By now, just about everyone in the nation has said something about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos and about Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on Tuesday. The country now seems tired and ready to move on from it; that’s just when I’m ready to jump in. Too bad for me that just about everything that could be said on this already has been. Nonetheless, with my usual sense of exquisite timing, here are my thoughts on the subject.
First off, the Obama campaign was expressly NOT supposed to be about race. Senator Obama basically told us that the fact that he has African blood in him should not matter. But now, thanks to his closeness to Rev. Wright, it does. After the Wright videos surfaced last week, Obama was in effect asked to choose between being a black man and being a generic, trans-racial member of the human race, as previously advertised. He chose to be black. And I take my hat off to him for doing so. He is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church, a church community that expressly defines itself as “unashamedly black”. When called upon to break his ties to that community, the Senator refused. So, Barack Obama is now the unashamedly black candidate.
Again, I admire his courage in choosing his community bonds over political expediency. Senator Obama is an extremely bright man who knows darn well that his shot at the White House, if not the Democratic nomination, has been endangered by his choice not to condemn the Rev. Wright. I don’t have to tell you that the GOP 527 committees are going to have a field day with those videos in the fall (along with Obama’s express refusal to wear an American flag pin, the video of him not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, and his wife’s words about being proud of America for the first time in her adult life).
Now, as to the speech. Obama is a bright man who knows that his candidacy has been endangered, and the speech represented a necessary damage control effort. That’s not to detract from its brilliance and bravery. Obama decided to “grasp the nettle” of underlying racial tension that America has not yet resolved (but at least has the good sense to keep from boiling over in public). He told us that he knows what many blacks say and think about whites in private, and likewise knows what a lot of whites say and think about blacks in private. He promised to keep working toward greater understanding between such blacks and whites.
He told us that he didn’t share Rev. Wright’s more fiery views; in fact he condemned them, at least from his perspective as a national celebrity. However, he asked us to accept that he hasn’t previously challenged or personally censured such expressions while in the company of his black community, and he won’t now. He’s asking the nation to acknowledge that this sort of thing is all right within the African American community. He didn’t opine whether the nation as a whole should extend similar toleration to comparable situations within the Euro-white community, the Hispanic community, the Arab/Islamic-American community, etc.
(Indeed, imagine an Egyptian-American imam lecturing at an American mosque in front of many children, “Allah, Curse America!”, “America got what it deserved on 9/11” . . . . do we hope that the participants would tell the imam that they don’t want such values conveyed to their children and that they will withdraw their financial and personal support if such messages continue?)
OK, to me that’s the BIG ONE; that’s the question of the day. Is Obama correct in asking the nation to accept the black community’s toleration, if not complete embracement, of factually wrong and patriotically negative expressions by some of its prominent members? (Black church ministers are about as prominent as you can get in many African American communities.) And that its children should be exposed to such expressions? (Admittedly, there is a countervailing message from adults that no one intends to follow up on those messages by reviving the armed ‘black nationalist’ movements of the late 1960s, e.g. the Black Panthers.)
Senator Obama didn’t have the time on Tuesday to lay out the complicated and often unspoken historical and sociological parameters that underlie the state of racial relations in America today. And neither do I — not to mention that I really don’t know them very well. But I will admit that there are valid reasons for America to extend some understanding to people like the Rev. Wright (and to their relationships to those like Senator Obama).
Jeremiah Wright is not Osama Bin Laden. He has done much to serve the needy, to provide education, and to lift up and support those within his community. He has maintained the flow of daily life within his neighborhood. As with most black ministers, he has unceasingly urged and challenged his Chicago flock to strive and achieve, to educate and improve themselves, to be good faithful husbands and wives and parents, to believe in morality, to shun negative influences such as substance abuse, gambling, prostitution, etc.
And from the broader perspective, whites today cannot expect that the legacy of 300 years of slavery and apartheid on American soil could just vanish within a half century, despite the administration of correctives such as federal civil rights laws, poverty assistance programs, extended educational opportunities, and affirmative action within higher education and the workplace. Most white families today are able to say that their ancestors were not in America when slavery and the reconstruction were taking place. But their ancestors (including my own) did choose come to this country to share in its prosperity, and a significant portion of that prosperity was gained because of the forced labor and other injustices imposed upon west Africans brought to this land in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Slavery did give America a significant economic kick-start, although science and the industrial revolution later took over. So there is an argument that America still owes something to its children of Africa, especially those who have not yet shared in the dream.
But on the other side of the coin, I think that whites, if allowed to speak frankly, would have some legitimate points to raise. One of those questions would be this: how long? Do African-Americans expect to be treated specially forever? Do they really want that? Doesn’t challenge often bring out the best in people, and can’t too much entitlement bring out the worst? The conservatives have some valid points about human nature such as it is.
I myself don’t believe that gangs, drugs, crime and other maladies of the black poor stem from the Great Society programs of the 1960s and 1970s; what did stem from them is the now-expanding black middle class. But at some point, white guilt can be and has been unfairly exploited. Does black culture in America really want to bill itself and be viewed as a damaged group that needs to always be given a head start in every event (other than basketball and hip-hop)? I know a fair number of successful black people who probably don’t think so. And although there certainly are valid arguments regarding redress for the sins of the past, at some point nearly every human being alive today has ties with some social or ethnic group that at some point in history was persecuted or plundered. Can the world heal all of the generational effects from every wound from the past?
Somewhere between these two polar viewpoints lies the truth, along a road of reason. Barack Obama (with help from Rev. Wright) brought American race relations back into the spotlight, but basically left the issues hanging and unresolved. He has to get on with his campaign; political realities won’t let him dwell on the subject. If anything, they encourage him to get away from the topic. Politically, he needs to go back to being “Barack Obama, man of all creeds and colors”, and get away from being “Barack Obama, American black man”, as he was and is when at Trinity United.
For better and for worse, though, I’m not sure that the voters this fall will let him do that.
Jim,
I think you have hit the nail on the head in several of the points you made. I found myself saying several times as I read your blog, “Right!”
A few comments of my own. As I heard Joyce Behar say on “The View”, it was refreshing to hear a political speech that was intelligent as opposed to the speeches of GWB. And when one thinks of it, it’s truly tragic to have to make such a statement. (And it should be said that this statement has nothing at all to do with saying Obama is “articulate”; or that it is a surprise that he might be intelligent. However, it is a statement about GWB!)
However, even tho, I agreed with much of what you said, there are some points I found myself disagreeing with or perhaps wanting to tweak a bit, to wit: Your point about Chicago Trinity United Church being a community that defines itself as being ” ‘unashamedly black'”–I have some kind of visceral reaction to that statement. Basically, I guess I just do not like it. I know for a fact that there is another congregation in Chicago that is “unashamedly black”, but it does not call itself that and likely accepts people of all races. And that parish is St. Sabina run by Father Pfleger (sp?). Pfleger’s congregation is one of the thriving black congregations in Chicago, equally active in the Chicago community (though perhaps in different areas) than Trinity. In fact, Pfleger has put his money where his mouth is and has been arrested for his protests that have been designed to protect the community. (Currently, Pfleger and his fellow clergy men are very active in doing something about the violence in Chicago that has killed 20 high school students this school 2007-2008 school year.) Yet there is not one word that comes from that congregation that has anything at all to do with “damning America” or making statements about “rich white folk”. Such statements simply do not come out of St. Sabina’s; yet Pfleger and his associates do not hesitate to stand up and protect the community.
Another problem I have with the statement about being “unashamedly black” is why even make the statement? Sure I can see that at some point it is/was necessary for those who are black to stand up and say, I’m black and I’m proud. But past a certain point and if we are to get to a truly “everybody-is-equal” mentality, we have to get to the idea of “who cares what color someone is?” Color doesn’t even come into the equation. A person is simply a person, period, end of the discussion.
Your point about Obama condemning Wright’s comments as a national celebrity lead me to ask: But what does Obama do personally, in his heart? And this is a tangential addition: It bothers me terribly when I hear blacks refer to themselves as “the N word.” I don’t think anyone should call anybody names–particularly derogatory names. Using such terminology should NOT be OK for black and not NOT OK for whites; using such terminology should simply be stricken from the vocabulary of anyone at all. And again, I say: period, end of the discussion.
Yet I did hear one explanation of Wright’s sermons that made some sense to me. It was from a member of the Trinity congregation who himself is a Ph.D. in theology, particularly the theological approach that is used in the United Church Congregation. This man said (on a “Chicago Tonight” program) that the sermons given in such churches follow a 5 part outline. The words quoted by Wright are somewhere in the middle of the outline; what was not heard was the remaining parts of the sermon outline. Specifically, it seems the sermons are somewhat apocalyptic; the middle part is specifically apocalyptic; the last two parts deal with the healing of the congregation and the bringing back of the people to God. Yet (and I’m sure due to time limits) no specific examples were given of what Wright might have said/did say in the remaining portion of the “offensive” sermon.
I’m also not sure I can extend some “understanding to people like Rev. Wright”. It just seems to me that apoc
Comment by MCS — March 21, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Jim,
I think you have hit the nail on the head in several of the points you made. I found myself saying several times as I read your blog, “Right!”
A few comments of my own. As I heard Joyce Behar say on “The View”, it was refreshing to hear a political speech that was intelligent as opposed to the speeches of GWB. And when one thinks of it, it’s truly tragic to have to make such a statement. (And it should be said that this statement has nothing at all to do with saying Obama is “articulate”; or that it is a surprise that he might be intelligent. However, it is a statement about GWB!)
However, even tho, I agreed with much of what you said, there are some points I found myself disagreeing with or perhaps wanting to tweak a bit, to wit: Your point about Chicago Trinity United Church being a community that defines itself as being ” ‘unashamedly black'”–I have some kind of visceral reaction to that statement. Basically, I guess I just do not like it. I know for a fact that there is another congregation in Chicago that is “unashamedly black”, but it does not call itself that and likely accepts people of all races. And that parish is St. Sabina run by Father Pfleger (sp?). Pfleger’s congregation is one of the thriving black congregations in Chicago, equally active in the Chicago community (though perhaps in different areas) than Trinity. In fact, Pfleger has put his money where his mouth is and has been arrested for his protests that have been designed to protect the community. (Currently, Pfleger and his fellow clergy men are very active in doing something about the violence in Chicago that has killed 20 high school students this school 2007-2008 school year.) Yet there is not one word that comes from that congregation that has anything at all to do with “damning America” or making statements about “rich white folk”. Such statements simply do not come out of St. Sabina’s; yet Pfleger and his associates do not hesitate to stand up and protect the community.
Another problem I have with the statement about being “unashamedly black” is why even make the statement? Sure I can see that at some point it is/was necessary for those who are black to stand up and say, I’m black and I’m proud. But past a certain point and if we are to get to a truly “everybody-is-equal” mentality, we have to get to the idea of “who cares what color someone is?” Color doesn’t even come into the equation. A person is simply a person, period, end of the discussion.
Your point about Obama condemning Wright’s comments as a national celebrity lead me to ask: But what does Obama do personally, in his heart? And this is a tangential addition: It bothers me terribly when I hear blacks refer to themselves as “the N word.” I don’t think anyone should call anybody names–particularly derogatory names. Using such terminology should NOT be OK for black and not NOT OK for whites; using such terminology should simply be stricken from the vocabulary of anyone at all. And again, I say: period, end of the discussion.
Yet I did hear one explanation of Wright’s sermons that made some sense to me. It was from a member of the Trinity congregation who himself is a Ph.D. in theology, particularly the theological approach that is used in the United Church Congregation. This man said (on a “Chicago Tonight” program) that the sermons given in such churches follow a 5 part outline. The words quoted by Wright are somewhere in the middle of the outline; what was not heard was the remaining parts of the sermon outline. Specifically, it seems the sermons are somewhat apocalyptic; the middle part is specifically apocalyptic; the last two parts deal with the healing of the congregation and the bringing back of the people to God. Yet (and I’m sure due to time limits) no specific examples were given of what Wright might have said/did say in the remaining portion of the “offensive” sermon.
I’m also not sure I can extend some “understanding to people like Rev. Wright”. It just seems to me that apocalyptic or not, such talk is inflammatory and really does no good in the end. Again, I’m back to St. Sabina’s in Chgo: There is not one inflammatory word coming out of that congregation (apocalyptic or not); yet, that congregation has also done very much good for the community without causing division.
And one more comment: Your point about “white guilt.” I know I’m odd man out in my thinking, but I simply refuse to feel guilty. My approach to life has been that I just won’t do anything that will make me feel guilty. I will think about something, consider carefully the consequences, consider carefully the good and bad aspects; the decision I make is the one I make. I refuse to feel guilty. Later, I may see how things could have gone another way, may realize that if I had known more at the time I may have made a different decision. But the fact is that at the time I did NOT know “more” at the time–hindsight is always 20/20. Thus, I refuse to feel guilty. Specifically, back to the issue in discussion: I will feel very sad and burdened by the tragedy of what the white people have done to the Native Americans and the slaves in our country; but I myself do not feel guilt. I have never accepted the attitudes that subjugated Native Americans and Black nor have I participated in them in any way. I have simply always accepted people as they are.
Your comment about a “road of reason” also has me saying: But you have missed the point, Jim. These issues are not matters of reason; they are matters of FEELING. Reason will never solve these kinds of problems because feelings are involved.
And on another topic about Obama: Lying in the weeds, waiting to pounce, I still think is the Rezko problem. First it was $40,000 that Obama gave back, then it was $80,000; the last I heard here in Chgo was that, no, it’s not either of those amounts; it’s now $250,000 that is in question about hanky-panky goings on in the real estate deal he had with Rezko; and as Rezko’s dealings come out, truly there was some “original” forms of hanky-panky going on. As I said before, in Chgo, where there is a puff of smoke, there is a raging subterranean fire.
For the first time, with all this wrangling between the Democrats going on, I find myself wondering if McCain may actually have a chance in the coming election. Egads!
I started this whole election process being very “upbeat” on the chances for a truly new administration–either Clinton or Obama–that would get us out of this total mess the GWB administration has put us in. Yet as the election process proceeds, I wonder whether anybody will do any real good in straightening out this mess that will take YEARS to clean up.
Lastly, and on another topic that I simply can’t resist talking about: I’m sick and tired of all the sexual proclivities of politicians being made public and causing resignations. The only problem I can find recently is with Spitzer (sp?) who seems to have used taxpayer money to pay for his exploits–a definite no-no. But frankly, I don’t care who had extra marital affairs; those types of incidents belong within a marriage and should be private between the husband and wife. When one thinks of the whole Clinton debacle, the whole thing should have been left alone (instead of pursuing the “did you lie about having sex in the oval office?” question).
I’m getting tired of what seems the new generation’s sense that if it’s not on YouTube or TV, it doesn’t have reality or even existence. Good grief! Is the new generation going to be composed of all “hollow” people?
Is the only reason they are “for” Obama is because he’s got the backing of Winfrey, Hollywood, and comes off like a rock star? If that’s the reason the young people will vote for Obama, we are truly in trouble in more ways than we can think.
MCS
Comment by MCS — March 21, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Jim,
I think you have hit the nail on the head in several of the points you made. I found myself saying several times as I read your blog, “Right!”
A few comments of my own. As I heard Joyce Behar say on “The View”, it was refreshing to hear a political speech that was intelligent as opposed to the speeches of GWB. And when one thinks of it, it’s truly tragic to have to make such a statement. (And it should be said that this statement has nothing at all to do with saying Obama is “articulate”; or that it is a surprise that he might be intelligent. However, it is a statement about GWB!)
However, even tho, I agreed with much of what you said, there are some points I found myself disagreeing with or perhaps wanting to tweak a bit, to wit: Your point about Chicago Trinity United Church being a community that defines itself as being ” ‘unashamedly black'”–I have some kind of visceral reaction to that statement. Basically, I guess I just do not like it. I know for a fact that there is another congregation in Chicago that is “unashamedly black”, but it does not call itself that and likely accepts people of all races. And that parish is St. Sabina run by Father Pfleger (sp?). Pfleger’s congregation is one of the thriving black congregations in Chicago, equally active in the Chicago community (though perhaps in different areas) than Trinity. In fact, Pfleger has put his money where his mouth is and has been arrested for his protests that have been designed to protect the community. (Currently, Pfleger and his fellow clergy men are very active in doing something about the violence in Chicago that has killed 20 high school students this school 2007-2008 school year.) Yet there is not one word that comes from that congregation that has anything at all to do with “damning America” or making statements about “rich white folk”. Such statements simply do not come out of St. Sabina’s; yet Pfleger and his associates do not hesitate to stand up and protect the community.
Another problem I have with the statement about being “unashamedly black” is why even make the statement? Sure I can see that at some point it is/was necessary for those who are black to stand up and say, I’m black and I’m proud. But past a certain point and if we are to get to a truly “everybody-is-equal” mentality, we have to get to the idea of “who cares what color someone is?” Color doesn’t even come into the equation. A person is simply a person, period, end of the discussion.
Your point about Obama condemning Wright’s comments as a national celebrity lead me to ask: But what does Obama do personally, in his heart? And this is a tangential addition: It bothers me terribly when I hear blacks refer to themselves as “the N word.” I don’t think anyone should call anybody names–particularly derogatory names. Using such terminology should NOT be OK for black and not NOT OK for whites; using such terminology should simply be stricken from the vocabulary of anyone at all. And again, I say: period, end of the discussion.
Yet I did hear one explanation of Wright’s sermons that made some sense to me. It was from a member of the Trinity congregation who himself is a Ph.D. in theology, particularly the theological approach that is used in the United Church Congregation. This man said (on a “Chicago Tonight” program) that the sermons given in such churches follow a 5 part outline. The words quoted by Wright are somewhere in the middle of the outline; what was not heard was the remaining parts of the sermon outline. Specifically, it seems the sermons are somewhat apocalyptic; the middle part is specifically apocalyptic; the last two parts deal with the healing of the congregation and the bringing back of the people to God. Yet (and I’m sure due to time limits) no specific examples were given of what Wright might have said/did say in the remaining portion of the “offensive” sermon.
I’m also not sure I can extend some “understanding to people like Rev. Wright”. It just seems to me that apoc
Comment by MCS — March 21, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Jim,
I’ve given some further tho’t to the Obama-Wright situation.
Yes, it is true that most likely we all have in our family or know someone we love who holds very prejudiced views–and there is no changing the person and/or the views.
Yet, the problem seems to me the difference lies in the fact that neither we or those we love who hold opinions with which we may not agree do not hold public positions where such opinions can influence and incite large groups of people against other groups of people.
I have to say that I truly WANT to like Obama and initially had hopes that he might be our next Kennedy (altho I’ve wondered over the years: If Kennedy had lived, would the mystic have held after 40 or 50 years?)
However, not only is there the “Wright” problem, there is also the “Illinois politician” problem and the Rezko connection. It’s a desperate shame to say that there is little about the best Illinois politician that does not have some underlying wonder about just what all kind of hanky panky have gone on (are going on) in all his/her politican doings. True, there are some Illinois politicians I still admire–but deep in my heart I wonder about even them. Perhaps I’m too much of a cynic, but then again, may not.
MCS
Comment by MCS — March 23, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Jim,
I’ve given some further tho’t to the Obama-Wright situation.
Yes, it is true that most likely we all have in our family or know someone we love who holds very prejudiced views–and there is no changing the person and/or the views.
Yet, the problem seems to me the difference lies in the fact that neither we or those we love who hold opinions with which we may not agree do not hold public positions where such opinions can influence and incite large groups of people against other groups of people.
I have to say that I truly WANT to like Obama and initially had hopes that he might be our next Kennedy (altho I’ve wondered over the years: If Kennedy had lived, would the mystic have held after 40 or 50 years?)
However, not only is there the “Wright” problem, there is also the “Illinois politician” problem and the Rezko connection. It’s a desperate shame to say that there is little about the best Illinois politician that does not have some underlying wonder about just what all kind of hanky panky have gone on (are going on) in all his/her politican doings. True, there are some Illinois politicians I still admire–but deep in my heart I wonder about even them. Perhaps I’m too much of a cynic, but then again, may not.
MCS
Comment by MCS — March 23, 2008 @ 9:44 am