this thread.

Tim Wise, a white anti-racist activist and scholar had this to say:

quote:

---

For most white folks, indignation just doesn't wear well. Once affected or conjured up, it reminds one of a pudgy man, wearing a tie that may well have fit him when he was fifty pounds lighter, but which now cuts off somewhere above his navel and makes him look like an idiot.

Indignation doesn't work for most whites, because having remained sanguine about, silent during, indeed often supportive of so much injustice over the years in this country--the theft of native land and genocide of indigenous persons, and the enslavement of Africans being only two of the best examples--we are just a bit late to get into the game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity.

But here we are, in 2008, fuming at the words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--occasionally Barack Obama's pastor, and the man whom Obama credits with having brought him to Christianity--for merely reminding us of those evils about which we have remained so quiet, so dismissive, so unconcerned. It is not the crime that bothers us, but the remembrance of it, the unwillingness to let it go--these last words being the first ones uttered by most whites it seems whenever anyone, least of all an "angry black man" like Jeremiah Wright, foists upon us the bill of particulars for several centuries of white supremacy.

But our collective indignation, no matter how loudly we announce it, cannot drown out the truth. And as much as white America may not be able to hear it (and as much as politics may require Obama to condemn it) let us be clear, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally told the truth.

Oh I know that for some such a comment will seem shocking. After all, didn't he say that America "got what it deserved" on 9/11? And didn't he say that black people should be singing "God Damn America" because of its treatment of the African American community throughout the years?

Well actually, no he didn't.

Wright said not that the attacks of September 11th were justified, but that they were, in effect, predictable. Deploying the imagery of chickens coming home to roost is not to give thanks for the return of the poultry or to endorse such feathered homecoming as a positive good; rather, it is merely to note two things: first, that what goes around, indeed, comes around--a notion with longstanding theological grounding--and secondly, that the U.S. has indeed engaged in more than enough violence against innocent people to make it just a tad bit hypocritical for us to then evince shock and outrage about an attack on ourselves, as if the latter were unprecedented.

He noted that we killed far more people, far more innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were killed on 9/11 and "never batted an eye." That this statement is true is inarguable, at least amongst sane people. He is correct on the math, he is correct on the innocence of the dead (neither city was a military target), and he is most definitely correct on the lack of remorse or even self-doubt about the act: sixty-plus years later most Americans still believe those attacks were justified, that they were needed to end the war and "save American lives."

But not only does such a calculus suggest that American lives are inherently worth more than the lives of Japanese civilians (or, one supposes, Vietnamese, Iraqi or Afghan civilians too), but it also ignores the long-declassified documents, and President Truman's own war diaries, all of which indicate clearly that Japan had already signaled its desire to end the war, and that we knew they were going to surrender, even without the dropping of atomic weapons. The conclusion to which these truths then attest is simple, both in its basic veracity and it monstrousness: namely, that in those places we committed premeditated and deliberate mass murder, with no justification whatsoever; and yet for saying that I will receive more hate mail, more hostility, more dismissive and contemptuous responses than will those who suggest that no body count is too high when we're the ones doing the killing. Jeremiah Wright becomes a pariah, because, you see, we much prefer the logic of George Bush the First, who once said that as President he would "never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."

And Wright didn't say blacks should be singing "God Damn America." He was suggesting that blacks owe little moral allegiance to a nation that has treated so many of them for so long as animals, as persons undeserving of dignity and respect, and which even now locks up hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders (especially for drug possession), even while whites who do the same crimes (and according to the data, when it comes to drugs, more often in fact), are walking around free. His reference to God in that sermon was more about what God will do to such a nation, than it was about what should or shouldn't happen. It was a comment derived from, and fully in keeping with, the black prophetic tradition, and although one can surely disagree with the theology (I do, actually, and don't believe that any God either blesses or condemns nation states for their actions), the statement itself was no call for blacks to turn on America. If anything, it was a demand that America earn the respect of black people, something the evidence and history suggests it has yet to do.

Finally, although one can certainly disagree with Wright about his suggestion that the government created AIDS to get rid of black folks--and I do, for instance--it is worth pointing out that Wright isn't the only one who has said this. In fact, none other than Bill Cosby (oh yes, that Bill Cosby, the one white folks love because of his recent moral crusade against the black poor) proffered his belief in the very same thing back in the early '90s in an interview on CNN, when he said that AIDS may well have been created to get rid of people whom the government deemed "undesirable" including gays and racial minorities.

So that's the truth of the matter: Wright made one comment that is highly arguable, but which has also been voiced by white America's favorite black man, another that was horribly misinterpreted and stripped of all context, and then another that was demonstrably accurate. And for this, he is pilloried and made into a virtual enemy of the state; for this, Barack Obama may lose the support of just enough white folks to cost him the Democratic nomination, and/or the Presidency; all of it, because Jeremiah Wright, unlike most preachers opted for truth. If he had been one of those "prosperity ministers" who says Jesus wants nothing so much as for you to be rich, like Joel Osteen, that would have been fine. Had he been a retread bigot like Falwell was, or Pat Robertson is, he might have been criticized, but he would have remained in good standing and surely not have damaged a Presidential candidate in this way. But unlike Osteen, and Falwell, and Robertson, Jeremiah Wright refused to feed his parishioners lies.

What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock--though make no mistake, they already knew it--is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War, according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time); millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth. No, to some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day that "everything changed." To some, everything changed four hundred years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown. To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States, thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life. Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact.

---

And it isn't just politics [not wanting to harm Obama].

Its because he knows well just how difficult, and risky, it was for Obama to say as much as he did.

I applaud Wise for using the opportunity for the high road and to remind people that substantively there is nothing wrong and at least much truth in what the Reverend spoke.

Tim Wise is well aware he speaks to a different audience than Barrack Obama spoke to this week.

unionist:

quote:

---

the article shows how Obama could have dealt with Wright.

---

It shows absolutely no such thing.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

unionist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I have substantively disagreed with you, and said that Obama was taking the difficult step of addressing the 'nuanced' resentments of white America, which you have dismissed and [apparently] 'answered' with more snide comments.

You are wrong. Obama addressed nothing. What did he say he would do about race issues in the U.S.? He made some pathetic noises about spending more money on schools.

---

Really? How about the following. There is more in his speech, but I’m willing to rest my case on this piece alone.

Obama's speech:

quote:

---

But it is not only black Americans, he went on, who harbour anger and resentment. “Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race,” he said. “Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything; they've built it from scratch.” When they are forced to bus their kids across town to preserve racially mixed schools, or hear of a black person landing a job or a university placement because of affirmative action, “resentment builds over time.”

---

I’m going to excerpt from my comment after you first said there was nothing more in Obama’s speech about race than platitudes.

quote:

---

Platitudes!?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sure, there is nothing new or original in his words. But you have no idea how difficult it is to utter those kind of words in any kind of public space in the US where the audience is not self-selecting... let alone a candidate for the presidency saying it.

If I spoke those kind of words in a US university classroom, I would have to be hyper-aware of how some of the students are going to take those words and what they would do with them.

---

You ignored that substantive challenge of your claim.

And you continued to igore it when I pointed out that if these are platitudes then you must be easy for you to find and share with us instances of where someone has braoched these sensitive topics nationally to a non self-selecting audience.

Unless you deign to substantively back up your claim then your comments such as those in the quote at the top- which you have repeated numerous times- deserve to be dismissed as expressions of some combination of ignorance and ideological fetish.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

When Unionist says that the way Tim Wise handled the situation and that this is how Obama ought to have handled it, I think Unionist is clearly correct; again, this might have been political suicide for his campaign but wow, imagine the foundation that would have been built for the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam:
but wow, imagine the foundation that would have been built for the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
So Trevormkidd, did you think Rev. Wright spoke the truth? Or was it just an inconvenient truth?

---

Would not an inconvenient truth still be the truth?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Would not an inconvenient truth still be the truth?

---

Yes, but some here are justifying not speaking it if it is inconvenient for Obama's presidential bid.

quote:

---

As for whether or not Rev. Wright spoke "the truth" well I don't believe in "the truth" when it comes to such matters. Is he right about US foreign policy being racist? I think so. Is he right when he appears to say that the US government invented AIDS?

---

quote:

---

When Unionist says that the way Tim Wise handled the situation and that this is how Obama ought to have handled it, I think Unionist is clearly correct; again, this might have been political suicide for his campaign but wow, imagine the foundation that would have been built for the future.

I don't see how Unionist is wrong here...

---

Tim Wise didn't handle any situation. And he didn't say how Obama should have handled the situation.

Unionist has said numerous times that there is nothing but platitudes in the speech.

I pointed out how Obamas's speech is anything but platitudes [to which he has yet to give a substantive reply], and how if it was only about the survival of Obama's candidacy he would have left it condemning Rev. Wright's words. End of topic.

But he didn't play it safe. In the quote above I pointed out that where Obama went in that speech, it isn't only politicians that fear to go in the US.

You think Tim Wise 'dealt with it' because he said what you wanted to hear. I like hearing it too. But I'm open to hearing other things as well.

In the post above where I quote from Obama's speech I also excerpt from a post where I explained why bringing up white peoples' racial resentment is so difficult in a large non self-selecting audience [in Canada as well by the way]... let alone a presidential candidate speaking to a whole nation of individuals who he will not get the chance for a follow-up discussion if they 'have issues' with what he is saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Unionist has said numerous times that there is nothing but platitudes in the speech.

---

I said it just once. You must have been impressed by that. You used the word seven (7) times in the original thread.

quote:

---

I pointed out how Obamas's speech is anything but platitudes [to which he has yet to give a substantive reply],

---

You and I differ as to what platitudes are.

quote:

---

... and how if it was only about the survival of Obama's candidacy he would have left it condemning Rev. Wright's words. End of topic.

---

Well, if you read the whole thread, you'll notice that I already answered that point when VK raised it:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Even a secular fundie like me can figure out why he didn't "abjectly" condemn Wright (great Freudian slip there...).

Image a candidate abandoning his own preacher in the U.S. of A. Might as well say you're happy they nailed that Jew to the Cross.

Obama was stuck. He needed to distance himself from Wright's truth. But he couldn't distance himself from God.

---

Get it?

quote:

---

But he didn't play it safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yes, but some here are justifying not speaking it if it is inconvenient for Obama's presidential bid.

---

True, but I didn't say he was justified. I simply said that I don't think that Obama endorsing the views of rev wright would start some foundation which would be built upon.

quote:

---

Actually, I was specifically referring to the statements which Obama condemned - not every odd thing Rev. Wright has said in his life. Or did you just raise that last one to discredit him?

---

Or did you have a different interpretation?

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

KenS

... and how if it was only about the survival of Obama's candidacy he would have left it condemning Rev. Wright's words.
-------------------------------------------------

unionist:

Well, if you read the whole thread, you'll notice that I already answered that point when VK raised it:

[some text snipped from above]

Obama was stuck. He needed to distance himself from Wright's truth. But he couldn't distance himself from God.

Get it?

---

What I get is that the only thing of substance to you is Obama condemning the pastor's words, the rest is just fluff.

You have not bothered once to address substantively my contention that the rest of what Obama said about racism was far from fluff, platitudes or one of the other dismissing labels you used.

The most recent instance of your dismissal without addressing substance I reposted in this thread above:

quote:

---

Obama addressed nothing. What did he say he would do about race issues in the U.S.? He made some pathetic noises about spending more money on schools.

---

And then I gave the quotes from Obama's speech that at least potentially contradicts this contention.

They are pretty inflamatory on 2 fronts. One is the rather obvious one of driving a wedge for Clinton.

But that's minor compared to the other one. What may look reasonable to you is a proven means of throwing gas on the fire in a discussion of race in the US. Comparing any black person who you happen to think is extreme to the KKK, is either heedless or scurulous.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Comparing any black person who you happen to think is extreme to the KKK, is either heedless or scurulous.

---

From a outsiders perspective I have always found the idea that the world fundamentally changed when America was attacked is only relevant in a discussion that includes the idea that the fundamental change is that Bush removed the mask and showed the true face of the beast. Him and his advisors appear to have determined that they no longer needed a facade because the population at home were ready to fully embrace empire as the British population did before it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

So how about applying your contentions to that part of Obama's speech where he addresses the racial resentments of white people? which any American who has done it, Tim Wise included, can tell you is a very charged and delicate subject when the audience is not self-selecting liberals and progressives.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't very impressed. Change comes through deeds, not words - especially words which sound like excerpts from family therapy where the abuser and abused get to keep on living together with no substantive alteration in the relationship.

---

So, lets see.

We're talking about a speech which we have first criticised as generally nothing. When presssed to substantiate, it becomes "What did he say he would do about race issues in the U.S.? He made some pathetic noises about spending more money on schools."

quote:

---

Most of the discussion and commentary about Dr. Wright's sermons have come from a predominantly white media. The points of discussion have centered on what they consider to be the "vile, racist and un-American things" said by Dr. Wright. Very few, if any, of the discussions have focused on the historical basis and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said.

The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely one-sided. The media have used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic. Has this become the "Willie Hortonization" of Senator Barack Obama? The reporting and commentary on Dr. Wright's words have been presented from the perspective of people who either have no appreciation for the African-American historical experience or a personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.

Dr. Wright is under attack for saying such things as "... the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law, and then wants us (African-Americans) to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no; not 'God Bless America,' God damn America ... for killing innocent people; God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human...." These are very strong words, delivered at what many are calling a possible turning point in American history with regard to America's willingness to elect an African-American candidate. While the mainstream media have found no merit in any of Dr. Wright's statements, let's examine their merit from a historical basis.

---

Also, after listeing to the sermons wherein he mentions Hillary in its entirety

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciWzbtiwUxA

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvcmqnju9PM

I conclude that Obama was correct to censure him on divisive language. He prefaces before and after the divisive language by saying the message is for everyone, even people you don't like, but he then goes on to conflate class with race. Now, statistically speaking he is correct, however, the brush was a little too broad. What I thought he was trying to say was that Obama came and learned about them, after overcoming their suspicion of him, and Hillary didn't, but really he could have phrased that better. My opinion - he got trolled by Hillary's advisor Ferraro. Nothing like a little anger to get someone all racial.

Note, though, how Fox cleverly edited out the redeeming disclaimers, and the conclusion, that the main thing was to love Jesus, and the reassurance to the white parishioners that hey, they're okay.

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
I conclude that Obama was correct to censure him on divisive language. He prefaces before and after the divisive language by saying the message is for everyone, even people you don't like, but he then goes on to conflate class with race.

---

You, like Obama, consider the truth as "divisive". Let me quote what Rev. Wright said on Sept. 16, 2001, which Obama has now condemned in the most cowardly and sycophantic fashion possible. Perhaps you can point out which of this language is "divisive":

quote:

---

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

---

For example:

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html#Page-19

(I'm "not a hannity drone" on the 19th page)

However, and I don't really blame Wright for this, if you listen to say, the day Jerusalem fell or especially the bit about Hillary Clinton:

Part 1:

Part 2:

He has that tendency to frame the debate in terms of race and class, rather than just class. Not that I think he's racist, far from it, but I honestly think that in this sort of dialogue, race really only serves to distract from the central issues of money, power, who has it, and what they do to keep it. Wright was very even-handed in his treatment of the subject, but from my perspective, the whole thing is a chimera.

Mind you, like Obama, I'm "biracial" so maybe that effects how I see things.

Again, I think Wright is a product of his times and his country. Race/ethnicity in the US is part of the political landscape. But I find it frustrating because it almost always divides those who, if they ignored that, would find common cause. Even if the speaker has the best of intentions.

As for Obama, having read some posts from others (such as on the Huffington Post), I can find it easy to believe he was stymied by the clips. Wright had gone on vacation as I understand it right before the media got their sweaty little mits on it, so really, all he could do was say he disagreed with what this clips portrayed, but he felt Wright was a good man.

If he was a typical politician, I would expect him to just throw Wright under the bus.

What really puzzles me is why the full clips are still being sat on. Cooper from CNN 360 has these sermons posted on his blog, but I have yet to see any allusion to them on his show, even tonight when it came up. The narrative is intact. I can only guess that a big counter move is in the works, or they figure it's best to just ride it out.

[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
Actually I had no problem with that speech.

---

The video clips presented by Fox and company were an amalgamation of at least 3 speeches, and none of them are easily recognizable eve if you've seen them before.

Based on Obama's blog entries around that time and the timing of the release of the complete sermons (well after the Fox hatchet job) which O probably wasn't there for, I'm guessing nobody realized where the hell that footage came from until maybe a week went by.

In short, he was denouncing the clip.

[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]