<p>The statements from Pastor Wright, accusing the American Gov. of developing Aids to infect the AmAf Community, and allowing free reign distribution of Cocaine and Heroin into the inner cities is not racist. It’s paranoid—perhaps stunningly so. But it’s paranoia at least partially justified by multiple historical incidences. All it takes is some objective research into some of the stunningly immoral things America (not the average American individual, but official American government entities) has at times done to groups of people in the past—and I’m not just speaking of blacks. </p>
<p>Pastor Wright was railing against what he saw to be the naked abuse of power. The abusers just happened to be overwhelmingly white and male, who often used both racism and sexism for their raison d’tre. Just because he was disposed to condemn these actions, does not mean he was being “racist”, anymore than when whites criticize certain elements of the black community for destructive cultural habits and failings. The truth is the truth: Certain elements of the black community should be held responsible for the negative repercussions of their actions/inactions. But by the same token, certain Government leaders and entities should be held responsible for the national, and often global fallout issuing from their policies and actions.</p>
<p>So, Christcorp, you feel that as Americans we should simply ignore our own actions? How about the firebombing of Dresden, another wartime action we took which in hindsight, may have been less than admirable? My Lai? Should we just forget and ignore those things? That acknowledging them “incites division?” Because it seems to me that at a time when others have attacked us, killing innocent civilians, before we get too self righteous about the outrageous barbarity of those actions, it behooves us to acknowledge that we have done the same things ourselves, when it suited our interests. Before we dehumanize the enemy, maybe we need to recognize that we have acted just as he has, when we thought it was justified to serve our needs. </p>
<p>The right wing took great exception to Ambassador Peck saying things like:
But he’s got a point. Mindless jingoism leads to errors in judgment. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. (Sometimes the same man at different times.) Stopping to view how our own actions can be viewed by others is probably a good thing. Divisive? Well, maybe unanimity based on ignorance isn’t such a good thing. Rev. Wright’s comments made after 9/11 brought a perspective to those events which might make us uncomfortable, but which was nonetheless valuable to address.</p>
<p>Christcorp,
Pearl Harbor was a naval base, Hiroshima a civilian city.
On Monday[8], August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 80,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000-140,000. [9] Approximately 69% of the city’s buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.(Wikipedia) Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk in Pearl Harborand twenty-one ships were severely damaged. Three of the twenty-one would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona.(Wikipedia)</p>
<p>So many of us white people have worked so hard to raise our children, and to watch them raise our grandchildren, to accept people for the “content of their character and not the color of their skin.”</p>
<p>It disappointed me to learn that sometimes, in churches on Sunday morning, black children are being taught that white people should be judged by the color of their skin and that our nation should be damned.</p>
<p>And it disappointed me even more to know that a man I respected as a person, without respecting his socialist tendencies, was taking his children to such a church.</p>
<p>Here’s the deal Kluge and others. Most voting Americans will not be buying the America is bad line, period. You can rationalize and justify all you want but that tack will leave the Dems losers. Period!</p>
The difference is that the Emperor of Japan would not surrender even though he knew Japan was beaten. Without droping the Bomb, Amercia would have had to continue fighting for months possibly years and in the process lose thousand of Amerian soliders. Dropping the Bomb saves thousands of American lives and resulted in the deaths of thousands of enemy lives. Japan started the war and got what it deserved. It’s called war. To condemn America for winning a quickly is un-American.</p>
<p>Barrons, I understand that for some people life is all black and white, good or bad, no greys, no ambiguity. I think America is good. But I recognize that America has done bad things. When thinking about things others have done to America - like 9/11 - I think its worthwhile putting those actions into perspective. </p>
<p>I get that you want to put this issue in a pigeonhole. Obama’s pastor says America is bad!!! Obama isn’t a patriot!!! Even though Obama has acknowledged (as I do) that some of the things Rev. Wright has said, and some opinions he holds, are just plain nuts. But that doesn’t mean that when I’m talking to a group of smart people I have to toe the straight black/white, right/wrong simplistic world view that you seem to think all Americans share. I’ll take the time to listen to what the guy has to say, and give it some thought. I’ve even learned stuff by listening to Rush Limbaugh (though not what he wanted me to learn, I suspect.)</p>
<p>We’ve had people post here on CC that it was shameful of Obama to attend that church, when Rev. Wright gave some of the sermons. Lots of sanctimony. Lots of self righteousness. Lots of, in my opinion, hypocrisy. That’s all I’m saying.</p>
<p>Razorsharp - I happen to agree with your opinion about Hiroshima. It was a judgment call which was justified in my opinion. But here’s the thing - I can see how some people would view 9/11 as justified, for exactly the same reasons. Don’t you think that’s worth thinking about?</p>
<p>I don’t think pastor Wright was condemning America for winning the World War quickly. He was just pointing out that if we reflect on our own actions over a long period in history, that we have also engaged in extreme acts of violence that have killed large numbers of innocent civillians. That is a fact. He was simply calling attention to the cycle of violence. As I understood his point, it should not come as a shock if we become the victims of such violence at some point. </p>
<p>Everyone always makes the point that the people who died in 9/11 were innocent civillians who were “just trying to make a living”. Very true. But so were the millions of civillians who have died in acts of violence over the centuries, including some of our victims in Hiroshima and more recently, in Iraq. </p>
<p>Mankind has a very violent history. Our country has been a fairly active contributor to that violence.</p>
<p>Today is Easter. Let us reflect: what would Jesus think about Hiroshima? about 9/11? about Iraq? Would he look differently upon violence comitted by one side or the other? Should a pastor allow his patriotism to overrule his religious beliefs?</p>
<p>I don’t like George W. Bush and I don’t like Dick Cheney. I don’t support the war in Iraq, but I do support surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I like John McCain, and I like Hillary Clinton. I don’t like or dislike Barack Obama, but his associations with Michelle “For The First Time I’m Proud Of My Country” Obama & with the Reverend Wright are troubling for a man who wants to be President of the U.S. and lead us in our foreign policy. I don’t know whether the Rev. Wright is a bigoted racist or simply a disgruntled U.S. Citizen exercising his right to free speech; but what I do know is that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with two people who are recklessly careless in what they say and how they say it. I would love for either Obama to be my Pastor or Preacher, but that is a very different role than being the President and First Lady of the United States. Whether or not Rev. Wright is quoting another, it is clear to me that Rev. Wright has adopted those positions as his own. Although thought provoking, Rev. Wright could have crafted more appropriate, accurate and balanced comments to initiate thought and discourse on these subjects rather than to utilize slanderous and shockingly inaccurate derogatory comments to racially polarize our nation. Just let Rev. Wright try to make similiar comments about Iran in Iran, or even about Saudi Arabia in Saudi Arabia or in just about any African nation in that nation. If nothing else, these episodes raise serious questions about Barack Obama’s judgment and paints him as little more than a popularity seeking politician who will do most anything to get elected. It is easy to hate and it is easy to condemn; solutions, diplomacy, compromise, understanding & actions are not so easily accomplished–but they don’t bring in the big bucks from the congregation or from videotape sales.</p>
<p>icy9ff8: Does it occur to you that you are relying on astonishingly shallow bases for making judgments about a man who has spoken his own mind, clearly and unequivocally, for years, in writing and in recent speeches?
Seriously, do you really draw these conclusions from these events?</p>
<p>razorsharp,
I’ve heard this argument many times and I am not buying it, sorry. The bomb could have been dropped on some military object, not on two cities full of civilians. That in my opinion was taking it way too far. Winning quickly AT ANY COST should not be an American way IMO.</p>
<p>kluge: It is my opinion. I realize that politics and religion are very sensitive subjects so I apologize if I offended you in any way. Please respect my right to express my opinion as I respect your right and Rev. Wright’s right. And, please note that I do not profit off of my thoughts as does the Rev. Wright. And I do not get any political benefit from this association as does Obama. I do not think that everything Obama is good or bad. I do think that the Rev., however, could have delivered his message in a much more reasonable & fair fashion. Notice how I didn’t have to insult you or your comments to make my point? P.S. kluge: I just noticed that all of your recent posts are based on attacks against other posters & their posts–which is okay, but judging from what you have written it appears that your basis of analysis is emotion rather than intellect. Talk about shallow…</p>
<p>You didn’t offend me, icy9ff8 - and I didn’t intend to offend you either. But I did mean what I said - do you consider the things you wrote about to be rationally sufficient to support the opinion you expressed? I understand that you have an opinion, but I find the stated grounds for that opinion to be so superficial and trivial that I have to question if they are really your true basis for that opinion. I do agree that Rev. Wright’s message was delivered in an intemperate manner, and that other opinions I have heard ascribed to him are in my opinion, downright goofy. While American scientists did secretly infect African Americans with syphilis and withhold treatment from them - for scientific purposes - I don’t think that AIDS was the product of a similar line of conduct, and I’m pretty sure that Obama agrees with me on that. But I’ve heard goofier things - there are people who post here on CC that the American government was behind 9/11, that WMD’s really were in Iraq, etc. - and sometimes you just take the goofy stuff a person thinks along with the rest of their life works, and let it go. But to conclude that “these episodes raise serious questions about Barack Obama’s judgment and paints him as little more than a popularity seeking politician who will do most anything to get elected” strikes me as a pretty big leap from his attendance at Rev. Wright’s church and his wife’s expression of pride that in today’s America a black man can be a serious candidate for president. I don’t see the logical connection between the factors and the conclusion.</p>
<p>And see how I didn’t have to subtly imply, without stating forthrightly, that you have a hidden agenda of some sort in order to make my point?</p>
<p>(Regarding your edited addition: I’m sorry if my threat to sic the Fighting Vegans on Fundingfather frightened you. I wasn’t really going to attack him - I was actually just kidding.)</p>
<p>Icy: Kluge spends a good deal of time doing pro bono work in his community to ensure that his daughter’s hot friends don’t develop inappropriate self-images with regard to their body types. I think calling a father like that “shallow” is way off base.</p>
Can you see how some people might think Hilter was correct in killing millions of people and taking over country after country. After all, having one government and speaking one langauge would benefit all of us. Those jews sure were greedy and they harmed the German economy. Right? That’s basically what you are asking me to consider as a legistimate argument with respect to 9/11. It just doesn’t wash. Anyone who thinks there is a legitimate reason for 9/11 and intends to act on that belief should be institutionalized, improsioned or killed. We did not attack or invade Al Quada. Governments in the middle east can decided whether they want to let foreigners in their countries. It is not up to Al Quada or some other muslim groups to say non-muslims are not allowed. If we choose to support Israel, it is none of Al Quada’s business. Israel is democracy and we should support them. Israsel has a legitimate reason to exist. If Al Quada does not like that, we should kill them all because they surely intend to kill us.</p>
<p>Perhaps we could all lighten up a bit after reading this NY Times article .
It really is funny-comparing the Dems to the Donner Party, who resorted to cannibalism in the mid 1800’s.</p>
<p>The author insults each party equally! Comic relief, except that it is so true.</p>
Hiroshima was a military target. It had a army depot and troop divisions. Even it did not have any military in the city, it was a “military target” because dropping the bomb on a city would break the will of the people of Japan. It worked. We saved thousands of American lives against an enemy who wanted to destroy us. America is not at fault for the lose of Japanese lives. Japan is at fault.</p>