is of the semite peoples or the same gene pool as the Arabs.
•However, I wouldn't say Obama is unpriveleged or poor. He was invited into a school of the privileged for a privileged education most whites don't even get...and he makes a heck of a lot more too.
•Other than civil rights, I think racism cannot be handled by govt. It's a social problem.
I still think blacks can rise above it though. And I don't think left-progressivism is the answer—for another underprivileged group or anyone.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with your last point by the way. I also agree that Obama is no longer underprivelaged or poor (in fact as long as Wright has known him he has not been).

Logical
03-27-2008, 03:05 PM
****ing blame whitey. Another self loathing moron. Rev Wright is a racist M'Fer and Obama is one of his sheep. Spin it, try to put it into context all you want but the bottom remains same, he incites blacks to hate whites.I don't agree, I think a lot of whites get unjustly upset over these snippets taken out of context, because they are not secure in their place in the world and also want to play the reverse discrimination card.

Pitt Gorilla
03-27-2008, 03:39 PM
****ing blame whitey. Another self loathing moron. Rev Wright is a racist M'Fer and Obama is one of his sheep. Spin it, try to put it into context all you want but the bottom remains same, he incites blacks to hate whites.Do you think Obama is racist as well? With which race does he side?

jAZ
03-27-2008, 03:50 PM
...and also want to play the reverse discrimination card.
It works both ways.

Radar Chief
03-27-2008, 03:55 PM
I don't agree, I think a lot of whites get unjustly upset over these snippets taken out of context, because they are not secure in their place in the world and also want to play the reverse discrimination card.

There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. The term itself is discriminatory implying that discrimination can only come from one direction and any discrimination from another source is so unusual as to be “reverse” of the norm.

Radar Chief
03-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Do you think Obama is racist as well?

Has he spoken up denouncing at least some of the more racially charged things Rev. Wright has said?
If so I haven’t seen it, not that I’ve actively looked.

Adept Havelock
03-27-2008, 03:58 PM
There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. The term itself is discriminatory implying that discrimination can only come from one direction and any discrimination from another source is so unusual as to be “reverse” of the norm.

I've always considered it to mean a member of the "minority" discriminating against a member of the "majority", considering most discrimination runs the other way. JMO.

You are correct that discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the way it runs.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2008, 04:07 PM
We all discriminate on most things including people. We discriminate daily.
I think what isn't clarified is what kind of discrimination is unfair.

Logical
03-27-2008, 04:38 PM
There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. The term itself is discriminatory implying that discrimination can only come from one direction and any discrimination from another source is so unusual as to be “reverse” of the norm.


That is not true, the reason it is out of the "norm" is because whites are in the majority. Therefore it is an abnormal condition for them to suffer from discrimination.

Logical
03-27-2008, 04:39 PM
I've always considered it to mean a member of the "minority" discriminating against a member of the "majority", considering most discrimination runs the other way. JMO.

You are correct that discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the way it runs.
Oh I see you beat me to the point.

Duck Dog
03-27-2008, 04:54 PM
Do you think Obama is racist as well? With which race does he side?


Obama is quoted as saying his white grand mother was a 'typical white person' when talking about her in a not so flattering way. I really don't know if he's racists or not. What I do believe is that there isn't any context that could justify calling the US the US of KKK America. There isn't any context that justifies him blaming white America for inventing aids in an effort to kill off blacks. That is racist propaganda that Obama spent 20 years listening to. Apparently he agrees with Rev. Wright or he wouldn't have been so close to him personally.

Duck Dog
03-27-2008, 04:55 PM
I don't agree, I think a lot of whites get unjustly upset over these snippets taken out of context, because they are not secure in their place in the world and also want to play the reverse discrimination card.

What snippets and what context are talking about? Reverse discrimination? WTF is that?

Duck Dog
03-27-2008, 05:01 PM
What snippets and what context are talking about? Reverse discrimination? WTF is that?

There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. The term itself is discriminatory implying that discrimination can only come from one direction and any discrimination from another source is so unusual as to be “reverse” of the norm.

Nevermind, RC already educated you on the term.

Sully
03-27-2008, 05:11 PM
Obama is quoted as saying his white grand mother was a 'typical white person' when talking about her in a not so flattering way. I really don't know if he's racists or not. What I do believe is that there isn't any context that could justify calling the US the US of KKK America. There isn't any context that justifies him blaming white America for inventing aids in an effort to kill off blacks. That is racist propaganda that Obama maybe spent 48 seconds listening to. Apparently he agrees with Rev. Wright or he wouldn't have been so close to him personally.

FYP

Logical
03-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Nevermind, RC already educated you on the term.
I will tell you the same thing I told Radar Chief.

That is not true, the reason it is out of the "norm" is because whites are in the majority. Therefore it is an abnormal condition for them to suffer from discrimination, thus reverse discrimination.

noa
03-27-2008, 05:37 PM
I agree. It's not what's in his own heart that is necessarily the worst thing about what Rev. Wright says, it's what he's spreading to the hearts of his congregation. He may even be trying to teach a positive lesson at times such as self-reliance, but he's doing it in a pretty negative way by stoking the passions of racial resentment and by exploiting the emotions of victimhood.

Putting aside the white people creating AIDS, if I may (I know its a biggie, but for the sake of this discussion), where do we draw the line between what is a legitimate talk out the ongoing problem of racism in America, and what is just "exploiting emotions of victimhood"? To be sure, I have no idea to what extent institutionalized racism exists in America because I have never been a victim of it, and I also don't know how much a black person should feel like a victim. But if a number of people in the church had been victims of racial profiling, then would it be fair for him to talk about ongoing racism in America? How do we know when to say that his rhetoric is legitimate and when it is just exploitative? I just want to know more on your view on what is appropriate for him to talk about and what he should avoid putting in his congregants' hearts.

I don't think this is the United States of KKK America, but I have a hard time de-legitimizing the opinion of some black people people who feel that it is based on their own experiences and who want to stand up and fight against it. If we just flip things on their head and say that he is a racist for talking about white on black racism, then we risk silencing discussion because he's a "racist." I'm not saying you believe this, just speaking in general because I know posters on here are calling him a racist. And I also think people confuse the accusation that this is a racist country with the accusation that you, the reader/viewer are a racist. I think that's the idea that offends a lot of people here, because they know in their hearts that they aren't racist, and they don't know many racists, so how can they reconcile their own experiences with that of Wright?

I also think its important to point out that Hillary's old pastor is white and he used to attend Wright's church from time to time and said he never felt like Wright was racist against whites. He said he always felt welcome and that Wright did many good things for Christianity, and that judging him based on these snippets is unfair to the body of his work for his community and this country (as a veteran of the military).

I think Wright is completely wrong about the more extreme rhetoric that we've seen, but I still think it is appropriate for a preacher at a black church to speak about ongoing racism against blacks.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 07:39 AM
That is not true, the reason it is out of the "norm" is because whites are in the majority. Therefore it is an abnormal condition for them to suffer from discrimination.

Yea, I’ve heard that same line of crap from black racists claiming that they can’t be racist because they hold no power. ROFL :shake: It was as stupid and illogical an argument then as it is now. Discrimination is discrimination no mater the source.

You are correct that discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the way it runs.

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 08:27 AM
I will tell you the same thing I told Radar Chief.

That is not true, the reason it is out of the "norm" is because whites are in the majority. Therefore it is an abnormal condition for them to suffer from discrimination, thus reverse discrimination.


If this the case then is reverse prejudice the correct term to use?

Look, it's either discrimination or it's not. It's either racist or it's not. It's either prejudice or it's not.

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 08:29 AM
FYP

No, he spent 20 ****ing years listening to this racist and everyone of his supporters should bow their head in shame. People do not belong to churches because they disagree with the message.

Sully
03-28-2008, 08:34 AM
No, he spent 20 ****ing years listening to this racist and everyone of his supporters should bow their head in shame. People do not belong to churches because they disagree with the message.

You don't have any idea what the message was.
You have seen 48 seconds, or so, of clips, taken out of context, and decided to believe in the boogeyman.
This man wouldn't be as celebrated and honored as he is and has been if his message has been, for 20-30 years, what you want to believe it is.

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 08:45 AM
You don't have any idea what the message was.
You have seen 48 seconds, or so, of clips, taken out of context, and decided to believe in the boogeyman.
This man wouldn't be as celebrated and honored as he is and has been if his message has been, for 20-30 years, what you want to believe it is.

Again with the 'context'. What context can justify those statements? What context could justify those statements had they been spouted by a white man? It's bad enough that even the liberal 24 hour news channels are carrying it non stop.

Sully
03-28-2008, 08:57 AM
Again with the 'context'. What context can justify those statements? What context could justify those statements had they been spouted by a white man? It's bad enough that even the liberal 24 hour news channels are carrying it non stop.

I've watched and read the sermons. Have you?

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 08:59 AM
If this the case then is reverse prejudice the correct term to use?

Look, it's either discrimination or it's not. It's either racist or it's not. It's either prejudice or it's not.

In Jim’s defense, I do realize that’s a term that was used with some acceptance a few decades ago. Doesn’t mean it’s correct, just that it was a term accepted by some.

Uncle_Ted
03-28-2008, 09:06 AM
No, he spent 20 ****ing years listening to this racist and everyone of his supporters should bow their head in shame. People do not belong to churches because they disagree with the message.

Oh please that's ridiculous on its face. I'm catholic so I suppose I should leave the church because I'm pro-choice? And I guess everyone who supported the Iraq war or uses birth control has to leave the church too? Go talk to the 12 catholics that are left in the church after that and see how valid your theory is. :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 09:11 AM
Has he (Obama) spoken up denouncing at least some of the more racially charged things Rev. Wright has said?
If so I haven’t seen it, not that I’ve actively looked.

Can anyone answer this question for me?
I’ve seen him relate Wright to the kooky uncle at the family reunion that no one pays attention to, but has he denounce anything Wright has said?

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 09:17 AM
Oh please that's ridiculous on its face. I'm catholic so I suppose I should leave the church because I'm pro-choice? And I guess everyone who supported the Iraq war or uses birth control has to leave the church too? Go talk to the 12 catholics that are left in the church after that and see how valid your theory is. :rolleyes:

What does abortion have to do the damning of the USA? What does abortion have to do with inciting blacks that the US government tried to genocide them?

Wow, you apologists are something else. Seriously good luck.

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 09:20 AM
I've watched and read the sermons. Have you?

Clue me in. What justification did Rev Wright have for claiming the US of KKKAmerica tried to unleash genocide on blacks in the form of aids?

Sully
03-28-2008, 09:25 AM
Clue me in. What justification did Rev Wright have for claiming the US of KKKAmerica tried to unleash genocide on blacks in the form of aids?

I disagree with those two statements. but those two statements don't make up the whole of an pretty great sermon, nor does one sermon make up the whole of a 30 year career in which he has been awarded and honored nationally by MANY people. But when you add the true things he mentions, is it hard to believe that people who have seen people who look like them be victims of genocidal acts would believe some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories? It's not as racist as folks want it to be. It's more paranoid (and maybe rightfully so) than anything. But as a teacher, and a preacher, you speak to people "where theya re at." if you want to reach them.
What you, and others crying about this, want to believe is that those few seconds that people found, in all of his sermon tapes that were released, is the whole of his preaching. It's not. It couldn't logically be, if you actually look at the facts.

Uncle_Ted
03-28-2008, 09:32 AM
Again with the 'context'. What context can justify those statements? What context could justify those statements had they been spouted by a white man? It's bad enough that even the liberal 24 hour news channels are carrying it non stop.

You mean a white man would even be able to talk about "blackie" keeping him down? :rolleyes:

The "touchiness" that some whites have toward "reverse racism" is a joke. If those same white people had to endure 1% of the racism that the average black person has endured in their lifetime, they'd go postal. That doesn't make it right, but it does provide "context".

Is it true that there are some blacks that use racism as an "excuse" for not getting further in life? Of course. But are there many more who actually have been held back because of racism either directly or indirectly? You better believe it. Just because you may not be a racist yourself, or may not have come from a privileged background youself, doesn't make it any less true. You can argue about what the solution should be, and the extent to which government should be involved in crafting or implementing a solution, but no one should fool themselves into thinking that the effects of racism, while diminishing, do not still exist.

pikesome
03-28-2008, 09:38 AM
You mean a white man would even be able to talk about "blackie" keeping him down? :rolleyes:

The "touchiness" that some whites have toward "reverse racism" is a joke. If those same white people had to endure 1% of the racism that the average black person has endured in their lifetime, they'd go postal. That doesn't make it right, but it does provide "context".

Is it true that there are some blacks that use racism as an "excuse" for not getting further in life? Of course. But are there many more who actually have been held back because of racism either directly or indirectly? You better believe it. Just because you may not be a racist yourself, or may not have come from a privileged background youself, doesn't make it any less true. You can argue about what the solution should be, and the extent to which government should be involved in crafting or implementing a solution, but no one should fool themselves into thinking that the effects of racism, while diminishing, do not still exist.

So if you were wronged you can do the same thing to others? That doesn't sound right.

I'd like to see the victims of mistreatment be more understanding. If it wrong, it's wrong. That's not likely to happen though, I think about the Irish-Black relations in the 19th century, not the Irish's best behavior.

Uncle_Ted
03-28-2008, 10:02 AM
So if you were wronged you can do the same thing to others? That doesn't sound right.

I'd like to see the victims of mistreatment be more understanding. If it wrong, it's wrong. That's not likely to happen though, I think about the Irish-Black relations in the 19th century, not the Irish's best behavior.

Is this a joke and it's so subtle that I'm not getting it, or are you being serious? I suppose if you need surgery you're going to refuse because the doctor would have to "wrong" you buy slicing into you? Of course not.

Do you think that all we have to do to remedy past wrongs is to stop doing those wrongs? Oppress a minority for 200 years and then in 1964 all of the sudden say "oops, my bad, we won't do that anymore" and now all the sudden everything is just peachy? If we say that every opportunity to help blacks is impermissible because it constitutes "discrimination" against whites, if we're not willing to spend a dime of out tax dollars to help correct the still-existing effects of those past injustices, then what we're really saying is that we just don't care.

pikesome
03-28-2008, 10:19 AM
Is this a joke and it's so subtle that I'm not getting it, or are you being serious? I suppose if you need surgery you're going to refuse because the doctor would have to "wrong" you buy slicing into you? Of course not.

Do you think that all we have to do to remedy past wrongs is to stop doing those wrongs? Oppress a minority for 200 years and then in 1964 all of the sudden say "oops, my bad, we won't do that anymore" and now all the sudden everything is just peachy? If we say that every opportunity to help blacks is impermissible because it constitutes "discrimination" against whites, if we're not willing to spend a dime of out tax dollars to help correct the still-existing effects of those past injustices, then what we're really saying is that we just don't care.

If doing things based on the race of a person is bad, it's bad. Why is that a hard concept? Wrong is wrong, not "wrong is wrong unless I benefit".

I'm also a bit peeved to be lumped in the "oppressor" category. I can't be 100% sure but if our genealogy is correct my family has never been anywhere near blacks, free or otherwise. Nor could anyone claim we benefited, they've been dirt farmers since dirt was invented. I'm not guilty just because I'm white (Oh, hey, that sounds like racism...).

And I do care. About as much as the Rev cares about my Scottish and Irish and Welsh ancestors.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 11:24 AM
Putting aside the white people creating AIDS, if I may (I know its a biggie, but for the sake of this discussion), where do we draw the line between what is a legitimate talk out the ongoing problem of racism in America, and what is just "exploiting emotions of victimhood"? To be sure, I have no idea to what extent institutionalized racism exists in America because I have never been a victim of it, and I also don't know how much a black person should feel like a victim. But if a number of people in the church had been victims of racial profiling, then would it be fair for him to talk about ongoing racism in America? How do we know when to say that his rhetoric is legitimate and when it is just exploitative? I just want to know more on your view on what is appropriate for him to talk about and what he should avoid putting in his congregants' hearts.

I don't think this is the United States of KKK America, but I have a hard time de-legitimizing the opinion of some black people people who feel that it is based on their own experiences and who want to stand up and fight against it. If we just flip things on their head and say that he is a racist for talking about white on black racism, then we risk silencing discussion because he's a "racist." I'm not saying you believe this, just speaking in general because I know posters on here are calling him a racist. And I also think people confuse the accusation that this is a racist country with the accusation that you, the reader/viewer are a racist. I think that's the idea that offends a lot of people here, because they know in their hearts that they aren't racist, and they don't know many racists, so how can they reconcile their own experiences with that of Wright?

I also think its important to point out that Hillary's old pastor is white and he used to attend Wright's church from time to time and said he never felt like Wright was racist against whites. He said he always felt welcome and that Wright did many good things for Christianity, and that judging him based on these snippets is unfair to the body of his work for his community and this country (as a former veteran of the military).

I think Wright is completely wrong about the more extreme rhetoric that we've seen, but I still think it is appropriate for a preacher at a black church to speak about ongoing racism against blacks.

Good post.

First let me say that I've tried not to call Jeremiah Wright (or Obama) a racist. It's possible that they are, but I think there's plenty of reason to doubt it in the case of both men so I'm trying not to go that far.

Second, most of my harshest criticisms of Wright are based predominantly on those most extreme statements (AIDs is a government program of genocide, US of KKK A, the government runs the klan, etc.) so leaving these biggies aside is significant, but for the sake of discussion I will.

Third, I have no doubt that Rev. Wright has many admirable qualities and that much of what he has said from the pulpit is uncontroversial and positive.

I don't have any problem with discussions of racism concerns. It's hard to draw a line between exploitation and legitimate discussion, but let me take a stab at characteristics that resemble one more than the other. I think that when a person is using his audience's emotions of anger and resentment to amplify his point (sometimes maybe even bringing latent emotions to the forefront of consciousness), he tends to be exploiting the racial divide in a way that I find unacceptable. That's the kind of thing I see Rev. Wright doing at times. Discussing these grievances, even condemning the offending actions, without the emotionalism is far more acceptable to me. To the extent that the grievance is based on an extraordinary offense, emotionalism may be legitimate, but in those cases, care should be taken to direct that emotionalism at the actual offenders rather than broadly across an entire group. And even though I'm leaving aside Rev. Wright's specific biggies, I'd point out that extreme exaggeration of grievances is not legitimate.

By contrast, Obama's speech is very good in the way it discusses racial resentments. It's not one sided (although if it were, it would still have been legitimate discussion). It's not particularly emotional. I don't agree with everything he said necessarily and I'm very suspicious about what forms of government intervention he'd propose as President, but his manner of discussing the issue was very good. My only question is whether this is really what Obama believes or is he just saying it because he needed to distance himself from a political embarassment.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 11:29 AM
Oh please that's ridiculous on its face. I'm catholic so I suppose I should leave the church because I'm pro-choice? :rolleyes:

You probably ought to be kicked out. :p

HonestChieffan
03-28-2008, 11:30 AM
yea, wouldnt want Race to confuse what Wrights message is all about.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 11:35 AM
Can anyone answer this question for me?
I’ve seen him relate Wright to the kooky uncle at the family reunion that no one pays attention to, but has he denounce anything Wright has said?

He has, although it took him a few tries to get it done. In his big race speech, he called these statements "wrong and divisive". Although interestingly, he didn't "denounce and reject" them as he did Louis Farrakhan's body of work. I don't know how much to read into the specific terminology other than maybe it's related to the fact that Jeremiah Wright is like an uncle to him and Farrakhan is more like a second cousin twice removed. ;)

Logical
03-28-2008, 11:42 AM
I'd point out that extreme exaggeration of grievances is not legitimate.

Because no one on ChiefsPlanet has ever done this (actually I would pretty much say wa have all done it).

Logical
03-28-2008, 12:04 PM
Clue me in. What justification did Rev Wright have for claiming the US of KKKAmerica tried to unleash genocide on blacks in the form of aids?

I know this is going to be uncomfortable, but I know that the gay community feels much the same. It has to do with the Reagan administraion knowing about aids and how it could be prevented and doing nothing to disseminate information and medical care, and then Bush 1 through Bush 2 doing almost nothing to help alleviate the problem in Africa. The US KKK of America is clearly hyperbole to get his audience cranked up.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 12:04 PM
He has, although it took him a few tries to get it done. In his big race speech, he called these statements "wrong and divisive". Although interestingly, he didn't "denounce and reject" them as he did Louis Farrakhan's body of work. I don't know how much to read into the specific terminology other than maybe it's related to the fact that Jeremiah Wright is like an uncle to him and Farrakhan is more like a second cousin twice removed. ;)

Thank you. :thumb:

Logical
03-28-2008, 12:08 PM
If this the case then is reverse prejudice the correct term to use?

Look, it's either discrimination or it's not. It's either racist or it's not. It's either prejudice or it's not.It can indeed be a correct term, not as commonly used but still correct.

Uncle_Ted
03-28-2008, 12:14 PM
If doing things based on the race of a person is bad, it's bad. Why is that a hard concept? Wrong is wrong, not "wrong is wrong unless I benefit".

I'm also a bit peeved to be lumped in the "oppressor" category. I can't be 100% sure but if our genealogy is correct my family has never been anywhere near blacks, free or otherwise. Nor could anyone claim we benefited, they've been dirt farmers since dirt was invented. I'm not guilty just because I'm white (Oh, hey, that sounds like racism...).

And I do care. About as much as the Rev cares about my Scottish and Irish and Welsh ancestors.

I think we are talking past each other a little. What I'm saying is that some blanket statement declaring all "discrimination" is "wrong" is in my view an overly simplistic way of looking at the issue. Of course there are many situations that I would consider "wrong" when blacks discriminate against whites. But I also think there are situations where the government is justified to take race into account in order to address past wrongs and solve the ongoing effects of those wrongs (for the simple reason that ignoring race doesn't remedy those effects it just sweeps them under the rug). And just because some blacks may be racists doesn't somehow invalidate the black experience in America.

I am not lumping you and your ancestors into the "oppressor" category. That is not what I said. What I said is that just because your ancestors may have never been "near" blacks in some sort of "oppressor" capacity doesn't mean that the problems of racism don't exist. If you think that's its not your problem because you and your family had no part in it, then fine, so long as you take the same approach toward every other societal ill as well (and steadfastly refuse any type of governmental assistance in your own life, such as financial aid or home loan assistance ... after all it's no one else's problem but your own, right?).

It would be easy for me as a young white person to say "hey, I'm not racist, my family has never been wealthy, never owned slaves, never seen a benefit from being white, so it's not my problem", but I prefer not to bury my head in the sand and pretend a problem doesn't exist just because I didn't cause it and it doesn't affect me. (Not to mention that unless your ancestors grew up in an exclusively all-white society, they received some advantage from being white, even if it was small or intangible.)

As for Rev. Wright caring about your ancestors, I'm sure if they had endured the same pervasive hardships that he and his ancestors had endured in America and the effects of those hardships were still being felt today, Wright would care a whole more about them than you do about Wright.

Rev. Wright may have a few paranoid ideas about whites, but I'm willing to give him some slack -- he grew up in a time when state-sanctioned racism wasn't just accepted, but was public policy in many parts of this country. Born in 1941, he was already in his 20's by the time the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. And of course so were all the whites of his generation. Is it really that shocking then for some black people to think that some old white guys still hold the racist ideas about blacks that were inculcated into them all the way into their 20's and beyond? (And if you're shocked by that, come to my house during the holidays, and bring a couple hundred bucks with you so you can give me $20 every time someone drops the N-word or disparages blacks in some way.) Look at who overwhelmingly controls the wealth in this country ... it's sure as hell not old black guys. Wealth = power = opportunity.

For years Wright has been on the front line helping alleviate poverty, crime, disease, and dysfunction in the black community. He sees what he judges to be the lingering effects of the overt racism he saw as a young man, and the covert racism that any black person will tell you still persists (on some level) to this day. So I'm not going to judge him too harshly if he doesn't think that racism is dead quite just yet.

Uncle_Ted
03-28-2008, 12:16 PM
I know this is going to be uncomfortable, but I know that the gay community feels much the same. It has to do with the Reagan administraion knowing about aids and how it could be prevented and doing nothing to disseminate information and medical care, and then Bush 1 through Bush 2 doing almost nothing to help alleviate the problem in Africa. The US KKK of America is clearly hyperbole to get his audience cranked up.

I agree with most of what you said, but if there is one good thing to say about Bush II, he has sent a lot of $$ to Africa for AIDS relief. Of course he could do more, but at least he's done something.

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2008, 12:26 PM
In case you missed this....it adds some interesting perspective:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/03/24/thoughts-on-wright.aspx

Thoughts on Wright

I've just read Dayo Olopade's fascinating piece, "Far Wright," on Barack Obama's far-left preacher, Jeremiah Wright. It's an insightful piece, and it evoked memories of the two black churches I sometimes attended when I lived in Georgetown. But I'm no expert and Dayo is.

A good friend of mine, Morton Klein, who is president of the Zionist Organization of America, a post once held by none other than Louis Dembitz Brandeis, sent me his own impressions of Jeremiah Wright, impressions that contrast with what one might think after having heard Obama characterize his pastor. Now, Klein is not for Obama; and I am. But what Klein remembers about the Philadelphia in which he and Wright grew up is a contribution towards understanding this strange but apparently common type of preacher.

OBAMA'S PASTOR RAISED IN PRIVILEGE, NOT POVERTY

How do I know?

It happens that, as a Philadelphian, I attended Central High School – the same public school Jeremiah Wright attended from 1955 to 1959. He could have gone to an integrated neighborhood school, but he chose to go to Central, a virtually all-white school. Central is the second oldest public high school in the country, which attracts the most serious academic students in the city. The school then was about 80% Jewish and 95% white. The African-American students, like all the others, were there on merit. Generally speaking, we came from lower/middle class backgrounds. Many of our parents had not received a formal education and we tended to live in row houses. In short, economically, we were roughly on par.

I attended Central a few years after Rev. Wright, so I did not know him personally. But I knew of him and I know where he used to live – in a tree-lined neighborhood of large stone houses in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. This is a lovely neighborhood to this day. Moreover, Rev. Wright's father was a prominent pastor and his mother was a teacher and later vice-principal and disciplinarian of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, also a distinguished academic high school. Two of my acquaintances remember her as an intimidating and strict disciplinarian and excellent math teacher. In short, Rev. Wright had a comfortable upper-middle class upbringing. It was hardly the scene of poverty and indignity suggested by Senator Obama to explain what he calls Wright's anger and what I describe as his hatred.

In recent days, we have seen clips of several of Rev. Wright's sermons, showing him declaring "G-d Damn America," blaming America for intentionally creating the drug problem, for creating the AIDS virus, for supporting Israeli "state terrorism against Palestinians," for being responsible for causing 9-11, for being white supremacist and racist and for intentionally keeping people in poverty.

We have also learned that, last year, Rev. Wright's Church honored with a lifetime achievement award Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has said that "Judaism is a gutter religion," that "Hitler was a very great man" and that "white people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet." In fact, Rev. Wright accompanied Farrakhan in the 1980s on a visit to Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, which was then illegal under U.S. law. Nevertheless, the Church and Wright's successor as pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, have issued a statement defending and praising Wright, while completely ignoring Wright's horrific statements.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America.

Logical
03-28-2008, 12:59 PM
Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America.<!-- / message --><!-- / Jeff Removed Sig -->Shocking a Zionist does not like Rev Wright, how amazing.:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2008, 01:49 PM
Shocking a Zionist does not like Rev Wright, how amazing.:rolleyes:

Nation of Islam supporters and Zionists don't tend to agree on much, that's true.

However, what I found interesting was they grew up together--in the same upper middle-class Philly neighborhood and privileged schools...and not in some slum or ghetto...

memyselfI
03-28-2008, 01:53 PM
You don't have any idea what the message was.
You have seen 48 seconds, or so, of clips, taken out of context, and decided to believe in the boogeyman.
This man wouldn't be as celebrated and honored as he is and has been if his message has been, for 20-30 years, what you want to believe it is.

Has your minister reprinted a Hamas' manifesto in it's weekly bulletin? :doh!:

Sully
03-28-2008, 02:01 PM
Has your minister reprinted a Hamas' manifesto in it's weekly bulletin? :doh!:

I can't for the life of me figure out what that has to do with the post you quoted.
However, I read the "manifesto" (i love the hyperbole) that ws printed, and it was in poor taste. however, in it's entirety, there were some decent points in it.
The thing is, I don't agree with everything Wright has done. Some comments he made that pat posted the other day offended me pretty badly. But...try to follow these next two points...
1) I don't think it's possible that Wright's career can be anywhere near what you and the other angry conservatives are making it out to be. The facts don't fit the house of cards that is being built by you and others.
2) Wright's mistakes have been denounced by the candidate you are trying to smear with all your energy. It's my opinion that it's okay to disagree with your minister. In fact, it's my opinion that you must, at times...

dirk digler
03-28-2008, 02:10 PM
Interesting letter from over a year ago. One of the most telling parts of the letter is where he said he "didn't shape him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was"

n March 2007, New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor published a brief story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html) about how Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been uninvited from delivering the invocation before Barack Obama's official presidential announcement.

Wright responded by writing the following letter:
March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959


Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.
Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

Mr. Kotter
03-28-2008, 02:12 PM
I can't for the life of me figure out what that has to do with the post you quoted.
However, I read the "manifesto" (i love the hyperbole) that ws printed, and it was in poor taste. however, in it's entirety, there were some decent points in it.
The thing is, I don't agree with everything Wright has done. Some comments he made that pat posted the other day offended me pretty badly. But...try to follow these next two points...
1) I don't think it's possible that Wright's career can be anywhere near what you and the other angry conservatives are making it out to be. The facts don't fit the house of cards that is being built by you and others.
2) Wright's mistakes have been denounced by the candidate you are trying to smear with all your energy. It's my opinion that it's okay to disagree with your minister. In fact, it's my opinion that you must, at times...

You've gotta admit, Wright's statements are David Duke/Bob Jones like....if you remember the 2000 campaign, W. took some pretty big hits for the Bob Jones association. But he survived.

I suspect you'd have real problems supporting any candidate who had held up Bob Jones/David Duke as his mentor. And you should.

FWIW, I agree that Wright is probably a good guy, who's biggest crime is that his hyperbole and flair for the dramatic....is too often over-the-top. Denouncing his remarks, is a good step by Obama; but it's fair game for others to weigh what they think of Wright's influence and association with Obama.

I suspect it will hurt him with some independent/centrist types who could have, prior to the Wright issue, have voted for Obama. The question is, how many folks is that going to be. Given his slippage against Hillary, of late....it's probably more than Obama and his supporters want to admit.

memyselfI
03-28-2008, 02:18 PM
I can't for the life of me figure out what that has to do with the post you quoted.
However, I read the "manifesto" (i love the hyperbole) that ws printed, and it was in poor taste. however, in it's entirety, there were some decent points in it.
The thing is, I don't agree with everything Wright has done. Some comments he made that pat posted the other day offended me pretty badly. But...try to follow these next two points...
1) I don't think it's possible that Wright's career can be anywhere near what you and the other angry conservatives are making it out to be. The facts don't fit the house of cards that is being built by you and others.
2) Wright's mistakes have been denounced by the candidate you are trying to smear with all your energy. It's my opinion that it's okay to disagree with your minister. In fact, it's my opinion that you must, at times...

Because your post incidated you saw Wright as some sort of misunderstood or mistaken victim who is being unfairly indicted on a few examples of his views. Views that are unfairly being taken out of context and proportion.


You don't have any idea what the message was.
You have seen 48 seconds, or so, of clips, taken out of context, and decided to believe in the boogeyman.
This man wouldn't be as celebrated and honored as he is and has been if his message has been, for 20-30 years, what you want to believe it is.

My question in response was did your Minister, or anyone you know, reprint Hamas' manifesto in their weekly bulletin. Presumably as a means of solidarity and education for the view of Hamas?

Pastor Wright did.

Again, not a problem if Baaarack were being honest about this. But then to do so he'd alienate a large % of his Jewish support wouldn't he?

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/TUCChamasColumn072207.jpg

Sully
03-28-2008, 02:23 PM
You've gotta admit, Wright's statements are David Duke/Bob Jones like....if you remember the 2000 campaign, W. took some pretty big hits for the Bob Jones association. But he survived.

I suspect you'd have real problems supporting any candidate who had held up Bob Jones/David Duke as his mentor. And you should.

FWIW, I agree that Wright is probably a good guy, who's biggest crime is that his hyperbole and flair for the dramatic....is too often over-the-top. Denouncing his remarks, is a good step by Obama; but it's fair game for others to weigh what they think of Wright's influence and association with Obama.

I suspect it will hurt him with some independent/centrist types who could have, prior to the Wright issue, have voted for Obama. The question is, how many folks is that going to be. Given his slippage against Hillary, of late....it's probably more than Obama and his supporters want to admit.


I'll admit that... yes.
I am not objective here. I have a guy in this fight.
So while I may be more quick to condemn a situation like you described if I were more objective, or even anti-whoever, I have taken the time in this case to actually look beyond the soundbites and hyperbole here, to see if what some want me to believe about a guy I believe in has any basis in reality, or is being distorted. I've found that, while Wright has said some offensive things that I don't like, he certainly hasn't based his career or ministry on it. there's no way he could have. So the smear that is being thrown around that, "Obama and his family listened to this for 20 years!!!" is flat out incorrect, and eventually can be described as dishonest, as facts are presented. People are free to weigh in, as you said. However, if their representation of the matter is wrong or dishonest, I suppose I feel free to shoot them down just as quickly. But I agree, on their surface they are despicable... without actually looking deeper into the matter.
As far as hurting Obama, it may come up again, but I think he's weathered it. If someone is holding another Wright bombshell back for the right time, it could really derail him, and that'd be sad for my country, IMO. But I don't think that's happened yet, at all. His numbers are already rebounding, aren't they? (not a stat geek, so I'm going off what I've heard froma few places)

patteeu
03-29-2008, 07:58 AM
I know this is going to be uncomfortable, but I know that the gay community feels much the same. It has to do with the Reagan administraion knowing about aids and how it could be prevented and doing nothing to disseminate information and medical care, and then Bush 1 through Bush 2 doing almost nothing to help alleviate the problem in Africa. The US KKK of America is clearly hyperbole to get his audience cranked up.

Being upset with Reagan because the fact that he didn't give out free condoms and clean needles and didn't invest heavily in AIDS research may make some in the gay community think he didn't care about the well being of gays and junkies, but it goes too far to suggest that the gay community embraces something close to the notion that the US government created AIDS to target gays (or blacks).

And as someone else already mentioned, you're just wrong about Bush 2 wrt AIDS in Africa.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 08:34 AM
Interesting letter from over a year ago. One of the most telling parts of the letter is where he said he "didn't shape him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was"

I don't know how telling that is, given that the Reverend was in damage control mode at the time. On the other hand, I find this part somewhat telling:

a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run

Not Hillary, not Chris Dodd, not Joe Biden, not John Edwards, but Carol Moseley Braun. Now I realize that she's an Illinoian, but she's also a fringe left liberal with an afrocentric outlook.

Calcountry
03-29-2008, 04:09 PM
UNNNNhh huhh emmmm hmmmm.