[BUMPED = 'Cause Tasha said: "I am disgusted at Obama pretending to be appalled by Wright's speech. I think it is dishonest and unbelievable. I think he's hurting his own credibility by not standing by his real beliefs and communicating them in the way he feels most comfortable. But to act like he is appalled is just stupid and I lost some respect for him honestly. I listened to Wright's entire speech from Monday and aside from some un-needed sarcasm, I found him intelligent and on point. If the truth offends some people, well then we need to dialog about it and get somewhere, not pretend that we are appalled by it. Obama is looking just like the cops who shot Bell -- just another player in the power structure who happens to have black skin."]
I don't agree at all with the New York Times' token black op-ed columnist, Bob Herbert, and his argument that Rev. Wright is intentionally trying to harm the Obama campaign.
I do, however, sort of agree with the perspective of the Washington Post's token black op-ed columnist, Eugene Robinson. [*no offense meant to the columnists, rather, tokenism is a reflection on these institutions' lack of a diverse staff of columnists] I agree with Wrights theological and political view that the merging of worldly struggle and responsibility with matters of spirit, salvation and faith is the true calling of the gospel of Jesus and the true meaning of being a "Christian". I do, however unfortunate, think that Robinson is right here when he points out that not all black churches share that view to the degree of Wright and that Wright's insistence on representing Black Liberation Theology as the black church at large is hurting Obama. But like Wright, I could care less. In my opinion Wright's message is more important for the black community to hear than Obama's. Here's is an excerpt from Robinson's column on Wright:
Where he overreaches is in claiming, as he did at the Press Club, that the criticism he has suffered "is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church" -- and in claiming that this episode "just might mean that the reality of the African American church will no longer be invisible."
The reality of the African American church, of course, is as diverse as the African American community. I grew up in the Methodist church with pastors -- often active on the front lines of the civil rights movement -- whose sermons were rarely exciting enough to elicit more than a muttered "Amen." They were excitement itself, however, compared with the dry lectures delivered by the priest at the Catholic church around the corner. And what I heard every Sunday was nothing at all like the Bible-thumping, hellfire-and-damnation perorations that filled my Baptist friends with the Holy Ghost -- and even less like the spellbinding, singsong, jump-and-shout sermonizing that raised the roofs of Pentecostal sanctuaries across town.
Wright claims to represent all these traditions and more, but he does not. He also claims universality for the political aspect of his ministry. It is true that the black church, writ large, has been an instrument of social and political change. But most black churches are far less political than Wright's -- and many concern themselves exclusively with salvation.
Post a Comment
38 comments:
Rev. WRight has thrown Obama under the bus, the brother has more than a right to defend himself, however is approach has all but crused any chance of Obama being the next president. Lets be real Rev Wright has become an opportunist,....I thought the Sean Bell verdict was a lynch job, look no further than Rev. Wright as the sole reason Obama will not get the presidency.
What a fuckin idoit, oh yeah I'm from 99th & Troop a few block from Rev Wrights church, cool people, bad surrogate for the campaign.
There's no excuse for his degrading comments towards Obamas speech,its almost as if he jealous of Obama.
As a voter, I am really not all that concerned with Rev. Wright to the extent that it would stop me voting for Obama.
I think Obama could distance himself at this time and place if he should choose to do so.
I think it is largely media created hype.
As an American Indian, I disagree with what Rev. Wright has said. For the same reason, I disagreed with the Ho-chunk Veteran who said essentially the same thing that Rev. Wright said in his overplayed soundbites. I disagree because it was as though this Vet was saying that the U.S. deserved to be bombed that day, look what they have done to us all these years. I disagreed with him 1)That simply because he was a Vet of the U.S. army during Vietnam gave him the leading opinion on how we should feel, that seemed patriarical to me 2)and then also because knowing how it feels to be attacked, how could he use this logic to rise our ire (we were working on the same school staff). 3)If he were making a different kind of claim about the U.S. and 9/11 then he should say it.
American Indians are more or less telling ourselves everyday that because so many men and women have served in the U.S. army and given their life defending a nation that has taken everything from us, that we are above reproach when it comes to our political opinion. I respect those who have served, but I am not going to lay down my own sense of reason for rhetoric that seems based on this principle that we are destined to suffer long and without reprieve.
I think Obama could distance himself. What I have liked about his campaign, if anything, was his reticence to give up talking about the U.S. as an exceptional country... ordained by God as so forth. It seems Wright is making a claim to exceptionality that does not fit with the Obama campaign. Unfortunately, a belief in American exceptionality runs rampant across the country.
That said, the possibility of speaking to the greatness of America is still within rhetorical reach of the Obama campaign if they choose.
Comments on tokenism are apparent even on the Daily Show with their "Senior Black Correspondent" Larry Whitmore (or whatever his name is) but I can see someone picking that out and getting offended by it. All those, except of course, the ones who should be held accountable for the situation in the first place.
but I like your disclaimer...
i don't seen where Wright is speaking American exceptionalism.
if Obama looses because of Wright, then so be it.
if it takes a Wright to shut up for a black man to be president, then I'd rather not have a black man be president.
Can wright be criticized for his commments as a pastor. He said last night that he was accountable only to God. That to me is exceptionalism. "Everyone except me has to answer to someone else, where as I answer to the man upstairs." Or "I am ordained by a higher power to call American out on it's empiralism." What?
That is a form of American exceptionalism to me. Especially, on the topic of race, when obviously, historically, race has not just been black/white. And I am not saying that he should include Natives or Asians or Latinos or whatever in his critique. Accepting that Christians live and practice there religion here, I think that if you are going to take a political stance from the pulpit then you need to be accountable to someone other than just the man upstairs. I do think a part of American exceptionalism is to speak from the pulpit on American politics, that somehow we have to "improve" the soul of America and that we are all duty bound to that. American exceptionalism is based on this notion that Christians came here to improve the land and its inhabitants, and if the inhabitants couldn't be "improved" than certainly the land itself could be.
i have a few friends who go to his church.
i think he's accountable to his congregation and community.
and they love him sooo...
I am disgusted at Obama pretending to be appalled by Wright's speech. I think it is dishonest and unbelievable. I think he's hurting his own credibility by not standing by his real beliefs and communicating them in the way he feels most comfortable. But to act like he is appalled is just stupid and I lost some respect for him honestly. I listened to Wright's entire speech from Monday and aside from some un-needed sarcasm, I found him intelligent and on point. If the truth offends some people, well then we need to dialog about it and get somewhere, not pretend that we are appalled by it. Obama is looking just like the cops who shot Bell -- just another player in the power structure who happens to have black skin.
yup, Obama, just threw his pastor under the same bus the pastor threw Obama under with his grandstanding,boogie wooging response.
Win or lose let the voters decide, not Rev Wright. somekind of friend he is......
I guess I disagree that his congregation is going to hold him accountable. Just like I believe that most conservatives are not going to hold McCain accountable. Whose to say either group is not more radical than the person behind the microphone.
mcCain is not a preacher. he's only "held accountable" to the extent that we define voting every four years, a flawed corrupt money election system, voter disenfranchisement, etc... as people holding electives accountable.
Wright is accountable to a board of Deacons and a congregation that just would not come to church is they thought he was trippin.
He said last night on the news that he was accountable only to god, and that he was not a politician.
i understood that differently than literally.
i ultimately (key word) feel only accountable to god.
however, "in the mean time" or on in this world, i have many people who i am accountable to as well.
I remember when it all came to the fore anyway. I thought man. Here is Obama... he's not culturally African-American in the sense that his father was from Kenya and his mother is white. So he goes to a Black church, and maybe he did it because of an intense desire to fit in or a desire to understand a certain perspective he himself might have not have been raised with... and maybe he did that in order to cope with some of the racism he himself has experienced or maybe he did it for political gain. But, now his Pastor is saying something that is controversial, but that he himself may have disagreed with, but never really felt the need to distance himself from politically. Maybe this sense of belonging to a community was so powerful that he chose to abide within whatever political ideology was there because he had an intense belief in god and fellowship in both senses, such that a political and a faith community were really necessary and good for him. I thought what is he supposed to do? He is really caught in this one. And it proved to be true.
But somebody had to dig up those tapes of Wright. And somebody had to root around for the ideological material that would be played again and again on TV.
Our problem is that we never wanted a more complicated Obama. We never wanted the mixed-heritage kid who called himself Barry and grew up in Hawa'ii and Asia. Nope, we wanted someone who could be everyman, maybe he has over-played to that everyman thing. Wasn't that what was said when I pointed out that his victory speeches were a little too much on the patriotic side for me, wasn't he defended on the grounds that he had to play the everyman game in order to be electable. Now that he has to distance himself from Wright to be that everyman character, now he gets cut loose? Then the mistake was his. He should've told everyone like it was from the beginning and risked never reaching this level of Presidential politics.
Now, that he has somehow offended the trust of people in his own congregation or friends of friends of his congregation, because he has distanced himself from Wright, who some might call self-preserving, if not self-serving, he gets the stink-eye? Damn, that's cold.
The sad thing is ... the man is qualified and he wants the job. His pastor can claim the high ground and keep his job, because he is a man of god.
And the ironic thing is is that no President no matter how they cut is there to provide moral leadership for the country. Where the hell is that in the Constitution. And frankly as a person who can claim "Indian" status under the freaking American constitution vis-a-vis the last two hundred years of American law, I am disappointed that we think the President is here as a surrogate for the larger Christian majority. If Wright wants to preach about that, call me. What would it mean to Wright to consider all of American history, and not just the one that can be morally bound and agree to be upheld by his congregation?
I think we always knew that Obama was compromising some of his ideals to get this far. But like the Clintons, people have a level to which they will tolerate BS, and the Clintons have reached many peoples' level; now I think Obama has reached many peoples' tolerance of BS level. People will only tolerate so much game playing, because when you cross the line, we don't know who you are anymore. So I don't think people are throwing him out in the cold just because they disprove of this one response. I think he's just pushing it too far. He has to have some loyalty, I think, and that loyalty is what Black people want to elect him on. I think Black people are not under the belief that Obama actually shares complete political alliance with Black communities, but I do think Black people as a group, thought that Obama felt some emotional connection to the Black community he (now) belongs to. But this denial of Wright makes me doubt that belief, and that leaves a bad taste.
obama's response turned me off too...I think it would have been great to hear him continue to respect his pastor and distinguish that he is entitled to his beliefs that Obama may not neccesarily share..that was respectable..but saying that the relationship has been damaged and expressing outrage makes me think what would be the difference in having his as president? Of course he isnt going to get elected if he is in full support or doesnt distance himself from Pastor Wright..but then that is pretty telling of what his ultimate stance is ( one I dont agree with or support ..nor with that of any of the others. Its not apathy. Its the reality that the song and dance continues with new dancers.)
If he truly does agree with his pastor and is distancing himself and expressing anger and outrage just to soothe and ease or if he truly does feel the outrage and vehemently disagrees...the result is the same and the meaning in either choice is a lot for people to take in ( for those who hadnt got that meaning already).
At the beginning, I really did think he felt some of what his pastor was saying..but if his words can be believed now then he clearly doesnt. I dont like him less but it reinforces what I already thought and like someone said up above Id rather have a president who could say and continue to say that Wright feeling the way he does is valid and that it is not just a rant.
"I am disappointed that we think the President is here as a surrogate for the larger Christian majority. If Wright wants to preach about that, call me. What would it mean to Wright to consider all of American history, and not just the one that can be morally bound and agree to be upheld by his congregation?"
what do you mean by consider all of american history? Do you mean talk about for example Japanese interment camps and other issues in AMerican history that are beyond the scope of the black experience? Im not saying anything is wrong with doing that. But Wright is not running for election. He is ( or was since I think I read he is retiring) a preacher in a black churh on the south side of Chicago? WHat is wrong with him talking primarily about issues that affect his congretation? Nothing wrong with talking about commonalities but there is also nothing wrong with the content of the sermons. I wouldnt be bothered by a group of Native Americans or Latinos or anyone having a community discussion about their community issues. We all should have those discussions together at some point but all levels are needed. Please correct if thats not what you meant. ALso regarding the Christianty thing, this country is primarily Christian--always has been. AMerica has never separated the two regardless of the separation of the two--thats just always been obviously the case. DOnt they take the presidendtial oath with a bible? Interesting, I was watching something on PBS and this guy from I think it was Spain was saying that so many people are so surprised and appalled to hear the president of the US talk about god so much and use the reference in speech. Many Americans fully expect their president to share and expouse their moral and religious ( the two are not synonomous) beliefs...which is why Obama tried so hard very early on to make it clear that he is christian.
"What a fuckin idoit, oh yeah I'm from 99th & Troop a few block from Rev Wrights church, cool people, bad surrogate for the campaign.
There's no excuse for his degrading comments towards Obamas speech,its almost as if he jealous of Obama."
Why isnt he entitled to his opinions and beliefs? I dont think its fair that the associates of people running for office have to hide or disguise who they really are. Wright didnt start this. He didnt say hey look at what I said in some of my others,American People. I may not agree with every single thing he says and there is a lot that I do agree with---either way why isnt he entitled to speak?
I dont see it as an attack on the black church necessarily ...bc a lot of people who are not apart of the black church agree with a lot of what Rev Wright is saying. Ive never been to a church with a pastor like Wright lol..I might have stayed longer in the black church (did i say those two words enough times lol)
obama's been pandering to white folks.
but even then, like tasha said, it was a level that could be understood as "doing what he had to do to get elected" WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF STAYING TRUE TO HIMSELF.
but now he's cooning.
he is no longer even being TRUE TO HIS OWN BELIEFS FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.
so he's basically denouncing himself for the last 20 years, cause as far as i know Wright ain't changed a damn bit, no matter how "suprised" obama wants ur to think he is at these "new, outrageous" comments.
BS.
now obama is doing just like any other politicians is doing...
to be honest he still got my vote because even tho he's stooped to the level of the average politician he still is cleaner than most....
it's always disappointing to see a black man pander to white fear. it's even more disappointing to see a black lye about himself just to pander to white people (i.e. get elected president in this white nation)
"Ive never been to a church with a pastor like Wright lol..I might have stayed longer in the black church"
AMEN.
WRIGHT's comments have inspired me. I want to find a church with a pastor like him. He is speaking TO ME. whereas Obama i feel is speaking past me to the white people over my shoulder.
REVEREND WRIGHT FOR PRESIDENT.
lol
Hotep Achali
As-salaam alaykum
O'Siyo
Those dull sermons were definitely worthwhile. My Dad's side converted to Islam from Methodism and the AME's produced a lot of scholarship. Other denominations did as well.
We're all familiar with Stanley Lane Pool, the Song of Roland, the Al-Murabitun and Al-Mohades thanks to scholars such as J.A. Rogers, Ivan Van Sertima, Drusilla Dunjee Houston and W.E.B. DuBois. In the modern era, Dr. Kaba Hiawatha Kamene, Dr. Michael Gomez, and Dr. Sheila S. Walker are building on the foundations laid by their predecessors. Of course Baba Runoko is the rock on which the modern temple of Afro-Iberian historiography stands. However, lest we become complacent, or forget that the empires of the Western Sahara and Savannah are white-washed with as much vehemence as Kmt, read excerpts of "The Iberian Roots of American Racist Thought" by James K. Sweet. While the title sounds hopeful, Sweet's thesis absolutely removes the Black Moors from any place in Muslim and Catholic history except as degraded slaves. He manages this by ignoring the African "Fathers" of the Church, and the Black Saints described by Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim scholars in the millennia preceding the Reformation.
Compare Sweet's article to : POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION ECCLESIA IN AFRICA OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON THE CHURCH IN AFRICA AND ITS EVANGELIZING MISSION TOWARDS THE YEAR 2000, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_14091995_ecclesia-in-africa_en.html
In a message to the Bishops and to all the peoples of Africa concerning the promotion of the religious, civil and social well-being of the Continent, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI recalled in memorable words the glorious splendour of Africa's Christian past: "We think of the Christian Churches of Africa whose origins go back to the times of the Apostles and are traditionally associated with the name and teaching of Mark the Evangelist. We think of their countless Saints, Martyrs, Confessors, and Virgins, and recall the fact that from the second to the fourth centuries Christian life in the North of Africa was most vigorous and had a leading place in theological study and literary production. The names of the great doctors and writers come to mind, men like Origen, Saint Athanasius, and Saint Cyril, leaders of the Alexandrian school, and at the other end of the North African coastline, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian and above all Saint Augustine, one of the most brilliant lights of the Christian world. We shall mention the great Saints of the desert, Paul, Anthony, and Pachomius, the first founders of the monastic life, which later spread through their example in both the East and the West. And among many others we want also to mention Saint Frumentius, known by the name of Abba Salama, who was consecrated Bishop by Saint Athanasius and became the first Apostle of Ethiopia".(37) During these first centuries of the Church in Africa, certain women also bore their own witness to Christ. Among them Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, Saint Monica and Saint Thecla are particularly deserving of mention.
SWEET SAYS:
THE question why African slavery emerged as the primary form of exploited labor in the Americas during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries has engaged the attention of scholars for years. Although a consensus seems to have emerged that the growth of capitalism played a major
role in the establishment and survival of African slavery in the Americas, heated debate continues over the extent to which racism played a part in this
development. The issue of which came first, racism or slavery, is central to this debate: some historians accept Eric Williams's assertion that "slavery
was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery."l Though the origins debate may at first glance seem artificial or analytically
unimportant, it can reveal fundamental truths about the trajectory of racist ideology in Western culture. Locating the crystallization of racist ideology
in Europe before
1492 shifts the focus of the origins debate from American economic explanations to European cultural ones. The search for the roots
of a racial ideology might begin in ancient times; this article explores only the immediate foundations of racism in modern Western thought.
Many historians of colonial Latin America insist that racism was not present in Iberia before 1492. They argue instead that racial stratification was
a product of American economic conditions.2 This article contends that racism and capitalism were not inextricably bound together and that the
racism that came to characterize American slaverv was well established in cultural and religious attitudes in Spain and Portugal by the fifteenth century.
Such attitudes were reinforced by European political turbulence and the decline of the Mediterranean slave trade. The racist beliefs that Iberians
and others would later refine to a "science" were firmly entrenched before Christopher Columbus made landfall in the Americas.' This racial idiom
became more rigid as capitalist imperatives gained strength. While these views do not entirely contradict Williams's thesis, they move away from
mechanistic economic explanations and attempt to show the evolution of racist thinking from feudalism to capitalism, from Europe to the Americas.
To use the term race in a fifteenth-century Iberian context may be problematic. The social context must be considered when examining the functions
of racial identifications. Though the concept of race was not unknown in the fifteenth century, the words razza in Italian, raza in Castilian, raca in
Portuguese, and race in French simply referred to a group of plants, animals, or humans that shared traits through a shared genealogy.4 Not until the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did "scientists" begin using "race" to legitimize claims of human biological superiority and inferiority.
Though the pseudoscientific classification of persons based on race in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gave greater legitimacy to racism,
this new science merely reinforced old ideological notions. Some might argue that medieval and premodern prejudices were based on European ideas
of civility, religion, or culture. But the imposition on all humanity of a universal culture and a European conception of man sidesteps the issue of
racism. Early modern Europeans conflated what we now call "culture" with what we now call "race." Thus, for the early modern period, race and culture
cannot be easily separated. A people's inferior culture implied a biologically inferior people. Behavioral patterns and lifeways that Europeans viewed as
aberrant were linked to genetically fixed qualities especially phenotype and skin color. Even when these inferior Others adopted European cultural and
religious forms, they could not avoid the stigma of cultural inferiority that their physical appearance proclaimed. The dialectic between culture and
phenotype operated in such a way that sub-Saharan Africans were unable to escape their inferior status. Skin color, as an insignia of race, remained an
indelible marker of cultural, and thus racial, inferiority. The concept of race is a useful tool for understanding the dynamics of power relationships in the
early modern period. Europeans invented themselves as whites, Africans as blacks, and, later, Indians as reds. In the resulting social hierarchy, whites
were always superior, and blacks occupied the lowest rung. Indians and persons of mixed-race descent fell in between. In Iberia, once the traits of the
infidel and the slave became associated with blackness, race became the driving force in the formulation of Spanish and Portuguese
attitudes toward sub-Saharan Africans. For the purposes of this article, racism can be understood as a reduction of the sociocultural to the somatic.
Muslim
Antecedents
The racist ideologies of fifteenth-century Iberia grew out of the development of African slavery in the Islamic world as far back as the eighth century.
From
711 until their expulsion in 1492, Muslims controlled a significant portion of the Iberian peninsula. At its height, the Muslim world extended
east to China. Wide-ranging Islamic influence had profound effects on the thinking of Iberians and, in many respects, charted the course of emerging
racial hierarchies. By the ninth century, Muslims were making distinctions between black and white slaves. These invidious distinctions are best
reflected in the two Arabic words for slave. The word 'abd (plural 'abid), the traditional word for slave, embodied its legal meaning, but in the popular
dialect, European slaves came to be called
marnluks. The white marnluk commanded a higher price than the black kbd because he could bring a
substantial Christian ransom or be exchanged for a Muslim captive.5 The differing treatment of white and black slaves reflected their relative worth.
The rnarnluk was viewed as an investment to protect, whereas the 'abd's value was based on his labor as an expendable means of production.
Wherever there was back-breaking work to be done in the Arab world, black slaves were made to do it. From ninth-century Iraqi
land reclamation projects to fourteenth-century Saharan salt and copper mines, black Africans toiled under the worst conditions.6 White slaves were rarely assigned to such arduous tasks; they were usually household servants. This early distinction, which identified blacks as
subordinate Others, was not limited to slaves.
Can a culturally Black person be the president of an ideally White nation-state?
Rev. Wright, clearly only seems concerned with derailing Obama campaign, and getting a book deal.
LETS BE REAL.
@maryam:
im not following how that relates to Wright?
cedric robinson would point out that racism and even the ideology of white supremacy came before eupropeans enslaved africans.
@jonjon:
i really don't see how Wright is out for himself right now. i talked to the homie in DC and he's saying how churches around the nation including shiloh baptist church in DC are having prayer vigils for Wright and such. folks are rallying behind him, especially congregations that are of the more in sync with what cedric robinson called "the black radical tradition."
@damsel7022:
highly unlikely.
just read this article on obama/wright at black agenda report:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=34
Wright is rated one of the top 5 preachers in black america.
that says alot to me.
obama wants to paint Wright as an extremist that no one listens to, when fact is Farrakhan and Wright and others like them carry weight in black communities nationwide. No one can argue that. People don't follow them like sheep, but they do respect them tremendously.
But, all Wright said was that if Obama were elected he would hear a lot from him come November. If Obama were not elected, would Wright still take issue with the Obama the Senator? Maybe he didn't throw him under the bus, maybe he threw him under the bus and then backed over him. That would be the case if Wright has more political influence with Obama's voting base than Obama does.
Also, sure I think that African-American communities should concern themselves with issue which connect them to each other and with society. Yes. Which is why I compared Wright sentiments and sentiments which were comparable to remarks made by a Native Veteran that I know. In my humble opinion neither Wright nor the Veteran said I something that could have an outcome I agreed with because I thought the premises of their remarks were based on a set of assumptions that were just that... they were assumptions. However scientific. The better comparison to Reverent Wright might have been the Ward Churchill controversy surrounding "Roosting Chickens". Churchill called the bankers at the World Trade center "Little Eichmann's" and everybody went after him. Those folks who didn't want him taking on certain American ideologies presented the case against him in such a way that Churchill could no longer draw an audience for his work. So both Wright and Churchill made a critique of American empirialism that included race. The comparison stops as we watch Wright held up for his political views because he 1) In some sense represents a powerful religious majority and 2)Is speaking in religious terms and making a claim to spirituality, and that spirituality matters. Yes, there are groups and organizations out there that would not agree with the use of the Bible at a swearing in ceremony, as there are groups out there who think singing the national anthem at a basketball game is a form of American nationalism. Is using the Bible at inauguration or elsewhere a form of Christian nationalism? What other forms of Christian nationalism are on view here? The Constitution does not require that the President represent the country morally. The President of the United States has specific duties in office, and religious leadership is not among them, whether the Bible is used at inauguration or not. The irony here is that we have tended to think in terms of the Republican party as the party that has sought to represent a moral majority led by Christians. Ironic because it may be this particular element of Obama's identity, one needed to court different kinds of voters, that has now created the space for this controversy to even exist.
obama started it. lol.
as wright said, he wasn't going to let nobody talk about his mama and not eventually respond.
that said, most black folks i know yearn for a spiritual connection to their politics regardless of what the u.s. constitution says
Obama is a symbol. He isn't running as a culturally Black man. That has never been his intent. To align himself w/ Wright would allege that. Despite the absurdity of that--black man running for president disclaiming blackness--it is what it is. We can't as Black people make this Wright/ Obama into a simple identity politics binary. Hell yea, Obama is pandering to whites--they the majority of the democratic vote. If you want to win an election, there are insidious things you have to do. Chucking off your spiritual adviser whose views might be too culturally real for the majority of voters your attempting to swoon, so be it. That is the nature of politics. And yes, it is too much to ask for fidelity from politicians. Doesn't matter if he's black; in the arena of running for the presidency, he's going to underplay/undermine that as much as possible.
everyone has watched the speeches right?
the one at the naacp and at the national press club... in their entirety?
i assumed that, but reading over some of these comments, i'm starting to doubt that assumption.
another thing i think we should consider is this:
not all black people are civil rights fighters.
yet most black people will claim that as their political legacy.
so when i see these token pastors being interviewed in the today show and CNN saying "wright doesn't represent the array of black religious traditions" that there are in america...
it's misleading.
wright represents the black religious tradition as a member of it, not a dictator or total symbol of it.
just like martin luther king, malcolm x, harriet tubman, fannie lou hamer, kwame ture... were all very different in their action and manifestations, yet ALL represent ONE continuous legacy.
"everybody up in here who ain't an indian, do be an immigrant"
reverend wright's speech at the naacp event.
let's also remember that wright was INVITED to all of these events, including the bill moyers interview.
what's ironic is that Wright is talking about a more diverse coalition than Obama...
at the end of the naacp speech Wright is saying, Jews, Christians, Muslims (including Nation Of Islam), Blacks, Whites, Natives, Latinos, Asians, Radicals, Moderates, etc... "we can do it, a change is gonna come."
Change is going to come whether we like it or not. The issue at stake here is whether this second part of this controversy is going to determine whether Barack Obama is the nominee for Democrats or not.
"The issue at stake here is whether this second part of this controversy is going to determine whether Barack Obama is the nominee for Democrats or not."
not for me. as i said i could care less if this affects people's votes or not, dude is speaking truth to power -- with a black face. and he has a right to do so.
if america cannot elect a black president in the face of that, well then that's america's problem.
trust, i understand the "politics" of those wanting wright to shutup, but at this point i'm tired of worrying about tip toeing, i'll let obama worry about that.
that said, if obama makes it out of the primary, i'm voting for obama.
some interesting views:
http://www.theroot.com/id/46233
http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/articlelive/articles/40605/1/Guest-EditorialYes-Rev-Jeremiah-Wright-is-on-the-right-side-of-history/Page1.html
Let me ask something here... if Sen. Obama was raised by his white mother and their family... does that make culturally white, in your estimation?
honestly, i don't know, or care.
i truly mean no offense by putting it that way, i just don't know how better to say it.
in my eyes what i see is that obama joined a black church and stayed in it for years worshiping with a black community's spiritual tradition that he now seems to be denouncing.
but as this letter to the editor in the NYTimes says maybe he was "naiive"...
-----
Re “An Angry Obama Renounces Ties to His Ex-Pastor” (front page, April 30):
As a mixed-race black person whose story has been read by millions (“The Color of Water”), I have watched with angst and horror the unraveling of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and the old guard of angry African-Americans who support the Clintons and would deny our country a chance to right itself behind a leader of dignity, moral strength and intelligence.
Like Senator Obama, I was raised by a white woman. As a child and an adult, I have lived in many of the same places that Senator Obama has lived in — that tight space between white and black America. Luckily for me, however, I was raised in the black church.
I think the senator was naïve about the black church. He came to it relatively late in life. He was betrayed by a smooth-talking preacher whose recent behavior is a clear example of how low the black church has sunk in the days after the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It is heartbreaking.
The senator is not the first nor the last to suffer this kind of injustice. But if he loses the Democratic nomination because of it, the injustice will have been served on us all.
James McBride
New York, April 30, 2008
what's even deeper to me is black folks professing that Wright is racist...
http://www.theroot.com/id/46303
As-salaam alaykum Achali
Hotep
I placed that post to point out that Jeremiah Wright has always lectured on the historic basis of the African origin of the church. I included the Vatican statements, acknowledging the origin, to back up what Rev. Wright (Dr. Finch, Delany, and Rev. Johnnie Coleman) had to say.
Aho, Mangadem
got chu. i got that gist... it was just sooo long... lol
Post a Comment