He’s b-a-a-a-a-a-c-k! (Sort of….)
This has been happening to me a lot lately. I see a political story with ethical implications, and decide to pass. I think, “Nah, this is another ‘the news media is in the tank for Obama story”—it’s pretty obvious; I don’t need to go there.” Then the story starts to churn, the news media, left and right, distorts it thoroughly through spin and stupidity, and pretty soon I can’t stand it any more.
The controversy over a proposed, and rejected, Super-Pac ad blitz focusing on the President’s controversial relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright—demagogue, radical, racist—began when a leaked copy of a proposal prepared for conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts was leaked to the New York Times. The Times’ decision to put the proposal on its front page was sadly typical, and irresponsible. We don’t what wacky proposals circulate in the back rooms of both parties and their allies, and I don’t see why we would want to know, unless, as in this case, the objective was to suggest a series of things that aren’t true. Prime among them was that the Romney campaign was preparing to mount a full-bore attack on the President’s character. Nothing has suggested that, except the Times, whose story forced the presumed GOP nominee to apologize for a mode of attack 1) he had nothing to do with and 2) had never been approved anyway.
This was unfair, slanted and biased conduct by the Times, and the point at which I decided, “Oh, heck, we’ll be seeing the Times and the Washington Post, not to mention the broadcast media, pulling this until November. People either will recognize it for the partisan bias it is, or they won’t.”
Then came Carol Costello on a typical morning for CNN, when she or the regular morning host Soledad O’Brien spend every AM sneering at Republicans and looking at the camera all dewy-eyed whenever President Obama’s name comes up. Costello, who I have concluded sets my teeth on edge even worse than the smug O’Brien, began her day with this: “Today’s question: Will racial politics work in 2012?”
This is media bias at its most disgraceful and calculated. Of course it will work; racial politics have worked for the Democrats and President Obama, who have been assiduously and relentlessly practicing them non-stop, since 2008, . Democrats and their media allies have labelled criticism of the President as racist consistently; they have used race to try to marginalize the Tea Party movement, which has nothing to do with race; they have used race to put GOP politicians on the defensive for racially neutral rhetoric, such as Newt Gingrich’s description of Obama as “the food stamp President.” Obama’s Justice Department has used race in its cynical efforts to block states attempting to minimize the effects of the federal government’s abdication of its duty to enforce the immigration laws; it has used race to block legitimate efforts by states to require voters to produce the same verification they would need to cash a check. Most despicable of all, Democrats, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, which exists to inject racial politics in to every issue, used race to turn a black youth’s shooting in an encounter with a mixed-race Hispanic into destructive, racially-divisive attack on the justice system, aided and abetted by President Obama himself. Yet here is CNN using a proposed and already rejected ad campaign that did not even come out of the Republican Party to suggest that Republicans plan to inject race into the racial harmony that President Obama promised and that he has done so much to foster in his first term.
Even this didn’t make me agitated enough to post. I’m thoroughly sick of Carol Costello; if networks are willing to let unprofessional hacks like her represent them to the public, I’m confident that they will pay the price.
Then came the op-ed pieces, the Sunday talk shows, and the letters to the editor, as well as the statements of various political operatives pairing the Rev. Wright issue with Romney’s Mormon faith, or his work with Bain Capital, and I couldn’t stand it any more.
Let us begin with the fact that there was and is nothing racist about discussing Rev. Wright’s relationship with Barack Obama. The man, according to Obama himself, was a close friend, a spiritual advisor, and a mentor. Obama took the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” from Wright. The reverend happens to be a black racist, but that doesn’t make criticizing him a racist tactic. I know the Democrats and the media subscribe to the “Willie Horton Rule,” which means that any negative figure used in a political campaign becomes a racist tool if the figure is black, but that is just another example of the use of race-baiting to stifle political speech. As was said and written (and ignored) too many times in 2008, nobody would have called it racist if a white candidate for President had to face the music for his embrace with similar fervor of a white supremacy-spouting preacher over two decades.
Next let us clarify why Obama’s relationship with Wright matters. It is not because of “guilt by association.” Many people, and I am among them, have close and cherished friendships with people whose politics and belief systems couldn’t be farther from my own. Except in extreme situations, I think this trait is a virtue: imagine how much better off we would be if members of Congress could develop it. Nor is the issue with Obama’s relationship with Wright. Nor is the legitimate basis of a Wright-based attack built on the theory that Wright’s politics influenced Obama, and that the President was taught by Wright to hate America and see whites as devils. Sitting in church is not the equivalent of submitting to brain-washing, unless one’s brain is easily washed.
Nor is it reasonable to suggest, as a Washington Post letter writer did this morning, driving me to the keyboard, that Obama helped form Wright’s views. No, the reason Obama’s long-time association with Wright is a legitimate issue are two-fold. I explained this in 2008, writing:
“… By continuing to support Wright and belong to his church, Obama gave credibility and status to racist communications. This he did in a high-profile manner. He was married in the church; his children were baptized there. He contributed, according to reports, more than $20,000 to the church under the leadership of Wright. With 20 years of active membership, he cannot deny his own accountability for the activities of the prominent head of the religious organization. Imagine the fate of a white candidate similarly involved in an anti-American, segregationist organization. Membership in a restricted membership golf club has been sufficient to generate violent opposition to white public officials, and properly so: one cannot voluntarily belong to and pay dues to a racist organization and credibly claim that one does not support its policies. Yet this is exactly what Obama has done for twenty years. Even though he has now repudiated Wright’s statements, the two decades of silent support rank as unethical conduct completed and unexplained.”
“Obama’s second problem is one of integrity. He is running for president based on values that his minister, spiritual advisor, and mentor explicitly rejected for many years, with Obama’s implicit support. The Senator says he didn’t know. If that isn’t true, the principles and values he says are so important now weren’t important enough then for him to find another church. If it is true, if he knew so little about the man he claimed was a role-model and inspiration and was so inattentive that he managed to ignore so many shocking public statements, there is reason to question his competence and trustworthiness.”
I thought Senator McCain’s decision to leave Wright out of his campaign was noble, well-intentioned, fair-minded, and dead wrong. He capitulated to the media spin, begun by Democrats, that making Obama explain his fealty to Wright was racist. It was, rather, a necessary and critical component of vetting a relative newcomer to the national stage who character was unexamined, and especially critical for the Republicans to do, since the media had already made it frighteningly clear that it saw its role as cheer-leading the first black President top victory, not spoiling a historic moment by uncovering his flaws. This is not to say that using Wright would have changed the result of the election; it wouldn’t have. But at least the issue would have been thoroughly explored, and I would have to listen to Carol Costello spin it.
Nevertheless, I think that raising Wright as an issue now, as Obama campaigns for his second term, is pointless and distracting. It makes as much sense as it would have for George McGovern to dredge up the Checkers speech while trying to defeat President Nixon, or for Bob Dole to keep raising Gennifer Flowers as he campaigned against President Clinton, or, for that matter, Dan Rather’s obsession with President Bush’s National Guard record in 2004. Obama, like all Presidents seeking a second term, should rise or fall based on his performance in his first term. The time to examine the clues to his fitness prior to 2008 was in that election, and yes, the media refused to do their job.
Using Rev. Wright against Obama in the current campaign isn’t racist; it’s just tardy and dumb politics.
There. I feel better now!
_______________________________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: GQ
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack,
Do you really know anything about Reverend Wright? You seem to automaticallly assume he’s a “black racist,” as you put it. You are hardly alone in that regard, but I urge you to do some primary research. Read his sermons. Look up his background. Read articles about him.
You might be surprised.
I think all race-based ideologies, which certainly includes black liberation theology, are racist in form, content and intent. I think the whole idea of a black church is racist.
Wright has done a lot of terrific work in the community, and is obviously a smart guy.But no white man could sit through his sermons without being seriously offended, and no black man should have.
Jack, I’ll send you the transcript of his interview with Bill Moyers. In it, he describes liberation theology not as racist, but as a reaction to racism. It’s similar to a point I’ve come to believe, that a majority cuture’s definition of racism is simply not the same as a minority culture’s definition.
When a white person says, “Well, imagine a white person saying that…” it’s a fundamental disconnect; because a white person saying that is a majority culture person saying that; a black person saying that is a minority person saying that.
A racist action is pretty much always about the oppression of a minority by a majority; since minorities almost by definition can’t oppress majorities, it is a self-serving argument to simply turn around the words and pretend color-blindness.
The world is not color-blind; words spoken by a black person are not perceived, by white or black, the same way as those same words spoken by a white person.
The notion of a color-blind utopia is far easier to believe in if the majority of the culture looks the way you do; if you’re a minority, you are reminded a hundred times a day of that fact. So when you say the whole idea of a black church is racist, you are absolutely typing yourself as a white person.
And to say no black person should have sat through his sermons without having been offended is quite a statement. I suggest you first listen or read to one of his sermons, then decide whether any black person should be offended. I’m guessing that, having read one of them, you might decide to climb back from at least that narrow part of your statement.
Agree, when they brought up the subject, I looked at the date on the article and thought I was in the 2008 archive. The sound and fury that is today’s media will continue to thunder and growl while the regular joe has moved on to more pressing subjects…like The Kardashians.
Charles that view is part of the.problem. Racist behavior is racist behavior regardless of the minority or majority status of the offender.
Travis,
That sounds so obvious, doesn’t it? That racist behavior is racist behavior regardless of who does it. That somehow behavior itself is intrinsically racist or not, and we don’t have to consider the motives or circumstances or context.
But not even criminal law excludes those other variables. The assertion that “racist behavior is racist behavior” is, in the United States, a statement that you will hear uttered only by white people. Which should be a tipoff.
Travis, I’ll assume you’re a bright and educated guy, else you probably wouldn’t be reading this blog (that’s some praise for you, Jack). Please assume I am too. But I also spent 7 years in an inter-racial marriage, and I’d lay odds you didn’t.
I can’t speak for you, but what it did for me was to challenge my assumption that racist behavior is race-neutral. I now believe you have to take into account a whole lot of cultural circumstances. Here are just a few examples:
-If Mick Jagger says “shit,” it means not much at all; but if my Presbyterian Aunt Hattie says it, there is some trouble goin’ down.
-A “top 40” record means something to me (and, if you’re white, probably the same thing to you); but if you’re black, you’d ask me, “whose top 40?” Because as a minority, you have to be aware of two cultures, not one.
-A white teacher in a black elementary school may demand that a child “look me in the eye” when the child is being disciplined, but the child may be taught at home that to look an adult in the eye when being disciplined is disrespectful; result, total confusion for the child.
-An American might say to another American “your belief is part of the problem,” and we could have a discussion about it; but if an upper-class Englishman said that to another, it would be cause for grave offense.
-A white American might think the jury that found OJ Simpson innocent was either nuts or racist; a black American is likely to see it as ironic, a token payback to the justice system for a lifetime of being arrested for DWB.
-An educated and responsible black minister might use the words “God damn America” in a part of a sermon and black people might say, “Ooh, what’s he talking about, you got my attention,” whereas white people will say, “That’s it, I don’t need to hear another word, that’s racist on the face of it.”
If behaviors all meant the same thing to all people at all times, then half the sitcoms on tv and half the jokes we all tell each other would fall flat; it’s a fact of life that different people mean different things by the same words.
And here’s the importance of it in connection with racism. That belief is so entrenches in the white majority culture of our country — the belief that behavior is racist by itself and needs no context – that a man who ran for president realized he had to choose between his spiritual mentor and his ambitions for the presidency. Because there was no way he could ever convince majority culture they were wrong about Wright.
That’s the insidious thing about majority cultures; they are convinced that they are right, and it’s extraordinarily hard to convince them otherwise. After all, more than half the people agree with them, so — they must be right, right? And anyone who disagrees must be — racist, right? Because after all, their opinion is not shared by most. Meaning, the majority. Meaning, the majority culture.
So, when you assert that racist behavior “is” one thing or another, allow me to suggest — talk it over with a few minority people before you make that bald assertion.
But Charles, appealing to confirmation bias is hardly an argument. Bigoted majorities don’t think they are racist; they think they are just stating facts. Bigoted minorities make the same argument, and its just as invalid when it involve blanket negative statements based on color. The argument that minorities can make statements about majorities that would be racist in the reverse is convenient, useful and comforting to minorities, I’m sure, but it is, in the end, just a rationalization. Don’t you think so?
Jack,
First of all, thanks for engaging thoughtfully. I appreciate it.
I think if a black person says, “White people are [fill in the blank with a bad adjective],” that qualifies as 100% as racist as a white person saying the same thing about black people. So let’s take that off the table; I agree, stipulated, etc.
But if a black person uses a colloquialism, and it is understood in a different way by a different culture, the majority culture will tend to judge that colloquialism in its own terms; and sometimes, like with Wright’s now-famous out of context quote, will call it racist. A minority culture knows two languages; the majority culture knows only one. (Remember the Sotomayor’s comment about “wise Latina” in her confirmation hearings? She was right; minorities do see more. Of course, it drove Republicans nuts, because they are quintessentially majority).
In a more benign way, we all play games with this all the time. Nearly every black comic has a sub-routine about the differences between white people and black people, and they’re usually pretty funny (un-funny comics don’t last long, regardless of color). One of the funniest parts of those routines is when the black comic mimics a white person; and it’s usually just as funny to a white person.
But when white comics mimic black people, everything is completely different. The white comic must walk a fine line between being seen as racist, and between “acting ghetto.” When you get an entire generation of suburban white teen-agers adopting what they consider to be black behavior as “cool,” it’s very easy for black people to see it as alternately complimentary, or racist.
Take a simpler example: a white kid in Greenwich CT wears a hoodie. Or, a black kid in Sanford, Florida wears a hoodie. Same hoodie. Same aged kid. Potentially very different results. Why? Certainly not because of the actions or the clothing, but because of the context.
We walk around with this convenient myth that racism is a character defect, and that people “are” racist or “aren’t” racist. And it just, plain, is not that simple.
Racism in America is in the water we drink and the air we breathe. Jesse Jackson freely admitted that when he saw a young black man walking up the street at night, he would move to the other side of the street. There is black-on-black racism.
Racism, I guess I’m saying, is a condition of life in the modern USA. If I were just a few years older and had lived in Virginia, it would have been illegal for me to marry my wife. And she grew up with a father who had been segregated and treated like a second-class citizen while he fought for his country in Korea. That stuff doesn’t disappear overnight.
If you ever hear someone say, “I don’t notice what race they are, I’m color-blind,” you are talking to a white person. Or maybe a black person under 8 years of age. That’s simply a majority belief.
You suggest a good question, how do we tell truth from the confirmation bias, and I’m not sure I have a quick answer, other than to go through a number of situations and what-ifs. But I suggest it’s a worthwhile conversation.
Well, this is easy!
I agree with 100% of every word that you wrote. No exceptions. Thanks, Charles.
” I think the whole idea of a black church is racist. ”
Why is the idea of a majority black church racist? Such a curious stance. Is a Greek majority church also racist? Or an Irish one? There are several Vietnamese churches in my area, and I never once considered them racist. It isn’t as if you would be thrown out if you were to stroll in to any of these churches, and not of the majority that makes up most of the worshippers. You may feel somewhat uncomfortable, but welcome to the experience of most minorities in the United States.
Rev. Wright may have been somewhat bombastic in his two most widely seen sermons, but he didn’t say anything racists in them, or really anything very inaccurate. You might disagree with his politcs (he seemed to be against the Iraq War before it was cool), and his view on the American government’s role in the oppression of minorities, but from reading the sermons, he doesn’t seem to be too far from many mainstream interpretations of events. Perhaps his tone of his voice just scares people who aren’t used to the fiery sermon?
The Greek Orthodox Church is a religion. It’s not called a Greek Church, and theoretically anyone can join, but since you mention it, and since I was brought up in a Greek family, why yes, Greeks are generally incredibly bigoted, and racist, toward anyone who isn’t Greek. No church could call itself a “white church” and escape the legitimate charge of racism. We give a pass to the widespread use of the term “black church” because the liberal establishment has successfully imbedded the idea in the culture that minority segregation isn’t objectionable or based in racism, but majority segregation is (and indeed it is.)
Rev. Wright maintains that the government loosed the AIDS virus on the African American population, by definition a racist point of view, based on the premise that the white power structure is out to kill blacks. I’d say telling young men committing black-on-black crime that they are “fighting the wrong enemy” is racist, and a call to race violence. You wouldn’t?
Preaching racial hate is the epitome of racism. Seeking to divide the population, and keep it divided, along racial lines is racist. I know there is a cottage industry in claiming that Wright is no racist, just as David Duke and George Wallace claimed that they weren’t racists.
In the United States, the “default setting” is white. No organization has to call itself a white church, or a white college, or a white network. It is automatically assumed to be the case unless told otherwise. Those organizations who have a focus other than a mainstream white one have to explicitly distinguish themselves, otherwise they are also assumed to be white focused.
“Rev. Wright maintains that the government loosed the AIDS virus on the African American population, by definition a racist point of view, based on the premise that the white power structure is out to kill blacks.”
Rev. Wright’s point of view might be racial, but not necessarily racist. Wright is coming from a viewpoint that for 250 years in the US, the government encouraged and allowed black people to be held as chattel, sold like animals, raped and killed with impunity. Rev. Wright is still old enough to remember a time when the government allowed black people to be treated explicitly as second class citizens, denied their right to vote, and segregated away from the rest of the populace. He is also old enough to remember “Mississippi appendectomies” (previously discussed) and the Tuskeegee Experiment, were black people wholesale had procedures done and experiments performed on them by the medical establishment, with knowledge and cooperation by the government.. The Tuskeegee Experiment did not end until 1972. Wright is also operating from rumors of the CIA-crack epidemic connection of the 1980s, which has yet to be completely untangled. I’m sure knowledge that many Northern Europeans are genetically immune or resistant to AIDS does not help tamp down his paranoia. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198 But given the US government’s previous treatments of its black citizens, I don’t thnk his view is racist, just a little suspicious.
“I’d say telling young men committing black-on-black crime that they are “fighting the wrong enemy” is racist, and a call to race violence. You wouldn’t?”
No. Since “enemy” is undefined here, why would you immediately assume it is a call to racial violence? I would think he meant that they should be cooperating instead, and fighting any number of ills which plague the black community, like illiteracy, teen pregnancy, racism, etc. Wright doesn’t seem to be the “murder whitey” type, given all his positive initatives in the community.
Ditto, underscore, bold, italicize and copy everything deery said above. Exactly right. The default sense of any statement in the US is white. This is why the “if a white person said…” formulation is so wrong. It is NOT the same thing, it can’t be. (the same logic applies to “women’s” to a great extent).
Racism in the black community, in my experience, is often aimed at other black people, and is ugly when aimed at whites. But racism in white people consists largely of massive denial; not me, I didn’t mean that, some of my best friends, I don’t see color, etc. Denial denial denial. I have watched a white person meet a black person whom they’d only known on the phone, and who had a “white” accent; the shock on their faces is palpable. And if the meeting happens when they’ve come to see about an apartment that was for rent ten minutes previously on the phone, it’s amazing how often that apartment had suddenly gotten rented out 8 minutes ago.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one’s out to get you.
Nope. We’re back to spin and rationalizations again.
“In the United States, the “default setting” is white. No organization has to call itself a white church, or a white college, or a white network.”
But a church that DID call itself that would be correctly labelled as racist, because it suggests that non-whites aren’t welcome….which is how “black church” sounds, and in fact means, when it is used by its members. Your spin glosses over awards for athletes, students and entertainers that are restricted by race…indeed not even race, but color. What if an Elizabeth Warren-like faux African American decides to make herself eligible for the Spirit Awards by announcing that she is “black”? Will she be welcome? I doubt it. This is just culturally approved racism, and that’s all it is.
“Rev. Wright’s point of view might be racial, but not necessarily racist. Wright is coming from a viewpoint that for 250 years in the US, the government encouraged and allowed black people to be held as chattel, sold like animals, raped and killed with impunity.”
Translation: he has a “reason” to be racist. Just like someone from an inner city whose only contact with African Americans was with criminals, drug addicts, and people who were openly hostile to whites. I lived with such a person, an other wise great guy who was a “knowing racist,” who would always smile at my other, civil- rights involved room mate ans say, “Right. Try living with them, like I did. Then you’ll get it.” There’s no legitimate reason for anyone to pre-judge me based on what people of my race did 100 years ago, or what someone of my race did 10 minutes ago. Wright has no justification for his blanket condemnations and suspicions of all whites, as well as all America. If you spin his hate into “racial” rather than racism, then do the same for Southerners in the Jim Crow era, whose only contact with blacks was uneducated ex-slaves or slaves; do the same for racist cops, whose only contact is with black criminals.
“No. Since “enemy” is undefined here, why would you immediately assume it is a call to racial violence? I would think he meant that they should be cooperating instead, and fighting any number of ills which plague the black community, like illiteracy, teen pregnancy, racism, etc. Wright doesn’t seem to be the “murder whitey” type, given all his positive initiatives in the community.”
DESPERATE spin! His meaning is obvious, it was understood to mean that by his congregation, it has been (correctly) interpreted to mean that by the media. He has been asked about the quote, and has never designated an enemy OTHER than the evil whites. Then you end by saying he just couldn’t mean that, because he’s done all these wonderful things. The same excuse can be offered for another black racist, Farrakhan. And I’ll give you three guesses whose offered it. (Charles knows the answer)
Jack,
Re the spin comments, again I have to ask: have you actually READ what Rev. Wright has written, or seen a transcript?
Show me where he was asked about the “God damn America” quote and “never designated an enemy OTHER than the evil whites.” I have not seen him quoted as calling “evil whites” an enemy. I have seen, on the other hand, quotes where he attributes the evil to governments acting in ways contrary to God’s principles, and citing Old Testament scripture among other things for justification.
I see a big difference there. I sent you one transcript. Where’s the “evil white” stuff you’re citing here come from?
I didn’t mean to suggest he actually used those words. I think that is the clear implication of his statements, the context and his tone. In the transcript you sent, Wright had an interviewer who was taking pains not to bait him, and he chose his words carefully. He’s not dumb, but the interview reminds me of Farakhan, and other careful bigots, like Rick Santorum. They know how to dance around, spin and sound rational while denying their bigotry. The tip-off for me? Wright denies that Farakhan is a racist, because he’s done “good things”, as if that has anything to do with it.
Only a racist, Charles, thinks that Louis Farakhan isn’t one.
Here is an interview where Wright is asked about Farakhan, whom he reminds us, used to be a calypso singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1y6Q9PYcg
It seems to me that Wright does distance himself, while not disavowing everything that Farakhan has done. Make of it what you will.
Here’s the exchange I was referring to, courtesy of Charles:
BILL MOYERS: And [Farakhan], you know, he’s expressed racist and anti-Semitic remarks. And, yet, last year-
REVEREND WRIGHT: Twenty years ago.
BILL MOYERS: Twenty years ago, but that’s indefensible.
REVEREND WRIGHT: The Nation of Islam and Mr. Farrakhan have more African-American men off of drugs. More African-American men respecting themselves. More African-American men working for a living. Not gang banging. Not trying to get by. That’s not indefensible in terms of how you make a difference in the prisons? Turning people’s lives around. Giving people hope. Getting people off drugs. That we don’t believe the same things in terms of our specific faiths. He’s Muslim, I’m Christian. We don’t believe the same things he said years ago. But that has nothing to do with what he has done in terms of helping people change their lives for the better. I said direct quote was what? “Louis Farrakhan is like E.F. Hutton. When Lewis Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. They may not agree with him, but they’re listening.
“…But a church that DID call itself [white] that would be correctly labelled as racist, because it suggests that non-whites aren’t welcome….which is how “black church” sounds, and in fact means, when it is used by its members. ”
If there were absolutely no history, or social awareness, or context, then yes, the two would be the equivalent. But to try to equate the two would be ignoring basically ignoring the enitre history of the United States, which I’m not prepared to do. A white church explicitly calling itself a “white church” would be unwelcoming to be blacks (or others), because it is making what is otherwise understood, explicit, and therefore being obvious that no one other than whites are wanted. A black church that called tself a black church (like the African Methodist Episcopal) has to distinguish itself, otherwise it is assumed to have a white focus, and people who may want to worship with the black community, or in a black cultural style would have a much harder time finding what they seek. Other minority churches work in much the same way. Most minority churches that I have been to seem to welcome visitors who don’t come from their own background.
“Translation: he has a “reason” to be racist. Just like someone from an inner city whose only contact with African Americans was with criminals, drug addicts, and people who were openly hostile to whites.”
Wright is suspicious of the US government, which doesn’t make him racist. He isn’t “pre-judging” in this case. We have had the same government since the beginning of the United States. He is actually going by previous actions of the same organization/entity. If a police officer is suspicious of a previously convicted child molestor, and investigates him first when a child comes up missing in the neighborhood, we wouldn’t consider that pre-judging, we would consider that good police work.
“Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.”
I don’t see how Rev. Wrght’s statement is racist, or a call to racial violence. If anything, he wants the intra-racial contentions to cease, and the participants to consider expending energy in changing “oppressive society”, or perhaps changing to be seen as less of a “dangerous threat.” But in either case, I really don’t see a call for violence in general, or against whites in particular.
I have really enjoyed this discussion and have learned a lot about the Reverent Wright and his perspective. Thanks to Deery and Charles! And to Jack, who responded with respect.
I learned a lot too, thanks to the material provided by Charles and deery. Thanks for the kudos to them, Jan—they deserve them.
Jan,
Big props to you for recognizing the civility that all maintained here; kudos to Deery, and to Jack for hosting an environment that fosters civil dialogue. It’s not a common thing, and I appreciate it.
Charlie
But let me modify that a bit. I think any organization restricted or defined by color or race is racist, and that goes for the Spirit Awards. An informal designation of a church in a black neighborhood as a “black church” is descriptive only.
All this stuff about Obama’s relationship to Wright or Romney’s church massacring people over a hundred years ago and all the character assassinations both sides are bringing up are all designed to distract us and keep us from asking the candidates the hard questions.
What are you going to do about the economy?
How are you going to decrease unemployment?
What are you going to do about the deficit?
When will you be ending the war in Afghanistan and how will you go about it?
Everything else comes after that. I don’t care if the President or Romney ate flesh and drank blood like Kennedy did as long as they can tell me what they are going to do about the above four things and then successfully do it.
I care, Bill. Character is the supreme factor by which a man and a potential leader should be judged. If we let this be dismissed (as it was with Clinton and so many others) as “irrelevant” in respect to the “issues”, then we open the floodgates to not only moral malfeasence in office, but corrupt governance on into the future. Obama and his “spiritual advisors” are a case in point. The present administration has added race hate to the formula as well.
The excuse that such groups as Trinity Church, the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam have provided social services (for blacks only, BTW) somehow justifies their other outrages is null and deceptive. This is an old tactic in politics. It’s old and established in Obama’s home base. In the 1930’s, Al Capone did the same. It is NO excuse for blasphemy, hate and violence.