Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club
Bookworm on Apr 29 2008 at 8:31 am | Filed under: African-Americans, Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton
The most un-rev Jeremiah Wright elaborated today on his various statements during an appearance at the National Press Club. What he had to say was most enlightening since, when he wasn’t prevaricating or deflecting a point with self-deprecating humor, he sounded pretty ugly. Here are a few things that caught my attention:
MODERATOR: What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan? Do you agree with and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?
WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers’ show, one of our news channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago when Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. [I don't really know if the Right Rev. is capable of understanding this, but Zionism is not a religion, it's a political movement. If Farrakhan referred to something as a "gutter religion" he was making an antisemitic statement about Jews. And since I doubt that Wright is enough of a fool to be this confused, Wright is too, and he's hoping that in this bizarre cascade of words, no one will notice.]
And he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for. [Poor Wright. He just doesn't understand why people should be vilified if they keep standing up and saying that Persians, Arabs and Muslims (separate but overlapping groups) are within their rights to (a) state their intention to destroy Israel entirely and (b) take whatever steps they can, from killing one child at a time to building nuclear weapons, to bring that goal to fruition. Whether those sentiments come from Carter, the rabidly anti-Israeli UN, Farrakhan or Wright, they're utterly reprehensible and completely antisemitic.] And everybody wants to paint me as if I’m anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.
I believe that people of all faiths have to work together in this country if we’re going to build a future for our children, whether those people are — just as Michelle and Barack don’t agree on everything, Raymond (ph) and I don’t agree on everything, Louis and I don’t agree on everything, most of you all don’t agree — you get two people in the same room, you’ve got three opinions.
So what I think about him, as I’ve said on Bill Moyers and it got edited out, how many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? [So could Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. It doesn't make them admirable. I'm not actually saying Farrakhan is as bad as those guys, although he definitely espouses their beliefs. I'm just saying that the mere fact that someone can be a demagogue doesn't make him virtuous.] He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That’s what I think about him.
I’ve said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it’s like E.F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen. [Same demagoguery point I made above.]
Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, “You don’t tell me who my enemies are. You don’t tell me who my friends are.” [In other words, Castro is another one whom Wright admires. He has no moral center. Whoops. Strike that. He does have a moral center: The enemy of my enemy is my friend seems to be his view. Since he hates America, despite his six years of military service, anyone who hates America too is a good guy.]
Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn’t make me this color. [This whole string is peculiar. Last I looked, since the Civil War, no one in America, regardless of color, has been putting blacks in the chains of slavery. Even more interestingly, is Wright actually saying here that being black is a bad thing, akin with slavery? Certainly the parallel structure he employs indicates that he believes being black is bad, and that ones enemies visit that curse upon one.]
Also fascinating was Wright’s explanation of what he meant about the difference between him — as Pastor — and Obama — a politician. Considering how well Obama professes to know Wright, given their 20 year long pastoral association, Wright’s allusions to Obama’s honest (or lack thereof) are worth noting:
MODERATOR: What is your motivation for characterizing Senator Obama’s response to you as, quote, “what a politician had to say”? What do you mean by that?
WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, “You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.” [In other words, says Wright, on the Left we all understand that you have to lie to the American people and hide your real viewpoints in other to get elected.]
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. [Again, he's saying that Obama is lying because that's the only way he'll get elected.] Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. [Obama lies.]
I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president. [If you listen to the live broadcast, the very receptive audience screams with laughter at this point.]
I’m not going to dissect any more. It was rather sickening to listen to him. The bile, illogic and dishonesty that flows from him made me feel really bad.
Apropos the fact that Wright’s mental perambulations are really horrible for Obama, some are wondering whether Wright, either out of spite because Obama shunned him or out of avarice because there’s money somewhere, is trying to line himself up with the Clinton faction. If that’s the case, Shakespeare couldn’t have done any better with a plot of ego, avarice, and treachery.
The wildly funny thing about all this is that, because the “non-racial” Obama has managed to back himself into a corner where he is clearly the black candidate, the Democratic party pooh-bahs are supporting him in trickles and floods, despite his falling numbers, because they can’t afford to alienate their single most reliable voting block: African-Americans.
Email This Post To A Friend
158 Responses to “Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] white and black brains Michael Goodwin says Hillary is a Bully Kim Priestap at Wizbang Bookworm at The Bookwormroom Allahpundit on Gingrich on Wright Patterico on Andrew Sullivan on Wright by TheAnchoress @ [...]
It would be a shame if one of the outcomes of the Obama campaign was that it set back race relations by several decades. Fortunately, I know that neither Obama nor Jeremiah Wright speak for “black people”. I know that many black people, such as Liberal Juan Williams of NPR fame and black conservatives, are appalled by these people and what they are doing.
It has been quite evident to me that the people that the Jeremiah Wrights, Louis Farrakhans and Al Sharptons of our society represent are emotionally crippled. What nobody dares say is that it is that what Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan have done is ensure that these people stay forever crippled while plucking money from their pockets. Obama has associated himself with truly bad people.
Bookworm, Sometimes I think you really don’t “get it.” Other times, I think you just hate a number of liberals, no matter what they do.
[...] Bookworm Room Our World as We See It The Anchoress The Strata-Sphere [...]
Hello Bookworm,
While I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion about the reason for the DNC’s jumping on the Obama bandwagon, I certainly agree that Wright spat out a whole lot of bilge yesterday morning.
To give the DNC the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they’re still supporting Obama because they are honestly enthralled to this cult of Obama. Obama flatters their every vanity and promises them everything, even contradictory things. I have met men and women who don rose-colored glasses to screen out inconvenient truths because they want so desperately to believe some ideal, misguided or not. It doesn’t stretch the imagination at all to imagine a large group of people doing much of the same thing, i.e. the third of the Democratic Party who supports Obama.
So many red flags have come up during his campaign that he would have surely been sunk had he not appealed to the vanities of the liberal oligarchs of the Democratic Party and their supporters. Demographically speaking, the bulk of the people supporting Obama are the Blacks and the college educated white liberals. Coincidentally, this also happens to be a sizable chunk of Primary voters, and more specifically Caucus Primary voters.
As for your conclusion, Bookworm, while it is true that the Black voters are a significant voting block for the Democratic Party, it does us well to remember that the Democratic Party is the party of tribalism. It is a hodgepodge group of disassociated groups that generally don’t like each other but tolerate each other in order to advance their agendas. If any one of these groups fail to support the Democrats, it is doomsday for them, which makes their tightrope act that much more difficult.
If the loose the Greenies, they lose the general election. If they lose the Blacks, they lose. If they lose the Hispanics, they lose. If they lose the populist white working class, they lose. If they lose the white college educated, they lose. If they lose the American hating Daily Kos Leftists, they lose. This and many more categories of people must be kept into a single voting block to maintain the Democratic Party.
It seems that for the moment, the Democrats are supporting Obama, not only because of his appeal to Black voters, but because he seems to be the best person on the political scene to tie enough of all these disparate strands together to put him over the top for the general election.
Of course, in my view, if he succeeds where Gore and Kerry have failed, he would not be able to effectively govern. To appeal to every group and promise each of them their hearts desire does not make for an effective leader. Those IOU’s cannot be deferred indefinitely.
Hi, HelenL. Help us out? What doesn’t Bookworm get?
In this case, I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church. At this time, I must say I understand Wright more than I do Obama (unless Wright is right about that, too, that Obama – as a politician – must distance himself from Wright to gain votes) in which case I just like Wright more than Obama. Wright is telling the truth. Obama may not be.
Interesting, HelenL. Do you therefore mean that Jeremiah Wright IS the black church or that all black churches are like Jeremiah Wright?
Wright may very well be telling things as he believes them. This is only the “truth” to people that think the truth is based upon how you are looking and where you are looking from.
No, Danny. The fact is I’ve talked about this so much, I can’t remember what I’ve said where.
Look at these posts on my blog. http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/and-now-jeremiah-wright-speaks-out/
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/just-because-im-slack/
and especially this editorial by Rev. John Mendez
http://www.wschronicle.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1028&Itemid=40
Y., I don’t know what you mean.
Excuse me, Helen. Pardon me for chiming in here between Danny and yourself, but I echo Danny’s question. Do you think that Jeremiah Wright represents the Black Church? Juan Williams, who have done in depth studies on Black Churches and teaches it on occasion said unequivocally that Jeremiah Wright does not represent the Black Church at all. I haven’t inducted the matter, but I have serious problems about anyone saying that the Black churches in America ascribe to Liberation Theology and the Black Value System as Wright and Trinity Church of Christ does.
Also, Helen, you said that at the moment you like Wright more than Obama simply because Wright is telling “the truth”? I hope you mean that he is speaking the “truth” by exposing himself to America for who and what he is and what he stands for. I hope you mean that rather than the truth being the content of his statements because his statements are lies, prima facie. If his accusations against America are true, that America would do ANYthing, then Wright would not be alive and, furthermore, would not have been allow to spew his venom for more than 30 years.
I agree that it’s much more pleasant when someone states upfront about who and what they are, but for myself, liking doesn’t enter the equation.
Thomas,
The question, “Do I think Wright represents the black church?” matters very little. Read the essay by John Mendez, URL in comment #11. Let black preachers speak for themselves. Read what Mendez has to say. Then answer this, “Do you think Wright represents the black church?” Don’t court problems based on ignorance. Find out.
I don’t mean to come down hard on Danny and Thomas, but too many people seem to want me to study for them and then argue with me when I do. fact is, I do well to study for me.
Oh crap, #11 is still in moderation. Come on Bookworm, post it.
You can go to my blog and find a post called “A Message of Great Importance . . .” under it a link for “Managing Ignorance” by Rev. John Mendez.
Well, Barack Obama just came out on TV and denounced what Rev. Wright said at the National Press Club yesterday (Monday), and claimed Rev. Wright had said many new things in a new context that he considered deplorable. And that Rev. Wright had called Obama a liar, saying things just to get elected as a politician where Obama doesn’t really believe these things.
I have reread, word for word, as carefully as I could, Rev. Wright’s address and the Q&A that followed it:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/transcript-rev-wright-at-the-national-press-club/
I could not find ANYTHING from yesterday’s transcript that was more inflammatory nor worse than anything Rev. Wright said in the sound bite controversy last month, nor than what he said in earlier appearances over the weekend.
JUST WHAT WAS IT YESTERDAY that was so offensive compared to the earlier comments? Can anyone look at the transcript and identify anything that was WORSE?
I can’t see any reason why Obama would repudiate his pastor based on something worse that was said yesterday. If anything, Wright was careful to be less offensive yesterday! (Though still violating many of my own deeply held beliefs and philosophies.)
I don’t know where Obama is coming from here. He had many reasons to repudiate Rev. Wright before yesterday. He has no NEW reasons to repudiate him based on yesterday. So… what changed?
Or am I wrong? Can someone point out something from the transcipt yesterday that actually was worse?
Perhaps it was in his presentation? As we all know, a lot more comes across in video or in person than can appear in a transcript. Was it Rev. Wright’s body language, appearance, tone, etc, that was so newly outrageous?
I’m interested! Please let me know!
My dear Helen. No one is asking you to study anything for the benefit of others. Danny and I simply asked you a question. You have made some claims, i.e. “I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church”.
Under the rules of civilized discourse, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims, not the other way around. In this instance, Helen, I am not even asking you to give me a detailed bibliography to support your claims. I simply am desirous of a clarification on what you meant by your statements.
If you decide not to, no harm, no foul.
Bookworm:
You spent a great deal of time and thought on your article today regarding Rev. Dudley Do-Wright/Wrong. I, with some trepidation, will wade into this mess because I don’t believe he deserves the right time of day overall.
I take issue with the Press Club giving him too much time to spew his sanctimonious serpent sermons and attacking the woman, who was only asking the questions that had been submitted in advance. The entire event was not worth the air time it was given – no surprises that he defended himself and continued to his attacks.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable and self righteous, who cannot fathom anything beyond their blind contempt.
It has become very clear to me that he is nasty, angry, aggressive, smug and believes he is the man of the hour at the expense of everyone else. One can be sure that if Obama loses the nomination, he will blame it on the media, ‘the man’ and a yo’ mama mentality.
Rev. Wright is another Farrakhan in pastor sheep’s clothing.
Mike, I think what Minister Wright said that set Obama off was something to the effect that Obama will say anything to get elected.
(paraphrasing) “I answer as a Pastor, Obama answers as a Politician.”
In yesterday’s speech before the NAACP, Wright said that Obama “had” to distance himself because he must do what politicians do. In other words, Obama must distance himself from Wright (and thus, from the black church) in order to be electable. White America is not ready for the message of the black church.
“Obama must do what politicians do.” I think Wright was saying more than just “you have to do what you have to do,” (which is true of any of us and might be as benign as missing a meeting to go to a child’s ball game, because you promised you would.) I think Wright is saying that politicians must tell lies to get elected. And the specific lie Obama must tell distances himself from Wright.
Everyone has lied. But Wright is saying that politicians say whatever they need to to get elected. There is some truth here. This is disturbing to me (and the reason I said I like Wright more than Obama) in light of Obama’s campaign slogan “It’s Time For a Change.”
Thomas, I didn’t man to be Huffy. But I don’t want to type what I already said on my blog. Maybe I’m just lazy.
Please go there and read the discussion and especially read Rev. Mendez’s essay. I am a secondary source.
Helen,
I’ve just read the article by Rev John Mendez. As I’ve said, I take it on Juan Williams’ authority that this is not the view of most Black Americans and Black churches. I find this article by Mendez particularly distasteful. If you have a background in Marxism, this is classic Marxism. It’s not even repackaged to disguise itself. And I’m willing to guess that this man ascribes to Liberation Theology, which is, of course, Marxism in religious form.
Hey Helen. No problem. I know exactly what you mean
Hi Thomas, Rev. Mendez is my pastor. I love the man.
You know, Helen, I don’t much like the taste of my foot in my mouth…
My apologies, Helen.
I should have read your posts rather than just reading the article. I won’t speak ill of him again, and is there anything I can do to make it right by you?
Thomas, Your reply made me smile. Honestly. Please don’t apologize. Just know that I do believe racism is alive and well in the USA and that I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin (against both Native Americans and African Americans).
I doubt it will change your mind – God changed me in an instant – but do go to my blog and read my entries. You will find many others (many of them Christians) do not share my views. And if you read the transcript of Wright’s NAACP speech, you will find that when he was asked, if God loved white racist as much as He does black Christians, he responded by quoting John 3;16. “For God so loved the world. . . ” And when he was asked if God would allow those of other religions (other than Christianity) into heaven, Wright replied, “in my Father’s house are other mansions.”
Take your foot out of your mouth. We are all God’s beloved children.
our nation’s original sin (against both Native Americans and African Americans).
Except for the little fact that Amerindians owned slaves after the Civil War banned slavery. This nation didn’t create slavery but it sure ended it. Call that a sin if you must, but it is not a sin of America.
Helen,
I know personally that racism is alive and well in the US. It’s alive and well all over the globe because it is the universal human condition, not a product of America. I don’t think we can rid the earth of racism, but I think of all the countries in the world, the United States has done the most to mitigate it. Other nations, including Europe, don’t even come close.
I remember clearly when Wright said that at the NPC. How he reconciles that and calling America terrorists, indelibly racist and essentially, for lack of a better word, evil is beyond me. He tried to mitigate what he said after Sept. 11th in his now infamous, “G-d Damn America” by saying that he meant our government and not our people. However, you cut the cards, I think Wright has some heavyweight contradictions mulling about in his head. How else can you reconcile his statement that we’re all God’s children and at the same time believe that America is run by white racists who created AIDS to kill Black people.
I grew up in the Southeast Texas and I know for a fact that Blacks are treated more shabbily than other minority groups. But Wright takes this resentment and runs with it to incredibly extremist views, bordering on crazy conspiracy theories. I have also known many Black people who believe as Wright believes, and even many white people.
There are many things wrong with America, but there are also many more things right. Wright and others of his viewpoint accentuates the wrongs and embellishes it. Don’t you see that this belief is poisonous to the core? It will corrode everything and make the believer see nothing but resentment and decay even if they sit in the lap of luxury. It would make a ruin of everything it touches.
Okay, Y., So America didn’t invent slavery. But slavery was a part of this country since before the Revolution. Slavery, as practiced in the US, was a result of racism. (On other continents during other historical periods, slavery was a result of war. The winners took the losers as slaves. The children of slaves were free,) So while the US did not invent slavery, she sure did perfect it. Racism allowed the child to follow the condition of the mother (so slave owners could freely rape female slaves and keep their own illegitimate children in bondage). Kinda sounds a bit like sin. Maybe I’m mistaken.
The white settles took the native Americans land but did not enslave them, because they weren’t good slave material. After all, we “discovered” the New World. Never mind, it wasn’t lost and had perfectly good people living in it. But take it, we did. And we brought slaves from Africa. They were good material: black and inferior, they spoke many languages and found it difficult to rebel against their imprisonment. But rebel, they did. And when slave owners introduced them to Christianity, they had the audacity to think that “setting them free’ meant “setting them free.” Stupid black people then thought up liberation theology by drawing parallels to the Israelites who were imprisoned in Egypt and thinking God might love them, too.
YES, I call it a SIN.
Thomas, Answers to all of this are on my blog. Look under April 2008.
Helen,
I’m not following the logic here. But let me take a stab at it:
I can never take what Wright says at face value because I’m white (and by default a racist) and it is not possible to understand what he is saying because of the self imposed ignorance of whites to what the actual “truth” is.
Am I right?
I read Rev Mendez’s article as well as your posts and I can’t get over the feeling that people like Wright and Mendez do far more damage to race relations than my genetically inherited racist tendencies. But hey, who am I except for self imposed ignorant, racist white dude, what do I know?
Honestly Helen, I’m trying to understand how you see things from your point of view, but one has to suspend reason, deny logic and subjectively interpret what’s actually said by Wright to do that. In your world the truth seems to only be subjective; at the mercy of the emotions and preconceived notions of the one viewing it. Objective truth has no place. No matter what facts, data or logic is presented that refutes the so called “truth” it will be denied by people who have already determined what the “truth” is.
I ramble on; enlighten me please if I’m wrong.
Spiff
Hi Spiff, You are wrong.
Mostly we can’t take Wright at face value because we’ve heard too many snippets with bad interpretations. In other words, what he said has been taken out out of context. We need to begin with what Wright says, not what someone thinks he said. Even when Wright tries to explain, we get snippets of his explanations. Throw in a bit of white ignorance (meaning white people don’t know what to listen for in black rhetoric), and we have lots of misinformation. Not to mention half of what I said is on my blog not here.
I said, white people are either racists of recovering racists. I’m a recovering racist. I don’t know you and don’t know what you believe. I say this not because all white people are personally racist but because they do not speak out against institutional racism. In fact, we’re desensitized to the point that we don’t even know it’s there. We don’t plan to be racist or endorse being racist; we just don’t know what black people see as racist. And some of us don’t want to. Many white people don’t want to study black history, which is just American history from a black point of view. We’re so used to the victor writes the history that we accept as being right.
People like Wright and Mendez do not do damage to race relations. They speak frankly about the problems that already exist. If we bury our heads in the sand, ignored problems fester. Do we really want “The Fire Next Time”? Do we want race riots in our nation? Or do we want to calm and civilly (like Jimmy Carter
) to read and study and learn what a man like Jeremiah Wright means?
Blacks bring to a sermon their own experience just as whites do. When black people hear what Wright says, they applaud. He has walked in their shoes. Black preachers have a different style than white preachers. Did you catch how many times Wright repeated the word “different” in his speech”? Different learning styles, different . . . One isn’t better than the other; they are different. Did you hear Wright mention that in the “God Damn America” statement, he was quoting someone else?
Why suspend logic? What does quoting then removed from context mean, if not misunderstanding? How objective can you get? And besides did you hear what Wright had to say about white (left brain) vs. black (left brain) learning? I’m accused of being a socialist (read, un-American) and a virtual ding-bat ;_) from time to time. But I ramble on, too. Hoping against hope somebody might “get it.”
Mike –
You wrote exactly what I have been thinking all day as this story has progressed. This whole thing exposes Obama even further as a liar or an idiot, neither of which is something we want in a president.
And now even Helen is admitting that Obama “had to” lie. I didn’t realize that so many on the left believe that it is OK to lie to Americans and, as Bookworm said, hide one’s real beliefs in order to get elected.
Obama must think that most Americans are idiots. Still, I can’t help but think how hard this has been on him. I’m being serious. Politics is hard enough but when you are constantly having to cover your tracks and say things you don’t really believe and remember them so you contradict yourself as few times as possible later on down the road – it’s exhausting. You can see it in his face.
And then there is Wright, who does not appear to have any idea how stupid he looks and sounds.
Bookworm is right – this whole thing smacks of some Shakespearian comedy. At times, when I’m able to overlook the serious consequences all of this could have on the nation, I find myself giggling like a school girl!
But it also is tragic. It is sad that someone like Wright is getting national airtime. It is sad that someone like Obama is actually a serious contender for the American presidency. And it is most sad because the ambition, dishonesty, greed, ego, and racist beliefs of these two men are setting back race relations in this country in ways that few could have imagined possible just a year ago.
Deana
Mike,
I do think that Wright was accurate saying that Obama is a politician and will say what it takes to get him elected. However, obama is running an increasingly vulnerable campaign and at this timeI think Obama rightly saw this as a stab in the back, and by a mentor and ally of decades. Maybe my theory is simplistic, but Obama never disowned Wright over all the years he lied about the country he wants to lead. This time Wright attacked Obama’s own integrity though, not just America’s. Obama had to refute that, plus by extension, all the other crackpot ramblings of Wright. He had to show that this was just another crackpot ramble from an angry loose cannon. If he didn’t, by not condemning the other slanderous statements now, he would give legitimacy to the attacks on himself. I think it was self-protectionism this time.
So, I guess the Obama/Wright friendship is over? Wright is a clever man, glib and humorous. He weaves fact with fiction effectively. a grain of truth in a lie. a grain of lie in a truth- so everything gets blurred and people end up believing lots of lies overall. I don’t know if he is cynical, agenda driven, or if he really believes these things- but I don’t want him advising my president.
Obama has enjoyed a campaign full of adulation while revealing little, and until recently, with little criticism or exposure. Now he is experiencing what a real campaign is like. Candidates should be held accountable for choices, past actions, and alliances.
1Lulu –
I think you touch on something important. Obama spoke out this time NOT because all of a sudden the scales fell off his eyes and he saw Wright for what he is, but rather because Wright’s statement was “a show of disrespect to (him).”
So, let me get this straight. Wright can disrespect America from here to eternity but when he “disses” Obama, the gloves come off.
Gotcha.
Deana
Thanks to those who responded to my question about why yesterday’s speech was the last straw for Senator Obama. (By ‘yesterday’s speech’ I mean not the one for Detroit’s NAACP conference, but the National Press Club symposium kickoff)
I think Rev. Wright’s comments about Obama having to respond as a politician were no worse than what he said with Moyers nor at the NAACP meeting.
I think the points in the speech where he became very snide and insulting were no worse than those points in the sound bites from last month, nor at the NAACP meeting.
The *words* in the transcript were no worse, I still think.
But I have finally viewed the video. This was in fact a completely different presentation than what has come before. It’s all in the vibe, it’s not just in the words. The words themselves… there truly is nothing new there.
With Moyers, Wright was a totally calm, quiet fellow. Exceptionally polite and reasonable.
At the NAACP meeting, he was in full fiery bombast mode; he also slid in quite a variety of really nasty snide remarks… but they were minor chords that were rather lost among all the fiery sermonizing. He talked about the way white bands like Michigan State and U of M marched onto the field, and compared them to the way black bands marched onto the field. Uh, Reverend… hint… there are BLACK people in those white bands, doing those 1-3 times! Remember how insulting he was towards the white band approach? Remember how he described the flat, unemotional approach in non-Black churches with the fiery approach in black churches. OK, I’ll give him that one… but then he went and practically SPAT his sarcasm of the way a white preacher preaches compared to a black preacher… and this after saying that they are not deficient, just different! He can make all the “deficiency” slams he wants, but no one else can! This is just like the liberals who say blacks cannot be racists, only whites can.
I didn’t like those extraordinarily insulting moments, but they didn’t seem to be the POINT of the speech. I tried to accept the bombast and even ended up enjoying it. I really liked his slam on the outmoded educational approach of “readin, ritin, and ritalin”. Probably because I agree totally with him on that, but not just for so-called black students, but for, in general, boys as well.
Like most socialist leftists, Rev. Wright cannot distinguish between race and culture. At the NAACP he actually said this:
“African and African-American children have a different way of learning. They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style.”
Do you see how outrageous a statement this is! What’s unfortunate is that I agree 100% that there are learning style differences among us all! We *do* learn as individuals at different capabilities via aurally, visually, and hands-on tactilely presented information. But at best you can only make the claim that parents oriented towards the African cultural heritage will raise children oriented to right-brain thinking… BECAUSE OF THAT HERITAGE AND CULTURE! Not because they are black. You can only infer from this that Rev. Wright is an out and out, 100% racist. There may be some kind of genetic component to learning styles as there may be with shyness, but you’d better not claim that without proof, and you’d better not claim that the genetic markers are RACIAL in nature. Not without proof. I know too, too many black people in my industry, software, who are way more like me than they are like Rev. Wright, and whose learning style is a lot more like mine is, than apparently Rev. Wright’s is.
But, in closing, to yesterday’s appearance at the National Press Club… it *was* different. This was not a one-on-one. Nor was it a speech to a crowd that was guaranteed to be friendly. He was on a somewhat friendly stage (for the audience) and very unfamiliar stage (with the press crew in the balconies). His one-on-one calmness was gone, and his fiery bombastness was gone. So, what was left? Was that merely a very uncomfortable grin that kept resurfacing at the oddest of times, or was that a true smart-ass smirk that kept showing up? Sometimes I thought he was just very uncomfortable, and sometimes I thought the smirk was the true representation of what is in his soul.
The vibe was HORRIBLE between Rev. Wright and the young lady presenting the questions, during the Q&A session. Extraordinarily terrible. I don’t know if it was the bouncing back and forth and up and down between her and him, but they should not have tried to use the same microphone. Very very odd. He didn’t like it, and she handled it terribly poorly. It looked as if he despised her, and only sometimes remembered to despise only the questions. That was so very uncomfortable to watch. He handled it with an absolute minimum of grace.
So without the one-on-one vibe with Moyers, without the bombastic speech patterns in the friendly confines of the NAACP meeting… Rev. Wright here came across as a very bitter, very angry, very divisive man. Smirking and spitting out his insults with far too great a frequency, and with no bombast to conceal them. I thought the NAACP speech was rather extraordinary oration (though I disagreed with a lot of its themes). I thought this speech yesterday was simply ordinary… and at times downright nasty and vicious. Totally lacking in grace. During this speech yesterday, Rev. Wright was a profoundly unpleasant man.
If you believe in liberation theology, if you believe in what HE calls reconciliation, you are welcome at HIS conference. Else, get the f out of here, we have no USE for you! Is what I took away from it. The video was far, far worse than the transcript.
Yes, yes, Reverend… VERY admirable. VERY reconciling. Well done.
Book,
Great post… and analysis.
Wright is WRONG. (In spite of what HelenL says)
All black churches are not like his. (I am familiar with many)
All blacks do not believe as he does. (Many believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ – which seems foreign to him)
All black ministers do not believe the same racist “doctrine” as Wright. (Only a few)
And Helen, good to see your signature here heckling Bookworm. Also be nice to these Conservative folk who visit Bookworm..
Your old nemesis, ExPreacherMan, is watching you…
And Helen — for one who claims to know sound dispensational Bible teaching, you failed with an “F” when you said, “We are all God’s beloved children.” You know full well that in the Bible, Paul speaking to believers in Christ says:
Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
The whole world is the beloved creation of God, but only believers in Christ qualify as beloved children of God whether they be black, red, white, yellow or whatever. You know that.
Thanks again, Book.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
No. It’s “by any means necessary.” Haven’t you even heard of Malcolm X?
But slavery was a part of this country since before the Revolution.
Neither I, you, nor anyone else was born in this country, any part of this country, before the American Revolution. Nor did they live to see the beginning nor end of that war. So it doesn’t really matter given that slavery is no longer part of this country in the here and now, Helen. Unless you make it matter in some fashion.
Slavery, as practiced in the US, was a result of racism.
You mean the racist idea that blacks are inferior to whites because blacks couldn’t be as educated or well accomplished as whites?
Nobody ever owned slaves because they needed to prove that the black man was inferior to the whites. People owned slaves because nobody had the power and the will to stop people from owning slaves. Slavery is a result of an unbalanced power ratio between the slaves and the slave masters.
The idea that whites are still superior to blacks due to crime rates and what not, and thus this means whites owe blacks some kind of “economic equality” instead of equal opportunity under the law, is another derived form of racism, which you say caused slavery. After all, if blacks were as good as whites, why would blacks need hand outs from the whites? Unless the black folks couldn’t get “equality” by themselves, they had to be handed it via charity and noblesse oblige. And one has to wonder why that would be if blacks were as superior as whites.
The unfair and inequal power balance between slaves and slave masters have already been reproduced in the relationship between African Americans who give the white Democrat government votes in return for welfare and patronage.
So no matter whether slavery was because of racism or because of power imbalances, the end result for today’s America is still the same.
Stupid black people then thought up liberation theology by drawing parallels to the Israelites who were imprisoned in Egypt and thinking God might love them, too.
Socialists and Communists did that before them, you know. Harriet Tubman was codenamed Moses because she lead the slaves to the Promised Land via the Underground Railroad, run by white Catholics, Quakers, and what not.
I don’t know how you think Wright makes God love him by trying to destory the nation that protects him. Harriet Tubman fought for the Union against the South and didn’t sabotage the “white man’s war” just cause it was white people fighting, Helen. Tubman actually did something constructive and positive, even though her education level and speechifying skills were far lower than someone like Frederick Douglass’. And you try to make Wright out to be some guy redeeming people from sin?
I don’t think so.
I also can’t help but think about Michelle Obama through all of this.
Poor woman. I mean, clearly she agrees with Rev. Wright’s sentiments on whites and how horrible America is. But she wants her husband in the White House and there is no way that she isn’t painfully aware of how damaging Wright is to her husband.
Sorry – I can’t help it. I’ve had the TV on all night and watching the liberals squirm over this has been an absolute hoot! You’d think that at some point, they would get sick and tired of having to constantly adjust and clarify their stances on things. But they don’t. It just goes on and on and on.
Surely someone in the Democratic leadership is waking up to the fact that they are getting dangerously close to being ridiculed at the national level – and that is a death knell to anything in life, including a political campaign.
Deana
What on earth does “ridiculed at the national level” mean? Aren’t we still going to vote in November?
ExP –
Any words for us on Minister Wright’s (and Black Lib Theo’s) teaching that the blacks worship a different God than the whites?
HelenL -
If you do not understand how devastating ridicule can be, pls read Book 5 in the Chronicles of Narnia, *The Horse and his Boy*.
Or, picture Dukakis riding a tank with his helmet.
@ Helen Losse
Bookworm, Sometimes I think you really don’t “get it.” Other times, I think you just hate a number of liberals, no matter what they do.
Helen, many of us who used to be liberals DO have a loathing for the smug, smarmy self-righteous nonsense that leftists utter. I do. “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is our theme song. As I was in Berserkeley at its height, albeit only for a year, inhaling doses of Ronnie’s tear gas in the process, and have spent most of my life on or near university campuses, I know whereof I speak. Been there, done that.
In this case, I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church.
I taught one year at a school that got a lot of support from a nearby black super-church (big, on the freeway). What was preached at that church was NOT what the Reverend Wright preached. GD America et al did not emanate from that church’s pulpit, as it did from Wright’s.
I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin
I am not a churchgoer, but isn’t the point about original sin that it cannot be eliminated, cannot be eradicated? That original sin is endemic to the human condition? Chasing one’s tail…
When you call racism a disease, we have a fundamental disagreement. We have reached the stage where many diseases can be eliminated: polio and smallpox, for example. Deaths from yellow fever, from cholera, meningitis, for example, are but a pittance of what they once were. So we can do the same with racism, you imply.
The medical model for treating disease assumes that there is a disease agent, the pathogen, that comes from outside the human body. Identify the pathogen, prevent its contact with humans, and you can prevent occurrence of the disease. By contrast, racism did not come from outer space, nor from a microbe. Racism comes from inside our human souls. While racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism varies according to time and according to society, no human society anywhere has been entirely free of it. Call it fear of the stranger, if you will. I certainly saw enough evidence of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism when I worked outside the US to realize we had no monopoly whatsoever on that score. In fact, we came off pretty well.
While we can reduce racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism, and we certainly have reduced it in the last 50 years in the US, we can no more eliminate the “disease” of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism than we can eliminate the “diseases” of irresponsibility, murder, robbery, adultery, illegitimacy, avarice, anger, self-righteousness, pride, or parochialism.
While we can reduce racism, it is a misreading of the human condition to assume that humans can treat racism as if it were a disease foreign to themselves. The disease of racism. I am reminded of the nonsense of “scientific socialism.” Applying a medical model to a moral and social problem is a gross example of reductionism that is bound to fail.
That being said, I am not about to go out and put my white sheets on again. ( Tom Lehrer lyrics , “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie”)
Yes, Helen, we are going to vote in November.
Helen, people are LAUGHING at Wright.
Obama said one thing that was absolutely true today: Wright was a spectacle. He made such an excellent caricature out of himself that late night comics will have trouble making jokes about this because Wright already made a joke out of himself.
Then there is Obama. Helen, that man is LYING. In order for Obama to not admit that he has been lying, he is now having to get up in front of the American people and assure everyone that he is SO BAD a judge of character that he had absolutely no idea what Rev. Wright really believed, even though:
(A) Wright was his mentor and pastor for the past 20 years;
(B) Wright’s beliefs have been very well publicized in print and on the air; and
(C) Everyone else in America knows what Wright believes.
I mean – there is something hilarious about a presidential candidate getting up and using the “I’m a bad judge of character” as a defense or selling point!! That has to be a first in the history of presidential campaigns!
Deana
Everyone says that light is the best disinfectant. It’s the Lib’s favorite phrase. Let’s hope it works on “Black Liberation Theology” so that the healing can finally begin.
Deana
Please don’t feel badly for Michelle (grin) I think she’s quite used to squirming, biting her tongue and come to think of it…biting that hand that feeds her as well. Haven’t we all noticed how quiet Mrs. O has been after her snide remarks. No doubt gagged by the consultants.
For all those that have weighed in to the discussion:
The discourse on this subject has covered just about everything, except the obvious to me and that is Obama’s theme of hope and change and the now quite obvious association with someone who offers neither, the infamous Rev. Dudley Do-Wright/Wrong.
My initial analysis of Obama is confirmed:
He has a love/hate relationship with life and his associates. A vision of a future, but has been blinded by religious rhetoric, a gift of gab that has been diluted to apologies, a man, who is still a child politician. In a few words…clueless and dreamy. It wouldn’t matter what color he is nor the color of his preacher. It is Obama’s inability to size up the realities of political life that will best him.
Y.,
“Neither I, you, nor anyone else was born in this country, any part of this country, before the American Revolution. Nor did they live to see the beginning nor end of that war. So it doesn’t really matter given that slavery is no longer part of this country in the here and now, Helen. Unless you make it matter in some fashion.”
So, does the US Constitution, written around the same time, not matter to us either? Slavery still matters to black people. It affects their lives daily. White privilege allows us to ignore slavery except as a historic fact.
“And you try to make Wright out to be some guy redeeming people from sin?”
Yes. Exactly.
Ellie2,
Yes, ridicule is devastating. But who is going to “ridicule Democrats at the national level”? That’s what I’m asking. Yes, the Democrats could implode. They could also regroup and kick McCain’s butt. Time will tell. Time being the November elections.
Have you seen the videos the Democrats have with McCain saying he’d stay in Iraq for 100 years? He looks pretty stupid. This campaign is going to get ugly, but real ridicule won’t begin before the conventions.
Of course, the Republicans will ridicule the Democrats, and the Democrats the Republicans. But I don’t think that’s what Deana meant. And if Obama’s the Democratic candidate, will ridicule equal the racism he’s already faced? I have no idea. And I don’t think anyone here does either.
Hi ExP,
I read your narrow little blog all the time. I promised never to comment there again. And I have been true to my promise. What I didn’t promise was to remain silent concerning things of which you seem to have no knowledge, such as the Black Church. I bet you can’t name the seven historically black denominations. A church with a black preacher isn’t necessarily a Black Church in the historical sense. (There are entries on my blog. Go under April 2008 and find them, if you are interested. Feel free to comment on my blog, unless you use racial slurs or personal attacks.)
And yes, we are all God’s beloved children. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world. . . ” The world” means that means Jesus died for us all. For Jews, for Gentiles, for Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, for Calvinists and Lutherans and Presbyterians, for those marginal groups like Jehovah’s Witness and folks at the Salvation Army. . ), for Muslims, for New Agers, for Buddhists, for atheists, for blacks, for whites. . . . for the kinds you like and the kinds you don’t. Wright said the same thing.
God loves everyone. And wants everyone in heaven with him. Did you come here to tell Jewish bloggers they can’t go to “our” (white Christian) heaven? Shame on you. It’s one thing to tell people about Jesus, and quite another to tell them they aren’t God’s children because they don’t believe what you do.
Your God is too small. But you, my old nemesis so to speak, are my brother, whether you like it or not. And so is Jeremiah Wright, who explained that God loves a white racist as much as a black Christian. That sounds to me like a God who favors equality and loves justice and freedom.
The gospel (good news) is both personal and social. That’s what I’m saying about racism. There’s personal (individual) racism, and there’s racism so ingrained in American society that we don’t even recognize it. You don’t recognize your own narrowness (or maybe you rejoice in it), but as for me, I’d like to have sisters and brothers of all colors and religions.
Sorry, Bookworm, ExP thinks he’s been sent to straighten us out (especially me). Well, I escaped that kind of dogma. Praise the Lord.
And good night.
Okay, I’ve read the text of the ‘God D*mn America’ Speech. Wright was NOT quoting when he said that. I’ve read the entire speech, and to say that it is misunderstood because it is taken out of context is inaccurate in my opinion. Not to go all Dr. Suess on you or anything, but he said what he meant and he meant what he said.
I wrote a very long response to this thread, and the internet ate it, which may be a good thing
I will try again in the morning. DQ left a comment on my blog to which I will reply in the morning. (It gets late early on the east coast, so I’m going to bed.
And cold. 38 degrees, so we had to bring some plants inside.) In the meantime, I have several posts on my blog concerning Jeremiah Wright and the Black Church. FYI, ExP is no authority on the Black Church. Neither am I, but I have had a course at the graduate level in Black Religion.
If interested, look under April 2008 and find the appropriate entries. (There’s lots of poetry stuff there, too.) Please feel free to comment or not. I try to reply to all comments.
Goodnight everyone.
@ Helen
I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin
I am not a churchgoer, but isn’t the point about original sin that it cannot be eliminated, cannot be eradicated? That original sin is endemic to the human condition? Chasing one’s tail…
When you call racism a disease, we have a fundamental disagreement. We have reached the stage where many diseases can be eliminated: polio and smallpox, for example. Deaths from yellow fever, from cholera, meningitis, for example, are but a pittance of what they once were. So we can do the same with racism, you imply.
The medical model for treating disease assumes that there is a disease agent, the pathogen, that comes from outside the human body. Identify the pathogen, prevent its contact with humans, and you can prevent occurrence of the disease. By contrast, racism did not come from outer space, nor from a microbe. Racism comes from inside our human souls. While racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism varies according to time and according to society, no human society anywhere has been entirely free of it. Call it fear of the stranger, if you will. I certainly saw enough evidence of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism when I worked outside the US to realize we had no monopoly whatsoever on that score. In fact, we came off pretty well.
While we can reduce racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism, and we certainly have reduced it in the last 50 years in the US, we can no more eliminate the “disease” of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism than we can eliminate the “diseases” of irresponsibility, murder, robbery, adultery, illegitimacy, avarice, anger, self-righteousness, pride, or parochialism.
While we can reduce racism, it is a misreading of the human condition to assume that humans can treat racism as if it were a disease foreign to themselves. The disease of racism. I am reminded of the nonsense of “scientific socialism.” Applying a medical model to a moral and social problem is a gross example of reductionism that is bound to fail.
That being said, I am not about to go out and put my white sheets on again. ( Tom Lehrer lyrics , “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie”)
In order to have spent 20 years with Rev. Wright, Obama would have either have had to
1) agree with him
2) be scarily oblivious
3) be willing to ally himself with someone espousing these repugnant views to advance his career.
Multiple choice quiz. More than one answer possible.
Any answer reveals either a hopelessly morally compromised or incompetant candidate.
Good night, Helen! Good night, John-boy!
P.S. I do see where Wright was quoting on the ‘chickens come home to roost’ statement. But I don’t understand the point of saying it was a quote or that it was taken out of context, as he CLEARLY agreed with the sentiment and thought we were getting what we deserved. He got quite excited about it, really.
Helen
I finally agree with something you said “ExP is no authority – PERIOD! He doesn’t get to say who are G-d’s children, no matter what books he’s reading.
BOOKWORM:
FREE ME FROM MODERATION, PLEASE. #45
HelenL – I’ve tried to simply sit back and observe the discourse in order to better understand your point of view. However, now is the time to step in and if I come across as harsh, my apologies in advance.
Your comment “white people are either racists of recovering racists. I’m a recovering racist” reveals much about you. One thing I notice is that you have a very poor sense of history, as Ymarsaker has already pointed out. There was nothing necessarily unique or unduly vicious about “white slavery” or “white racism”. You cannot have traveled much of the world if you think Americans are uniquely racist – I have traveled much of the world and I can assure you that the United States is a model of racial enlightenment compared to the vast majority of peoples and countries.
Secondly, white Americans didn’t “bring” slavery to this country – the resident native Americans were already quite practiced at it. Never mind the Maya and Aztec…I live in Illinois. As Fr. Marquette described when he first met them, the primary source of economic activity by my state’s namesake tribe was slave trading between tribes. He also noted how they punished slaves and wives for infractions by cutting off their noses and ears. Some tribes, such as the Huron and Polynesians, were noted for eating their slaves when times were bad. Slavery was practiced by virtually all people all over the world and chattel slavery continues in some parts of Africa and the Middle East today. Though illegal, sex slavery still continues pretty much worldwide. If you want a global sense of perspective on racism and slavery, instead of wallowing in your own perceived sins as a white person, I strongly recommend that you read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s (an African American) discourses on the subjects, which is based on scholarly research rather than emotion.
Third, about my own family history. Only a small part of my family was even in the United States at the time of the Civil War and they were Germans who fought with the Union. My other family members came much later. Those “white” people at the time of the Civil War lost 700,000 dead (in a population of only about 20 million) – never mind the number maimed and rendered destitute – paying for the sins of slavery. No other country has paid such a price to fight and defeat what was a world institution of slavery. You, my dear, have paid no such price and, fortunately, you don’t need to. Meanwhile, today, only about 50% of blacks can trace their ancestry to that period. Say what you will, I don’t believe that I and my own owe a dime’s worth of reparation or guilt to any black person that nurses grievances about their ancestors’ slavery 150 years ago. My word to them is to “get over it!”.
I am convinced that our race relations today would be in far better shape had it not been for the constant exploitive grievance mongering of Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Wright, your own preacher and other proto-Marxist race-baiters following the traditions of W.E.B Du Bois. Parts of the black community have far greater problems to deal with than perceived racism by whites and these race mongers have done their darnedest to make sure these problem not only don’t get addressed but get worse. In my hometown of Chicago, elderly blacks and children are being gunned down regularly by other members of their community and, other than flapping their gums and blaming white people, I haven’t noticed any of the race baiters like Jesse Jackson do much about it. Of course they wouldn’t – there’s no money in it. As far as I am concerned, it is these grievance mongers who have kept black people down. They are no better than the freed blacks who bought and sold their own people for a profit during the era of slavery.
You see, HelenL – for many of us, black and white, true “racism” is when you put people into neat little boxes based upon the color of their skin. This is what Martin Luther King was really getting at and what made him a national hero for making us confront. To that point, in your discourses, I note you neatly define “us” as black or white and attribute our worldviews, opinions and mindset based thereon. You may have studied MLK’s talk, but you never learned the walk. Frankly, I don’t think you appreciate how offensive and frankly (forgive me here, I do not mean to anger) racist a perspective you project. If you feel a need to wallow in your own perceived racism (refer to quote above) – fine! However, don’t point your accusatory world view at the rest of “white” humanity. I think that you can be a better person than that.
Sadie, Well, okay, but the book he is reading, and quoting, is the Bible. Seems like a pretty good authority on the subject, doesn’t it?
“The Chickens Come Home to Roost” is a quote from Malcolm X.
see the speech http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm
Problem is you folks don’t know black history. Blacks folks know what’s a quote without Wright telling them.
More later.
Members of the “black church” speak out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pastors30apr30,1,875299.story?track=rss
Danny – A masterful post! Thank you for taking the time to write that. I enjoyed it.
Helen – Danny is absolutely correct and your problem is that he is using actual, documented history to make his point. Meanwhile, you are claiming that the black people in Wright’s church knew that “the chickens coming home to roost” was a quote from Malcolm X.
So what? What does that prove?? That Wright really didn’t mean what he was saying (that America deserved what it got on September 11th)? Then what was the point of Wright “quoting Malcolm X” if he did NOT agree with him?
Look, Helen – Wright was NOT quoting Malcolm X for two reasons:
1) When you quote someone, you are supposed to give that person credit. Somehow, somewhere, Wright got his Ph.D. He should be very aware of this. Being in a pulpit is NO excuse for not properly attributing something to someone.
2) More importantly, that idiom is as OLD AS DIRT!!!!! According to the Christine Ammer’s American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, the “chickens coming home to roost” was written by Robert Southey in 1809. Other sources believe that the idea of “chickens coming home to roost” is as old as Chaucer.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that Wright honestly believes that America is to blame for September 11th. He has said it over and over and Obama is just now getting around to disowning him.
Please.
Deana
I posted an Answer to Don Quixote at http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/answer-to-don-quixote/
Helen –
The discussion we are having is here, on Bookworm’s blog. Questions that are posted here should be answered here.
Why don’t you simply double post your answer so you address people’s questions in both places?
Deana
Don Q
It depends upon how one quotes from the Bible (in/out) of context. The word of G-d seems to be a subjective matter of interpretation from the reader and believer.
I took issue with quoting from the New Testament, which justifies one belief, but leaves other beliefs in the wind.
Helen,
When you pointed out that Rev. Wright was quoting someone else, I thought you were attempting to mitigate the offensiveness of what he said. I thought you were saying his words were taken out of context and don’t mean what you think they do.
However, having read your links, especially the Malcolm X link, it think it is pretty clear that I misunderstood you. The homework you assigned has done nothing to decrease the offensive nature of Rev. Wrights speeches…if anything, it does the opposite.
So I am left wondering what exactly it is that you are trying to convey about our misunderstanding of Rev. Wrights speeches?
Are you saying that when he said the chickens are coming home to roost that we are wrong to be offended, not because we don’t understand what he means but rather because we don’t understand that he is right? That we did deserve 9/11?
And when he says God D*mn America we are wrong to be offended, not because we don’t understand what he means, but rather because we have structured our country in such a way that God SHOULD d*mn it unless we overthrow our present government?
I forgot to ask about the racist part, but I guess I don’t have to. You have already been pretty clear on that point – we ARE all racists, etc., etc.
So blacks folks think AL Qaeda is like Malcom X’s operations in that they were both “chickens coming home to roost” due to America’s sins?
Danny, the LA Times article you linked to corroborates the 8:24 p.m. anecdote I had about my experience with a black church. The one I had contact with via a former job was a very impressive organization, a blessing to its community.
Okay Deana, Here’s what I posted to my Blog (but on my blog I have used bold type for emphasis. I cannot do that in a comment on Bookworm’s blog. That’s on reason I did it on my blog, rather than here):
Answer to Don Quixote
Hi DQ,
I don’t know where to start. I just left the URL for the Malcolm X speech at Bookworm’s blog. Here it is again. (only it vanished in transition)
.
Okay. You’re a lawyer, right? Now we all know lawyers use a specific kind of language in legal documents – the kind most of us, including lawyers, don’t speak conversationally. And we all know that black folks can speak among themselves so that white people catch only a bit of what they’re saying. In other words, groups of people (people in given professions, etc.) often use dialect, tone, or vocabulary that complicates communication with those outside the group. Literary criticism uses references to images that are useless unless one has read the work from which they come.
Black preaching (preaching in the slave tradition) includes several elements that make it different from white preaching. Black preachers use what’s called “set pieces” – parts of a sermon that are memorized – and combine them in various ways to make new sermons. These set pieces often included quoted material. Unlike white preachers who usually hold up the book from which these quotes are taken, black preachers do not. Black preachers (and some white preachers) borrow freely from one another. King’s “I have a dream” is a perfect example of a set piece. Not the whole speech, but the part where he deviates from his prepared text. Entire books have been dedicated to the study of King’s 1963 speech. You think I’m dodging the question. Come on lawyer.
What I’m saying is that when Wright’s congregation heard “chickens come home to roost,” they knew immediately that Wright was quoting Malcolm X. They knew what parts of the speech were quoted. Likely they had heard them before in other sermons, maybe by other preachers. What white people think is racially divisive is fact to black folks. Wright isn’t “breeding hate and racist discord”; he’s telling it like it is. And then, in a part of the sermon, I’m sure we didn’t hear, he gave an altar call and beckoned the sinners to bring their burdens to Jesus. Wright’s goal is reconciliation – sinner to Christ, black to white.
Not all churches with black pastors and black congregations are considered Black Churches in the historical sense. There are seven historic black denominations (elsewhere on this blog, maybe in a comment.)
**
Let’s try again. We have that proverbial partially filled water-glass. Is it half full or half empty? It’s both, but how we express it says something about us. Some Americans think that it’s half full: America isn’t perfect, but it’s the best nation our world has ever seen. Other Americans think it’s half empty: America is flawed, but with some very hard work she has the potential to become the best nation the world has ever seen. I think you are half-fuller, and Wright is a half-emptier. Who’s right? I say both are.
But the person who sees the glass as half empty speaks as a pessimist (from the point of view of the other, the optimist). The optimist screams that pessimists should be happy with what they have. The pessimist states what he sees as the flawed status quo. Does this mean he is without hope? I don’t think so. I see lots of room for discussion. There is more common ground than uncommon: Both groups love America. But one is more likely to be satisfied with the status quo than the other. Does that make the unsatisfied “evil”? Pointing out positive facts is “good,” but pointing out negative facts is “evil”?
**
Now let’s jump back to the racial issue and throw in the glass illustration. The whites are the optimists, who see America as doing “better” in race relations that ever before. They are right. The blacks are the pessimists who see that America has not yet achieved racial equality. This is over-simplified and stereotypical (in other words, only partially true). Some blacks fit the half full mold, and some whites fit the half empty one. Combine that with conservative and liberal views, different religious understandings, etc., and no wonder we don’t know what a person means by what he says.
But it’s too easy to call everyone who doesn’t see things the way we do a liar. It just isn’t true. It’s like all the folks who scream I live by emotion only I’m the one who knew that “chickens come home to roost” was quoted, and I knew where. That’s a fact. It’s a fact they didn’t know. Let’s not play “my facts are better than your facts,” okay?
I do not know the source of all that Jeremiah Wright said, but I do not think he is a liar. If he said he was quoting, I think he was. But it has been very hard to hear Wright in context. Primary sources are the best way to make valid judgments on what is and isn’t said. But if we are unfamiliar with the subject matter, we might need some secondary sources as well. When I wanted to find Malcolm X’s speech, I used Google. But I had two facts to go on.
**
Another aside. Do lawyers ever criticize other lawyers? Other than the public battles in the court room. Do one lawyer ever question another lawyers judgment? I bet they do. Do lawyers ever question the law? Poets criticize other poets. Historians make a living criticizing other historians. Okay. Do American have a right to criticize America? Do you? Why? Is Wright an American? How did he loose this right? Why is he “evil” by offering a view whereby dialog may bring change and change may bring us closer to equality?
What Wright offers America is hope.
Helen,
Malcolm X didn’t use the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” in connection with 9/11; Rev. Wright did. It makes no difference whether Wright used a phrase originated by someone else, or that black people would understand the reference. The point is that he chose that phrase because it expressed his point of view. How on earth does nit picking on the issue of who originated the phrase, or whether it was a quote or reference to some historical figure alter the fact that by using that phrase, Wright is saying that America deserved 9/11? That’s the problem. Nothing else.
Sadie, (and HelenL as an Aside),
As DQ says, the Book I study and believe is the Holy Bible.. New and Old Testaments.
About God’s Children –
Agreed, I don’t get to say who are God’s children but the Bible spells it out quite emphatically. If you do not believe either the Old or New Testament, I understand — and that is your prerogative. I would never try to force you to believe God. But when the God of the universe speaks, we should all listen.
Please let me clarify my statement. There are a couple of statements in the Old Testament where God speaks of Israel as His children and in others of “His people.” So these are the children of Israel who believed the prophecy that their Messiah would come. These are likewise Children of God.
We Christians belive that same Messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament says:
1 Samuel 15:1
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over His people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
Speaking to Israel in Deuteronony 14:1
Ye are the children of the Lord your God:
Wright has spoken against Israel, white Christians, in favor of Hamas (in one of their Sunday bulletins), in favor of Louis Farahkan (Muslim) who condemns Israel, the Jews and America. Great friends and associates — and Obama just now found out?
As I said in my original post Wright is WRONG!
Even when we ignore Him or pervert His words, God still loves the whole world — specifically, you and me — all of us…. John 3:16
And Helen… you know, since you say you read my Blog, that I have never and will never make racial slurs as you accuse. False accusations will gain for you neither friends nor followers.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
Judyrose, I agree that Wright was saying the US deserved 9/11. The problem is, thoughts of the “rugged US individual”tend to make us believe he meant the victims got what they deserved. Wright didn’t say that. He was talking about the US governing policies not the people in the buildings, who did nothing that morning except go to work. Black and white died together in the insanity of 9/11. But could the events have been prevented? Wright thinks so. So do I.
Violence begets violence; only nonviolent actions can bring about the possibility of peace.
Jack, you don’t have to make racial slurs to be a racist. All good men have to do to allow evil to prevail is nothing. That’s what you’re doing about racism. You are trying to make this about your Biblical view. This is about race, not about you trying to convert the Jews, namely Sadie. Back off!!!
Well, Helen, we disagree yet again. I still maintain that this is an accurate equation:
non-violent people + al qaeda = dead non-violent people
Thinking that America deserved 9/11 and thinking that it perhaps could have been prevented are two different things. You just will not condemn this man no matter what he says.
And as for making a distinction between whether America deserved 9/11 or the people in the WTC deserved 9/11, that’s just obfuscation. Save your two-step for the dance floor.
Judy,
“non-violent people + al qaeda = dead non-violent people”= martyrs
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Martin Luther King, Jr., speech in Detroit, June 23, 1963.
No, I will not condemn Rev. Wright. I like him.
The distinction I have made is the difference I’ve been talking about since the first time I commented on Bookworm’s blog. It makes all the difference. Life is social as well as personal. Both matter but they are different.
Helen,
You said”Violence begets violence; only nonviolent actions can bring about the possibility of peace.”
You know full well that is not true — without the violence of Patriotic Americans against the racist Nazi’s you would be speaking German (or Russian or Japanese) right now. BookWorm has written at length, in thanks, for Americans liberating Germany. I agree.
Also, you must know Sadie personally — I do not and I did not know she is Jewish. If she is, good for her!! Nothing at all wrong about that — my Savior is Jewish. I have no intention of “converting” Sadie. but again you should know (as the great Bible scholar) that God loves the whole world (His creation) and wants everyone to believe in Jesus to become His children. Some choose to do so, some choose otherwise. Their choice. No one can force such a decision.
BTW, If you have a recording of a clear Biblical Gospel message and invitation from Jeremiah Wright, please send it to me.
I asked the same of you when you stated that you are an ML King scholar. You made the same claim about King, but you never could find any such information.
Wright is a political person — King was a political person (different politics). Their choice.
Wright poses as a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he is a preacher of racism, hate and is stirring up racial strife. Obama had Wright as a “mentor and friend” for 20 years. Obama is indeed a “bad judge of character” as he himself claims. (Just as are Obama’s devotees).
“A bad judge of character” does not make a great resume’ for one seeking the White House.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
Helen, if you think being a martyr is better than defending yourself, then we probably should not continue to waste any more of each other’s time. “People who are willing to die for what they believe in” includes those who are willing to die fighting for what they believe in. I know you believe that fighting includes talking. That’s true. But where we part company is over the idea that there are people who will not talk to you, or if they do talk, will lie to you until you go away believing you have made progress (Jimmy Carter, anyone?) while they make preparations to kill you later. But like I said, waste of time.
Jack,
Please stop telling me what I must know. You said, “You know full well that is not true.. . .” Do you know what I think better than I do. And as for your sarcastic, “great Bible scholar,” that should lead me to “know . . . that God loves the whole world (His creation) and wants everyone to believe in Jesus to become His children.”
Bible scholars, like lawyers and historians and poets, fight all the time about what verse mean. And when did I claim to be a great Bible scholar?
I don’t know Sadie (or that she is Jewish) but she and I agree. We are all the children of God. It is wonderful to believe we are God’s chosen. It is foolish to believe that God chose only us.
I have a recording of MLK giving an altar call on a cassette tape that accompanies the book “A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration From the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.” edited by Clayborne Carson. New York: Warner Books, 1998. You can probably get it through Amazon.com.
It is difficult to hear these because many churches turn the recorder off just after the sermon. I guess, they want to respect the privacy of the worshipers.
I have not heard an altar call by Rev, Wright, but it might be different. MLK was a progressive Baptist, while Wright belongs to the Church of Christ.
Neither Wright nor King was a political person first. King always insisted he was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ above all else. I don’t know what Wright says about this. Neither of these men nor me gives the gospel to your satisfaction. But in the end, it’s about satisfying God not you. Or is there something I ought to know about that too.
I believe that every Christian must be prepared to answer when asked “the reason for our hope.” On this blog, no one has asked me. And it’s my guess, no one asked you. That’s just a guess, you ol’ nemesis.
Poor Helen. I must be difficult holding up your side of every argument all alone on this site!You need to recruit some like-minded friends to stop by here after they visit your site.
Helen:
Not to worry about conversion here. I am sticking to the original KFC recipe for prayer and thought.
You have all spent a lot of time dissecting Wright and have overlooked the real matter, which is still Obama and his lack of good judgment. Since none of us know any of the candidates personally, we are left to make decisions by observation, voting records, by the company they keep, some personal history and most importantly what they say and how it backs up their commitments on the record or not.
Until Obama is sure of what he believes, how can any voter believe what he says.
Wright said that Obama must act as a politician.
In a political move, Obama has tried to distance himself from Wright. Obama said he didn’t believe everything Wright said in his sermon excerpts and speeches of the past few days. He didn’t identify the specific things with which he didn’t agree.
“I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church. At this time, I must say I understand Wright more than I do Obama (unless Wright is right about that, too, that Obama – as a politician – must distance himself from Wright to gain votes) in which case I just like Wright more than Obama. Wright is telling the truth. Obama may not be.” (see my #8 above)
Wright is free to say whatever he wants (bound only by his relationship to God).
Obama, however, must say things that will attract votes. Obama knows exactly what he believes. He’s just acting like a politician, just like Wright said.
Obama must distance himself from Wright (and therefore the black church) to get votes. Obama isn’t confused about anyone’s character. He’s saying what he has to. That’s why I said I like Wright’s honesty better than Obama’s political dodge-ball tactics. Obama didn’t invent the political lie. But if he wants to be elected, he has to play the game.
This isn’t rocket science. The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church so Obama is distancing himself and talking “family values.” Like blacks don’t have any. LOL
And I would say too, that your Parents must have eventually been happy that there were American soldiers willing to sacrifice all and be violent to liberate Germany.
Sweet talk never have made the grade,. ie Neville Chamberlain.
ExP(Jack)
The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church
Nor will it ever be ready for such tomfoolery. Black Jews…. White Romans…. (love my garlic, sorry Reverend)…I don’t mind the Black Jews part: “let my people go” et al. But when he later goes on about Unjust Israel. Do I then conclude Unjust Black Jews? It seems a bit of a contradiction on the Reverend’s part to identify w Biblical Jews, then go on about Unjust Israel and praise Louis Farrakhan. Talking about loving one’s enemies while one’s tone of voice is dripping with hatred. Sorry, this here dumb white racist ain’t buyin’ no way no how that there Bridge in Brooklyn, at least not with greenbacks. I would be willing to pay for that Bridge in Brooklyn with Monopoly money, however. That’s all the Good Reverend is worth.
so Obama is distancing himself and talking “family values.” Like blacks don’t have any. LOL
A 69 % illegitimacy rate among blacks might make one conclude that such values are far from being universally held. A similar conclusion could be drawn from the 31% illegitimacy rate among whites –increasing while the black rate is stable.
2008 Statistical Abstract of the US: 85 – Births to Teens, Unmarried Mothers, and Births With Low Birth Weight, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 2005.(births section)
From another perspective, it doesn’t matter anymore what Obama says. All that Obama has said in the last two months regarding the Reverend Wright was done with regard to creating a certain effect. I never got the impression that he was speaking from the heart. From these escapades I get the impression that it is impossible for Obama to speak from the heart, because he has none. Obama is the Tin Man come to life, all hollow inside.
>>The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church >>
This is such BS. Black Liberation Theology is Marxism disguised as religion. Obama is a Saul Alinsky disciple who like his original mentor has used religion to gain entry in a community that is vulnerable to hate mongering. The hate and dissatisfaction is necessary to agitate rebellion, which is necessary for revolution – “change” as Obama calls it.
Blacks will achieve equality as they earn it. Before 1960, something like 50% of blacks were below the poverty line. Now it’s more like 25%. But no one can _give_ a man equality – equality is earned.
You (Helen) say we’re racist – that _all_ whites are racist. Well, I disagree. If it is as you say, then there is no option other than a race war.
How else do you see equality coming about?
You _do_ realize how condescending you are, don’t you?
Oh yeah…and re: Wright, Obama. the Jews and the Palestinians:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/post_12.html
Helen –
You say in post # 73 that you will not condemn Rev. Wright and that you like him. I would be interested in your thoughts on the following two issues:
1. Do you believe that it is hypocritical, problematic, or even somewhat awkward that Reverend Wright, who has led a church that “disavows the pursuit of middleclassness” and is “committed to the black community,” has decided to move into a $1.6 million dollar home in Tinley Park, an overwhelmingly rich, white suburb of Chicago?
2. Let’s forget for just a moment the actual content of Rev. Wright’s speeches this weekend. Do you believe that he conducted himself in a way that was respectful to God, other Americans, or Obama, one of his parishioners? Do you believe he acted in a way that is consistent with an educated professional (particularly one who is trying to convince others to believe him)?
The reason I ask is this: For the past 16 years, I have worked for or spent a lot of time around people in the legal, federal consulting, medical, and academic professions, and I have NEVER seen ANYONE, regardless of their race, behave the way Rev. Wright behaved this weekend. Professionals, especially those with advanced degrees, simply do not behave that way in public. They don’t roll their eyes, make silly hand gestures, wag their heads, march, sing, blow into the mike, or mimic and mock others during presentations.
Helen – please don’t say that this is just one of many things black people do that white people “aren’t ready” to understand. There are just too many professional black Americans who get up every day and go out and do their jobs and share their opinions with others in a calm and professional manner to give any credence to the idea that Wright’s behavior is consistent with that of other professional black Americans.
Thanks for your thoughts, Helen.
Deana
Read this: http://koulflo.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/jeremiah-wright/#comment-161
That’s very interesting, Helen. Your link leads us to a post that says
“The test for America is whether it is willing to listen and incorporate Mr. Wrights insights into a larger conversation about these topics. Such a conversation would be much more informative than the worthless conversations about “bitterness” and so forth.”
and
“The media does an injustice to Wright, to Obama and to the country by excluding about 90% of Wrights comments which were insightful, and incredibly informative.”
I’ve noticed on this thread you have attempted to lead the conversation in that direction yourself – you’ve said we got our information out of context. You’ve mentioned that the media did not air sermons in their entirety. You’ve provided links to informationli that you thought we should read/listen to.
More than one commentator on this thread has indicated to you that they have followed your links, read the information and had more questions for you..often based on the info in the links you provided. Most of us have indicated our disagreement. Some of us have indicated that the links you have provided seemed as or even more damning than the information we were working with before.
In any case, the vast majority of the comments have been polite attempts to engage you in real conversation and debate.
It’s interesting that you now see the need to let us now in more straight forward words how ignorant you find us to be. Also interesting is the fact that you feel we cannot ‘deal with it’.
I am only speaking for myself here, but I find the hubris and lack of respect you just demonstrated here to be astounding.
Helen –
What questions did you intend Koulflo’s post to answer?
Deana
What is even more interesting is the fact that you were not directing us to the post, but rather to your comment on the post.
I don’t think she was, Deana..if you look at the link, she is directing us to her comment.
Hey Tap – When I first looked at Koulflo’s post, I didn’t see Helen’s commentary. Now I see it.
Helen – I know it must be very trying for you on this site at times but you have NO IDEA how much we all appreciate your insight into race relations here at bookworm.com. Don’t despair!
Deana
And look! We’re up to comment number 91. Without Helen, we’d probably have stopped in the teens. This is way more fun when Helen comes to play.
Relieving the world of ignorance, one post at a time!
You all are much more patient than I am.
I find Helen’s position that we are all ignorant racists offensive and condescending. The idea that all whites are either racists or recovering racists is no less racist than saying all blacks are criminals or criminals in training.
Helen’s answer to every challenge is:
You don’t understand what Wright said because:
a. blacks have a special code or way of talking that only they understand,
b. we are too ignorant,
c. we are racist, or
d. all of the above
When asked for clarification she sends us on scavenger hunts around the internet. This inevitably only makes her position seem worse or generates more questions which restarts the whole cycle outlined above.
What I am getting from all of this is that it is completely ok for people like Wright to make racist jokes in a public setting (like mocking how a white preacher speaks) because he is speaking the “truth”. I wonder, what would happen if a white priest said similar things in a similar public setting.
Helen, I will listen to the likes of Wright, when they are held to the same standards and expectations of civility as white public figures and leaders. In fact, I find the left’s lowered expectations of blacks that give them a pass on civility in public discourse, because of actual historical or perceived racism/hardship, racist in of itself. In Helen’s world view, racism is completely acceptable as long as it isn’t white folks partaking in it. As far as I am concerned racism is ugly regardless of who does it (because a racial minority cannot possibly racist in the United States). But who am I except for an ignorant racist (recovering racist) white dude.
Spiff
Further answer to DQ (on my blog) who claims, I’m not answering his question and mentions that I could delete his comment.
Hi DQ, I don’t delete comments that don’t agree with me. I only delete ones that use racial or ethnic slurs or engage in personal attacks on me or someone else who has left a comment. You don’t ever do any of those things. So you’re here forever or until I delete the whole blog.
People keep telling me I’m not answering them. I think I’m not giving them answer they want to hear. Wright is using rhetoric, hyperbole (that’s exaggeration); he’s speaking poetically, giving an image. Quit with the facts vs. lies contest. Look for truth not facts.
Wright said that black people are right brained. They learn from stories. Whites are left brained; they learn from facts. Of course, this is an over-simplification. People from either group can be right or left brained.
Here’s a breakdown: See http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
“big picture” oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can “get it” (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking
I’m right brained. I guess Wright is, too. The HIV illustration is a story not a lie. It’s an example of the kind of thing our government might do.
I don’t know how much more I can say, DQ.
HL
Wow, are we condescending or what? You might benefit from reading Book’s post on anger.
Who’s angry?
Hi Helen –
You appear to believe that “stories” do not harm people. You also appear to think that there is a big difference between truth and facts. Let me take a moment and illustrate how harmful these two beliefs can be.
You state that Wright’s claim that HIV was invented by the government to kill black people is a story, not a lie.
Helen, have you stopped to think how dangerous this HIV “story” is to black Americans?
Have you considered that because of Wright’s claims, black Americans who believe Wright (and even those who honestly don’t know whether he is right) are going to be that much more reluctant to seek proper medical help when they actually need it?
What about black teens who have one of the highest risks of getting HIV? Don’t you think Wright’s “story” might make them doubt the importance of getting tested? Don’t you think there is danger in his incessant effort to plan the seed of doubt in the heads of others?
Or do you think that all black Americans out there, even the uneducated or young ones, know that Wright is telling a “story” that is demonstrably false only to illustrate something that is not a “fact” but might be “true?”
Does that not seem convoluted to you?
Deana
P.S. And, Helen, you still have not answered my question from post #84.
“Wright said that black people are right brained. They learn from stories. Whites are left brained; they learn from facts. Of course, this is an over-simplification. People from either group can be right or left brained.”
It’s not an over-simplification. It’s just plain stupid… which you already know – just read the last sentence of your own paragraph.
Geez!!!!
Deana Questions from #84
1. Do you believe that it is hypocritical, problematic, or even somewhat awkward that Reverend Wright, who has led a church that “disavows the pursuit of middleclassness” and is has decided to move into a $1.6 million dollar home in Tinley Park, an overwhelmingly rich, white suburb of Chicago?
I’ve seen pictures of the house. But I didn’t know his church “disavows the pursuit of middleclassness.” I’m not even sure what it means. I guess it means materialistic. But there’s nothing innately wrong with living in a big, expensive house. And I guess “committed to the black community” means they support black families in the church and the community. That sound like most churches, black and white – support your members and support those who live nearby.
I think you’re asking if Wright should be spending money on the house. Why not, if it’s his money? Black people like nice things, too. And we are integrated, as far as housing is concerned.
2. Let’s forget for just a moment the actual content of Rev. Wright’s speeches this weekend. Do you believe that he conducted himself in a way that was respectful to God, other Americans, or Obama, one of his parishioners? Do you believe he acted in a way that is consistent with an educated professional (particularly one who is trying to convince others to believe him)?
yes. I do not think he was disrespectful.
yes. Obviously the folks at the NAACP convention “got it.” Did you hear the applause?
You are. And so is Minister Wright. But listen to our patroness and learn:
“We see even today that the Left is very, very angry. Despite the fact that life in America is, for most people, very good and certainly is, again for most people, better than it’s ever been at any other time or place in history, the Left sees America in only the grimmest terms. America is an evil oppressor. America intentionally hurts people. America lives to abuse people for racist reasons.”
I (Ellie , not BW) could make so many comments/jokes over your recommendation “Look for truth not facts.” ……”my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” or “who are you going to believe: me or your lying eyes?” Or “you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your facts.”
In my mind, Minister Wright’s (and his ilk) great crime is that he preaches racial hatred against Whites — painting them all with the same brush of hatred and guilt. He renews this hatred generation to generation. He ignores the facts that a) blacks grabbed and sold fellow blacks to slavers and b) from the beginning a large number of Whites fought against it. Can you spell Wilberforce? How about Harriot Beecher Stowe? How about Julia Ward Howe? (hint: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free?”)
And you know what? After the Civil War, the United States founded a new African Country Liberia. We sent any freed slaves who wanted to go home there. And you know what? The freed slaves from America arriving on the African shores, made slaves of the natives. And you know what? In Africa today, people are still being grabbed and sold in slavery, by Blacks.
So who’s angry? I am, too. Because I once believed in the dream. But now I see that Minister Wright doesn’t want equality or freedom, he wants revenge.
Bw, late on the east coast so I’m signing off but post 100 needs you..
So, does the US Constitution, written around the same time, not matter to us either?
Since the US Constitution is not considered by me as a sin but racism is considered as an original sin that passes down through the generations, regardless of intent, forgiveness, compassion, or good works by the current generation, what do you think, helen?
The US Constitution matters because people make it matter. They make it work because they obey it, its tenets. The same is true of racism as I mentioned. It isn’t an issue unless you make it an issue and ensuring that racism is alive and well can be considered “making it an issue”.
It affects their lives daily.
Slavery is something blacks willingly live in under the Democrat institutional racism that people want to get rid of but prefer to fight Republicans instead. Sure it affects their lives daily, just as the US Constitution affects people’s lives daily because they assent to the Constitution.
He looks pretty stupid
That is what propaganda and deception are for.
I bet you can’t name the seven historically black denominations.
I bet you can’t name the 4 parts of the OODA cycle from memory, Helen, yet you don’t particularly care to place any limitation on yourself when speaking of martyrs and war. So what’s the big fat deal about exPreacher and why he is wrong compared to you because “you bet he can’t name the seven historically black denominations”? You don’t hold yourself to the same standard, so why should anyone else care to hold themselves to your double standards.
Did you come here to tell Jewish bloggers they can’t go to “our” (white Christian) heaven? Shame on you.
The old fake liberal high handed and fake diplomatic action of seeking knowledge and the truth via questions and prosecution, when in reality it is just another kangaroo court justification to condemn their political opponents.
That sounds to me like a God who favors equality and loves justice and freedom.
A “god” that favors equality by condemning the next generation to the 99th power for the “sins” of some white slave master that they might not even be descended from, is someone that loves “justice and freedom”? Funny, helen.
I’m not a big believer in original sin, so you can’t accurately call me a Christian. Any god that punishes the innocent for the crimes, even supposed crimes, of their fathers is no god of me. That is why the Old Testament god that put to death the first sons of the Egyptians isn’t any god I’d call “just” or “fair”. Arab terrorist using human shields is more of an apt description for that god.
************
Throw in a bit of white ignorance (meaning white people don’t know what to listen for in black rhetoric)
I doubt this is a good explanation of things, helen. I really don’t think you can be talking about how other people are unable to listen to black rhetoric unless your comments here may be classified as “black rhetoric”. Are blacks so alien and foreign that they use the English language in such a way that requires studying black theology and Martin Luther King in order to deicpher and hear? And whose fault is that in the end when blacks developed a sub-culture that praised ebonics and African atonalities because black slave ancestors once were kept speaking pidgin English as a sign of their inferior intellect? It’s a nice catch 22 for revolutionary violence to have whites be racists when they forced blacks to be uneducated slaves that could only access pidgin English because their children were never sent to any English schools. Whites are also racist, coincidentally, when they object to blacks using ebonics and incorrect English in this century because… *thud* that’s institutional racism now that blacks want to be, act, and sound like slaves.
The racist idea that there is some kind of special language amongst blacks that must be respected because *thud* otherwise it would invalidate criticisms of Wright is pretty divisive and centered around military tactics of divide and conquer, not to mention socialist and marxist revolutionary methods of pitting one group against another to foment chaos and disrupt government authority.
I said, white people are either racists of recovering racists. I’m a recovering racist.
You don’t have any problems stating what you believe. That’s not the same thing as communication, however. And that’s not what I find most troublesome about your comments, either.
Unlike other commenters that have replied on this thread, I don’t have a big problem with you believing that white people are either racists or recovering racists since I know why you believe it is. Your other claims about Wright, however, are not so clear and that is where the trouble lies.
We don’t plan to be racist or endorse being racist
Dividing intent from evil and good is all nice and good, but it still doesn’t explain why the belief that one race is superior to another is somehow less racist than the “racist” notion that people can be racist by not planning to be.
We don’t plan to be racist or endorse being racist; we just don’t know what black people see as racist
Part of the reason you write incoherent descriptions and justifications for your position is your highlighted priority of relative perspective concerning truth, facts, and ethics. You see racism not as an objective criteria of a person treating one specific race as superior to another, you see racism as a subjective criteria that is decided by people who have known people who have experienced racism and have become racists themselves.
If we bury our heads in the sand, ignored problems fester.
You not only buried your head over the state of black education and the use of the English language in the 21st century, you justified ebonics by linking to and praising an author’s comment on how whites only criticize black speech because of institutional racist attitudes towards blacks while excusing white dialects.
Trying to justify black problems with English by pointing to some white scapegoat is not “dealing with problems”, helen.
One isn’t better than the other; they are different.
Agent provocateurs are just different protestors when all is said and done, but that doesn’t cover up the fact that agent provocateurs can turn a mob violent and unleash violent police crackdowns that are caught on camera as police brutality.
“Different” is just a way to ignore the revolutionary sentiments of violent and extremist groups that seek to have their cake and eat someone else’s.
Wright’s sermons aren’t the problems people here seem to have, Helen. I dare say that most people against him have a problem with Wright’s beliefs and attempts to spread that belief through conversion from the pulpit more than they would ever care about the exact words or sermons Wright has given.
Addressing Wright’s different sermon style from white preachers is all nice and good but it dodges and misses the point, which is that it isn’t Wright’s words that matter but his beliefs. In that sense, it makes him the same as Obama the politician. It just so happens, because you admit Wright is honest, that it is incredibly hard to justify Wright’s beliefs given that he just states them as it is without any camouflage. Trying to defend his beliefs as some kind of misunderstanding people had because of the “black rhetoric”, helen, doesn’t really do anything positive.
Danny,
Only a small part of my family was even in the United States at the time of the Civil War and they were Germans who fought with the Union.
You still have to pay the race tax for being Caucasian, you know. The only way to redeem America from the original sin of racism, Danny, is to shackle down white power and shatter the institution of racism which exists through the power and wealth inequality between blacks, a minority, and whites, the majority.
The only way to end racism, the Left tell us, is to be just as racist, if not more racist, than the slave masters, except we’re reversing the racial atittudes to break the institution of racism and attitudes about race. Blacks, thus, via reverse racism are no longer considered inferior and African culture can no longer be considered primitive. Instead, it is the white culture that is materialistic and damaging to the blacks. Blacks gain power through enriching themselves in Afrikan culture and language.
South Africa is a good example of how the revenge of black slaves and what not ended up. They made things equal and took land that whites owned, which constituted most if not all of South Africa, and gave it to blacks. Result was corruption, economic depression, and almost total breakdown in services and the rule of law.
What white people think is racially divisive is fact to black folks.
Maybe you should realize, helen, that racial relations are violent and divisive precisely because blacks think such things are “fact”.
Wright isn’t “breeding hate and racist discord”; he’s telling it like it is.
I’m pretty sure Sadr and ho Chi’s claims that their violence were for national liberation was also considered by people as “telling it like it is”. How that justifies evil and lying about the justifications for evil… not so clear.
Judy,
How on earth does nit picking on the issue of who originated the phrase, or whether it was a quote or reference to some historical figure alter the fact that by using that phrase, Wright is saying that America deserved 9/11?
Given that Malcom X said that JFK was killed because of his violence against others, it really really doesn’t matter who Wright was quoting since if he was quoting Malcom X, then essentially it is the same message, but about 9/11.
Jack, you don’t have to make racial slurs to be a racist. All good men have to do to allow evil to prevail is nothing.
People that don’t want to follow black rhetoric, white fake liberal guilt, and Democrat institutional racist policies are now “racist” for refusing to conduct racism against themselves or others? That’s rich. And if good men do nothing and allow evil to prevail, then this would make them evil men considering your view of white racism. Which really brings up the difficult question of what to do about fake liberals that not only stand by and watch foreign men and women die under the swords and bombs of enemies of humanity, but actually goes out and hinders the efforts of liberators and human security enforcers.
“non-violent people + al qaeda = dead non-violent people”= martyrs
martyrs=blacks kept in slavery cause the Union lost and Lincoln killed himself first.
This is a good thing in your view, Helen, given your view of pacifism and war. Surely the South would have felt mercy and compassion towards the NOrth and the slaves once the North caved and gave in and became martyrs to the cause.
That’s exactly how you think and exactly how your logic extends, helen.
Do you know what I think better than I do.
*Raises hand* I do if not him. Also exPreacher is pretty non-aggressive while you are trying to be in his face and hostile.
I don’t know Sadie (or that she is Jewish) but she and I agree. We are all the children of God.
It is funny that helen talks about white people not listening to black sermons and black rhetoric when helen makes up stuff about Sadie in order to excuse helen from having to listen to and debate ExPreacher on the merits: which are the actual biblical messages themselves.
Hi Helen -
I appreciate your responses.
With respect to your answer to the question about Wright moving into the $1.6 million dollar home in Tinley Park – I know black people like nice things. That’s fine but that is not the point.
The point is that Wright is supposed to be a pastor. That does not mean he needs to live in poverty but don’t you think it is somewhat unseemly for a pastor who lives off the contributions of his congregants to move into a home that most of his congregants can’t afford?
And isn’t it odd to have a pastor move into an almost exclusively white community when he has spent a lifetime insisting that his congregants must promote the black community?
And Helen, I’m not sure you are aware of this but there ARE question about how he got the money for this house.
All I can say is that if I had been a member of a church and had given up things for my home and my family in order to tithe and support the church’s pastor and mission and later on found out that my pastor was moving into a ritzy $1.6 million dollar country club estate, I’d be asking some questions and that church would never get another dime out of me.
Deana
Just for the record, I answered Helen as follows:
Hi Helen,
Well, for the first time you answered the question. To you, “The HIV illustration is a story not a lie. It’s an example of the kind of thing our government might do.” I disagree with you on two grounds. First, Wright presented it as a contention of a fact, not as a story or as an illustration. The problem is, many of his listeners actually believe it to be true. He should not encourage such divisive and factually untrue beliefs. You said look for truth, not facts. The HIV claim is not truth, nor a story about truth, nor an illustration of possible truth. It is, purely and simply, a lie.
Second, I profoundly disagree with you that this is the kind of thing that our government would ever do! Nothing like it has ever happened, and nothing like it ever will. To even suggest such a thing to a minority audience promotes hatred and resentment, not racial reconciliation. And to accuse the majority of doing, or even of being capable of doing, such a thing promotes defensiveness and results in the speaker (quite rightly) not being taken seriously by the majority.
As you, yourself, say in your list above, you and Wright are “fantasy based.” The idea that our government has or would attempt genocide on its minorities is a fantasy and a very dangerous and destructive one. What possible good can come from spreading such slander against America, whether taken as a fact (it was certainly presented as a fact) or as an example of what our government “might” do?
It’s like your oft-repeated claim that all white Americans are either racists or recovering racists. You claim to know me better than I know myself (something you recently rightly complained about some one else doing to you in the Bookwormroom). I am a white American. I am not a racist. I have never been a racist. I am not a recovering racist. I know myself better than you know me and I know that I am right about this. How do you gain my trust or my cooperation or promote reconciliation of the races by making such a false accusation against me? How does Wright give hope to America by making false accusations against his government, and sowing the seeds of divisiveness?
By the way, I’m left brained and I’d agree with your lists above with two exceptions. Left brains are very future-oriented and, therefore, much better at deferred gratification than right brains. And left brains are much more function oriented while right brains are name oriented. Names are symbols, which you place in the right brain list. Functions are facts, which you place in the left brain list. To take one pertinent example, left brains care about the fact of racism. Right brains attach the name racist (or recovering racist) to everyone without regard to the facts (right brains also invented political correctness, which places supreme importance on names, not functions). Left brains care about the facts of what the goverment might do. Right brains dream about what evil they imagine the government might do and present it as if the government has actually done it. If the race problems in this country are ever to be solved they will be solved by hard-headed, fact-based left brainers, not by name-calling, evil accusing right brainers.
One other thing, Helen.
I know you believe that Wright was not being disrespectful in his various speeches this past weekend. But one of the most painful things to watch come out of this whole affair has been the series of black pastors who have felt it necessary to refute Wright, his behavior, and his beliefs out of fear that the world is going to believe that they are all like Wright.
Now, most of us knew ahead of time that that simply is not the case. But when Rev. Wright and his supporters (including you) assure us over and over that we just don’t get “the black church” or “black religion,” can you honestly blame these innocent black pastors for feeling defensive?
Deana
DQ – you really ought to write more. You are a delight to read.
Helen – My response to your statement about Wright’s new home is in moderation – that’s why my last post starts the way it does.
Deana
Not a dialogue, but ships passing in the night that at best hear each other’s foghorns and catch a glimpse of the lights. Too foggy to see the actual ships. No point in referring or repeating, at this stage.
Hank Sr. and others : I have not seen the light, so I am off the thread. Nos vemos.
Poor book is being hit by comments needing moderation left and right.
My comment 100 will be on when it is on, so some people might want to read it later on.
You said look for truth, not facts.
I have to agree, partially, with helen over DQ here. Helen’s view of truth is relative to what people’s subjective, parochial, and extremely superstitious attitudes accepts as the truth.
Meaning, if a black audience accepts what Wright has claimed as the truth, then Wright isn’t fomenting hatred, he is just “telling it like it is”.
So there’s nothing prototypically wrong with Helen’s previous statement on seeking truth since it is not a violation of what DQ means when he says “truth”, given that truth as a concept is radically different to helen than it is to me or someone like Don.
And to accuse the majority of doing, or even of being capable of doing, such a thing promotes defensiveness and results in the speaker (quite rightly) not being taken seriously by the majority.
helen would say that the majority wouldn’t accept Wright seriously because the majority are white men and women who are either racists or recovering racists, so thus you have to factor in the “institutional racism” factor. Institutional racism excludes and foments hate about opinions from people such as Wright, thus if you eliminate instiutional racism, which is the same thing as racism only worse, then the majority will accept Wright seriously.
What possible good can come from spreading such slander against America, whether taken as a fact (it was certainly presented as a fact) or as an example of what our government “might” do?
A rotten trunk should be hacked apart since it can become a fire danger or fall on someone when lightning strikes.
This is the basic core of revolutionary sentiment and violence. Just because pacifists don’t like violence doesn’t mean that they refuse to accept its reality.
I think I’m not giving them answer they want to hear.
Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure I can do a couple of translations for the people here that think like me. That should save some redundant Q and A sessions.
Y, Helen is the only one who needs a translation. The rest of us understand her quite well, I believe.
Thank you, Deana! Perhaps I will write more now that my trials are over and I have a little more time.
Today’s Reply to DQ. Again, emphasis can be seen on my blog but not here. I have not read today’s responses here but will upon return from business.
Here is an example of right brain thinking.
John 8:1-11 (New International Version)
John 8
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11″No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
**
A group of people asked Jesus a question, trying to trick him. He did not answer them but stooped and wrote in the dirt. When they continued in the left brain questioning, looking for fact and ignoring the truth, he told them to look inward. In the meanwhile, the people figured it out.
Jesus used this type of teaching many times during His ministry. Someone asks a question and He tells a story as the answer. This is an effective way of communicating. I didn’t make it up.
**
As for the characteristics of right brain and left brain people, They weren’t mine. I cited the source.
**
I am white, or at least I was. And I know most white people don’t like to be called racists or recovering racists. If the racial problems in our country are ever to be solved, white people will have to listen to black people and look at what really happened in Us history. We will have to stop living lives of racial privilege and take responsibility for our own actions.
Ignorance abounds.
DQ,
It’s good to hear your trials are over. I hope things go as well with your tribulations.
Tap,
LOL! Yep, we won them both.
Today’s reply to Helen:
Hi Helen,
It is a lovely story, but not on point. In effect, Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Yes, she is guilty of a stonable offense. But it is not your place to condemn her unless you are above reproach yourself.” Since none of them felt above reproach, they did not condemn her.
What we have here is precisely the opposite. Unlike the woman, America was not guilty of the charge Wright made against her. America did not invent HIV to commit genocide against minorities (not actually, not by way of illustration, not in a story, in no way). Unlike the Pharisees, who wandered away, realizing their own imperfections, Wright casts stones at America for crimes she did not commit.
Play it the other way. Wright is completely guilty of stating as true something that is completely untrue, something that is guaranteed to raise bitterness, hatred and resentment in his black audience and guaranteed to destroy his credibility with his white listeners. Like the woman, he is guilty as charged. Am I willing to cast the first stone? Absolutely! Now, I’m far from perfect; I realize that I have far too many faults to count. If there is a God, it will take much of His grace to save me. However, I have never said or done anything to harm racial relations in the way that Wright has done. And I, and my country, are completely innocent of the charge he makes against us.
I really do want racial reconciliation in America (and the world, for that matter). I’m eager to listen, really listen, to black people and look, really look, at what really happened in US history. What I am unwilling to do is stand by while my conutry is slandered in a way that will destroy any chance of reconciliation. I am completely willing to take responsibility for my own actions. But I will not take responsibility for actions that I did not commit, and I don’t see any reason America should take responsibility for actions that she never committed or stand idly by while Wright stirs up hatred with untrue accusations of such actions. (I have no idea what “living lives of racial privilege” means to you so I can’t comment on that except to say that the racially privileged are the ones who benefit from affirmative action, not the ones who suffer from it.)
I was struck by your ending — “Ignorance abounds.” Are you really suggesting that I am a racist or recovering racist, that I’m too ignorant to know it, and that you are so enlightened that you know me better than I know myself? If not, I apologize for not understanding you. I’m really trying to understand, you know. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. I actually do know myself better than you know me.
As for left-brain/right-brain, I’m just pointing out the ways in which your source was mistaken in its description. I’m just guessing, but I’ll bet you source was a right-brainer.
DQ,
You do not owe Helen an apology. If anyone here owes anyone an apology, it is Helen. Her tone throughout this and other threads has been condescending and insulting.
She claims that the truth is more important than the facts. How can one know the “truth” without facts to back them up? Wouldn’t that just make the “truth” an opinion? I mean, without evidence, doesn’t that make my opinion the “truth” just as much as it does hers? Or does a consensus of opinions make the opinion the “truth”? Therefore, if enough people believe in something, regardless of the facts, it must be the “truth”.
Ack! How can you keep debating with her and her circular logic? I want to pull my hair out. You all are much more patient and eloquent than I am.
Spiff
white people will have to listen to black people and look at what really happened in Us history.
making up Goodfacts and GoodHistory concerning Democrats fighting Republicans in the Civil War and post-Reconstruction era is not what “really happened in US history”. This also includes making up stories about AIDs and HIV. That’s not what really happened in US history, either. Same with small pox and the Amerindians.
These are the things organizations and nations make up in order to justify genocide, murder, oppression, and war against their enemies. They start off by dehumanizing the enemy by using propaganda to convince their own people that the “enemy” are so horrible that they will conduct biological genocide with purpose, denial, and a clean conscience. This creates the justifications for genocide, war, violence, and other things we see in eternal clan and tribal warfare, i.e. Rwanda.
One tribe says of another enemy tribe that the enemy tribe did something horrible and unjust to the first tribe’s ancestors, thus this justifies killing, murdering, raping, and burning the enemy tribe out of existence.
Those that have studied war, helen, know very well such tactics and strategies. Your lack of both experience and interest in warfare and violence clouds your ability to judge black history, white history, black rhetoric, and racism for what they truly are.
I have no idea what “living lives of racial privilege” means to you so I can’t comment on that except to say
Judy, you sure some people here won’t need my translations of helen’s phrases?
Her tone throughout this and other threads has been condescending and insulting.
To defend the just and the right, I feel myself behooved to defend Helen on this case. Her tone has not been condescending and insulting, precisely because in relation to her previous comments to me or others, Helen has been behaving with excellent diligence and honest intent here on this thread.
This may seem like moral relativity, but there’s a big difference between Orwell’s reality relative to people’s whims and perceptions and Einstein’s theory of relativty based upon relative frames of references.
The former is what I believe helen uses, in that truth and what not is based upon the will or whim of any individual, specifically the “black individual”. Since truth is based upon what people think and believe, as opposed to what reality is, it is very easy to manipulate the truth by manipulating people. Manipulating people is very easy, as you can see with the Democrat manipulation of blacks and whites alike.
The latter is an objective sense of reality but which also accepts basic human limitations and flaws such as perception, fallibility, foolishness, etc.
When Leftists say “reality depends on where you are at”, they mean that “reality depends on how much pain and intimidation I am using on you in order to put you in the corner of reality I want you to be, so that you will see reality in the way I demand”. When I say “reality depends on where you are at”, I mean that reality depends on your frame of reference, in that if you are moving towards something, your pursued prey can look back at you and see a blue shift. You approaching it, essentially. This is real, this is something that both of you can notice, though you can only see one part and he another.
The Doppler Effect has nothing to do with what Leftists mean when they say “reality depends” and “ethics depend” and “truth depends” on people’s perceptions. The Left wants you to listen to blacks speak the truth because their political manipulation and deception operations have been designed to create a “black truth’ about American history, politics, economy, and racism. So, obviously if you disagree, you are not just disagreeing with their frame of reference, you are rejecting their entire world view since their world view commands and demands that you subordinate your mind and free will to their totalitarian will and whim.
Another service I will undertake is provide perma links to helen’s comments on her blog, comments that she says lacks bold and emphasis.
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/answer-to-don-quixote/#comment-51578
The format’s better for reading and of course you can read Don’s request here or there.
The man spreads monsterous lies for no other reason than to divide and destroy America.-DQ
DQ sees the media concerning the Iraq War different than I do. I tend to think the MSM spreads monstrous lies for no other reason than to divide and destroy things in order to either get social support, social acclaim, status, career advantages, or just out of pure spite.
DQ sees more good in such things than I do or ever will. Which is one of the fundamental differences we have.
This is important to know because it also illustrates the fundamental difference between DQ and the person he is arguing with using that line I quoted.
Also people need to click on that link and read it since helen’s incoherent sequence of comments here start to make much more sense then once you separate out her comments directed to DQ as opposed to others.
“I have no idea what “living lives of racial privilege” means to you so I can’t comment on that except to say
Judy, you sure some people here won’t need my translations of helen’s phrases?”
Y, I think DQ might like to hear the explanation from Helen. I know I would. But since Helen’s explanation may not be forthcoming, I’ll bite. You do provide lots of interesting analysis, so please give me your take on that one.
“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh is the definitive essay on white privilege. See http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
I thought I left the URL here earlier. This is what I mean by “living lives of racial privilege.”
**
I want to applaud Ymarsakar, who often gets on my nerves, for trying very hard to explain what he’s reading. His comment #118 doesn’t reflect my thinking in its entirety, but comes very close.
And I want to explain that ExP (Jack) basically banned me from his blog because I don’t agree with him. Bookworm has always been kind and gracious to me, as have most of you most of the time. I’m not going to be bullied because someone’s beliefs differ from mine (on the blog of a third party). I’m sure few picked up the fact that he called me “his old nemesis” in his first comment. He started it; he set the tone. I’m sure his politics are similar to Bookworm’s, but his religion isn’t.
**
And here’s my reply to DQ, (also on my blog)
DQ, You are playing “lawyer games” by twisting every statement of mine or Wright’s to make us appear silly. (Remember Wright’s “different not deficient”?) Well, I’ve said the same thing about six ways, and you don’t accept any of them. You don’t have to agree with me to accept what I say at face value.
Yes, you know yourself better than I do. But you don’t seem to have a clue what racism is and isn’t. I don’t think you want to know. I think you want to ask so many questions you trick me into saying something I don’t believe. People tell their own stories best when they use their own words.
Life is too short to spent too much time with one question, when it’s obvious the answer will be rejected no matter what.
**
Do I realize I left questions unanswered? Yes. I’m just ready to move on.
Y,
You don’t find statements like “ignorance abounds” condescending and insulting? Perhaps she does not intend to be insulting, but it comes off that way. When someone accuses you of either being a “racist” or “recovering racist” simply based on the color of your skin that does not insult you on some level. When asked to clarify on a point, she simply replies that we are either ignorant or racist. Is that not insulting?
She is yet to back up any of her points with anything other than her subjective “truth” and/or sending us out into the web to look at more opinions she agrees with. Nothing substantive, a lot of conjecture though.
Spiff
Y, I think DQ might like to hear the explanation from Helen. I know I would. But since Helen’s explanation may not be forthcoming, I’ll bite. You do provide lots of interesting analysis, so please give me your take on that one.
I’ll read Helen’s response about White Privilege first, since I’m interested in her views as well.
the fact that he called me “his old nemesis” in his first comment. He started it; he set the tone.-Helen
Your old nemesis, ExPreacherMan, is watching you…
EPMan
He also put a smile face on, Helen. Weren’t you the one that said smile faces means things are a joke and shouldn’t be taken personally? You use them plenty when you are criticizing or otherwise commenting on other folks. So if “he set the tone” then it obviously wasn’t a tone of hostility, eh.
for trying very hard to explain what he’s reading.
Just for clarification for the benefit of folks, my comment 118 wasn’t intended primarily as a description of Helen’s beliefs. It was intended more to describe Leftist and Democrat beliefs. Since the topic isn’t how much helen is or is not a Leftist, comment 118 shouldn’t be considered a translation of helen’s beliefs here, more or less. Be assured, if I think helen is advocating totalitarian thought police beliefs, I’ll say it directly without any kind of circumlocution. But until then, take my words as they were intended.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/04/29/jeremiah-wright-at-the-national-press-club/#comment-22912
Comment 109 was explicitly intended to illustrate helen’s views, though. I have to take into consideration that helen might have been thinking about comment 109 rather than 118 when she said 118.
Judy, here begins the great quest for truth and clarity.
DQ, You are playing “lawyer games” by twisting every statement of mine or Wright’s to make us appear silly.
Applying logic to certain things “twists” the basic reality matrix of an idea, statement, belief, or action. This is because logic is an “overlay” on the thing it is used on. Logic is comprised of many parts, all of them cataloged and named with specific command phrases. Logical syntax is a field of study in itself, and with many derivatives such as logical and/or gates used in computer hardware/logic design and computer programming.
Logic “twists” things by making it flow through certain gates and pathways. This is true, what helen has said, but what she sees as a negative is something I see as a positive. Since sewer must also be forced to pass through specific gates and pathways, otherwise we have open sewers and water contamination.
DQ is not wrong to apply logic and twist the basic reality of Wright’s words or yours, helen.
DQ is only wrong in that he is applying logic and honestly expects you to meet him halfway on this subject. You aren’t going to meet him halfway, helen. Not because you don’t want to, but because you can’t. To meet DQ halfway, you must adopt or at least accept the right and duty of logic to “twist” things. You can argue about it or argue that DQ’s use of logic is wrong, but I tend to think you just don’t want logic to be used at all, since it does de facto twist words and actions through certain gyrations.
Lawyers do use logic in order to pass a sentence of guilt or innocence through loopholes and what not. But that’s not what DQ has been using.
You don’t have to agree with me to accept what I say at face value.
DQ is unwilling to accept that Wright is such a fanatic that he would actually believe the things that he has stated or suggested, such as the extent of the evil of America for example. So that is why DQ said Wright “lied” about HIV.
But I don’t think Wright lied. I think he told the truth. In his world, the American government not only has done such a thing but would do more of them if wasn’t for the efforts of people like Soros, Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Malcom X, and so forth.
The meta-truth, as opposed to the parochial truth that people percieve to be true due to superstition and ignorance, is that if people like Wright were put into power the US government would become exactly what Wright has criticized it for being. In that way, Wright speaks the truth, but in a way that can only be recognized by an outside observer like me.
But you don’t seem to have a clue what racism is and isn’t.-helen to DQ
That is true, in a sense. DQ truly does not have a clue that racism is not about treating people based upon their character and individual actions. Racism is about a race and treating a race differently and making it inferior. Classical liberals don’t look at racism the same way others, anti-classical liberals, do. DQ may not be a classical liberal, ala Bookworm, but he’s pretty close, for a conservative.
Yes. I’m just ready to move on.
You’re ready to “get over it”? Hurray… or maybe not.
give me your take on that one.
As for Judyrose’s original topic of choice, here’s my take.
Using some quotes from helen’s link in order to cover my backside from accusations that I am just making stuff up as I go along,
I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious.
White privilege means that you are part of an aristocracy, judy, that has exploited its way to your current technological, social, and economic status.
The world is based upon a zero-sum principle that for one person to get rich, someone else must get poorer. This is called by Shrinkwrapped, which I pasted his post on this subject recently here, as a “Prime Divide” society. It is primarily divided between the haves and the have nots, Judy.
As we in women’s studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having white privilege must ask, “having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?”
Most classical liberals will answer to the question of “how do we lessen the power of the aristocracy to exploit the peasants like the United Nations exploits poorer and weaker nations for sex slaves and parties?” with the answer of “by empowering the weak nations and their citizens with the rule of law, American style military security, and justice”.
Helen’s White Privilege answer, however, tends to end up more like “we lessen exploitation by the rich over the poor by taking money away from the rich and redistributing it to the poor”.
Notice the difference between the two philosophies, Judy. One is based upon the Prime Divide and the other is based upon cooperative wealth making and teamwork, which essentially are derivatives of personal responsibiltiy and the frontiersman spirit that builds a house in a place of nothing.
I began to understand why we are just seen as oppressive, even when we don’t see ourselves that way.
Judy, whites oppress blacks because whites have more people in the US than Blacks, whites have more money than blacks, whites have more political power than blacks, and so in conclusion whites have more benefits than blacks. This means that blacks are being exploited by whites because there is no way that anybody can become wealthy without finding someone to steal that wealth and success from. So technically speaking, white people never earned their wealth. Poor people earned their wealth and it was taken by the rich and that is why the rich is rich and the poor poor.
My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.
Obviously one can be “re-schooled” if the original education never took deeply. Re-education camps use the same principle to convert new diligent neophytes to the cause, you know.
For me white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and fugitive subject. The pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one’s life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own.
…
It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly inculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.
A lot of the stuff at the end had me lost. Even I cannot 100% sink into the thoughts and psyches of such folks. Perhaps if I enter a trance and craft numerous layers of double think in order to reject my core philosophical beliefs and parts of my human decency indoctrinated into me by societal laws and my personal philosophical beliefs, I could come close to that 100%. But currently I have to say my comprehension is a little bit more than 50% but less than 80%.
*****
Was there anything about my attempt you found unsatisfying, Judy?
You don’t find statements like “ignorance abounds” condescending and insulting? Perhaps she does not intend to be insulting, but it comes off that way.
Compared to the other things helen has said to me personally or to others? No, I don’t think the statements you are refering to are condescending and insulting compared to what helen has said before.
When someone accuses you of either being a “racist” or “recovering racist” simply based on the color of your skin that does not insult you on some level.
Maybe if I was Caucasian or descended from Caucasian or European ancestors, I might be insulted. But I’m not. I’m also not a slave to societal pressure about “racism”, either. Racism is an ugly word like “murderer”. It is a state of being that society has rejected and so any member of society, including you and me, that considers a person being racist is the same as considering a person outside the rules and laws and protections of our society. This is death to most social creatures like human beings, thus “racist” is a very ugly word to social creatures that live in a society that rejects racism.
I am not immune to societal pressures. Simply say that I have a higher tolerance for such things due to my study of violence and how society indoctrinates its members to be sheep and to react to violence by passively taking it. “Higher tolerance” doesn’t mean much in a social situation, however. Unless you’re a psychopath or a sociopath, having a higher tolerance to societal pressures just makes you more outspoken or independent, it doesn’t mean it hurts less for people to shun you or call you things you know you aren’t. On the internet, however, when societal limitations are already weak, it is an entirely different thing. There’s no reason for you to be insulted if someone calls you a racist. Then again, society was never based upon “reason” in the first place.
[...] Great Debates about Race and Racism May 1, 2008 Posted by ymarsakar in Arguments, Politics. trackback Original thread, read for background info. [...]
My reply 125 to you Judy, is currently in hold.
If this link goes through, you can read it directly off my website, however.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/great-debates-about-race-and-racism/
Ok Helen. I obviously disagree with you. But in the interest of reaching an understanding, I want to assume you’re right and I’m wrong. If I make that assumption, then I’m a racist because I’m not black. You’re a “recovering” racist…what does that mean? First it means you’re not black, I assume. That’s the racist part. What does the “recovering” involve?
What does it take to achieve “social justice” in the US? How do we know when we get there, and what path should we take to get there?
It seems to me that if blacks and whites learn differently, then it will be necessary to have segregated schools again. Or is there another solution?
Since “blacks like nice things too”, what is meant by “avoiding middle classism”, and does it affect whites? Are all whites “middle class” by definition?
Is there any way to end racism in the US?
Thank you Y, for that piece of work. The principle that speaks loudest to me is “zero sum game.” I never think that way. I should have learned long ago not to bother getting engaged in these volleys with Helen. They are never satisfying. Well, I shouldn’t say that. Sometimes when I post (or read) a particularly good zinger that I think cuts to the heart of something Helen has said, it is temporarily satisfying. But once Helen chimes in again and I see there’s no acknowledgment of the reasonable argument that’s been made, then in the end, it has changed nothing. I do appreciate reading so much good thinking written by you and others, and those comments provide a satisfaction of their own.
Judy
Y,
You don’t have to be white to be offended by the idea that a group of people is guilty of some kind of “original sin” simply based on the color of their skin. And one does not need to be a “slave to societal pressures about racism”, to be offended by ideas like that; one only needs to be an intelligent, moral and civil person.
I’d like to see Helen’s answers to Suek’s questions in post #129.
Spiff
I should have learned long ago not to bother getting engaged in these volleys with Helen. They are never satisfying. Well, I shouldn’t say that. Sometimes when I post (or read) a particularly good zinger that I think cuts to the heart of something Helen has said, it is temporarily satisfying. But once Helen chimes in again and I see there’s no acknowledgment of the reasonable argument that’s been made, then in the end, it has changed nothing.
The comment by judy up above and by Spiff should be read together.
You don’t have to be white to be offended by the idea that a group of people is guilty of some kind of “original sin” simply based on the color of their skin. And one does not need to be a “slave to societal pressures about racism”, to be offended by ideas like that; one only needs to be an intelligent, moral and civil person.
You see, the point I was making is not that you have to be white to be offended by the idea helen proposed.
The ultimate point in the end is that whether you are offended or not, changes nothing about race relations or helen’s beliefs or the beliefs of people like Wright. It is only through breaking through barriers, societal, perceptual, cognitive, and so forth, can you ever “comprehend” and figure out just exactly what is going on with people.
If you don’t do such things, then you will be offended because you will focus on their beliefs and not what caused those beliefs. You will expend more energy talking about those “beliefs” and how they are offensive than you will researching who crafted those beliefs and how far can those beliefs spread using a common shared propaganda matrix.
Judy is also in the same situation, in that I think she expects helen to reach across, at least half way, and recognize good arguments.
I’m not like it. When I said that I might be offended by helen’s comment if I was write, I meant that I understood how if she insulted your ancestry and what not, that it could make you view her comments in a certain way. But even if I had European ancestors, I would still not find her comments offensive.
Do I find the bullets, spears, genetic plagues, dirty nukes, electric drills, and torture implements of the terrorists “offensive”, Sniff?
Why would I. They are just tools and weapon attachments like any other. I might even come to use them sometime in the future. Certainly it is not impossible.
When you are involved in a struggle, your initial task should be to know thy enemy and knowing thy enemy means you can’t be wasting time on getting “offended” by what they say or what they do or their beliefs entire.
An intelligent, moral and civil person would place a higher priority on comprehension, communication, and practical applications of knowledge gleamed from opponent behaviors than they would place on being insulted by personal or general comments made.
The reaction of someone like judy to helen is normal, as I see it. Just as feeling offended or insulted by helen’s comments are also normal. But that doesn’t mean those reactions are still not shackled down by civil and societal barriers and indoctrinations.
People in America are expected to meet their opponents or interlocutors half way at least.
Please pardon me, Spiff, from not allowing my opponents to use this societal indoctrination against me.
Judy,
I do appreciate reading so much good thinking written by you and others, and those comments provide a satisfaction of their own.
Judy
I try, which is the best I can do. In order to delve into helen’s thoughts or beliefs, I have to discard considerations for my personal values and philosophy, so I cannot behave in a fashion that you would, Judy. I do not expect the same things from helen or others that you would or have.
The positive thing is that this means I can delve deeper into alien modes of thought and philosophy. The negative is that people who expect me to be outraged find it often offensive or abnormal when I am not offended by helen’s comments.
Have I ever been frustrated or offended by helen’s comments? Why of course, just as it is true for her concering my comments as well. But when I was offended, I made no useful inroads to comprehending helen’s beliefs or motivations or actions.
It is only through holding an objective or “outside frame of reference” that you can make any useful judgments or decisions concerning a totally alien world view and perspective.
And of course, I don’t particularly care for people like Spiff to lecture me on how to be an intelligent, moral and civil person. That’s actually more annoying to me than helen’s comments.
That kind of sanctimoniousness is every bit as worse as helen’s statements, only worse because I don’t want to expend the energy dealing with it.
Y,
Really now, I wasn’t trying to “annoy” you, nor was I trying to lecture you. I’m trying to understand you. Actually, I agree with you far more than you give me credit. In fact, I find your bluntness refreshing.
I apologize if I offended you on some level, as I was not trying to imply that you were not “intelligent, moral and civil”; in fact I would say you exemplify all of those things in your writing. I found your defense of Helen odd, considering your positions throughout this debate. I am not a lawyer or writer; however I am an engineer, and so writing is not one of my specialties. So, you may have interpreted my points incorrectly because of my lack of eloquence. The last thing I want to be thought of is “sanctimonious”.
I have been following this debate since it started and only piped in because of my frustration with Helen’s inability or refusal to answer questions and support her positions in the debate. I would also like to understand Helen and what makes her view things the way she does. I have a hard time understanding someone who can know what the “truth” is without any historical evidence, facts, data or statistics to back them up.
Spiff
Y,
“An intelligent, moral and civil person would place a higher priority on comprehension, communication, and practical applications of knowledge gleamed from opponent behaviors than they would place on being insulted by personal or general comments made.”
Actually, I do value that. But I also value civil discourse as well. I’m not offended by Helen on a personal level, but I find her positions offensive, especially in light of the fact that she blames others inherit racism or ignorance as the reason she cannot defend those positions adequately.
Spiff
I’m curious: how are you able to make things bold in your comments?
Spiff
I think you summed it up quite nicely below:
I have a hard time understanding someone who can know what the “truth” is without any historical evidence, facts, data or statistics to back them up.
I think it’s called faith-based thinking. No rational needed. There are just some, who see the world as unjust (which it is) and believes that if you just peer into the heart of someone who also wants to settle the inequities of life…it should come about even if you have to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Y-man, thank you for your efforts to translate. I was especially struck by the following:
“DQ is unwilling to accept that Wright is such a fanatic that he would actually believe the things that he has stated or suggested, such as the extent of the evil of America for example. So that is why DQ said Wright “lied” about HIV.
“But I don’t think Wright lied. I think he told the truth. In his world, the American government not only has done such a thing but would do more of them if wasn’t for the efforts of people like Soros, Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Malcom X, and so forth.
“The meta-truth, as opposed to the parochial truth that people percieve to be true due to superstition and ignorance, is that if people like Wright were put into power the US government would become exactly what Wright has criticized it for being. In that way, Wright speaks the truth, but in a way that can only be recognized by an outside observer like me.”
You are, of course, correct that I believe that Wright is not foolish or ignorant enough to believe what he is saying. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that he is not the cynical, evil man I believe he is and that he truly believes that, at least in the illustrative way that Helen takes it, America is really that evil. He is, purely and simply, wrong. His world is not the real world.
Truth that is not based on reality is not truth at all. It is mistake. It is error. Faith-based thinking, which Sadie mentioned, works in a religious realm because who is to say what is reality where God is concerned. But it fails in the real world, because contentions like the claim that America created HIV to inflict genocide on minorities are subject not to faith, but to proof. As a matter of truth, the claim is not true. Nor could it be. Even an earlier America, one that truly believed minorities were inferior, never sought genocide by death. We may have sought a form of “genocide” by assimilation of the Indians. We may have encouraged blacks to move to Africa. But in our worst days we never intentionally inflicted death on any minority as a group. And we are even less likely to do so today.
I’m saddened that Helen chose to end her discussion with me by accusing me of playing lawyer’s game and of not understanding racism. But I will continue to fight racism and work for racial reconciliation using an approach based in reality, not fantasy. It’s all a left-brainer like me can do.
Hi Bookworm, Please let 136 out of moderation. Boy, is that filter causing you a lot of work. Thanks, DQ
I am confused by HL, is she here to teach, to learn or to hype her blog?
DQ,
Well said.
Ellie2,
It appears HL honestly believes she is trying to educate the ignorant mob. The problem she is having is the mob here is not as ignorant. She seems ill prepared to deal with people who analyze things using reason and logic.
Spiff
Not to be snide, but post after post after post, I’ve been wondering how Helen anointed herself the spokesperson for the black experience.
So, you may have interpreted my points incorrectly because of my lack of eloquence.
My response, or better yet reaction, to your comment was not because I thought you meant anything harmful by it. It is own personal reaction, but not because I thought you meant any specific thing. In fact, I had my reaction even knowing that it was unlikely that you meant anything about me when you spoke about moral and intelligent people. But as I said, I am not immune to human fallibility and so even though on one level of the conscious mind I knew you didn’t meant anything, on another level of the conscious mind I still found your comment aggravating.
The thing was, you have a problem with helen and when I say I don’t have a problem with helen, you try to talk about it as if this has something to do with you or some “general” person, which I’m not. It has nothing to do with me and I try hard to refuse to let it have anything to do with me, so I am “annoyed” by your last comment only in the sense that you keep bringing the topic up in a way that is irrelevant to me or what my comments to you were communicating.
If you want to talk about how you are miffed about helen’s comments, then that is one thing. But trying to contend with my position that I am not miffed and bringing up some generalistic and objective criteria statement about “moral people” is not only irrelevant to my position on helen, but it is also irrelevant to yours.
I’m curious: how are you able to make things bold in your comments?
Html tags bracketing the text. The earlier forums I used didn’t have automatic html parsing so if I wanted bold, then I had to type it in myself. Since I was involved in extensive debates and wanted to quote specific sections of people that I was responding to, I eventually settled upon the bold, as it separates out my text from others via a visual distinction and is far less text to type than blockquotes or what not.
Html uses the signs above , and ., which is unlike BBoard code which is []. This is always an important distinction for modern BB forums, in which I have to use the built in visual text editor because they won’t parse html.
I found your defense of Helen odd, considering your positions throughout this debate.
This is a simple problem with a simple solution to be engineered. If your primary contention is the question why I defend helen given my criticisms of her, then that is the primary subject that should be given energy and attention. Not peripheries that will never be used.
There’s no point considering designs which one intends never to use. And had you asked that question before, I would have given a straight up answer. I have already answered the subject, if not your specific contention, in comment 126, so unless you had a specific question about what I meant, I wasn’t going to elaborate on anything that I had already covered.
I have a hard time understanding someone who can know what the “truth” is without any historical evidence, facts, data or statistics to back them up.
As I mentioned before, I believe Judy is in a similar position. It is a thing, at the basic foundation, of expectations.
The reason why I have a lower tolerance of what you said to me as opposed to what helen said to me is a thing of expectations. I don’t expect better out of helen, not anymore at least. I do expect, on an unconscious basis, for people who agree with me or at least don’t strenuously disagree with me, to behave on a higher standard. That may be unfair but that’s just how it is. The problem isn’t with you or helen’s intent or communication abilities, so much as it is with me, in that I have to lower my expectations of people. This often seems arrogant to people, but it is the only immediate way you will acquire peace of mind about human beings in conflict with you. Holding people to my standards also seem arrogant to people, just ask helen what happened when she failed to meet expectations, not just of mine but of others when they asked her questions and she replied that she didn’t want to be interrogated at a board meeting. Do we continue to hold her to the same standard that we would hold ourselves to and continue to annoy her and frustrate us when she refuses? Or do we condescend and lower our standards for her, thus alleviating pressure on her and us? Many folks here have refused to lower the standards that they hold helen to. I chose a different path. This in fact makes me somewhat similar to helen’s treatment of truth and race, since helen has lowered her standards for race and truth, not only for those things and for others, but also for herself.
So the core or primary reason why people may have a hard time comprehending or tolerating helen’s position and beliefs is the fact that they may have higher standards for helen than I do. Normal standards in society when attributed to those that don’t adhere to such societal standards, produces abnormally high standards such as perfect mechanical efficiency.
These lead to bad expectations and bad expectations lead to failures in communication or project completion.
For those interested in what really took place in the Tuskagee experiments, Jonah Goldberg (author of “Liberal Fascism”) has a good piece at this link: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Njg4MzdkYTQ0YjZjYWUwOWQzOTg0OWVmYWVjMDY5ZTM=
It’s ironic to me how easily the Left can with impunity tag conservatives and Republicans with the sins of the Left’s own fellow Progressive travelers. Unfortunately, I don’t think that HelenL appreciates just how demagoguery works, nor how damaging it is. She is, I believe, fundamentally a person who wants to do good, but I suspect that she prefers to live vicariously through the eyes of the demagogue. Perhaps what she exhibits is a sister syndrome to the Stockholm Syndrome [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome]. It’s made for great discussion, however.
His world is not the real world.
The world can be changed by individuals and people who strive to change it with will, guts, and luck.
In that sense, if his world is not the real world, it can be made into the real world. If he succedes, of course. He may not, he may fail due to lack of resources or some other factor. But the possibility is there. In fact, the probability is there given the history of Ghenghis Khan and Atilla the Hun. They, historically, united fractious tribes and clans in a Union that currently didn’t exist in their world. It didn’t exist until Atilla made it exist, that is.
Human beings have been blessed with intelligence and the power to create with that intelligence. Thus the world can be changed through the creative and destructive power of the human mind.
What human beings lack is wisdom, though.
Truth that is not based on reality is not truth at all.
In the epistemological sense, which concerns itself with the theory of knowledge, and thus truth, you would be right, Don. However, there are more than one theory of knowledge in epistemology. Helen’s theory of epistemology is just as valid as your theory of knowledge. The reason why is because helen’s theory of knowledge comes from “knowing things are true” by “claiming they are true”. In objective reality, if enough people claim something to be true, it will be true, not because of whim but because of basic human sociological factors and mass behavior.
Your theory of knowledge talks about truth as a basic recognition of fundamental reality or things independent of human perspective. A tree exists and has a certain quality and when a human being recognizes that tree and its qualities, that human being has acquired truth and knowledge.
However, let’s say somebody said the tree was going to die and we shouldn’t be near it or waste valuable water on it. You would say the tree is healthy and that the person stating that the tree will die is lying or speaking false things. However, if the “tree is going to die” person convinces enough people not to water the tree, then he creates reality out of his words. He has created a self-fullfilling prophecy, because now the tree will die due to a lack of water. This is not just convincing a group of people to believe that red is green or some such mass psychosis deal. This is creating reality and modifying it. The same reality that you recognize as the fundamental bedrock for truth.
In that sense, helen’s theory of epistemology is just as valid as yours Don, but not in the same way and of course, not on the same level of Ethics or Metaphysics.
I think it’s called faith-based thinking. No rational needed.
Because of what I have written here, I cannot agree with Sadie. It is not “faith based thinking” since faith based thinking does not intend to create self-fullfilling prophecies. Meaning, getting people to worship a god and to recognize its existence does not in fact make that god real. Not on the metaphysical sense. Perhaps we lack the tools or cognition to recognize spiritual existence on that plane of reality, but lack it we do.
Helen’s view of things is that we create scarcity simply by existing or having a certain kind of thinking about privilege. I do not think many people claim that God exists because people believe in God.
That may in fact be true, but we can’t verify it. And if we can’t verify it, then we can’t say whether faith based beliefs are the same as helen’s style of cognition.
I’m not offended by Helen on a personal level, but I find her positions offensive, especially in light of the fact that she blames others inherit racism or ignorance as the reason she cannot defend those positions adequately.
To Spiff,
Her positions may be disagreeable to you and may offend your sense of things, but if your sense of things could encompass how and why helen has such positions, you wouldn’t be offended. Because can you be offended by the presence of air, human self-interest, human fallibility, engineering disasters due to unknown unknowns, and electrical shocks? No, cause those things are natural and must be accepted for we cannot get rid of them entirely or even before/after the fact. But should we feel the same way about incompetence, individual corruption we can stop and address, and poor shoddy workmanship and ethics? We should feel offended by such and angered: angered enough to do something about them. Helen’s position or some such is not in my power to change. It may not even be in anyone’s power to change except helen’s herself. So there’s no benefit to expending energy being offended by her positions because those positions are just a fact of life. Not a fact of life that they are true, but a fact of life that people will go on believing such things come hell or high water. Only a catastrophic war like the Civil War + WWII put together might change a few individual minds, assuming anybody is alive. One reason why I study war, since it offers the best opportunity to correct fundamental flaws in human cognition.
If I have an emotion reaction concerning helen’s views, it would not derive from my sense of values being offended but would be more similar to Don’s reaction of sadness, and pity in myself.
Helen is or was posting her replies to Don, on her blog, here. So she wasn’t advertising her blog so much as motivating people like me to advertise her blogs. If that doesn’t make sense, don’t worry about it.
(Remember Wright’s “different not deficient”?) Well, I’ve said the same thing about six ways, and you don’t accept any of them. You don’t have to agree with me to accept what I say at face value.-Helen to DQ
I think what helen is saying here is that helen has said that what Wright has said is “different” but not deficient. Meaning, different, but not false. Different but not wrong. Different but not hateful.
In that sense, it is an article of faith. It is faith that ‘different is not deficient”. This is an article of faith because no matter how much you believe in that phrase or how many people you convince, it will never change the basic fundamental reality that different is often deficient.
It is curious how democratic concepts of “voting” what not about “different” people is kept by certain Leftists but the “myth of the meritocracy” is rejected at the same time.
Y, I get lost in some of your explanations. If you have time to check out the article below, could you tell me if it says more or less the same thing you’re trying to explain?
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/vast-hypocrisy-of-theres-no-such-thing.html
An article that may or may not be of interest, concerning local (Winston-Salem, NC black pastors’ reaction to the speeches by Rev. Wright) http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/may/04/forum-to-tackle-wright-obama-black-church/?news-local
Helen -
That article is a puff piece. No tough questions, no looking into the alternative view, no analysis. Your pastor and his colleagues got a free ride to say whatever they wanted to say – no questions asked.
Helen, something occurred to me the other day. After multiple discussions about race, I have come to the conclusion that you are simply incapable or unwilling to see black people as anything other than black. It doesn’t matter what that person does good or bad, to you they are still black and are seen through that filter.
I believe this because of how you chose to answer my question on whether you think it is hypocritical, problematic, or awkward for Wright, the pastor of a church that “disavows the pursuit of middleclassness” and is “committed to the black community,” to move into a $1.6 million dollar home in a super rich, white suburb.
You responded “Black people like nice things, too.” But anyone else reading my question would realize that at its core, the question had NOTHING to do with Wright being black. It was about a pastor who has led a church that professes to believe and support certain things but now clearly is not abiding by what he professes to believe in. But you can’t even see him as a pastor who has duties and values to uphold. To you, he is a black person and that dictates what you believe. Hence your response.
So what is the difference between someone like you, who judges a person not on their actions and values but their color, and a white racist from the 1850s or 1930s, who also judged people based on their color and not their actions and values?
Deana
Y, I get lost in some of your explanations.
Quote the ones you have problems with.
If you have time to check out the article below, could you tell me if it says more or less the same thing you’re trying to explain?
I checked out the article, which made an argument for how the Left sees right vs wrong in relation to party loyalty and defense of their ideology.
That wasn’t the subject I was covering on this thread, however. The comments about the “meritocracy myth” is a justification and explanation for why the Left sees racism, race relations, and America the way they do. Denial and defense of their ideology is part of the process, but not the goal in and of itself.
I have come to the conclusion that you are simply incapable or unwilling to see black people as anything other than black.
If you believe that America is a false mirage masquerading as a meritocracy, then you would also come to the conclusion that blacks aren’t treated as equals. Since blacks aren’t treated as equals, whatever disproportionate disadvantage they have compared to whites must be because of this “in-equal” treatment that derives partially from white privilege.
In order to see blacks as individuals, one would have to recognize that the economic inequality is due to the actions of blacks, not whites. But to do that, you must believe in America the Meritocracy. If you don’t, then you cannot hold blacks individually responsible for their own lot in life, since you think they are the way they are due to discrimination or institutional racism.
Having labeled blacks victims, there’s just no reasonable way to avoid treating them like an inferior race in the human species, Deana. People may say that black culture and thinking is “different, not deficient” but it is simply impossible to blame racism and whites for all the problems of blacks.
You responded “Black people like nice things, too.” Since black people like nice things, just as the same as white people, there’s no fundamental difference between those two people. There is no inequality. There is no discrimination and there is no “myth of the meritocracy’ helen mentioned in white privilege.
>>Denial and defense of their ideology is part of the process, but not the goal in and of itself.>>
Would you guess that this is why Helen chooses not to make an effort to answer my questions? Because a achieving a solution is not the goal..but the struggle is?
The struggle is very important and to that extent, they see the “solution” as part of the struggle. Meaning, there will be no solution unless folks keep plodding along and redistributing wealth and protesting and convincing folks and electing Democrats.
In that line, they are what they accused Bush of doing with the boat that was going over a waterfall. “Stay the course” is the solution, suek, to the Left.
Read Danny’s frontpage link about Alinski, it should explain some things that helen has said here.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D6E27ECE-9798-4F01-A378-3F1405F69704
And yet another article to consider.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/jeremiah-wright-what-else-going
Helen –
Prosperity Gospel churches – these huge megachurches that preach the idea that if you just believe enough or just give enough that God will reward you 10-fold or whatever – are shams!!! They do not preach the Bible and the central message of Jesus. But the idea that they are associated only with Republicans as this article implies is incorrect and you know it. It has affected congretions across the Christian spectrum and is something to be shunned.
What amazes me, though, is that you willingly posted an article that finds fault in preachers who, by taking money from the desperate and hopeful:
“(net themselves) millions of dollars a year: successful Word of Faith ministers own numerous homes, private jets and expensive cars. And these preachers’ followers support their imperial lifestyles wholeheartedly. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” According to this theology, you can tell the Elect, because they’re the ones with the biggest bowl of fruit.”
And yet, you willfully refuse to acknowledge that Jeremiah Wright is exactly like these preachers. Again, HE is moving into a $1.6 million home in an almost all-white suburb after HE spent all his time demanding that his congregrants eschew “middleclassness” and support black families. And yet you refuse to acknowledge that his behavior is, at the very least, awkward and inconsistent with his stated beliefs.
I said it before, Helen, and I’ll say it again. You are unwilling to see black people as anything other than black. You refuse to see them as men, women, husbands, fathers, mothers, preachers, businessmen, lawyers, mechanics, doctors, secretaries or whatever they choose to be. You refuse to see them as free people who possess the answers to their own problems and the tools to their own success. You simply see them as black and then you chain them to what YOU think being black is.
Deana
Deana,
Of course, Jeremiah Wright is exactly like these preachers in some respects. In others, he’s quite different; Wright preaches prophetically. He gives a “social gospel” message, not a “prosperity gospel” message. In that, he is different theologically from the others (mentioned in this article).
Of course, blacks are “men, women, husbands, fathers, mothers, preachers, businessmen, lawyers, mechanics, doctors, secretaries or whatever they choose to be,” limited only by innate talent (as we all are) and systemic racism (that affects blacks only, and is, therefore, unfair). None of this has anything to do with “what [I] think being black is.” Who cares? It has to do with how black people see and define themselves.
Is Bill Cosby’s view valid? Of course, it is. Does it contain truth? Yes. But does it tell the whole story of the African American experience? I don’t think so. I’m interested in the collective opinion of blacks, of finding the sociological pattern. And what’s more I actually think you are, too. But then maybe not. Maybe you just like appearing to be in a snit every time you “speak” to me. I say, enough.
No one has all of the truth. But if we look at different points of view, we have a better chance of finding a larger piece. Does truth matter to you? Or just being conservative?
Helen,
I get it; the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” is at odds with “Liberation Theology”. And, of course, the “Prosperity Gospel” endorses the “conservative” world view, which, by extension, is all about greed, racism and taking old people’s medicine.
Yep, it’s all clear now. Obama’s problems regarding Wright has nothing to do with his judgment (or lack thereof) with being involved with an outspoken racist who dislikes America but, is part of a larger and epic battle between two differing Evangelical philosophies.
Alls that we need is a Sith lord or something pulling strings behind the scenes.
It was good for a laugh watching how the author went through mental contortions to blame all of Obama’s (and by extension Wrights) issues on conservatives and the GOP.
I love it; it’s all the GOP’s fault. Can you be a cliché anymore than that?
Helen, your knowledge of what it means to be a conservative is about as uninformed and ignorant as you claim our knowledge and understanding of blacks is; no it’s worse, at least we keep reading the links you send and try to understand your point of view even when you support it poorly.
Spiff
Hi Helen –
Truth does matter to me. Remember – I was the one who found it troubling that Wright was getting in the pulpit and spreading lies about the origin and spread of AIDS. I don’t recall that bothering you.
It’s interesting. In one post in the same thread, you said there was nothing wrong with Wright living in a big, expensive house because black people like nice things too.
Now you are at least admitting in the most circumspect way possible that Wright is “exactly like” these prosperity preachers in some respects, preachers who, according to the article you posted, are not very interested in any sort of “social gospel” that you are convinced Wright is preaching.
I suspect that down deep, you know that Wright is not living up to the ideas he demanded of others but you can’t admit it. But who knows? Maybe you don’t see the contradiction and are perfectly comfortable with those in power demanding one thing of others but less out of themselves.
Deana
>>I’m interested in the collective opinion of blacks, of finding the sociological pattern.>>
Interesting comment. My mother in law “loved” the poor. Volunteered for charitable committees on a regular basis, donated to charity. In retirement, she and my father in law traveled on freighters to less traveled corners of the world, coming back with tales of how wonderful the places were, and how wonderful the people were. But she wouldn’t go anywhere there were crowds. Wouldn’t stay in anything less than 5 star hotels, wouldn’t eat in places that were likely to have food service standards less than US standards. To me, it was as if she considered the people in the places she went more like zoo animals – something to look at, wonder and walk away from. Coming into really direct contact with the hoi polloi was something she found totally unacceptable.
She “loved” them – but she didn’t “like” them.
Rich people tend to condescend to the poor and justify it as either their inherent superiority or because they are able to condescend and treat the poor as if they were equal to the rich, when in fact they know very well that they consider themselves, if not their class, superior to the poor.
After all, not many human beings can look at the poor, help them out with handouts, and then say with a straight face “the poor are just as good as us”. Not even a master of double think could claim such without a twinge in the face.
We here think about Iraq in ostensibly egalitarian views. While we recognize that Americans have many things that Iraqis do not, we also recognize that Iraqis have many things we do not. We also recognize the fact that neither Iraq’s nor America’s status was because of an inborn, genetic, or geographic trait. They were all the results of actions, the actions of men and women. And if action and merit can make an America, then it sure as heck can make an Iraq just as good as America. That is the difference helping somebody and condescending to them by treating them as your equals when you are doing everything you can to ensure that they stay your social and economic inferiors.