by Student Guy, Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:27 PM EST
Tags: TUCC, AP (all tags)
nt.
If people want to bash Wright, that's one thing, but I'm disappointed that so many here have insulted the church and its congregates as a whole. (The person who repeatedly called them a 'hate group' was a personal favorite.)
I have little sympathy for people who hoot and holler at the assertion that September 11th represented America's chickens coming home to roost.
Then please read the quote in full context because he heard that on where else but Fixed News.
So if it wasn't the chickens coming home to root then what was the motive for the attack??
Pure and simple hate. Anytime anyone lashes out indiscrimantly at those who didn't participate in a real or perceived injury, it's pure rage! It's destructive to the targets of the rage AND it is destructive to those who harbor the rage. In the case of 9/11, destructive to the point that they burned themselves up!
To lash out in anger and rage against THE person who committed the offense is not accepted in this country. It is against the law. It may be understandable, but it's still against the law and if found and charged, off to jail or worse.
I am in no way saying the American people and policies have not injured untold numbers. I'm not stupid. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that people in the WTC had nothing that they could do to change the actions or policies.
They were attacked "to send a message". Message received! And that message is NOT "our chickens have come home to roost." The message is "back off or I'll kill more people!"
Unfortunately for them, the American psyche perceives that action as a threat that deserves a bit whammy in return!
BTW, anytime I hear someone say that they're doing X to "send a message", I think "some far less guilty person is fixing to get screwed!"
I have, and it is.
If we want to talk about this like adults, let's be very candid - Al Queda in many ways is an example of one of America's chickens coming home to roost. In fact, one of the men responsible for giving rise to Al Queda, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is Barack Obama's top foreign policy adviser. He created the mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as part of a strategy he called the "Afghan Trap".
So, yes, this enemy is a Frankenstein of our own making.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates a remarkable lack of sensitivity and judgement to exploit that terrible tragedy, at the expense of victims who had just suffered grievous loss, in an effort to get people riled up, or reinforce his worldview that the Rich White People controlling the world deserve whatever they get.
If you knew someone who lost a loved one on 09-11, would you have taken the opportunity to yell at them about how this was all the White Man's fault? Or would you have had the judgement to recognize that putting them through some kind of sick guilt trip and trying to get them angry at a time when emotions were already wild would have been the wrong thing to do?
Thanks for being candid.
I'm not saying I agree with what he said by any means. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Wright for it, but I do once that criticism extends to labeling the entire church a bunch of crazies, traitors, a hate group, racists, etc.
I also wouldn't necessarily consider that particular sermon an attack on rich white men as much as on the government itself. And yes, the government may well be composed of rich white men, but I think there is a distinction.
I'm not defending all of what he said, but I am defending against criticism gone overboard.
Then you and I don't disagree. I do not advocate that we demonize everyone who has gone to that church. To do that would make me guilty of the very thing I am criticizing.
It's called blowback. You have a problem with it?
My personal favorite was the footage of Wright pantomiming Bill humping Monica from behind as he described what Hillary was doing to America. Classy, that...
September 11th did represent America's chickens coming home to roost. It is our disasterous Middle Eastern foreign policy that got people like Bin Laden angry with us. It was the fact that we have had troops in the "holy" land since WWII. It was the anger that Bin Laden felt because of our close relationship with Saudi Arabia. In fact, Saudi Arabia's government was created by the SAME radical group that Osama's family is fun. This argument by Wright has real factual basis.
"...family is fun."
I meant "family is from"
"In fact, Saudi Arabia's government was created by the SAME radical group that Osama's family is fun. This argument by Wright has real factual basis."
To clarify I meant tribe. The Wahobi's (sp?)
This says it all ....
The church offers a long list of services -- housing and employment programs, scholarships, a ministry to people with HIV/AIDS -- that mesh well with Obama's political philosophy. "It's his deep faith in God and his desire to be an agent of change in the world. That's kind of the Trinity mantra," said the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a priest at a South Side Roman Catholic church.
"It's his deep faith in God and his desire to be an agent of change in the world. That's kind of the Trinity mantra," said the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a priest at a South Side Roman Catholic church.
is not the guy you want to be quoting to make your arguement in support of Wright. In his own way, he is just as inflammatory and incendiary.
He is a 'social activist' but when did that become a dirty word (in Progressive circles)?
When they defend black people.
that turns me off. You probably don't care because you probably think the blacks are soon to rule the world.
You MAY even be one of those that blame whitey for every problem the black experiences. It's just not statistically possible for the blacks or the whites to be 100% responsible for the ills of the world.
Oddly enough you weren't turned off by the dissing of Fr. Pfleger.
Why is that?
As far as whites go MLK speaks for me.
Oddly enough you weren't turned off by the dissing of Fr. Pfleger. Why is that? As far as whites go MLK speaks for me.
I was turned off by a minister of the gospel saying:
"I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit back while you tear down Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright. How dare you!"
This is evidently acceptable speech, as is Rev. Wright's, in certain circles. I don't want to be a part of THAT circle - or Falwell's, or Dobson's, or any other bunch that DAMNS anyone!
So there!
I think "damned" is pretty common in the bible actually. As is speaking truth to power and taking on the establishment.
One can "speak truth to power" without being out of line.
The guy turned me off - I don't go and wouldn't go to the church he ministers at. Free country.
You know, it seems - maybe I'm guessing wrong - but it seems the reason the words of Wright and Pfleger and others don't bother you (and others) is that basically you agree with him.
Am I wrong?
He wasn't talking to you.
Do I agree that White supremacy and racism is still rampant in the American system and its imperialistic endeavors?
Of course. The facts speak for themselves. You just have to know the facts.
I feel sure that since his tapes were for sale AND since the church is not closed to the public that he meant his sermons for public consumption. Those organizations closed to the public at large are commonly called cults, a description that does not apply to TUCC.
As for white supremacy and racism rampant in the American system and its imperialistic endeavors, as a liberal of course I see this. However, I also see many changes. Do we have a long way to go? Of course.
As a woman, male supremacy is rampant as well. We have a ways to go.
Having been raised in the South in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, I think I know a little about racism up close. Returning to my home quite often, I am quite aware of racism.
There are some who do not believe that racism is alive and well; I am not one of those.
African Americans have not been the only victims of abuse in this country or in the world. The Jews have certainly had their share of persecution and grief; Native Americans; the list is very long.
As a victim of crime(s), I know first hand about having to deal with long-term abuse - during the abuse and the ignoring of the offense afterward. I know the pain. I know the thousands of $ and many hours I have spent in therapy dealing with anger and rage. None of the rage that I felt ever hurt anyone but me. Suicide attempts, drinking, over-medicating, lack of social success, dealing with feelings of inadequacy, fears of others not accepting me - all things I have to deal with to this day.
Plus, I never cease to hear, "Just put the past in the past." This too is pain. It would be wonderful if the past were truly IN the past and not in the present in my body and in my emotional makeup.
Because of this, I think I have some insight into the pain of social injustice, racism, discrimination that AA's have endured.
For me, I have chosen another way other than railing on those who hurt me - that is my choice and I have found more peace as well as success in my life.
As I told one person who had hit me and hurt me and who had apologized profusely afterward, "Stop apologizing. Fact is, I'm scared of you now. If I can't stop being scared of you, I will have to get completely away from you. The ball is now in my court. I will do what I can to deal with it the best I know how." He has never hit me again and I have managed to lose the fear.
It will never be this way for AA's - because there will ALWAYS be people out there who "hit" and "hurt" and some will be apologetic; others will not. I don't know the answer - I do not presume to.
The anger and rage and pain that I heard in Rev. Wright were all familiar to me. Many have testified to his good works. He like the rest of us are on a journey in life - "God's not through with me yet", nor with Rev. Wright.
even if the tapes are available for public consumption.
My God. You think you have insight into what my people have suffered?
Yes, I DO think I have insight. If you don't think that ANYONE who is not black can have insight, then why bother to talk to anyone except black.
Isolate yourself to just black people and only complain to black people. Otherwise, you're just ranting and railing.
Everyone OTHER than blacks are still here and not going away. YOU have to "deal with it".
Besides there are too many whites who don't give a crap about past injustices or even present injustices. That's life ... for EVERYONE, not just blacks.
Maybe Wright should sell his tapes to "blacks only"? Maybe THAT's why I took offense at his gyrating his hips in the pulpit, saying GD America, blaming America for 9/11, blaming HIV on America, blaming America for syphillis, blaming .... whitey for the sins of the world. Perhaps I take offense because it doesn't appear that he's read the BIBLE that says that ALL have sinned, that blames only one race - the HUMAN race for the sins of the world.
You think you are right and your anger and rage are evidently very comfortable for you. Good luck on living with it.
Wow. You should read some Tim Wise.
I agree with some of what I heard in a combined 45 min between Pflegler and Wright. I like what they done for their community. But I wouldn't become a true believer based on 45 minutes of You-Tube. Actually I am not the true believer type that is why as a BHO supporter I come here to read diaries and to post.Being open to new ideas is an important part of what it means to be a liberal. I am eager to attempt listen to anyone("Don't Flip The Bozo Bit" AKA " stopped watch is right twice a day") I might learn something.
You again. You sound just like my brother, "the white man" this. "The white man" that. Are you sure you aren't my little brother in Houston?
I'm sure you diss MLK as well. Bully for you.
Thanks for the article student guy
that I say that there was an article at Dkos, but since there is a divide and since there seems to be a good amount of the population here that think TUCC is [sic] a racist hate group that I felt the need to find the article and post it.
but they don't really think that. It is a talking point to boost their candidate of choice by tearing down the other, similar to other, more handsome, supporters using Tuzla-gate for the same purpose.
I think most democrats (maybe even a few dixiecrats) willing to do a little more research beyond Faux News picking & choosing of Rev Wright's sermon will realize it is not even close to what the media has presented.
I, for one, always appreciate the spreading of information to rebuke, or at least re-adjust, current erroneous beliefs, so thanks for helping the cause.
I believe polls show this has blown over, but I do think this will be used as a sword against him in the GE, but not on a national level (mcCain won't/can't go there), rather, think of sneaky " America hating Black muslim man" pamphlets passed around in more "rural" areas, where "diversity' is less common. It will work there, but it won't work overall.
The majority of the congregation is White. Why don't you mention that.
Because I am a little busy to do much analysis, I am listening to a lecture write now and I need at least one ear to focus on that which distracts me.
The majority of TUCC's congregation is black.
The denomination, United Church of Christ, is a liberal one that is 99 percent white. Its headquarters is based here in my hometown of Cleveland.
He didn't mention that because it's false, KathyM. I have yet to see you make a meaningful or factually accurate post.
Actually, she misspoke, Bob. Overall the denomination, the liberal United Church of Christ, is overwhelmingly white. Obama's church is one of few black congregations.
Or it will discarded because it is irrelevant - the conversation is clearly about Rev. Wright and Barack Obama's church, not the larger network of churches. Telling that Kathy's way of defending what the Reverand said was to say there are white people there too, as if somehow the presence of white people makes hate speech ok.
Wierd logic, and irrelevant point, so, yeah, I discarded it from my mind. Hope that clears things up.
majority white denomination...some whites in congregation
The congregation is NOT majority white. The denomination is majority white. And each individual church is free to run it as they see it.
As this option piece defending Rev. Wrights patriotismChicago Tribune points out....he put it on the line for America...how about you?
In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines. In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
the truth is...
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
I am sorry but how do you do block quotes like that?
Another good find.
<!blockquote>stuff stuff stuff more stuff stuff stuff<!/blockquote>
remove the '!' symbol and you are good to go.
I don't see the bolded line in the diary starting with "People familiar..." anywhere in the article. Has the article been updated? I'm curious what emails that sentence is referring to.
It is the 9th paragraph from the bottom and by emails I am guessing she is referring to the viral emails getting sent around about how TUCC is [sic] "a hate group"
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier.
Come on this is a joke. You can start as many threads as you want. Wright was shown to be a racist and preaching hate. PERIOD.
And dont give this just a few tapes. He has been saying these things for years and "blaming the white man" is intergral to what he thinks.
When i see you some BO supporters stand up for what Ferraro said then maybe i would reconsider what i think about Wright.
david
Spout this garbage after you've read or viewed the sermons in full. Until then you're just another low information voter with a closed mind.
Shown to be a racist by blaming white people you mean?
Well, StudentGuy and I can have a civilized conversation even when we disagree, so, I guess I will give this a try. In the interest of full disclosure let me just say that this is a very big, very visceral issue for me. I have strong feelings. I will try not to let them get the better of me in this post.
When Rev. Wright said that the U.S. Government created AIDS in order to exterminate Black folks, that was not grounded in the Bible, and that was not simply "speaking a different language to a slightly different culture."
When Rev. Wright told his congregation, just this year, that they were required to vote for Barack Obama because "he ain't White", he wasn't basing that on the Bible either. When he screamed at his congregation "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger!", in an effort to diminish the work she has done on behalf of the African American community, he very much crossed a line.
So, this is where I'm coming from: I think these statements and these actions are wrong. I don't just think they are a little wrong, I think they are deeply, fundamentally wrong. I not only refuse to sweep them under the "context" rug, but I find it personally insulting when a media pundit tries to tell me that context makes these comments right, or even ok.
I think that, by acting as an apologist and a financial sponsor of his pastor for so many years, Barack Obama did nothing to help the African Americann community, and actually hurt it. If someone tells you enough times that all your problems are someone else's fault, and that no matter what you do, you are bound to fail, eventually you will start believing it.
Rev. Wright was being discussed on CSPAN this morning, and an African American gentleman called in, to share his thoughts. He said that white people deserved racism, because they had once held slaves. He said that white people have no right to criticism racism when they see it, and they should "just get over it". He said that everything Rev. Wright said was true, and he could relate to it.
So I want you to just think about this one, tiny example. And I want you to reflect on whether this is a constuctive attitude that moves us forward, together, or whether this is an attitude that in fact hurts all of us, especially the people who believe it.
I'm not so naive as to think that there are not real, legitimate barriers for folks of color. I know that there are. I don't think racism is a myth. I know it is real. I have seen it. But why in the world is any of this justification for preaching hatred and reinforcing the same, damned cycle on others? Shouldn't it be a call for the exact opposite? Wouldn't those who have experienced discrimination understand just how wrong it is to judge someone solely on the color of their skin, as Rev. Wright told his congregation to do?
Two wrongs do not make a right. The way liberal commentators have gone out of their way to make excuses for all of this just infuriates me. It is the first and only time in my adult life that I have felt truly alienated from the Democratic party. No one has ever even suggested that I was a racist, until this primary. That this puts me in good company is no comfort.
I don't think we make progress together until we hold everyone to the same, high standards. I could go on for pages about what I think Barack's choice says about his own judgement, but I will just stop here before I get carried away. Peace.
The statement regarding HIV-AIDS and how it spread in the black community is rooted in paranoia because of history:
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for "bad blood," their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.
The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis--which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. "As I see it," one of the doctors involved explained, "we have no further interest in these patients until they die."
Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care--almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before--these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as "the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history."
It is part of history and part of a bygone cultural experience.
While I don't agree with Rev. Wright, I understand from where he comes. The Tuskegee Experiments are the types of things that get relegated to footnotes in history, but they were VERY real for African Americans.
Yes, as much as I want to be offended by the notion that the government would purposely infect black people with AIDS, I try to balance that with the very real fact that the government did infect black people with syphilis.
I haven't walked in their shoes, so I don't know if I wouldn't feel the same way.
Did not infect them. What they did was to watch people who were infected die.
I am not saying that makes it any less digusting or amoral. Just making a minor correction.
No, they purposely did not tell these men that they had syphilis. Thus they let infected men sleep with other people, who were then infected, and in some cases slept with other people, who were then infected. How then was this not infecting African Americans with syphilis? The doctors did not inject anyone with syphilis, but they certainly, by their inaction, allowed additional people to be infected with syphilis.
As for the AIDS comment, among scientists and researchers, the most plausible origin of the HIV virus is the administration of a polio vaccine made from simian tissue to a huge population of Africans, with US funding.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/d issent/documents/AIDS/
One of the major works on this is "The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS" by Edward Hooper.
Since Wright's sermon was on how governments lie, I figure this is what Wright meant, the mass vaccination with contaminated tissue and the resulting cover up. I don't think that the contaminated vaccine was anything more than a tragic mistake, but probably because of the Tuskegee experiment Wright saw it as more insidious.
I find this line of argument to be absolutely ridiculous, patronizing, and totally disingenous. First of all, Wright is not some semi-literate sharecropper from the Jim Crow Deep South, nor is he a grade-school dropout. He is from Philadelphia. His father was a minister. His mother was a doctor. He attended several colleges, has a BA and a masters degree from Howard, another masters degree, and several other degrees as well. He did well in the Armed Services and has done very well as the head of this church. This is a smart, well-educated man. There is simply no excuse, as in ZERO, for him conflating the well-documented and researched facts about the disgusting and horrible Tuskeegee experiment with the crackpot conspiracy theory that "the government" created AIDS as a part of a campaign of "genocide" against "people of color" (all quotes from Wright). I don't think a person with so much education and practical intelligence lacks, or, should lack, the critical reasoning to make this distinction.
Furhtermore, your linked material presents a decidedly minority view of the source of AIDS, but, even at that, does not for one moment confirm Wright's theory. Wright said that AIDS was an act of genocide against people of color, not that it was the unintended by-product of a vaccine development program. Wright specifically used the word "genocide," which is ALWAYS an intentional crime.
I believe that Wright knew that he was saying was a croc of you-know-what, but that he was intentionally pandering to the lowest common denominator in his congregaton. The harm that Wright might have done, beyond merely seeding, or confirming, anti-white hatred, may also have included dissuading members of his congregation from seeking testing or treatment for HIV and AIDS, because they feared that the same "government," which, according to Wright, had created AIDS specifically to systematically kill African Americans and other people of color, would probably control the hospitals or clinics and, either lie to them, give them bogus tests or treatments, or even infect them with the virus.
Wright's statement is simply indefensible, no matter how many backflips Obama supporters do to try to rehabilitate it. This statement alone marks Wright as either a dangerous and complete phony, or as a crackpot, conspiracy-theorist racist. For, as Wright stated that "white people" control "the government," and "the government" created and disseminated AIDS as part of a campaign of genocide, it is clear that Wright has accused white people in general of an enormous and totally imaginary crime. Such heinous and unfounded accusations against racial groups are one of the hallmarks of racism.
If this man was not Obama's avowed mentor, "pastor," and "spirtual advisor," no one on this website would hold him in anything better than the contempt in which Falwell and Hagee are held. But, because, he is connected to Obama, all standards of morals are, apparently, out the window. That Obama chose to make and keep this man, who, despite Obama's feeble excuse is not "family" to him in any way, as his spirtual counselor for so many years is a damning indictment of Obama, and his oft- and self-touted "judgment."
And no amount of spin or revisionism or excuse making can change that.
Well, you and I cannot have a meaningful conversation if you think I am "wrong" for believeing the U.S. government did not invent AIDS as a tool for committing genocide on its black citizens. Please clarify whether you think this is true or false.
Tuskegee - horrible, wrong, inexcusible. This was initiated over 70 years ago, and effected 399 people. There are over 40 million African Americans living in the U.S. today. It hardly serves as proof that the U.S. government created AIDS in order to kill black people.
We just learned a few weeks ago that our government's private contractors have been giving discolored, infected water to our troops in Iraq. Hundreds of them have gotten sick because of it. Does that prove any sort of government conspiracy to commit genocide? No.
What both of these things prove is that our government is capable of horrible, irresponsible things when We the People are not actively watching. My message is to open your eyes, not to shut them in fear or clench them in anger.
One of the things you failed to copy and paste from that website was this:
It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment's name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years.
So do you suppose it does the African American community much good for a prominent spiritual leader to foster this kind of wrong-headed thinking? Why pit "Black" against "White" when you could help people to stand up for eachother instead?
You know, I am a Financial Analyst by profession, and there is one thing you will always hear, over and over, from any investment bank: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." Wouldn't that be a more constructive outlook on life? To embrace our heritage, but recognize that our past does not determine our future?
I am not really all that interested in putting Rev. Wright on the couch and going through some psycho-analysis of why he says what he says. I'm saying they are wrong, and they are not constructive, not for him, and not for his followers. And, more boldly, I am saying we do our fellow human beings a disservice when we hold them to a lower standard.
I didn't ascribe blame to anyone. It is far too complex to do that, just as slavery is far too complex to blame just Europeans.
As an African American, born after Wright's generation, I don't subscribe to his paranoia. I do, however, understand why it exists in the black community.
If you want to assign blame, that's your right. My post was merely an effort to promote understanding in a bunch of people on this board who choose to denouce without viewing all sides.
Who said this was about acribing blame?
You understand "why it exists" in the black community. Great. I can understand it too. Understanding that people can get angry and lose their temper sometimes does not make it ok for someone to beat their spouse. So there are limits to what understanding, on its own, accomplishes.
Assigning blame vs. abdicating responsibility - two very different frameworks for thinking about this.
I am happy to agree with you that assigning blame is not likely to get us anywhere and certainly doesn't have much to do with Barack Obama or this election.
"Arising from impulse; spontaneous and unthinking for example an instinctive mistrust of the government."
You say that the Wright issue is one that is visceral for you. For many people of color the notion of the government misusing its power isn't outlandish and the response is often visceral rather than intellectual.
The wide-spread knowledge of the Tuskeegee Experiment serves to distract because it makes it seem for as terrible as it was it does't indicate a pattern. Misusing vunerable populations for testing did not start with Tuskeegee and it didn't end with it either.
circa 1845 The father of modern gynechology J.Marion Sims honed his skills on enslaved women from his farm. His operated on one young woman 30 times perfecting a procedure. The women had to be held down during the eoperations, ether was available, but Sims refused to use it, insisting it was not needed. However, when he performed the the perfected procedure on white women, he always gave them ether.
circa 2005 During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson disclosed that the EPA has funded or is currently funding than 250 experiments on human subjects, several of which involve chemical testing on children, including: exposing children ages 3 to 12 to the agricultural insecticide
I think that goes to my point as well, that forcing a race-vs-race battle distracts us from the more important point - that all of us, black, white or green - ought to be standing up for eachother and keeping a vigilant eye on our government. As I said, my message is that we should open eyes, not shut them in fear or clench them in anger.
BB you seem like a thoughtful man(?) and these are for complex,painful issues that aren't easily discussed. For example your quote mentions the black nurses doctors and institutions involved in the Tuskeegee Experiment. Black folks are folks, some us are self-loathing, some of us are just doing our jobs and see nothing, those of us who are nurses,doctors and hospital administrators may not identify with poor illiterate sharecroppers.
PS there are no green people...you don't see green people do you;)
I respect your opinion and your especially your civility. We need more civil discussion here and everywhere else. And yes when I first heard the loop on the news I was horrified by it. Then I talked to my former pastor about it (I am currently an non-believer in any religion due to the extraordinary contained with religion not due to the message with is generally good) and he pointed out about how the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 19 I don't remember the verse right now) "damns" those who let suffering continue, which was what the God D@-- America quote came from, along with some of the other theological grounding ( in liberation theology) in the loop.
And yes I think the sermon about Sen Clinton (saying that she was never called a redacted for the sake of civility) was completely, this article said so too.
"Wright is one of the most respected pastors in the African-American church in the United States," said Kellman, who nevertheless says Wright "blew it" in a few sermons.
Second to the last paragraph in the article
I would say that he went completely off the handle there.
As far as the AIDS quote I did some searching and found this at the TPM
But here is the abstract of a study conducted by Behavioral Health Institute in 1999: Twenty-seven percent of blacks held AIDS-conspiracy views and an additional 23% were undecided. Endorsing AIDS-conspiracy beliefs was not related to blacks' age or income but was related to higher levels of education. Blacks who agreed that AIDS is a conspiracy against them tended to be culturally traditional, college-educated men who had experienced considerable racial discrimination.
Twenty-seven percent of blacks held AIDS-conspiracy views and an additional 23% were undecided. Endorsing AIDS-conspiracy beliefs was not related to blacks' age or income but was related to higher levels of education. Blacks who agreed that AIDS is a conspiracy against them tended to be culturally traditional, college-educated men who had experienced considerable racial discrimination.
I would say that is a different mindset (albeit completely wrong) than the Caucasian population which could be due to the Tuskagee studies (on Syphilis). What should be done is not to play into it but to educate about this wrongheaded view.
I am not saying Jeremiah Wright is a Saint for saying these things in anyway what so ever (especially about Sen Clinton) just that human beings are not perfect.
I hope this conversation can continue as I enjoy hearing your perspective since you are rational and don't fly off the handle.
Also I found a link that helps to explain one of the sermons here:
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=1814
What should be done is not to play into it but to educate about this wrongheaded view.
That is in essence what I am saying also. So that brings us to a more contentious issue - which was Barack doing in his speech? Was he educating people and helping them move past wrongheaded views, or was he reinforcing those views?
Or was he doing both, and if so, how do we balance them?
I personally think he was doing both, and to his credit, he was trying to balance them in a way that made sense, from his personal context. So I take issue with his speech for totally different reasons, which I wrote about here. If you'd like to debate me on that I'll meet you over on that thread.
Keeping on subject, though..
What has upset me was not so much the mixture of playing-into vs. educating that Barack did in his speech, because, frankly, he had to do some playing-into in order to justify his pastor (I don't see how you do it otherwise). What upset me far more was the way liberal columnists have reacted to it, because I think they have gone far off the deep end of playing-off and excuse making. And, honestly SG, it really just alienates me from them.
I try, for a moment, to see things through the eyes of the average conservative, whose primary critique of liberals is going to be something like "they have no morals and think everything is relative." And I can see how this really just plays right into that.
I totally refute the premise that liberals aren't just as passionate and moral as their conservative counterparts. But I find it harder to argue that point, in light of how this subject has been handled.
I know the truth is that Wright is neither a Saint nor a Demon. I get it. I just don't think we help anyone out by making excuses for him. And, not to pull your candidate back into this (you know I have been fighting myself not to do this!), but even if I accept that Rev. Wright didn't know any better, surely Barack does. Yet, in his speech, he uses Rev. Wright's sermons as a metaphor for the entire African American community. I just can't go along with that.
Sorry if I hit a nerve on that last point, but it is how I feel.
Actually his statement about Hillary was regarding the fact that she's never faced the same level of oppression as a black person as she's a white woman from a suburb.
As far as what she's done for black people. I've seen no evidence of anything other than trying to keep them in jail by fighting retroactive application of the USSC guidelines. Those same guidelines that her husband fought to keep in place. Racist laws that devastated my community.
Tis true in a way.
The level of oppression that Barack has faced in this life is truly astounding, isn't it? It's ironic that, as Rev. Wright was listing Barack's qualifications for President ("he ain't rich", "he ain't white"), Obama was enjoying a household income in excess of a million dollars. Michelle talked about how she understood the struggles of working class families because she and Barack had to scrape by and could just barely afford a $10,000 piano for their child.. But yes, Barack is a highly oppressed individual.
You know what? Let's agree not to have a conversation. We're not going to get anywhere constructive, so long as you suggest through your signature that I am the great stumbling block of the African American community, simply because I am white and happen to not like racism.
Interesting how you conflate their best year with their whole lives.The intellectual dishonesty in your first few sentences shows that you aren't willing to have an honest conversation or that you're clueless. Your comment about my sig line shows your ignorance.
FYI, my sig line was from MLK and it clearly still applies today.
You aren't obligated to understand what in your book is bad behavior. I think it is silly for any one to try to explain to you why you shouldn't feel the way you do...I owe you an apology for the 'facts' down thread. I sometimes (and I am not alone in doing this) confuse 'don't agree' with 'don't understand'
But please remember we are no better or worse than white folks
No apology needed. Cheers.
According to Politico, the church has been receiving all sorts of violent threats since the Rev. Wright debacle. Enough already.
It is positive and should help reduce that kind of thing.
This is the kind of thing that really upsets me. After November, nobody will ever think about this church again, but it will be forever tainted on a national scale. Its charities will suffer, Wright will be a pariah, and the only people that will be truly hurt will be the people who go there.
If that isn't enough to make any of you tone down your rhetoric, I don't understand you at all.
I recommended this diary because there are people here trying very hard to have a meaningful conversation about something that is not easy. I appreciate all of you who are doing this, even those I disagree with.
to discuss Barack's speech and thanks for the rec. I don't want people to come blindly over, I just want to have a discussion. Where both sides can see where they come from.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
