Really? How is it possible to address the racist rants of a pastor whom you have "Not once ... heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect"? If you've never heard such statements from the pastor, what part of the pastor's statements would you address?
Videos of Obama's Mentor
- Thread starter G19_Owner
- Start date
Here's one from Obama posted on the Huffington Post on March 14, 2008:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.
Then there was the one from his speech today:Not once in my conversations with him [Wright] have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.
He has claimed and continues to claim he wasn't even aware of these rants.So you're not aware of the rants about the CIA putting drugs into the black community to destroy blacks, that the government invented HIV to destroy blacks, and white America perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks? In my book, claiming that white America is trying to destroy blacks is pretty disparaging of whites.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
SecDef
Thanks for the link to the speech.
It is a good speech but I still think it falls a bit short. It came across to me as a "I am a very good person who survived a very hard upbringing" but does not address the actual topic.
He still denies ever hearing such statements from his pastor, which I just don't buy.
The rest of his speech comes off to me as "Yeah, he is inappropriate, but what am I supposed to do about it...he is like family." He does not cite any examples of what he has done to address his friends anger. He denies knowing it was there. It is obviously there and if Obama never noticed it he is either too self absorbed or is lying.
Thanks for the link to the speech.
It is a good speech but I still think it falls a bit short. It came across to me as a "I am a very good person who survived a very hard upbringing" but does not address the actual topic.
He still denies ever hearing such statements from his pastor, which I just don't buy.
The rest of his speech comes off to me as "Yeah, he is inappropriate, but what am I supposed to do about it...he is like family." He does not cite any examples of what he has done to address his friends anger. He denies knowing it was there. It is obviously there and if Obama never noticed it he is either too self absorbed or is lying.
The rants about the CIA putting drugs into the black community to destroy blacks, that the government invented HIV to destroy blacks, and white America perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. Again, in my book, claiming that white America is trying to destroy blacks is pretty disparaging of whites.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
This is where we part ways a bit. I am not willing to lable the pastor as a racist. I think his statement are statements of circumstance not race. It just happens that the people that did things that anger him are white. He does not hate them because they are white but because of their actions. The white label is just descriptive and not derogatory.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If someone said to me, "Green people are lazy," I'd find that a racist comment made by a racist person. For the same reason, if someone said to me, "Green people are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy Orange people," I'd find that comment not only more objectionable - being killers rather than being lazy - but also a racist comment made by a racist person. Pointing a finger of blame at a particular group seems more than mere labelling to me.
Well, that would be ignoring the Tusegee Syphilis Experiment to some extent.
Making pot illegal has had the effect of forcing a disproportionate of blacks in prison.
So, these theories aren't completely unfounded. Maybe an incorrect conclusion based on the evidence, but not just out of left field. BLAMING the white run government is different from blaming whites. Just like I can blame a lot of problems on the black panthers[KKK] but not be racist against blacks[whites in pointy PJs].
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Not if green people have openly shown a desire to kill all orange people in the past. Then green people are holding rallies and openly condemning orange people in the present. Then it is not an accusation but a statement of events and a good idea to pay attention. You are basing your suspicion on past behavior and not on their color.
Actually, I would say that a disproportionate number of blacks engaging in an illegal activity has forced them into prison.
Even worse was slavery itself. I'm not ignoring those ... tragedies ... no, crimes against humanity is more accurate. I'm not saying there's no reason for racial tensions. But I see no reason for tolerating the people who stir up even more hatred with fictional conspiracies.
Was that the intended effect? I'm not aware of any evidence supporting such a conclusion. And yet that's essentially what the pastor has claimed.
Actually, yes, these particular theories about the CIA and HIV are unfounded. Standing up at the pulpit and convincing others to believe in these fictions widens the divide. We already have enough work to do to narrow that divide; we don't need forces working to widen it further.
How is that a racist policy? Don't get me wrong, I think pot should be legal, but I do not see how that law has one iota of a racial bias.
The same goes for the previous statement that "Because our leaders' racial makeup does not reflect the statistical makeup of the public, that makes the electoral process racially biased."
Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome. To assume that lawbreakers and politicians should have a racial makeup that is statistically similar to the public at large is to assume that the electorate will vote along racial lines, and that individuals of each race should break the law at rates which are statistically identical when viewed along racial lines.
That is obviously not the case. In some areas of the country where whites are in the minority, there remains an overwhelming white majority on governing boards. This would indicate one of three things:
1 That nonwhites are voting for whites
2 That minorities are underparticipating in the election process (either not running for office or not turning out to vote)
3 That gerrymandering or ballot box stuffing is taking place
I would guess that 1 and 2 are the most likely answers, unless there is some justice department investigation going on that I am unaware of. To illustrate my point, Asians are much higher in both educational performance and wealth accumulation than are any other racial subgroup. For statistical purposes, they are frequently included in the stats with whites.
It isn't that Asians are genetically superior to whites, or that there is discrimination- it is just that the Asian culture places a higher value on education. I suspect that the higher rate of incarceration for blacks has more to do with the cultural values of the inner cities than it has to do with racism or a conspiracy.
Again, equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.
I certainly don't know what the intended effect was, I wasn't in congress. However, certain people's can see the effect and try to deduce intent.
To someone that HAS been oppressed, it could certainly appear to be racist policy. That doesn't make it so. Nor necessarily does drawing that conclusion.
Let me rephrase that... racism affects us still and colors our views and our ability to determine the intent of others. Not being racist, but repercussions of racism.
Perldog007
New member
No Obama Fan... BUT!!!!
Senator Obama will not be getting my vote unless the other candidate is Sarah Brady her own self. Then I would vote for the Man from Illinois as the lesser of two evils.
Obama has expressed a desire to ban CCW nationwide except for retired police officers. That makes him either ignorant, dishonest, and/or dangerous. You pick.
Having said that, I am a white man who takes exception over the angst and frothing of whites and others over the clips of Rev Wright. I don't agree with the sentiments being expressed but do understand the mechanics and indeed the need for expressions of what some call "backlash" prejudice.
Here is the crash course: Think of backlash racial prejudice (black on white racial prejudice) as a coolant. It keeps the engine from blowing up or seizing under strain and heat.
This dog has worked as a Special Police Officer in D.C. public housing as well as interacting with many other levels of black society including more conservative and more economically prominent groups.
Nobody can be pushed as hard, as far, and for as long as the "black community" without suffering some sort of attitude adjustment. As a community and as a people our African Americans are in a healing process that is ongoing, as are we all to some extent.
The select rantings of Rev Wright are a symptom, not a cause or a cure. Neither is this small glimpse of the fringe a reliable window to liberation theology. I have black friends who are republicans and will never vote for Obama. I have other black friends who support Obama and were shocked by some of the comments, but all understand as I do what they mean. Perhaps more importantly what they don't.
They don't mean the man or his flock hate America. It means they have some things to work through and this venting is something they are doing along the way. Not very effective or constructive in my view, but it's not my journey.
If I needed my large arse kicked in a debate or a game of chess Barack Obama would be a welcome opponent. If sick or otherwise in need of some spiritual support I would be happy to pray with Rev. Wright. When selecting a president I would look elsewhere than Obama for reasons having nothing to do with his faith.
As shocking and hurtful as Rev Wright was in some of those statements, I wish I could honestly say that I have never had or expressed divisive racially charged views. Who among us is without any prejudice?
Seriously, we need to find that guy because he is the one who has the right to throw the first stone in this dust-up.
_rant_over_
Senator Obama will not be getting my vote unless the other candidate is Sarah Brady her own self. Then I would vote for the Man from Illinois as the lesser of two evils.
Obama has expressed a desire to ban CCW nationwide except for retired police officers. That makes him either ignorant, dishonest, and/or dangerous. You pick.
Having said that, I am a white man who takes exception over the angst and frothing of whites and others over the clips of Rev Wright. I don't agree with the sentiments being expressed but do understand the mechanics and indeed the need for expressions of what some call "backlash" prejudice.
Here is the crash course: Think of backlash racial prejudice (black on white racial prejudice) as a coolant. It keeps the engine from blowing up or seizing under strain and heat.
This dog has worked as a Special Police Officer in D.C. public housing as well as interacting with many other levels of black society including more conservative and more economically prominent groups.
Nobody can be pushed as hard, as far, and for as long as the "black community" without suffering some sort of attitude adjustment. As a community and as a people our African Americans are in a healing process that is ongoing, as are we all to some extent.
The select rantings of Rev Wright are a symptom, not a cause or a cure. Neither is this small glimpse of the fringe a reliable window to liberation theology. I have black friends who are republicans and will never vote for Obama. I have other black friends who support Obama and were shocked by some of the comments, but all understand as I do what they mean. Perhaps more importantly what they don't.
They don't mean the man or his flock hate America. It means they have some things to work through and this venting is something they are doing along the way. Not very effective or constructive in my view, but it's not my journey.
If I needed my large arse kicked in a debate or a game of chess Barack Obama would be a welcome opponent. If sick or otherwise in need of some spiritual support I would be happy to pray with Rev. Wright. When selecting a president I would look elsewhere than Obama for reasons having nothing to do with his faith.
As shocking and hurtful as Rev Wright was in some of those statements, I wish I could honestly say that I have never had or expressed divisive racially charged views. Who among us is without any prejudice?
Seriously, we need to find that guy because he is the one who has the right to throw the first stone in this dust-up.
_rant_over_
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I am assuming by "special" police officer you are not meaning the type that gives a lot of hugs and has to wear a padded helmet.
Good observations though.
'fraid I don't have the answer to that one, although I'd be puzzled as to why Wright would suddenly dredge up conspiracy theories from the 1970s and 1980s. He's not exactly the shy, introverted type. The guy travelled to Cuba and, with Farrakhan, to Libya in 1984, so he seems like a fairly active person.
An April 2007 NYT article quotes Wright as saying, “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
So here we are almost a year later.
As well, Oprah Winfrey stopped attending Wright's church in 2000. What was it that Oprah saw that Barack didn't?