Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office..."Feel free to pillory me, but I just didn't see that sort of crude conspiratorial antisemitism coming. I guess it's of a piece with his press club performance, last year. I'm amazed that he's still talking to reporters.
Not to excuse anything, but I wonder if the blitz, from last year, hardened him. I say that because the worse stuff I've heard from Wright, actually aren't in his initial sermons. With the exception of the government creating AIDS bit, I never found his sermons to be particularly egregious.
But in between this and the press club, it's like he's doubling down on the caricature--like he's becoming exactly what they said he was. Maybe "they" were right. I also wonder whether you're just seeing ego--a guy who had the megaphone for much of his life, eclipsed, and doing whatever he can to get it back.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I didn't see this level of ignorance coming from the Rev. Wrong either. And the timing is beyond unfortunate. One wonders if he would take back his horrible statement if he had any inkling what was going to happen yesterday.
This is a good point, but even if he did take it back, I don't know what that means. The statement says something about him. I'd hope that he'd look at this another way--that he'd chastened by his statement and the events of yesterday. But somehow, I doubt it.
"even if he did take it back, I don't know what that means"
Frankly, he's better off not trying to reel it back in, but letting it die a lonely death. If anything he's lucky yesterday's events have totally eclipsed a stupid remark by a guy who is no longer relevant or very newsworthy. Unless he's such a megalomaniac that he just loves seeing his name in the papers...
Wright is an antisemite and a bad man. That's all there is to say.
This is also a shocker to me. Wright is a talented guy - but his ego has totally got the best of him and now he's all about showing his ass. Frankly, if Barack hears that one - which I'm sure he will - I don't think he'll be speaking to Wright ever again. From Wright's narrow, self-interested perspective he may well have a beef with Axelrod and Rahm, but that's a pretty despicable way of expressing it.
I think your last sentence has it spot on. This just feels like another example of the Dyson Disease. People feeling their power fall away and just grabbing, without thinking, for whatever they can.
"The Dyson Disease", he would be proud, he has finally become an adjective! :P I agree, the spotlight is addictive and people who have the ambition to grab it also have the ego that needs it.
I've thought Dyson was a jerk ever since I read his book that draws parallels between Tupac Shakur and Dr. King. What an idiot. More than anything he just comes across as the posterchild for all of those teachers who are desperate that their students think they're cool, but who are trying way too hard.
Dyson did the keynote address on MLK Day here at my university, I wanted to throw up halfway through it. Just nothing substantial to add to the discussion. it's all about him.
Dyson is trying to hard to be cool, speaking like he lives on the corners rather than in an ivory tower. The dude is a college professor, he should act like it! Stop with the "Hip hop" crap.
I think this must be what's going on with him. I too have never heard anything so egregious from him. Wright has a really good relationship with the Chicago (Left) Jewish community, or did. I'm just so disappointed in him. I wonder if he was making a joke? Maybe the "them" refers to some advisors around O that he actually knows, who have actually turned him away in any attempts he's made to contact O? Even then, it doesn't take away the offensiveness of his remark, but the deeply stupid conspiracy theorizing is what's the big shocker for me. Ego gone WILD.
Unrelated to Wright, but on the topic of "Maybe 'they' were right," remember those who questioned the extent to which Sotomayor's achievements may have been due to Affirmative Action? They got a cool reception here, but according to this article in The New York Times,
This is threadjacking, so maybe in the open thread at noon today you can explain how Sotomayor graduating at the top of her class in Princeton was due to affirmative action.
Exactly. I greatly appreciate you enthusiasm, Dave. But let's save it for noon.
Fair enough, Ta-Nehisi. Feel free to delete it here, and I'll try to remember to re-post it there at noon.
You're right; that's completely irrelevant.
My money's on Wright just being old and losing his shit. Clearly, a remark like this shows an underlying, disgusting prejudice and is somewhat of a part with his other conspiratorial nonsense, but the degree to which he is able to control himself has slipped exponentially since he entered the national political spotlight.
The government created AIDS/CIA created crack/Jews are pulling the strings stuff is probably the most tragic and lasting consequence of actual conspiracies against American blacks. That people condemn it (or demand that Obama condemn it, or whatever) without acknowledging or even admitting that there's a horrible history there is astounding. I don't think I saw a single person on TV make this point when they were replaying Wright's government/AIDS clip ad nauseam last spring.
If true, strong support and a superb rationale for affirmative action, as well as yet another damning disclosure of the validity of standardized test scores. No one could argue, given Judge Sotomayor's later academic achievement, that she could not perform to the level necessary to compete with other students at Ivy League schools. Certainly the best or near best, that she actually achieved in fact, is good enough.
The affirmative action initiative, in this case, correctly trumped test scores that inaccurately predicted performance. QED the positive value of affirmative action in our society.
Bingo !
It's either just reckless, or just dumb-- and that's not a good choice. Hard to imagine that he doesn't realize how it sounds.
I suppose Wright could claim that he was referring specifically to Emanuel and Axelrod, but that's not really an improvement.
"I also wonder whether you're just seeing ego--a guy who had the megaphone for much of his life, eclipsed, and doing whatever he can to get it back."
Didn't Wright give up the megaphone voluntarily, when he chose to retire from his church? Or do you think there might have been some sort of implicit quid pro quo suggested by the Obama campaign, where Wright was encouraged to lay low during the home stretch of the campaign in return for a promise of retaining some access or prominence once Obama was elected? Or maybe Wright just imagined such an arrangement, and is angry that he hasn't been welcomed back into the fold now that Obama is in the White House?
I think Rev. Wright's retirement from Trinity was, at a minimum, to complicated for the word "voluntary" to be quite right.
The transition from the time Rev. Moss was chosen until he was installed as senior pastor took an amazingly long time, and then Rev. Wright tried to postpone the installation just weeks before it happened.
Rev. Wright, after a tremendously energetic career transforming a church he loved, either didn't want to let go at all or changed his mind repeatedly.
One sees this so often in history. The author of the revolution for justice just can't bear to turn over the reins, even though doing do is the only way to preserve the justice they used to fight for. Sad. Because Trinity really is a church that has done an amazing amount of good on the South Side of Chicago.
Let's keep this in context, "them Jews" the good Rev is speaking of is probably Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. I'm sure he means no disrepect to all Jewish people. My 95 y.o. grandfather still refers to blacks as colored, and he is Black himself. This is nothing...
"Keeping it in context" Wright was speaking to the press, not to his wife or the guys at the barbershop. Presumably your 95 year-old grandfather hasn't had years of experience dealing with reporters or presenting himself as a public figure of considerable prominence in a large, diverse city.
I don't know who your grandfather is, but I doubt he's been steeped in the politics of race and civil rights activism for decades and been responsible for crafting a responsible message every week for decades to deliver to one of the largest audiences in the country. Not to mention being heavily involved in scholarly theology for a couple decades. Your grandfather might be excused for anachronism, but Wright knows what this means.
My Grandfather is a retired minister and I often wondered how he would have handle the situation that Rev Wright has found himself in. He has Alzheimers now and I miss being able to get his opinion. No, my grandfather did not have national press stalking his every word nor, did he have a member of his congregation become the first Black President of the USA. Maybe I'm projecting and I make the mistake of thinking that all old Black ministers were like my Grandfather- humble, smart and graceful. Of course, Rev Wright should be more cognizant of what comes out of his mouth but, he never has and he never will.
Incidentally, I don't think its weird at all that your grandfather stayed "colored." He was born "colored" and probably thought all of the brouhaha about periodically changing the Offical Designation from "Colored" to "Negro" to "Black" to "African-American" was silly.
It seems that this is even more evidence against Wright’s ‘cunningly’ or ‘knowingly’ using such provocative language. The messages were deemed irresponsible and hateful, which is why he was put out to pasture.
I think this is a case of ‘shock-jock'. Like Smiley, Dyson and Jackson, Wright’s ego is so accustomed to the spotlight that good sense has taken leave and only an insatiable desire to feed the ‘ego-beast’ remains. It is sad, although I am not surprised. You could catch glimpses of this potentiality at his NPC talk.
Nothing? Even accepting your context, which I think is pretty damned generous, your premise is that it's acceptable to refer to the president's staff as "Them Jews" so long as he has particular Jews in mind?
Grow a thick skin, young man. Them Jews, them mexicans, them niggers, them bitches- hear it all the time. Rev. Wright should just be ignored. Life is too short.....
Just because I "hear it all the time", doesn't mean I have to accept it. If we all acted that way, it would still be acceptable to call grown black men "boy", and accept it as normal.
I agree we shouldn't let other people's ignorance rule our lives, but I hardly think that was what BreakerBaker was advocating in his statement.
I don't know, I think I've got a pretty thick skin. I don't only ignore Rev. Wright, I dismiss him as a foolish old man with a damaged worldview and an ego larger than his former congregation.
What, just shut up and ignore racism? Sorry. Not going to happen.
"With the exception of the government creating AIDS bit, I never found his sermons to be particularly egregious."
To be fair though, that one was egregious enough that it makes me think we all could and should have seen this coming. Don't you think? I mean, I think we call all be shocked to hear anybody be so openly and unapologetically bigoted or clearly detached from reality, but I don't think there was much question that this man, whatever his merits, was prone to just this sort of ridiculous tripe.
err. "we CAN all be shocked"
I'll second that. Whatever his other merits, dude has shown himself to be (A) paranoid and (B) willing to say incredibly ill-examined things in public. Loudly. I don't think this latest is much of a surprise, and I expect we'll be hearing more.
Perhaps. But those two conspiracy theories come from two different places. The government created AIDS line comes from an actual history of medical experimentation on black people--most notably in Tuskegee. This is a real fear held among blacks (particularly of Wright's generation) that exists without any real antisemitic/conspiratorial context. In other words, one can believe (as many black folks do) that government is "racist" without believing that the Jews are out to get them.
They may come from different places, but what makes people receptive to this or that conspiracy theory is not all that different from one theory to the next. And if you think the government created AIDS to wipe out or keep at bay the black population, then I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that you’re going to be especially receptive to irrational arguments that rely on a person’s willful mistrust of authority. I was listening to This American Life (which is broadcast out of Chicago) and they were at a local convenience store in a black neighborhood on the south side. The store happened to sell more lottery tickets than anybody else in the city, but has never sold a jackpot winning ticket. They interviewed a guy who thought the drawing was rigged to ensure that a white person would always win. I’m not saying I don’t understand this guy’s worldview, or where his mistrust comes from. I’m simply trying to say that when you hear people talk this way, be prepared for them to say other seemingly unrelated crazy shit, too. Because their minds are damaged goods. It's hard to fix somebody once their skepticism gives way to a distorted kind of irrational certainty.
I don't know. I once thought the goverment created AIDS was credible. Now, I was 15. But I also thought the idea that "the Jews ran the world" was insane. Just because you're susceptible to one for of conspiracy theory, it doesn't follow that your then susceptible to all of them. People who think the govenment created AIDS, for instance, don't necessarily believe in Area 51.
I don’t mean that everybody who buys into one conspiracy theory is necessarily going to accept another one. Especially if there's something inherently and overtly contradictory about the two theories.
My point was that the acceptance of a conspiracy theory relies in large part on an unhealthy level of skepticism and mistrust for people in authority (usually one’s own government). Obviously a person's individual experience is going to impact which theories he is more willing to consider, but it is that skepticism/mistrust which is at the root of making a person receptive to hearing any of it. That being the case, I think it almost goes without saying that a person who has already accepted a conspiracy theory is going to be more receptive to considering another than somebody whose sense of skepticism is a bit more measured.
Unhealthy why? Id argue its unhealthy NOT to be skeptical and mistrusting of people in authority until you are given a solid track record to suggest otherwise, and even then, keep one eye peeled. Power makes moral compromises to maintain itself. Always has, as far as humans go, and likely always will.
Juba,
Come on dude, don't be a lazy reader. I didn't say skepticism is unhealthy. I said there is a level of skepticism passes the threshold into an unhealthy mindset. I think skepticism is, in fact, an essential attribute that allows us to function in a responsible and intelligent manner. I think it acts as a critical check that keeps our psyche balanced. It becomes unhealthy when it either prevents us from accepting anything at face value (even that which is demonstrably true)or when it (combined with excessive mistrust) motivates us to accept or devise irrational narratives whose only purpose is to rationalize our skepticism and justify our mistrust.
I'd ask you not to be a lazy, or sensitive, reader either. Thats not what I said you said. I asked "why" is engaging a conspiracy theory an "unhealthy" level of skepticism. But if throwing out a pejorative like "lazy" makes you feel better so be it. Anyway, lets address your post.
Maybe I should rephrase: "unhealthy level" how?
I ask again--Tuskegee Experiment? MK Ultra? Are you aware of them? Do you care to address them? Since when does one accept the Machiavellian science of power at face value, when deception and fear are crucial to it? Since when is it irrational to surmise that a govt. and society that practiced eugenics, apartheid and unethical and possibly illegal medical and scientific experimentation on its own citizens, all in the 20th century, may have screwed up yet again by playing with viruses and (unwittingly or wittingly) opened up the ultimate Pandora's Box?
Skegee. MK Ultra. Laughlin, Goddard and Grant. You're going to have to do better than namecalling, BB, lets see you address this history and reconcile it with your disdain. Defend your takes, please.
Honestly Juba, I don’t want to get into an argument with you, but you very clearly did not say engaging in a conspiracy theory is not unhealthy. If that’s a point you meant to make, or one you’d like to make now, feel free. I tend to disagree, but I guess we could parse the meaning of the term “conspiracy theory.” I’d rather not get into that sort of debate if it’s all the same to you.
For the record:
I said “that the acceptance of a conspiracy theory relies in large part on an unhealthy level of skepticism and mistrust for people in authority (usually one’s own government).”
To which, you responded: “Id argue its unhealthy NOT to be skeptical and mistrusting of people in authority until you are given a solid track record to suggest otherwise, and even then, keep one eye peeled.”
Your statement clearly implies that I was suggesting it is necessarily unhealthy to be skeptical and mistrusting of people in authority. I said nothing of the kind. I’d say there’s a bit of a chasm that separates healthy skepticism from the type of mistrust that leads one to say, for instance, that 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t know how many people you know who believe that, but I know a few, and they are, unsurprisingly, the same people I know who believe that the Catholic Church is hiding evidence that Christ was married and had a family. Now, these aren’t the same kinds of beliefs as the one that acted as the catalyst to this discussion, but I have no problem making the assertion that while the motivations may be different, the thought process that leads one to believe that 9/11 was an inside job is probably pretty similar (neurologically) to the one that allows people to categorically state that the United States government created the AIDS virus to commit a “genocide against colored people.” And I would say without hesitation that it was an unhealthy neurological pathway to walk down.
I think its unhealthy to develop firm convictions based on unexamined assertions and flimsy evidence, but its one thing to form a belief and another to entertain a possibility.
You seem to be tossing out possibilities altogether or flatly rejecting a line of inquiry as an illegitimate one. I guess thats why I pushed back some, no way can we trust ANY authority enough to not examine the allegation in question, whether 9.11, HIV or the Merovingians.
Juba,
At the risk of just taking this whole back and forth too far, I don’t think I have implied anything about tossing out possibilities. I’m pretty sure my formulation was about the people most likely to ACCEPT certain unlikely, even outlandish possibilities solely on the basis that it conforms to an impaired sense of reason and distorted worldview. If that didn’t come off, let me say unequivocally that people should, by all means, consider the possibilities. But they should also understand that the realm of possibility is pretty broad and deep. The scope of what is plausible is far more narrow. Likelihoods? There are very few. And there’s only one Truth (capital T). A person with a reasonable level of skepticism understands that the actual and whole Truth, in most cases, is unknowable, but they do not use that as a justification for the rejection of a plausible explanation out of hat, in favor of the faithful acceptance of an implausible possibility.
All good, BB. Thanks for the back and forth
Prince recently gave an interview where he described his belief in "chemtrails" or a conspiracy involving the government using planes to spray chemicals on certain communities in the US. This kind of paranoia is more in line with the AIDS conspiracy. But, lets also recognize that many communities with people of color are adversely affected by environmental hazards. In Boston, the city's buses take off from a largely African-American neighborhood and all of that exhaust has been shown to cause more asthma in the kids that live in that neighborhood. I really doubt that a largely white community would have that same situation going on.
I must agree with TNC. It is not the case that the gov. created AIDS belief is evidence of a deep and unadulterated craziness. Many black people would not/did not reject such an assertion out of hand. Now, it's a fact that no such thing happened, and evidence should persuade any rational person, but given the history of nepharious medical practices (Tuskegee, sterilization programs) and environmental dumping by the American gov. in poor communities and communities of color it's not outside the realm of possiblity. To me, the viewpoint that puts such practices past goverment and large corporations is ahistorical and terribly naive.
I didn't say people shouldn't be skeptical of their government. I said that people who believe the government created AIDS are functioning with a damaged sense of reason. I think that's fair. And I think it's fair to say that when somebody uncritically accepts the irrational as being reasonable, they're more likely to be receptive to and accepting of similarly distorted points of view.
Especially if that worldview can be used to directly explain why things aren't going well for them.
Conversely, I think anyone aware of Tuskegee or the MK Ultra program in which the CIA experimented with mind-altering substances (LSD emerged from this) to program, control or debrief whoever they wanted to...and yet claims that assertion is completely irrational, are themselves naive.
Maybe some folks arent aware of these programs, but the root of "the Govt. created AIDS" isnt a belief that the US Govt wants to practice genocide in the Black community, its a belief that the govt. (really the military-industrial complex) has engaged in scientific and medical experiments of dubious ethics in the past and arent above doing it again.
If you find that damaged reasoning, I think you need to read up on a little more (now declassified) 20th C. history.
Well yeah, but this is the original claim which we're debating:
I think if you read over the counter-arguments, what you're seeing is this: African-Americans have very good reasons to be skeptical of the government. They have absolutely horrific reasons to be skeptical of government-sponsored medicine. Now, that doesn't mean that that skepticism, when it reaches an unhealthy level, as you say, should be encouraged or cheered on. But you have to recognize the great difference between black people's history with government-sponsored medicine and their experience with "the Jews."
The urge to argue is strong, but with all due respect, I'd suggest you stop, for second, and think on the difference in history. Consider checking out a book like "Bad Blood" or "Medical Aparthied." Black suspicion or paranoia of government medicine isn't rooted in Biblical gooblygok, or old Europe, it's rooted in actual real events--events that the government tried to conceal, no less. This stuff happened to people's grandparents. And we've grown up with the stories. This just isn't the same as believing the Jews kill babies. It's not the same as believing in the Elder Protocols of Zion.
Suspecting that the government is experimenting on you--when the government has in the past actually experimented when the government has, in the past, bugged your leaders, when the government has, in the past, intentionally kept your community poor --is not the same as believing in an all-controlling, cabal of Jews.
It may be wrong. It may erroneous. And it is, ultimately, unhelpful. But it isn't the same.
TNC,
Are we arguing? If my tone has been too argumentative, than I will try to tone it down.
To be clear, this is what Rev. Wright told scores of parishioners: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
I think that is evidence of damaged or perhaps underdeveloped sense of reason. I think anybody who believes that quote uncritically, much less uses their position of authority to give credence to such a belief is displaying quite simply that they are at the very least damaged or underdeveloped as a rational being. Now, I fully understand and acknowledge that the origins of this mindset go back to Tuskegee (and to before that, really). It is not my intention to brush aside those cruel injustices or to be insensitive towards the indelible mark they’ve left on our society in general and specifically to the way that African Americans view their government as a reliable protector. On the contrary, that blight is precisely the sort of thing that I’m talking about. I am not saying people are stupid. I am saying their critical ability to reason and determine what is and is not rational has been impaired. We can rationalize that impairment all we want. But that’s what it is. And impairment makes one susceptible to suggestion and to the misinterpretation of reality.
As to the original statement I made, I suppose it would be proper to say that “we could and maybe should have seen this—or something like this—coming.” Especially considering the fact that Rev. Wright has been the recipient of a ton of criticism for his admiration of Louis Farrakhan. This is not to say whether either Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright are necessarily anti-Semites (let’s be agnostic on that subject).
I took no offense at your tone, and apologies if my post came off that way. I'd agree with your reformulation, especially in this light--Wright didn't say that in 1991, he said it at a point when black health-care workers were doing a great deal of work to disabuse people of that notion. I know this from doing some reporting on it. He should have known better, and the fact that he didn't--or did, and just said it anyway--probably should have set off warning bells.
For whatever reason though, I didn't fully get it until the Press Club performance. And I didn't really, really get it until this. I plead tardiness. Guilty as charged.
BB, the point that we're all trying to make that you're missing is that the gov. created HIV belief is untrue NOT irrational. Belief in that meme is not a sign of the impairment of one's reason, at least initially, but of the ignorance of the facts in this particular case. Think of another example. It is not irrational for a woman walking down the street alone at night to experience fear if a large stranger she doesn't know walks up behind her. Now, her fear does not make the man a nepharious character in the slightest, and before she reacts further or screams or lashes out she should gather more information to see if her discomfort is justified in the particular case, but nothing about her caution indicates any kind of impairment to her rationality or reason.
When you have a caution, suspicion or skepticism based on real, historical precedent. That is exactly rational. Whether you follow that rational caution with a search for factual support or devolve into unsupported paranoia is a further step that deserves to be judged on it's own terms. What TNC, myself, Juba and other commenters are trying to tell you is that the original caution, the original skepticism, is entirely rational. It's the refusal to accept evidence that disproves the suspicion in this case that's the problem.
Now it may be the case that Wright's willingness to ignore facts in the one case should have lead us to believe that he might do so in others and since Wright has shown himself impervious to the disproval of completely reasonable and rational suspicion we should not have been surprised by this further detachment from reality, but I'm with TNC insofar as I think that there is really no connection whatsoever between the two lines of thinking. It is reasonable to suspect that government or government sanctioned entities might poison people that they're betting won't fight back because it hapens all the time and not just to black folks it is not reasonable to believe there is a shady ethnic cabal running the world and ruling the American President. That has never happened. There is no basis in fact. See the difference?
I’m sorry deva, but I'm pretty confident that you’re wrong. The meme is untrue. The belief in that meme is, was, and always will be irrational (i.e. a sign that the believer, at least in the instance of the belief, lacks mental clarity or sound judgment). Also, I don’t find your comparison to a woman becoming apprehensive when followed by a man in a dark alley to be remotely apt. The fear she feels (which I would argue is not altogether rational) is of a crime not yet committed. The fear in the case of the HIV meme was that the AIDS virus (already in existence) had been created by the American government with the singular purpose to commit a genocide against African Americans. This is a belief for which there was NEVER any evidence. It is a belief borne entirely out of paranoia--an inherently irrational state of mind—the roots of which I think we’re all pretty familiar.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument seems to be that a paranoia rooted in historical precedent is not a paranoia at all. I respectfully disagree. Nobody has argued that the presence of skepticism (doubt) in the face of certainty is irrational. Nobody has argued that African Americans have not had various well-founded motivations to mistrust their government or their doctors. My argument, simply put is that there’s a pretty big difference between expressing doubt or suspicion, and formulating the conclusion that it’s a reasonable assumption that the government created the AIDS virus to wipe out African Americans.
Honestly, we could go back and forth on this all weekend. I say the belief is based on a paranoia which is, by definition, irrational. You seem to be arguing that if we can come up with a reasonable explanation for a person’s paranoia, then they aren’t really paranoid. I think my argument is better.
I'm not surprised but saddened, it seems to me that one of the significant factors that keeps oppressed minorities divided, and often at odds, is that we all too often seek to identify our moral authority with our having been oppressed, which is not to say to forget or to give up on justice, instead of grounding our moral authority in our humanity,citizenship, and for those to whom it matters being children of God, this is was the genius of MLK and sometimes the rhetoric of Obama (one hopes for more no pun intended but we shall see) and the spirit of democracy that we need to make substantial in the ways in which we treat each other as we seek peace and prosperity.
Excellent point!
This is just such a shame...Denny Greene rule is in full effect: He is who they thought he was.
When Jeremiah Wright became a household name last fall, I remember thinking, "damn, why did he have to make the government--AIDS link and why did he have to say 'God Damn America'?" There was a lot of difficult truths in some of his other comments that were ripped apart because of the AIDS comment. Instead of making us examine our country's racial history and foreign policy, he was made out to be Farrakhan. And he just proved the media right. Damn.
Something to consider about the word "Jews" in this context: Jews have been hated for so long that the word "Jew" itself is, in a way, used as a slur. I don't think this is true of the name of any other racial or ethnic group. Haters put a certain spin on "Jew" when they say it, to an extent that isn't the case with, say, "black", or "Hispanic", or another racial or ethnic labels. Haters of blacks won't call a black person a "filthy black", for example, but they might call a Jew a "filthy Jew".
Actually there are cases, that come immediately to mind, of names of racial / ethnic groups that are used as slurs in themselves. My grandmother, Polish-American, spoke damn little English but when she called someone a "Russki" we knew it wasn't a compliment ("Cossack" too but then that's not racial). And phrases referring to 'Chinees' or the "Nips" have faded from use. And finally there are many reading here who think that "dirty Negro" (or worse) is an apt parallel to "filthy Jew."
I'd find it wondrous if there weren't dozens of cases, throughout the globe, of one ethnic / racial group hating another so as to use their names as terms of hate. I wonder how Serbs feel about Croats? Or Armenians about Turks? I'm just not polygot enough to know them, thanks be.
You may have a point with "Negro".
"polyglot". But I like "polygot". It sort of says what it means almost better. Maybe I invented a new word.
Polygot is a grand thing. I want it to mean people who count diversity as their own wealth.
I admit to thinking of my husband, who does college admissions recruiting with zeal, reads me unfamiliar surnames off his class rosters with delight, and loves badminton in part because it's an Asian game that lets him meet students who may never take any of his classes. He sees a changing cultural landscape, grins, and says "more for me!" Polygot looks to me like a truly terrible half-greek phrase for the folks who say just that: sharing the country means "more for me."
Your husband's badminton adventure brings to mind an attempt from years ago to learn cricket. A student from Trinidad served as teacher. It was a production. I drafted a woodworking colleague to make two cricket bats & the stakes because we couldn't find them anywhere for sale. Handball for the ball. I (and some enthusiastic students) figured out that you hit the ball sort of underhanded but after that... I am sure Peter James was not just making up the rules as he went along but that's how confused we were. So we just had fun hitting a ball around. To this day, I can see Peter looking down at the ground, slowly shaking his head and smiling that beautiful smile of his. Knowing that we were so beyond help, and that this was definitely not real cricket. Thank you for reminding me.
I love your concept of polyglot, and I will be glad to use it in this context with you here. But for your dealings with the outside world, just be aware that a polyglot is a person who uses many languages fluently. No linguist would let you get away with your meaning.
Maybe you could say a "cultural polyglot"? that's what I'd like to be (in the sense that sporcupine describes her husband).
I didn't write clearly enough. I meant to mean that I don't speak enough languages to know the ethnic slurs, in those languages, that others use. The original "polyglot" was meant to refer back to the first sentence about language, rather than the 2nd and 3rd sentences about groups. Not a good construction because nobody else is inside my head.
I like your term "cultural polyglot," even more than "polygot". Polygot could be twisted into a meaning about American acquisitiveness. ("John D. Rockefeller was a well-known polygot of the late 19th and early 20th century.") Though it would be a very good word if like Humpty Dumpty we could make it mean only what sporcupine wants it to mean. A richer feel, to me, than multiculturalism.
Ooh, yes, i like it a lot more than "multiculturalism" or "diversity", which don't have that nice Humpty dumpty feel to them. The feeling with polyglot is that you've acquired something of value to you, which makes you more well-rounded.
Michael Scott: [to Oscar] Let me ask you, is there a term besides 'Mexican' that you prefer? Something less offensive?
I'm actually half-Croat and half-Armenian so I can shed a little light...
Croats call Serbs "Cetniks", a reference to their fascist past, and Serbs call Croatians "Ustasha", a reference to their fascist past. While Croats still consider Ustasha an insult, Serbs are not offended at being called Chetniks....except by Croats (and Bosnians).
Unfortunately, I don't speak Armenian but I seem to remember the word for "Turkey" and "turkey" (the bird) was the same in Armenian, too, so they called Turks turkeys. Apparently among Turks even saying "Armenian" is an insult in Turkey.
I'd say Mexican is well on its way
I have to say I've often heard comments from whites about "the blacks" that had the same edge and negative implications as "the Jews" coming from, in this case, Wright. For the record, I don't believe Wright is anti-semitic in any profound sense, but he obviously shares some of the resentment toward Jews - usually some vague notion that Jews tend to end up well-positioned given their minority status and are extremely adept at promoting one or another agenda, if not simply themselves - that isn't uncommon among both blacks and other whites. I think a lot of whites, including Jews, who don't perceive themselves as "racist" have equivalent negative assumptions about blacks as a group that pop out like this in unguarded moments. I don't think this is about "haters" so much as more individually benign but probably more deeply embedded and ultimately problematic "resenters."
"Jews tend to end up well-positioned given their minority status and are extremely adept at promoting one or another agenda, if not simply themselves" - to be clear, that was a characterization of a common prejudice and stereotype, not my characterization of Jewish people.
Not surprised here...
When the Wright sermons came out during the election I was terrified they would mean the end of Obama. However Obama proved to be an exceptional candidate and turned lemons into lemonade with his Philly race speech.
But ANYONE who believes AIDS is a government conspiracy is likely to believe some other ridiculous nonsense. I have some compassion for Wright, how he came to believe the things he does, but shit... this guy spouting "Jew this" and "Jew that"? It's insulting.
This should so be one of your ongoing 'Jews and Blacks' series. We've even both got idiots spouting off offensively in the same week.
As a Jew, let me say: eh. This offends me more as an act of stupidity than an act of prejudice.
I wonder sometimes how much the tension between Jews and Blacks--whatever that really means--is due to the presumption that we're natural allies. We are, in many ways: but we're also doubly-opposed. We've got the white/black tension and the Jewish/gentile tension, all wrapped up in a single relationship.
I dunno. This doesn't bug me. I expect a certain amount of antisemitism from non-Jews, just like I expect a certain amount of racism from non-Blacks. Hell, as a non-Black, I -produce- a certain amount of racism.
What makes it more prejudicial than stupid is that Wright could have said "Them politicians." The point he makes in the larger context of these (and other comments he's made) is that Obama's a politician, and he had to disassociate himself from Wright for political reasons.
But instead of staying within that fairly typical sentiment, he brings in the ethno-religious background of at least two of Obama's top advisors, and implies that they are shunning Wright because they are Jews (read: racist, power craving Elders of Zion).
As a Jew who spent the time before the Press Club event defending Wright's statements (except, as TNC says, for the government creating HIV bit), I say more than "eh." This is bigoted, pure and simple, and I think it's at least as damnable as anything the wingnuts say about, well, anyone not from real America.
I'm not saying it's -not- prejudicial. Of course it is. It's bigoted, absolutely.
I just can't bring myself to care much, and not only because Wright simply doesn't matter to me in the least. I'm just not surprised Wright's a bigot, at this level. I'm not all that surprised by the ambient racism that -I- express, either--but more concerned, as I care more about me.
We're all raised around this sort of bigotry. That's our culture. We've gotta fight against acting on it, but I just don't see how it's all that unexpected. Or offensive, to me personally. If I were black, I'd be more pissed at him, just like I'm more pissed at those drunk Jews than Coates is.
I think the tension probably originated with the Jews' role in civil rights, going back to the founding of the NAACP. Some blacks seem to have resented that help (which is a counter-intuitive, but common aspect of human nature: we often resent those who help us, because it reminds us that we needed the help), and some Jews seem to have resented that their help was resented. On top of that, just as Civil Rights was getting its big victories in the 1960s, Israel was making the transition in the Western perception from scrappy underdog country beloved by global lefties (and of course most blacks and Jews were on the left politically) to overdog colonialist, with its victory in the Six Day War. Then of course you had the influence of Arab and Muslim attitudes toward Jews, as some African Americans adopted Islam.
That's what people often say, and not to discount it entirely, I don't know why it's considered more convincing than the suggestion that a) there's tension between black and whites and b) there's tension between Jews and non-Jews so _of course_ there's tension between (largely) white Jews and (largely) non-Jewish blacks.
A Venn diagram would make my point much more clearly.
Jeremiah Wright strikes me as one of those old black men that happens to carry a lot of baggage. In this case, a lot of extra racial scarring seems to be weighing on the preacher's mind.
My great-grandfather used to say that the most prejudiced people on the earth are old black folks, and I'm pretty sure that he was right. After all, black people invented race and color bias. We're masters at it.
Jeremiah knows good and well that he doesn't need this type of publicity for his church, but he's an old Que that will say whatever is on his mind like Bill Cosby. Watch later how it's going to come out that he was an Arcadian, too. The elite have their disillusions too, and we have Reverend Wright to thank for the reminder.
Oh, and who do you think that Reverend Wright is speaking to?
Black people invented race and color bias? Really?
Funny, I thought it was the Crusades, or colonialism, or the whole "Hamitic Curse" theory espoused by the semitic religions (Xianity, Judaism, Islam) in the Middle Ages, or 17th, 18th and 19th century anthropological racialists like Boulanvillers, Blumenbach, Aggasiz, Darwin and Galton.
But its Black people eh? Man, you learn something new every day!
I suppose you could make a case for Ancient Egypt inventing it, or the whole myth of Blacks kicking mutated albinos out of Africa, but thats not the same "old Black masters" of racial bias you are referring to is it?
No I think you mean the aristocracy of the skin, as TNC's esteemed predecessor Frederick Douglass put it, and the whole paper bag test, mulatto vs dark-skinned class conflicts the Black community has experienced since slavery. But then again, thats a legacy we inherited from the true masters of race and color bias--European colonizers. Lets not blame the victim here.
I don't think that is what DI was saying.
Older Jewish people are often racist and perhaps for the same reasons that DI suggests, but when we get to the anecdotal, it is always the case that what remember are often the loudest and largest exceptions to the rule.
Anti-semitism, I believe, has to do with Jewish resistance to assimilation all over the world, but especially in Christian Europe, where the church was used to consolidate power and would not brook resistance of any sort.
Racism as we know it, insofar as I am aware, began with the Portuguese in the Congo as a rationalization for exploitation.
Juba, I'm referring the myths legends of Yakub and I'm also being facetious. I guess you dismissed those and moved on in favor of the bigger booty of blame-shifting.
Juba may be being unnecessarily sarcastic but I think he's just a little mystified by this:
That is--taken on its face--false. But is there something else you meant by that. Is there something we're missing?
I didnt know you were being facetious, apologies then.
Just as an FYI here, Islam does not share the belief in the whole Hamitic curse thing at all. The whole incident as told in the Bible (i.e. Noah was drunk, son saw him naked, etc) does not appear in the Islamic accounts of Noah's life, therefore, no curse. Yes, some of the stories are shared by all three religions, but there is not complete overlap.
Also, though the curse on the son of Ham is scriptural, any identification of his descendants with living populations is not. The idea that Africans were the "sons of Ham" was around in the Middle Ages, and was popularized along with the slave trade. I don't believe it's a very ancient notion in any of the Abrahamic religions, though, and as many abolitionist theologians argued in the 19th century, it is not scripturally persuasive anyway.
Again, apologies. I saw that Arab scholars in the Middle Ages were debating the Curse. I assumed they were Muslim but they turned out to be Arab Christians when I double checked.
Actually I wrote too soon. From Wikipedia:
I don't know much about the others, but I do want to throw out a brief bit of evidence in defense of Darwin, since you name him specifically.
The man was a European in the 19th century, and thus his attitudes (and really we should say even his knowledge) about race were not what ours are, of course. But I think there's a fair bit of evidence that he was more progressive on matters of race than the vast majority of Europeans and European Americans of his day.
Fundamentalist anti-evolutionists have gotten a lot of mileage out of the word "race" in the subtitle of On the Origin of Species, probably ignorant of the word's having a somewhat broader usage in the 19th century English. Darwin very outspokenly considered slavery an abomination, he described his experience with peoples of African descent as limited but positive, he took paid lessons in taxidermy from a black man whom he called "a very pleasant and intelligent man," he countered arguments about the actions of "savages" (African and otherwise) by suggesting cultural rather than innate differences, he in fact even spoke with hope that the blacks in Brazil would do to their European colonial masters what the blacks in Haiti had done.
He may sometimes have used language and conceptualizations that today are archaic, but he may deserve more credit than a lot of people suggest.
There's a long document about this over here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
It may be worthwhile just to scan down and read some of the highlighted portions of Darwin's writings and letters.
I don't want to keep dragging this out, as this is not the topic of the thread, but wikipedia is a crap shoot. Even so, that page you quoted clearly states before the part that where you started your quote:
"Prophets of Islam are generally considered by hadith to have kept Islamic law, even before the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The belief is that God's universal will guided them in the same way as Muhammad, and their habits simply were not accepted by others nor written down. As Islam discourages the consumption of alcohol, this means that the story could not have happened as described in the Torah, as Noah would never be drunk. Instead the story of Noah's nakedness is sometimes explained as the result of the wind blowing off his cloak. Nevertheless, the story of the curse is not part of Islamic scripture."
It is hard to say what Mr. Rosenberg's "quoting" of the sources actually means; for example, Tabari is a well-known scholar of Qur'anic exegesis, and Ibn Ishaq is a well-known scholar of the biography of the prophets of Islam; as is typical with their works, they tend to include *all* available sources, including sources outside of Islam--not as an endorsement of every single narrative, but as a method of compare/contrast. If one is not familiar with that, then it is fairly easy to see how someone might assume that inclusion of a particular narrative in these works is an endorsement of said source. In this case, it is not.
I should also add, again, in spite of the wikipedia page, if you checked with actual Islamic sources, you will find there really is no story of Noah becoming naked (by wind, or by wine) and cursing anybody. The story is not really explained, because it only exists in scriptures of other religious traditions.
Just so I stay on topic, I should state clearly that I, too, believe that Rev. Wright has succumbed to his ego. That became clear on Bill Moyers, and even more so at the Press Club. This latest episode of his just seems really trifling.
Thanks for the knowledge Jane.
Of course he only meant Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, all the other Jews are probably "good ones" in his eyes.
I think the 'them' was as telling as the 'Jews'. Coming from a PhD, more than capable of speaking highbrow English, it does sound like he's trying to play down to a caricature. Reminds me of when he brought up the 'dozens' in the infamous press conference. It was all downhill from there.
Also -- racist/anti-ethnic feelings aren't set in cement. They come and go, intensify and diminish. Wright may well be a hard-core anti-semite at this point, where he was just dabbling before.
I'm surprised though at the apparent level of ignorance conerning his potential future relationship with Obama. Of course, maybe it's all just bluster. Maybe he does realize what he did to the man at that press conference and that they won't be speaking ever again. Or maybe his ego has simply swallowed his IQ. One thing's certain -- his timing is impeccable.
Yes, Reverend Wright may have just provided legs to the first opening in Obama's up-until-now impenetrable armor.
It is not beyond some to call Obama a puppet. Such a notion could be furthered by all of the recent talk of teleprompters.
Should the U.S. foolishly enter into the foray of Iranian politics we would fuel extremism by lending credence to Mahmoud Amahdinejad.
Evidently, Rev. Wright thinks he's Falstaff.
Ill-timed to the extreme, but when is ignorance ever timely? Tin-earred most likely, and resentful of how Obama perhaps in consultation with particular Jewish (and Chicagoan) advisors (Axlerod, at least, Emmanuel probably as well) dropped him after at the Press Club last year. A warning to all about becoming old--the petty unseemliness--and impotence--and now a long time to being discounted as a fool, a stereotypical fool, an ungrateful fool, whose best angels are down for history in President Obama's writings.
As a Jew, I see these remarks, not particularly as "black" anti-semitism, but as part of the world's long and traumatizing history of anti-semitism that blithely others Jewish people with an innuendo of presupposed universal distaste. It is what it is. Let's move on.
I've never seen the President (or many politicians) look as angry as he did during his remarks to the press where he repudiated Rev. Wright following the Press Club adventure. Maybe the Rev should go back and watch that video if he thinks that he is going to have a relationship with the President 5 years from now.
Does anyone remember the clip of Chris Rock talking about how old black men were the most racist people in America because of the amount of racism they received?
Seeing his sermons, the press club and this quote the caricature seems to be the Wright that sat with Bill Moyers. The bright lights expose more blemishes.
I say we just take Wright for what he says he is in the article T Coates links to:
I think its all ego--Wright feels he groomed Obama to be President only to get ostracized by his "son's" new friends, and he knows tossing rocks via the news cycle is the best way to get back at them. Maybe he feels for all his work building Obama up, he hasnt gotten his payoff yet and this is his leverage?
It really is a surprise and rather selfish.
Not to mention indefensibly anti-Semitic.
I'm struck by TNC's word "hardened", because of "... and I will harden Pharoah's heart". I mention it mainly because it's such an interesting echo.
Or, you could also go further and start exploring it down the road of old Bible-study question of it was done to Pharaoh by G-d or by himself, and what either answer would mean, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.
I had all the sympathy in the world for Jeremiah Wright..
UNTIL he chose to CLOWN at the National Press Club.
He was too damn old to be doing what he did.
As, for this comment, I'll say what I say when I hear it from the other side..
ENGLISH is my FIRST language.
I'm not 'misinterpreting' JACK.
Now let's see. Obama attends Wright's "church" for many years, hitches to his wife there and has his kids dunked in its Baptismal font.
Wright's sermons reflect a menu of the things he hates, including the good old U.S.A. He obviously hates Jews.
After Obama's recent Cairo speech there's mucho concern in Israel regarding Obama siding with the wrong side, or is it the Wright side? Naah! It's probably nothing more than Obama's "religion of peace" upbringing, before joining Wright's religion of peace. But then again.
Sieg Heil My Pastor? (All subliminal of course.)
Poor Obama. Poor Israel.
How are some of you surprised by what Mr. Wright says? Mind you, I only know of him what I have seen on TV. Shocking the first time, boring the next. Much like Howard Stern. Maybe he's just a racist, old, black man and that's the end of it. He's only significant because he has access to the press, but even then he's still a nobody (to most everyone outisde of Chicago).
He is only as surprising as a KKK rally. I guess what I'm getting at is the megaphone issue. As frustrating as he is, the media still keeps him alive for that reason. Maybe they thought it was a slow news day.
I predict that we will eventually see him on some D-List celebrity show like Danny Bonadouche or that guy that played Willis on Different Strokes.
I'm not sure I was surprised when I saw Wright's comments, but I was certainly saddened.
I was able to understand (tho' not endorse) even the "God Damn America," since he was putting it in counterpoint to "God Bless America," and the place of anger and pain from which he was speaking is not one that I have any right to judge.
I can also understand, tho' not entirely endorse, the AIDS/government conspiracy argument. In addition to TNC's very valid point about Tuskegee, which is absolutely apropos, I'm reminded of an article I read in The New Yorker about the belief held by residents of the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans that the levees had been exploded deliberately by local officials trying to clear out a part of town they found undesirable. Many people professed to have heard the sounds of the explosions being triggered. On the surface it sounds absurd, but the writer gave a little history of the sorts of bum steers and betrayals that the residents of the Lower Ninth had suffered at the hands of their elected officials, and the existence of the theory--as opposed to the truth of the theory--became far more plausible.
Wright's performance at the Press Club, however, pretty much sealed the deal for me. It was childish and egocentric. In the wake of that shameful display, which pretty much invalidated any inclination to sympathize with his stances in the past, there was little I expected to surprise me.
So, this newest quote doesn't surprise me. But it does sadden me. I am tired of the hostility between African-Americans and Jews. I am made queasy by quotes such as this, just as I am by the memory of my late aunts, who talked about the woman on their block who had a "shvartz" to come in and clean house for her. I am tired.
The comment about "doubling down" made me think of one of the descriptions I've read of the "cold fusion" scientists from a ways back. The Pons-Fleischmann people had originally found a real effect, and then they jumped the gun and interpreted as cold fusion. At first, they were open to new tests suggested by others to show whether it really was fusion or not... but at some point they crossed a line, and were so invested in their interpretation, that they couldn't accept that it was flawed. One is still off doing research on "cold fusion" somewhere, and I believe the other one left science altogether.
I think of this in connection with the play Copehagen -- as a physicist (well, astrophysicist, but same thing) I was very impressed by that play, which is both a) accurate about the physics and b) uses it to demonstrate an interesting insight about humanity. Namely, many (all?) humans carry around different ideas about the same thing in their head -- feelings versus thoughts; argument for one plus argument for the other; a belief in one context contrary to their belief in another; and of course love at the same time as anger, etc. We are often not even aware of the ambivalence. But then the opinion or the feeling is measured. Someone asks for your opinion, you choose one job over another, you commit to a partner, you pull the lever for your candidate.
At that point, your opinion has been measured, you've said it out loud. Usually you forget that you ever felt the other way. To get to the other opinion you used to share requires a change of mind, a re-examination of ourselves -- and most people will defend their own self-identity until forced to do otherwise. (For some it requires less force than others.)
Perhaps Wright carried several different feelings about race, or at least different responses around with him, until he was called on to speak once and for all about his opinion. That would explain why someone like Obama could regard him as a (flawed) spiritual leader. But then the press came down on him -- and one is always going to feel defensive when attacked. And then Obama said publicly that he disagreed with Wright, made him the subject of a major speech, which must have felt like a betrayal. He had to decide whether to re-evaluate and in essence recant many of the things he'd already said, or "double down" and commit completely to one view. And he took the latter course.
Thinking about it that way helps me see him as someone who could provide great spiritual leadership to such and intelligent, thoughtful and aware person, but could also turn out to be so tone-deaf and belligerent now. And it also allows me to have some -- sympathy? -- for someone who has been a flawed good man could come via circumstances (plus ego and lack of self-insight) to be what he now seems to be.
I didn't vote for President Obama and yes, I was concerned about his connections with Rev. Wright. It bothers me that the Black community supports leaders like Louis Farrakhan, that men like Mr. Farrahkhan and Rev. Wright are not disavowed by the Black community at large. I can understand the appeal of these men, but it hurts me as a Jews that they can make outlandish statements that they know will be reported in the press and still, their congregants and the Black Community at large don't disavow them. Is it somehow essential to their ministry that they make these kind of statements?
Beyond that, isn't it President Obamas choice himeslf of who he wants to speak to? Isn't the fact that President Obama chose David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as advisors his choice? Why doesn't Rev. Wright call Valerie Jarrett? Why would President Obama not call Rev. Wright and then all of a sudden start calling him in 4 years or 8 years? Do we believe that President Obama can't call anyone on the sly without it being reported in the media?
With all due respect, this is ridiculous. Please define "supports." The black community consist of 40 million people. 97 percent of black voters supported Barack Obama, a man who reputed Wright and Farrakhan. Moreover, the black community is right here, on this site, commenting right now. It is as legitimate as anything you've seen on TV.
Moreover, the black community is right here--in this thread, talking to you right now. What you're reading here is as legit as anything you've seen on CNN. You are commenting in a thread started by a black man, who's lived around black people all his life. This thread condemns those remarks.
I highly suspect that your comments don't demonstrate any clear sense of what black people do, and do not, repudiate, as much as they demonstrate a need to see what you want to see. I'd ask you to see more.
Hear, hear. I would add to the above, that I don't see how "the black community" can be indicted for "supporting" Farrakhan or others if "the white community" can't be held responsible for "supporting" Rush Limbaugh and the Klan, just to name a few in the long line of illustrious white racists.
This whole notion that is ridiculous.
This is why we all have to be so careful about how we say things on-line. All your points are well taken. When I say "supports", I am thinking about things like the million man march, the respect that Mr. Louis Farrakhan seems to get (even Joe Lieberman met with Mr. Farrahkhan when running for VP, which I thought was ridiculous), and yes, the President spending 20 years in his congregation. All commenters are right, I would never hold it against white people because some whites are Nazis or support the KKK, but it still hurts when you see these two men in particular (Mr. Farrahkhan and Rev. Wright) not being treated like pariahs.
To say that, he is what they said he was is foolish.
Worse, it empowers those who relentlessly and selfishly vilify caricatures they create, and it validates the ignorance they promote.
Rev. Wright has made himself an easy mark, and he is paying for it dearly. The pervasiveness of bigotry is such, that anyone who's not ready to dismiss Wright's life out of hand by labeling him as just an ego maniacal, old racist fool, feels obligated to first declare their abhorrence of bigotry and racism. Okay, I'm as repulsed by some of his actions and beliefs as the next guy, but can't we find some little bit of sympathy for a life that's been, at least to some degree, shaped by those very forces we all find so abhorrent?
When I look at Wright, I can't help but wonder how many incredibly smart and talented lives have been so needlessly misshapen by those forces.
I have no sympathy for a man in the position to shape other's lives in such a malignant way. He has a choice to spout his version of things and as a Reverend should choose the higher ground. However, as a man (on a podium), he has chosen to perpetuate his brand of victimology and hate (under the protection of congregation) instead of offer solutions to past and current issues.
I'm actually shocked by this. I never understood the vilification of rev. wright. Ok, I understood it, but I didn't understand what made otherwise intelligent people buy into it. I was told his sermons were racist, I was told they were anti-american. I asked these people how they were and no one ever had an answer other than they just were. Even in the short clips they showed over and over again I never found anything particularly offensive.
However, his performance at the National Press Club did make me feel a little ill and as Ta-Nehisi would put it seemed unfortunate. I can't help but believe that the almost universal raking over the coals this man has brought out the worst in him.
Perhaps this is me reading too much, but it seems like our conservative, tabloid, pile on media has damaged yet another soul.
Uhhh, has anyone even remotely attempted to see if what he was saying had some element of truth to it despite being wrapped up in inflammatory rhetoric? Let's see what would happen if Obama was to reach out to Wright or vice versa:
1) Republicans immediately go on the offensive and this becomes the #1 news story.
2) The media endlessly debates whether he's a friend of the Jewish community or not.
3) Pro-Jewish groups require Obama to re-pledge his allegiance to Israel regardless of his previous attempts to do so. This bogs down his efforts in the Middle East.
I doubt anyone would disagree that this would be the immediate effect. There is no such thing as a viable political figure in America if you even remotely are seen as in bed or even just friendly with "anti-Semites".
In that context, is it really that outlandish that Wright would state such a thing? The only time Obama could safely speak to the guy without getting his head ripped off by the media, the right and the anti-Obama Jewish community is during a 2nd term or when he's out of office. Does anyone seriously deny this?
I think folks expect everyone to come across in nuanced and reasoned tones when in reality, folks like Wright wrap somewhat reasonable positions in inflammatory rhetoric. He's not attempting to win debates on style points.
It is a fact that the Jewish bloc in this country is extremely powerful and it's not "conspiratorial" to state that or make inferences on what level of influence they may or may not have over a President's actions, directly or indirectly. Nor is it "anti-Semetic". Is it "anti-business" or "anti-capitalism" to state that corporations have a large influence on this country and debate the pros/cons of that?
Let's try our best to focus on the substance here, not the sensationalist fluff.
As to your 1.2.3., you're dead right - but this says nothing about the Jewish people. If Wright had said that the Catholics or the Scientologists or the Irish were controlling Obama, and Obama 'reached out' to him, it would become a #1 news story, and he would have to re-pledge his allegiance to the interests of that group.
The Jewish "bloc" (interesting choice of words) in this country is influential, and no politician should want them to campaign against them - so what? The same is true about the NRA, NOW, AARP, and NAACP. This is appropriate in a democracy; politicians should be ashamed to associate too closely with people who demonize any part of their constituency.
Comparing the influence the NRA, NAACP, NOW or AARP has to the influence the Jewish community has is absurd. Each of those organizations has pretty much chosen one side of the political spectrum, thereby diminishing the power they have over the entire political system. No Democratic candidate really cares what the NRA is doing, it's assumed they will campaign against them. Same for Republicans and the NAACP. Every group you mentioned can and has opposed a winning Presidential candidate. None of those groups have anything to do with foreign policy as well so your point is pretty much bunk.
Each candidate for President and anyone with serious national political ambitions has to appease the Jewish community or risk being branded an anti-Semite. This is just obvious. No other group has that level of influence.
You read my opinion of Jewish influence on the US political system and may think it's reasonable even though you disagree with it. Wright, McKinney etc think the same thing but state it in "The Jews run ish" form. You're more likely to vehemently disagree with their assessment due to how they express it. The only difference is how it was wrapped rhetorically, the underlying substance is the same.
"This is just obvious. No other group has that level of influence."
No - its not obvious - how much does Israel get from the U.S. every year? How much does Egypt get? How much does Social Security & Medicare get? Do you really think that we'd still be running those entitlements the way we do if it weren't for the fact that the AARP didn't have 35 million members?
Give me an example of the "Jewish influence" and how its greater than that of any other group, show me how it's greater than the influence of Christians or white males, how about? No? How much Federal money does "Jewish influence" move? More than the AARP's entitlements? It seems like all you've got is a collection of vague weasel-words.
Bronx Bomber:
I would bet $100 that if we asked President Obama why he does not take Rev. Wrights phone calls or call Mr. Wright back, the answer will not be because of "them Jews", nor because Rahm or David won't put the calls through or give him his messages. It is more likely that his is angry at Mr. Wright for the National Press Club incident and the negative attention it brought his campaign.
Yes, I do find your comments to be anti-semitic. They imply that Jews who support Israel are harming his efforts to make peace in Israel between the Jews and Arabs. In context, the support that some American Jews give Israel in the form of campaign contributions, lobbying, etc, is counterbalanced by the money and influence of the many Arab and Islamic countries. It is not anti-semetic to support the creation of a Palestinian State, but when you point to American Jews as the "problem" for exercising our democratic right to petition our government, then it is anti-semetic (in my opinion).
I also think the point about the NRA is wrong. Many Democrats "fear" the NRA and I believe that the NRA supports members of both parties.
No Democratic Presidential candidate will ever win support of the NRA again. This can't be seriously disputed. Sure you can find some random Democrat in Montana or Idaho who will win support but on a national level it just aint happening. The same goes for Republicans with the NAACP. Those ships have sailed and no one wastes time trying to bring them back to shore.
Did you just actually attempt to say there's a balance between the influence the Jewish lobby has and the Islamic/Muslim lobby on American politics? Come on chief, that's just not a credible statement in any shape form or fashion. I'm not begrudging you your ability to support your political viewpoints as you see fit, feel free, but I'm not an anti-Semite for pointing out the strong influence the Jewish lobby has. Nor I am an anti-Semite for wanting to discuss whether the father-son relationship we have with Israel is really in our long term best interests as a nation.
Being an anti-Semite means you have some deep hostility towards Jewish people, or think they are inferior for ridiculous reasons. There is nothing from my comments that lead to such a conclusion.
BB: Not Islamic/Muslim lobby - Islamic/Muslim Countries! There are at least 20 Arab/Muslim countries and another 20 or more that are Mulsim but not Arab. These countries are active in lobbying the government of the USA, and in having their leading citizens give money to various causes. For example, Saudi citizens are some
of the major supporters of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
I believe that the "Jewish lobby" exists as a counterpoint to these many countries.
I don't understand why anyone is surprised by his statements. He was more than willing to preach racial hatred for a whole variety of groups during his career as a preacher, which Obama apparently somehow missed, ignored, or quietly condoned.
How ironic is it that Wright most likely would have agreed with von Brunn on many issues, yet Obama again with a simple detraction that wouldn't be allowed for ANYONE else escapes any serious scrutiny?
His statements reminded me of the rantings of Cynthia (the Jews control the world) McKinney.
Another strange bird who escapes the normal condemnation because of her race.
The soft bigotry of low expectations indeed. What a shame.
Really? Like who? Links and/or quotes, please.
You've buried this in a thread that people arent paying much attention to, but I dont think this claim should go unexamined.
It's embarrassing even to call him "reverend". He is a very noisy man of weak character who has been driven insane by racism. His own.
Rev. Wright has "clairified" his remarks; it was not just a poor choice of words but true hatred of Jews and Israel. I don't believe that these opinions were unknown to those who attended his church for years. It saddens me that my President attended his church for 20 years and considered a person with such vile opinions as his friend and spiritual advisor.
The word "Jew" certainly has a negative connotation. Interestingly enough, if you google "jew" the very first search result is jewwatch.com which is an antisemetic website. After many petitions google refused to take it down, reasoning that when people are looking for legitimate search results on the subject they generally type in Jewish or Jewish people, however when the purpose of the search is anti-jewish, the word Jew is typically used. Words Jew and Hebrew come from specifically different roots and in the russian language the word meaning Hebrew is a legitimate name for the jewish people, while the word for Jew is actually a terrible slur. Sorry for the boring info, but in terms of what Wright said, there was no unfortunate language or meaning to particular Jews. He knew exactly what he was saying and the implications of those words. The man is an idiot. The supposedly complicated relationship between the Jews and the Blacks would be significantly less complicated if the public figures and religious leaders, such as Wright didn't stir the pot
It also seems odd that the comments on this post talk about how the Jewish lobby is the root cause of this incident or that the conservatives ruined a good soul. What???? Again, Wright is an idiot and a bigot. That's all there is to it. Shouldn't be a story, except for Obama ties
Wright is wrong, and there is no mitigation of his anti-Semitism. He is a bad man. That Obama sat in his pew for 20 years and disavowed him only recently shows poor judgment or worse.
All of this saddens me.
How many race based "hate" crimes occur in the USA every day of the week and not one word is uttered by the media? Black on Asian, Asian on Hispanic, Black on White, etc.
If there is any ethnic group that is least affected by all this it is probably the Jewish. First because they represent only 1-2% of the population and second because they don't normally live in high crime areas.
All of the major (and lesser) cities have race based gangs that fight and kill each other because of the color of their skin. So how does this singular killing in DC, as tragic as it was, warrant the massive news coverage it has received?
It warrants the coverage BECAUSE it doesn't happen every day. That's one meaning of news. Also the location in the Holocaust Museum makes it "newsier".
I don't necessarily see some trend here because of one warped twisted old man, but the story is certainly NEWS.
Of course perhaps I'm just a tool of the Zionist conspiracy...........the Jews control the media and the Irish control the liquor stores and breweries.
NotAnAgitator - Rev. Wright was President Obama's pastor for 20 plus years. That is why it is news.
It's not just an attack on a Jewish person. We're talking about a well-known white supremacist(who in the 80's tried to kidnap the board of the federal reserve) going into The National Holocaust Museum with a riffle and killing somebody. Compare that with somebody doing the same thing in a Black History Museum, or Ellis Island, or a federal building. That IS news! As for Wright, I take back when I called him an idiot earlier. Just watched his press club speach. He's a very thoughtful and knowledgeable man. He knew EXACTLY what he was saying!