Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
All you need to know about Jeremiah Wright (update)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, April 28, 2008

He said it in two sentences at the National Press Club:
“I do not in any way disagree with James Cone. Jim is a personal friend of mine.”
Of course, "Jim" is the founder of the black liberation theology which Jeremiah Wright has embraced as the foundation of the church he pastored for decades.

Jeremiah Wright has made that clear numerous times, to include a time he told Sean Hannity that unless he had read Cone, he had no idea of what he was talking about as it pertains to Wright and his beliefs.

James Cone, in an interview, claimed that Trinity UCC, Wright's church, was the church he found to best represent his theology.

In case you've forgotten, Cone's theology is undeniably racist.

And interestingly, as if to confirm how far outside the mainstream he is, he ran through this in an address to the Detroit NAACP:
He acted out the differences between marching bands at predominantly black and predominantly white colleges. "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality," he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. "Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style," he said. "They have a different way of learning."
That, apparently, is being "descriptive". However when this was said ...
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
... it was denounced as pure old racism.

As a result of Wright's theories on race, Rachal Lucas has a bone to pick with her mother:
Mostly on the lesson that black people and white people are, in fact, genetically different (apparently the billions of Arabs, Asians, and Indians do not count in this equation). For example, white babies learn from objects hung over their cribs, while black babies learn from a person.

My mom will be disappointed to know that she didn’t teach her four children the Proper White Method, since she didn’t do what all the other whiteys do, which is stick a baby in a crib and hang shit over it and leave it alone. No seriously. That’s what he said.
I've got to tell you, if Wright thinks he's helping Obama with this, he's only fooling himself (although, I understand he did deign to agree to accept the Vice President's job while doing Q&A at the National Press Club - for whom?). This is beyond "crazy uncle" stuff now.

If people think Obama's "Wright problem" is going to quietly fade away, they apparently don't know Wright very well. And, given this bit of fun over the last couple of days, I'm sure you can pretty much bank on the media giving the good reverend every opportunity he might seek to continue the show. They know a ratings hit when they see one.

And there's little doubt in my mind that if he continues doing what he's doing through November, there'll be a vote hit as well - and it won't be a positive one either.

UPDATE: Dana Milbank makes a good point about the "context" argument that Wright and others (to include Obama to some degree) have pushed concerning the inflammatory snippets of the anti-American rants of Wright on YouTube:
Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons — yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?

Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").
It appears the context which was attached to his words from those snippets reflect exactly what he believes, with or without the surrounding sermon.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Thank God for Rev.Wright!
There was a time when I feared that the obama might just win the presidency.
No more.
The more the Rev. runs off at the mouth,the less likely the obama is to get elected.
Thank You God.
 
Written By: firefirefire
URL: http://
Yeah, but that leaves us with Hillary Clinton.
How bad do things have to get to the point where we consider that the better situation?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Hillary has too much baggage to get elected.
 
Written By: firefirefire
URL: http://
What’s your definition of racism, McQ? Just curious.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
When the Republicans nominated McCain, I thought to myself, I cannot vote for this guy. No matter what else happens, I cannot be an active part in putting such a collectivist and corrupt person in office, no matter how good his character is otherwise, or how good his foreign policy might be.

But then the Democrats have gotten close to putting Obama in nomination, and if they do that I might have to vote for McCain rather than a write-in (my original plan once Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani bowed out). Way to go Democrats: in a year when you could have had my vote with a good candidate (I would have considered voting for Richardson, and possibly for Biden), you’ve blown it big time.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
mku:

If you think that the vast "muddled middle" of Americans will buy your definition, I think you are mistaken.

Of course, I infer from your question that you believe that the "oppressed" cannot be racist or express racist views, and since Wright is partly of African American heritage, he is among the "oppressed". If I am wrong, I am sure you will clarify.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
What’s your definition of racism, McQ? Just curious.
Let me guess your definition.

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)"
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
No doubt MK is here to offer something useful like -

"everybody does it" once he’s received an answer from McQ, even if he has to contort McQ’s answer into the Gordian Knot to do so.
MK and his buddies are champions of the "everybody does it" school of excuse making.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What’s your definition of racism, MK? Just curious.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
What’s your definition of racism, MK? Just curious.
Funny how no one is willing to go on the record. Mine is simple: The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I think Wright realizes he’s onto something pretty good. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson won’t last forever. I think he’s starting to see himself as their natural successor, and given the boost from being the poster child for Black Liberation Theology because of Obama, he might achieve that.

Too bad. I was hoping that once those race-baiters shuffled off the stage that we would move beyond that kind of racism as a culture. Apparently not.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Funny how no one is willing to go on the record. Mine is simple: The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another.
How about this definition:
The hatred or intolerance of a person based on that person being a member of another racial group.
Rev. Wright fits both definitions.
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Funny how no one is willing to go on the record. Mine is simple: The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another.
honest question:

what if, tomorrow, hard scientific evidence comes out that shows there’s a gene which is predominate in Asians, sparse in Caucasians and absent in Africans which determines how much intelligence a person has?

Would that be racist? Would the scientist who discovered this be racist? Would the study be racist?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Way to go Democrats: in a year when you could have had my vote with a good candidate (I would have considered voting for Richardson, and possibly for Biden), you’ve blown it big time.
I hear this a lot from wingnuts. It’s total BS, of course. Biden would have been called a socialist and elitist. Richardson, given his ethnic background, would have been called much worse, especially by the GOP - a party that is by and large hostile to Hispanics. Worse for Richardson, he was ambassador to the UN for a Democratic President.

Whoever the candidate for the Dems is, he or she will be painted as an America hating, terrorist sympathizing commie pinko. Hillary’s problem is that she has so much baggage in addition.

And it’s the mainstream press that will do most of the legwork. Case in point:
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03

So much for the liberal media.

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation’s newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"

"I think that was Osama bin Laden," the candidate answered.

"If I did that, I’m so sorry!" Singleton said.
There is a reason that McCain calls the MSM his "base." If the rest of the GOP was honest, they would do the same.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Funny how no one is willing to go on the record. Mine is simple: The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another.
I’ll go on the record with mine. Racism is the tendency to judge individuals solely or primarily on their race instead of their own individual characteristics.

At best, your definition is only a subset of this.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’ve got to tell you, if Wright thinks he’s helping Obama with this, he’s only fooling himself (although, I understand he did deign to agree to accept the Vice President’s job while doing Q&A at the National Press Club - for whom?).
I doubt that Wright harbors any illusions that he’s helping Obama. More likely, he realizes that if any black man ever wins the Presidency, his entire grievance industry will go up in smoke. For any black man to win is simply not in his script. For the movement to go on, Obama must lose, and racism must be portrayed as the culprit.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another."
That’s adorable. It’s about what I would expect from an abject moron.

Hollis hits what a collectivist will never grasp.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I hear this a lot from wingnuts. It’s total BS, of course.
Mk - I can call bullShirt on that one, and document it too...
two months ago you can find posts on here where I argued against Martin & Huxley, rather strenuously, that Obama’s association with Wright’s church wasn’t at all what Martin was trying to make it out to be, and Wright couldn’t have been THAT bad, consistently, or Obama wouldn’t have tolerated it.

Frankly I considered Martin a crank on the issue, and as evidence has more than amply demonstrated, I WAS WRONG.

Captain Sarcastic and I were on the same side for once. Where Cap is these days on this issue (or any other), I don’t know.

I would NEVER have voted for Hillary, and I now I have to say the shine sure has come off Obama, leaving me with what I thought was not a viable alternative, John McCain, if I want to cast any vote for President.

Just because YOU can’t actually look at a candidate to see if he or she is acceptable as a person, not as a party, doesn’t mean some of us can’t.

To quote another poster, I was caught up in the ’hopey changetude’ that Obama was offering.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’ll go on the record with mine. Racism is the tendency to judge individuals solely or primarily on their race instead of their own individual characteristics.

At best, your definition is only a subset of this.
Nice try.

Mine is the definition in its purest form.

The reason why the political right prefers a more expansive definition is pretty obvious and is borne out by the Wright affair.

Let’s say racial group A has historically used its power to discriminate against racial group B and has justified said discrimination on the basis that group B is genetically inferior to group A. Let’s say further that such treatment naturally generates rensentment by members of group B against group A on the basis of group A’s race. These members of group B don’t claim that group B is genetically superior to group A - they simply express resentment against group A on the basis of the discrimination against them by members of group A.

The reason why members of group A want to expand and apply the label of racism to said resentment is that it levels the playing field - there is nothing to distinguish the discrimination that group A imposed on group B from the resentment that group B holds toward group A on the basis of the said discrimination.

Therefore there is nothing to distinguish Jeremiah Wright from Simon Legree.

This is fallacious reasoning, of course. But what can one say - it’s wingnut reasoning. It comes from being a party that has over the last 40 years demonstrated and justified antipathy toward minority groups for that very reason.

And it is at the heart of what Billy just said. Jeremiah Wright making a speech in which he said white people did something bad is no worse than slavery and Jim Crow.

I would disagree. I would say that Wright is overgeneralizing and it is expressing hostility toward a race, but he is not claiming and acting on the belief that blacks are superior to whites. In other words, he is expressing hate - which, given what he lived through, may not be entirely unjustified - but he is not being racist.

Tell you what Billy. Go to a neighborhood that is predominantly black, knock on a few doors, and ask the people you meet if Jeremiah Wright is a racist. And then get back to us with your results.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
That’s adorable. It’s about what I would expect from an abject moron.

Hollis hits what a collectivist will never grasp.
So Billy Beck claims that defining racism as the belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another is moronic.

I rest my case.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Mine is simple: The belief that one racial group is genetically superior to another.
mk,
I had no idea that you were a Creationist - Creationists believe that ’all are Created equal’.

Those pesky evolution types think that over time species evolve new capabilities making them superior to previous generations, for example most evolutions agree that man evolved from something like Chimpanzees - thus humans are no long equal to Chimps because they are superior. - taken to its logical progression this could result in superior genetics within a single species as a portion of that species started to evolve and became a new species - even if it wasn’t initially recognized as such... For example recent research reveals blue eyes only appeared what ~10K year ago... of course the jury is still out on whether this is just a mutation that weakened the gene pool or whether this is evolution at work.

A messy business - glad to hear you agree that all are created genetically equal. BTW, that’s an amazingly convienent definition if you were going to take issue just with this post as opposed to racism in day to day life where someone makes statements like ’all North Koreans are slackers’ which according to your definition since it has no genetic component (South Koreans are also genetically Asian and not included) apparently isn’t racist.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Tell you what Billy. Go to a neighborhood that is predominantly black, knock on a few doors, and ask the people you meet if Jeremiah Wright is a racist. And then get back to us with your results.
By that asinine stretch of logic, if I go to a Klan stronghold and take a poll asking if the Grand Poobah of clandom is a racist, and they tell me no, he’s not.

Idiot.

MLK used a definition I have always liked - to paraphrase, judge by the content of a man’s character, not the color of his skin.

We won’t even get into the stupidity of the racist argument when we consider Obama is HALF WHITE and yet the very people who suffered for hundreds of years as ’black’ if they had ’one drop of black blood’ in their make up, now want to implement that very policy for their own. Fitting as a way of exacting revenge perhaps, but certainly not directed towards leveling the playing field.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Fine, mk, use whatever definition you want. The dictionary says:
Racism n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I’d say my definition is equivalent to #2. Yours is a subset of #1; you specify genetics instead of culture as the the only valid reason for racism, which of course conveniently leads to your rant above. So my definition is supported by the dictionary; yours is supported only partially at best.

Of course, I can see why you prefer your definition. If one assumes that blacks such as Wright are not claiming genetic superiority (which is unproven, but let’s stipulate it for a moment), then a corollary of your definition is that those blacks can’t be racists. That gives them open season to say anything about any racial group and get away with it cold. Typical liberal logic.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
James Cone, the inventor of "black theology," the friend and "theological" mentor of Jeremiah Wright, is a black supremacist. He postures his black supremacism as the rising out of oppression of black people that continues on to define God as black, blacks as his "chosen people," and whites as devils. When Jeremiah Wright is pressed on the meaning of his teachings, he refers you to James Cone.

You don’t need a definition of racism to know it when you see it.

No proposed definition of racism that talks its way around the unhinged racism of Jeremiah Wright would be an adequate definition of racism.

Because what Wright does is the thing that the word describes.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
If Wright were white and used the same words replacing the word black with the word white Mk would be calling him, correctly, a racist.

Seems a simple standard, and seems rather...racist....to try and imply there ought to be another.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I, for one, am tired of hearing about "The Reverend Wright."

He is a racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic American-hater. Period. End of argument. I do not want to hear that "his statements are taken out of context" - because no one who has made a bigoted remark uses this as an excuse.

Remember Jimmy "The Greek" and his "black athletes" comments some 20 years ago? It was part of a larger argument about blacks in sports, but the Greek made a RACIST COMMENT and that was the end of him.

Remember Trent Lott and his "Strom Thurmond should have been elected President in 1948" comment? He was trying to make an old man feel good after a lifetime of service to his country as a Governor and Senator, yet all the media played was that one line. Was it taken out of context? WHO CARES? It was a RACIST COMMENT and that was the end of Trent Lott as the Senate Majority Leader. He never recovered.

We have a history of plenty of people making comments, off the cuff or not, which were played time and time again, and were their undoing. None of them used the "my words were taken out of context" malarkey.

So, when Jeremiah Wright does it, ask yourself what would happen if John McCain’s pastor for 20 years made a racist comment, out of context or not, and how the media would play it.

And if black Americans are fine with this man making anti-white and anti-Semitic comments in their midst - note that none of them in the videos stood up to protest, but applauded his bigotry - then this country is farther apart racially than anyone knows. And that is the legacy of Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
"Let’s say racial group A has historically used its power to discriminate against racial group B..."
No. "Let’s" not. I will never stipulate to something like that for the simple reason that your "group" does not exist. I, for example, have no such "power". I have never in my life done what you’re attributing to me for no other reason than that I happen to be white. These are facts, and what they demonstrate to a rational person — not like you — is that your attribution of a "group" is wrong. You’re not dealing in reality.
"Tell you what Billy. Go to a neighborhood that is predominantly black, knock on a few doors, and ask the people you meet if Jeremiah Wright is a racist. And then get back to us with your results."
Go fu*k yourself. I don’t do herd epistemology.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
The hatred or intolerance of a person based on that person being a member of another racial group.
Isn’t that what MLK taught it to be?
Yeah, I think I’ll go with that definition.
Therefore there is nothing to distinguish Jeremiah Wright from Simon Legree.
You know what, MK? You’re right. Mark this down, MK got one right.

There isn’t any difference between them.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I actually agree with mkultra’s definition. Now I’m depressed.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
From the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary;
racism

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
Any questions?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
By that asinine stretch of logic, if I go to a Klan stronghold and take a poll asking if the Grand Poobah of clandom is a racist, and they tell me no, he’s not.

Idiot.
So you’re likening a predominantly black neighborhood to a Klan stronghold and I’m the idiot?

Say no more.
The dictionary says ....
So an unnamed "dictionary" says it all?
Of course, I can see why you prefer your definition. If one assumes that blacks such as Wright are not claiming genetic superiority (which is unproven, but let’s stipulate it for a moment), then a corollary of your definition is that those blacks can’t be racists. That gives them open season to say anything about any racial group and get away with it cold. Typical liberal logic.
I didn’t say it was open season, did I? Nope.

I simply said that there is a difference between institutionalized racism, and the racism underlying it on the one hand, and the resentment that those who are the victims of it have toward their oppressors - and those who are like them - on the other. You don’t see a distinction, apparently. I do. That’s where we - and the left and right more generally - differ.
I have never in my life done what you’re attributing to me for no other reason than that I happen to be white.
Nope, that’s why I used the word "historically." And that’s why I said Wright "overgeneralized."

Of course none of this matters unless you believe Obama agrees with Wright. I don’t think he does, but wingnuttery believes it.

So one last question: Do you believe Obama agrees with Wright?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mk,
I won’t split hairs if you want to say he isn’t a racist fine - but he is a Bigot. (American Heritage definition)

I would even argue that he is a racist bigot - but being a bigot is enough to disqualify him.
So one last question: Do you believe Obama agrees with Wright?
Yes - I think he is also a bigot, and there are multiple items that demonstrate this, as past actions are more telling then future denials. For example, his willingness to throw his grandmother under the bus in order to defend his minister. His monetary donations to an Afro-Centric church and bigoted minister.

Regardless of future statements to the contrary I won’t help put someone who supports bigots into a political position of power - even if he managed to connvince me he wasn’t as much of a bigot as his past implies - who know’s perhaps only his wife is a bigot but that’s too many close relationships for him to deny enabling bigotry. What you do is your business - he certainly won’t be the first bigot to run for President and I doubt he’ll be the last but he as much chance in this election of getting my vote as does another bigot - Ron Paul.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Of course none of this matters unless you believe Obama agrees with Wright. I don’t think he does, but wingnuttery believes it.

So one last question: Do you believe Obama agrees with Wright?
Obama is a candidate for President of the United States, not a candidate for a job as a bookstore clerk.

Does he agree with Wright? He sat in Wright’s church for 20 years and counting.

Wright freely explains that the racist "black theology" of James Cone is fundamental to the church’s teachings.

How does that leave room for a good faith benefit of the doubt for a presidential candidate?

That would be like giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who attended Klan rallies for 20 years who explained that he just liked the community spirit but never lit any of the crosses.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Here is a great essay, recalling the way that the press and the liberal establishment threw feminism under the bus in order to defend Bill Clinton in the 1990’s, and wondering whether the same elements are prepared to throw progress against racism under the bus in order to normalize Wright for Obama’s sake.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
So you’re likening a predominantly black neighborhood to a Klan stronghold and I’m the idiot?

Say no more.
No...you set up an environment for your poll where YOU felt people would be highly likely to say Wright was NOT a racist.
You expect ’like minded people’ based on their skin color, would answer a question the way you needed it answered.

You were racist about your choice by virtue of assuming their race would guarantee, any predominantly ’black’ neighborhood, chosen at random, would NOT label Wright a racist, regardless of what they know about him, presumably other than he’s black. Solidarity Brother!
That’s the underlying assumption in your statement as you challenge Billy to take the poll.

I didn’t anticipate a predominantly ’white’ neighborhood, chosen at random, would give me a predictable answer so I made mine a guaranteed racist neighborhood to ensure I got the answer I expected.
The logic of the poll and it’s usefulness in gauging reality, are identical.

You’re a racist and an idiot.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Merriam-Webster definition supports both senses of the word, racism, discussed here. According to James Cone, Wright’s Black Liberation Theologian of choice:
* Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
* Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
A theology in which God is totally identified with blacks and against whites sure sounds racist to me.

I can’t tell what Obama believes, but clearly he is not bothered enough by what Rev. Wright preaches to leave that church or challenge his mentor. That’s indictment enough in my book.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
You were racist about your choice by virtue of assuming their race would guarantee, any predominantly ’black’ neighborhood, chosen at random, would NOT label Wright a racist, regardless of what they know about him, presumably other than he’s black. Solidarity Brother!
That’s the underlying assumption in your statement as you challenge Billy to take the poll.
I can understand why you might believe that.

My point is that what is racist to some, may not be racist to others. Sure - some black people might call him racist, but most would probably not, whether or not they agreed with it. OTOH, most white people would call it racist, while others might not. There is nothing racist in that observation. Racism is often in the eye of the beholder - or the receiver. To suggest that ones skin color - and therefore experience - does not shape ones view of what racism is is simply ridiculous.

I realize this is a nuanced point, which is why I probably shouldn’t have made it here.

My other observation is that there seems to be a complete disregard on this site for what someone of Wright’s age went through back during Jim Crow. Wingnuts hold grudges going back decades - witness the hatred directed toward Jane Fonda on this site. But god forbid a black man should be angry for the de jure racism that he experienced as a black man, and for the de facto racism he experienced as he got older.

Again, I don’t agree with what Wright says. But to say that he is no different than those who oppressed him - that by virture of being angry about his oppression at his oppressors he is not better than them, is silly. Does he overgeneralize - sure. Is he hateful? I guess. But to say his anger - a reaction to being oppressed, is as same as the oppression itself is simply incorrect.

As for Obama, I don’t think he subscribes to Wright’s views. I really don’t think he hates his mother, or his grandmother, or half of his ancestory based on their skin color. I have never met a person of mixed race who does. OTOH, there are those who will believe that he is racist against whites no matter what he says. So there you have it.
That would be like giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who attended Klan rallies for 20 years who explained that he just liked the community spirit but never lit any of the crosses.
And it is epitomized by this view: Obama as Klan member. Sad, but very predictable.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra says:
There is a reason that McCain calls the MSM his "base." If the rest of the GOP was honest, they would do the same.
Yep, that is why, since 1999, journalists have donated a massive $301,764 to Republicans, and only a miniscule $1,342,900 to Democrats.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/journalists.asp
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
The entire argument of whether or not he is a racist is word-twisting, semantic bullsh!t, and I’m tired of it. He’s a POS, plain and simple. His oppressive, "the government created AIDS to kill off blacks, etc, etc" view of reality simply does not exist. What is worse is that he knows it. He’s a conman selling this crap to his congregation, and it has made him a good living. If I ever see his face again, it’ll be too soon.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
And it is epitomized by this view: Obama as Klan member. Sad, but very predictable.
Being a member of a church that has as the basis of its teaching the racist "black theology" of James Cone is the equivalent of being a member of the Klan, yes.

If you actively tell your congregation that they are good because they are black and that whites are evil, that is Klan equivalent.

There is nothing in black supremacism that makes it any less racist than white supremacism.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
What is it about Black Liberation Theology that is so objectionable? Is it the expectation of liberation or freedom for human beings, the children of God? Or is it the idea of Black people becoming free or liberated? Why do you assume that pro-Black must mean anti-white?

Jewish people and others of good conscience tell and retell the centuries old stories of Jewish subjugation and persecution. How is it that Black people must "get over" and "forget about" slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow?
 
Written By: Deborah Cohen
URL: http://
So one last question: Do you believe Obama agrees with Wright?
Don’t know. But I can rightly question the his judgment for chosing to associate himself with bribers, bombers, and haters.

And if you have been paying attention, what Michelle Obama’s been saying is not at all dissimilar from Wright’s rants, minus the overtly hateful rant.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
But god forbid a black man should be angry for the de jure racism that he experienced as a black man, and for the de facto racism he experienced as he got older
Oh no, nice try. There’s a big difference between being angry and being a racist. Being angry about injustice based on your skin color is telling people you got crapped on, and didn’t like it, and saw it was wrong, and finally got enough of the people who did the crapping to STOP it. Forgive ’us’? Maybe not, I can understand forgiveness for what he may have experienced being a long time coming.

I’m not sure why I need forgiveness though, other than a totally racist idea that because I was born with white skin I personally participated in repressing people of color. This institutionalization of racism stuff is crap so they don’t have to think and judge people based on their character instead of their color. Dr King would be SOOOOOOO proud! His dream, bent, twisted and screwed by people his own color just as certainly as if it had been repressed and abolished by slave onwers themselves.

I can understand his expectation that he be treated according to WHO he is and how he acts and not what color his skin pigment is. That’s how I expect to be treated, why would I expect or accept other from him?

EQUALITY, that’s what this was supposed to be about. Not time for someone else to be @ssholes ruling over the top of the hill.

Preaching a version of the same crap that he experienced as some sort of come-uppance? Racism.

Worrying about what color God is? Not only ridiculous, but racist. Like God is something anything akin to any color other than what ’He’ feels like being at the moment, like ’He’ would identify with any specific color after going to the effort of crafting all the skin colors of the world (yeah, screw the Orientals, and the Indians and the Australian Aborigines and the North and South American ’Indians’, and whoever else...he’s white like Jude Law with a beard or he’s black like Morgan Freeman! and those are the only two options this year...yeah!!!!!!).

I’m not even a good christian, and even I can recognize the root of divisiveness and racism in that argument and the destructiveness and frankly, admission of weakness in having to think God is a particular color and that ’He’ identifies only THAT color as his own.
God almost certainly wasn’t a long haired bearded white dude who looks like he was born in England in the 1400’s. He almost also certainly isn’t a lookalike for a Zulu warrior. He probably looked like a darker, slightly longer haired version of Ben Stein when he manifested himself as Christ (sans suit and glasses of course).
However, ’He’ may appear to each of us as what we expect to see for all anyone knows. So if ’He’ looks like Charlton Heston to me and likes to dress his angels up as US Marines, what can I say? If he looks like Morgan Freeman to Wright, so what?

If 5 white guys hang a black guy simply for being black, in addition to calling them @ssholes, I’d call them racists.
If 5 black guys hang a white guy simply for being white, I guess we have to come up with a new word for that...I suggest RACISTS. It’s already in the dictionary and rational people will understand the application of the term.
I suppose that will leave you out for a while, but you’ll catch on eventually, if only through rote repetition of the concept.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How is it that Black people must "get over" and "forget about" slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow?
If you’re asking the question you obviously haven’t spent any time checking out Reverend Wright’s sermons.
I’m not asking them to get over it any more than I would ask Jews to forget their history. They shouldn’t forget, it’s their history.

What I’m asking is they don’t wander around claiming white folks are all automatically evil and black folks can’t be racist, even if they DO hate a man because of his skin color (by the way, this will include the non-black Jews, in case you missed the implications).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Deborah Cohen:
What is it about Black Liberation Theology that is so objectionable?
If you’re asking that question, you haven’t read the "theologian" who Jeremiah Wright says you must read to understand his church and its teachings, James Cone. Here’s a summary of "black theology" from the closing pages of Cone’s "Black Theology and Black Power," p. 150:
[I]f [white people] are going to be in a relationship with God, they must enter by means of their black brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing blackness is the basic heresy of the white churches. They want God without blackness, Christ without obedience, love without death. What they fail to realize is that in America, God’s revelation on earth has always been black, red, or some other shocking shade, but never white. Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white. When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers. To speak of Satan and his powers becomes not just a way of speaking but a fact of reality. When we can see a people who are being controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto).
Now, that’s hardly the worst of it.

There are rationalizations about the use of violence to effectuate black power.

There are further declarations that God is black, and that blacks are God’s "chosen people."

Whites can only hope to find reconciliation with blacks by submitting to blackness.

At one point in Wright’s appearance today he spoke of a white woman who attended his church and got up — I think he said she stood in the pulpit — and said "I am unashamedly African." That’s part of the "motto" of the church (Unapologetically Christian; Unashamedly African), but in this woman’s case it sounded very much like her symbolic submission to blackness — i.e., by becoming black she is cleansed of her white evil and reconciled with God.

So, Deborah, I ask you, what is it about "black theology" that is so objectionable?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
What is it about Black Liberation Theology that is so objectionable?
Hit the link above ("Cone’s theology"), give it a look and you tell us what you might consider objectionable.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Why do you assume that pro-Black must mean anti-white?
Deborah — Sorry to pile on, but do follow up on James Cone’s black liberation theology, because in that theology being pro-black does mean being anti-white and even God must take sides. All we are assuming is that James Cone and Rev. Wright mean what they say.
* Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

* Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

—James Cone
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
* Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
What’s their stance on the White Neutral Observer?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
What’s their stance on the White Neutral Observer?
In the Gospel according to James Cone in Black Power and Black Theology, no hope there:
* "All white men are responsible for white oppression."

* "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil."
Of course blacks, on the other hand, can’t be racist.
* "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."
And be clear that Black Theology is just the other arm of Black Power.
* Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology.
Now let’s walk this back to Rev. Wright from the Trinity website:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

—http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I don’t see any defense for this. I exchanged some email about this with my liberal white pastor, hoping to get some additional perspective, but he had little to say and admitted that he couldn’t answer my concerns.

Meanwhile, black ministers throughout the country are standing up for Wright, and Wright is speaking to national organizations and on national television. No one outside the right will call Wright on all his wacky, divisive rhetoric for fear of being called racist.

This is setback, likely a large one, for race relations in America.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I’d say it’s safe to say that Wright is a bona fide racist, but that would miss the real point. Don’t send your time thinking racist, when you should be thinking huckster.

You have to realize that pastors of black churches often think of their congregants in a niggardly or “less than” terms, its part of the huckster role that demands “no noise” or “paper-only” in the basket. Meanwhile in order to maintain the “cash cow,” they preach a doctrine that keeps blacks from moving to a better place, with ideas like the anti-middleclassness, until he eventually retires to a 10,000 sq ft mansion in a gated community of more than 90% white neighbors. His form of racism is a tool of a black pastor to keep blacks down using whites to triangulate while he plays a Moses who has no intention of getting them to the promise land.

When you finally realize that Obama’s 20 year apprentice in hucksterism at Trinity Church was to gain “street cred” and train his skills at manipulating, starting with the black community, it becomes clear why he spend 20 years there becoming a modern day carpetbagger. The only real major difference between Wright and Obama is that Wright thinks within the confines of a pastor, while Obama is trying to expand to a whole country.

But the current discussion seems to poise Rev. Wright for a eventual "Sister Soulja" moment for Obama, when the entire huckster discussion is lost with the fallen racist.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Well said, Neo. The problem IMO is that Wright is damned effective at what he does—I’ve been listening to some of his latest appearances—and you have to start pinning down his manipulations somewhere and racism is a good place to start. It also throws the stakes of the discussion into high relief.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The dictionary says ....
So an unnamed "dictionary" says it all?
I realize you’re a lawyer and all, but do you really think dictionaries vary that much from one another? The other cite above is quite similar to mine. But just to satisfy your nit-picking attempt to divert the subject, the reference was from:

The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

And you can find the definition (it’s the second definition in the list) here.

Why do you constantly attempt to drive the conversation into irrelevancies? Is it just because you’re a lawyer and you’ve bought into the idea that you can dodge the truth if you just come up with enough technical points? You’re the first person I’ve ever known who ever challenged a dictionary definition for a common word.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider