It’s curious that bringing about social change is almost always on the Marxist end of the political spectrum. Does preaching the “social gospel” as Barack Obama and Black Liberation preachers constantly say simply consists of socio-political propaganda?

I believe there are, indeed, genuine miscarriages of justice happening everyday, and our society has even sanctioned some of this injustices. Sometimes it’s along racial lines; sometimes it’s not. I have seen how Black men are treated more suspiciously than other men by the police. But it is also true that Black men cause a disproportionate amount of crime per capita than all the other races in America, and victimology does not justify it.

I think Black Liberation Theology, the Rev. Wright’s, the Al Sharpton’s and the Jesse Jackson’s of the world add more fuel to the fire by propagating racial grievances than they solve any of the real problems plaguing the Black community. Bill Crosby was howled down by the leaders of the Black community because he dared to say that Black people have to own up to their part of the problem.

I think we do need a content-based national conversation on race that is not stymied by multiculturalism and PC nonsense. We share a common culture, a common language, a common history. We are all part of ONE nation, not a nation divided into many parts.

A part of me wants Rev. Wright, et al to just go away. But in a peculiar way, they are also part of the solution. If young Black men want to look at where all these grievances and grudges lead, they have to only look at Wright’s radicalism.

It’s like the hippies looking at Marilyn Manson and seeing where all their happy little dabbles in Eastern occultism and drugs would go over time. They pulled back from the brink, but still left us with a drug culture and anti-establishment “undermine the paradigm” rebellion ethic for our youths. We may be more than twenty years before recovering from what the Baby-Boomers had wrought in our nation.

But if the Black community is to recover from their current state, they’ve got to start at some point to address their own actions.

All the buzzwords in the abstract make one’s eyes glaze over. “consciousness raising” …”social change”….. Is somebody stuck in the 60’s, or what?

From my point of view, “social change” should mean that someone who is poor gets an education better than one’s parents, acquires job skills, and gets a better job than one’s parents had. One by one. It ain’t about liberal guilt trips.

Mendez is presenting to us the latter day reincarnation of the revival meeting, somewhat updated with 1960’s rhetoric. Hallelujah, I’m an anti-racist! The insidious aspect to this is that anyone who does not agree with them and adopt their “emerged as anti-racist agents of social change” viewpoint could then be labeled as “racist.” Sinner!

The welcome table: Reframing the Dialogue on Racism
by Mendez, John, D.Min., United Theological Seminary, 2006, 310 pages; AAT 3279067

Abstract (Summary)
This study seeks to evaluate and refine the existing model of, Refraining the Dialogue on Racism. A case study was implemented to evaluate the experiences of those that participated in a well-planned series of consciousness raising transforming seminars. The results of the evaluation revealed that the majority of the participants developed an oppositional consciousness and emerged as anti-racist agents of social change.

You assume there is an “intellectual exchange.” In fact, there is little or nothing truly “intellectual” going on and very little actual exchange. All that matters is “point of view” and the only “point of view” that is permitted to be heard is Black Liberation Theology. Whites stand accused. If they agree, they are obviously guilty, even they admit it. If they disagree, the content of the disagreement is not considered and the very fact that they disagreed is taken as proof of their guilt. This is a clever debate tactic, but it’s hardly intellectual or conducive to an exchange.

Keep at it, though. What these folks actually say is so far from an honest discussion of race that they are hard to parody, and yours made me laugh out loud. Thanks for writing.

In typical white-oppressor fashion, you assumed that because you didn’t identify Helen as the ‘liberal friend’ who introduced you to this fine piece of scholarship, and because you didn’t actually quote any comments Helen may have made to you in private, you would be free to discuss it with other white oppressor friends -

Au contraire, my racist friend. According to Black Liberation Theology, when a recovering-racist/race-victim/minority chooses to share intellectually enlightening publications with a white oppressor in the hopes of making herself feel superior, said oppressor must a) publish the results of the exchange if it was successful from the point of view of the recovering-racist/race-victim/minority or b)never let the intellectual exchange NOR the source material NOR any criticism of the source material be mentioned in public again.

Thank you for your time. I pray this post finds you in a suitably remorseful frame of mind, though I hold no great hope that it is possible for you to free yourself from your own white-centric willfully ignorant myth-based remorselessly racist ethics system.

P.S I’d appreciate it if any and all would point out any glaring mistakes and/or omissions in this, my first attempt at rabble-rousing victimology. I am searching for a new career and I need to know if I have any future in this field. Thank you.

pparently to conservatives, it is unfair for me to post criticisms that he doesn’t like and all right for GQ and his friends to bash my beloved pastor.

In this sense, it makes the quoted comprehensible.