One of our fading scandals has been in Eliot Spitzer - a widely publicized 9-days-wonder. As you probably know, he was caught in an inappropriate relationship digested from Emperors Club VIP, a prostitution ring. Unfortunately, his indiscretions are not all that uncommon in the political field. After Bill Clinton paved the way, we can be prepared for anything. However, I believe what outraged many people about Spitzer, was not his weakness or his mistakes. People could not believe that Spitzer would go from actively prosecuting at least 2 prostitution rings, to actually participating in one. Spitzer was, in the greatest sense of the word, a hypocrite. Not a pleasant word in our society.
And then there is Obama - and his questionable associations with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Farrikahn. His poll ratings deliver the naked truth - America is dissapointed in the Obama of 'unity'. They were impressed, they cheered like he was a celebrity, they put their faith in him. But how can he claim to want unity and turn around and attend a church that is not just racist toward 'whites', but is hateful towards America in general. How can that be our future presidents' mentor? How can that be the future of America? How can that represent a GOOD change? How can that instill an 'Audicity to Hope' when those hopes are wavering even now? This is a very crucial time for Obama. He says he's all about 'unity'. What are we unifying for? Is this REALLY all about turning a blind eye on 'color', or is to turn a blind eye on Obama?
I personally think the word 'racist' is so rashly thrown out there, that anyone discussing it gets absurdly technical in everything they say. Is it racist to mention the color of a person? Or is it only racist when one makes the effort to discriminate against a person because of their color (either black OR white, etc.)? I personally don't see the big issue between the races. I was never taught there was any difference between me and any of my black, indian, or oriental friends. We just had different heritages - and it was neat to think of where we had all come from. I think Obama's church makes such an effort to catapult black ideals into prominence, that they are discriminating against any other culture of white origin in America. That's not just sick - it's wrong! Who cares if somebody is white or black? If they have something good to say, and they believe what they say, and they can act like what they say they are - I have great confidence in them. Don't turn a blind eye on race! So, you're Mexican, you're English, you're African American, you're German, you're Irish, you're Jewish, you're Indian, you're Arabian, you're out of this world. Cool. Nice to meet you, now what do you have to say? Who are you? What do you believe? That's far more important in my eyes.
Obama is a hypocrite. He wants to unify us, but he attends a church like that for 20 years?! Give me a break... There is still the 20-years of indoctrination. I KNOW how churches are. You don't just walk away from their teaching. It's stays with you. For a very long time.
As nice as Obama seems, be honest with yourself. Who cares about his color or his white mama? Obama just doesn't have much to say. His speeches, while eloquent, inspire emotions as opposed to trust. They are empty words -- something America apparently hasn't gotten used to with Politicians. And the more I see of the 'Politician Obama', the less popular shine I see in that wide smile. While the charming personality of Obama eeks out through his speeches, I am becoming more and more aware of how dangerous he really is for America.
When I look at Politicians, I've observed that the wisest way to evaluate their standing both politically and personally - is by their associations. Now let's talk about Obama's long-time mentor, spiritual adviser who in fact was consulted and prayed with before Obama entered the candidacy, friend, and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright has been publicized lately for saying extremely controversial, nutjob, racist things. He reportedly "pledged acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system." He referrs to America as 'White America'... 'the United States of White America'. I realize this may all seem like racist hogwash, but that's exactly what it is. Seriously, if you listen to some of Wright's sermons, you can hear him saying 'No, no, no, no. Not God Bless America, God damn America.' He claims the 911 terrorist attacks were conspiracies against Black people - everything is just one big conspiracy against Black people. According to him, “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italians, which means they were European, which means they were white–and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country. It just came to me . . . why so many folk are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the model!” -Which is funny because, although he claims to preach straight gospel, Jesus was a Jew, of Hebrew descent.
Obama of course distances himself from Wright by saying he was 'like an old uncle who sometimes says things you don't always agree with'. The difference being, however, that you don't choose your uncle. You CHOOSE your Pastor. Obama was married in the church, his kids were baptised in the church, and then he came out - all of the beautiful eloquence fleeing to distant horizons - and said that he had not been in attendance for the Sunday's which involved the racist comments. Did you catch that? He said he WAS NOT THERE for the hateful words Wright is videotaped saying. Yet there were dozens of sermons filled with this kind of hate speech! And you'd think - wow being in a church that long, and tithing $22000 last year alone (that would be Obama) can have some POWERFUL influence on your outlook on life and America. Not much 'unity' there if you ask
Then there's Farrakhan. I believe he bombed the White House in the 70's, and is reported to have said, "I wish I would have bombed more/Caused more devestation". He is definitely associated with Obama's past - although Obama has vehmently distanced himself in the light of publicity.
So I've heard Obama lie. There's no way he couldn't have been apart of at least ONE of the sermons that included this load of bull. That makes him just another politician. And I've seen his candidacy shake in the spot light under the scrutiny. I respect the fact that he still stands -- but I find it increasingly hard to respect him just because he is a smooth oiled talker. People are already crediting him for 'taking this issue on', and delivering some 'resounding speeches'. Is America so surface focused? There is still the 20-years of indoctrination. I KNOW how churches are. You don't just walk away from their teaching. It's stays with you. For a very long time.
Obama and Spitzer both have something in common; the Public spotlight where they don't want it.
So if you're supporting Obama...if you're one of the proud supporters of his campaign...if you're willing to stand by him through thick and thin, black and white, right and wrong...I hope you're thinking long and hard right now. What attracts you to him? Are you defending him, or are you defending your own personal gains from his success? Think about it. Who are you protecting?
Those are just some of my concerns -- and they are increasingly shared by those who are aware of the situation.
10 comments:
These comments are very interesting.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/comments?type=story&id=4443788
"Then there's Farrakhan. I believe he bombed the White House in the 70's, and is reported to have said, "I wish I would have bombed more/Caused more devestation". "
Well, while I'm certainly no fan of Farrakan's, I haven't been able to find any reference to this on the internet. (He has claimed, more or less, that one of the New Orleans levees were bombed in an attempt to flood black sections of the city, but didn't claim responsibility for this imaginary act of destruction either.) I'm curious - where did you hear about this?
Now, 'I couldn't find it on the internet' isn't exactly the gold standard of scholarship, even for me, but if he had (at least claimed - in fact, bragged) to have basically attempted to assassinate the President (or at least damage the White House), I presume it would be a relatively big story, even 30+ years later. I could be wrong, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary, but my hunch is that you've been misled or confused - in which case, I'd hope you'd consider if you might have been misled or confused about other things as well.
If you haven't already, you can watch Obama's speech, where he attempts to answer some of the questions you ask, and judge for yourself if he does so adequately. (Or read it instead:
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is . . . "
Well, that's a long enough quote there - you can read the rest yourself, if you'd like.
I agree that people's associations can tell us important things about them - in which case, if it gets down to an Obama-McCain race, I presume that by this standard you'll find it necessary to oppose both of them, unless you find the radical positions of (for example) John Hagee unquestionable or undisquieting, which you may.
(At least Farrakhan, with whom Obama has no relationship, just blamed racist bomb-wielding whites for the destruction of New Orleans, instead of claiming it was the wrath of God against gay pride parades, and our government's recent pressure on Israel, that left dead Americans floating in the flooded streets).
Now, some of what Wright said is pretty accurate - for example, it may sound crazy, at this remove, to hear someone claiming that "we put Mandela in prison", but it seems that we basically did. What Wright forgets is that it was also we who helped get him out, and we who helped bring the South African apartheid regime to an end. (Although you may wish to note who opposed the disinvestment campaign, and supported, even as a necessary evil, that, well, evil). But some of other things he said, I can't possibly agree with; they range from wrong-headed to simply, and harmfully, flat-out wrong. Although I can somewhat understand why he might say such things and think that way - at least far easier than I can understand why someone like Hagee would hate and fear gay people so much (not to mention our government's recent policy towards Israeli settlements) as to rant about God slaughtering innocents via hurricane. - But still, they're wrong.
The important issue here is whether Obama shares these specific views. Now, he's a politician, with all the great & necessary skepticism that entails - but read the speech, think about everything he's said and done - one simply finds no trace of such ideas. In fact, one finds just the opposite - the rejection of them (and as the obsidian wings link above talks about, some of this is surely a generational thing: he's a child of a different, and better (if still very imperfect) world.
"I was never taught there was any difference between me and any of my black, indian, or oriental friends."
I do have to say - nowaday's the word's usually Asian (or even specific ethnicity!). Oriental, for better or worse, might get you some funny looks.
"[Obama] said that he had not been in attendance for the Sunday's which involved the racist comments.
Actually, in the claim I saw, he said he had not been in church on the specific Sunday when Wright gave his controversial 9/11 speech, a claim which seems to be completely true.
Speaking of which,
"'[Wright] claims the 911 terrorist attacks were conspiracies against Black people"
He did? I haven't seen that claim. Rather, he seems to have been saying that 9/11 was a kind of blowback related to injustices America had carried out - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, supporting South African apartheid and mistreatment of Palestinians, etc. Well, it's better than saying 9/11 was God's judgement on America due to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America . . . " like Jerry Falwell did, but that's damning with very faint praise, and is (at most) only marginally less fictional.
"Who are you protecting?"
My family. My friends. My neighbors.
"You should read Pride & Prejudice! "
I will agree with that. At least, my wife really likes it, and she's the one with taste . . .
btw, who (at least apparently) said this:
"We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place."
------
" I personally don't see the big issue between the races."
I believe you, and while that's hopeful, it also means that you'd likely have little luck if you somehow ended up trying to unite people at this point in time - the anger in Wright's sermon's, shared by so many, is completely and inexplicably foreign to you. Arguably this is one of Obama's strengths - he does understand it, having seen and heard it, but goes beyond it. Really, read the speech - it's not just inspirational, but fairly informative as well.
"He reportedly "pledged acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system."
Again, I strongly disagree with some of what Wright said, but whatever one thinks of the above quote, it's pretty far from "nutjob, racist things". let alone plausibly described as "discriminating against any other culture of white origin in America." Again, it comes back to not being familiar with the experience this comes out of (whether or not it's the best response).
Here is a little video on Trinity, Obama's Church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9oXrK0LazE
One of the things I came away with is that part of its goal is to help Black people to be proud of who they are, especially seeing that in America Blacks make up the highest percentage of those in prison and in poverty. Also after personally attending a church for several years I left based on a difference of opinion with regards to sexual orientation. So it is possible to attend a church for a number of years and miss out on significant sermons.
Anthony
" the anger in Wright's sermon's, shared by so many, is completely and inexplicably foreign to you"
That is to say, you (presumably/seem to) find it inexplicable, not that its foreignness to you is inexplicable. The opposite, in fact - it's quite explicable, and not your fault in any really meaningful sense - you're young, and probably haven't had such things made visible to you (you seem to say that your schooling involved creationism, which suggests things about the kind of history and current events you've learned). One could say, oh, you should have searched it out, but again, still young, and it's hard to learn about a problem when you don't exactly realize how it exists. In a sense, one can call this not-knowing, this invisibility, a kind of racism, which sounds crazy unless one already knows that "racism" has been not just to describe lynch-happy KKK members, but also social structures and institutions shaped by history in such a way as to continue to produce 'racist' outcomes even in a complete absence of malice or indeed any intention.
Obama actually spoke about this in that speech:
"Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."
My understanding is that you're going off to college? Depending where you go, you might learn about/experience such ways of looking/thinking/feeling about the problem, and decide if they're useful - or you might not. It can be a pretty important decision this way, I think . . .
This is also a good post on the subject.
Ok, I'm going on and on, so just a few more links and then I'll be quiet:
A short post by Kevin Drum on media double standards,
Conservative talk show host & writer Michael Smerconish on Obama and Wright,
Trinity UCC's youtube channel - obviously not an objective or uninvolved source, but it does provide more context than the short clips being constantly played, or the second-hand descriptions being passed around. Some folks have clearly got the idea - as in this post - that Rev. Wright spent the last 20 years filling every sermon with america-hating rants, which doesn't actually seem to be the case,
Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune explaining one thing some of us are, with hope, protecting,
Conservative Andrew Sullivan's post on Wright's 9/11 sermon: " I still do not find it appropriate, and still do not agree with it. But it is not what Hannity and Ingraham and the other talk show thugs of the far right have been saying. They won't air the whole thing. I can. Read it and make your own mind up . . ." (and an earlier post of his on the subject . . .),
Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan on that speech (though a bit inside-baseball-y). The criticism towards the end - well, one might want to consider it in light of recent economic news, though one doesn't have to agree with Democratic solutions to recognize that there is a problem.
Ok. I be quiet now.
Apparently you didn't look hard enough for Farrakahn's association with Obama, Dan S. (and I am looking for the white house reference - i heard that on the radio, too.) I actually heard that one on the radio, but I was able to find the connection online as well. People harp on how Obama should not suffer 'guilt by association'. But I like how this post puts it.
http://www.eaglesnestonline.org/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-advisor/
Ronald Kessler had some good stuff to say here:
"Considering this view of America, it’s not surprising that in December Mr. Wright’s church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening,” Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. “He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
After News max broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader."
Guilt by association? Harsh? Well, no just necessary. Obama CHOSE that church. He CHOSE that mentor and friend and pastor. I know alot of people who refuse to go to a church unless it is one PERFECTLY or VERY CLOSELY aligned with them. Either Obama chose very poorly, or he agreed - despite how he distances himself now that alarmed voters attention has been drawn by it.
As for the 911 comment - I understand why you had a hard time finding that one. I heard that on the radio as well, but many (including you) are complaining that Hannity 'cherry-picked' the most shocking statements of Wrights' 911 speech.
I did however, find this site that had an interesting insight on the 911 speech.
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/03/23/the-prophetic-stream-conspiracy-theory-and-paranoia-whats-wrong-with-african-american-preaching/
Here's an excerpt:
"It certainly does show Reverend Wright calling 9-11 “unspeakable” and showing empathy at the tragedy of people — “black people” — throwing themselves out of the burning building. And this may or may not mitigate the appalling expressions of triumphalism — even glee — that Reverend Wright expresses to the delight of the audience, as he hits his “chickens coming home to roost” theme, although it hardly makes a “lie” of the snippet."
Regardless, the insinuation of what he says is disturbing. As the writer of the above site says, "When he hits his notorious high note, gesturing for emphasis, he is all but justifying this hateful deed: “we” — arrogant, racist, imperialist, white America — deserved it. And his audience agrees."
Regardless, Dan, thanks for your interesting perspective.
Christina, you and Dan are convincing me. I must go out and read the age old classic.
And Antony - you signed your name! I thought you were going to let me guess who it was!! lol - thanks for the comment. And I agree - it IS possible to miss out on a few significant sermons. But I think some of the objectionable ideas and words of Reverend Wright would have slipped out here and there being a friend to Obama. Regardless, it can only make us wary - everyone still has the choice whether or not to believe Obama's words.
I've run out of time. More later. ;)
Dan,
Thanks for Trinity link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ. It was quite enlightening seeing the more of the sermon.
Andi,
Hopefully you had a chance to see this video.
Here is some more information http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html
I thank both of you helping me be more informed on this topic :-)
Anthony
Hey, Andi.
"Apparently you didn't look hard enough for Farrakahn's association with Obama, Dan S."
Thing is he doesn't - in any direct sense - have one, as far as I can tell. The Eagles' Nest link you give doesn't seem to dispute this. Rather, it turns out that Rev. Wright complimented Farrakhan in the church magazine, and gave him some sort of 'lifetime achievement award' - in (if I understand correctly) December 2008, long after Obama had began running for President, and in fact, just a few months ago, not years (let alone decades!) ago.
" (and I am looking for the white house reference - i heard that on the radio, too."
I'm certainly no expert on either Farrakhan or the history of the 1970s (now decades ago, when my parents got married, and people listened to music on records and eight-tracks, and had really, really bad taste in fashion and decor). But honestly, had the current leader of a fair-sized religious group actually bombed the White House - even back in eight-track days- well, I find it hard to believe that fact wouldn't be easily tracked down. I mean, if you find even slightly credible sources supporting this, I'd be interested to see them, but . . .
In fact, while Wikipedia (for what it's worth - a starting point, not a final authority!) mentions that
"In 1974, a stolen Army helicopter landed without authorization on the White House grounds. Twenty years later, in 1994, a light plane landed on the White House grounds. The pilot was killed by the crash.[37] As a result of increased security regarding air traffic in the capital, the White House was evacuated in 2005 before an unauthorized aircraft could approach the grounds."
I'm not finding any reference to anyone bombing it at any time. (The Brits burned it in 1814, but presumably early 19th Century British troops have even less of an association with Obama than Farrakhan can. Although no doubt that will be the next claim - first we had Obama: Secret Muslim!!, now we have Obama: Angry Black Man and Race Hustler!!, who's to say that Obama: Redcoat Sympathizer!! won't be far behind . . .)
"I know alot of people who refuse to go to a church unless it is one PERFECTLY or VERY CLOSELY aligned with them."
Certainly. But, of course, people are different, and others might well go to a church (or temple or mosque or etc.) that isn't perfectly or very closely aligned with them. They might go to one that is closely aligned in some respects, but not others, or one that challenges them, or etc. Now, politicians certainlyare politicians, but it doesn't seem unreasonable, given everything we've seen of Obama, that he joined for the community, the outreach and good works, the focus on social justice, and such (for example, Trinity's apparently fairly racially mixed for a 'black church'), and not so much for the other stuff. It's also been suggested that he joined as a way to keep a connection with the wider black community (I think one of my links mentions this?); a very slightly more cynical take is he was trying to build pew cred. All of these seem a lot more likely than Obama: Secret Musli - oh, I mean Obama: Secret Crazed American-hatin' Black Man!!
"As for the 911 comment - I understand why you had a hard time finding that one."
If we're talking about "He claims the 911 terrorist attacks were conspiracies against Black people" - well, if the 9/11 sermon text Andrew Sullivan posted is correct and complete (I have the sound off so Mrs. S. can get some well-deserved rest, hence the video's no help), than he made no such claim in that sermon.
He did say that
"I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone-- no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. "
I can be as mindlessly pc as anyone, but if this is crazed racism, perhaps we've lowered the bar a bit too much . . .
He also said that "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism." All too true.
"I did however, find this site that had an interesting insight on the 911 speech. "
That certainly is an interesting post, and I think it does have some real insights - although also some blind spots: African Americans are in a very different position from ancient Israelites. But
"As the writer of the above site says, "When he hits his notorious high note, gesturing for emphasis, he is all but justifying this hateful deed: “we” — arrogant, racist, imperialist, white America — deserved it. And his audience agrees.""
I'm not sure I'm seeing the glee that writer suspects. But this is a deeper confusion. I remember that September day - a heartbreakingly beautiful blue fall sky above the Hudson River town where I was living, that morning when people boarded the train for the daily commute down to work in the city, and some of them never came back - and the days that followed. Everybody was trying to figure out what had happened, what was next, what it meant.
Rev. Jerry Falwell decided it was the fault of the gays and lesbians and feminists and the ACLU, for causing God to withdraw his divine protection. (Whether or not he thought "we" 'deserved' it, I don't know). Other folks decided it was simply evil, purposeless and incomprehensible - almost cartoonish, if a kind of cartoon one hopes children would never, ever see - or a 'clash of civilizations'.
Some others, mostly on the left, felt that it must have been a response to American actions - an evil and twisted response, but ultimately a comprehensible one (that is, within the sphere of human action - which is not to say at all an excusable one). Some versions of this were a lot more sophisticated than others. Some people were so haunted by injustices they (rightly or wrongly) blamed on our government that they seemed to automatically assume that 9/11 was a terrible retribution carried out for this or that cause. Others spoke knowledgeably about the long and often sordid history of American involvement in Middle Eastern and Central Asian politics, and the inevitability of blowback. A few weren't that far removed, if on the opposite end, from Rev, Falwell. Unfortunately, so soon after that horrible day, all many people could hear were some other people saying (what sounded to their ears like) 'It's your fault! You deserved it! - when it wasn't that at all. This is partly just that same misunderstanding dug back up.
(But was it right? Well, obviously al Qaeda didn't fly those planes into the towers to protest historical brutality towards Native Americans, or for a free Tibet, or whatever. But the more complicated version - well, that would take a comment far longer than this bloated thing, but one certainly can't just dismiss it. What was particularly - well, something - was some of the same people who had yelled the loudest about blame-America-firsters and America-haters soon were misusing the same arguments - about root causes and bad American policies - to push and support the war.)
"Regardless, it can only make us wary - everyone still has the choice whether or not to believe Obama's words."
The idea of choosing to believe something is a pet peeve of mine, but I've kinda ranted at you long enough for one comment! - Just one more thing. That Eagles' Nest post quotes a relatively recent sermon by Wright that includes:
"We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he began. “Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”
Mr. Wright thundered on: “America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
The litany in these two paragraph is shocking, all the more so because too much of it is true. Racism was how this country was founded. We did support South African apartheid. We did bomb the countries he mentioned. We are (or at the least have recently been) involved in training professional killers. That he's leaving quite a lot out here doesn't make these things false (however incomplete.)
But I want you to consider some of the rest. If Obama actually believes that we're a hopelessly flawed and incredibly racist society based on "white supremacy and black inferiority" where " [n]o black man will ever be considered for president," what on earth is he doing running for President?! He doesn't believe this. You know he doesn't. Everybody knows he doesn't. Everyone with the time and luxury to really learn and think about current American politics and society (which isn't most of us) knows that Obama isn't a Secret Crazy Angry Black Man, though some might whisper and insinuate so if it suits their purposes. But it goes beyond this. Think what happens to Wright's message if Barack Obama got elected President of the United States. The ideas that a black man could never be elected president, that the country is still run by racism, that there's a 'we' so deeply splintered into 'us' and 'them' - all that anguished despair, despair far too understandable in the glaring light of history - what happens to it then?
Now, that by itself isn't enough to vote for a president, who after all isn't just an inspirational figurehead. If you don't agree with his politics and policies, or dislike his message, or worry there's too much unproven or taken on trust, or simply think someone else would do a better job, well hey, don't vote for him! Of course. But anybody out there who was leaning that way - and I don't know if that included you, Andi - and now is thinking they won't vote for Obama because of this, because of the scary specter of the Angry Black Man, you gotta consider - maybe that's really one reason you might want to vote for him.
Anyway, that's Steve Chapman's argument; makes sense to me.
------
"Christina, you and Dan are convincing me. I must go out and read the age old classic."
Yay!
Bennet/Darcy in 2012 . . .
Hey, PBS still has one last Masterpiece Theatre program to go as part of their Austinmania extravaganza (no, they didn't call it that - very disappointing. I was hoping they'd promote it as '"Stone Cold" Jane Austin,' but for some reason they didn't, dunno why . . .
(previewing comment - hey Anthony, glad it was useful . . .)
Post a Comment