<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing uncivilized about bringing to mind an unsupported claim against someone else. Civility, in fact, demands this. I think your claims against Wright are false, and partisan. They are quite as I expected. Indeed I knew that your opinions, rather than coming from well-reasoned and fair-minded analysis, came from Fox News luminaries. You have essentially failed to present actual facts and statements from Wright himself, choosing instead to present knee-jerk reactions from such neocons as Charles Krauthammer and avid right wingers such as Jonah Goldberg and Ed Morrissey, of all people. The Krauthammer piece as you’ve presented it failed to present any of Wright’s comments, but simply condemned them as racist, this, without proof. Essentially, Krauthammer has done what you now do. But merely because he does it does not permit anyone of honor to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Snopes article does not define or clarify what racism is to anyone. It merely speaks about how some whites, upon hearing terms like “Black Value System” will unthinkingly hear anti-white racism whereas blacks like Wright would hear the term much as we do when we hear the terms “Chinese Value System” or “Russian Value System”. Of course I contend that whites who hear racism in this instance hear it because they hate blacks, particularly those who are angry about the past. They hear black militancy in these statements and as a defense against them wish to condemn them as “racist”. The Snopes article does not state the cause of the differences in perception, but merely that the differences exist in this particular case. In other cases of racism, such as the basis for why McCain’s friend Jerry Falwell condemned integration, there is no general difference in perception between whites and blacks. We all understand it as pure racism. Your article here is fruitless and out of place in this discussion.</p>
<p>Moreover, posting criticisms by rightists such as Jonah Goldberg is not the same as posting facts about the actual events under discussion. After all, it is not as if Goldberg does not have an interest in making Wright out to be a bigot. He is on the hard right and admittedly so. We need to see disinterested criticism of Wright, scholarly news commentary that presents Wright’s actual comments while preserving their meaning. You have thus far presented only heavily biased commentary from people who wish to find racism in Wright. You commit a dishonor to reason as a concept.</p>
<p>But I expected the statement by Wright concerning alleged learning differences between whites and blacks would find its way into your “evidence” of Wright’s alleged bigotry. And since Goldberg mentioned it, along with the “garlic nose” comment, we should look at the actual statements, not the falsehoods reported here by you.</p>
<p>I encourage you to listen to the comments yourself by visiting Youtube and searching for “Reverend Wright at NAACP pt.2”. Had you bothered to listen to the comments, as opposed to simply accepting wingerism about them, you would have heard Wright being very clear that he does not believe blacks are better than whites or vice versa. He is very clear that the two groups have cultural differences and that those differences affect the way blacks and whites learn and perceive the world (which fact in itself is true). I rejected almost all of Wright’s view as complete nonsense, but heard nothing racist about them at all.</p>
<p>Wright appeals to the scholarship of Janice Hale, professor of education, and Geneva Smitherman, professor of linguistics. The two scholars claim that the cultural, not innate, differences between blacks and whites affect the learning styles of the two groups so that blacks develop a right-brain orientation as opposed to whites, who develop a left-brain orientation. They contend that since the American school system is fashioned for the left-brain orientation, blacks are at a disadvantage in America. Now, again, I reject this. Indeed I think it is pure baloney as these people present it. It is certainly true that black culture affects learning style. But these people wish to justify change in education to accommodate what now goes for black culture. Wright also wishes this, and that is essentially what this part of his speech was about. I think we blacks simply need to change our culture because much of our culture is defective (because of slavery) in a modern technological world. But I digress. The point here is there is nothing in Wright’s speech that deals with inherent or genetic differences between blacks and whites.</p>
<p>So then where is the racism? It does not exist. Wright is a culturist, and he promotes his idea of black culture – an idea I reject out of hand. Goldberg, and the rest of the wingers on which you here depend, misrepresent Wright likely because they (and obviously you) have never once even ventured to get the facts from him. Yet you think yourselves fit to disparage the man as a racist. It is patently dishonorable. There are many reasons to disparage Wright. Racism is not one of them.</p>
<p>Now the “garlic nose” comment is unsavory, as are very many of Wright’s comments. I do not defend Wright as a model I would follow or that I would encourage others to follow. But I acknowledge that the man has virtue enough that I can understand why and how Obama came to love him. Obama clearly compartmentalizes Wright’s anger as belonging to a man of a different time, and that is legitimate. Still, I think calling Italians “garlic noses” was out of line. Of course even here there is no racism. If anything, Wright has a problem with Italians, not whites in principle. Why would he attack Italians, of all people? Thinking people would ask this question and demand to see the context of the comment before passing judgment. Here is the statement in fuller context:</p>
<p>“[Jesus was Galilean. His] enemies had their opinion about Him….The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”</p>
<p>We therefore see that Wright was not even slurring modern Italians but ancient ones. He was obviously attacking Romans for crucifying Christ. The point was to make a parallel between black leaders living in white oppression, and Jesus living under Italian oppression two thousand years ago. I think Wright’s approach was unfortunate because people are just not philosophical enough to make the sort of distinction between ancient Italians and modern ones in a discussion of this sort. And when a people already hate a man, as they do Wright, then anything he says that is the least bit controversial will be cast into the very worst light possible.</p>
<p>But reason will not permit us to declare racism even here. Indeed, it will not even permit us to claim hatred against modern Italians, since the statement obviously dealt with Romans. Reason quite easily permits us to declare Wright to be undiscerning, reckless, and a number of other unfortunate terms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I have demonstrated, the “evidence” you have submitted here does not contain actual fact, but only the ranting of right wingers with an axe to grind against a black man they have condemned as militant. This evidence is false, and all men of honor will see it as such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are deliberately slandering the man, and without suitable evidence. That is to act without honor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You need not cut Wright any slack at all, as long as you are fair-minded enough to condemn him for actual wrongs and not the projected fabrications of your own mind. I doubt your ability to be reasonable where Wright is concerned because you appear too eager to use him to destroy Obama. I think this behavior has no honor.</p>
… Last year I researched my father’s side of the family on