I haven’t had a chance to look in detail at what Rev. Jeremiah Wright has recently said, but from what I have seen from the front page of this morning’s Wall Street Journal, his recent comments are pretty offensive. It’s pretty ridiculous to say the government started AIDS, or whatever it was he said.
But, regarding his past comments that led up to his “God damn America” finale in the pulpit on YouTube, I personally didn’t see it as too far off the mark to be coming from a black man in America.
While I DON’T think this country is inherently racist by any means, our history is blatantly full of institutional prejudice due to people in power overiding the essence of meaning in the Constitution (i.e. slavery, Trail of Tears, Jim Crow laws, Civil War drafts, women’s suffrage issues, etc.), and when you see people like you getting the shit end of the stick for generations, I can’t blame him for being pissed. I don’t condone telling God to damn anything, nor do I agree that America is inherently racist, but it’s not hard to see why he thinks it is with centuries of corruption of power by a America controlled by white males.
I fully expect to get jumped on for this because it’s as unpatriotic as not wearing the graven idol of the U.S. flag lapel pin and I haven’t laid out my thoughts in full, but that’s my general feeling. You have to look at this from his point of view. If I were a woman or not white, it would be hard to say this country isn’t prejudice by nature.
1 Trish // Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Like Thomas, I’m going to shoot from the hip with this response.
I don’t think what you are saying is unpatriotic. I think you are just trying to be sympathetic to what Wright describes as trials and hardships for himself, and other people in our country. However, even if we do look at things from his point of view, and then take into account his recent remarks, I’m not sure that sympathy is what I feel. I understand his frustration over historical prejudices and even current issues in our society, but I’m not sure he’s helping further the discussion at all. For someone who has a goal of trying to shed light on the problems with race relations, or issues regarding the “Black church,” or the US government, whatever his topic - I really don’t see anything he says as being a quality addition to the national conversation on such issues because he is saying such crazy things. For anything he says that may have merit, the sound bite will always be ‘the US government started AIDS to kill off black people.’
And I also don’t think we should excuse his remarks because he is a black man in America. He is responsible for his remarks and behavior - regardless or race, religion, or orientation - just like everyone else.
2 Jason // Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Of course Jeremiah Wright is responsible for his own remarks. But is Obama also responsible for Wright’s remarks? Is Obama responsible for everything that Jeremiah Wright ever has said and ever will say?
3 Brendan // Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Of course not. We’re not voting for Jeremiah Wright for President. BUT we’re voting for one of his parishioners, a man who seems to care about Wright very much. A man who says himself that Wright brought him into Christianity.
I think its obvious from the press conference that Wright’s “God Damn America” comments were pretty much the norm for his sermons. The prescence of the Nation of Islam at this rally also strikes me as something that didn’t happen overnight. Obama went to this church for decades while this went on and never thought “Hmmm, this Revenrend seems to say something crazy every week. Maybe I should find a new church?” Apparently this never came up.
So did he stay b/c he loves going to Wright’s church despite the many ridiculous stances? Did he stay b/c Wright’s church is well-connected politically and it was best for his career in Illinois? Or, scary enough, did he stay b/c this is what he really thinks? (Wright suggested this in the press conference)
This is bad for Obama b/c he’s an unknown. He came onto the scene as a Dark Horse and his speeches energized the nation. All we had to go on record-wise were his few years of voting records, his reputation, his religious views, and that yearbook picture of him playing hoop. At least with Hillary people have known for years that she’s a mean, power-hungry gila monster that will stop at nothing to win. I think the events of the past few days suggest we could have no idea who Obama is.
4 Thomas // Apr 30, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Yeah, from what I have seen of his statements the last few days, it sounds pretty bad, and my comments are more directed towards the original comments from his sermon.
I don’t think we should excuse anyone for their comments, but we have to put them in context and understand where he is coming from, which is all I was really trying to do.
Regardless of merit, I think nutty comments from the radical fringe are almost always important to national discourse on either side. They may not add a lot of intelligence, but they extend the boundries of our thoughts.
For example, I’m bothered by the thought that he thinks the government created AIDS to kill black people, but it’s important for us (and by us, I mean mainstream America) to here that, because he is by no means the only person to believe it. Thanks to the Tuskeegee experiments, many black people don’t have the slightest bit of trust for the government. And, as radical and off the wall as it sounds, if that kind of comment makes it onto the national scene, it’s probably not a reflection of one man’s thoughts. It’s probably a reflection of some belief out there that some portion of Americans believe.
As other examples, take Sen. Tom Coburn’s comment that doctors who perform abortions should be put to death or Rick Santorum’s comment about homosexuality and beastiality… or even the polygamists in general. (HOLY CRAP! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?) Those are very telling things. If comments like that make it to the national scene… there must be a pretty solid group of people that believe that. The group may not make up more than one percentage point of the population, but it’s there, and it lets the country know more or less what kind of extremes arguments are framed in. You can argue they are nuts, but they are there any way you classify them… and they probably vote, too.
I’m just thinking out loud now, but thanks for the thoughts, Trish!
Also, I don’t think Obama should be held responsible for the comments either. It’s just the media keeping it alive. I completely understand Bill Moyers having Wright on his show, because that is exactly the kind of person Moyers would want to examine more in depth (Full disclosure: I love Bill Moyers). But, hosting Wright at the National Press Club? Are you kidding? Is there so little news out there that the media has to create it’s own by digging up an old story?