What's so wrong about Wright?

[Pure]

A fine speech by Wright, excerpts, links "Audacity to Hope"

Jeremiah Wright's "Audacity to Hope" speech, 1990

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZROa0rlMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_LQKlLSBo

[transcript is at this location, excerpt below]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986116/posts


[beginning]

Wright: [...]I was privileged to and blessed to hear the preaching and teaching of Reverend Frederick G. Sampson of Detroit, Michigan and in one of this lectures Dr. Sampson talked about a picture that I had had to study in humanities courses at that same school, Virginia Union back in the late 50’s.

"And Dr. Sampson talked about the picture so beautifully and so powerfully that memories were brought back to me from those college days in the 50’s and he talked about the painting as being a study in contradictions because what is depicted as the title and what is on the canvas seems to be in direct opposition one to the other. You see, the painting is titled “Hope” and it shows a woman sitting on top of the world playing a harp.

Now at first glance, that would be all right, for what more enviable position could one ever hope to achieve than being on top of the world with the whole world, everything and everyone dancing to your music. But when you look closer at the picture, when the illusion of power gives way tot the reality of pain the world at which this woman sits, our world, that is a world which is torn by war, destroyed by hate, devastated by despair and devastated by distrust [...]

"Then, on top of that, she’s sitting there in rags. Tattered clothes as if she herself has been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Her head is bandaged and her blood is beginning to seep through the bandages. Scars and cuts are visible on her face, her arms and her legs. That’s when you look closer at the picture. And the instrument, on which she plays, her harp, has all but one of its strings broken, torn or ripped out. Even the instrument ha been damaged by what she has been though and she is even more the example of quiet despair than anything else. Yet, the artist dares entitle the painting “Hope.” [...]

[central portion of sermon, omitted for lack of space]

[final portion]
"In your life, there may not be any visible sign of a change in your individual situation whatever your private Hell is. But that’s just a horizontal level. Keep the vertical level intact, like Hannah [I Samuel 1] and you may like the African slaves be able to sing “over my head I hear music in the air, over my head I hear music in the air, over my head I hear music in the air, there must be a God somewhere.”
"Keep the vertical dimension intact like Hannah. Have the audacity to hope for that child of yours, have the audacity to hope for that home of yours, have the audacity to hope for the church of yours.

For whatever it is you’ve been praying, keep on praying and you may like my grandmother sing “There’s a bright side somewhere, there’s a bright side somewhere.” There is a bright side somewhere. Don’t you rest until you find it, for there is a bright side somewhere. The real lesson that Hannah gives us from this chapter, the most important word that God has here is how to hope when the love of God is not plainly evident.

It’s easy to hope when there is evidence all around you of how good God is, but to have the audacity to hope when that love is not evident and you don’t know where that somewhere is that my grandmother sang about, or if there will ever be that brighter day. That is the true test of a Hannah-type faith. To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope, to make music and praise God on and with whatever it is you have left even though you can’t see what God is going to do. That is the real word God would have us hear from this passage and from this painting.

"There is a true-life illustration that demonstrates the principles so powerfully played in this pericapy. And I close with it. My mom and my dad used to sing a song I have not been able to find in any of the published hymnals. It is an old song out of the black religious tradition, called “Thank You, Jesus.” It is a very simple song and some of you have heard it. It goes, “I thank you, Jesus. I thank you, Jesus, I thank you, Jesus.”

But to me they would always sing that song at what seemed like the strangest times. When the money got low in our home, or when the food was running out, or when I was getting in trouble they would start singing that song. And, I never understood it because as a child it seemed to me they were thanking God we had no money, or thanking God that we had no food or were thanking God I was in trouble or making a fool out of myself as a kid.

But I was only looking at the horizontal level. I did not understand, nor could I see back then, the vertical hookup that my mother and my father had. I did not know then they were thanking Him in advance for all that they dared to hope for that He would do one day to their son, in their son and through their son. That’s why they prayed, that’s why they hoped and that’s why they kept on praying.

No visible sign on the horizon and that’s why I thank God I had praying parents because now some 35 years later when I look at what God had done in my life I understand clearly how Hannah had the audacity to hope, why my parents had the audacity to hope and that’s why I say to you hope is what saves us. Keeping on hoping, keep on praying. God does hear and answer prayers." [end]

===
see also

transcript of wright's speech to the NAACP, april 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/index.html

 

[S-Des]

Truer words have never appeared in this thread.
It's just fun to get Cloudy fired up now and then

Not directed at Cloudy (or anyone else in particular), it's a very common trend among people arguing from the Left. I've always found it amazing that the same people who will scream that you don't understand because you're the wrong color (wrong religion, wrong political affiliation, blah blah blah) think that they are free to comment on things they have no relation to. When we're talking about men fathering babies, then abandoning them, you bet your ass I'm going to scream about it. I don't give a shit what the men look like or where they go to church, as a father I have no problem calling someone who doesn't take care of his kids(s) a total piece of shit. While it's not the only problem in bad neighborhoods (White, Hispanic, Black, etc...), it is a significant one. People refuse to address it because they don't want to sound judgmental (then proceed to call everyone who disagrees a bunch of non-caring, racist bastards ), but that's their problem, not mine. If you think that MLK would look at gansta-rap, 50% drop-out rates, and black politicians stealing from their constituents and then blame whitey for all the problems facing minorities, you're out of your freaking mind.

 

[S-Des]

You are forgetting about the 'private military contractors', aka mercenaries, like black water and tripe canopy, who DO kill civilians. US government made sure to give them freakin immunity from killing civilians, ushers them out of the country like heroes when they are caught doing anything illegal, and pays them huge amounts of money.....

Not forgetting, but that is a separate (and very complicated issue). Private contractors are a major problem, but also a reality. Iraq can't provide security for foreign dignitaries and contractors who are working in the community, so the answer they came up with was these hired guns. Since it's people working for cash only (as opposed to soldiers who obviously have a higher calling), it's not surprising that they are less likely to wait patiently when being fired at. I think giving them blanket immunity is very wrong, but like I said, it's a very complicated situation. They have killed civilians (as has the army), but in minute numbers in comparison to the militants from Iraq and the foreign fighters who kill indiscriminately (and actually target women and children often to cause maximum carnage). It's a stain on what we do there (as was Abu Ghraib & GITMO), and is a significant reason why it's taken so long for things to get better.

I've never claimed to be a Bush defender, and am happy to skewer him when he deserves it. But that doesn't have anything to do with comparing our marines to Al Qaeda (who this week called on all Muslims to murder their leaders if they weren't ruling according to the Koran.....you know, the "correct" version ).

 

[Guest]

Not directed at Cloudy (or anyone else in particular), it's a very common trend among people arguing from the Left. I've always found it amazing that the same people who will scream that you don't understand because you're the wrong color (wrong religion, wrong political affiliation, blah blah blah) think that they are free to comment on things they have no relation to. When we're talking about men fathering babies, then abandoning them, you bet your ass I'm going to scream about it. I don't give a shit what the men look like or where they go to church, as a father I have no problem calling someone who doesn't take care of his kids(s) a total piece of shit. While it's not the only problem in bad neighborhoods (White, Hispanic, Black, etc...), it is a significant one. People refuse to address it because they don't want to sound judgmental (then proceed to call everyone who disagrees a bunch of non-caring, racist bastards ), but that's their problem, not mine. If you think that MLK would look at gansta-rap, 50% drop-out rates, and black politicians stealing from their constituents and then blame whitey for all the problems facing minorities, you're out of your freaking mind.

When you begin with such a blanket statement, Des, the rest of your message is lost. Whatever else you've said may have merit, but it means nothing because I can't get past the bias of your first sentence.

 

[S-Des]

When you begin with such a blanket statement, Des, the rest of your message is lost. Whatever else you've said may have merit, but it means nothing because I can't get past the bias of your first sentence.

You know I love you, but I've been called everything from a Right-wing religious fanatic to a racist bastard on this board. I'm sorry if you don't like the truth, but I've told you before that I'd be happy to point you to posts to back up my argument any time you'd like. Pointing it out doesn't make me biased, and it shouldn't make you so uncomfortable that you can't even acknowledge that there is some truth in it. People on the left hurling the "racist" accusation (or my favorite, "You want to starve children") in lieu of actually discussing facts is practiced commonly not only here, but anywhere political dialog is found (just ask Geraldine Ferraro). I'm in the middle politically and have the same arguments with the Right that I do here. Trust me, there's no comparison in the name-calling department.

 

[DesertPirate]

Des,
In my experience many of the folks on the far left do and say the same things as those they condem. The normally do it in the same manor. Makes it hard to take them seriously.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

When you begin with such a blanket statement, Des, the rest of your message is lost. Whatever else you've said may have merit, but it means nothing because I can't get past the bias of your first sentence.

"it's a very common trend among people arguing from the Left"

How is that a "blanket statement?" He cites a "trend" - he did not say "everyone on the left does this." Are you saying that no one on the left does, or rarely does? Really? I find Des's characterization highly plausible, in that it fits my experience. Numerous times right here, among others.

This is all a distraction, if not a diversion. The issue is, is the self-destructive behavior of those who belong to what is called "the underclass" (which is certainly not limited to blacks) responsible in large part for their inability to advance socially and economically?

If one refuses to acknowledge that behavior plays a critical role then one never gets to other questions: Can that destructive behavior be reformed in individuals, and is there anything government can do to accomplish it? The evidence suggests that government doesn't have a clue, because it's been trying for 50 years and has not made a dent. I would further argue that government is incapable of doing this, whereas self-help reform efforts/movements promoted by people like Bill Cosby may offer some promise.

 

[neonlyte]

My mistake... I thought it was Frank Lloyd W.....

 

[rgraham666]

I was going to say something, but fuck it.

I'm so sick of U.S. politics, its 'take no prisoners' and its 'win at any cost' attitude.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What government can do about the underclass:

Stop digging a deeper hole.

1. Shut down urban school districts that are ineffectual at best, and more commonly are rotten-to-the-core corrupt. Give parents vouchers instead. To those who defend the status quo with arguments that "some of those private schools won't be good" or they "won't be accountable" I say, those rotten urban school districts are good and accountable? Free the children and let 100 flowers bloom.

2. Declare unconditional surrender in the war on drugs. Full decriminalization. Pot available in liquor stores. Cocaine and heroin available behind-the-counter in pharmacies or some other outlet. Full commutation of all non-violent drug sentences, and complete expungement of criminal records for same. Operation clean-slate. The status quo does not prevent private tragedies, and compounds them with massive societal ones.


If Obama declared this as his agenda I would campaign for him, notwithstanding what I believe to be extremely destructive economic and energy policies. (That he won't should give pause to those who claim he is "different" and a source of "hope." )

 

[S-Des]

Des,
In my experience many of the folks on the far left do and say the same things as those they condem. The normally do it in the same manor. Makes it hard to take them seriously.

{shrug} There are the quirks on the Right as well (they LOVE to call me a Liberal ). I don't like the flame-throwing that the internet inspires in so many (often myself), but it's hard to talk about ideas with people in person anymore. You either find a clique that is completely unwilling to listen to anything that disagrees with them, or you find people who are too nice to disagree because they're worried they'll hurt your feelings (I had a GREAT argument with a biker at a party, then had a beer with him....but was later told that the other guests were afraid we were going to end up in a fist fight, which was complete nonsense). I've been swayed by opinions here, and always do my best to keep an open mind, no matter how strongly I feel on an issue. I understand why people get so fired up behind their cause, but I wish they'd understand that most of us aren't the enemy and they'd accomplish more if they stop treating us as such (what was it Mom used to say about flies & honey? ).

 

[S-Des]

The issue is, is the self-destructive behavior of those who belong to what is called "the underclass" (which is certainly not limited to blacks) responsible in large part for their inability to advance socially and economically?

If one refuses to acknowledge that behavior plays a critical role then one never gets to other questions: Can that destructive behavior be reformed in individuals, and is there anything government can do to accomplish it?

That is exactly the point. There is nothing the government can do to stop kids from making more kids before they're ready (and continuing to produce poverty and a lack of education) any more than they can stop any one of us from fucking whomever we choose. They can't stop gansta rappers from being role models (the ones who tell kids not to bother with school, smack their "bitch" up, and that it's all about appearances). They've proven over and over that they can't stop kids from joining gangs, which leads to destroying their lives as well as others. These things are social and can only be changed from within. The government can offer incentives and a safety net, but the change will come when people finally decide to refuse to take it any more. I wish someone would be forced to answer that if it's really "The Right's" fault, why is it that many of the worst areas are and have been in a complete Democratic stranglehold. Maybe the change will come when the people who supposedly represent them stop being in the pocket of political parties (hence removing the incentive to support politicians who don't address the problem).

 

[Boxlicker101]

"it's a very common trend among people arguing from the Left"

This is all a distraction, if not a diversion. The issue is, is the self-destructive behavior of those who belong to what is called "the underclass" (which is certainly not limited to blacks) responsible in large part for their inability to advance socially and economically?

If one refuses to acknowledge that behavior plays a critical role then one never gets to other questions: Can that destructive behavior be reformed in individuals, and is there anything government can do to accomplish it? The evidence suggests that government doesn't have a clue, because it's been trying for 50 years and has not made a dent. I would further argue that government is incapable of doing this, whereas self-help reform efforts/movements promoted by people like Bill Cosby may offer some promise.

As a former member of that underclass, I can say a loud "Amen" to that. I was stuck in a self-destructive pattern for fifteen years, and was basically spending my time between jail and skid row. I finally got my shit together and did something about it. I'm not rich, and I never will be, but my wife and I have a reasonably comfortable life.

Almost anybody who actually wants to prosper can do so. However, they have to avoid piling handicaps on themselves. I mean, things lke remaining illiterate after dropping out of school, or saddling themselves with a drug addiction, or alcoholism, or a couple of children by the time they reach 18, or any number of things that can hold them back. Even these handicaps can be overcome, but it is more difficult.

Society, and I don't mean government, wants people to be successful. Sometimes mini-societies don't, but people have to recognize them for what they are. The people of the US, generally speaking, benefit when as many people as possible are self-supprting and hold down regular jobs and have a stake in society. Government can't help, except sometimes by providing incentives of some kind. They do very little of that. Instead, they provide dis-incentives, such as welfare, which makes it harder for people to do something for themselves.

 

[WRJames]

I have finally figured out what is "wrong" with Reverend Wright. In his church there is a plaque that reads "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."

The President of the United States cannot be either.

Obama has only obscured this with his own rhetoric on the issue.

We who are part of white culture want to assume that the opposite of segregation is assimilation -- Wright is saying not so fast. That is why he is labelled a racist -- but it's much more complicated. He's trying to define what it means to be Unashamedly Black.

And Obama can't allow any hint that he might be really, unforgiveably, black -- that would be too dangerous.

And Christian? Too wimpy to bomb Iran. No way.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have finally figured out what is "wrong" with Reverend Wright. In his church there is a plaque that reads "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."

The President of the United States cannot be either.

Obama has only obscured this with his own rhetoric on the issue.

We who are part of white culture want to assume that the opposite of segregation is assimilation -- Wright is saying not so fast. That is why he is labelled a racist -- but it's much more complicated. He's trying to define what it means to be Unashamedly Black.

And Obama can't allow any hint that he might be really, unforgiveably, black -- that would be too dangerous.

And Christian? Too wimpy to bomb Iran. No way.

Sooner or later, there will be a black president, but I know for certain it will not be this year. As for Christian, probably the most devout Christian president in recent years was Jimmy Carter.

 

[WRJames]

Sooner or later, there will be a black president, but I know for certain it will not be this year. As for Christian, probably the most devout Christian president in recent years was Jimmy Carter.

You think Obama isn't going to make it? Given the chances for disaster in Iraq and the way the economy is headed, I think his chances of winning are fairly good. What bothers me is that it may not matter -- his willingness to disown Wright is very troubling. My wife wrote to the Obama campaign to find out his stance on UN cooperation -- no answer back yet, but they are sending us lots of notes asking for money.

Jimmy Carter's Christian faith made him seem a bit to wimpy -- but we live in a very different world now. Everyone would be a lot better off if the US could find a way to climb off its imperial high horse and concentrate on international cooperation instead.

 

[Pure]

good articles

there are a couple good articles with excellent maps about Obama's problems in Appalachia.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/18/192450/513/675/517989

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/12/134251/930

Clinton's big win in Kentucky underscores the prob. It seems that Kentuckians feel the Obama "does not share our values", according to another article i read recently. They often mention Rev Wright.

===

Some maps allegedly by Rove and co. showing McCain beating either, but Obama more easily, are at

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/McCainClintonObama051608.pdf


They assume that the Republican's "Southern Strategy" dating back decades, is going to give McCain all of the South and most of the west central states .

 

[Boxlicker101]

You think Obama isn't going to make it? Given the chances for disaster in Iraq and the way the economy is headed, I think his chances of winning are fairly good. What bothers me is that it may not matter -- his willingness to disown Wright is very troubling. My wife wrote to the Obama campaign to find out his stance on UN cooperation -- no answer back yet, but they are sending us lots of notes asking for money.

Jimmy Carter's Christian faith made him seem a bit to wimpy -- but we live in a very different world now. Everyone would be a lot better off if the US could find a way to climb off its imperial high horse and concentrate on international cooperation instead.

I said there will not be a black president this year. The only way there could be one would be for either W or Cheney to die, and for the survivor to nominate a black candidate for VP and have him or her approved by the Senate. Then the pres. would have to die before the end of December, allowing the new VP to succeed to the office.

As I have said, I predict that McC will win over either Dem. by one of the biggest landslides in history, but that is just a prediction, and I could be wrong. If Obama does win the election, he will become pres. on Jan. 20, 2009, which is next year.

 

[Boxlicker101]

there are a couple good articles with excellent maps about Obama's problems in Appalachia.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/18/192450/513/675/517989

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/12/134251/930

Clinton's big win in Kentucky underscores the prob. It seems that Kentuckians feel the Obama "does not share our values", according to another article i read recently. They often mention Rev Wright.

===

Some maps allegedly by Rove and co. showing McCain beating either, but Obama more easily, are at

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/McCainClintonObama051608.pdf


They assume that the Republican's "Southern Strategy" dating back decades, is going to give McCain all of the South and most of the west central states .

It dates back to 1964, with Goldwater. He almost swept the southern states that year. Prior to that, it was known as "The Solid South" because it always voted solidly for Dems.

 

[WRJames]

As I have said, I predict that McC will win over either Dem. by one of the biggest landslides in history, but that is just a prediction, and I could be wrong. If Obama does win the election, he will become pres. on Jan. 20, 2009, which is next year.

So much depends on Iraq and the economy. If both go really sour, which seems all too likely, McCain may not stand much of a chance.

Being a resident of New York, I have seen the governors of New York and it's two neighbors resign in the face of scandal -- so I wouldn't rule out something like that biting one or more of the candidates.

And of course there is the possibility of even darker events. This year has an eerie resemblance to 1968. We may be sitting at the edge of a summer of horror.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If (the economy) goes really sour, which seems all too likely . . .

Been hearing this for five years now. Glad I didn't convert my 401k from stocks to bonds when the media first started beating this drum.

Hypothesis - This is a variation on the "Homeless in the news when Repubs in power, and invisible when Dems in power" law of the media universe: When the prez is a Repub every news story about good economic numbers is cast with a negative gloss, such as, "Record high employment unlikely to continue." When Dems are in power it's the opposite, and bad news gets a happy-face, as in, "Employment likely to increase" when the latest in a string of bad job numbers is released.

This explains why so many people have been pissing on a good economy for five years - they saw it on the news.

 

[S-Des]

Been hearing this for five years now. Glad I didn't convert my 401k from stocks to bonds when the media first started beating this drum.

Hypothesis - This is a variation on the "Homeless in the news when Repubs in power, and invisible when Dems in power" law of the media universe: When the prez is a Repub every news story about good economic numbers is cast with a negative gloss, such as, "Record high employment unlikely to continue." When Dems are in power it's the opposite, and bad news gets a happy-face, as in, "Employment likely to increase" when the latest in a string of bad job numbers is released.

This explains why so many people have been pissing on a good economy for five years - they saw it on the news.

Horowitz has some amazing facts on the press coverage. If you really want to get a picture on how far Left the main stream media (obviously not Fox or talk radio) leans, you should check out his work. If things do continue as they are now (better than they've been, but still not where they need to be), there will be minimum coverage....only when something bad happens. If they get better, people won't even be able to find mention of the war. If they get worse....well, the NY Times ran 60 front page stories on Abu Ghraib (30 in a row, which is more than they did for the holocaust), so you can probably figure that one out.

On a related note, NBC officially admitted that they have stopped claiming Iraq is in the midst of a civil war (they quietly stopped saying it back in September).

 

[Boxlicker101]

So much depends on Iraq and the economy. If both go really sour, which seems all too likely, McCain may not stand much of a chance.

Being a resident of New York, I have seen the governors of New York and it's two neighbors resign in the face of scandal -- so I wouldn't rule out something like that biting one or more of the candidates.

And of course there is the possibility of even darker events. This year has an eerie resemblance to 1968. We may be sitting at the edge of a summer of horror.

One difference is this: The radicals now are smarter than the radicals then. In 1968, they went to Chicago to instigate riots. The general public was aware of this, and got really turned off by it. They won't make that mistake again.

Okay, I know that some will claim they were "just peaceful demonstrators." Bullshit! Most of the radicals went there to cause trouble, not to express themselves peacefully, and that is what happened. There may have been a few who really were just demonstrating peacefully, but there were many thousands more who wanted to cause as much disruption as they could. They succeeded, but virtually everybody saw through their claims of innocence.

 

[Darkniciad]

We who are part of white culture want to assume that the opposite of segregation is assimilation -- Wright is saying not so fast. That is why he is labelled a racist -- but it's much more complicated. He's trying to define what it means to be Unashamedly Black.

Please...

We believe in the following precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

Commitment to God
Commitment to the White Community
Commitment to the White Family
Adherence to the White Work Ethic
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

A page from Klan propoganda?

No, it's what the Trinity website looked like when Wright was pastor, with "White" substituted for "Black", before all this broke and someone sanitized it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070307121338/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Please...

We believe in the following precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

Commitment to God
Commitment to the White Community
Commitment to the White Family
Adherence to the White Work Ethic
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

A page from Klan propoganda?

No, it's what the Trinity website looked like when Wright was pastor, with "White" substituted for "Black", before all this broke and someone sanitized it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070307121338/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Hmmm . . . That does seem rather distant from, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."