NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me give bit of context.

1. I don't support Wright's comments. I think he's a loon. I think he got his pride hurt and he's behaving in a way a rational person would find embarrassing.

2. I started out a member of an entirely white church just up my street that used to frighten my sister so badly that she would come home crying that my parents were going to hell.

At about 10, I started going to a church where I was one of about five or six white people I ever saw there. I loved it. It was where I learned about celebrating faith. I wouldn't purport to know what the "Black Church" is. I do know what my "Black Church" was like and that I loved it and went even though I did hear the occasionally racist sentiment (not as much as I did in my white church). That church played a major role in make me not just a Christian but a loving person, despite some clearly problematic things about it.

(You can skip the above if you don't really care about context)

First, I understand where Wright is coming from when he says that people don't realize how mainstream he is. We see watered down versions of the kinds of passionate rants that are so common in the churches I've attended when they're re-enacted in movies. They portray churches like they're all bringing bundt cakes and casseroles to people who's family is sick or died, singing and praising. It's all of those things, but I've seen my share of anger and when you're a part of a group that has suffered systemic oppression for the entire history of a country, it's not misplaced.

Second, it's loony to claim the government created AIDS, but is it so strange to be paranoid when you lived through a time when the government insideously treated the group to which you belong as sub-human, specifically identifying them as such because they belonged to that group? Black people were subjected to Hitleresque experiments by the American government because black people aren't really people, or so they would have had you believe. AIDS isn't that huge of a leap from there, frankly. (Note: I still think it's loony.)

Third, THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR POLITICS. This is about a preacher who has recently become quite famous.

Thoughts on Wright?

Thoughts on Wright?
If a preacher isn't being controversial then he's not doing his job, I think. From what I've read so far on his speeches, his subversive sentiment seems entirely appropriate given the way the world is and has been. On the other hand, I can see exactly why the language he uses has led to criticism from the general media, and his invokation of divine power was always going to result in having a few feathers ruffled.

It's not easy for people to use a Christian religious context to be truly prophetic in the Western world. It's nice to see they're still trying, though.

Well, if you can get past the "Nyaghh, America is Eebil" and "the government created aids," and actually look at the substance of his speeches, I think a lot of his points of view on stuff that actually matters are interesting and reasoned. Plus, he does really funny impressions of people in his sermons/speeches.

I agree that the AIDs thing is ridiculous, not to mention counter-productive. Tuskegee was a truly horrible thing, but the medical community has put regulations in place to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again. Its legacy, however, is that black Americans are quite often distrustful of the medical community (understandably so). But that distrust is standing in the way of the black community in getting proper healthcare. I think that Rev. Wright is feeding that paranoia and likely making the problem worse.

Other than that, however, I don't really see much wrong with the comments he made - particularly when taken in context. The one most people seem to focus on - the "chickens are coming home to roost" comment - wasn't even his own. He was repeating the words of someone else. His wording is much more abrasive, but the general idea of many of the comments he's made about US foreign policy are found in Obama's stances - and they are stances I agree with. Obama may not say, for instance, that the US has engaged in terrorism and that we are now reaping the rewards for that. He will, however, criticize US foreign policy and point out that it has contributed to terrorism.

Even the more racially charged comments, especially when taken in context with the rest of the sermon, aren't particularly damning. This country is, by and large, run by rich, white people. There are experiences that Obama has likely had that Clinton would not have - experiences that might help him better understand the concerns of others who have gone through them.

In the end, with the exception of the AIDs thing, I'd have to say that the problem I have with the comments is in how they are said, rather than what is being said. (Although, in context, I've generally got very little problem even there.) That, and the fact that the media pulled out 10-30 second sound bites out of the context of a whole sermon, when the comments aren't nearly as damning within that context.


Notes for context:
(a) I am a Christian, non-denominational Christian and I've never attended a traditionally black church. I do prefer worship services that incorporate more praise music (be it gospel or praise band types), rather than more traditional services.
(b) I haven't yet seen a transcript of Wright's latest comments, so I'm pretty much just going by the clips that causes the whole controversy.

Let me give bit of context.

1. I don't support Wright's comments. I think he's a loon. (.......). This is about a preacher who has recently become quite famous.

Thoughts on Wright?

He's nowhere as near as looney as some of the famous white ones. He's merely being hyped up for use as ammo. To comment further would lead us into polityk and its nefarious ways....

I've seen nuttier. On the nutty clergyometer, he barely rates an 'Al Sharpton'.

I've seen his picture. He isn't black anymore than I am native american. Note: My gramma's gramma's was a native.

He's nowhere as near as looney as some of the famous white ones. He's merely being hyped up for use as ammo. To comment further would lead us into polityk and its nefarious ways....

Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can't sit down and compare the comments of Wright to those of someone like John Hagee, McCain's "spiritual advisor," and realize just how mundane Wright's comments are.

If it had been the white preacher of a white candidate saying the same things, the media wouldn't bat an eyelash.

i find him very interesting. kinda funny, kinda crazy.

as a minister he is used to preaching to people who know where he is coming from with no need to explain every phrase. taking him out of context makes him seem far crazier than he is.

im wondering if he is out giving speeches with the intent of giving obama a good excuse for disowning him. it would have been wrong of obama to disown him for things he did in the past since its obvious that he knew about them and didnt care before this. by being outrageous now--and he does seem to be having lots of fun with it--he is letting obama off the hook. when obama disowned him this afternoon he had good reason to.

so maybe wright has thrown himself under the bus.

Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can't sit down and compare the comments of Wright to those of someone like John Hagee, McCain's "spiritual advisor," and realize just how mundane Wright's comments are.

If it had been the white preacher of a white candidate saying the same things, the media wouldn't bat an eyelash.

No, if it had been a white preacher, there would a massive media campaign showing how whites are teh ebil razist!!11

No, if it had been a white preacher, there would a massive media campaign showing how whites are teh ebil razist!!11

Again, John Hagee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Comments_on_hurricane_Katrina)

Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can't sit down and compare the comments of Wright to those of someone like John Hagee, McCain's "spiritual advisor," and realize just how mundane Wright's comments are.

If it had been the white preacher of a white candidate saying the same things, the media wouldn't bat an eyelash.

especially considering that mccain sought out hagees endorsement after he had said some disgusting things.

No, if it had been a white preacher, there would a massive media campaign showing how whites are teh ebil razist!!11

feel free to post any such media campaign. its not like there havent been plenty of white preachers who have said similar things. dig one up and show us just how true your assertion is with an example.

Again, John Hagee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Comments_on_hurricane_Katrina)

Thats the same, if not tamer than what Write said.

I like him. I think he's funny and correct. The AIDS comment I haven't even heard directly from him, but only from others who said he said it. I have to hear and see it in context. Although it is possible to engineer viruses, I doubt that the govt. created the HIV virus... everyone knows it was the reptilians and they don't run the govt.... yet.

The clip they showed of him on The Daily Show made me like him more.

He had great points about how they call him unpatriotic while he served proudly in the Marines for many years and had long been working towards helping the less fortunate, while the ones sending our family and friends off to die in a war based on lies and greed have used their positions of power and influence to keep themselves and their families from having to fight in these wars or even serve in the military at all.

I don't think it's strange at all to be paranoid about what those in power have done or are doing. I don't trust the majority of them either. Old money still runs things and there's no reason to believe that legacy leaders have changed their ways.

I completely agree with Dem (and Obama) though about his comments creating divisions.

especially considering that mccain sought out hagees endorsement after he had said some disgusting things.

Exactly. The man's a revolting excuse for a human being, and yet McCain courted him to get the religious vote.

And what did we hear about it? Absolutely nada.

feel free to post any such media campaign. its not like there havent been plenty of white preachers who have said similar things. dig one up and show us just how true your assertion is with an example.

Whats his face.....well you know, the "God hates fags" guy?

Thats the same, if not tamer than what Write said.
??? I am not fond of a lot of things Wright has said, but Hagee is a frighteningly murderous worm.

Whats his face.....well you know, the "God hates fags" guy?

You aren't really helping your case much if you have to go to Phelps to find the media making a big deal out of a white preacher.

Do you know when they started caring about him? When he started protesting the funerals of soldiers. It's hardly a valid comparison to making a few controversial comments.

Whats his face.....well you know, the "God hates fags" guy?

ok

although he courts it by being a constant dick. its not like he said one horrid thing or like he keeps his douchebaggery confined to the inside of his own church. it would be hard for the media to ignore an asshole who pickets the funerals of our war dead.

NPR explores the role of the black preacher and the art of the sermon:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12348760 (7 min.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11828359 (9 min.)

They give pretty good insight into Wrights comments and how they were delivered. Theres a methodology to the 'madness' that isn't instantly apparent to outsiders of black churches but is made pretty clear in the stories above.


oh oh ohhhhh...

This is probably the most important one:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88744273 (13 min.)

Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright is part of a religious tradition known as Black Liberation Theology. Two religious scholars discuss its foundation and contemporary meaning.

I take no issues with Wright. I think most of things he says are right. The only reason hes in the media is he is convienent ammo. And white people get scared by angry black people.

Thoughts on Wright?

I tentatively agree with all of that. I say "tentatively" because I am not and have never been a member of any church, so I leave it to your better experience to say whether the Rev. and his speech are "mainstream" or not.

I don't believe the government created AIDS, but I also understand where such a paranoia might come from. This is a nation that put its own citizens in internment camps (and one of the greatest Chief Justices we've had signed off on it), a nation that essentially dragged Native people in a death march to drop them in less desirable parts of the country and then left them polio-riddled blankets when they got there, a nation that stores small pox and other plagues in case they ever want to use them for bio warfare. Even if black people in this country hadn't been enslaved, dehumanized and oppressed for so long, all of that information would be enough to make anyone paranoid.

Do you know when they started caring about him? When he started protesting the funerals of soldiers. It's hardly a valid comparison to making a few controversial comments.

They didn't even care about him when he was showing up to protest at the funerals of Matthew Shephard or Gwen Araujo.

They didn't even care about him when he was showing up to protest at the funerals of Matthew Shephard or Gwen Araujo.

Exactly, the media doesnt give a shit that he hates gays. The media only cares that he doesnt "support our troops".

I'm glad. I was wondering if it's just me. We HAVE engaged in terrorism. What do you think nuking a city is? How does it compare to 3000 dead? What about supporting a terrorist regime as "freedom fighters" because we have to destroy communism in the world? To be clear, I'm not saying we're necessarily wrong, but who the "freedom fighters" are, and who is terrorizing civilians is really a matter of perspective. Instead of allowing for reasoned debate on the subject, we freak out any time anyone dare suggest we might have reaped what we've sown. (I say might, because I think terrorism is never justified no matter who the perpetrators are, and the people who died in 9/11 didn't sew anything.)

As far as his style, he's very much what I like when going to a church. He's speaking out. He's moving people. They are celebrating faith, life, their faith and their life, every bit of it, good and bad. I loved that about the churches I attended on the south side. An hour on the bus on Sunday morning and another in the afternoon and it was worth it to me. Because I would see people crying in grief and singing out about how things were getting better at the same time.

Wright is a performer and it's no wonder his church has grown 100 fold in his tenure.

I do take issue with his supporting the division of race. The idea that black people are inherently different both physiologically and culturally. Even the support he cited had the author cringing. It increases the divide and it undermines the solutions to the problems he's ranting about.

I've seen his picture. He isn't black anymore than I am native american. Note: My gramma's gramma's was a native.

... ya mean the Rev. Wright pulled a Micheal Jackson?!?! :eek:

Let me give bit of context.

1. I don't support Wright's comments. I think he's a loon. I think he got his pride hurt and he's behaving in a way a rational person would find embarrassing.

2. I started out a member of an entirely white church just up my street that used to frighten my sister so badly that she would come home crying that my parents were going to hell.

At about 10, I started going to a church where I was one of about five or six white people I ever saw there. I loved it. It was where I learned about celebrating faith. I wouldn't purport to know what the "Black Church" is. I do know what my "Black Church" was like and that I loved it and went even though I did hear the occasionally racist sentiment (not as much as I did in my white church). That church played a major role in make me not just a Christian but a loving person, despite some clearly problematic things about it.

(You can skip the above if you don't really care about context)

First, I understand where Wright is coming from when he says that people don't realize how mainstream he is. We see watered down versions of the kinds of passionate rants that are so common in the churches I've attended when they're re-enacted in movies. They portray churches like they're all bringing bundt cakes and casseroles to people who's family is sick or died, singing and praising. It's all of those things, but I've seen my share of anger and when you're a part of a group that has suffered systemic oppression for the entire history of a country, it's not misplaced.

Second, it's loony to claim the government created AIDS, but is it so strange to be paranoid when you lived through a time when the government insideously treated the group to which you belong as sub-human, specifically identifying them as such because they belonged to that group? Black people were subjected to Hitleresque experiments by the American government because black people aren't really people, or so they would have had you believe. AIDS isn't that huge of a leap from there, frankly. (Note: I still think it's loony.)

Third, THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR POLITICS. This is about a preacher who has recently become quite famous.

Thoughts on Wright?

From my point of view, most everything in a preacher's belief structure is likely to sound quite 'nutty'. Thinking that the government manufactured AIDS as a weapon against a certain demographic doesn't seem that extreme when you consider the contents of the book one assumes the preacher takes as his main information source.

I'm not attacking religion. I'm just saying - if you are expected, on a day to day basis, to believe anything from people made of clay, to hemorrhoids as divine retribution - government conspiracy isn't much of a stretch.

I know this thread is not about Obama or his campaign but I wanted to interject that I just read a news report about Obama showing his outrage over Writes recent public talks and I think it contributes to the discussion: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor


I will delete this post and move it to the election thread if you don't think it belongs here.

It's important, but it will hijack the conversation. The fact is the only reason anyone gives a crap about Wright is that they can use him to attack a man they're really having a difficult time getting to. Regardless, I'd like to talk about it, because for weeks I've been trying to figure out why this issue bugged me so much, but I figured it out yesterday when Wright was speaking. Once you ignore that he's totally and utterly grandstanding in an incredibly prideful way, I see the type of preacher I loved to watch. Someone who treated preaching like it was more than a lecture but a chance to move people in the spirit. As I said, I can see why his flock grew exponentially during his time as their shepard.

I just talked to my friend that used to go to Oak Forest Baptist with me (actually he's now my brother-in-law). He's frustrated too. Really, it's narcisstic. He took an opportunity to raise up the faith, to raise up the culture of the church, but instead took the opportunity to deride and attack and insult.

I agree with most what he says, except the AIDS thing. I follow the ideas that the American gov't is inherently evil, and all that jazz.

Exactly, the media doesnt give a shit that he hates gays. The media only cares that he doesnt "support our troops".

Oh. I didn't know that.:eek:

I don't support that at all. :(

Oh. I didn't know that.:eek:




Sad but true.

Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can't sit down and compare the comments of Wright to those of someone like John Hagee, McCain's "spiritual advisor," and realize just how mundane Wright's comments are.
The Dems will hopefully make ads of Hagee's comments, along with McCain stating how much he respects and apppreciates Hagee's endorsement.

Not that it'll help much. Most right-wingers, especially the religious ones, would agree him.

As for Rev Wright - very ill-thought-out comments. One would think he'd be canny and media-savvy enough to know they'd be taken out of context and used against Obama. GOP media lapdogs are desperately looking for anything (to the point of just making shit up) to tar Obama with the brush of extremnism.

The Dems will hopefully make ads of Hagee's comments, along with McCain stating how much he respects and apppreciates Hagee's endorsement.

Not that it'll help much. Most right-wingers, especially the religious ones, would agree him.

As for Rev Wright - very ill-thought-out comments. One would think he'd be canny and media-savvy enough to know they'd be taken out of context and used against Obama. GOP media lapdogs are desperately looking for anything (to the point of just making shit up) to tar Obama with the brush of extremnism.

This is thread is NOT about Obama. It cannot be. Please leave anything you wish to say about Obama in the political threads.

That said, the media didn't portray anything, any way. Wright was talking to the media and they played all of it. Other outlets have displayed it in its entirety. In context, it comes across worse than out of context. I watch clips and thought nothing of it. I watched the entirety and I was left with the impression that he was pretending that he is representative of Blacks and the Black Church, when in reality he was there to promote Rev. Wright. It was pride. Plain. Simple.

That said, the media didn't portray anything, any way. Wright was talking to the media and they played all of it. Other outlets have displayed it in its entirety. In context, it comes across worse than out of context. I watch clips and thought nothing of it. I watched the entirety and I was left with the impression that he was pretending that he is representative of Blacks and the Black Church, when in reality he was there to promote Rev. Wright. It was pride. Plain. Simple.

I think he's probably talking about the initial media hype where they took small clips out of sermons and then strung them together to make Wright look anti-American, racist, etc. When viewed in context, those comments are much less inflammatory.

I still haven't seen the most recent interview, so I can't really comment much on that.

I recommend watching it, not reading it. I didn't get the full idea until I stopped watching bits of it and watched it straight through. He's performing and he's quite pleased with himself particularly when he manages a witty attack.

And, it's not like I'm one to talk, but I'm also not pretending like I'm representing the entirety of black people or any other group and that to attack me is to attack them.

Wright strikes me as just another preacher who styles h imself a civil rights figure and presumes to speak for all black people, not unlike Sharpton or Jackson. The only difference is that he gets the level of attention that he does ONLY because of his association with Obama.

This makes me wonder whether such people as Wright are rare, or of they're disturbingly common, lacking only something to propel them to national attention.

Clearly he's showing no restraint at a time when one would expect that he'd keep his mouth shut for the sake of his friend, which leads one to question his true motives.

Rush made an interesting observation that if a guy like Wright gets attention because of racial tension, then it's NOT in his best interests for a black man to be elected President president because it would prove him wrong on a great many points. It would show that race relations are better than he makes them out to be.

And thus he won't STFU.

Thats the same, if not tamer than what Write said.

Or how about McCain's "Spiritual Advisor," Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley who made that famous sermon that called for Christianity to declare war on Islam and wipe it out as a false religion? You won't hear a peep about that except on the Internet and some public radio shows. If it had been a Muslim Imam linked to a candidate who said Islam should declare war on Christianity and wipe it out as a false religion, not only would this make news, there'd be Department of Homeland Security investigating the fuck out of the Imam and whoever candidate he was linked to.

Or how about McCain's "Spiritual Advisor," Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley who made that famous sermon that called for Christianity to declare war on Islam and wipe it out as a false religion? You won't hear a peep about that except on the Internet and some public radio shows. If it had been a Muslim Imam linked to a candidate who said Islam should declare war on Christianity and wipe it out as a false religion, not only would this make news, there'd be Department of Homeland Security investigating the fuck out of the Imam and whoever candidate he was linked to.


Yep. Its total wank. Susan Sontag said much the same thing years ago about the whole 9/11 thing.

Rush made an interesting observation that if a guy like Wright gets attention because of racial tension, then it's NOT in his best interests for a black man to be elected President president because it would prove him wrong on a great many points. It would show that race relations are better than he makes them out to be.




This post was excellent until you quoted Limbaugh;)


But to counter, the reason this is made into a big deal is because we are uncomfortable with race, which shows that theyre not all that great. If race relations were good, wed have just pointed and laughed and moved on. The fact that we're getting angry about it shows that race relations are still rather poor.

This post was excellent until you quoted Limbaugh;)

Hey, think what you want about the man, the point is a valid one.


But to counter, the reason this is made into a big deal is because we are uncomfortable with race, which shows that theyre not all that great. If race relations were good, wed have just pointed and laughed and moved on. The fact that we're getting angry about it shows that race relations are still rather poor.

Either that, or maybe on some level there's a feeling of betrayal.

I hear people talking about this sort of thing and the feeling I get is that folks are saying "WTF? All the progress that's been made in civil rights over the years, all the work all the education all the legislation and THIS is the result?" We, as a society, are justifiably proud of the progress we've made. few people would say we're all done, but still there's a feeling that we've come a long way in terms of race relations, and guys like Wright come along and just crap all over it as if no progress has been made at all. And people get mad at that.

Hey, think what you want about the man, the point is a valid one.


No. That man is a waste of space. Nothing he does, says, or makes is valid.:p


I hear people talking about this sort of thing and the feeling I get is that folks are saying "WTF? All the progress that's been made in civil rights over the years, all the work all the education all the legislation and THIS is the result?" We, as a society, are justifiably proud of the progress we've made. few people would say we're all done, but still there's a feeling that we've come a long way in terms of race relations, and guys like Wright come along and just crap all over it as if no progress has been made at all. And people get mad at that.


Thats the thing though. We should be very proud, BUT we should also realize that the Civil Rights Movement really only ended institutionalized racism, and even that it didnt totally destroy, just now you can be prosecuted for it. There is the other side, the social side, that is not anywhere near being done.

Racism isnt simply an American or White issue. But to imply that race relations in America are good is ignoring the facts. Which Rush is excellent at.;)

No. That man is a waste of space. Nothing he does, says, or makes is valid.:p


Bah, you're hopeless. ;)


Thats the thing though. We should be very proud, BUT we should also realize that the Civil Rights Movement really only ended institutionalized racism, and even that it didnt totally destroy, just now you can be prosecuted for it. There is the other side, the social side, that is not anywhere near being done.

Racism isnt simply an American or White issue. But to imply that race relations in America are good is ignoring the facts. Which Rush is excellent at.;)

Actually, compared to a lot of places they are pretty good. We live in a culture where mixed race couples are no longer considered unusual (in most places, anyway). Where racism is frowned upon instead of being ignored as it once was. Where those who do harbor racist beliefs are either wise enough to keep silent or are driven out of the mainstream. That's progress and it deserves recognition.

Asshats like Wright want people to ignore that and act as if Jim Crow laws were still fully in effect, black slavery was still in living memory, and no black people may ever ride at the front of the bus.

I recommend watching it, not reading it. I didn't get the full idea until I stopped watching bits of it and watched it straight through. He's performing and he's quite pleased with himself particularly when he manages a witty attack.

And, it's not like I'm one to talk, but I'm also not pretending like I'm representing the entirety of black people or any other group and that to attack me is to attack them.

I'm listening while I work. May not be as good as actually watching it, but it's what I can do. =)

It is the NAACP speech that caused the problem, right? So far, I'm not seeing anything too disturbing. He makes the common NSG mistake of speaking about people of different ethnicities as if they are all the same (the whole white children learn differently from black children thing) instead of pointing to statistical differences. And he's certainly made some jabs at the media.

Of course, I haven't gotten to wherever he makes the claim that the government engineered AIDS.

This makes me wonder whether such people as Wright are rare, or of they're disturbingly common, lacking only something to propel them to national attention.

Speaking as a Detroiter, I'd say they're moderately common, in heavily-black urban centers. Out in rural Indiana (where I lived for eight years as a kid, and only met two black people in that entire time), I'm sure it is news to a lot of folk that anybody like him exists, but I bet in Indy, South Bend, or Gary/Hammond you could find some just like him. In North Carolina I'm sure the existence of preachers like him is news to nobody.
few people would say we're all done, but still there's a feeling that we've come a long way in terms of race relations, and guys like Wright come along and just crap all over it as if no progress has been made at all.
Wright is stuck in the past. Black preachers who are still in the wallow-in-our-grievances mode are, as I say, not terribly uncommon in the cities, but they are of the older generation, and I think those who were born after the Sixties are not going to continue this "tradition".

Bah, you're hopeless. ;)

It could be worse. You could be quoting Ann Coulter. Then Id have to rethink how much I value your opinion;)



Actually, compared to a lot of places they are pretty good. We live in a culture where mixed race couples are no longer considered unusual (in most places, anyway). Where racism is frowned upon instead of being ignored as it once was. Where those who do harbor racist beliefs are either wise enough to keep silent or are driven out of the mainstream. That's progress and it deserves recognition.

Asshats like Wright want people to ignore that and act as if Jim Crow laws were still fully in effect, black slavery was still in living memory, and no black people may ever ride at the front of the bus.

Wright is exaggerating the problems with race. Not as bad as Sharpton, but he still is.

However, racism is still an issue in America. Its just in more subtle ways. Take, for example, the fact that it was even a question if America was ready for a black president or not? Im sure we all know at least one person who wont vote for Obama just because he is black.

Almost weekly there are instances of police abuse of black individuals that make the news in some form.

The large number of persistant and offensive stereotypes (I mean the offensive ones, not the funny ones that Chappelle jokes about;)) that are present in out culture, that no one really thinks to question.

The number of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies who are black (I know IM going to regret saying that one...)


These are just a few examples. Radical racism is frowned upon. Militant racism is frowned upon. Institutionalized racism is frowned upon. These are all things we should be very proud of. But racism is still there, in much more subtle forms.

It could be worse. You could be quoting Ann Coulter. Then Id have to rethink how much I value your opinion;)


If I started quotinkg Ann Coulter, I wouldn't blame you.


Wright is exaggerating the problems with race. Not as bad as Sharpton, but he still is.

However, racism is still an issue in America. Its just in more subtle ways. Take, for example, the fact that it was even a question if America was ready for a black president or not? Im sure we all know at least one person who wont vote for Obama just because he is black.

Almost weekly there are instances of police abuse of black individuals that make the news in some form.

The large number of persistant and offensive stereotypes (I mean the offensive ones, not the funny ones that Chappelle jokes about;)) that are present in out culture, that no one really thinks to question.

The number of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies who are black (I know IM going to regret saying that one...)


These are just a few examples. Radical racism is frowned upon. Militant racism is frowned upon. Institutionalized racism is frowned upon. These are all things we should be very proud of. But racism is still there, in much more subtle forms.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. All I'm saying is that if people don't get acknowledgement for progress, then the motivation to make progress will start to suffer. That's basic human nature.

Wright is a hate-filled man who has spread his poison to young and old for decades. He is one of the reasons for hopelessness many blacks feel. His ideals are racist and ugly and are not the ideals anyone should promote.

Now, after years of celebrating terrorists and anti-Semites and calling the US every name in the book, he is retiring to his million dollar home surrounding by the very white people he believes to be deficient and evil. That should tell you everything you need to know about the man.

Wright's just in it for publicity, he's already taken to bashing Obama and his previous comments just about doomed his campaign, especially among Obama's mainly Jewish donors.

Idk about up in Illinois but, down here in MS, most of the people I talk to(white and Black) think he's fricken Crazy...

Its really unfortunate...I was starting to like Obama, but who can vote for a man, whos Spiritual Advisor's such a nut...

Guess im still votin Ron Paul...

Wright's just in it for publicity, he's already taken to bashing Obama and his previous comments just about doomed his campaign, especially among Obama's mainly Jewish donors.

What DONT they control, lol:p

Wright is a bigoted racist pig and should be treated as such.

His comments have set back the African American race by at least 10 years. And if it costs Barack the presidency, at least another generation.

I'm listening while I work. May not be as good as actually watching it, but it's what I can do. =)

It is the NAACP speech that caused the problem, right? So far, I'm not seeing anything too disturbing. He makes the common NSG mistake of speaking about people of different ethnicities as if they are all the same (the whole white children learn differently from black children thing) instead of pointing to statistical differences. And he's certainly made some jabs at the media.

Of course, I haven't gotten to wherever he makes the claim that the government engineered AIDS.

Now it was the next day when he answered questions. Yes, you want to see it. He sneered the whole time. He demonstrated repeatedly how pleased he was with himself. I liked his speech at the NAACP (except some of the bits you mentioned). He didn't really get going till the next morning.

Wright is a bigoted racist pig and should be treated as such.

His comments have set back the African American race by at least 10 years. And if it costs Barack the presidency, at least another generation.

Holy Bullshit, Batman!!

Idk about up in Illinois but, down here in MS, most of the people I talk to(white and Black) think he's fricken Crazy...

Its really unfortunate...I was starting to like Obama, but who can vote for a man, whos Spiritual Advisor's such a nut...

Guess im still votin Ron Paul...

...but who can vote for someone in the same party as Dubya? >_>

...but who can vote for someone in the same party as Dubya? >_>

He's not, hes running as an Independent...But, id just as readily Vote Nader...

Its not about Ideology its about ending the Two-Party Dictatorship of America...

Its just that i think, in Mississippi anyway, Ron Paul has the best chance of the Independents of Winning...

Disagree with his black supremacy notions, disagree with his AIDS conspiracy. Can't quite disagree though with the low regard he has for the American government.

What DONT they control, lol:p

Cuba.

Maybe Ontario.

I think that's pretty much it.

Wright is a hate-filled man who has spread his poison to young and old for decades. He is one of the reasons for hopelessness many blacks feel. His ideals are racist and ugly and are not the ideals anyone should promote.

Which ideals are those?

Now, after years of celebrating terrorists and anti-Semites and calling the US every name in the book, he is retiring to his million dollar home surrounding by the very white people he believes to be deficient and evil. That should tell you everything you need to know about the man.

Celebrating terrorists and anti-Semites? Where?

Believes white people to be deficient and evil? Where did you get that?

The man is sarcastic - sometimes abrasive, even. He may believe in some crazy conspiracy theories. But I've seen nothing to suggest that he holds any of the views you're putting forth here.


Now it was the next day when he answered questions. Yes, you want to see it. He sneered the whole time. He demonstrated repeatedly how pleased he was with himself. I liked his speech at the NAACP (except some of the bits you mentioned). He didn't really get going till the next morning.

Yeah, I found it. Watched part of it and listened to all of it. He was definitely enjoying it. I think he was still "on", as it were, from his speech. He really expressed pretty much the same things at the press club as at the NAACP, though.

His answers to the questions were snarky, but then again, a lot of the questions were pretty ridiculous. Should he have treated the press like children and explained everything from the beginning? Maybe. But I can't blame him for being ticked off that they were asking stupid questions when they hadn't even bothered to do the least bit of homework. The original "controversial" comments are all up on YouTube in context, but it's clear that very few, if any, of the press who keep bringing them up have bothered to watch them.

And seriously - asking him if God wants Obama to be president as if that's a serious question?

Disagree with his black supremacy notions,

What black supremacy notions?

What was his message? "Different is not deficient."

disagree with his AIDS conspiracy.

Yeah. That's a bit out there.

This post was excellent until you quoted Limbaugh;)


But to counter, the reason this is made into a big deal is because we are uncomfortable with race, which shows that theyre not all that great. If race relations were good, wed have just pointed and laughed and moved on. The fact that we're getting angry about it shows that race relations are still rather poor.

i think that the problem is more that we (non black americans) dont know what black people say to each other. we dont know what is preached in churches like rev wrights church. we dont pay attention to the grievances of black americans and how they might address those grievances.

so it surprises and shocks us to hear what gets said and we take it too personally. too many of us concentrate on "the bad parts" (like "god damn america") instead of looking at the point that was being made. (in fairness to the dolts who concentrate on the bad points, that it what we are invited to do by the media)

i think that the problem is more that we (non black americans) dont know what black people say to each other. we dont know what is preached in churches like rev wrights church. we dont pay attention to the grievances of black americans and how they might address those grievances.

so it surprises and shocks us to hear what gets said and we take it too personally. too many of us concentrate on "the bad parts" (like "god damn america") instead of looking at the point that was being made. (in fairness to the dolts who concentrate on the bad points, that it what we are invited to do by the media)

He did it in a very snarky manner, but Wright made a good point in his answers to the questions. How many people - in the media or those of us who use the media for information - have bothered to watch the sermons in their entirety? Or even just in more context than what was given on the news? Each of the comments is given in much better context on YouTube, but how many people have seen them?

How many people know that the "chickens are coming home to roost" comment, for instance, was something he was quoting from elsewhere, rather than his own comment? (Fox News still lists it as his own words). Or that the conclusion of that sermon was to tell his congregation that the events of 9/11 brought us to a time - not to lash out - but instead for self reflection?

In an age where information is available at our fingertips, why are so many people willing to condemn a man based on out-of-context sound bytes? Why are even the press - the people who are supposed to bring that information to the ears of the public - so willfully ignorant as to ignore it?

He did it in a very snarky manner, but Wright made a good point in his answers to the questions. How many people - in the media or those of us who use the media for information - have bothered to watch the sermons in their entirety? Or even just in more context than what was given on the news? Each of the comments is given in much better context on YouTube, but how many people have seen them?

How many people know that the "chickens are coming home to roost" comment, for instance, was something he was quoting from elsewhere, rather than his own comment? (Fox News still lists it as his own words). Or that the conclusion of that sermon was to tell his congregation that the events of 9/11 brought us to a time - not to lash out - but instead for self reflection?

In an age where information is available at our fingertips, why are so many people willing to condemn a man based on out-of-context sound bytes? Why are even the press - the people who are supposed to bring that information to the ears of the public - so willfully ignorant as to ignore it?

yeah. good questions.

did "we" not look further because we are content to be spoon fed by the press or because we are racists who feel that we know enough of the story just from the clips?

im not sure if wright is out now because he is angry at the country for taking him out of context or if he is working at handing obama an excuse for repudiating him. or if he is pissed at obama. or what.

but he is making a spectacle of himself for a good reason. he is too smart a man to not know exactly what he is doing and what impression he is making.

Hey, think what you want about the man, the point is a valid one.


Not really. Politics is not about politics... it's about marketing and money. We all already know that this nation is two distinct worlds, and how you are fed, housed, cared for, treated by the 'law', etc - will all be totally different dependent on which one of those 'worlds' you live in.

Obama has stepped out of the ghetto of his skin colour, and into the world of this big money game. A black president is still a part of the slaver culture, not the slave culture.

Politics is not about politics... it's about marketing and money.

Andaras?

Andaras?

Pointless non sequitur?


Here. Have a T shirt.

http://www.besodoso.com/catalog/images/nothing%20men.JPG

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. All I'm saying is that if people don't get acknowledgement for progress, then the motivation to make progress will start to suffer. That's basic human nature.

It's really a matter of balance. And I do think it's a two-way street.

There are those who may act like no progress at all has been made, and they would be wrong. There are those who may act like the journey is done - that there is no more progress to be made - and they would also be wrong.

I don't really hear Wright as suggesting that there has been no progress. In fact, he seems quick to cite the progress that has been made and the role that people of various backgrounds have played in it. I think what he's doing is tying current injustices to past injustices - trying to point out the fact that the journey isn't over - that they all stem from the same source and that the source hasn't yet been removed.

But I do think he needs to make more effort to reach those to whom the progress that is still needed may be less obvious. For many, it isn't that they actively want to block it, it's simply that they don't see it. Perhaps it's so self-evident to him that he cannot imagine that anyone would miss it for anything but racism - sort of like a physics professor who understands his subject so well that he cannot figure out why a beginner student is struggling.

But much like that professor, explaining it over and over again from his own perspective isn't going to get the message across. I think that Wright understands the fact that people from different backgrounds understand the world differently. What he needs to realize is that, to get his message across to people of different backgrounds, he needs to be able to explain it differently.

Of course, if those people won't make an effort in return - won't try and understand it from his point of view, it's not going to get anywhere.

Pointless non sequitur?


I was merely pointing out who shares a similar taste with your reasoning.

I was merely pointing out who shares a similar taste with your reasoning.

That American politics is about money rather than manifesto? You could probably have cited most of the American populace... and it still wouldn't have actually impacted the point.

That American politics is about money rather than manifesto? You could probably have cited most of the American populace... and it still wouldn't have actually impacted the point.

Then most of the American populace also buy into an extremely simplified idea of American governance.

Then most of the American populace also buy into an extremely simplified idea of American governance.

In a two-party state where the difference between the two 'ends of the spectrum' are almost entirely cosmetic? An extremely simplified idea of American governance is quite possibly the most accurate model possible.

In a two-party state where the difference between the two 'ends of the spectrum' are almost entirely cosmetic? An extremely simplified idea of American governance is quite possibly the most accurate model possible.

Suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

Or not. The model doesn't 'suit' me, it's just how it is.

I still kinda like Obama...

First of all, nobody intelligent (and Obama is no doubt intelligent, no matter what else you think about him) imitates the opinions of their peers, friends or even 'spiritual leaders.'

Secondly, and more importantly, Obama is still the only candidate to refuse funding from lobbyists. I don't think people really understand how significant that is... Corporate and industry lobbies, through their pursuit of profit and the bottom line, are directly responsible for low wages around the world, they are responsible for massive outsourcing, they are responsible for Americans losing jobs to outrageously underpaid foreigners. I don't really blame them for it - they've got to keep making profits. But ultimately a lot of the problems that ordinary people face is caused by large corporations who are much more powerful and have much different interests.

But yeah... Obama sadly seems to be the only candidate who will make things better for people who don't own a Fortune 500 company.

In a two-party state where the difference between the two 'ends of the spectrum' are almost entirely cosmetic? An extremely simplified idea of American governance is quite possibly the most accurate model possible.

Hey come on now, it's not ENTIRELY cosmetic... They get financing from different lobbyists, sometimes :)

*snip*

Good to know. Now find a thread about Obama and go there. We aren't discussing Obama here.

He did it in a very snarky manner, but Wright made a good point in his answers to the questions. How many people - in the media or those of us who use the media for information - have bothered to watch the sermons in their entirety? Or even just in more context than what was given on the news? Each of the comments is given in much better context on YouTube, but how many people have seen them?

How many people know that the "chickens are coming home to roost" comment, for instance, was something he was quoting from elsewhere, rather than his own comment? (Fox News still lists it as his own words). Or that the conclusion of that sermon was to tell his congregation that the events of 9/11 brought us to a time - not to lash out - but instead for self reflection?

In an age where information is available at our fingertips, why are so many people willing to condemn a man based on out-of-context sound bytes? Why are even the press - the people who are supposed to bring that information to the ears of the public - so willfully ignorant as to ignore it?

And that is why I would defend his arguments to the NAACP. He's right. They took him out of context. And he had a good point.

But I didn't see the Wright interview the next morning out of context. I watched all of it. I watch him demean the moderator for asking a question someone else wrote. He knew someone else wrote it. But he acted like she did. Then he grinned to himself for scoring points when he demonstrated that "her" question was irrelevant. Except it wasn't. He was offered an opportunity to clarify the sentiments behind the comments he'd made, but instead derided the moderator.

I watched as he seeming randomly made fun of various figures most of whom had NOTHING to do with the questions he was asked or those who had attacked him. He was on stage and he was all over the map, demonstrating how pleased with his abilities to perform and to turn things on their head.

I agree with many of his points, but I think he should be embarrassed. And judging from the reaction of so many, he has no right to claim that pointing out our disappointment in his behavior and beliefs is not attacking the black church. In fact, the simple claim that it is, is one of the things he should be embarrassed about.

But I didn't see the Wright interview the next morning out of context. I watched all of it. I watch him demean the moderator for asking a question someone else wrote. He knew someone else wrote it. But he acted like she did. Then he grinned to himself for scoring points when he demonstrated that "her" question was irrelevant. Except it wasn't. He was offered an opportunity to clarify the sentiments behind the comments he'd made, but instead derided the moderator.

I didn't read that as pointed just at the moderator. Yes, she was the person right in front of him, but I think he was making a point to the press as a whole.

Nobody is showing that quote in context. The very fact that the question was worded the way it was demonstrates that the person who wrote it hadn't seen any more than the short clip. Whoever picked the questions chose a question that was clearly unresearched, suggesting that they hadn't done their homework either.

I read his reaction as a derision of the press as a whole - and the public who swallows what they are fed without questioning it.

Is it the best way to handle the situation? Probably not. But I can't say for certain that I'd act any differently in the face of such willful ignorance. And I've seen how you react to willful ignorance (on the internet, anyways), so I don't know that you'd react much differently either.

Edit: Now I did find it to be unfair to the moderator when he answered her question about Obama's church attendance with "He attends just as much as you do." There's no way he could know that about her, and it was definitely needlessly combative.

I watched as he seeming randomly made fun of various figures most of whom had NOTHING to do with the questions he was asked or those who had attacked him. He was on stage and he was all over the map, demonstrating how pleased with his abilities to perform and to turn things on their head.

I didn't see that. It seemed to me that he addressed all of the questions but one pretty bluntly. There was a lot of sarcasm, but I didn't catch any sense that he was randomly making fun of anyone.

Well, that's not true. There was the comment where he asked how many years Dick Cheney served in the military. Cheney wasn't part of the question, so that was pretty random.

I agree with many of his points, but I think he should be embarrassed. And judging from the reaction of so many, he has no right to claim that pointing out our disappointment in his behavior and beliefs is not attacking the black church. In fact, the simple claim that it is, is one of the things he should be embarrassed about.

I can understand why he'd see the original attacks that way - again, because of the willful ignorance of the people making the attacks. People are attacking Wright because of a few sound bites taken out of long sermons. Given that he knows the context of those comments and why they were used, it's certainly going to look, to him, as if they are attacking his method of preaching - a method that has come out of the black church traditions.

Much of the criticism, outside of the claims of being unpatriotic and racist, has focused on the tone of his speech. They call him an angry black man because he is loud and animated. But much of that likely comes from the fact that many people have never been to a church like his and thus don't understand that loud and animated is simply how he preaches - how he gets a point across.

Now, attacks related from this appearance are likely based in his attitude towards the questions. But he couldn't have been referring to this appearance during it.

I didn't read that as pointed just at the moderator. Yes, she was the person right in front of him, but I think he was making a point to the press as a whole.

Um, he may of been making a point, but he asked her until she answered. And, frankly, if he thinks the media never watched the whole thing, he's not very bright.


Nobody is showing that quote in context. The very fact that the question was worded the way it was demonstrates that the person who wrote it hadn't seen any more than the short clip. Whoever picked the questions chose a question that was clearly unresearched, suggesting that they hadn't done their homework either.

Um, Peck didn't say what Wright said. Wrights words were a paraphrasing of what Peck said, and took what Peck said more out of context than people are doing to Wright now.

The question gave him an opportunity to explain why he brought it up. Why is it relevant that a white man said it? Why did he say it all? What's the context? What's the point? Now, I happen to agree with the sentiment of Peck, and some of Wrights, but the fact of the matter is that given a chance to explain, he rather derided a girl who read the question.

I read his reaction as a derision of the press as a whole - and the public who swallows what they are fed without questioning it.

Pishaw. His pride was hurt. He got up there and danced around and put on an appalling performance. It's true the media frenzy has been absurd. The media IS irresponsible but no more irresponsible than the man who is feeding it and profiting from it. I've watched MANY of his sermons. I'm accounting for the many great things he's done. I'm accounting for the fact that he is right about some things. I'm including the context. And my conclusion is STILL that he's a raving jackass.



Is it the best way to handle the situation? Probably not. But I can't say for certain that I'd act any differently in the face of such willful ignorance. And I've seen how you react to willful ignorance (on the internet, anyways), so I don't know that you'd react much differently either.

The difference here is he is claiming the media is combatting the black church. I'm combative. I'm a jackass. But it's ME. It's not white people. It's not white consultants. I have have the wild lack of humility that to say I'm a jackass is to impugn everyone who looks like me or shares my faith. His performance was by HIS claim meant to represent every black person, every person of faith and, if you disagreed, well you were "talking about his momma".


Edit: Now I did find it to be unfair to the moderator when he answered her question about Obama's church attendance with "He attends just as much as you do." There's no way he could know that about her, and it was definitely needlessly combative.

I didn't see that. It seemed to me that he addressed all of the questions but one pretty bluntly. There was a lot of sarcasm, but I didn't catch any sense that he was randomly making fun of anyone.

Really? The girl who asked the question hadn't seen the whole sermon? Why is that relevant? It wasn't her question. Why was her attendance of church relevant? Because she was asking the question. Then he smirked because he'd scored another point.

Dick Cheney didn't serve? When did Dick Cheney attack Wright's patriotism?
(I know you mentioned that one, but these were what I was referring to)


Well, that's not true. There was the comment where he asked how many years Dick Cheney served in the military. Cheney wasn't part of the question, so that was pretty random.

It wasn't the only time. Most of his aggression was misplaced.


I can understand why he'd see the original attacks that way - again, because of the willful ignorance of the people making the attacks. People are attacking Wright because of a few sound bites taken out of long sermons. Given that he knows the context of those comments and why they were used, it's certainly going to look, to him, as if they are attacking his method of preaching - a method that has come out of the black church traditions.

One of the biggest controversies was a quote of him when he was taking Peck out of context and attributing ideas to Peck that he didn't express. Peck made the point that we've dug a hole in the world. Hell, Peck was damn near prophetic when he was on Fox News.

Much of the criticism, outside of the claims of being unpatriotic and racist, has focused on the tone of his speech. They call him an angry black man because he is loud and animated. But much of that likely comes from the fact that many people have never been to a church like his and thus don't understand that loud and animated is simply how he preaches - how he gets a point across.

Now, attacks related from this appearance are likely based in his attitude towards the questions. But he couldn't have been referring to this appearance during it.

The unpatriotic stuff was crap. He should be pissed. It, however, was not an attack on the black community. The black community didn't say and do what he did.

The racist stuff was crap, but he replied by pointing out that if you attack him, you're attacking the black faith and that black people and white people are physiological different. He then claimed he was speaking for all black people. I didn't see the racism in his earlier comments, but they're there now.

Not really. Politics is not about politics... it's about marketing and money. We all already know that this nation is two distinct worlds, and how you are fed, housed, cared for, treated by the 'law', etc - will all be totally different dependent on which one of those 'worlds' you live in.

Obama has stepped out of the ghetto of his skin colour, and into the world of this big money game. A black president is still a part of the slaver culture, not the slave culture.

What you're saying is true, but I don't think that invalidates the point, if enough white peope are willing to vote for a black man that he can be President (even with the mentality you're talking about) then that says something about American culture that speaks much louder than Wright's vitriol.

Um, he may of been making a point, but he asked her until she answered. And, frankly, if he thinks the media never watched the whole thing, he's not very bright.

If they did watch the whole thing and still asked such stupid questions, they deserve the attitude he displayed, counter-productive or not.

Um, Peck didn't say what Wright said. Wrights words were a paraphrasing of what Peck said, and took what Peck said more out of context than people are doing to Wright now.

Ok. I haven't seen a direct quote of what Peck said, so I'll have to take your word on this.

The question gave him an opportunity to explain why he brought it up. Why is it relevant that a white man said it? Why did he say it all? What's the context? What's the point? Now, I happen to agree with the sentiment of Peck, and some of Wrights, but the fact of the matter is that given a chance to explain, he rather derided a girl who read the question.

That's just it, though. Anyone who watched the whole sermon would understand why it was brought up and how it fit into the message he was getting across.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have explained, but I certainly understand why he took the attitude he did instead.

Really? The girl who asked the question hadn't seen the whole sermon? Why is that relevant? It wasn't her question.

She is a member of the press who was going to be questioning a figure who has been in the news. Is it too much to ask for her to do a little homework? Wouldn't that be the professional thing to do?

Why was her attendance of church relevant? Because she was asking the question. Then he smirked because he'd scored another point.

Like I said, I did think that was unfair.

The unpatriotic stuff was crap. He should be pissed. It, however, was not an attack on the black community. The black community didn't say and do what he did.

But the attacks that have been focused on the way he preaches are an attack on a whole tradition. Granted, those attacks are often more out of ignorance than malice, but they are still there.

The racist stuff was crap, but he replied by pointing out that if you attack him, you're attacking the black faith and that black people and white people are physiological different. He then claimed he was speaking for all black people. I didn't see the racism in his earlier comments, but they're there now.

I didn't really see anything any more racist than a person here who forgets to qualify their comments with "some" or "most" or "statistically". Maybe you're right. Maybe those qualifiers were left out of some of his points on purpose. But I got the impression he was referring to cultural and statistical differences. He even brought up a white-skinned member of his church who said she was unabashedly African, which suggests pretty strongly to me that he's discussing cultural differences here.

I don't think it's the color of someone's skin that he's referring to when he talks about black or African music or churches. I think he's talking about a culture that is shared predominantly by dark-skinned people but which people of any ethnicity can share in if they so choose.

If they did watch the whole thing and still asked such stupid questions, they deserve the attitude he displayed, counter-productive or not.

This is what's missing here and it applies to most of the rest of your post. Even if EVERY person in the media saw EVERY sermon he's ever made, there is still a reason to ask questions that will clarify the clips that many of the people watching the controversy might have. More importantly, he could have offered the context that would have allowed people to understand better where he was coming from, people who will NEVER see the whole sermons, people who might be voting for Obama. Instead, he chose to leave himself as a charicature(sp?) of who he really is and to damage the campaign of someone he supposedly cares about.

Instead the context he has given people is that he IS racist and he IS loony.

She is a member of the press who was going to be questioning a figure who has been in the news. Is it too much to ask for her to do a little homework? Wouldn't that be the professional thing to do?

They weren't her questions. She was just there to ask the questions that were given her. Much like when an interviewer asks questions from viewers. It's not just counterproductive to pretend those questions were her questions but it's blatantly ludicrous.


But the attacks that have been focused on the way he preaches are an attack on a whole tradition. Granted, those attacks are often more out of ignorance than malice, but they are still there.
The attacks were focused on what he said. They weren't upset that he was excited.

I didn't really see anything any more racist than a person here who forgets to qualify their comments with "some" or "most" or "statistically". Maybe you're right. Maybe those qualifiers were left out of some of his points on purpose. But I got the impression he was referring to cultural and statistical differences. He even brought up a white-skinned member of his church who said she was unabashedly African, which suggests pretty strongly to me that he's discussing cultural differences here.

Not left out. He was specifically making the point that black people are different than white people. It's no more excusable than someone saying "Black people love watermelon and chicken."

Um, no, he specifically tried to argue for physiological differences, talking about how black people learn differently than white people.


I don't think it's the color of someone's skin that he's referring to when he talks about black or African music or churches. I think he's talking about a culture that is shared predominantly by dark-skinned people but which people of any ethnicity can share in if they so choose.

Again, before he went into the music and whatnot he made a specific point about the physiological difference between blacks and whites.

What you're saying is true, but I don't think that invalidates the point, if enough white peope are willing to vote for a black man that he can be President (even with the mentality you're talking about) then that says something about American culture that speaks much louder than Wright's vitriol.

You think Amricans are going to vote for a black president? And - by that - I don't mean allow themselves to be swayed into doing it... I mean do you think they'll actually elect a man to the office JUST because he's black?

To be honest, I find that a little more likely than the possibility he'd be elected because of his actual politics... but still not within stone-throwing distance of 'election-by-ad-campaign'.

And that's why Wright is being played. He's part of a marketing campaign, just a campaign to try to convince some people NOT to buy. He's not even a blip on the radar of wacky-religious-voices-in-the-mainstream, but he's a good anti-benefit to your purchase.

This is what's missing here and it applies to most of the rest of your post. Even if EVERY person in the media saw EVERY sermon he's ever made, there is still a reason to ask questions that will clarify the clips that many of the people watching the controversy might have.

Clarifying questions: yes.

Leading questions from the point of view that the caricature the media has created is true: No.

Yes, he did play into that caricature and yes, that was counterproductive. But I'm not letting the press off the hook on this one.

They weren't her questions. She was just there to ask the questions that were given her. Much like when an interviewer asks questions from viewers. It's not just counterproductive to pretend those questions were her questions but it's blatantly ludicrous.

But it also isn't too much to ask that a member of the press would be professional enough to do her own homework when she is going to be taking that role.

If you knew you were going to be hosting a particular public figure or asking that person questions, wouldn't you want to be well-informed about them and any controversy surrounding them?

The attacks were focused on what he said. They weren't upset that he was excited.

You haven't heard some of the comments I have, then. A lot of it wasn't about what he said. It was about how he said it. Yelling from the pulpit. What kind of preacher does that? Why is he always so angry?

The truth of the matter is that a lot of people aren't really familiar with the way that many black preachers conduct their sermons. They see someone loud and raucous at the pulpit and they assume this is an angry, mean person.

Not left out. He was specifically making the point that black people are different than white people. It's no more excusable than someone saying "Black people love watermelon and chicken."

Um, no, he specifically tried to argue for physiological differences, talking about how black people learn differently than white people.

Ok. Now add "statistically" or "tend to" to that statement. Black people [tend to] learn differently than white people. Now, all of a sudden, it looks like a perfectly reasonable statement and, while I haven't read the study he talked about, it might be backed up by evidence. And he didn't say it was a physiological difference, either. He didn't define where the difference might be coming from. He did talk about tribal cultures in Africa and how such learning styles would be useful there, so it could be that he thinks it comes more from cultural differences than physiological ones.

Again, before he went into the music and whatnot he made a specific point about the physiological difference between blacks and whites.

But in the context of the rest of the talk, I don't think it's unreasonable to see the discussion of learning differences as a similar point. Unless we sat him down and asked him, "Do you really think all black/African people are right-brained and subject-orientated while all white/European people are left-brained and object-oriented?" we can't know for certain if that's what he really thinks.

But in the context of the rest of what he had to say, that's not the impression I got. I'm not saying that your impression is wrong, just that I got a different one. Neither of us actually knows the guy, so it's hard to tell, really.

Ok. Now add "statistically" or "tend to" to that statement. Black people [tend to] learn differently than white people. Now, all of a sudden, it looks like a perfectly reasonable statement and, while I haven't read the study he talked about, it might be backed up by evidence.

But he didn't say that. And it's not backed up by evidence. The author of the study he was citing said he completely abused the evidence.

Meanwhile, when people are running about these boards making similar arguments on similar weak evidence you're among those of us shooting them down and rightfully pointing out that it's looking for evidence to support what you already believe. Is there value to learning about cultural differences and addressing them? Sure. Is there value to propogating the idea that black people are inherently different from white people? No. Worse, stretching, bending and downright breaking the evidence to support such a notion just because it supports your world view is racist.


And he didn't say it was a physiological difference, either. He didn't define where the difference might be coming from. He did talk about tribal cultures in Africa and how such learning styles would be useful there, so it could be that he thinks it comes more from cultural differences than physiological ones.

No, he certainly did. He said that the difference in the method of learning was inherent and linking to their origin. He talked about as something that cannot be changed and must be embraced.


But in the context of the rest of the talk, I don't think it's unreasonable to see the discussion of learning differences as a similar point. Unless we sat him down and asked him, "Do you really think all black/African people are right-brained and subject-orientated while all white/European people are left-brained and object-oriented?" we can't know for certain if that's what he really thinks.

But in the context of the rest of what he had to say, that's not the impression I got. I'm not saying that your impression is wrong, just that I got a different one. Neither of us actually knows the guy, so it's hard to tell, really.

I think you're really, really giving him the benefit of the doubt, a benefit I was quite willing to give him right up until the speech at the press club, but the person who gave that speech left no doubt and no valid place to create doubt. He made his position clear and came up with spurious evidence to support his spurious world view. Some of his position can be defended as the rantings of someone who grew up at a very difficult time, but I don't excuse people who are abusive because they were abused, I don't excuse racism because you were the subject of it at some times or even all times, and I don't excuse the type of behavior he displayed.

Given the reaction of a whole lot of people of all races, I'm not alone in feeling like he proved he was racist.

But he didn't say that.

No, but in the context of everything else he had to say, I think that's what he was getting at.

I can see what's bothering you, and it did nag at me as well. But that interpretation doesn't go with the message as a whole, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

And it's not backed up by evidence. The author of the study he was citing said he completely abused the evidence.

Really? What did the study show?

(not being argumentative here, I'd actually really like to see it)

Meanwhile, when people are running about these boards making similar arguments on similar weak evidence you're among those of us shooting them down and rightfully pointing out that it's looking for evidence to support what you already believe. Is there value to learning about cultural differences and addressing them? Sure. Is there value to propogating the idea that black people are inherently different from white people? No. Worse, stretching, bending and downright breaking the evidence to support such a notion just because it supports your world view is racist.

If I got the impression that he was trying to say that all black people learn a certain way while all white people learn a different way, I would be the first to condemn the statements.

That's just not the impression I've gotten. And I have jumped on people here who made statements that at first glance were sexist or racist only to have them clarify those statements with qualifiers. It's easy to forget to qualify given attributes as statistical, rather than absolute, especially when you already know what you're saying.

No, he certainly did. He said that the difference in the method of learning was inherent and linking to their origin. He talked about as something that cannot be changed and must be embraced.

He linked it back to tribal culture, yes. But I didn't hear him talking about genetics or anything like that.

And the message I got was not that it cannot be changed, but that our goal shouldn't be to change it - that we shouldn't look at one method of learning as inferior to another. The message I got out of it was that he feels that our education system is geared towards children who learn one way while students who learn best in a different way are considered deficient, and that they shouldn't be - that our education system should recognize those differences and cater to them.

I think you're really, really giving him the benefit of the doubt, a benefit I was quite willing to give him right up until the speech at the press club, but the person who gave that speech left no doubt and no valid place to create doubt. He made his position clear and came up with spurious evidence to support his spurious world view. Some of his position can be defended as the rantings of someone who grew up at a very difficult time, but I don't excuse people who are abusive because they were abused, I don't excuse racism because you were the subject of it at some times or even all times, and I don't excuse the type of behavior he displayed.

The speech he gave at the press club was pretty much the same speech, albeit less detailed, as the one he gave at the NAACP meeting - and you said you liked it then.

It seems to be the question-and-answer session after the press club speech that you have the biggest problem with, and I understand that. I live with someone with a very combative personality - especially when he's been provoked, so I don't think that sort of attitude affects me as much as it does others, but I can see how it would.

Given the reaction of a whole lot of people of all races, I'm not alone in feeling like he proved he was racist.

No. And that's the problem, really. I don't think he's a racist, at least not for the most part. Like many people, he may harbor certain racist attitudes that he simply hasn't yet examined, but I don't think he's overtly racist.

I do, however, think that his combative attitude was counter-productive. I understand why he might have assumed that attitude, but I don't think it helped his case to most people who weren't sure of him and definitely didn't help with people who were already convinced he was racist/unpatriotic/etc.