What's so wrong about Wright?

[WRJames]

I was just out in Chicago to attend my daughter's graduation from seminary. The speaker at the commencement ceremony was Jeremiah Wright's successor. Many of the students at that seminary are members of Jeremiah Wright's former church, and they are enthusiastic supporters of him.

So -- just how "wrong" can he be? Here is a link to some of his controversial statements. Now, personally, I don't see any evidence that AIDS was a CIA plot -- but most of the other stuff is true -- not a truth Americans may want to look at, but true nevertheless. We laugh at Turkey for passing a law that forbids any discussion of their genocide against the Armenians, but really, are we any better?

And what the hell is Obama doing running away from Wright as quickly as possible? Just what kind of change is he talking about if he isn't willing to face up to some of this?

 

[Darkniciad]

Obama tried ( more or less successfully ), and then Wright proceeded to boldy counteract any argument that the quotes were taken out of context by saying he meant exactly what he said and expanding on it in a "look at me!" tour.

Wright is purposely, loudly devisive, and that's a direct contradiction to the image of Obama. At that point, Obama had no choice but to throw him under the bus and spin the tires on top of him to get away as quickly as possible.

Rev. Wright is part of the problem, not the solution. Obama's speech in response to the contraversy was a far better framing of the issues without all the hateful rhetoric and unsubstanciated crap about the government using AIDS and coke to kill off black people.

Unfortunately, Wright apparently couldn't stand Obama stealing his thunder, and more or less derailed what could have been a solid starting point, for the time being. Once the election is over, whether he's in the White House or not, Obama is in a position to open up the discussion from a position of reason in the national spotlight.

Here's to hoping he's as sincere as his speech implied.

I was just out in Chicago to attend my daughter's graduation from seminary. The speaker at the commencement ceremony was Jeremiah Wright's successor. Many of the students at that seminary are members of Jeremiah Wright's former church, and they are enthusiastic supporters of him.

So -- just how "wrong" can he be? Here is a link to some of his controversial statements. Now, personally, I don't see any evidence that AIDS was a CIA plot -- but most of the other stuff is true -- not a truth Americans may want to look at, but true nevertheless. We laugh at Turkey for passing a law that forbids any discussion of their genocide against the Armenians, but really, are we any better?

And what the hell is Obama doing running away from Wright as quickly as possible? Just what kind of change is he talking about if he isn't willing to face up to some of this?

 

[3113]

Obama tried ( more or less successfully ), and then Wright proceeded to boldy counteract any argument that the quotes were taken out of context by saying he meant exactly what he said and expanding on it in a "look at me!" tour.

Agreed. The first time around Obama was able to say, "Hey, you went into this guy's church and took what he said out of context, and assumed that's all he talks about, etc.--"

And Wright should have said, once the waters had calmed, "I don't want to give these assholes any more chances to focus on me instead of the issues--to focus on what I'm saying rather than on what my good buddy Obama is saying. I'll tone it down for a while." Instead he said, "Oh, goodie! Now I've got a national platform and I can get all the news to focus on me. Thank you Obama's enemies for making me the center of attention! I'd much rather the news broadcast what I have to say than what Obama has to say--even if costs him the election!"

It's was not Wright's fault, the first time, if he was used to cause Obama trouble. But it most certainly WAS his fault the second time, as it was he, himself, who got the news to focus on him...and derailed completely Obama's attempt to get the news off him and back onto the issues.

What a selfish, stupid, destructive and rude thing to do. He deserved to be tossed under the bus.

 

[rengadeirishman]

It almost seems like Wright doesnt want Obama to be president, and my theory is that if there were a black president, he and others wouldnt be able to protest the injustice of there never having been a black president

 

[Darkniciad]

Granted, I'm behind McCain all the way, and always have been, but I honestly think Obama has a better chance of advancing dialogue on the issue of race if he doesn't win the election. He's going to be mired in Republican screaming, all the national security information he's not currently privy to, the economy, etc. if he's in the Oval Office - far moreso than if he served another term in the Senate.

I don't see a loss for him relegating him to obscurity like Kerry. He's too good of a speaker, and genuinely inspires people ( even if I don't necessarily agree with him and think a lot of the inspired people may be a little blindly inspired ) In the Senate, he'll have a chance to put some more meat on what is a fairly thin resume, and I think that will give him a damn good shot in another four years, provided he keeps his nose clean and goes hard to work in the Senate. In the spotlight, but not in the center spotlight, he might get some dialogue moving.

I certainly don't think he's the messiah, but he's a clear, non-divisive voice that could at least move things in the right direction a lot more effectively than the likes of a Farrakan, Jackson, or Sharpton. The more I think about it, the more I like him on this one issue. Not enough to make me vote for him, but enough that I've had to revise my knee-jerk opinion that he wouldn't be able to make a difference with those who still hold the remaining racial divide apart on both sides.

 

[S-Des]

So -- just how "wrong" can he be? Here is a link to some of his controversial statements. Now, personally, I don't see any evidence that AIDS was a CIA plot -- but most of the other stuff is true -- not a truth Americans may want to look at, but true nevertheless.

1) The CIA invented AIDS to wipe out the black community
2) Any black who aspires to the middle class is a sell-out
3) Black people have different brains than white people, hence need to be educated differently and have a different value system
4) Obama was just saying whatever he had to in order to get elected
5) Farrakhan is a great leader
6) There is little difference between our marines and Al Qaeda

If you believe these items, than more power to you. That doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg for things that were said and promoted in that church through writings and groups (I don't visit here, I've lived near that neighborhood for 40+ years). I have a lot more respect for Obama now that he's ditched Wright, and I would have even more if he'd admit that he rarely attended the Church, which is why he wasn't aware of some of the more inflammatory statements. That said, it's over and besides some Republican BS during the general, it's a non-issue for most people. He got his vetting taken care of, so if there's no more surprises, then we can actually look forward to a discussion of issues in the Fall (other than the 527s, which will be brutal and completely dishonest on both sides).

 

[Pure]

to wrj

i basically agree with you.

i've heard some wright speeches, and certainly don't regard them as evil**. they remind me of Malcom X.

granting that, i still say there is shrillness, hyperbole and even paranoia in spots.

and looking back at the 60s, what his biggest problem is, is the overuse of rhetoric. the US left overindulged and got WAY ahead of the people. and it hurt them a lot. calling police 'pigs' is an example.

wright does the same, and while it sells in his niche, it nowadays may hurt his cause (and certainly Obama's) overall.

===


or if they are, they are no more evil than Robertson's, Dobson's or, lately, Bush's speech in Israel.

 

[S-Des]

....or, lately, Bush's speech in Israel.

Yeah.....there's a valid comparison.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I was just out in Chicago to attend my daughter's graduation from seminary. The speaker at the commencement ceremony was Jeremiah Wright's successor. Many of the students at that seminary are members of Jeremiah Wright's former church, and they are enthusiastic supporters of him. So -- just how "wrong" can he be?

As a nation we chose to embrace the gospel of King - integration and reconciliation - rather than that identified with* Malcolm X - separatism and never-ending resentment. The latter path leads to Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. The former to a society that judges people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. Wright and those like him need separatism, because their livelihoods depend on it. That's what's wrong with Wright.





*The totality of Malcolm's career was much more nuanced and multi-dimensional so the identification is not necessarily fair.

 

[Darkniciad]

Yeah.....there's a valid comparison.

And bait that every Democrat under the sea was fighting to bite on first. If there's ever been a finer example of "Protest too much", I can't recall it off the top of my head

Whoever wrote that speech played the Dems like a lute. I'm sure it's sinking in for a few of those who came out screaming in protest about now.

 

[S-Des]

*The totality of Malcolm's career was much more nuanced and multi-dimensional so the identification is not necessarily fair.

And lets not forget that many people believe Farrakahn (the guy who Wright repeatedly praises and uses his Church to promote) is the one who had Malcolm X killed in a power grab.....at the end of his life when Malcolm seemed to be changing his rhetoric to something more constructive.

 

[S-Des]

And bait that every Democrat under the sea was fighting to bite on first. If there's ever been a finer example of "Protest too much", I can't recall it off the top of my head

Whoever wrote that speech played the Dems like a lute. I'm sure it's sinking in for a few of those who came out screaming in protest about now.

I heard a Conservative talk show host just nail this. Since Obama said (all indignantly) that he had no plans to talk to terrorist groups anyway, why didn't he just come out that afternoon and calmly agree with the President like it was no big deal? Bush never mentioned his name, and I was more inclined to believe it was a shot against Carter (since his Middle-East trip was such a short time ago). Instead we have Biden swearing, and a dozen Democratic leaders screaming about how awful it was. It does make them seem a tad over-sensitive, doesn't it?

 

[Darkniciad]

I heard a Conservative talk show host just nail this. Since Obama said (all indignantly) that he had no plans to talk to terrorist groups anyway, why didn't he just come out that afternoon and calmly agree with the President like it was no big deal? Bush never mentioned his name, and I was more inclined to believe it was a shot against Carter (since his Middle-East trip was such a short time ago). Instead we have Biden swearing, and a dozen Democratic leaders screaming about how awful it was. It does make them seem a tad over-sensitive, doesn't it?

I suppose it was their turn, considering the GOP all went loopie overreacting to Obama's "losing his bearings" comment not so long ago and somehow construing it as an underhanded attack on McCain's age.

Campaign exhaustion is beginning to set in, obviously.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As a nation we chose to embrace the gospel of King - integration and reconciliation - rather than that identified with* Malcolm X - separatism and never-ending resentment. The latter path leads to Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. The former to a society that judges people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. Wright and those like him need separatism, because their livelihoods depend on it. That's what's wrong with Wright.

*The totality of Malcolm's career was much more nuanced and multi-dimensional so the identification is not necessarily fair.

After a lifetime of criminal activities, pimping and drug dealing, he found a new scam: Religion.

 

[WRJames]

1) The CIA invented AIDS to wipe out the black community
2) Any black who aspires to the middle class is a sell-out
3) Black people have different brains than white people, hence need to be educated differently and have a different value system
4) Obama was just saying whatever he had to in order to get elected
5) Farrakhan is a great leader
6) There is little difference between our marines and Al Qaeda

If you believe these items, than more power to you. That doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg for things that were said and promoted in that church through writings and groups (I don't visit here, I've lived near that neighborhood for 40+ years). I have a lot more respect for Obama now that he's ditched Wright, and I would have even more if he'd admit that he rarely attended the Church, which is why he wasn't aware of some of the more inflammatory statements. That said, it's over and besides some Republican BS during the general, it's a non-issue for most people. He got his vetting taken care of, so if there's no more surprises, then we can actually look forward to a discussion of issues in the Fall (other than the 527s, which will be brutal and completely dishonest on both sides).

Well, as I mentioned, a lot of middle class white divinity students attend that church and are staunch supporters of Reverend Wright. Do you have the exact quote for the "sellout" statement? I have a feeling it's being taken out of context. Same for the third. I understand that any suggestion of any racial differences is very unpopular, but the evidence is that somethow the eucational system is failing the Black population.

As for Obama saying anything he needs to to get elected -- well, the reaction to Bush's speech in the Knesset certainly reinforces that impression. Its not clear at this point what if anything Obama actually believes in.

I personally don't care for Farrakhan -- but, like Wright, he has been demonized by a media that fears his message.

As for there being little difference between our Marines and Al Qaeda -- perhaps a bit of an overstatement -- but it you took an objective look at the amount of human suffering to innocent people we have caused in Iraq, maybe not much of one. Of course, all of that is "incidental" and "unintentional" and "unfortunate" and sometimes "unsavoidable" -- we have a filter over our own actions.

The point I am trying to make is that Reverend Wright is trying to force us to look at ugly things we don't want to look at, don't want to know about, don't want to admit exist. True, he overstates at times, but a lot, most, of what he is saying it real. They are issues that badly need attention. What kind of change is Obama talking about, if not these problems?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, as I mentioned, a lot of middle class white divinity students attend that church and are staunch supporters of Reverend Wright. Do you have the exact quote for the "sellout" statement? I have a feeling it's being taken out of context. Same for the third. I understand that any suggestion of any racial differences is very unpopular, but the evidence is that somethow the eucational system is failing the Black population.

As for Obama saying anything he needs to to get elected -- well, the reaction to Bush's speech in the Knesset certainly reinforces that impression. Its not clear at this point what if anything Obama actually believes in.

I personally don't care for Farrakhan -- but, like Wright, he has been demonized by a media that fears his message.

As for there being little difference between our Marines and Al Qaeda -- perhaps a bit of an overstatement -- but it you took an objective look at the amount of human suffering to innocent people we have caused in Iraq, maybe not much of one. Of course, all of that is "incidental" and "unintentional" and "unfortunate" and sometimes "unsavoidable" -- we have a filter over our own actions.

The point I am trying to make is that Reverend Wright is trying to force us to look at ugly things we don't want to look at, don't want to know about, don't want to admit exist. True, he overstates at times, but a lot, most, of what he is saying it real. They are issues that badly need attention. What kind of change is Obama talking about, if not these problems?

I suspect those divinity students are subject to White Guilt" even though they have nothing, personally, to feel guilty about.

I dislike Wright and Farrakhan for the same reason I dislike David Duke. They are all extreme racists, judging by what they say publicly.

Al Qaeda murders by planting bombs or shooting at known civilians, such as in markets or depots. The Marines do nothing of thre sort, except sometimes an individual rogue. There is no comparison.

I don't believe it is so much that the educational system is failing the black population as the opposite. The system is available, but when the students don't attend or go there stoned or drunk or ignore what is available, whose fault is that?

 

[Darkniciad]

And what we're saying is that Wright is shutting down that dialogue. Obama had a handle on it, in a manner that actually managed to avoid all the rhetoric and bullshit. Wright then jumps on the bus for a whirlwind tour, clusterfucking everything, and forcing Obama to drop the issue in order to avoid damage to his campaign.

Wright is part of the problem, and has no place in the solution except for use as a bad example of how to dig your claws in to the racial divide to keep it open for your own enrichment.

Well, as I mentioned, a lot of middle class white divinity students attend that church and are staunch supporters of Reverend Wright. Do you have the exact quote for the "sellout" statement? I have a feeling it's being taken out of context. Same for the third. I understand that any suggestion of any racial differences is very unpopular, but the evidence is that somethow the eucational system is failing the Black population.

As for Obama saying anything he needs to to get elected -- well, the reaction to Bush's speech in the Knesset certainly reinforces that impression. Its not clear at this point what if anything Obama actually believes in.

I personally don't care for Farrakhan -- but, like Wright, he has been demonized by a media that fears his message.

As for there being little difference between our Marines and Al Qaeda -- perhaps a bit of an overstatement -- but it you took an objective look at the amount of human suffering to innocent people we have caused in Iraq, maybe not much of one. Of course, all of that is "incidental" and "unintentional" and "unfortunate" and sometimes "unsavoidable" -- we have a filter over our own actions.

The point I am trying to make is that Reverend Wright is trying to force us to look at ugly things we don't want to look at, don't want to know about, don't want to admit exist. True, he overstates at times, but a lot, most, of what he is saying it real. They are issues that badly need attention. What kind of change is Obama talking about, if not these problems?

 

[WRJames]

Obama had a handle on it, in a manner that actually managed to avoid all the rhetoric and bullshit. Wright then jumps on the bus for a whirlwind tour, clusterfucking everything, and forcing Obama to drop the issue in order to avoid damage to his campaign.

Well, maybe. But I think that Obama has been too quick to agree with the media demonization of Reverend Wright --

Which leads to the question -- what kind of "change" are we getting -- Coke instead of Pepsi? Tweedledum instead of Tweedledee?

It appears that the same media frenzy that demonized everything French just before the invasion of Iraq -- remember that one -- is now geared up to attack any hint of radicalism within this country. And we are falling for it, once again.

 

[Darkniciad]

When asked, point blank, about his radical statements, he said that he meant exactly what he said while on his tour of running at the mouth. When given a chance to explain himself, he went off on the same rants, even expanding on them.

If he's being "demonized", it's his own damn fault, and he's damaged Obama's campaign in the process. There's a great way to close the racial divide, launching torpedoes at the first seriously viable black candidate.

Obama is ( finally ) walking away from a bigoted relic of the past that needs to be put away to pasture so he doesn't poison a new generation with his hateful, reality-challenged rhetoric that probably has as much to do with him staying "in business" as it does with any moral convictions.

Well, maybe. But I think that Obama has been too quick to agree with the media demonization of Reverend Wright --

 

[S-Des]

Do you have the exact quote for the "sellout" statement? I have a feeling it's being taken out of context.

I don't really care about your feelings, I heard him say it so I know it wasn't taken out of context. The same thing with his discussion about "black brains" being different. If you're going to defend his comments, perhaps you should actually look up what he said first.

I personally don't care for Farrakhan -- but, like Wright, he has been demonized by a media that fears his message.

Then you know absolutely nothing about him

As for there being little difference between our Marines and Al Qaeda -- perhaps a bit of an overstatement

Gee, ya think? I really don't care if you hate the military, but Al Qaeda intentionally targets innocent civilians and murders them by the truckload in order to cause chaos. They torture (not by putting water on someone's face, but use piano wire to remove someone's face) people who disagree with them. They talk their "soldiers" into killing themselves in the process of killing other innocents (usually other Muslims) by telling them they'll go to Paradise afterwards. If you can't see the difference between those two groups, then there's nothing I can do to fix your issues.

The point I am trying to make is that Reverend Wright is trying to force us to look at ugly things we don't want to look at, don't want to know about, don't want to admit exist. True, he overstates at times, but a lot, most, of what he is saying it real. They are issues that badly need attention.

No, you're trying to excuse a bigot (and doing it without even knowing exactly what he's said). As I said, for you this is a new controversy that you're seeing through the prism of your experiences somewhere else. I've grown up with it my entire life. Nothing that has happened during this campaign is even a remote surprise, and don't be surprised if there's quite a bit more before November comes around.

 

[WRJames]

I don't really care about your feelings, I heard him say it so I know it wasn't taken out of context. The same thing with his discussion about "black brains" being different. If you're going to defend his comments, perhaps you should actually look up what he said first.


Then you know absolutely nothing about him


Gee, ya think? I really don't care if you hate the military, but Al Qaeda intentionally targets innocent civilians and murders them by the truckload in order to cause chaos. They torture (not by putting water on someone's face, but use piano wire to remove someone's face) people who disagree with them. They talk their "soldiers" into killing themselves in the process of killing other innocents (usually other Muslims) by telling them they'll go to Paradise afterwards. If you can't see the difference between those two groups, then there's nothing I can do to fix your issues.

Yeah -- and just what was "shock and awe" all about? It was about dropping a lot of bombs on civilian targets -- and some civilians in the process.

Do you remember we dropped a bomb on the house of the Taliban leader, killing the rest of his family -- his wife and children? And no one in this country even raised an eyebrow.


{QUOTE]
No, you're trying to excuse a bigot (and doing it without even knowing exactly what he's said). As I said, for you this is a new controversy that you're seeing through the prism of your experiences somewhere else. I've grown up with it my entire life. Nothing that has happened during this campaign is even a remote surprise, and don't be surprised if there's quite a bit more before November comes around.[/QUOTE]

Okay -- this the the terrible thing he seems to have said:

"Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality,” he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning.”

Wow! That is REALLY, REALLY bigotted! I am SHOCKED! Really, if those remarks are controversial, this country has reached a level of polical correctness that is terminal.

 

[S-Des]

Okay -- this the the terrible thing he seems to have said:

No, that's part of what he said. Funny though, the president of Harvard resigned when he said something similar about the differences between men and women's brains. They were so shocked at his comments he was going to get a vote of no confidence, so he quit. So I guess that means that you believe Africans do have different brains than white people? Funny, I've always thought we were pretty much the same. I'm sure the great black thinkers of our time might differ from you. {shrug}

Question, since Obama is half-white, half-black....which type of brain do you suppose he has?

Yeah -- and just what was "shock and awe" all about? It was about dropping a lot of bombs on civilian targets -- and some civilians in the process.

Do you remember we dropped a bomb on the house of the Taliban leader, killing the rest of his family -- his wife and children? And no one in this country even raised an eyebrow.

I suppose you forgot about the week beforehand when we dropped flyers and made announcements warning about what we were about to do, so civilians could seek shelter? I guess we could contrast that with an Al Qaeda operative who hides weapons in a Mosque, fires rockets from a crowd of children for protection, or ones who strap bombs on retarded women to blow them up in crowds if you like. It's a question of intent. Have we killed innocents? Yes. Can you argue that there was a way to accomplish the goals without any innocents dying? Maybe (since innocents were dying under Hussein as well). Can you say our marines act just like Al Qaeda? Only if you're a moron.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, maybe. But I think that Obama has been too quick to agree with the media demonization of Reverend Wright --

Which leads to the question -- what kind of "change" are we getting -- Coke instead of Pepsi? Tweedledum instead of Tweedledee?

It appears that the same media frenzy that demonized everything French just before the invasion of Iraq -- remember that one -- is now geared up to attack any hint of radicalism within this country. And we are falling for it, once again.

Why do you keep referring to "the media demonization of Reverend Wright"? All the media are doing is showing videotapes of things he has said, and he agrees that he really said them. He is demonizing himself.

There were complaints about France, but far from enough to be called "demonization".

 

[WRJames]

As a nation we chose to embrace the gospel of King - integration and reconciliation - rather than that identified with* Malcolm X - separatism and never-ending resentment. The latter path leads to Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. The former to a society that judges people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. Wright and those like him need separatism, because their livelihoods depend on it. That's what's wrong with Wright.





*The totality of Malcolm's career was much more nuanced and multi-dimensional so the identification is not necessarily fair.

Well, I agree with you that we need to move on -- but when someone like Wright holds up things a mirror that shows an image we are not so comfortable with -- aren't we too quick to brand him a radical, a bigot, a racist? I don't think he is calling for separation and never ending resentment, just pointing out that millions of black men are spending their lives in prison, millions of black women are spending their lives on welfare. Still, forty years aftter the death of Martin Luther King.

For me, the more striking part of Wright's message is his critique of America's role in world affairs. There are many Christians, of all races, who are in complete agreement with his condemnation of the hypocritical piety that has pervaded our rhetoric, while in secret we are supporting repression and torture.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, I agree with you that we need to move on -- but when someone like Wright holds up things a mirror that shows an image we are not so comfortable with -- aren't we too quick to brand him a radical, a bigot, a racist? I don't think he is calling for separation and never ending resentment, just pointing out that millions of black men are spending their lives in prison, millions of black women are spending their lives on welfare. Still, forty years aftter the death of Martin Luther King.

What I said was, Wright and those like him need separatism and never-ending resentment, because their livelihoods depend on it. View his words through that lens and much becomes clear.

As for the consequences of the evil war on drugs, and the government school establishment's war on school choice and reform, these are indeed the critical civil rights issues of the day. As such they should be the top agenda items for all those who are supposedly engaged in that cause, such as the NAACP. Instead, such organizations are muted on the drug issue, andare on the wrong side of the schools issue.

As for "black women spending their lives on welfare," Bill Cosby has a lot more useful and constructive things to say about that than race hustlers like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, and the leading "civil rights" orgs. Hint: The solution to the black underclass problem lies within the African American community, not the broader society. Another hint: Underclass dysfunctions are not limited to blacks (but are proportionally greater in the black population). A third hint: There is a black middle class to which many millions belong. That reality could not exist if the world were as Wright and his ilk describe it.