jeremiah wright's national press club speech
i agree with much of what wright says, and he's well-informed on many of the issues he comments on. but, he seems to nest most of his "controversial" statements as being in line with the black church, writ large, thereby presenting the attacks he has faced as strictly anti-black church, which i don't think it was or is. he's received all the criticism that he has bc of the 9/11-related comments that he said, which is likely not happening in every black church. "this is not an attack on jeremiah wright... this is an attack on the black church." -- i don't agree with that statement.
however, one aspect of this issue, which probably does point to some underlying race issues, is that other people have, of course, had very much the same critical statements he has had, to a much more critical depth, in fact. noam chomsky, for example, went on an interview circuit in the days following 9/11, and said all that wright said, but a lot more, with much more criticism for the american gov't.
the speech starts to heat up about 15 minutes in >> "... whatsoever you sew, that you also shall reap... You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles."
at one point during the post-speech question session, wright is asked if he still thinks the US gov't created HIV/AIDS for a genocidal attack on the black community, and he basically says that he wouldn't put it past the american government. statements such as those are so painfully inaccurate.
Sphere: Related Content
however, one aspect of this issue, which probably does point to some underlying race issues, is that other people have, of course, had very much the same critical statements he has had, to a much more critical depth, in fact. noam chomsky, for example, went on an interview circuit in the days following 9/11, and said all that wright said, but a lot more, with much more criticism for the american gov't.
the speech starts to heat up about 15 minutes in >> "... whatsoever you sew, that you also shall reap... You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles."
at one point during the post-speech question session, wright is asked if he still thinks the US gov't created HIV/AIDS for a genocidal attack on the black community, and he basically says that he wouldn't put it past the american government. statements such as those are so painfully inaccurate.
9 comments:
Did you read the terribly written story in the NYTimes on Wright's speech yesterday? The story addresses absolutely none of the issues Wright brings up. Instead he's portrayed as a "wacky" old windbag. (Although he's wrong about the AIDS conspiracy, I agree that it's something I wouldn't put past the U.S. government; ie, I wouldn't be surprised.)
Here's a choice excerpt from the Times: "But Mr. Wright’s monomania over the last three days has helped prove the point Mr. Obama made about his former pastor last month in his speech on race, in which he described Mr. Wright as 'imperfect' but having also been 'like family to me.' Mr. Wright revealed himself to be the compelling but slightly wacky uncle who unsettles strangers but really just craves attention."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29watc.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=Jeremiah+Wright&st=nyt&oref=slogin
wow. no, i didn't see the nytimes article, but it seems pretty off base.
obama's over-reaction to the wright speech here
Wright insists that he (Wright) is all about reconciliation, and it sounds that way to me.
But Obama keeps saying that Wright is divisive. He's only "divisive" if you're scared of him, I think.
I think Obama should have stuck to his old speech, his old response, which is that Wright is wrong about certain things--like AIDS--but despite being wrong he and many others have legitimate reasons to feel that way. I.e., the paranoia is a product of...something.
i think he's divisive in the sense that anyone with a wildly non-mainstream p.o.v is divisive. chomsky can be considered divisive.
he is a divisive figure even within his own church, where he is not even the senior pastor (something that is often overlooked). many in the congregation may believe what he says, while others think like obama does, that coming together is more important than making wild accusations.
he is spot-on re: 9/11 and yes he is singled out b.c. he is a pastor in a black church, not a white intellectual.
Well, there's already a divide. And the divide is clearly shown again when those talking about the divide (Wright) are called divisive because they talk about the divide. Even while clearly trying to bridge that divide. I agree with everything he says save the AIDS thing.
I.e., I hear no wild accusations from Wright save the AIDS idea, an idea that he basically revised/tempered with his Press Club comment "I wouldn't put it past the U.S. government."
I wish politicians stirred up things like he does instead of ignoring the many divides.
it has become impractical for politicians on the national level to say anything that addresses the fact that the US has been other than a uniformly benevolent presence in every corner of the world in the past 50 years. it is shameful that americans are so self-deluded that they cannot come to terms with the horrible actions carried out by our presidents, both democrats and republicans.
remember when obama mentioned a reagen-era policy in a positive light and was completely lambasted by the democrats? it's gotten to the point that you can't say anything that doesn't fit within your own party's version of the truth without being called 'un-american', 'inflammatory', or 'divisive'.
further, what a missed opportunity it was for obama to effectively say, 'look, rev. wright isn't saying anything that hasn't said before. and, in fact, i agree that the united states has carried out actions which have had negative repercussions in this world. we have made mistakes before, plain and simple, and i think anybody who claims to the contrary would show themselves to be deficient in basic american history. and i hope to improve the relationship between the US and our allies abroad, and improve our international image when i'm elected president.'
is is that difficult for the american public to realize/accept that a gov't is only a reflection of (considerably weighty) precedent plus those currently in power? seems to be the case. american hubris...
finally, hillary has of course capitalized on the recent wave of anti-wright fervor. what a piece of shit. she honestly thinks wright's words are hateful? hateful towards what?
one last thing -- i feel the reason wright got attacked from so many different groups of people is bc what he discussed obviously transcends a lot more than 'race' and 'religion' and whatever else wright wants to think he did. he wasn't attacked bc he was black, or christian, or a black christian. what he touched on was fundamental, and incredibly sensitive, issues of what it means to be an american today. can you not speak ill of your country? can you not criticize ethically and morally corrupt actions of past and present leaders? our government enslaved african americans, bombed cambodians, and unlawfully invaded iraq, among a plethora of other apparently unspeakable acts. unfortunately, for everyone involved, all of these actions continue to have considerable repercussions today.
is it not valid to say that if you kill and maim thousands of people in far away lands, that it is likely for those people to resent you and possibly want to take some modicum of revenge?
nobody, and certainly not a hydra-headed government as ours, should be immune from such criticism.
I agree. I'd add, though, that Obama doesn't speak about criminal U.S. policy not because he thinks it's politically impossible to do so but because he doesn't think the U.S. has acted criminally now or in the past.
Regarding Hillary's response, Obama has also said that Wright's words "give comfort to those who prey on hate." (He's sounding more like Bush here.) But even worse, Wright is saying the exact same things that MLK said in 1967. And MLK was highly ridiculed for being un-American, divisive, etc. etc.
apparently obama not only hates america he also hates whites.
this video is ridiculous and taken SO out of context.
Post a Comment