1. Sorry. My expectations of the people here are higher.
Also, a thoughtful, deliberative, typed statement is not comparable to something that can happen in a split second on a basketball court.
I don't see why it's all that different. Many posters type many hundreds if not thousands of posts here a year. Taking the utmost care with each and every one of them to make sure people's feelings aren't ruffled, especially when there's a community norm in effect that's permissive about such things, is unwarranted.

2. What "conclusions" are you talking about in this comparison. This point has become very abstract.
What you speak of as giving people a "pass." Understanding that while a black preacher's angry words have real, verifiable, events and discriminations behind them, even if the words themselves are inaccurate, angry, and divisive; a white supremacist has no such history or footing for their angry and often hateful rhetoric. So long as a preacher's words aren't hateful, something there is none of in any of the controversial quotes bandied about in the media, there is no reason not to be tolerant of such remarks.

3. Rebuttal to what?
Come now. The position I explained in three lengthy posts, and restated above.

1. Understanding that while a black preacher's angry words have real, verifiable, events and discriminations behind them, even if the words themselves are inaccurate, angry, and divisive;
2. a white supremacist has no such history or footing for their angry and often hateful rhetoric.

3. So long as a preacher's words aren't hateful,..... there is no reason not to be tolerant of such remarks.

1. That's true to a point. Some experiences can mitigate some hateful rhetoric (although you can't be serious in forgiving "inaccurate" statements), but forgiving everything is as bad as forgiving nothing.
And, in reality, you don't know exactly what Mr. Wright has experienced.
Are you guessing based on his race?

2. None of them?

3. In your opinion his words may not be hateful, per se.
BUT, there are many far less educated people in his audience, already angry, who will hear his AIDS theories or his educational theories and leave there very angry.
And he knows it.

I find that sad, and truly unfortunate.As do I, though no doubt for different reasons.

Do you think that White America will ever apologize to Jeremiah Wright?I 's remarks like the Reverend's that perpetuate the racial divide in this country. And there seems no end in sight.I disagree.

Pastor Wright is a product of his times, and as we evolve as a nation we will have fewer Jeremiah Wrights and more Barack Obamas.

The society which created Jeremiah Wright doesn't exist anymore -- and we're a better nation as a result.
Apparently all that's gone before count for nothing. We fought a war, passed legislation, marched side by side with those of African descent. We've opened our homes and schools to them. We've attempted to make up for the wrongs.Are you suggesting Black America should be grateful?And all for nothing. We will never atone, according to the Reverend.When did he say that?He likens white America to the fascists. In fact, he emulates the very ones he professes to despise.I have not seen Jeremiah Wright emulate fascists. Perhaps you could give an example.I would not accept his apology even in the unlikely event it were ever given. It would be as phoney as the man himself. Man of God, my ass.Did you watch the interview?PS. Lest people wish to refer to me as a racist, kindly fire away. My son dates a black girl. She's a fine girl of good family. Our neighbors nearby are black. We have each babysat each other's kids many many times, eaten dinners together, played cards together--all the things that good neighbors and friends do. I am as welcome in their home as they are in mine. Perhaps that's because neither family is as hate- driven as the good "reverend."I don't think Pastor Wright is driven by hate.

Anger, yes. Hatred, no. In fact, he specifically preaches against it.

In your opinion his words may not be hateful, per se.
BUT, there are many far less educated people in his audience, already angry, who will hear his AIDS theories or his educational theories and leave there very angry.
And he knows it.I'm curious to know if this could be in any way true. I suspect that if you asked his parishioners if they leave church burning with fury towards whites they would laugh at you in disbelief of the question. But I suppose there's no way to tell, really.

What you speak of as giving people a "pass." Understanding that while a black preacher's angry words have real, verifiable, events and discriminations behind them, even if the words themselves are inaccurate, angry, and divisive; a white supremacist has no such history or footing for their angry and often hateful rhetoric. So long as a preacher's words aren't hateful, something there is none of in any of the controversial quotes bandied about in the media, there is no reason not to be tolerant of such remarks.Excellent point.

1. That's true to a point. Some experiences can mitigate some hateful rhetoric (although you can't be serious in forgiving "inaccurate" statements), but forgiving everything is as bad as forgiving nothing.
And, in reality, you don't know exactly what Mr. Wright has experienced.
Are you guessing based on his race?
Based on his prominent position in the black community. A preacher has to field complaints from his constituency, and is often called on to comment on events.

2. None of them?
None of them, nor their very recent ancestors, have experienced continued and systematic persecution on the basis of race, no. Might there be a few isolated instances? Maybe. Even if there was, it wouldn't come close to the treatment blacks received in this country from even before day one to a generation ago.

Where a black preacher to spout hateful rhetoric, day in and day out, certainly that would be reprehensible. I'm sure there are many that do that. But there has been none of that in Reverend Wright's sermons, only a few isolated passages. If there were more, certainly the talented dirt finders at Fox News would have found them. The mildness of the passages that were found, preclude a judgment that Reverend Wright is a hatemonger. Certainly too, in such a large congregation, at least one constituent would come forward if he indeed was.

3. In your opinion his words may not be hateful, per se.
BUT, there are many far less educated people in his audience, already angry, who will hear his AIDS theories or his educational theories and leave there very angry.
And he knows it.
Perhaps. Were he spouting these illogical things daily, I can see where they would be a problem.

BUT, there are many far less educated people in his audience, already angry, who will hear his AIDS theories or his educational theories and leave there very angry.

a) Could you please give me some kind of brief description of what you are calling his *AIDS theories*?

b) Why would millions of people become so angry over what some black preacher, that 2 or 3 months ago they had no idea existed, happens to believe about the subject of AIDS? So what if he opined what he did about AIDS.

??

Yes. At least, white European descendants are. White Americans also are responsible for the widespread persecution of black people after slavery was abolished. The "white guilt" is not only a measure of the widespread slavery that was practiced in the early United States, but the fact that many Africans were forcefully taken from their homelands, treated in many ways worse than dirt, denied many freedoms, and being forced to fight tooth and nail for any semblance of equality, with final success happening a mere generation ago. Yes, White Americans are responsible for that. This nation was built on their backs, and we in turn ground their faces into the mud. It was a great atrocity, and somebody is responsible. That's us. I'm not going to play genealogy games to try to escape that responsibility. Most every white society participated in the Atlantic slave trade.

One can be afforded a measure of pride if one can legitimately claim that their ancestors were stridently against slavery, and spoke out frequently against it, and owned no slaves. But it doesn't erase the guilt. It belongs to the people. It is up to everybody in America to resolve that guilt with compassion, understanding, and a careful, considered hand up in the world, helping black people overcome the difficulties their society is facing today. One does not need to coddle black people who would choose to ride the system and refuse to accept society's help.

But the difficulties facing the black community are at least partially our fault. Sure, many black people choose to ride the welfare system, get involved with gangs, and exacerbate the problems. That doesn't erase our role in causing them in the first place. Plenty of black people are doing their part to remedy the problems in their community. I believe Mr. Wright is one of those people. I believe people involved in his church were much much likelier to stay away from gangs, contribute to society, and keep their families together. (Mr. Wright's own familial controversy notwithstanding) I believe Mr. Obama is one of those people. Some anger is understandable, especially considering that Mr. Wright lived through some very violent and tumultuous times. He's had to deal directly with the fallout of racial violence, as a pastor of a very large church and a leader within the black community.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Wright do not come off as opportunists looking to make it big in the world. Both have been continually active in their home communities and kept the ties they've had throughout the years. Deep personal ties. Such that Obama was very hesitant to cut ties with Mr. Wright even when Mr. Wright was endangering Obama's campaign.

Obama may have lucked into his current fortune, but I believe top Democrats made the right choice when they chose Obama to bear the mantle of President. Sure, he seemed to have come out of nowhere to leading the race for the nomination, but at the same time, the Democrats were suffering for a leader, and all of the old leaders didn't have the fire, they didn't have the poise, they didn't have the rallying power to energize and motivate Democrats. A new face was just what they needed. I look forward to seeing what Barack Obama will accomplish in the White House. I have a feeling it will be a lot. The first black elected President will have some big shoes to fill, and I'm confident in his ability to do so. I am also very confident in his ability to resolve the deep conflict America has had with the black people it brought here centuries ago. Perhaps this will be the turning point. I sure hope so.

Okay, so Barack Obama is at fault too, right? His mother's white - therefore, he's as responsible for black suffering as any slaveowner. Isn't that what you're saying?

I take it you also believe in slave reparations?

His AIDS theory is that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people. I have no background knowledge in viriology, so I don't know if that's possible or not. I don't believe it's true, but it's not that far-fetched. Governments have been experimenting with deadly diseases for decades. In WWII, the Japanese created "Black Death" bombs, and even laced Chinese ground with the plague as they retreated.

Still, this is one statement, yet it seems to be one of the main weapons of attack. Nappy brings up a good point that these are only a few out of hundreds of sermons. The man has been preaching for decades. If he really was such a radical, revolutionary, racist who is promoting an all out race war, he's pretty tame at it.

PS. Good show Napster for saying in a few concise sentences what I spent pages explaining. Brevity has never been my strong suit.

Okay, so Barack Obama is at fault too, right? His mother's white - therefore, he's as responsible for black suffering as any slaveowner. Isn't that what you're saying?

I take it you also believe in slave reparations?
I do not believe in slave reparations. They would solve nothing.

I have always been fascinated by "halfricans." Given that race is such a polarized issue in society today, I often find myself in conversations with them about race relations. Often times they get crapped on by both white people and black people. I think they feel keenly the animosity often displayed between the two folk.

Oh. I'm sorry, where you looking for a binary answer? Sure, I suppose, he shares as much as any white person. His other half is not slave descended, it's Kenyan. But being such an integral part of the black community as well, there is no question that he is doing his part to repair the rift.

Thanks Evil Homer, VilePagan. I like to think the time I spent honing my rhetorical skills hasn't all been in vain.

Who fed and clothed these people? Who grew their tobacco?

We did. My family's been here since 1620 on my Dad's side, 1639 on my mom's. Both families settled in the northern colonies. We were farmers and tradesmen and fishermen. We took care of ourselves.

Previously you mentioned, were there any here who were absolved of the white guilt.

I am. And I am not happy about the slurs against my own kin. I realize you meant no personal insult , Nap. But the slurs are there--every day--from the Reverend and his kind.

I'm sure that should you read the statements Wright actually made, you would find that his comments were not directed at white people at all, but the United States Government. If you want to believe that's "white people." I suppose I can't stop you from that.

1.Do you think that White America will ever apologize to Jeremiah Wright?

2.Pastor Wright is a product of his times, and as we evolve as a nation we will have fewer Jeremiah Wrights and more Barack Obamas.

3. I have not seen Jeremiah Wright emulate fascists.




1. If he feels the need for specific apologies from specific individuals, perhaps he should approach those specific individuals on their own, and not paint the entire Caucasian race as responsible for every single ill he's ever experienced. This may go a long way to assuage the anger he feels.

2. That is a good thing.

3. By mimicing those who preached hatred and intolerance he has emulated them. He is not solving the problem by making ridiculous claims--ie, the AIDs story. He is worsening it-- why? To advance himself? To enrich himself?

What in the name of God is he doing to solve the problem?

His AIDS theory is that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people.

I was aware of that one.

I wanted Brooks to fill me in on the other *theories*.

Still, this is one statement, ...

Yep. One.

....yet it seems to be one of the main weapons of attack.

Of course. The rightwing faction, dimwitted asses that they are, take the one most preposterous thing he's said and (with the willing help of the Corporate Media) repeat it ad infinitum......and in so doing try to conflate it into him being some wild eyed Black Pantheresque figure.

It is to laugh.

The rightwing faction, dimwitted asses that they are, take the one most preposterous thing he's said and (with the willing help of the Corporate Media) repeat it ad infinitum......and in so doing try to conflate it into him being some wild eyed Black Pantheresque figure.



Well by reading the many posts here, it seems to have worked.

Well by reading the many posts here, it seems to have worked.

Of course.

The sheep easily sold on the lies of the powers-that-be.

They own all the major sources for the dissemination of information.

__________________________

Over 40 years have passed since the publication of C. Wright Mills's The Power Elite, arguably one of the most insightful and prescient critiques of U.S. political culture written this century. In that book Mills discusses the paradox of the postwar United States. On the one hand, it is a nation abuzz with technology, celebrity, and commercialism, a radical society in which tradition is torn asunder and all that is solid melts into air. On the other hand, it is a highly depoliticized society --only formally democratic in key respects-- where most important political decisions are made by the few for the few (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/MergeChurn.html), with public relations to massage the rabble should they question their status.

They made their decision on Obama from one picture of him not holding his hand to his heart during national anthem. ONE PIC!!

I'm curious to know if this could be in any way true. I suspect that if you asked his parishioners if they leave church burning with fury towards whites they would laugh at you in disbelief of the question. But I suppose there's no way to tell, really.
If someone left his church believing his AIDS comments, do you think it's possible for them NOT to leave church angry.

Seriously.

If someone left his church believing his AIDS comments, do you think it's possible for them NOT to leave church angry.

Seriously.Seriously, having watched some of his sermons (and having read others), I would think they'd leave with a message of love and hope in their hearts, not hatred or even anger. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what happens in this church. These are not, by and large, angry people. They are Christians who actually believe what the Bible tells them: to love their neighbors as they would themselves and to practice forgiveness.

They appear to be rather joyous, if you ask me.

Seriously, having watched some of his sermons (and having read others), I would think they'd leave with a message of love and hope in their hearts, not hatred or even anger. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what happens in this church. These are not, by and large, angry people. They are Christians who actually believe what the Bible tells them: to love their neighbors as they would themselves and to practice forgiveness.

They appear to be rather joyous, if you ask me.Have you ever attended a sermon sedan? I only ask because you appear to know a lot about the congregation of Rev Wright's church. If not, how do you know so much about them?

Have you ever attended a sermon sedan? I only ask because you appear to know a lot about the congregation of Rev Wright's church. If not, how do you know so much about them?I've watched four of them on YouTube and read several others. In the videos the camera will occasionally pan the audience, so you can see how people in the audience are reacting. There's a lot of laughter (Wright is one hell of a funny man) and "turn to your neighbor" kind of stuff going on.

As a white person myself, I would not have the slightest qualm about attending one in person.

1. None of them, nor their very recent ancestors, have experienced continued and systematic persecution on the basis of race, no. .... the treatment blacks received in this country from even before day one to a generation ago.

2. Were a black preacher to spout hateful rhetoric, day in and day out, certainly that would be reprehensible. I'm sure there are many that do that. But there has been none of that in Reverend Wright's sermons, only a few isolated passages.
Perhaps. Were he spouting these illogical things daily, I can see where they would be a problem

3. If there were more, certainly the talented dirt finders at Fox News would have found them.

4. The mildness of the passages that were found, preclude a judgment that Reverend Wright is a hatemonger. .
1. This race-memory thing still bugs me.
If Jeremiah's great-grandfather were treated very well or very poorly, how would these two scenarios affect him differently today?

2. You are choosing your words very carefully now.
Okay, so if Wright says these things occasionally, let's say just in the occasional sound-byte we see, then they do not represent him.
I don't agree, but will you lay out the same defense for Falwell, Robertson, Graham, et al., since we hear as much of their entire repertoire as we do of Wright's?
Will you be defending them in the future against Freethinker's typical attacks?

3. I think the dirt-finders came primarily from Team Clinton.

4. I still don't understand how you call some of this stuff mild.

They made their decision on Obama from one picture of him not holding his hand to his heart during national anthem. ONE PIC!!
that's all it took to sink Mike Dukakis.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/dukakis.jpg

I've watched four of them on YouTube and read several others. In the videos the camera will occasionally pan the audience, so you can see how people in the audience are reacting. There's a lot of laughter (Wright is one hell of a funny man) and "turn to your neighbor" kind of stuff going on.

As a white person myself, I would not have the slightest qualm about attending one in person.Sounds like a party. :) I'll check them out for myself, thanks.

I've watched four of them on YouTube and read several others. In the videos the camera will occasionally pan the audience, so you can see how people in the audience are reacting. There's a lot of laughter (Wright is one hell of a funny man) and "turn to your neighbor" kind of stuff going on.

As a white person myself, I would not have the slightest qualm about attending one in person.
i watched the "god damn America" sermon after seeing him go on about "have you seen the whole sermon"....well, the whole sermon just that spectacle that much worse. I hated whitey after that.

a) Could you please give me some kind of brief description of what you are calling his *AIDS theories*?

b) Why would millions of people become so angry over what some black preacher, that 2 or 3 months ago they had no idea existed, happens to believe about the subject of AIDS?
a) His words, "We [the US] started the AIDS virus"


b) I said the people in his church, not millions of people.
Or the people at Howard University, to whom he said, "We started the AIDS virus".
Or any black person who heard him say "No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

1. His AIDS theory is that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people. .... I don't believe it's true, but it's not that far-fetched.

2. Still, this is one statement, yet it seems to be one of the main weapons of attack.

3. If he really was such a radical, revolutionary, racist who is promoting an all out race war.....

1. Are you saying it's not farfetched that scientists could alter a virus during the seventies.
And keep it a secret?

2. I also have a problem with the black brain / white brain stuff, the black kids climbing on the desks because the educational system favors whites by (among other things) using books, northern and southern college bands march differently because of race, memorizing rap lyrics is a sign of black brain intelligence among many other things.

3. Please see my signature line (um, the second one.)

Pastor Wright is a product of his times, and as we evolve as a nation we will have fewer Jeremiah Wrights and more Barack Obamas.

You saw the new pastor, didn't you?

Also with more Barack Obamas in the congregation donating $22,000, there will be more Jeremiah Wrights.

IOf course. The rightwing faction, dimwitted asses that they are, take the one most preposterous thing he's said....

It's amazing. You claim that all the bad things he has said are out there for general consumption and yet you, better informed than most, apparently don't have access to his NAACP speech.

I have been citing many more of his claims (which, besides the AIDS ideas, you claim to agree with).

1. This race-memory thing still bugs me.
If Jeremiah's great-grandfather were treated very well or very poorly, how would these two scenarios affect him differently today?
Perhaps he would be more or less angry.

2. You are choosing your words very carefully now.
Okay, so if Wright says these things occasionally, let's say just in the occasional sound-byte we see, then they do not represent him.
I don't agree, but will you lay out the same defense for Falwell, Robertson, Graham, et al., since we hear as much of their entire repertoire as we do of Wright's?
Will you be defending them in the future against Freethinker's typical attacks?
First off, Falwell, Robertson, and Graham were not open white supremacists and did not make inflammatory race-based remarks. Second, even if they were, as I have said in the past, they do not have historical atrocities mitigating the things they are saying. Third, while hatred was not a clear and key component of the controversial things Wright stated, it certainly was of, particularly Falwell and Robertson. I never had much exposure to the sermons of Billy Graham. (a quick visit to wikipedia shows me that Graham never made an analogous hostile sermon. I personally never found reason to criticize him) Fourthly, while Rev. Wright limited the scope of his denouncing to the United States Government, Falwall and Robertson employed no such restraint and blamed gays for pretty much everything under the sun. Finally, the amount of ridiculousness put forth by even one of those preachers far dwarfs the small number of relatively mild statements Wright made.

4. I still don't understand how you call some of this stuff mild.
Jerry Falwell: "Gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you."
“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
Jeremiah Wright: "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
"And guess what else? If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie"

If you don't see the difference between the two, you really need to have your head examined. Anything milder than Wright's comments would have, if a white preacher said them, been flatly ignored by the media.

well gotta hand it to oldphart for calling a spade a spade...

while i have your ear OP.. can you tell me what your avatar is? it drives me nuts.
My avatar is the "burka smurf". As deluded as FT and almost as lame. I keep looking for a "johnny-one-note" for FT... seems that there is a shortage of that particular pic.

The thing that I find so funny here is that the "lefties" are rushing to the defense of Wright... while they always attack the likes of Falwell, Phelps, etc (and rightfully so). It just goes to show that these enlightened folk are as full of shit as the proverbial Christmas turkey.

My avatar is the "burka smurf". As deluded as FT and almost as lame. I keep looking for a "johnny-one-note" for FT... seems that there is a shortage of that particular pic.. Ummmm OKAY.... just askin bout the pic there... didnt mean to ruffle any feathers...

The thing that I find so funny here is that the "lefties" are rushing to the defense of Wright... while they always attack the likes of Falwell, Phelps, etc (and rightfully so). It just goes to show that these enlightened folk are as full of shit as the proverbial Christmas turkey. o.k,i am not sure where in the hell that came from,but if you can turn a question about an avatar into a bashing of liberals.... maybe your the reason there is a short supply of "johnny-one-note" pics because you got them all....Just say'in (as foolsworth would say)

Oh. I'm sorry, where you looking for a binary answer?

You were the one who said all white people are responsible for the plight of black people, for no other reason than the fact that they are of "European descent" - NO EXCEPTIONS because that is playing some sort of genealogical dodgeball in your mind - sounded pretty binary to me. That's why I find it pretty ridiculous.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why this argument deserves attention - maybe because I regard you as a fairly intelligent guy and cannot understand how someone with a brain would believe people are responsible for the sins of their anscestors...I mean, seriously, how many generations have to pass before you don't owe responsibility to someone for something your great, great, great grandfather did?

By your logic, I owe more to Jews than Africans, cause I'm sure I have anscestors closer to the Holocaust than I do to slavery. Bah, wth, I'm white - I'm responsible for all questionable actions committed by Europeans in the world.

Out of curiosity - does this logic work both ways? I mean, for positive actions as well as negative actions. Can I take credit for the advent of modern medicine for example?

2. You are choosing your words very carefully now.
Okay, so if Wright says these things occasionally, let's say just in the occasional sound-byte we see, then they do not represent him.
I don't agree, but will you lay out the same defense for Falwell, Robertson, Graham, et al., since we hear as much of their entire repertoire as we do of Wright's?
Will you be defending them in the future against Freethinker's typical attacks?


I can answer this one Brooks - No, he won't because those people are white (See his post about how all European descendants are responsible for slavery).

You were the one who said all white people are responsible for the plight of black people, for no other reason than the fact that they are of "European descent" - NO EXCEPTIONS because that is playing some sort of genealogical dodgeball in your mind - sounded pretty binary to me. That's why I find it pretty ridiculous.
It's really, really simple. The Atlantic slave trade caused a vast amount of human suffering, and the effects of it are still being felt today. It was an atrocity, hands down. All of Europe and their colonies either directly participated in the trade, or profited in some way from it. It is not okay to simply throw your hands up and say that just because you did not buy any slaves yourself, you don't deserve being lumped in with the people who did. It is a social responsibility. It belongs to everyone.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why this argument deserves attention - maybe because I regard you as a fairly intelligent guy and cannot understand how someone with a brain would believe people are responsible for the sins of their anscestors...I mean, seriously, how many generations have to pass before you don't owe responsibility to someone for something your great, great, great grandfather did?
How in the world could you not feel sadness and a sense of responsibility towards the victims of one of the greatest organized crimes against humanity the world has ever seen? Right up there with the destruction of the Native Americans, and the Holocaust. Even if you were in no way or shape involved, even if you were a goddamned Asian, the events of the sixteen hundreds all the way up to the present should make some emotional impact on you. Especially when you can directly witness the fallout from that atrocity. Sure things have gotten better over the last few decades, but the problems the black community is facing right now are still attributable to slavery and the post-slavery subjugation of black people. I simply do not understand how an intelligent and compassionate man could not feel like they need to at least understand and acknowledge these things.

As for how long, well, as long as black Americans remain disproportionately in jail, below average in the school system... Until they achieve a relative parity with white peoples.

By your logic, I owe more to Jews than Africans, cause I'm sure I have anscestors closer to the Holocaust than I do to slavery. Bah, wth, I'm white - I'm responsible for all questionable actions committed by Europeans in the world.
I don't really care which atrocity you choose to finally beat a sense of social justice into your head, so long as you have one.

Out of curiosity - does this logic work both ways? I mean, for positive actions as well as negative actions. Can I take credit for the advent of modern medicine for example?
Whatever tickles your pickle.

I can answer this one Brooks - No, he won't because those people are white (See his post about how all European descendants are responsible for slavery).
Hm. Why don't you instead check the post I already made concerning the question.

3. This is strange. You are either:
a) defending yourself against an accusation no one has made,
b) differentiating yourself from your perception of conservatives
c) making sure we know that you don't like Hatians or Jamaicans.
:)

You saw the new pastor, didn't you?I did.

What's your point?Also with more Barack Obamas in the congregation donating $22,000, there will be more Jeremiah Wrights.Umm ... Barack Obama did not create Jeremiah Wright -- Jim Crow segregationist America did.

I did.

What's your point?Umm ... Barack Obama did not create Jeremiah Wright -- Jim Crow segregationist America did.

OK...Danny lets take it back one step further.
Who created the Black African Tribal leaders who sold their own people,
Namely fellow Black africans to the White slave traders,who bought
them and shipped them to America.?
Or didn't you realize that Blacks in this Country let Fellow Black
Tribesman buy them and sell them into Slavery.

Ummmm OKAY.... just askin bout the pic there... didnt mean to ruffle any feathers...

LOL... no "feathers ruffled", I just grow weary of the same responses to all posts related to religion, politics, America, etc.


o.k,i am not sure where in the hell that came from,but if you can turn a question about an avatar into a bashing of liberals.... maybe your the reason there is a short supply of "johnny-one-note" pics because you got them all....Just say'in (as foolsworth would say)

I was just commenting on the irony of the defense of a religious idiot by the same people that generally attack them. Many of those defending Wright are the same ones that paint all Christians with the brush of the evangelical crazy colors (Jesus camp, Fred Phelps, etc).

It seems that many can see the world through political glasses.

Do you think that White America will ever apologize to Jeremiah Wright?
You think he needs an apology, huh? Fine. I'm SORRY no one in my family owned slaves. I really am! As a matter of fact, I'm SORRY that slaves only represented a small portion of the black population here, for if there were a larger contingent of exploited Negroes in this country circa 1800, then maybe I wouldn't be so pissed off by the insane rantings of a pontificating, racist windbag, whose raison detre is to imply that every white person in this country DID own slaves (and if one were to extrapolate further using logic and Wright's own words - still DO own slaves). I'm also SORRY for the pain he suffered at the hands of his masters, who undoubtedly beat him for shirking his duties as a cotton-picker and tobacco-grower.

Now, if, OTOH, you think ALL black people should given an apology - well, then....I'm SORRY for the way your ancesters were treated by a select few of my ancesters. Now, in the spirit of an apology, if Wright's allowed to grossly generalize, then surely you won't object to me doing so; PUT THE FUCKING GUN DOWN, LEARN TO READ, GO TO SCHOOL, LEARN TO SPEAK, GET AN EDUCATION, GET A JOB, AND SHUT THE FUCK UP - YOU'VE OFICIALLY RUN OUT OF EXCUSES FOR WHY YOU COLLECTIVELY REFUSE TO DO SO! (like, in some way, slavery has prevented them from picking up a book. :rolleyes: )

I did.

What's your point?
You just made it for him.

You think he needs an apology, huh?No.

Nor do I think he owes White America one.You just made it for him.I did?

That's great.

What is it?

I did?

That's great.

What is it?
Well, primarily, that there's no difference between Jeremaih Wright and his replacement, "Rev" Otis Moss III, who recently titled one of his sermons, "How to Handle a Public Lynching" (kudos on the racially sensitive reference there, Moss, but whatever...) Anyway, he apparently told the congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ that Wright, who has delivered sermons in which he likened the U.S. to the Ku Klux Klan and saying it is damned for its state-sponsored terrorism, is facing the same challenges Jesus did. :@@:

Pastor Wright is no "product of his times"; instead, and you people REFUSE to realize it, he's a "product" of sermons; you know, the ones given by his parents, friends, and extended family.

His "point", as you were asking for, negates your, "as we evolve as a nation we will have fewer Jeremiah Wrights and more Barack Obamas" theory. In fact, new Jeremiah Wrights are being created every day, and as long as they continue to fail as a race, they'll be necessary to perpetuate the collective notion that they're all victims trapped in a "racist country". As a matter of fact, blacks are likely to enjoy their new preacher's message of "hope" so much (which will be couched in dispair, of course) , that they'll probably buy every new one that comes along a multi-million dollar house when he retires.

THAT'S the point.

Pastor Wright is no "product of his times"; instead, and you people REFUSE to realize it, he's a "product" of sermons; you know, the ones given by his parents, friends, and extended family.ROFL, when you decide to max out your absurdity quotient you really go all the way!!

Of course two hundred years of slavery had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

Of course another hundred years of Jim Crow and segregation had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

Of course being discriminated against educationally, politically, economically and socially had nothing whatsoever to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

No no no -- it wasn't any of that. It was sermons. Someone told him he should be angry. Why, if it weren't for those bad parents, evil friends and hate-mongering extended family members poisoning his mind with tales of injustice and slavery and lynchings, why he'd have grown up not even knowing he was black!!

Dude, you've completely lost it.

Utterly amazing. :eek:

Exactly my thoughts, sedan.

Why, if it weren't for those bad parents, evil friends and hate-mongering extended family members poisoning his mind with tales of injustice and slavery and lynchings, why he'd have grown up not even knowing he was black!!
A Dave Chappelle skit comes to mind.

ROFL, when you decide to max out your absurdity quotient you really go all the way!!

Of course two hundred years of slavery had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

Of course another hundred years of Jim Crow and segregation had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

Of course being discriminated against educationally, politically, economically and socially had nothing whatsoever to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

No no no -- it wasn't any of that. It was sermons. Someone told him he should be angry. Why, if it weren't for those bad parents, evil friends and hate-mongering extended family members poisoning his mind with tales of injustice and slavery and lynchings, why he'd have grown up not even knowing he was black!!

Dude, you've completely lost it.

Utterly amazing. :eek:

You know how pathetically short-sighted yer heartstrings sound.
Imagine if WWII Veterans carried their Battle memories around on
their shoulder and made personally crosses to bear,to others,at
every opportunity.
You juts a Dumbass leftist.
Haven't a clue as to how Man & Mankind need grow old.

It's amazing. You claim that all the bad things he has said are out there for general consumption ....

?!?

I don't recall mentioning or hinting at anything remotely connected to a claim that -- ""all the bad things he has said are out there for general consumption"".

I suppose they are. But it doesn't mean anything to me if they are or they are not.

.....and yet you, better informed than most, apparently don't have access to his NAACP speech.

Yes, I have access to it. But since what he says means little to nothing to me, I have not read it.

I have been citing many more of his claims (which, besides the AIDS ideas, you claim to agree with).

Ok. You've been citing many more of his claims. But the only one that --imo--you can get any real traction with is the comment about AIDS, and that is why you harp on it so much.

The AIDS claim is pretty out there, but it's not entirely impossible. I mean the 9/11 conspiracy is POSSIBLE, but that doesn't mean it's right. Wright simply believes one of the many conspiracy theories out there, and his has more meat on it than most. Not enough to keep it from being a conspiracy theory. But it's not completely out in space.

Still, other than that, there isn't a whole lot that he's being faulted for. The same clips just get played so much that it seems like a lot.

Just my 3 cents.

P.S. The race war comment was directed at Foolie, since he brought it up.

This "white guilt" crap is pure bullshit. I don't see any reason that I should feel responsible for what my ancestors may or may not have done. Do I feel sad that atrocities like slavery happened? Yes. Do I think that I should have to go around actively doing things to promote the welfare of the black community because of those atrocities? Absolutely not.

Do I think that I should have to go around actively doing things to promote the welfare of the black community because of those atrocities? Absolutely not.
I do not think you should either, unless it particularly moved you. A simple acknowledgment and acceptance of the events of the Atlantic slave trade and its fallout, including the realization that the reason blacks still are not at parity with whites is attributable to the slave trade and continued persecution, and being supportive of reasonable efforts to repair that rift, are enough. One should also attempt to bring these understandings to others when the opportunity presents itself, as a civic duty.

I do not think you should either, unless it particularly moved you. A simple acknowledgment and acceptance of the events of the Atlantic slave trade and its fallout, including the realization that the reason blacks still are not at parity with whites is attributable to the slave trade and continued persecution, and being supportive of reasonable efforts to repair that rift, are enough. One should also attempt to bring these understandings to others when the opportunity presents itself, as a civic duty.
I agree with everything there except the part I've put in bold, which I seriously do not buy.

Perhaps I should clarify that the "continued persecution" part ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the general movement of the public eye away from race relations.

Fifty years is not enough for a society to recover from all that.

Exactly my thoughts, sedan.


A Dave Chappelle skit comes to mind.

He sucks...big time.Skinny Unfunny cocky punk.
Give me Redd Foxx.Or even Pryer.
Godfrey Cambridge...by all means.
Good Burlesque humor.

Fifty years is not enough for a society to recover from all that.


What basis do you have for saying that? How many years are enough and what is your basis for saying so?

What basis do you have for saying that? How many years are enough and what is your basis for saying so?

Why is it that more stupid a person posts,the more others
feel a need to engage.
What good is accomplished by askin an Idiot poster what he meant.
To garner another Idiot responce.
He's obviously too lazy { a Slacker } to give carefull and
thoughtful commentary to a difficult and now confounding condition.
The condition of explaining to those uninitiated,the dynamic of
civil rights struggles of the past,and how they have been
remedyied.For Good.
I've never in my lifetime heard a bus driver instruct a black
person to move to the back of the bus.
Or seen water fountains,for only blacks.
I have seen,however,Athletic scholarships be rewarded en masse
to many blacks,thereby allowing a free college education for
tossin around a piece of leather.
Where that same scholarship is denied a white kid,who ain't
as good at tossin leather,but probably had a higher g.p.a.

Out of curiosity - does this logic work both ways? I mean, for positive actions as well as negative actions. Can I take credit for the advent of modern medicine for example?


Whatever tickles your pickle.



Okay, in that case, I also accept responsibility for my European anscestors enabling African descendants to have access to modern medicine, transportation, agricultural advances, mass communications, and thousands of other societal advances whose positive effects far outweigh any ill effects deriving from a tiny fraction of Africans being subjected to slavery by a tiny fraction of European anscestors.

Because of the magnitude of positive contributions to global civilization by my European anscestors, I don't think my responsibility amounts to any sort of "white guilt." On the contrary, it seems those of European descent (including myself and all other white Americans, of course) are a owed a session of collective worldwide ass-kissing.

Thus, through my new-found Napster logic, those of African descent actually owe those with European descent, at the very least, a hell of a lot of gratitude. If they don't like it, our hateful government is all too happy to allow those unhappy African descendants to return to their "motherland" to celebrate a life free of white oppression.

Okay, in that case, I also accept responsibility for my European anscestors enabling African descendants to have access to modern medicine, transportation, agricultural advances, mass communications, and thousands of other societal advances whose positive effects far outweigh any ill effects deriving from a tiny fraction of Africans being subjected to slavery by a tiny fraction of European anscestors.

Because of the magnitude of positive contributions to global civilization by my European anscestors, I don't think my responsibility amounts to any sort of "white guilt." On the contrary, it seems those of European descent (including myself and all other white Americans, of course) are a owed a session of collective worldwide ass-kissing.

Thus, through my new-found Napster logic, those of African descent actually owe those with European descent, at the very least, a hell of a lot of gratitude. If they don't like it, our hateful government is all too happy to allow those unhappy African descendants to return to their "motherland" to celebrate a life free of white oppression.

What responsibility is to be shared by African Tribal leaders and
Kings of African Countries who enslaved their own,and still do.?
Slavehood has been a part of Africa,long before America was founded.
Appx. 30% of Africa's history constituted Slaves.
It's just an easy opportunity to further exploit race relations,which
is basically all Julian Bond does.

I do not think you should either, unless it particularly moved you. A simple acknowledgment and acceptance of the events of the Atlantic slave trade and its fallout, including the realization that the reason blacks still are not at parity with whites is attributable to the slave trade and continued persecution, and being supportive of reasonable efforts to repair that rift, are enough. One should also attempt to bring these understandings to others when the opportunity presents itself, as a civic duty.

Wait a minute - I don't see how this response meshes with this exchange.

So all white people are responsible for slavery and the side effects thereof, just because they were born white?

Yes. At least, white European descendants are.


I don't know about you, but "responsibility" involves more than "simple acknowledgment and acceptance ... and being supportive of reasonable efforts to repair that rift."

I'll risk using an analogy and saying that's like a deadbeat father saying "I'm responisible for my child because I acknowledge and accept my child and I'm supportive of reasonable efforts to raise my child." That's not assuming responsibility to me.

Maybe you and I just have a different idea of what it means to be "responsible" for something?

Wright simply believes one of the many conspiracy theories out there, and his has more meat on it than most.


What is the "meat"? That there was once a medical study that treated poor blacks unfairly and, therefore, AIDS must also be a product of such medical practices?

There's no meat there, EH. That's about as logical as saying a modern murderer was falsely convicted because a murderer in the 1930's was flasely convicted. In other words, it's not logical. Wild conjecture does not have "meat."

Nice to see some politicians don't seem to think it's necessary to make such a big deal out of having a Black minister. Just one more lesson Obama shoulda learned from his elders... associate yourself with decent people and you have nothing to hide from Bill Moyers.

Jenna Bush's wedding:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/art_bush_wedding_wh.jpg

All I'm saying is that it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Governments have been into germ warfare for almost a century now. Who knows what crazy things they've created?

The US government could have created the HIV virus, but it's highly, highly improbable.

Still, I'm getting distracted here. This was only one tiny part of one sermon, and it also seems to be the most damning thing that critics can find on the man. That seems pretty lame.

What basis do you have for saying that? How many years are enough and what is your basis for saying so?
I have no idea, but I have said several times, that as soon as blacks finally achieve parity with whites, and the gross problems their society suffers from, gang violence, disproportionate prison population, and the like, are solved.

Maybe it will take fifty more years, maybe it will take 150. My feeling is that it will take longer the more people disclaim their social responsibilities.

Thus, through my new-found Napster logic,
I am getting rather disgusted at your seemingly purposeful disingeniousness, and at your utter refusal to grasp the significance and the extent of the Atlantic slave trade. This is your logic, not mine. You're just being a jackass.

I don't know about you, but "responsibility" involves more than "simple acknowledgment and acceptance ... and being supportive of reasonable efforts to repair that rift."

I'll risk using an analogy and saying that's like a deadbeat father saying "I'm responisible for my child because I acknowledge and accept my child and I'm supportive of reasonable efforts to raise my child." That's not assuming responsibility to me.

Maybe you and I just have a different idea of what it means to be "responsible" for something?
The responsibility does resemble a parental one in a way. But it's not like we have to "adopt a black person!" This is a social responsibility owed by white people to black people. We should be actively planting the seeds of growth in the black community and working with black community leaders to ensure that the spirit of the initiatives is kept, and the effectiveness is uncompromised. The actual work would be carried out by communities with funding either from the government or private charity, probably a mix of both. The federal government perhaps could fund extensive studies aimed at creating reproducible methods for social change in black communities, whereas states and counties coordinate the actual efforts. I think the time is ripe for just this sort of nationwide effort.

Black people have just as many rights and opportunities in this country as white people do. I'd hardly think it's necessary to give them more...

Black people have just as many rights and opportunities in this country as white people do.
That's a start.

I'd hardly think it's necessary to give them more...
I think more opportunities and the understanding that white people actually regret the slave trade, and the hundred years of continued persecution would do wonders for black people. Until they reach parity, we at least owe them that much. So long as the initiatives are carefully thought out, it could happen far sooner than later.

1. Perhaps he would be more or less angry.
2. Second, even if they were, as I have said in the past, they do not have historical atrocities mitigating the things they are saying.
3. Fourthly, while Rev. Wright limited the scope of his denouncing to the United States Government, Falwall and Robertson employed no such restraint and blamed gays for pretty much everything under the sun.
4. ...small number of relatively mild statements Wright made.
If you don't see the difference between the two, you really need to have your head examined. Anything milder than Wright's comments would have, if a white preacher said them, been flatly ignored by the media.
1. More or less angry over the treatment of a man he never met, and whose life he probably knows nothing about?
You either believe in race memory or are making excuses.

2. "Historical atrocities" suggests more of this genetic memory component.
Every african american in the country could make this claim.
In fact, every person in the country could make similar claims.

3. First, his scope was no more limited than theirs.
Second, your characterization of Falwell and Robertson is oddly vague.

4. When I questioned your description of Wright's statements as mild, I didn't say relatively mild.

1. I did. What's your point?

2. Umm ... Barack Obama did not create Jeremiah Wright -- Jim Crow segregationist America did.
1. That Vile's dream of Reverend Wright being a generational manifestation had to be somewhat shattered when the new pastor appeared.

2. No, but like-minded generous donors sustain him.

I am getting rather disgusted at your seemingly purposeful disingeniousness, and at your utter refusal to grasp the significance and the extent of the Atlantic slave trade. This is your logic, not mine. You're just being a jackass.


Hey, you're the one arguing that "we" (those with European anscestors) are responsible for all the negative consequences of slave trade - for no other reason than the fact that we are white. Simply put - you are making a racist argument.

I'm simply applying your you-are-responsible-for-the-actions-of-your-anscestors ideas to other arenas. It's not being a "jackass," it's making the point that your racism is not at all logical.

I have no idea, but I have said several times, that as soon as blacks finally achieve parity with whites, and the gross problems their society suffers from, gang violence, disproportionate prison population, and the like, are solved.

Maybe it will take fifty more years, maybe it will take 150. My feeling is that it will take longer the more people disclaim their social responsibilities.


And what if things like parity with whites, gang violence, disproportionate prison population, and the like, aren't related to slavery? I guess we assume "social responsibilty" forever and ever. No thanks.

1. More or less angry over the treatment of a man he never met, and whose life he probably knows nothing about?
You either believe in race memory or are making excuses.
How in the world do you think he would probably know nothing about the life of his great grandfather? If I wanted to know about my great grandfather, or even my great-great grandfather, I could simply ask my family. They don't forget this kind of stuff. You think blacks would?

2. "Historical atrocities" suggests more of this genetic memory component.
Every african american in the country could make this claim.
In fact, every person in the country could make similar claims.
Historical memory! Holy crap! Are you really this dense? Slavery ended a mere hundred and fifty years ago. The continued persecution ended fifty years ago. The effects are still felt today!

3. First, his scope was no more limited than theirs.
Second, your characterization of Falwell and Robertson is oddly vague.
We're not discussing Falwell and Roberson here. You brought them up. They are not analogous to the situation of Reverend Wright.

4. When I questioned your description of Wright's statements as mild, I didn't say relatively mild.
Mild is a relative term.

Hey, you're the one arguing that "we" (those with European anscestors) are responsible for all the negative consequences of slave trade - for no other reason than the fact that we are white. Simply put - you are making a racist argument.
Of course. I'm racist. :rolleyes:

I'm simply applying your you-are-responsible-for-the-actions-of-your-anscestors ideas to other arenas. It's not being a "jackass," it's making the point that your racism is not at all logical.
You are applying a warped spin to my arguments that I never intended nor is core to them. You can bring up red herrings all day, I could care less.

And what if things like parity with whites, gang violence, disproportionate prison population, and the like, aren't related to slavery? I guess we assume "social responsibilty" forever and ever. No thanks.
If they're not related to slavery and persecution, than what are they related to? A component of fried chicken?

Of course. I'm racist. :rolleyes:

You're arguing that if you're white, you're responsible. You have related responsibility to race - that's racism, Nappy.

You are applying some kind of warped spin to my arguments that I never intended nor is core to them. You can bring up red herrings all day, I could care less.

I'm simply applying your arguments to other arenas - if you do that, you get warped results. Don't blame me if your logic produces warped results.

If they're not related to slavery and persecution, than what are they related to? A component of fried chicken?

This may be a novel idea to you, but sometimes differences between races are related to factors other than racism.

1. I don't recall mentioning or hinting at anything remotely connected to a claim that -- ""all the bad things he has said are out there for general consumption"".

2. Yes, I have access to it. But since what he says means little to nothing to me, I have not read it.

3. Ok. You've been citing many more of his claims. But the only one that --imo--you can get any real traction with is the comment about AIDS, and that is why you harp on it so much.
1. Free: No one in their right mind could make the claim that "the media really avoided showing the worst parts of Wright's speech and beliefs"" when in fact they did virtually the diametric opposite of that."

2. That explains how you think the only ridiculous things he has said are about AIDS. You've apparently not seen his biology, music and education theories.
Kind of makes your arguing on this point silly.

3. Watch the speech.

I have seen,however,Athletic scholarships be rewarded en masse
to many blacks,thereby allowing a free college education for
tossin around a piece of leather.
Where that same scholarship is denied a white kid,who ain't
as good at tossin leather,but probably had a higher g.p.a.

Colleges make money off kids playing football, so they get the scholarships. It's capitalism. Go figure.

The AIDS claim is pretty out there, but it's not entirely impossible.
Evil-governmentally possible, maybe.
But NOT possible to do.

Why do you ignore this point when calling his point logical?

[QUOTE=Napsterbater]How in the world do you think he would probably know nothing about the life of his great grandfather? If I wanted to know about my great grandfather, or even my great-great grandfather, I could simply ask my family. They don't forget this kind of stuff. You think blacks would?



Again,you're just Wingin it.Haven't a clue to what the hell
yer blatherin about.
Very,very few Families can go back more than a couple
generations and remember their Great,let alone Great great Grandparents.
As time moves forward,the memories and recollections become
increasingly lost and forgotten.
I doubt you personally even knew about yer Great great Grandparents.
Where they lived or what occupations involved.

You're arguing that if you're white, you're responsible. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
Perhaps you should read up on the definition of racism.

I'm simply applying your arguments to other arenas
Also called a straw man. Or poor analogies.

This may be a novel idea to you, but sometimes differences between races are related to things other than racism.
Like what? Name some. And don't talk about Asians here either. I'm through with your fallacies. We're talking about people we've enslaved and persecuted, then finally issued a backhanded, callous "apology" to. "Sorry here's your rights back." What could these disparities be attributable to, if not slavery and persecution? Rap music? Soul food? Come now, what is it?

I couldn't verify whether or not Pat Buchanan actually wrote this piece, but regardless... it's a very timely article. Agree or disagree -- you'd have a hard time disputing what it says.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no government anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Perhaps you should read up on the definition of racism.

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism (citing the American Heritage Dictionary)

You see, you are discriminating (no negative connotations intended) between responsible and non-responsible parties based on nothing other than their race.

Let's try a different approach. If I said - you're black, therefore you're responsible. Would that be racism in your eyes?

Also called a straw man. Or poor analogies.

And that's called conclusory - how is the logic I'm using different from the logic you're using?


Like what? Name some. And don't talk about Asians here either. I'm through with your fallacies. We're talking about people we've enslaved and persecuted, then finally issued a backhanded, callous "apology" to. "Sorry here's your rights back." What could these disparities be attributable to, if not slavery and persecution? Rap music? Soul food? Come now, what is it?

Cultural and genetic differences spring to mind. Why don't you want to talk about Asians? Because the fact that they do better on the SATs than whites doesn't mean that they are racially-oppressing whites? I suppose that is inconvenient for your argument.

I couldn't verify whether or not Pat Buchanan actually wrote this piece, but regardless... it's a very timely article. Agree or disagree -- you'd have a hard time disputing what it says.

I purdy mush quoted from it a few weeks ago.
One need understand I'm basically a couple weeks ahead of the
bell curve around hears.
Is All.

I purdy mush quoted from it a few weeks ago.
One need understand I'm basically a couple weeks ahead of the
bell curve around hears.
Is All.

LOL, I'd say you're a couple years ahead of the bell curve around hears, Foolie... at least over a lot of these ding-dongs!

:lolhit:

LOL, I'd say you're a couple years ahead of the bell curve around hears, Foolie... at least over a lot of these ding-dongs!

:lolhit:

Yup kinda like deep fryin a Mars bar.
It's tricky and ends up richer than Chocolate Mousse at
a Bat Mitzvah.

1. All I'm saying is that it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Governments have been into germ warfare for almost a century now.

2. Still, I'm getting distracted here. This was only one tiny part of one sermon, and it also seems to be the most damning thing that critics can find on the man. That seems pretty lame.

1. It was impossible in the mid-70's. May even be possible today.


2. There's worse and dumber. Watch his NAACP speech.

I don't see the issue with logical/illogical being a switch. There's a continuum. Wright's argument is mostly illogical, but there are some logical points to it. That's all I'm saying.


I agree with you Leper that it's not the responsibility of White Society to heal the damage done by the hundreds of years of oppression against the black community. It's the responsibility of all of Society. The government also needs to take steps to improve the situation. I don't think that Nappy is right to frame the situation of Blacks and Whites. I think we need to look at this more generally. The government and society as a whole shat on a small piece of it. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the government and society as a whole to clean things up some? Dividing it up by "Who benefited from slavery" does nothing but assign blame. It doesn't solve anything.

We have inherited the sins of our fathers. Regardless of whether we deserve them or not, they are still our burden.

Just my 3 cents.

I don't see the issue with logical/illogical being a switch. There's a continuum. Wright's argument is mostly illogical, but there are some logical points to it. That's all I'm saying.

But if one aspect of it is possible, and the other makes it impossible, then how can you say you see the logic in it.
I really don't understand what you've been saying.

Nappy, do you think that all Americans of German descent have a "social responsibility" towards Jews? After all, the Holocaust was less than 70 years ago...

And what we REALLY need to do is elect a person who will keep this pot stirred for at least the next 4 years. At the end of his first term, everyone will no doubt be soooooo enlightened, we'll probably be back to having race riots in the streets. (I have a feeling he'd be much more comfortable leading all those poor downtrodden souls than he would leading the military anyway.)

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Obamaanimosity.jpg

I think we're arguing over nothing now Brooks. Just minor details. So I'm just going to drop it. :)

ROFL, when you decide to max out your absurdity quotient you really go all the way!!

Of course two hundred years of slavery had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.

Of course another hundred years of Jim Crow and segregation had nothing to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.
I'm being absurd, and you're the one who contends that a highly successful multi-millionaire feels the pain of slavery and segregation. Alright, dude, you win. Way to make a point.
Of course being discriminated against educationally, politically, economically and socially had nothing whatsoever to do with making Reverend Wright the way he is.
Wright seems pretty educated and well off to me - what was he, a fluke? I'm guessing that Wright, like Obama, made a decision to pick up a book and read it. But seeing as to how you've covered most of their inadaquacies with your broad-sweeping assessment here, maybe it doesn't come down to their decisions in life; maybe they really ARE lacking "educationally, politically, economically and socially" because of something that doesn't happen anymore. Maybe in 200 years they'll "stop feeling the pain of their foregone enslavement", but hey...even if they don't, it won't matter - they'll still have heady people like you to make excuses for 'em when the time comes, I'm sure. :)
No no no -- it wasn't any of that. It was sermons. Someone told him he should be angry. Why, if it weren't for those bad parents, evil friends and hate-mongering extended family members poisoning his mind with tales of injustice and slavery and lynchings, why he'd have grown up not even knowing he was black!!
Okay, then explain how there are 10 year olds who disparage the "evil" US. Did they arrived at that conclusion on their own, or were they taught to hate their present day "massas" because we still (ostensibly) whip, beat, and undermine our "coloreds" here? Oh, wait, lemme guess....you've never heard a 10 year old say anything of the sort, so therefore the point I'm making isn't valid, right? I know, I know - without proof, it doesn't happen...I get it....

Either way, you're right - those people are victims; they're victims of a social cancer that metastasizes every time people like Wright come along, or people like you give 'em a free pass on the poor choices they make.

I mean, let's be honest - in your assessment, they simply aren't capable of making sound decisions in life. Well, at least, not without a good handout and preferential workplace treatment, I'm sure.

Whatever. :rolleyes:
Dude, you've completely lost it.

Utterly amazing. :eek:
If you don't think that Wright is inciting obsolete black ANGER (which, in turn, perpetuates their collective social stagnation via the "victim mentality"), then you're the one who's nuts. Your conclusion isn't rational. As a matter of fact, it's fucking defeatist, and that's being generous.

I agree with you Leper that it's not the responsibility of White Society to heal the damage done by the hundreds of years of oppression against the black community. It's the responsibility of all of Society. The government also needs to take steps to improve the situation. I don't think that Nappy is right to frame the situation of Blacks and Whites. I think we need to look at this more generally. The government and society as a whole shat on a small piece of it. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the government and society as a whole to clean things up some? Dividing it up by "Who benefited from slavery" does nothing but assign blame. It doesn't solve anything.

A much more reasonable argument. My only issue here is when you say "the government needs to take steps to improve the situation." I would have to hear what steps you are talking about - if you're talking about affirmative action, I disagree. If you talk about race-neutral methods, I'm much more amenable - for example, in Texas, they use (or at least they were...not sure if it's changed recently) a techinique for automatically admitting the top 10% students into public universities. This was a way to address racial disparities without taking race into consideration. That is okay with me.

I think we (as a government and society) should work toward a race-neutral society, but by "race-neutral", I don't mean that all races should be roughly equal in every statistical category - that idea is a fallacy and completely contradicts the philosophy supporting "diversity."

We have inherited the sins of our fathers. Regardless of whether we deserve them or not, they are still our burden.


Agreed. My issue (with Nappy) was with the assignment of responsibility based on race.

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism (citing the American Heritage Dictionary)

You see, you are discriminating (no negative connotations intended) between responsible and non-responsible parties based on nothing other than their race.
That's utterly stupid. Using the non-negative form of, "discrimination," as the basis for defining racism is pointless. The word, "racism," loses every last bit of it's meaning there, and becomes pointless political correctness. Now if I say, "Black people have black skin," I'm a racist. And I'm not surprised you didn't include the other definition of racism, "a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups." -- Oxford English Dictionary

Let's try a different approach. If I said - you're black, therefore you're responsible. Would that be racism in your eyes?
Please add context.

And that's called conclusory - how is the logic I'm using different from the logic you're using?
You are using definitions of discrimination and racism that are neither helpful to the situation nor appropriate. You are warping my comments based on absurd flights of "logic," then demanding I answer them, completely disregarding my answers. It's rather tiring having to repeat the same answers to the same questions over and over again. Guess I'm not cut out to be a politician.

Cultural and genetic differences spring to mind.
How would you attribute any of the current situation to genetic differences? That's called Social Darwinism. And culture is, in it's most basic form, an attempt to bring meaning to patterns of human activities. It is largely a reactive phenomenon. It's a symptom, not a cause.

Why don't you want to talk about Asians? Because the fact that they do better on the SATs than whites doesn't mean that they are racially-oppressing whites? I suppose that is inconvenient for your argument.
Do you really expect an answer to this? 'Cause it won't be pretty.

Nice to see some politicians don't seem to think it's necessary to make such a big deal out of having a Black minister. Just one more lesson Obama shoulda learned from his elders... associate yourself with decent people and you have nothing to hide from Bill Moyers.

Jenna Bush's wedding:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/art_bush_wedding_wh.jpg
The pastor, Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, has endorsed (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012108dntexcaldwellobama.5d89b5.html) Barack Obama.

Do you really expect an answer to this? 'Cause it won't be pretty.
Well, I can't speak for Lep, but I'd like one.

The pastor, Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, has endorsed Barack Obama.
NO FREAKIN' WAY!!!! Are you being serious!? :eek: :D

That's utterly stupid. Using the non-negative form of, "discrimination," as the basis for defining racism is pointless. The word, "racism," loses every last bit of it's meaning there, and becomes pointless political correctness. Now if I say, "Black people have black skin," I'm a racist. And I'm not surprised you didn't include the other definition of racism, "a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups." -- Oxford English Dictionary

It's a common definition of racism and the fact remains that the statement that "You're white, therefore you're responsible" is a racist argument, no matter how much you want to play the semantics game.

Frankly, even your Oxford definition works - you're exercising a belief that a racial group (whites) possesses a characteristic (a history with slavery) specific to that race (whites only), especially to distinguish it as being inferior (responsible for slavery - yes, I think that's an inferior position to being not responsible for slavery).

Please add context.

You're avoiding the question. If you think it depends on the context, then say why you think it depends on the context.

How would you attribute any of the current situation to genetic differences?

Possibly - I feel pretty certain that blacks are genetically better athletes than whites. That fact alone will cause differences.

That's called Social Darwinism.

What's your point?

And culture is, in it's most basic form, an attempt to bring meaning to patterns of human activities.

If you're so into dictionary definitions, where do you get this one?

And we're not talking about culture in its most basic form, we're talking about culture in its actual form.

It is largely a reactive phenomenon. It's a symptom, not a cause.

Do you want to eliminate black culture? If not, then it's still going to be a cause of disparities between whites and blacks, whether you're talking about now or 100 years in the future.

Do you really expect an answer to this? 'Cause it won't be pretty.

If you're conceding that you can't answer intelligently or civilly, no, don't bother. In the meantime, I'll just assume you have no good answer for why Asians are different from whites.

All I'm saying is that it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Governments have been into germ warfare for almost a century now. Who knows what crazy things they've created?

The US government could have created the HIV virus, but it's highly, highly improbable.

Still, I'm getting distracted here. This was only one tiny part of one sermon, and it also seems to be the most damning thing that critics can find on the man. That seems pretty lame.
you have to reach farther back than 100 years to reach the source of germ warfare. even before rotting corpses could be catapulted over city walls, retreating armies would drop dead rats into wells.

the conspiracy crowd would have a better argument if HIV hadn't come to this country via Haiti, and wasn't so much more advanced in Africa.

It's a common definition of racism and the fact remains that the statement that "You're white, therefore you're responsible" is a racist argument, no matter how much you want to play the semantics game.

Frankly, even your Oxford definition works - you're exercising a belief that a racial group (whites) possesses a characteristic (a history with slavery) specific to that race (whites only), especially to distinguish it as being inferior (responsible for slavery - yes, I think that's an inferior position to being not responsible for slavery).
Unbelievable.


You're avoiding the question. If you think it depends on the context, then say why you think it depends on the context.
How can I avoid it if I have no clue wtf you're trying to ask?

Possibly - I feel pretty certain that blacks are genetically better athletes than whites. That fact alone will cause differences.
How so? Other than cause a racial disparity in sports leagues, what real difference would it make in a social context?

What's your point?
Social Darwinism is clearly racism, using the Oxford English Definition I listed. Not to mention wrong, because the genetic diversity between whites and blacks is practically nil, only resulting in negligible differences such as the one you mention. Chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of genetic diversity than do humans.

If you're so into dictionary definitions, where do you get this one?
I paraphrased it from the Wikipedia entry on culture, using the most general and non-academic sense.

And we're not talking about culture in its most basic form, we're talking about culture in its actual form.
The differences between my paraphrasing and other wordings is the academic focus. Claiming which is the "real" culture and which isn't is nonsensical, as a definition is a response to its real world referent, much like culture is. If there is a difference, than the definition should be altered to fit.

Do you want to eliminate black culture? If not, then it's still going to be a cause of disparities between whites and blacks, whether you're talking about now or 100 years in the future.
How could one "eliminate" black culture? As disparities decrease, black culture will change to reflect it.

If you're conceding that you can't answer intelligently or civilly, no, don't bother. In the meantime, I'll just assume you have no good answer for why Asians are different from whites.
Why are Asians different from whites? I could give a whole host of answers that don't have anything to do with culture or genetics. The geography of their landmass is one of them. History another. Diet a third. That's why it's pointless to compare the disparities between Asians and Whites with the disparities between forcefully migrated black people with Whites. The situations are entirely different.

Nappy, when are you gonna answer my question?

That's why it's pointless to compare the disparities between Asians and Whites with the disparities between forcefully migrated black people with Whites. The situations are entirely different.
Well, geography, history, and diet aside, it's good to know Asians weren't "forcefully migrated" and relegated to slave labor here. :rolleyes:

The only thing that differentiates ANY of us from one another (and it's painfully obvious) are the CHOICES we, as people, make. That's it. Blacks have made shitty choices in life, and now, they're paying for 'em, but not without trying to charge everything that's befallen the black community on their 'White Guilt' MasterCard, exp. 02/2250. Feel free to obscure the argument all you want, but in the end, you're simply lying to yourself, and moreover, you're doing the black people who live here a major disservice. If my theory on this weren't true, then nary a successful black person would exist. It's a simple exercise in logic.

The only thing that differentiates ANY of us from one another (and it's painfully obvious) are the CHOICES we, as people, make.

I would say that a person living in a tribe in a land across the ocean from America who was kidnapped and transported, against his will, to America, who was stood up on the auction block and sold and then forced into a life of involuntary servitude has quite a bit more to differentiate his life from mine (and yours) than "the CHOICES" we both made.

It seems to me the thing that you are absolutely incapable of grasping (or, more likely, that simply you do not want to grasp) is that it is possible that certain black persons --or maybe it should be phrased; that collective known as *the black race in America*-- who are alive today could still be --in some sense-- feeling the effects of and dealing with the effects of the hundreds-of-years-long enslavement of the black race upon this continent.

As recently as the 1960's (although a dense Archie Bunker type like you would never be aware of it, and if he was told about it would never admit it to be true) blacks in Mississippi were being treated --and I am not exaggerating-- like animals. They were treated as if their lives were of very little value whatsoever. Certain among them were at various times executed by white men who felt they had been wronged by them. My cousin, from Hollandale Mississippi, worked for a plumber named Gruder McDonald. It was widely known (and Gruder himself made no effort to deny it) in the community that Gruder had at different points in time killed three or four black men who he felt "were wasting air that a good white man could be breathing", and that he would beat any of them to within an inch of his life should the black person in question be unfortunate enough to in some small way offend this murderous goliath. I just wish that you could --for once in your life-- fathom what it was like for the blacks in that community to have to live in such a climate. And many of those black people who lived through that are still alive today, and still live in that area.

But you never will understand it or grasp it. Your ignorance and your willful blindness will keep you forever safe from thinking about such unpleasantries.....and from recognizing how living through such a history might inform and influence the thought processes of a race of people.

Nappy, when are you gonna answer my question?
Oh, sorry, DF, I overlooked your question.

They should certainly share the regret, but there's no sense in invoking a national U.S. responsibility towards Jews besides making sure every American knows of the Holocaust. The second the Holocaust is forgotten is the second you're back on the road to repeating it. (That responsibility lies on the whole world) There were no hundred years of continued persecution for the Jews, and Germany has already created many programs aimed at atoning for their actions, including a reparations program paid towards the newly created state of Israel by West Germany.

Then again, the U.S. has already contributed a great deal towards the creation of the state of Israel. I wonder how it would compare to the amount of restitution granted to the black community?