Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Bill Moyers interview + NAACP speech

Seems like a descent guy. I agreed with the sermon that got overplayed when it first came out and I agree with him now. This country has alot of skeletons in its closet and the majority of americans would rather just assume we are perfect.
 
[quote name='homeland']Seems like a descent guy. I agreed with the sermon that got overplayed when it first came out and I agree with him now. This country has alot of skeletons in its closet and the majority of americans would rather just assume we are perfect.[/quote]

Rev. Wright suggests that Americans don't know about the history of slavery in America or the atrocities against American Indians because the conquerers write the history books.

Is it news to anyone on this board that white settlers displaced American Indians and committed brutal massacres of said Indians?

Is it news to anyone on this board that early America allowed slavery of African-Americans?

It strikes me as disingenuous.

Obama's position is much more even-toned.
 
I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.
 
[quote name='homeland']I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.[/quote]

Japanese? While we're going into that, what about the German and Italian immigrants to USA at the time? Heck what about NINA racism? What about the Chinese who built the railroads?

Yeah most Americans don't know history as well as they should but if they're going to retain something I'd rather have it be focused on concepts such as representative democracy, freedom isn't free, and a basic understanding of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt rather then every nasty example and hypocrisy perpetrated by every opportunist politician, military leader, and businessman (heck, the future Enrons and Tom Delays of the world will teach that lesson in due time).

The only thing Wright says about George Washington was that he owned slaves. He doesn't talk about George Washington's moral opposition to that nasty trade, how George Washington always treated his staff as family, how George Washington was a revolutionary who believed in the cause of freedom against the tyranny of a monarchy - a really far-out concept in his day. I listened to the Reverend and IMO what he said just isn't right.
 
[quote name='camoor']Japanese? While we're going into that, what about the German and Italian immigrants to USA at the time? Heck what about NINA racism? What about the Chinese who built the railroads?

Yeah most Americans don't know history as well as they should but if they're going to retain something I'd rather have it be focused on concepts such as representative democracy, freedom isn't free, and a basic understanding of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt rather then every nasty example and hypocrisy perpetrated by every opportunist politician, military leader, and businessman (heck, the future Enrons and Tom Delays of the world will teach that lesson in due time).

The only thing Wright says about George Washington was that he owned slaves. He doesn't talk about George Washington's moral opposition to that nasty trade, how George Washington always treated his staff as family, how George Washington was a revolutionary who believed in the cause of freedom against the tyranny of a monarchy - a really far-out concept in his day. I listened to the Reverend and IMO what he said just isn't right.[/QUOTE]


Staff?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Staff?[/quote]

After the war, Washington often privately expressed a dislike of the institution of slavery. In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery. He expressed moral support for plans by his friend the Marquis de Lafayette to emancipate slaves and resettle them elsewhere, but he did not assist him in the effort

During the years when Washington was alive, the laws of Virginia did not permit any slave owner to emancipate a slave without imposing a great financial burden to himself. Thus, the only remaining means to dispose of one's slaves was to sell them, and had Washington not been opposed to this practice, he gladly would have used that means to end his ownership of all slaves. As he explained "Were it not that I am principled against selling Negroes... I would not in twelve months from this date be possessed of one as a slave."

The personal circumstances faced by Washington prove that his convictions were indeed genuine and not merely rhetorical. The excess number of slaves which he held was economically unprofitable for Mount Vernon and caused a great financial burden on him. Washington wrote "It is demonstratively clear that on this Estate (Mount Vernon) I have more working Negroes by a full [half] than can be employed to any advantage in the farming system." Washington could have sold his "surplus" slaves and immediately have realized a substantial income. As prize-winning historian James Truslow Adams correctly observed, "One good field hand was worth as much as a small city lot. By selling a single slave, Washington could have paid for two years all the taxes he so complained about." Washington himself acknowledged the profit he could make by reducing the number of his slaves, declaring "[H]alf the workers I keep on this estate would render me greater net profit than I now derive from the whole."

Despite the financial benefits he could have reaped, Washington adamantly refused to sell any slaves, saying "To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion."

This stand by Washington was remarkable for his day. Refusing to sell slaves and also refusing to break up their families differentiates Washington from the culture around him during that early era and particularly from his State legislature. Virginia law, contrary to Washington's personal policy, recognized neither slave marriages nor slave families. Not only did Washington refuse to sell slaves or to break up their families, but he also felt a responsibility to take care of the slaves he held until there was, according to his own words, a "plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished."

Not only did George Washington commit himself to caring for his slaves and to seeking a legal remedy by which they might be freed in his State, but he also took the leadership in doing so on the national level. The first federal racial civil rights law in America was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington. That law, entitled "An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," prohibited slavery in any new State interested in seeking to enter the Union. Consequently, slavery was thus prohibited in all the American territories held at the time; and it was because of this law, signed by President George Washington, that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery.

Despite the slow but steady progress made in many parts of the nation, especially in the North, the laws in Virginia were designed to discourage and prevent the emancipation of slaves. The loophole which finally allowed Washington to circumvent Virginia law was by emancipating his slaves on his death, which he did. Unfortunately, by the time of Thomas Jefferson's death, this loophole had been closed by the Virginia State Legislature, thus preventing Jefferson from doing the same.)

Washington was the only prominent, slaveholding Founding Father to emancipate his slaves. He did not free his slaves in his lifetime, however, but instead included a provision in his will to free his slaves upon the death of his wife. William Lee, Washington's longtime personal servant, was the only slave freed outright in the will. The will called for the ex-slaves to be provided for by Washington's heirs, the elderly ones to be clothed and fed, the younger ones to be educated and trained at an occupation. Washington did not own and could not emancipate the "dower slaves" at Mount Vernon.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

So let's see - he disagreed with the concept of slavery, after a certain point he never sold the slaves on his property (to his financial detriment), and he emancipated the slaves on his plantation at the time of his death while also providing for clothing, food, and education for said ex-slaves. If you have any inkling of how slaves in America were treated at the time, you would know that this was highly unusual. So yes, I may have erred in my word choice but I was trying to convey a point without belaboring it. History is not a zero-sum exercise, hopefully you can parse through the more subtle truth conveyed in the above paragraphs and afterwards feel free to form your own conclusion on the matter.
 
[quote name='camoor']So yes, I may have erred in my word choice but I was trying to convey a point without belaboring it.[/QUOTE]

I think the only point worth discussing here is that while Americans often know of slavery and even sometimes the horrors associated with it they rarely tend to examine it in a thoughtful way.

The questions that you were posing before about bad things being "news" to the American people leaves out the fact that there are still many Americans alive who did not really learn about 1/10th of what they should have learned because their school textbooks were pushing the Gone with the Wind mythos more than facts.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I think the only point worth discussing here is that while Americans often know of slavery and even sometimes the horrors associated with it they rarely tend to examine it in a thoughtful way.

The questions that you were posing before about bad things being "news" to the American people leaves out the fact that there are still many Americans alive who did not really learn about 1/10th of what they should have learned because their school textbooks were pushing the Gone with the Wind mythos more than facts.[/quote]

Maybe I just had an extremely politically correct education, but could you please point me to one of these "Gone With the Wind" textbooks? I never saw the movie, but I believe you're intimating that modern American history books used in American high schools gloss over the historical realities of slavery in America and the Civil War battlefield conditions to spin yarns about 1860s smuggling and genteel Southern society. Just Amazon link it, Msut. It's the least you can do after I followed up my post with justification just to have you cherry-pick my response.
 
[quote name='camoor']Maybe I just had an extremely politically correct education, but could you please point me to one of these "Gone With the Wind" textbooks?[/QUOTE]

I am talking about older people. "Politically correct" textbooks are relatively new.
 
The interview was a total softball lovefest, as expected. What is more interesting is the garbage Wright is spewing now - from his speech at the NAACP and the National Press Club.
He's getting up to Sharpton and Jackson territory now.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am talking about older people. "Politically correct" textbooks are relatively new.[/quote]

Isn't it funny how everything you said at first becomes progressively more muddled and less substantive.

Define "relatively new"

Better yet, link to one of these older textbooks that the older people allegedly used. When you say older do you mean 80 and 90 year-olds? Do you really think this population segment has the overarching impact on American politics that Wright is asserting exists. Do you really think that is the segment of America he was talking about?
 
[quote name='camoor']Isn't it funny how everything you said at first becomes progressively more muddled and less substantive.[/QUOTE]

What I said was perfectly clear.

If you would like to read a book on the subject there is always Lies my Teacher told me by James Loewen.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']The interview was a total softball lovefest, as expected. What is more interesting is the garbage Wright is spewing now - from his speech at the NAACP and the National Press Club.
He's getting up to Sharpton and Jackson territory now.[/quote]

A call for all of us to accept or tolerate our differences is "garbage"? I absolutely do, however, disagree on his point that we black people learn differently than ethno Europeans and people of such descent.
 
[quote name='homeland']I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that, if that's what Wright said. I think people have ample opportunities to learn about slavery and the history of the US' being intertwined - more than other topics.

It's a different issue entirely, however, from whether or not people (1) are willing or able to recognize that the legacy of slavery continues to this day in the forms of segregation, racism, and differential opportunities, or (2) give a shit about it even if they realize #1.

I think people know quite bloody well about slavery, and Wright's point, if this is it, is poorly made in that regard because his claim is so easily brushed aside. Of course we know about slavery. But instead, we live in a society that says "I had nothin' to do with slavery," "why isn't there a white entertainment television channel," "they're the ones who need to change," "Affirmative action is a racist policy," - and so on, failing to realize the hegemony of modern American society that has normalize whiteness.

What do I mean by normalization? Perhaps you can think of the reaction you had to the first time you saw that GTA: San Andreas had you controlling a black character. Ever have that reaction before to a game character's race? Did you pick up Mario Bros 20 years ago and think to yourself "woah, a white person gets represented in a game!"? I suspect not.

Ever think about what Master Chief looks like under his helmet? How often do you think of him as a white man?

I'm stretching to make points here, but Wright's argument is that modern American society is not colorblind - and defaults to white as the "normal" racial category - whites consider themselves to be devoid of race in the sense that there is no "us"-ness about whites from our own vantage point - white music, white food, white cultural moments, etc.

So when Wright talks about "white America," it's an interesting moment of reality, in an indirect way. Whites generally are aghast at the suggestion of their responsibility in perpetuating racism. "WE didn't do anything!" they say. "Besides, there is no **WHITE AMERICA**! What do I have in common with other white folks?" The irony, of course, comes in the recognition that this is perhaps the first taste among whites of how it feels to be broadwashed and overgeneralized to the point of being incorrect and perhaps stereotyped - precisely what people do to blacks today, from calling Obama "black" and never "white," to talking about "black culture" as a meaningful bounded set of ideals, and "black society" as the same. What Wright is revealing to you is the astounding and powerful infuriation that comes from gross overgeneralization of racial characteristics - something many blacks see, feel, and experience (despite not wanting to!) almost every day. Now whites are appalled that it has happened once!

The nerve!
 
[quote name='Msut77']What I said was perfectly clear.

If you would like to read a book on the subject there is always Lies my Teacher told me by James Loewen.[/quote]

Ah, a highly controversial book by an author who cherry-picked 12 non-widely used history textbooks, most of them not current in 1995 when he wrote the book. Michael Moore could learn a thing or two from James Loewen.

Congrats, that's just the conclusive proof I'm sure we all were looking for.
 
[quote name='Lv99 Slacker']A call for all of us to accept or tolerate our differences is "garbage"? I absolutely do disagree on his point that we black people learn differently than ethno Europeans and people of such descent, however.

For those of you who missed it, here is his entire NAACP speech: Link[/quote]

Mix 5 pounds of ice cream with 5 pounds of manure - you get 10 pounds of manure.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ah, a highly controversial book by an author who cherry-picked 12 non-widely used history textbooks, most of them not current in 1995 when he wrote the book.[/QUOTE]

So a little bit before 1995 (there is an updated edition you know) equals 80 and 90 year olds?

FYI the book is not all that controversial, people take issue with the authors view point but rarely the facts he presents. Last I checked the books were among the most popular that were being used all around the country.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So a little bit before 1995 (there is an updated edition you know) equals 80 and 90 year olds?

FYI the book is not all that controversial, people take issue with the authors view point but rarely the facts he presents. Last I checked the books were among the most popular that were being used all around the country.[/quote]

Oh, so the 1970s are a little bit before 1995? And you accuse me of playing games?

I was asking you to clarify, up to your last post I hadn't had seen any lines in the sand from you, it was all vague assertions about "older people" learning history from "Gone With the Wind" Being that that's a early 20th century movie, I felt it only fair to ask if you were referring to people from that era (went way over your head, as usual)

The first I heard about this 'American history as lies' book is your mention so I've been playing catchup.

But here's a little history lesson for you my friend

Popular =/= accurate.

Also, anyone can pick out 12 (only 12!) non-widely circulated history books, most of them pre-1980, and use them to prove whatever point he wants to prove. Unless Loewen vastly widened the number of history books that he bases his "research" on in later revisions, he has so severely limited his research scope that his claims of factual accuracy are rather negligible to me. Beyond that I've read plenty of controversy over his analysis in just 20 min of googling.

My final point being that the fact I read Zinn in HS and you read Loewen should give you some indication that education has changed.
 
[quote name='camoor']Oh, so the 1970s are a little bit before 1995?[/QUOTE]

Some of those books were written well before the 1970s or their main narrative was, it is irrelevant however since the point is that they were still being used until the mid 90s or so. And anyway people who went to elementary or even high school in the 1970s are still hardly a few nonagenarians.

Also, anyone can pick out 12 (only 12!) non-widely circulated history books
Click to expand...

The updated version has newer or updated books and some still repeat the same mindless garbage, again just like with the previous edition these are books used all over the country that are "widely circulated" no matter how you wish to define the term.

My final point being that the fact I read Zinn in HS and you read Loewen should give you some indication that education has changed.
Click to expand...

I read Zinn and Loewen in Highschool but it was not assigned to any but the AP classes we are not talking the majority of Americans here.

Popular =/= accurate.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that the books he mentioned were popular and widely used contrary to the talking point you are clinging to.

It would be much more important for you to realize that something that is "controversial" is not necessarily inaccurate. As I said before some consider his point of view radical but hardly anyone has attacked his command of the facts. I noticed you have not even attempted that in your underwhelming response.
 
[quote name='Msut77']As I said before some consider his point of view radical but hardly anyone has attacked his command of the facts. I noticed you have not even attempted that in your underwhelming response.[/quote]

When an author cherry-picks a very small sample, he may be factually accurate in his analysis of that sample but the results are meaningless.

By way of analogy - it's as if someone here said that all of the Chinese immigrants they know work in the restaurant industry. That may be factually accurate but it doesn't mean that all Chinese immigrants work in the restaurant industry, or even that a majority of Chinese immigrants work in the restaurant industry.
 
[quote name='camoor']When an author cherry-picks a very small sample, he may be factually accurate in his analysis of that sample but the results are meaningless.[/QUOTE]

It is not as if he took a poll using only 12 people, nor did he cherry pick or examine only a "few" by the standards of widely used textbooks.

Loewen and his book are "factually accurate" and your grasping at straws is getting tiresome.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is not as if he took a poll using only 12 people, nor did he cherry pick or examine only a "few" by the standards of widely used textbooks.

Loewen and his book are "factually accurate" and your grasping at straws is getting tiresome.[/quote]

Have fun believing in your alternate history.
 
[quote name='camoor']Have fun believing in your alternate history.[/QUOTE]

Is...that...your response?

Would you like to try again?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']calling Obama "black" and never "white,"[/QUOTE]

That is an excellent point. It's strange why Obama is characterized as "black" when he is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. They could say he's "white" and be just as accurate. I find it strange that our society defines anyone who is even partly of African descent as "black."

Anyway, here are some quotes I found disturbing from Rev. Wright's NPC speech:

"I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church -- this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church."

"As I've said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. This is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African- American religious tradition."

" As I said, this was an attack on the black church. It was not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea; this was about the black church. This was about Barbara Jordan. This was about Fannie Lou Hamer. This was about my grandmama. (Applause.)"

Bullshit. Because people find things you say disturbing it's an attack on all black churches? Bullshit.

"You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you."

Here he accuses our government of terrorism. I am wondering to what he refers.

" MS. LEINWAND: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

REV. WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz's book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola"? Whoever wrote that question, have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You've read it? "

After this he doesn't ever answer the question outright, but it's safe to say from his response that he still believes that, which is obvously ridiculous.

" MS. LEINWAND: Can you elaborate on your comparison of the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus to the U.S. Marine Corps? Do you still believe that is an appropriate comparison? And why?

REV. WRIGHT: One of the things that will be covered at symposiums over the next two days is biblical history, which many of the working press are unfamiliar with.

(Laughter.)

In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible, between Genesis and Revelation, that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression: Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression.

The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus was born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a degree that the whole world should be taxed -- they were in charge of the world; sounds like some other governments I know -- that yes, I can compare that. We have troops stationed all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world, because we run the world. That notion of imperialism is not the message of the Gospel of the Prince of Peace nor God, who loves the world. (Applause.) "

Another roundabout/non-answer, although you can conclude that he does liken the U.S. military to the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ.

"
 
" MS. LEINWAND: Can you elaborate on your comparison of the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus to the U.S. Marine Corps? Do you still believe that is an appropriate comparison? And why?

REV. WRIGHT: One of the things that will be covered at symposiums over the next two days is biblical history, which many of the working press are unfamiliar with.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I wonder if he felt like a Roman soldier when he was in the marine corps or if it's a pattern of thought that emerged later.
 
you gotta at least like this part

When asked whether he was sufficiently patriotic, he replied, "I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Anyway, here are some quotes I found disturbing from Rev. Wright's NPC speech:

"I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church -- this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church."

"As I've said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. This is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African- American religious tradition."

" As I said, this was an attack on the black church. It was not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea; this was about the black church. This was about Barbara Jordan. This was about Fannie Lou Hamer. This was about my grandmama. (Applause.)"[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think he's spot on, here. It's not an assault to end or stop black churches, but it's a means of delegitimizing black voices in the political spectrum. "Their churches are strange, man, and all kinds of fucked up. I can't believe anyone would act like that or listen to that nonsense."

You can see it when you hear "black liberation theology" thrown under the bus with Wright. They're going after a religious perspective on the whole, and Wright is simply the catalyst.

Strangely enough, it's working - meanwhile, white religious nutjobs who are overly involved in divisive issues and too immersed in politics, like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, and John Hagee, are virtually ignored in terms of their vitriol, venom, and political influence.

It's like Joel Osteen and Pope Benedict are comin' out lookin' like the only legit christians left.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That is an excellent point. It's strange why Obama is characterized as "black" when he is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. They could say he's "white" and be just as accurate. I find it strange that our society defines anyone who is even partly of African descent as "black."[/quote]

Do you honestly believe someone with his political experience would be where he is right now if he were always considered white and his name was Dave Smith?


[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, I think he's spot on, here. It's not an assault to end or stop black churches, but it's a means of delegitimizing black voices in the political spectrum. "Their churches are strange, man, and all kinds of fucked up. I can't believe anyone would act like that or listen to that nonsense."


You can see it when you hear "black liberation theology" thrown under the bus with Wright. They're going after a religious perspective on the whole, and Wright is simply the catalyst.

Strangely enough, it's working - meanwhile, white religious nutjobs who are overly involved in divisive issues and too immersed in politics, like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, and John Hagee, are virtually ignored in terms of their vitriol, venom, and political influence.
[/QUOTE]

Divisive? The very existence, encouragement, and prorogation of a "(insert favorite race here) church" should be considered divisive.

I absolutely love how religous white people confronting the same issues are "divisive" and nutjobs". But it's totally acceptable, misunderstood, and even championed when the so-called "spiritual" leader of a so-called "black church" does it.

At this point, you can't be taken seriously with this kind of talk anymore unless you also stand up for a KKK church with all the same logic, just to be fair.

Just when I think your social double standards couldn't stack any higher, you always prove us wrong.
 
They're not (to my knowledge) racially divisive. I'm referring to the "get out the homo-hater vote" with constitutional amendments against gay marriage in 2004 (and to lesser degree in 2006).

You casually ignore the substantial legacy of the "(insert favorite race here) church" in the civil rights movement. It has an identity and culture of its own. So you can point the finger and say *they're* the ones who are being divisive and separate, but in doing so you overlook hundreds of years of segregated worship, the cultural shifts that create that identity in that time (which, when you're religiously isolated, is bound to happen), as well as the central role that black churches and church leaders played in the civil rights movement.

Ignoring that ("that" being loosely translated into "a knowledge that extends beyond whatever uninformed nonsense turns on your synapses right about now, since you have nothing but opinion to back your claims"), well, you may be onto something. :lol:

KKK church = black liberation theology?

Well, guess that's really all that needs to be said in order to demonstrate that Wright's comments about how this is no longer about him or Obama is spot-the-fuck-on.

And here we find again that it's perfectly fine for an uninformed white boy to broadly brush how blacks worship while acting like it's the greatest offense of all time that it happens to whites. But I guess it's an easier pill to swallow when it happens dozens of times every day from almost all people, instead of one public occasion from one preacher. ;)
 
myke,

Look, if you really believe promoting race-based religions or religious gatherings is progressive and somehow good for social progression based on whatever good they did in the past, then that's your prerogative.

I am simply saying that I personally would prefer to see more encouragement of people coming together, sharing cultures, and mixing in all aspects of society.

Your right, it's my opinion. I don't feel I need studies and facts to back up my belief that segregation, of any kind (except maybe locker rooms), is ultimately bad. If you think I do, well then... do what you do best and bash me for it.

As far as the "black church"... Sure, I can see the value it has had... 30-40 years ago. I say let's be grateful for that, always remember it, and realize that maybe as a society we can't really move on until we push segregation, even self segregation, completely out of society. Or is that not being progressive enough?
 
I saw this guy on Anderson 360 tonight... Umm... Can we have THIS GUY for prez?? Plez? It's amazing someone with actual common sense. Scary part is he's religious and I hate religion. But fuck... if his actions are held by "god" it's better than being held by politics.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fair enough; what have you done lately to help move in that direction?[/QUOTE]

Good question. Never enough. But I'm always conscious of it.

I know you think people are foolish for attempting to be "colorblind". Maybe it's cheesy and idealistic, but that's what I strive for, as impossible as it might be.

I work too damn much, and drive too damn much to do much good in that regard, unfortunately. And I feel bad about it, I really do. But all we can do are the little things. Such as trying not to judge someone based on how they look or talk.

As far as segregation goes.... I guess I sometimes try to make an effort to involve those around me that are different. At work, in meetings or whatever, if there is one female or Asian or black in a room full of white guys, I will try to strike up a conversation and just be friendly. At the very least I try hard to smile at them... as stupid as that might sound.

I've always had a very strong drive to make everyone feel included... and I guess I expect the same out of others.

Seriously though... What would you suggest I do? I'm open.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Good question. Never enough. But I'm always conscious of it.

I know you think people are foolish for attempting to be "colorblind". Maybe it's cheesy and idealistic, but that's what I strive for, as impossible as it might be.

I work too damn much, and drive too damn much to do much good in that regard, unfortunately. And I feel bad about it, I really do. But all we can do are the little things. Such as trying not to judge someone based on how they look or talk.[/quote]

I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.

It's like the idea that people who smoke weed and try to get all philosophical talk about. "aw, man, one day everyone's gonna inbreed some much there's not gone BE any more race!" Well, that's a load of shit - as long as there is physical variation between people to be differentiated, we will have 'race.' Ask the protestants and the Catholics in Ireland how similar they are. ;)

As far as segregation goes.... I guess I sometimes try to make an effort to involve those around me that are different. At work, in meetings or whatever, if there is one female or Asian or black in a room full of white guys, I will try to strike up a conversation and just be friendly. At the very least I try hard to smile at them... as stupid as that might sound.

I've always had a very strong drive to make everyone feel included... and I guess I expect the same out of others.

Seriously though... What would you suggest I do? I'm open.
Click to expand...

Not expect everyone to worship the same way you do, for starters. ;)

nighty-night. I mean it this time.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.

It's like the idea that people who smoke weed and try to get all philosophical talk about. "aw, man, one day everyone's gonna inbreed some much there's not gone BE any more race!" Well, that's a load of shit - as long as there is physical variation between people to be differentiated, we will have 'race.' Ask the protestants and the Catholics in Ireland how similar they are. ;)[/quote]
So are you saying we should embrace certain clearly divisive institutions and functions of society simply because it's impossible to overcome?

Do you feel we should give up on the war on drugs too? Everyone knows that one can't be "won" either.

In my every day life, and every other persons every day life, do you feel we should attempt to treat each other equally regardless of color? Or do you feel we should attempt to treat everyone equally of certain races, but some races we should give special treatment?

I'm seriously confused as to what your own personal answer for the "race" issue is. I know what you think government should do. But what do you think individuals should do?



Not expect everyone to worship the same way you do, for starters. ;)
Click to expand...
Oh I certainly don't.
But I also would not call a group of self-segregated people in a room getting each other all whipped up with negative energy over social issues "worshiping". That's not a religion. Especially not a Christian religion.
I see it about as useful and valid as a "religion" as the groups that talk about the eradication of certain ethnic groups in their services.

If me and my buddies sit in a room and vent about how much we can't stand old people, we don't get to call it a religion or define what we are doing as "worship" just because we started with prayer.

You can call me intolerant if you like, but whenever a religion steps over the line into stereotyping, ethnic generalization, and political attacks.... I don't consider it a religion anymore. It's something else entirely.


On a different note, given your interests and background, what is your take on this? Is there legitimacy to that concern?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So are you saying we should embrace certain clearly divisive institutions and functions of society simply because it's impossible to overcome?

Do you feel we should give up on the war on drugs too? Everyone knows that one can't be "won" either.

In my every day life, and every other persons every day life, do you feel we should attempt to treat each other equally regardless of color? Or do you feel we should attempt to treat everyone equally of certain races, but some races we should give special treatment?

I'm seriously confused as to what your own personal answer for the "race" issue is. I know what you think government should do. But what do you think individuals should do?[/quote]

Well, treating folks as individuals is fine, but I think that 'colorblindness' is absurd. Treat folks as individuals, but respect differences. Kwanzaa was made up, sure - but so what? Christmas was made up, too - just a helluva lot longer ago. Embrace cultural differences - we sure do it withing European ethnic groups - my anglo friends adore soccer and celebrate St. George's day (did so last week, in fact) and ask me to come drinking with them at 9AM on Saturday for the West Ham/Man U match. My Irish friends celebrate St. Patrick's Day, tend to bias towards orthodox Catholicism and perpetually mock Baptists and nondenominational types...I could go on for hours. This is amongst white groups, of course - but the differences, while they may be there, are both identifiable as individual traits, but groups traits as well.

I think that there's a major difference between you and I (and you'll agree) in that I see a great deal more racism in society than you do. Colorblindness allows people to coverup their racist decisions, like when black folks are disproportionately turned down for rental property (by wide margins, mind you) when they and comparative white folks all made inquiries over the phone. Racial attributions can be made without seeing a person - we identify by voice (inflection, dialect, vocabulary), we identify by name. And we're not always right, but we're right enough that it seems legit.

But since we disagree on those differences, I think that's kind of where we stop. Treating people as individuals is fine (but don't forget to recognize group traits in those individuals as well) - but where we differ is that I think Rev. Wright is correct in his points about modern society. Blacks are still victims of a far more covert (and thus more dangerous because of the greater degree of plausible deniability than good old time "$$$$er" racism) form of racism.

I support Affirmative Action policies that heavily fine those who treat groups differently - what, do you want to sue for the right to work at a place that just turned you down because you are black? No way, dude. But it's not to be implemented in quotas (if you want to do quotas, start in preschool, rather than at the collegiate level, where structural differences in life experiences and situations have made developmental differences that are largely irreversible), but, rather, in the way it was meant - retroactive policing of racist and biased hiring and promoting practices. Blocking off avenues for certain groups, in other words. Besides, it's a racial preference standard we have now - because of the bias that persists, if you're white you're given preferential treatment in today's market. So even in the absence of pro-minority AA, we have pro-majority AA instead.

I think of race relations, at the national level, like Lucy (whites/government) and Charlie Brown (blacks). Lucy isn't as sinister, and she really would like, at some point, to allow Charlie to kick the football. Charlie, being duped again, will always go for the football (opportunity). At the last minute, though, that football seems to leap from the ground, and Charlie misses his opportunity again - and gets fed up, blames Lucy (who isn't wholly responsible, but was the one holding the football), and says "fuck this, I quit." Like the old "fool me once, shame on you..." adage.

Both blacks and whites need to recognize and respect other group differences, treat people with dignity, but move beyond colorblindness. It's not "separate but equal" again - it's just "group differences," like southerns being more Baptist and northeasterners being more Catholic. And Californians just more goofy. But the key is that nothing, at all, will change unless both groups actively seek out the problems they have created, and the biases they need to work out. Simply thinking to yourself "okay, I'll treat all people nicely" isn't enough - you have to actively work against racism in the places where it is hidden in this day and age. And that's a lot of places.

Oh I certainly don't.
But I also would not call a group of self-segregated people in a room getting each other all whipped up with negative energy over social issues "worshiping". That's not a religion. Especially not a Christian religion.
I see it about as useful and valid as a "religion" as the groups that talk about the eradication of certain ethnic groups in their services.

If me and my buddies sit in a room and vent about how much we can't stand old people, we don't get to call it a religion or define what we are doing as "worship" just because we started with prayer.

You can call me intolerant if you like, but whenever a religion steps over the line into stereotyping, ethnic generalization, and political attacks.... I don't consider it a religion anymore. It's something else entirely.


On a different note, given your interests and background, what is your take on this? Is there legitimacy to that concern?
Click to expand...

Dunno about the GTA thing.

As for your perception of this church as "intolerant," we just simply disagree. I see other churches as having degrees of intolerance - intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of women, intolerant of recognizing functional ideas to reduce unwanted pregnancies instead of taking an idiotic "STOP ABORTION NOW!" campaign and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It certainly is not unique to Wright's church.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

I think that there's a major difference between you and I (and you'll agree) in that I see a great deal more racism in society than you do. Colorblindness allows people to coverup their racist decisions, like when black folks are disproportionately turned down for rental property (by wide margins, mind you) when they and comparative white folks all made inquiries over the phone. Racial attributions can be made without seeing a person - we identify by voice (inflection, dialect, vocabulary), we identify by name. And we're not always right, but we're right enough that it seems legit.[/quote]
Yeah I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that racisim persists in ways you describe. I'm not in denial of that. And honestly, you've helped open my eyes more to it, so thanks.

But I guess my approach to "fixing" it is a little different than you. Which is fine. My experience is that most minorities don't want preferential treatment, or be treated as special cases.... they want more than anything to just be treated as what they percieve as "normal"... so that's what I strive for.

But since we disagree on those differences, I think that's kind of where we stop. Treating people as individuals is fine (but don't forget to recognize group traits in those individuals as well) - but where we differ is that I think Rev. Wright is correct in his points about modern society. Blacks are still victims of a far more covert (and thus more dangerous because of the greater degree of plausible deniability than good old time "$$$$er" racism) form of racism.

I support Affirmative Action policies that heavily fine those who treat groups differently - what, do you want to sue for the right to work at a place that just turned you down because you are black? No way, dude. But it's not to be implemented in quotas (if you want to do quotas, start in preschool, rather than at the collegiate level, where structural differences in life experiences and situations have made developmental differences that are largely irreversible), but, rather, in the way it was meant - retroactive policing of racist and biased hiring and promoting practices. Blocking off avenues for certain groups, in other words. Besides, it's a racial preference standard we have now - because of the bias that persists, if you're white you're given preferential treatment in today's market. So even in the absence of pro-minority AA, we have pro-majority AA instead.

I think of race relations, at the national level, like Lucy (whites/government) and Charlie Brown (blacks). Lucy isn't as sinister, and she really would like, at some point, to allow Charlie to kick the football. Charlie, being duped again, will always go for the football (opportunity). At the last minute, though, that football seems to leap from the ground, and Charlie misses his opportunity again - and gets fed up, blames Lucy (who isn't wholly responsible, but was the one holding the football), and says "fuck this, I quit." Like the old "fool me once, shame on you..." adage.
Click to expand...

I do appreciate your position on all of this. I find it very interesting, and it gives me a lot to think about. I disagree with some of it, and I am considering the rest.

Both blacks and whites need to recognize and respect other group differences, treat people with dignity, but move beyond colorblindness. It's not "separate but equal" again - it's just "group differences," like southerns being more Baptist and northeasterners being more Catholic. And Californians just more goofy. But the key is that nothing, at all, will change unless both groups actively seek out the problems they have created, and the biases they need to work out. Simply thinking to yourself "okay, I'll treat all people nicely" isn't enough - you have to actively work against racism in the places where it is hidden in this day and age. And that's a lot of places.
Click to expand...
Love the Californian remark. :applause:
I work with a bunch, they sure are goofy.

I appreciate the fact that you finally mention, or at least hint here (even though it took you a while in this post) that the racial tension door swings both ways. I guess part of what has bothered me about what you have said in the past so often on Race issues, is you come off as it all being very one sided. It's nice to see that you recognize it isn't. As I've described before, Affirmative action type laws historically have some concrete negative effects to, which perpetuate racial strain, imo. But I'm cautiously hopeful, if you want to attempt to refine these laws.

It's endlessly debatable just how guilty minorities are of helping perpetuate their stereotypes, but it's important to remember that everyone is guilty to an extent.

As for your perception of this church as "intolerant," we just simply disagree. I see other churches as having degrees of intolerance - intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of women, intolerant of recognizing functional ideas to reduce unwanted pregnancies instead of taking an idiotic "STOP ABORTION NOW!" campaign and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It certainly is not unique to Wright's church.
Click to expand...
Ok, you make some valid points here. You are mostly right though, and imo none of those things belong in a religion. We'd do best to weed them out. Religion, imo, does what it does best at helping an individual grow, progress, and self-realize spiritual things... which in turn should build a nicer, kinder, more service oriented populace. Social issues don't really belong in religions, it rarely does any good.

I guess I'm very much like Syria refusing to recognize Israel on general principle. I refuse to recognize any religion that whips people into a frenzy over social issues, as I feel that's contrary to the purpose of religion.

Im summary, great post. Thank you for it. This is the type of discussion I come here to have.
 
You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
...Let me just close by saying this: I -- we started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided, that, in fact, all across America people are hungry to get out of the old divisive politics of the past.
I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country; that the only way we can deal with critical issues, like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism, is if we are joined together. And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we had moved beyond these old arguments.
What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think American stands for.
- Barack Obama
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/u...em&ex=1209614400&en=d2ddde5f2a0b02e0&ei=5087

Thank goodness.
 
My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.[/QUOTE]

Only if you expect 100% of people to give up their prejudices. In a free society (or even a not free society) that will never happen. But we have shown that we can get pretty close, and we have made great strides. Yes, there are still problems in this area, to be sure. I doubt many would claim otherwise. But we are within sight of the goal, of race being only a significant factor for a small fringe group of people.

I guess I'm a lot more optimistic than you are, but looking at our history I think this optimism is justified. We've been through a lot of horrible things and usually come out the stronger. I think it is happening before our very eyes on this issue.
 
[quote name='SpiderLocMTGO']My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.[/QUOTE]

Oh lord have you opened a can of worms....

Run and hide while you still can :)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Only if you expect 100% of people to give up their prejudices. In a free society (or even a not free society) that will never happen. But we have shown that we can get pretty close, and we have made great strides. Yes, there are still problems in this area, to be sure. I doubt many would claim otherwise. But we are within sight of the goal, of race being only a significant factor for a small fringe group of people.

I guess I'm a lot more optimistic than you are, but looking at our history I think this optimism is justified. We've been through a lot of horrible things and usually come out the stronger. I think it is happening before our very eyes on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Based on what do you level all these platitudes on the nation? That the black preacher is an overwhelming source of media scrutiny, when it's NEVER ONCE happened with a divisive, hateful, and vitriolic? When racism happen in durable, predictable, and widespread patterns all across the nation, 40 years after the passage of the civil rights act?

This is no time to pat yourself on the back, my friend. The work not only isn't complete, but the foundation's corroding at the bottom already and you don't even see it happening.

[quote name='SpiderLocMTGO']My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families.[/quote]

Doesn't shield you from any criticism. Keep in mind that my key point underlying all this is that the practice of racism no longer comes in the form of a group of folks in white hoods - it comes with a smile on its face, and its twice as dangerous as a result. It's taking the place of differential hiring, promoting, pay, lending at banks, provision of mortgages, renting, arresting, incarcerating, and now executions.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt.
Click to expand...

Be clear: it will breed hate and contempt among whites - just like affirmative action policies, many non-minority people are just fine with the current policies we have in place. They do not realize, of course, that it's just another form of racial preference for whites.

If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted.
Click to expand...

I would say the same about any church that's actively promoting an anti-abortion agenda. By focusing on the hate and scandalous aspect of it, you've ignored looking at solutions that would work (e.g., reducing unwanted pregnancies).

Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.
Click to expand...

Oh, look. It's another person who seems to think that all the racially divisive people are black, and that it's whites who are politely waiting for blacks to collectively wake up and start behaving themselves. :roll:
 
[quote name='SpiderLocMTGO']My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.[/quote]

Very reasonable.

It's depressing to see how others on this board jump at the chance to defend a devisive and backwards-thinking individual such as Wright. :nottalking: Was there anything he could have said that would have dissuaded them?

At least Obama finally figured it out.
 
What's depressing is to see folks (1) assume that I agree with everything Wright has said thus far, which is untrue and putting words in my mouth, and also (2) that people would write off a person's argument entirely because it was framed poorly or had one or two easily disagreeable statements in it.

It's depressing to see people throw the baby out with the bathwater; it's more depressing to see someone throw them both out and stick out their ideological chest like they're a man of principle.
 
I really doubt Obama "figured it out" so much as he saw that the American public (read: media) won't focus on America's issues so long as they can make a soap opera out of Wright. Controversial, racially-charged anger gets better ratings (slash readership) than education, energy and the economy.

It's sad that this has gone on for so long, eclipsing all other issues. It's really just depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top