I'm still confused some by the latest Rev. Wright hoopbla and not completely sure what to make of it. I'm not so much in agreement with the guy as I am blown away by the fury he's provoked. I don't quite get it. Is Wright really anymore outrageous, than say, Michael Moore? Are his claims any worse than people who blame Hurricane Katrina's 1,800 deaths on gays? What is it about Wright which inflames the media so much more than any other blow-hard? I suspect that some of this has to do with the moral double-standard that black folks have always labored under, that it's related to the reason why black parents tell their kids to be "twice as good," that it has something to do with why Barack Obama's only shot at the presidency is to run a near flawless Jackie Robinson campaign.
In other words, the moral problems of black folks (hubris in the case of Wright) are always overblown. There is something in certain sectors of white America that expects all black people, at all times to act like white people did them a favor by bringing them here in chains. Indeed, Martin Luther King's whole approach to defeating segregation rested upon a sort of surrender, a relinquishment of anger at white racism. Of course when King asked the same of white America--a'la Vietnam, poor garbage workers--he was shot. There is a price to pay for setting aside that anger, that side of us which still feels scars of slavery. Forever, you're held to that outrageous standard, and should one of your own flash that old angst, the vultures began to circle.
There is a running meme going among blacks and whites that Wright is now sabotaging Obama's campaign. But what no one is seeing is that the game is rigged. Obama was sabotaged twenty years ago when, instead of going the Tiger Woods route, he dared to explore and drink deep in the beauty/pathology/irony that is black folks. From that point forward, he was marked. Now in his pursuit of arguably the highest office in the world, Obama finds himself dogged by the "nigger rules" which apply to all black trailblazers--no pessimism, no crying, no Farrakhan, and no rage.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
You are right on here man.
And we can't forget the media's role in perpetuating this farce. If everyone in the press took the time to actually listen to what Wright has to say, and ACCURATELY share his views with the public, the whole mock-troversy would be over yesterday. But being accurate in this case is not the point. Obama is a wild-card - no one knows what kind of Administration he is really going to run.
Obama is the the REAL maverick (i.e. insurgent)candidate, Hillary and McCain are firmly establishment. This point underlies the entire controversy.
America celebrates heroic black pioneers like MLK and Jackie Robinson who showed superhuman restraint and dignity and we congratulate ourselves for doing it. Your post reminds me that we seem to be applying this same standard (twice as good) to both Reverend Wright and, I think, also to Obama. Which presidential candidate has ever led such a seemingly transparent and uncompromised life as Barack? Think of Bill Clinton and GW Bush (not to mention McCain and Hillary Clinton). What do we know about their influences and associates over the years? Very little, I'm afraid. Even if Obama wins, I for one will not celebrate how the media and our national discourse has gone in this campaign. You hit the nail on the head, as I think Obama did in his race speech. We will know we have overcome racism when we treat each other as human beings. So far, this campaign shows we don't seem ready to do that, with the Reverend Wright brouhaha as exhibit a.
A friend and I were just having this exact conversation - we both write for Fox News - crazy, right?
Simply put, it's akin to what Chuck D. would say when asked why he was so hostile.
"I have a right to be hostile."
the tabloid journalism of our media is more to blame 4 all of this than anyone. doesnt excuse the fact that Rev Wright should probably have layed low knowing full well how things operate. Playing cute and nuanced would probably be more useful than a full-out attack which allows you to be caricartured, but I'll point fingers at the way this election has come down to so much infentile BS cause of the intellectually dishonest morons that cover it b4 taking the rev to task, as imperfect as he is.
Interesting to see how the ideological left hates the mainstream media as much as the ideological right. Being of the latter I'm trying to understand your perspective here, and why you think Obama is being victimized.
First of all, the double-standard argument just doesn't hold water. I would consider Rev. Wright something of a racist, as I do his Black liberation theology. Everything about his worldview is informed by race. I don't think he's a bad guy, and I'm sure he's done a lot of good, but most Americans can relate to King's "I Have a Dream Speach" because most people would prefer to judge a person by the content of their character. Whether we do all the time is another matter, but America circa 1960 is a very different place from America 2008.
It's impossible to completely analogize here, but if a Republican presidential candidate had gone to a church for 20 years that preached some kind of white supremacy, he or she wouldn't have a chance. For gosh sakes, Sen. George Allen called somebody "Macaca" and his political career was over. Talk about a double standard.
The problem with Obama, other than he's a liberal of the far left variety, is that while proclaiming to want to be the post-racial candidate (I believe he wants that) he spends 20 years at a church where race is all encompassing. At the least he appears disingenuous, because it's plausible to believe that he went to that church solely to further his political career. If he doesn't buy into Black liberation theology, how can he sit in the pew for that long? I'm a Christian of the Reformed perspective, and I could never go to a Baptist fundamentalist church. Don't like their theology and their puritanical lifestyle.
One last thing, rage and hostility never help anyone. Maybe for a moment, or a short while, but to see reality continuously through it's prism is unhealthy at best and deleterious at worst.
Not really. If you have serious problems with something, you would speak up about it. If the problems were rampant and long term, you'd become angry. That doesn't mean you HATE the thing you feel anger towards (no more then, say, a parent who is angry at their son necessarily hates their son), but anger and hostility are natural--and not always bad--emotions.
I don't like the message that is coming from the American right with this: that if you don't look like, act like, and talk like, "us" then you're un-American. Criticism of America--even, "angry" criticism"--is viewed as unpatriotic. And anything that doesn't fall into the, "American colorless-ness" which looks amazingly like Euro-American culture, btw, is thought of as separatist and identity politics.
Its like Ta-Nehisi so eloquently said in his previous post:
But I watched Wright on Friday, and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why he's allegedly so offensive to white sensibilities. Pastor Hagee is a certified nut and a bigot, no question. But, really, him endorsing John McCain isn't the reason I won't vote for him. Billy Graham was a lying anti-semite, but that didn't keep me from supporting the Clintons. James Baker says "Fuck The Jews" and is still considered a respectable member of the foreign policy establishment. But when a black pastor is taken out of context, suddenly it's Armageddon. If this is the basis by which we elect a president, then we're in more trouble than we can begin to know.
"It's impossible to completely analogize here, but if a Republican presidential candidate had gone to a church for 20 years that preached some kind of white supremacy, he or she wouldn't have a chance. For gosh sakes, Sen. George Allen called somebody "Macaca" and his political career was over. Talk about a double standard. "
It *is* a bad analogy, because Reverend Wright never preached anything calling for black supremacy or anti-white hate. There was a lot of angry criticism of American society & white racism, to be sure, & incendiary (and, in my opinion, indefensible) comments about AIDS, but nothing preaching hatred of whites.
Peter, maybe so, but it's real hard to listen to Pastor Wright and not hear hate. And if it's not hate, then there is sure a lot of anger there.
You are right, there is no comparison between the vicious worldview of KKK types and black liberation theology. But my point was a larger one, and George Allen's situation highlights that. The real double standard is for conservatives who slip up and say things that are politically incorrect. When Lawrence Summers at Harvard, no conservative he, dared question feminist orthodoxy he was thrown out. It is the left today that embodies the totalitarian impulse to quash all dissent.
Mike,
I'm glad you admit the absurdity of comparing critiques of white racism to white supremacy. That's the problem: So many white folks, left and right, just don't get it. Saying "America was born in racism" isn't hate speech; it's truth, albeit an uncomfortable one which many whites would rather not confront.
And the left has its fair share of conformist behavior, especially in academia, but where is the flag pin garbage coming from? Where is the notion that if you criticize American military policy or tell the truth about America's anti-democratic, racist past, then you're unpatriotic coming from? The right does conformity around state power and "tradition" (read: white, power); the left does conformity around tolerance of minorities and the historically disenfranchised.
George Allen and Trent Lott get pinched because they are conservatives and their comments were in line with the dominant narrative of conservatives as racist; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden don't catch nearly as much flak for their racialized comments because they're not considered conservative; meanwhile, the dominant narratives of liberals are that they're unpatriotic, so any Kerry or Obama comment that can be interpreted as critical of American power is exaggerated, while conservatives can not provide proper body armor for troops and fail to give support to troops coming home--not a word. Imagine if a Democrat had been in power when 9/11 happened. The media would have said that his weak stance on terror allowed it to happen, and he would have been impeached. Bush fucks up intelligence-wise, and he's dubbed a hero for guiding us through our toughest time.
It's really very simple: the mainstream media is filled with lazy hacks who aren't thoughtful enough to think beyond tired narratives.
"What is it about Wright which inflames the media so much more than any other blow-hard?"
They are playing to white America's fears of the angry, dangerous black man.
Simple answer right there. Black men are scary as all fuck, especially when angry, want to kill you, and want to rape your women. That's the great fear of white America, and the media is more than happy to stoke that fear.
Gordon,
We can all certainly agree that the mainstream media is filled with lazy hacks who find it too much work to think beyond tired narratives.
As for the fact that America was born in racism, I would argue that whites are not at all uncomfortable with that. Slavery was a sad and evil compromise that the founders of this country felt they could not confront, or would not, so that America could be born. A civil war that almost destroyed this nation and cost over 600,000 lives shows us that the founders were between a rock and hard place. Could America have ever come into being if they had decided to take a stand against slavery? A very uncomfortable question. Were they justified in their hypocrisy? Certainly not. But it's easy to judge with over 200 years of historical perspective.
I think that the continental divide between the left and the right is that this decision, to turn a blind eye to this unmitigated evil, made the American experiment intrinsically compromised. As I stated earlier, the left believes America is fundamentally flawed and occasionally good, while the right believes America fundamentally good, but occasionally flawed. We on the right do not see the need to keep playing over and over and over again this clearly and obviously horrendous decision in which our country was founded. We believe that this sin, egregious as it was, does not reflect the fundamental character and goodness of this country, and the very idea of America.
It is at this very foundation of our worldviews, the paradigm through which we see America, that causes all our political and cultural conflicts.
As for the "fears of white America," I wish this would not be so easily dismissed as blatant, unthinking, racism. I hate to bring this up, but the prison population in America is disproportionately made up of Black Americans. Popular culture, including rap, hip-hop, etc., glamorizes thug lifestyle. I live right behind a high school, and there are a large number of kids I come across who dress the part, and will not look at me, or smile or act at all respectful of others. Is it irrational and racist to "fear" them?
I can't help thinking that these kids are taught, probably more implicitly than explicitly, that all white people are racists and therefore they look down on them. They can't trust or don't want to, and end up having a bad attitude toward their neighbors. We do them no favors by feeding their cynicism of ubiquitous white racism. Period. Plus it simply isn't true. We on the right try very hard not to trivialize your concerns. Why do you find it so easy to trivialize ours?