Posted by codeunknown:

Its unfortunate but not surprising that the article underestimates the intelligence of Wright's detractors, whether they be black, white, asian, hispanic etc. And lets be clear that his detractors are not just white. Those folks are mad at Wright, or should be mad at Wright, not because he spoke out against American foreign policy, which has been flawed far before 9/11.

They should be mad at Wright because he claimed, without further clarifying, that the government "purposely infected African American men with syphilis" and that "the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against people of color."; he distorted the truth for inflammatory rhetorical effect in a manner that, rather than educating his audience of real obstacles, antagonizes them without purpose. By never discussing the aftermath of Tuskeegee, a rather dramatic regulation of scientific research, he constructs a singularly evil image of white government, with which compromise seems far-fetched, and entertains the implication that Tuskeegee type healthcare violations may still be widespread. In other words, he opens old wounds and leaves them open to be "infected" by ideas of stereotyping, irreconcilable difference and revenge.

I have adressed this point, he misspoke about the Tuskegee experiment, as did I, but what the gov't did is no less nefarious. Even after a cure was developed, black men were used as guinea pigs, to see how the disease spread and the effects it had on the body while living and after death; while they were denied treatment, and not even notified that they had the disease so they could at least protect their wives and children!! These are the exact types of things the Nazis did. This is not something easily glossed over, and the fact that the majority of Americans dont know it is a problem. It is a part of the reason Americans are so delusional and get so offended when they hear something negative about the country, they have been shielded from the truth. The black community has rarely had the luxury of not knowing many of these things, because so often we were the victims of these things. I wrote papers on this in school. The fact the Rev' Wright mispoke about exactly what happened in NO WAY overstates what actually did happen. The truth itself is damning. Did you know about this prior to his speech?

I think it was irresponsible to talk about the HIV theory when there is not proof to support the claim, I've said that before. But i don't think he said this to make his congregation hate white people. Its crazy how everything that anyone says publicly that is bad about our experience in this country, is always treated as somebody trying to make black people hate white people. I think he said it because he believes it to be true.

They should be mad that Wright states unabashedly that he knows "what’s going on in white America, the US of 'KKK' A" because, this time, he deliberately exaggerates the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy, this time grouping not just "rich, white people" but seemingly a majority of white Americans with a cult that calls for the elimination of African Americans.

Honestly, and with respect and humility, I have to tell you as my knick brother, that in general, white people are in no position to say the Rev. is exaggerating the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy. What you are saying implies that you know and understand what black people go through in this country, and that is simply not true. The average white person truly has very little idea about what the current state of racism is in this country; and this is our most critical source of misunderstanding.

What you are saying is the equivalent of me saying Gay people are overstating the pervasiveness of anti-gay sentiment in society. How would I know that? What do I know about what its like to be a gay man in this society? This is the key aspect of the problem. How would a white person really know what kind of time black people are having? This is the question I have been asking over and over again and its never been answered. How does a white man, come to know much of anything about how prevalent racism is in a predominantly white society? I really need an answer to this question because this question gets at the heart of the misunderstanding between whites and blacks.

[these are questions not of you specifically but in general to all of the white guys reading this to think about and hopefully respond to, and I ask seriously with respect, I'm not mad or anything like that, I am just sharing my perspective and I'd like to hear some responses.]

How would a white man know what it was like to be a black male during the Giuliani era? Or what its like to be a black man and deal with the police and have your rights violated so blatantly and so often? Or be black at a job when something ends up missing? Or what its like trying to get a job or an apartment when all of the people who determine your fate are white and are often prejudiced against you before you say a word? How would you know what its like to have friends who did long stretches in prison for a crimes they didn't commit, because they were poor and black and cops knew they could get a conviction? How would you get a sense for how often that happens? How would you know what it is like to be non-white in a majority white society? Do you not see the arrogance in the assumption that you know these things when it is so obvious to those of us who do know, that you do not? This is where the anger comes in. Because I have said all of these things many times before, and essentially what happens is this is treated is if it is untrue or does not matter. It is ignored. It isnt a part of the white experience so I think you guys just ignore it.

And this has been the trend in this society. America has gone from denying that racism exists, to stating its over, all without ever acknowledging it in the present. And more importantly, what the average white person views as racism, is bigotry and prejudice. WHat the average black person understands racism to be, is a system of discrimination where they have unequal access to housing, education, jobs, healthcare, etc, because of their race. It isn't someone calling you nigger, its society treating you like one, institutions treating you like one.

Bear in mind that this fabrication has striking similarities to the generalization that black people are, as a whole, violent and misogenistic because of a few high profile rappers; this flavor of argument has almost unanimously and, rightfully so, been rejected by posters here. Needless to say, racism exists and, in many forms, but, by failing on every occasion to mention that not all white share this malice, his efforts strain a discoure with what appears to be the irrational, unyielding and violent "KKK" opposition.

First, the critical difference between Rev' Wright and the stereotypes you mention, is that Wright said this in a church with a few thousand people and the racist remarks against blacks can be found all up and down talk radio and all over many TV and print media. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and many many others promote the most rabid, virulent racist stereotypes imaginable, and they get paid millions of dollars to do it. Everytime white posters try to equate anti-white sentiment with anti-black sentiment it falls on its face. The nation of Islam is not the Klan or the Nazis. Rev. is not FOX news, he is not the media empire of a racist like Rupert Murdoch, he is not a media superstar, he is one black preacher who no one would have ever heard from if an excerpt of his speech could not be used to smear a presidential candidate. There simply is no comparison. Mainstream people promote stereotypes. Imus has been doing that for years, the media just seized on it this time, and I dont know why, there are people making more sophisticated, but no less racist remarks like that on the airwaves every single day and tens of millions of white people are enjoying it with no moral outrage.

Secondly, when Rev. Wright says AmeriKKKa, we understand this in different ways. If I ask you is this a racist country, I dont know what you'll say. But if you ask me I will laugh. I will laugh because what you are asking is, to me, so obvious, so apparent, so glaring and obtrusive, it would be hard for me to take the question seriously. THis is a racist country, and by that I do not mean everyone in the country is racist. The average white person thinks of racism as prejudice or bigotry. The average black person, whether they can articulate this or not, understands racism to be prevalent on an institutional level. Take this excerpt as a better explanation, written by Tim Wise, one of the preeminent anti-racist intellectuals, who is white btw:

While most persons of color conceptualize racism as an issue of structural injustice, whites often seem to view it as nothing more than a personality flaw, present in only a small handful of especially damaged individuals, and hardly worth worrying about in the larger social sense...More recently, with high-profile cases of individual bigotry surfacing, as in the examples of actor/comedian, Michael Richards and radio personality, Don Imus, the nation's awareness of individual level racism has been raised yet again. But at the same time that these men's personal biases were made visible to anyone with a television, the media was almost entirely ignoring the persistent evidence of racism as an institutional phenomenon. So there was no coverage, nationally, of the report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to the effect that 2006 had witnessed the highest level of housing discrimination complaints in recorded history. Nor had there been any national coverage of, or outrage over, the 2004 study in a respected medical journal, which noted that between 1991 and 2000, there had been nearly one million African Americans who had died, who wouldn't have died, had they merely had health care equal to that of their white counterparts. Though persons of color are painfully aware of these structural injustices, whites are largely oblivious, convinced that individual bad people are the problem to be solved..."

None of this is surprising to me, because the media, like the country, is owned and controlled by rich white men. That people saw a similar remark from Wright as controversial truly boggles my mind. Is it not true?

So when you continue on with the notion that

real oppression does not need to be "pointed out"...

this again implies that you, and the nation, for that matter, are as aware of our strugles as we are. You are saying in essense, as a nation, we 'get it'. Which, of course, is simply not the case, at all. Furthermore, you go on in your paragraph to interpret Wrights remarks as some kind of a call for a race war in society, and I'll go on record and say wholeheartedly thats not what he said, nor is it what he meant. (lets get the actual remarks if you care to delve into this further) Black people, in general, see this society as racist, and as something that needs to be fought to be improved. This figthing is political. It is the same kind of fighting Dr. King did, Malcolm X did, Medgar Evers did, Paul Robeson did. Those were people who fought, and when he is admonishing black men to stop fighting each other and fight their true enemy, he means the people in the seats of power who are allowing injustices to carry on. He also means regular people who are indifferent, who passively support whats going on. This fighting is political, and if you want to interpret it as violence, thats on you, but I think thats a gross mis characterization. Perhaps it sounds different to your ears, and maybe you need some kind of disclaimer in his speech that says, oh I dont mean all white people, but thats what he means; its very clear to me that hes not calling for a race war. The handful of organizations of black people who are organized and are anti-white, are fringe groups, very small, pretty crazy and are more of a threat to their own well-being than they are to white people; and they don't have a large following in the black community.

Most black people do in fact, see racism as an intrinsic part of this country. White people do not. But what is so ironic to me is, white people have NEVER seen it as we saw it. This country went from denying it exists, to saying its over with; without ever seeing or acknowledging institutionalized, systemic racism in the present tense. In general, dont you find it amazing that throughout history so many, otherwise inteligent, dynamic, sensitive and caring white people, are anything but, when the topic of racism in America is broached.

Wright shows a refusal to accommodate even minimal compromise and, hence, sermon after sermon, reinforces his monopoly of thought on African Americans, from impressionable children to senior citizens rooted in his line of thinking, who may otherwise have had a more realistic and optimistic racial outlook.

Wright has a monopoly of thought on African Americans? LOL Surely you jest. And you, as a white man are in a position to determine that black people are being robbed of a more realistic racial outlook? Again I have to ask, (and this is all in the spirit of debate and understanding truly so please dont take this any other way) how would you have any real idea what a realistic racial outlook is? As a member of the dominant group, what gives you a vantage point from which to make such a strong statement? As I have pointed out, this country has NEVER had a realistic outlook on race, NEVER.

The excuse of church hyperbole is not in the least mitigating just as Imus's comedy excuse falls flat. It should be clear that Wright is more influential to his listeners than Imus is to his casual early morning listeners looking for gossip and a good laugh. Just as Imus’s “nappy headed hos” comment required only slight inference to surmise underlying racist bias, Wright’s religious and historical comments are quite straight forward; moreover, while Imus apologized, Wright intractably stands by his racism. The bottom line remains I slammed Imus before and Wright deserves an even greater indictment. I expect a similar, consistent standard from others.

I'll end saying this, he never says anywhere or implies that he hates white people and I dont see anywhere in any of his remarks anything that could be classified as racist. You drew your conclusions about him being racist by reaching and implying and interpreting in order to see racism. I see anger, but I dont see hatred. I saw him being critical of society in a way that is totally consistent with my life experiences. I dont expect you to see it as I do, because you have not experienced it as I have. But I do expect you to not presuppose you know whats best for my community, when it is obvious, in spite of how well-written your post is, that you do not have a firm grasp on racism in this society.

Let me end saying please, please, PLEASE do not take offense to anything I have written. I am trying to be direct about what I am saying while also being respectful, but I know in a charged topic such as this, it is easy to misinterpret intent. Trust me when I say, I do this because I think we all have something to learn from each other, and that part of the reason whites and blacks see things so differently is because there hasn't been enough dialog. And I'm sorry for rambling.


[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-27-2008 12:17 AM]

Killa, I very much appreciate the respect that you show. Hopefully, I can be as respectful and direct (and I will have to be direct because I have all of 20 minutes to address the entirety of your post). It is incredibly disappointing to me that you begin your argument with an assumption about my race and my lack of perspective. This is such an egregious blunder on your part that the bulk of your argument crumbles almost instantaneously. We have also had this conversation before. Let me state explicitly that your assumption about my color is, in every way, false. And, there starts a series of misguided assumptions on your part. Before I go on, I'm not sure how to interpret your statement about me "presupposing to know whats best for your community" because 1) I'm not sure what specifically the differences are between our communities and 2) because I haven't made any specific recommendations for your community. My argument, in totality, is that Wright's comments have been divisive and racist and that he deserves reprimand.

In short, I think you make a series of stock, "straw man" arguments. Here are the highlights. First of all, to answer your question, I knew about the details if the Tuskegee tragedy before Wright even began preaching. More to the point, your analysis of simply whether or not he overstated the crimes is incomplete. I was never concerned that he discussed Tuskegee and was angry about it. I'm concerned about the implications of conveying a provocative, yet incomplete truth. And I'm concerned that he does this deliberately.

Moving on, I know clearly that institutional racism in America exists: yet, you go on, at length, about this as if its a revelation. Your statement that blacks typically have not had access to this information is valid; the unfortunate irony here is that this is precisely why my "monopoly of thought" argument is so strong. Not a monopoly on all African Americans, as you mischaracterized. But, certainly, a strong influence to many that are deprived of other, more accurate sources of history. To reitterate, they are now deluded to an extreme, without a clear concept of how they should combat the real racism that occurs every day.

And, on that topic, you've misinterpreted what I think Wright wants his audience to do: its not violence, although a quick glance at his rhetoric might lead one to entertain that. Instead, its a refusal to appreciate an evolving racial climate, a refusal to enter a discourse until a redemption of Biblical proportions, and a refusal to incorporate dissenting black Americans. Of course, I agree that Wright wants a political "fight" against the perpetrators of injustice but I think you're naive if you think the implications of Wright knowing "whats going on in white America, the US of KKKA," end there. To address this, you can't continue talking about racism in a vacuum, ignoring the ubiquity and severity of racism that has been suggested. Even if this is a "racist country," it remains impossible to argue that the white segment of United States, at large, is working singulary to the end of African American elimination. The way one tackles each of those situations, separated by many orders of magnitude, is entirely different. Very likely, this delusion is what frames Wright's forever broken discourse.

In summary, I think that you have a firm grasp of the nature of racism in this country, but a catastrophically weak interpretation of Wright's comments. Maybe reading my previous post again, without your opening bias, will help bridge our differences in opinion.

Posted by playa2:

We are in the 6th rd of the UK Payperview down goes codeunknown, down goes codeunknown. I guess his handlers didn't put enough water in his bottle....no stamina

you missed the last round. There was a swing and a miss.

Then on the other hand... and back to Obama and Social Networks

"In the days after Mr. Obama’s speech on race last week, for example, links to the transcript and the video were the most popular items posted on Facebook. On The New York Times’s Web site, the transcript of the speech ranked consistently higher on the most e-mailed list than the articles written about the speech.

______

Thankfully, the conversation is being held in places other than the patently biased closed-set studios of Fox and Friends.

_______

Although some college seniors may say they learned about Mr. Obama’s speech about race on CNN, more are likely to have seen it on YouTube, where it has been viewed almost 3.4 million times, or on Facebook, where it remains among the most shared links.

Candidates are capitalizing on this social development, and so are their supporters. A youth-minded music video called “Yes We Can” has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary. A musical version of Mr. Obama’s campaign speech made by the singer will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and a bevy of celebrities, it was released on YouTube three days before the series of coast-to-coast nominating contests on Feb. 5. Counting hits on YouTube and other sites, the video has been viewed more than 17 million times."

- NYTimes

It's Only Basketball

Haskins, who along with Dwight Smith in 1963 were the first African-Americans to play basketball for the university, recalled not being able to eat in segregated restaurants and watching movies from the balconies of theaters because seats in the lower sections were reserved for whites. Jim McDaniels, another black player, went to Western Kentucky in 1967 and recalled the former Kentucky Coach Adolph Rupp’s halfhearted recruitment of him, which included spending just 15 awkward minutes with Rupp in the six days he spent in Lexington. The Southeastern Conference did not integrate until 1966, and Kentucky did not integrate until 1969.

No code, people don't know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/sports/ncaabasketball/27western.html?ref=sports

Oldham said before that season a member of the university’s board of regents approached him and coarsely asked if he was going to start five black players.

When Oldham confirmed he was, the board member said he would stop going to games.

Posted by misterearl:

For his carefully edited 15-30 seconds bytes to be more impactful than 400 years of institutionally-supported acts of segregation and violence against Black people in all areas of American culture ... (ALL areas of American culture, including professional sports)

... Rev Jeremiah Wright must be the most powerful man in the United States

he must be stopped

Who claimed Wright's comments were more powerful than 400 years of history? This is the wrong time and thread to be posting snippets of distortion, Earl. I'd almost prefer that you pretend I went down in the 6th round of a phantom fight, a "fight" in which the truth is that I've used kid gloves and that I've yet to be nicked.

Hillary Clinton’s pastor, Dean J. Snyder of Foundry United Methodist Church, gave the following quote on March 19th:

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.”

To the posters above and on other threads who keep perpetuating this story, please stop this smear tactic. Hopefully you will take the time to reflect on this message.

As far as I'm concerned America is just as evil, and unjust, or more, as it is good, and I premise that upon it's history, it's present actions, and my experience living within it as a black American.

Anyone who can witness the response to Katrina's black and the poor populations, during and after, the storm; with the mass displacement of black people; the seizing of black property; and offering it to wealthy developers; or placing black and poor people into toxic trailers; where people are being actually poisoned; without adequate health care resources; the hiring of foreign mercenary forces; to patrol New Orleans black neighborhoods, with M-16's; and believe Wright's sermon is so offensive, is either in denial, complicit...or both.

I can't wait until November so I can cast my vote against Rev Wright wait.... He's not running for office so I guess I'll just have to throw in the group with the rest of the religious quacks that have association with political figures.

Codeunknown what reprimand would you be speaking of, because last time I checked freedom of speech or even better seperation of church and state regardless of how much a person may disagree with it is not against any laws.

Posted by bitty41:

I can't wait until November so I can cast my vote against Rev Wright wait.... He's not running for office so I guess I'll just have to throw in the group with the rest of the religious quacks that have association with political figures.

Codeunknown what reprimand would you be speaking of, because last time I checked freedom of speech or even better seperation of church and state regardless of how much a person may disagree with it is not against any laws.

correct me if I am wrong, but I think Code was speaking about race relations and not about how Rev Wright played out in the political arena.