There's one thing about Obama that really does worry me, and it isn't his association with Rev Wright.

It's his continual references to being tough because he's from Chicago.

Isiah is the last guy I want my President to remind me of...

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

For ya info, Kenya is going to be in any conversation about HIV/AIDS because they r always in the top 2 or 3 in cases.....in the world! They have stories of connections to US scientists. Talk to THEM! Then when u hear their stories tell them they r liars. I am not prepared to do so. I have heard people out and I consider it.

I never said Dr Wright's comments were good. Nor did I say I agree. I have been trying to get to the bottom of how it's RACIST when he's just agreeing with some data that has been put out there.....and the people who put it out there aren't (based on your theory).

I thought your point in bringing up the biblical story was to prove that Wright's point was that the black race is superior. That was my question and that was your come back. I'm still trying to understand that. As far as good and evil....so what you are saying is it's ok to say a good man vs a bad man. But when their race or ethnicity is brought up it becomes racist? How about the story where the bible refers to the battle between the ISRAELITES and the EGYPTIANS? Am I to understand that it's racist to actually make mention of their ethnicity when speaking of this? It is what it is. We cannot re-write history to make it more "politically correct"

Its too bad you cant specifically describe the Kenyan stories. I would have loved to hear them.

With regard to why Wright's comments are dangerous and racist, I don't think I can belabor the point any further. It should be obvious and your surprise strikes me as a bit disingenuous. So, just as you did a few posts ago, I'm going to ask you, in all sincerity, to stop working so hard to miss the point and connect the dots.

The London Times

March 23, 2008
Barack Obama dares to speak the truth about race
Andrew Sullivan

The candidacy of Barack Obama has already given us many memorable campaign moments, but last week’s Philadelphia address struck me as more than that. It was the most honest speech about race in America that any leading politician has given in my lifetime. It was a shockingly brave speech – the first real test of what this man does under pressure and under fire. It was also, I think, an authentically Christian speech, inexplicable without Christian theology.

Its most surprising aspect was Obama’s simple blank refusal to disown his controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright, who claimed in sermons that the United States had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself and asked African-Americans to sing “God damn America”.

In electoral politics, if someone associated with you has said something stupid or ugly or extremist, the golden rule is to “reject and denounce” him or her immediately and move on. Obama’s decision to face this head-on and actually use the moment to give a speech that spoke of racial complexity – of the legitimacy of white racial grievance as well as of historical black bitterness – sets him apart from many other politicians.

He was not trying to appeal to one constituency over another. He was actually trying to start a conversation – a perilous conversation – that might either kill his candidacy or make it more significant than any since Ronald Reagan’s.

He placed Wright in a historical context. He invoked William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” He spoke to the American public as if they were adults, aware of their country’s tortured racial history. While he didn’t excuse – and, indeed, clearly and explicitly condemned some of Wright’s toxic racial claptrap – he also refused to ignore the fact that the black church has a history of intemperate fulmination, as well as surpassing beauty and emotion.

He reminded us that Wright and Obama belong to a multiracial and mainly white Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ (at least now the rumours about Obama being a Muslim may die down). Wright’s colourful speaking style stems from a long tradition of prophetic, angry sermonising. Let me offer an example from another such preacher: “God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place . . . [God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.”

That was Martin Luther King in February 1968. His sermon was about Vietnam. Today in America it would be regarded by many as treasonous. This kind of rhetoric is more mainstream within the black church than many whites understand and Wright, when you listen to his full sermons, is often much more sophisticated than the soundbites sometimes suggest.

So Obama trod a complicated path last week, decrying Wright’s apparent disbelief in the self-correction of the American experiment while also trying to explain where that argument comes from: slavery, Jim Crow, centuries of cruelty and humiliation. He invoked the self-confessed racism of his white grandmother and spoke of the sometimes bigoted discourse in African-America’s barbershop subculture. He was not merely being white and black; he was being ghetto black and Ivy League black, upscale black and downscale black, middle-class black and underclass black.

This is the core of Obama’s relationship to his own race. He understands that the ease of pure victimology is as phoney as the release of complete assimilation. Think of other leading black Americans: Condoleezza Rice, a black woman who grew up in the maelstrom of the civil rights movement in the South, who was nonetheless protected from it by her parents and taught classical piano while other black girls were being killed by bombs, and who barely ever invokes her race. Or take Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court justice utterly defined by race and his anger at white liberals for condescension and affirmative action. Or Al Sharpton, a man for whom black grievance almost always obliterates any empathy with white resentment. Or think of a complicated black conservative like the nuanced and sophisticated author Shelby Steele, who has nonetheless sought occasional refuge as the token conservative black man in various right-wing media outlets. I don’t mean to overly criticise any of them. It’s tough.

Between denying your difference as a minority and embracing it as totally defining of yourself, there is a world of treacherous and difficult tension. But for an intelligent and principled person, the struggle always lies in the interstices. I relate to this a little as a homosexual. I neither want to be totally defined by my gay identity, but nor do I want to deny it. I don’t want to be imprisoned by victimology, but nor do I want to disown those of my fellow gays who do indeed suffer as victims for reasons they cannot change or help.

This is the tough road that Obama has pursued. I would think much, much less of him if he had never opened himself to the black urban subculture and its fears, hopes and resentments, while also being a Harvard Law Review president and intellectual of the first order. He married a black American woman in part to reconnect with an American black experience from which he had been cut off by his own multicultural, multi-national, biracial past. It’s all there in his first autobiography, explained and unearthed with painful candour.

Did he overlook too much of Wright’s racial extremism? Did his white guilt prevent him from protesting? Perhaps. Some Chicago political posturing may have also played a part. But it is important to note that he did not merely sit back; he also dedicated his career to racial integration and understanding. Few politicians have been as dedicated to racial integration as Obama and to tie him to racial separatists because of a few sermons at his church is simply unfair.

It was a wide bridge, to be sure, perhaps too wide for the weight that it is now bearing. And maybe America is not ready for this bridge, for these contradictions, for this complexity. We will find out soon enough.

So we are suspended between the old racial politics and a new form: between Hillary Clinton who believes in her heart that America is not ready, and may never be ready, for this leap and should therefore adopt a politics that assumes the ineradicability of this racial and cultural gulf and the need to disguise it and play cynical defence – and an Obama who offers the chance to see that sometimes authentic identity requires an element of contradiction, a bridging of the resentful, angry past and a more complex, integrated future.

He may fail and the Clintons may be proven right. But he may also succeed – and what a mighty success that would be.

Posted by misterearl:

The London Times

March 23, 2008
Barack Obama dares to speak the truth about race
Andrew Sullivan

The candidacy of Barack Obama has already given us many memorable campaign moments, but last week’s Philadelphia address struck me as more than that. It was the most honest speech about race in America that any leading politician has given in my lifetime. It was a shockingly brave speech – the first real test of what this man does under pressure and under fire. It was also, I think, an authentically Christian speech, inexplicable without Christian theology.

Its most surprising aspect was Obama’s simple blank refusal to disown his controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright, who claimed in sermons that the United States had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself and asked African-Americans to sing “God damn America”.

In electoral politics, if someone associated with you has said something stupid or ugly or extremist, the golden rule is to “reject and denounce” him or her immediately and move on. Obama’s decision to face this head-on and actually use the moment to give a speech that spoke of racial complexity – of the legitimacy of white racial grievance as well as of historical black bitterness – sets him apart from many other politicians.

He was not trying to appeal to one constituency over another. He was actually trying to start a conversation – a perilous conversation – that might either kill his candidacy or make it more significant than any since Ronald Reagan’s.

He placed Wright in a historical context. He invoked William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” He spoke to the American public as if they were adults, aware of their country’s tortured racial history. While he didn’t excuse – and, indeed, clearly and explicitly condemned some of Wright’s toxic racial claptrap – he also refused to ignore the fact that the black church has a history of intemperate fulmination, as well as surpassing beauty and emotion.

He reminded us that Wright and Obama belong to a multiracial and mainly white Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ (at least now the rumours about Obama being a Muslim may die down). Wright’s colourful speaking style stems from a long tradition of prophetic, angry sermonising. Let me offer an example from another such preacher: “God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place . . . [God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.”

That was Martin Luther King in February 1968. His sermon was about Vietnam. Today in America it would be regarded by many as treasonous. This kind of rhetoric is more mainstream within the black church than many whites understand and Wright, when you listen to his full sermons, is often much more sophisticated than the soundbites sometimes suggest.

So Obama trod a complicated path last week, decrying Wright’s apparent disbelief in the self-correction of the American experiment while also trying to explain where that argument comes from: slavery, Jim Crow, centuries of cruelty and humiliation. He invoked the self-confessed racism of his white grandmother and spoke of the sometimes bigoted discourse in African-America’s barbershop subculture. He was not merely being white and black; he was being ghetto black and Ivy League black, upscale black and downscale black, middle-class black and underclass black.

This is the core of Obama’s relationship to his own race. He understands that the ease of pure victimology is as phoney as the release of complete assimilation. Think of other leading black Americans: Condoleezza Rice, a black woman who grew up in the maelstrom of the civil rights movement in the South, who was nonetheless protected from it by her parents and taught classical piano while other black girls were being killed by bombs, and who barely ever invokes her race. Or take Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court justice utterly defined by race and his anger at white liberals for condescension and affirmative action. Or Al Sharpton, a man for whom black grievance almost always obliterates any empathy with white resentment. Or think of a complicated black conservative like the nuanced and sophisticated author Shelby Steele, who has nonetheless sought occasional refuge as the token conservative black man in various right-wing media outlets. I don’t mean to overly criticise any of them. It’s tough.

Between denying your difference as a minority and embracing it as totally defining of yourself, there is a world of treacherous and difficult tension. But for an intelligent and principled person, the struggle always lies in the interstices. I relate to this a little as a homosexual. I neither want to be totally defined by my gay identity, but nor do I want to deny it. I don’t want to be imprisoned by victimology, but nor do I want to disown those of my fellow gays who do indeed suffer as victims for reasons they cannot change or help.

This is the tough road that Obama has pursued. I would think much, much less of him if he had never opened himself to the black urban subculture and its fears, hopes and resentments, while also being a Harvard Law Review president and intellectual of the first order. He married a black American woman in part to reconnect with an American black experience from which he had been cut off by his own multicultural, multi-national, biracial past. It’s all there in his first autobiography, explained and unearthed with painful candour.

Did he overlook too much of Wright’s racial extremism? Did his white guilt prevent him from protesting? Perhaps. Some Chicago political posturing may have also played a part. But it is important to note that he did not merely sit back; he also dedicated his career to racial integration and understanding. Few politicians have been as dedicated to racial integration as Obama and to tie him to racial separatists because of a few sermons at his church is simply unfair.

It was a wide bridge, to be sure, perhaps too wide for the weight that it is now bearing. And maybe America is not ready for this bridge, for these contradictions, for this complexity. We will find out soon enough.

So we are suspended between the old racial politics and a new form: between Hillary Clinton who believes in her heart that America is not ready, and may never be ready, for this leap and should therefore adopt a politics that assumes the ineradicability of this racial and cultural gulf and the need to disguise it and play cynical defence – and an Obama who offers the chance to see that sometimes authentic identity requires an element of contradiction, a bridging of the resentful, angry past and a more complex, integrated future.

He may fail and the Clintons may be proven right. But he may also succeed – and what a mighty success that would be.

For those who just refuse to "get it" neeeeeeeeeed to read that. That's really all that can be said at his point. Sad.

Posted by codeunknown:


So then you'd agree with me that that its quite disappointing that Wright would stoop to lies in order to dupe his audience into a false enmity?

Its quite a leap of logic to go from

1) x person said something which i believe is false, or which hasn't been proven to be true.
to
2) x person is purposefully lying to create hatred against (I assume) white people.

If you are asking me if I agree with #2, flatly no. I have no reason to believe that those are his intentions. Tell me how you arrived at that conclusion.

Posted by codeunknown:

In short, I have to assume that Wright is educated enough to know how bizarre his comments were. Even a glimmer of caution should have stopped him from parading that nonsense; it falls into one of 2 categories, either stupendous ignorance or malicious manipulation. When making that kind of accusation, you better be 100% sure you know what you're talking about. Inciting a false hatred of that magnitude ranks up there with the highest of sins.

Sorry I just saw this. His statements regarding HIV were unfounded, but not what I would call bizarre. In the black comunity, so many atrocities have been committed by the gov't against us, that there is greater leeway when theorizing about the gov'ts role in a nefarious conspiracy. Whites, in general, are exactly the opposite, because they have not had the gov't commit crimes against them because of their race, and when confronted with instances when the gov't has done this other, its usually treated as some one-off incident as opposed to a systematic thing. So we have 2 different perspectives. Furthermore, I never even heard Rev. Wrights remarks about HIV here so I'm just responding to what I think he said.

Lastly, it always gets boiled down to someone hating white people. For decades anytime any black person spoke up and showed any anger or dissatisfaction with the gov't or the current state of affairs, the message is boiled down to: "they hate white people; they're hat mongers". IT only gets boiled down to that, because so often, few take time to listen to the very real and legitimate grievances that are being made. No one makes an honest attempt to understand what these people are so mad about. And then only halfway listen when they see a black man mad.

Rev. Wright is a religous person, and as an atheist, I expect him to say some things I disagree with. I expect him to be theatrical and use hyperbole. I expect him to sound angry at times, and sound like hes singing at other times. Thats what going to a black church is all about. SO nothing he said particularly excited more or disturbed me. He's off about HIV, but so are many preachers off about a great many things, like evolution for instance. Its not a big deal to me, and I can't figure out why it is to you, unless you are convinced hes trying to make his congregation hate white people. I dont see it.

Posted by martin:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Rev. Wright is a religous person, and as an atheist, I expect him to say some things I disagree with. I expect him to be theatrical and use hyperbole. I expect him to sound angry at times, and sound like hes singing at other times. Thats what going to a black church is all about. SO nothing he said particularly excited more or disturbed me. He's off about HIV, but so are many preachers off about a great many things, like evolution for instance. Its not a big deal to me, and I can't figure out why it is to you, unless you are convinced hes trying to make his congregation hate white people. I dont see it.

Perhaps I don't understand the perspective. Could a person/poster sub the name Rev. Wright with Imus and his dumbass comments and come to a similar conclution? That "Its not a big deal to me, and I can't figure out why it is to you, unless you are convinced hes trying to make his congregation hate white people. I dont see it." ? And would you agree with that poster?

Totally different. Wright's sermon pointied out oppression. American oppression. The type of oppression the Roman government used against Jesus and his contemporaries. The type of oppression that still exists today in the world. The type of oppression that America used (and continues to use) against it's own people as well as people abroad. Whether or not you agree with the examples and whether or not he is right about his examples is one thing. On the other hand one cannot deny it's consistency with other past and current incidents that have been commited. One must admit that the type of oppression that he speaks of exists (even when it comes to the devious misuse of science). Imus made degrading remarks. He had no evidence that these women were whores. He didn't even have a situation where there were at least pictures he saw....nothing! He actually called them out of their name. Also, to say kinky hair is one way to explain a texture but "nappy" is an insult no matter who is saying it. There, on the other hand, is TONS of evidence of America's ongoing oppression. Perhaps his view on HIV is off. I don't think anyone here is saying they agree with these scientist's theory. Apparently Wright is sold on it. But this is to answer your question about what his intensions were (to point out this type of oppression). And also Imus and Wright r different.



[Edited by - theloniusmonk on 03-24-2008 6:36 PM]

[Edited by - theloniusmonk on 03-24-2008 6:43 PM]

I haven't read this thread very carefully, but if the point of Obama speech was to talk about race relations, then I am willing to oblige.

I think the black race problems in this country stem from the fact that they were "not willing" participants in this experiment. People generally come to this country for opportunity and they essentially "opt in" to the experiment. Low land prices and opportunity have attracted a number of immigrants who just wanted a chance to suceed and were very willing to work for it. Numerous immigrant groups have come to this country and moved up. You have to ask the question, why hasn't the african american population moved up in the same way? IQ studies show the african american population scoring 20 points lower than the white population. I find it hard to believe that natural selection would make white people smarter than black people. Before you can solve the problem you need to understand it.

I think the problem is mainly based on two things:

1.) Diet-Our current diet is loaded in carbohydrates. However, agriculture is a recent development in the history of mankind. This high level of carbohydrate is not necessarily being tolerated by a lot of minority populations like the african americans and the native american indians. Europeans have been eating higher level of carbs for years, so some natural selection has occurred in these populations. This diet is newer for the african americans. Some do fine with it, and become great althletes. Others can't tolerate it and it is hurting them. It doesn't help that carbs are cheap, which makes it a bigger problem for poorer individuals. The problem gets exacerbated, by mother's passing it on to their children making them more sensitive to carbs and the resulting energy inbalance that occurs. Most fat people aren't fat cause they are lazy. They are lazy because they can't handle the carbs, and this creates an energy imbalance. If you think people weigh 300 pounds(white or black) cause they are just lazy, you are just wrong. In practice, Atkins has given his diet to millions of Americans, however, his recommendations were mostly based on empirical evidence. More recently, Gary Taubes has wrote a book on the subject, which eloquently explains all the scientific studies that exist and how carbs are the real problem in our diet. There is a lot of bad science out there, and we hear new things every day about diet. However, Taubes is a hard science guy, and his analytical reasoning skills are superb. He is giving you the top of the line information.

The problem as far as IQ is partly based on this. If people don't have the energy to read and learn new things they will not test as well and they will not do as well in the academic environment. They are more likely to just sit on the couch and watch tv. A better diet would help bridge the iq gap.

2. Personality distribution. Different environments have preferred certain personalities to be more prevalent among people who come from different areas. IF you are familar with mbti personality analysis(and left brain right brain stuff), the best way to explain it is that the african american population is shifted toward extraverted sensing. They tend to simply be more right brained and more adept at certain tasks. They tend to be better at things like athletics, music, dance, etc, that make use of a different part of the brain then the dominant white majority. However, these are not the academic jobs.

This gets significant when it comes to values and discrimination. Generally speaking more left brained individuals tend to have stronger memories which influence their values. Their values tend to reflect this. They are very concerned about the past, as opposed to the moment. They tend to be more concerned about what people think about them as opposed to thier current desires at the moment. This personality shift is a large part of the reason why white people fear black people. They don't understand why, but they have scene enough to understand a difference.

That all being said, I think this difference will eventually subside. The growing hispanic population is also shifted toward extraverted sensing, and this country is changing at the moment. We are going to be more a people of singing and dancing and less a people of technology. I think this problem will eventually go away, but not because of programs like affirmative action. It will go away because their will be a lot more people who are "like" the black population that have been in the past.

I hope you guys understand when you read this I am talking about distributions and not the individual. Every single individual is different.

That being said, I would like a president with a real plan for the economy. At the moment, this does not exist and this is a real problem considering we are entering a more competitive world.

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.