<p>
</p>
<p>Is this some of that Hawaiian cocaine I’ve heard so much about?</p>
<p>Elect Obama: Lets go back to $2/gal gas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is just the unedited version of the sermon that caused the problem. It shows how when taken in context, Wright’s comments are not in the least racist, though we may disagree with them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have viewed more videos of Wright than I care to, and have found not even one that can be legitimately termed “racist”. To be sure, Wright decries the discrimmination of whites against blacks, and he speaks out against mistreatment of the poor, especially poor blacks, but this is his role as a black minister and advocate of the poor. It is a legitimate role. Were blacks to have treated whites as whites have and in many cases still do treat blacks, I would expect him to preach as he does against black discrimination against whites. I do not in those videos hear him claiming whites are, as a principle, inferior to blacks or disgusting. Perhaps this exists, but I have never once seen it - and I have looked.</p>
<p>The term “White America” is very common even in academic circles. Wright uses the term to underscore the considerable racial divide in this nation. Very many people do likewise.</p>
<p>[H102</a> Lecture 09: The Great Migration: Blacks in White America](<a href=“http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture09.html]H102”>http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture09.html)
[Amazon.com:</a> Blues People: Negro Music in White America: Leroi Jones: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Blues-People-Negro-Music-America/dp/068818474X]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Blues-People-Negro-Music-America/dp/068818474X)
[Jim</a> Webb Speaks Out On Race, Addresses Grievances Of White America - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Jim Webb Speaks Out On Race, Addresses Grievances Of White America | HuffPost Latest News)
[Will</a> white America elect Obama? | The San Diego Union-Tribune](<a href=“http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070731/news_lz1e31robinso.html]Will”>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070731/news_lz1e31robinso.html)
[Television</a> in Black-and-White America](<a href=“http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/nadtel.html]Television”>http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/nadtel.html)</p>
<p>“Garlic noses” - just words?</p>
<p>I think Spideygirl has given us all a valuable seminar in the right wing’s approach to “truth” and “facts”. She started by insisting that we watch an absolutely ludicrous attack video posted on the internet:
When posters politely ignored her, instead of pointing out that she was touting the absolutely lowest kind of BS propaganda - a disgusting bit of tripe that spews lies and hate from the very beginning, fueling ignorance and bigotry with amoral glee, she persisted:
When people pointed out that the “documentary” was pack of lies - starting with the long since debunked claim that Obama studied at a “Muslim school” for two years, that he had “three Islamic names”, and subtly appealing to racism with the carefully juxtaposed photos of his African father and “white American mother”, Spideygirl decided all of the sudden that it was just a “parody”!
It’s not a parody, Spideygirl, it’s a great big steaming pile of absolutely straight-up, vicious, racist, xenophobic propaganda. </p>
<p>But Spideygirl’s clearest gift to anyone who wants to understand how someone can persist in supporting the bankrupt ideology of the right wing is this explanation:
That’s right: Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Does Spideygirl even realize that the sermon she was being invited to watch is the very same sermon that she insists proves Wright’s “hate speech?” Is she afraid that if she sees the entire statement made by Wright, instead of carefully selected and misleading portions taken out of context, her prejudgment of him might be challenged by facts?</p>
<p>The essence of the right wing: touting lies, and running from facts.</p>
<p>Kluge: You can stil do what I originally asked. Instead of fuming, take the content of the parody, and address it piece by piece. Your posts are repetitive - I get it, you think the video is a bunch of trash. And, I’ll answer your claim yet again: In the study of history and politics, crass comics or parodies have a unique contribution to offer. I originally presented the video as a decent (as in useful) compilation of concerns about Obama, which it still is.</p>
<p>I have no respect for left wing “I’m offended” drama. Such hypocrisy! This from the side which freaks out when Obama is compared ONCE to Curious George, when President Bush has been compared to Curious George not only in looks but in brains for eight years (just Google the two names for lots of hits). </p>
<p>There are just as many offensive parodies and comics out there against the right, and unless I am here meeting the first left winger who rallies against those as well, I will consider any distaste for the style of the video I posted to be a bunch of baloney.</p>
<p>Despite posts here from the left which are themselves of a crass nature, carrying a similiar tone and style to the video I cite, I will set aside the feigned offense which is taken.</p>
<p>So let’s put objections to the style aside (which I predicted and planned for from the beginning - I even presented the video with the necessary caveat). </p>
<p>For the umpteenth time, if you wish to denounce the video, the best way to do it is to take the claims stated against Obama, one by one, and address them.</p>
<p>Kluge: “The essence of the right wing: touting lies, and running from facts.”</p>
<p>I don’t know, Kluge. I see lots of avoidance from specifically addressing the concerns against Obama (as described in the video I cited) for post after post after post. I’d say that’s a lot of “running” from something! </p>
<p>I won’t even get into a truth rating on the left wing viewpoints posted here to me.</p>
<p>Kluge: “Does Spideygirl even realize that the sermon she was being invited to watch is the very same sermon that she insists proves Wright’s “hate speech?” Is she afraid that if she sees the entire statement made by Wright, instead of carefully selected and misleading portions taken out of context, her prejudgment of him might be challenged by factss”</p>
<p>You’ve made the erroneous and convenient assumption that my opinion of Rev. Wright is based on one sermon. The inconvenient truth, Kluge, is that it is based on a career’s worth of sermons, associations, and alignment with a bigoted, racist philosophy.</p>
<p>Maybe I should reword my posts to speak to the rest of the folks as if you aren’t here as well: “Does Kluge even realize…” </p>
<p>That’s just extra silly.</p>
<p>Spideygirl to kluge:
</p>
<p>You’re familiar with a “careers worth” of Rev. Wright’s sermons? You won’t even watch one extended video clip, which places one of Wright’s supposedly most incendiary sound bites in full context, so how in heaven’s name can claim you full knowledge of his pulpit history? </p>
<p>What I was trying to do was open up a serious dialog that addresses specific charges concerning Jeremiah Wright’s racial, political and religious philosophies. You claimed the “America’s chickens have come home to roost” sermon was racist and hate filled, a very emphatic and specific charge. Yet, you’ve admitted that you haven’t ever actually watched the video which places this sound bite in full context. What’s more, you steadfastly refuse to do so, even as you insist that your judgment of the sermon is correct. Do you actually feel this places you on any kind of intellectually honest footing? </p>
<p>If you’ll go back and read my prior posts concerning Wright, you’ll see that I’m no fan of Jeremiah Wright (neither is Drosselmeirer). But, I’ll not compare him to David Duke (much less Adolph Hitler), a man who believes that his own race is inherently superior to every other race. Read any dictionary definition of racism, and I believe you’ll be hard put equate the two men’s beliefs. </p>
<p>Some of Wright’s stances are terribly flawed, in my opinion. Like Drossselmeirer, I vehemently disagree with his decision to “honor” Louis Farrakhan, something he did despite the fact that they disagree in many respects. And like Obama, I believe one of his most egregious errors is the seeming inability (or unwillingness) to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made in American race relations. I reject the notion that the American government created aids with the view to “infect the African American Community” (I don’t believe the American government created aids, period.), though I understand the historical underpinnings of such suspicions within the AfAm community. I’ve never been comfortable with a preaching style such as Wright’s, which sometimes devolves into what Drosselmeirer accurately calls “buffoonery”. But, my sense of fairness is offended by the way people from certain quarters, motivated by a nakedly disingenuous political agenda, try to reduce the man to a simplistic caricature. I believe Wright is certainly worthy of honest criticism, but not a smearing based on lies. I mean honestly, there’s enough to criticize the man for without making up lies.</p>
<p>I’m really not interested in trading Gotcha’s, Spidey. I don’t expect that we’ll ever reach a point where we see everything eye to eye. But I would love to develop some kind of understanding, based on mutual respect. I’ll dial back the sarcasm if you’ll so the same. What do you say?</p>
<p>[Glenn</a> Beck - Show Recap](<a href=“http://www.glennbeck.com/content/show/2008-05-02/]Glenn”>http://www.glennbeck.com/content/show/2008-05-02/)</p>
<p>Here is the Palm Sunday sermon of Rev. W. from 2003. It was posted on a “right wing” website, but it is the only audio of an entire sermon I could find.
click on “listen here.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See post #161 please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On average, if a pastor preaches three sermons a week (that’s being very conservative - it’s probably more like five), times 52 weeks in a year… that’s easily over 150 sermons a year. Multiply that by the number of years he served Trinity; even if you are able to find a dozen sermons that were ‘controversial’ (I use quotes because not everyone finds his message controversial), that’s a lop-sided minority of all the sermons he’s preached. </p>
<p>If Rev. Wright’s entire career was spent spewing the kinds of sermons you claim he did, why have we only heard about two? Surely someone else sitting in those pews must have something to complain about. Oh, wait, every one of those tens of thousands of people are ignorant, uneducated, chameleon drones who don’t how to decipher his hidden agenda, so I guess we can’t count on those who were actually there to tell us what really happened.</p>
<p>Ilsa, thanks for linking to that sermon. I can certainly see why many Americans, particularly Americans whose experiences of government are overwhelmingly good and benevolent, would be offended by many of the things he said. I can see how white people can be offended by the exhaustive cataloging of what Wright sees as the sins of white racism under the guise of government. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with everything he said, but I certainly believe that many things he said were largely true. Interestingly enough, a lot of whites have leveled many of Wright’s same charges of immorality and corruption against the actions and policies of the government. </p>
<p>I love my country, but I’m not blind. I can’t afford to be. My experiences, my knowledge of history preclude me from believing that America is only guilty of relatively minor transgressions (something most ultra conservatives seem particularly invested in believing). I hope the best for our land, and all it’s citizens, but I will never subscribe to the “my country, right or wrong” notion. I reject out of hand, the idea that to criticize and question the actions of government is somehow antithetical to patriotism. I love my country, but I think Wright was absolutely correct when he said, “Governments Lie”, as well as “Governments change”, and “Governments fail”. Note, that He also said “Oppressors come in all colors”. So he wasn’t saying that racism, and oppression is the sole purview of white governments or the government of The United States in particular. </p>
<p>The over arching theme to the sermon was the idea that people should not confuse God and Government, to confuse the will of God with the actions of government, and that “when Government fails, God never fails”. Believing himself to be a “man of God”, he probably also believes his first allegiance is to God, and not to man, or the governments of men. Religious leaders often feel compelled to stridently stand on the side of “truth” (as they believe it to be, of course), even if it is at odds with secular interests. The government of The United States is a “secular interest”—and isn’t that the way we want it? I certainly wouldn’t wish it to be otherwise.</p>
<p>I believe the exhaustive cataloging of the sins of racism in the guise of government, the shortcomings of various world governments, past and present, and of The United States Government in particular, was of limited use to his message. I feel the tenor and tone of this accounting was counterproductive for the most part, that he was self-indulgent in the use of the pulpit to vent his own sense of anger and outrage, and that his overall message suffered because of it. But black pastors have always used the pulpit to address political issues to one degree or another—white ones too, if many of the sermons of Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee are any indication. Issues of race and the politics pertaining to race are not things black people have ever had the luxury of ignoring. </p>
<p>But If simply criticizing America’s faults is the definition of Anti-Americanism, if in order to love one’s country, one is prohibited from questioning it’s government, then we do not hold sacred the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution. I disagree with Jeremiah Wright in many ways, but I do not believe he “hates America”. He left college to join the Marines in response to JFK’s call to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. He served valiantly and garnered many honors for his service to this nation, and served as a personal medic to LBJ. When he left the military, he re-enrolled in college to complete his education, earning undergraduate and graduate degrees in Theology. It is rare for a child to hate his parents, even after he has suffered abuse at their hands. When one has suffered terribly under policies implemented by one’s country, one’s feelings for one’s country will be necessarily complex and sometimes troubling, even to oneself. I fly an American Flag proudly from my front porch, nevertheless, that is certainly true of me. The favorite son of parents who abuse one of his siblings will often enjoy a fairly uncomplicated love for his parents, and not be able to understand why his brother has “emotional issues” where their parents are concerned. I believe this is somewhat analogous to the ways in which whites and blacks have often viewed their relationship with America.</p>
<p>First, let me say that I find Drosselmeier and Poetsheart’s post on this subject to be not only informative but very sincere. To my eyes, there words are a cut-above on this subject.</p>
<p>Having read this forum off and on for years, I cannot say the same for the rest. </p>
<p>Normally, as should be expected given the politics and environment of a college forum, religion is treated with extreme derision with a quick reference to the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” or “intolerant” and “ignorant” Christians etc. It has been, to say the least, interesting to watch so many adamant secularists come full-force to defend a dicey religious narrative.</p>
<p>In any case, hoping to get a better view of where Sen Obama is in his current and historic stance with the Rev Wright, I went to a number of internet sources to read and watch a few of his sermons in context. </p>
<p>And I find that there is more than enough evidence here to support the extreme positions of both sides. </p>
<p>Rev Wright does, it seems to me, little to encourage harmony or love between the races in his recorded speeches, and specifically in the much referenced one on 9-11, but a good deal to 1) assure his congregants that he knows the pain they feel as African Americans living in a racially unbalanced United States and that 2) instead of offering a traditional Christian message of love and reconciliation --with a recognition of the battle it will be for those hoping to rise above it all with advice from a spiritual guide, a pastor-- he uses language and illustrations that further inflame the excited and righteous anger of his flock. Expecting, I suppose, that this will serve his and their interests in life and the community. For a great many years his flock included the Obama family: Barack, Michelle and his two young daughters, Malia, and Sasha.</p>
<p>Having watched and read his entire sermon in context, I note that he says:</p>
<p>
Here, it seems to me that the doubling-down on “White man” was intended to be racially inflammatory, even in context.</p>
<p>
This is clearly a church of very liberal views and congregants. There are also churches across America with very conservative leanings and I expect that they also play to the choir. There is nothing outrageous about that. But here again, to specify the bombed civilians in saying “We bombed the black civilian community of Panama is to fuel and fan the flames of racial indignation. Not to make either a political point or a redemptive point. None that I can gather. In this context to say that America (which we are now given to assume, when at war, are “white people” bombing non-white people) “never batted an eye” when bombing the Japanese people (non-white?) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to intend not just to make a political point but a racial point. The same with Palestinians and “Black South Africans.” Over the same period, a good bit of bombing occurred in Europe and Bosnia because countries that had bombs tended to bomb their enemies, not because they were white Europeans, but because they were enemies. I suppose this to be true as a rule no matter the color or race of the “enemy.”</p>
<p>With in minutes, he turns to address the congregation in a traditionally spiritual way. It is morally edifying. He wants his flock to understand the tragedy of 9-11 as a time for self-reflection. The sermon is good and morally uplifting here. But then again, even here, race takes the enlivening spirit out of the message. While cataloguing his recollections of 9-11 he narrates the day and recalls
</p>
<p>None of this, to my mind, amounts to racism as we currently use the term. Still, it would trouble me. I could not take my family, my children to have their racial fears and anger reinforced…I could not count myself as one of the flock at this church. Senator Obama could and did. It does not make him a racist nor would this cast him out into the radical fringe of American politics. But I do not believe that his choice to be there all that time should make him a president either. This is his Achilles heel. It makes him mortal…but not evil.</p>
<p>Barack needs time and seasoning. However, it may be that, given the competition and the times, this will be his year. The zeitgeist favors him but it will be quite a battle to shape it into a victory. He seems unready at this point. We’ll see.</p>
<p>I understand what you and Drosselmeier are saying, poetsheart. I think intellectually his sermons fit in with a view which is actually understandable, which has credence in academia, etc. However, I disagree that most people who claim they have changed their minds about Obama since the Wright revelations are lying, or that “they wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.” I think the majority of people in this country would sincerely like to see any prejudice based on skin color put behind us. I think they believed that Obama, especially since he is of mixed race, more than anyone could help the country attain that goal if elected. But the knowledge that Obama attended that church, and listened to the above kind of political diatribe for almost twenty years put an end to all that. I know it did for me. You either have to believe that a) he did it for political expediency (and in that case, why would he drag his wife and daughters along?) or b) he believes it. The average American finds either of those reasons distasteful since he is running as a"new" kind of politician and as a “post-racial” candidate. And this distaste has led to further examination of his character and his experience, both of which appear increasingly to be lacking. Sure some people–I’d estimate about 20% or so- will not vote for him because of his color. But the others who have turned against him deserve more credit than that I think. In my opinion the election is already lost for the Democrats.</p>
<p>Poetsheart: “You’re familiar with a “careers worth” of Rev. Wright’s sermons? You won’t even watch one extended video clip, which places one of Wright’s supposedly most incendiary sound bites in full context, so how in heaven’s name can claim you full knowledge of his pulpit history?”</p>
<p>Teriwit: “…even if you are able to find a dozen sermons that were ‘controversial’ (I use quotes because not everyone finds his message controversial), that’s a lop-sided minority of all the sermons he’s preached.”</p>
<p>I really don’t get how you think that reading or watching one sermon is going to influence my opinion, and I never said I had exhaustive knowledge of his pulpit history (nor do I need that). Give me the link again and I’ll watch it, if it means that much to you. I have never said that Wright is incapable of saying things which are appropriate. In the nation where Imus was run off the air for one or two sentences about a girls basketball team (with which, BTW, I agree – I would have fired him myself, even though I have not listened to ALL of his broadcasts), how can a guy like Wright be accepted by any thinking person? If he came out with only a handful of racist, race baiting, or hate speech things across his entire career, I would condemn him. And he certainly has done at least that.</p>
<p>Poetsheart: ”But, I’ll not compare him to David Duke (much less Adolph Hitler), a man who believes that his own race is inherently superior to every other race. Read any dictionary definition of racism, and I believe you’ll be hard put equate the two men’s beliefs.”</p>
<p>From Webster’s:
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 </p>
<p>Wright’s words certainly meet the criteria for definition #2. Racism doesn’t just have to do with racial superiority. That’s always been a good hiding place, IMHO, for those who want to be racist, but pretend that they aren’t. You don’t have to think that your race is superior in order to be racist. When I hear, “Black people think…” I think, “RACISM!” When I hear, “White people think…” I think “RACISM!”</p>
<p>Poetsheart:” But, my sense of fairness is offended by the way people from certain quarters, motivated by a nakedly disingenuous political agenda, try to reduce the man to a simplistic caricature. “</p>
<p>But the truth of the matter is that he IS a caricature. He is an anachronistic caricature, the stereotypical hypocrite who pretends to be a Christian while at the same time doing little to walk in the footsteps of Christ (and instead hurts race relations, the opposite of what Christ would want him to do). He benefits financially by his position, while at the same time spending precious Sunday morning hours spreading racism and hate to families looking for spiritual guidance. Jesus raged against the moneychangers, and I could certainly picture him raging against those who hide behind the guise of Christianity (a preacher, no less) in order to talk politics and make money.</p>
<p>Here’s what makes him the most anachronistic: His bread and butter is the fact that there is much discrimination against African Americans. The big problem for Wright, and others like him who benefit financially from fanning the flames of racism, is that this African American family (with a father of African decent) is about to put into the White House. And everyone is happy about that – even people who won’t vote for him (like me) because he is a darn Socialist. I pray this guy loses, but if he wins, at least we will have scored the first African American family in the White House. I have never met anyone who doesn’t find that exciting. But Uh Oh…that puts a wrench in the bull droppings that people like Wright have been spewing. The vast majority of people in this country are not racist. Obama’s ascent proves it. </p>
<p>WRIGHT has been WRONG, all along.</p>
<p>”I’m really not interested in trading Gotcha’s, Spidey… I’ll dial back the sarcasm if you’ll so the same. What do you say?”</p>
<p>Well you were, but if you aren’t anymore, I’m fine with stopping. You have to admit that the Elmo analogy was a good one, though. </p>
<p>Teriwit: ”I guess we can’t count on those who were actually there to tell us what really happened.”</p>
<p>You’re right – we can’t. If they didn’t agree with him, they wouldn’t have been there.</p>
<p>Poetsheart: I can see how white people can be offended by the exhaustive cataloging of what Wright sees as the sins of white racism under the guise of government. … My experiences, my knowledge of history preclude me from believing that America is only guilty of relatively minor transgressions (something most ultra conservatives seem particularly invested in believing)….I will never subscribe to the “my country, right or wrong” notion. I reject out of hand, the idea that to criticize and question the actions of government is somehow antithetical to patriotism…Note, that He also said “Oppressors come in all colors”. So he wasn’t saying that racism, and oppression is the sole purview of white governments or the government of The United States in particular…. But If simply criticizing America’s faults is the definition of Anti-Americanism, if in order to love one’s country, one is prohibited from questioning it’s government, then we do not hold sacred the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution. “</p>
<p>But Wright really isn’t known for pointing out racism or slavery in, say, Africa, is he? Or historical oppression anywhere else on the planet today or throughout history? Or the fact that the vast majority of Americans were themselves victims of discrimination or oppression of one sort or another (or they wouldn’t be here)? Or the majority of Americans come from families who never owned slaves, and never supported slavery? </p>
<p>Wright is known for stirring the pot of racial resentment in the African American community. He is not a healer of race relations (as Christ would want him to be). Study the people he follows, the books he recommends, and the political philosophy he espouses. This guy is a troublemaker, in a bad sense, and not much more than that.</p>
<p>People who focus over and over and OVER on the mistakes that the US government has made, and fall short of balancing those views with objectivity about how the rest of the planet has operated (now and throughout history), and fail to note the achievements and greatness of this nation…Yes, I question their patriotism. Wholeheartedly. The problem isn’t criticizing one’s country. The problem is when someone is obsessed with criticizing it, and fails to put the mistakes the American government has made into a fair and objective context. You have to ask, “Why?”</p>
<p>”I disagree with Jeremiah Wright in many ways, but I do not believe he “hates America”. He left college to join the Marines in response to JFK’s call to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. He served valiantly and garnered many honors for his service to this nation, and served as a personal medic to LBJ. When he left the military, he re-enrolled in college to complete his education, earning undergraduate and graduate degrees in Theology. It is rare for a child to hate his parents, even after he has suffered abuse at their hands. When one has suffered terribly under policies implemented by one’s country, one’s feelings for one’s country will be necessarily complex and sometimes troubling, even to oneself. “</p>
<p>Very well put. I still think he found a way to benefit from doing something which is religiously and morally wrong, and that is where he got on the wrong path. We don’t use the pulpit to spread hate. I’m sorry – it just isn’t right.</p>
<p>sipdeygirl: The substantive difference is that Imus’s comment was the last in a long string of shocking things he said, and it was clearly intended to provoke outrage and thus was directly in line with his previous behavior and job. When people point to the fact that the bad things Wright said making up a small percentage of his total sermons, it’s important because it must be considered in line with some of the important positive things he said and did elsewhere.</p>
<p>1of42 (hope you checked that thread you wrote me about - I posted):</p>
<p>“The…comment was the last in a long string of shocking things he said, and it was clearly intended to provoke outrage…”</p>
<p>This could have been written about Wright. The two situations don’t have to be identical for the comparison to be relevant.</p>