| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Another Angry Black Preacher |
| 2008-03-22 |
| Another white, guilt-ridden liberal proves Krauthammer's point. Let's ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think? Because Barack Obama's speech on race in America was so candid about both the legitimacy of black and white grievances -- and the flaws in those grievances -- it carried the risk of offending almost everyone. A man who, by parentage, is half black and half white took it upon himself to explain each side's story to the other. Obama resembled no one so much as the conciliatory sibling in a large and boisterous family, shouting: "Please, please, will you listen to each other for a sec?" One of the least remarked upon passages in Obama's speech is also one of the most important -- and the part most relevant to the Wright controversy. There is, Obama said, a powerful anger in the black community rooted in "memories of humiliation and doubt" that "may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends" but "does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. . . . And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews." Playing on white guilt, check. Yes, black people say things about our country and its injustices to each other that they don't say to those of us who are white. Whites also say things about blacks privately that they don't say in front of their black friends and associates. One black leader who was capable of getting very angry indeed is the one now being invoked against Wright. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. Moral equivalence, check. An important book on King's rhetoric by Barnard College professor Jonathan Rieder, due out next month, offers a more complex view of King than the sanitized version that is so popular, especially among conservative commentators. In "The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me," Rieder -- an admirer of King -- notes that the civil rights icon was "not just a crossover artist but a code switcher who switched in and out of idioms as he moved between black and white audiences." Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968: "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." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power." That's the same thing as G. D. AmeriKKKa, you see? If today's technology had existed then, I would imagine the media playing quotations of that sort over and over. Right-wing commentators would use the material to argue that King was anti-American and to discredit his call for racial and class justice. King certainly angered a lot of people at the time. I cite King not to justify Wright's damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories but to suggest that Obama's pastor and his church are not as far outside the African American mainstream as many would suggest. I would also ask my conservative friends who praise King so lavishly to search their consciences and wonder if they would have stood up for him in 1968. These are realities that Obama has forced us to confront, and they are painful. Wright was operating within a long tradition of African American outrage, which is one reason Obama could not walk away from his old pastor in the name of political survival. Obama's personal closeness to Wright would have made such a move craven in any event. I'm a liberal, and I loathe the anti-American things Wright said precisely because I believe that the genius of our country is its capacity for self-correction. Progressivism and, yes, hope itself depend on a belief that personal conversion and social change are possible, that flawed human beings are capable of transcending their pasts and their failings. Obama understands the anger of whites as well as the anger of blacks, but he's placed a bet on the other side of King's legacy that converted rage into the search for a beloved community. This does not prove that Obama deserves to be president. It does mean that he deserves to be judged on his own terms and not by the ravings of an angry preacher. Judge him by his choice to educate his daughters in such "lunatic and pernicious theories". |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #13 Wright was operating within a long tradition of African American outrage, which is one reason Obama could not walk away from his old pastor in the name of political survival. Note the term "long tradition". Methinks that Rev. Wright was looking for a paycheck, much like that other "reverend" Je$$e Jackson. I made note of the term "long tradition," because for most of us white folks born AFTER the Civil Rights movement, even in the South, race doesn't mean anything. I live in the "Black Mecca" (Atlanta, GA), yet, I'm proud to listen to country music and discuss politics like this with a 65+ year old black man at work who grew up in Brooklyn. You'd be amazed at how many issues we see eye-to-eye on that NEED attention (the economy, illegal immigration and it's effects on EVERYTHING, health care, retirement for us "generation Y" kids, etc.). I think this anger is of a bygone era, and it could very well be the death-throes of the "old school" civil rights advocates, who have NOTHING better to do than continue to "remember the past" and look for payouts/shakedowns. Part of me wishes these clowns would die off, so REAL racial progress will move on. But, even here in the "deep South", you wouldn't believe the progress already made....inter-racial dating, "non-denominational" churches (who have congregants from every nation on the planet), very professional folks (of all races) working together 9-to-5 to feed their kids, more attention being paid to the value of family/marriage on raising children, etc. |
| Posted by: BA 2008-03-22 23:36 |
| #12 Let me get this straight....White people bad eventhough without them slavery would have continued. Husseins Black father left him....is this typicial black behaviour? White mother and white Grandparents raised aboandoned boy, and they are the typical white people. Seems to me we need more typical white people.... Just my observation but I see many typical white people raising kids of typical black men who have typically abandoned their own... all this has happened since typical liberal leaders have promised that they can provide for the typical black person.....Can I get a Witness! |
| Posted by: AMEricAN 2008-03-22 19:06 |
| #11 Inshallah, John. :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-22 18:08 |
| #10 Another Angry Black Preacher... I suppose if or when Hildebeast manipulates the superdelegate vote to her advantage, there will be a lot of angry black preachers--probably a lot of angry blacks donk voters. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-03-22 17:26 |
| #9 Schadenfreude is not a cardinal sin, at least not the last time I asked. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-03-22 16:41 |
| #8 "you could never be truly bad" I'd be willing to give it the good old college try for certain |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-22 15:53 |
| #7 Barbara, dear, you could never be truly bad. Efficient, certainly, but in the end that's better for all involved, however uncomfortable the object might find it at the moment. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-03-22 15:48 |
| #6 "Another Angry Black Preacher" Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Christian religion is the right one. I'm not Christian, but I do know enough about the religion and what Jesus said to know that, according to the teachings of Jesus, these "Angry Black Preachers" and their followers are going to be in for a very fat surprise when they die. Or, to put it in non-religious terms, karma's a bitch, baby, and will sooner or later bite you in the ass. If I hope it's sooner for these racist clowns, does that make me a bad person? ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-22 15:24 |
| #5 Because Tom Oliphant's retired... |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-03-22 12:46 |
| #4 E. J. Dionne. How did I know without even looking? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-03-22 09:50 |
| #3 This is nonsense. King was marginalized by '68 because he was no longer working on civil rights but on economic rights and anti-war pap like that. The idea of an Italian American mainstream is what? Ludicrous. Is it Ferraro or Giuliani? Neither, because they are part of the American mainstream. Or at least Giuliani is. As long as there is an African American mainstream, there will not be an African American president. Hussein had run on the idea that he was part of the American mainstream, not the African American mainstream. But he blew it when at the same time he declared Wright to be within the African American mainstream and the grandmother who raised him to be a typical white. So who's the typical black? Wright? He's a fool and he's probably set back the chances of a black rising to national office a generation because until it's been forgotten, every black who tries is going to be asked what he thinks about Wright's comments. All blacks are going to get to a point where they have to choose between their race and their country. When Hussein reached that decision point he choked. And Sister Souljah should have taught him he could choose his country and win with both blacks and whites in doing so. Instead he chose the easy win with blacks and now he can get all their votes. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-03-22 09:38 |
| #2 And you people say we are dumb because we negotiate with Paleos! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-03-22 09:27 |
| #1 Wright is a racist. If Obama agrees with him, then Obama's a racist, too. It's as simple as that. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-03-22 06:57 |