qLife : Politics : I don't get the whole Wright contraversy, please explain

toru: May 06, 2008 - 01:28 AM PST

Good point. Hmm, may I don't want to undersand this, cause, I'm really resistant and being quite critical. The two of you are offering really good insight.

jha: May 05, 2008 - 08:22 PM PST

Perhaps I've got it wrong, but wasn't Wright on Obama's advisory board / didn't he hold some sort of position for Obama other than Reverend?

trenchael: May 05, 2008 - 07:40 PM PST

The difference is Rush attaches himself to people without them knowing, or any real personal relationship. Wright was attached to Obama by Obama's choice. Not the same thing at all.

As far as can politicians be attached to them - yes they can, but it's an extreme risk considering the number of people who do not share the same views. If you are trying to win a "popular" vote, siding with an unpopular opinion is not the best strategy.

Along the same lines, Obama could associate with Wright if he didn't continue to emerge with unpopular statements, no matter what the context, so frequently. For instance, if Wright laid low after the first instance, then it may have faded away.

As far as context is concerned, I don't think they were as egregiously out of context as you do, but still... this is nothing new for the media. And people have to operate in the environment in which they are in, otherwise all they would be doing is arguing contexts and not issues.

toru: May 05, 2008 - 04:22 PM PST Yeah, two things are going on. Good clarification.

I still think we're being too hard on this guy and taking him out of context, though. I also think that its unfair that Obama had to distance himself from this guy so much. Even if its for publicity. And I don't necessarily understand why we just can't back off this 'fake' contraversy.

Religion doesn't mix with politics. And its really silly that the media pulled crazy quotes from no where to make this guy sound crazy, then gave him like 30 interviews- where he said, i'm not a politican. Pastors/preachers have a tendency to say non-mainstream things. I know pleanty of pastors who condemn science. Kansas school board?

I guess it just comes down to listening to radicals, and not being afraid of them. Is that what the issue is here? I think its ok to be radical. ANd that we have to have the radical voice heard, because well- when we silence radicals we get pent up anger.

I've also read a lot about the HIV consciparcy. and of course, I stand on the public health side, but I understand how some people could come to the conclusions they do. Its really hard to swallow that the biggest percentage of new cases of HIV is young black women. Or in the ex-pres of South Africa, it was really hard for him Mbecki, to swallow that 40% of his working class had HIV and would soon die. These are really hard realities. Doesn't it make sense that someone who hasn't a clue about science challenge science?

Should radicals have a voice? A place in our society? Can politicans be connected to them on any level? I would call Rush a radical- and Bush never had to distance himself from a man who calls feminists terrorists.

trenchael: May 05, 2008 - 01:52 PM PST

Hold on there...just a moment.

First, I did say his anger was understandable. I have no problem with people being angry when they have every right to be.

However, I think there's a way to discuss things and a way not to. When was the last time yelling and screaming got you anywhere?

Saying things, like, the government created AIDS to rid the country of people of color - is not productive, and just wrong. It's when the anger impedes the two-way communication that it becomes an issue.

Again, I said he was justified. And I'm not even sure he should be silenced. But if Obama wants to <i>win</i> he did the right thing by running as far away from him as humanly possible.

There are 2 completely separate things going on here.

toru: May 05, 2008 - 04:47 AM PST

your comment helped. I understand now, how people think about this.

I don't know if I think wright is exactly being devisive though. To talk about race- without anger is really glossing over the issues. I agree that we have to change our dialogue and we have to figure out a way to bring all americans to the same table. But its wrong to silence black anger because it makes some people uncomfortable. Part of mending relationships is an acknowledgement of how another person feels. Anger is a part of the healing process that needs to be addressed and attended to. Every white american may not have complicitly oppressed the people around them, but we do need to acknowledge the pain an oppressed person feels. I don't exactly agree with identiy politics because it displaces the responsibility of the system on the individual, but I do think that we need to be responsible citizens and neighboors. I guess what i'm trying to say, is that wright has justifiable anger, and silencing him, or calling him a looney doesn't help us solve racial issues. Rather it sepresses an important voice and feeling. To heal from our nation's history and really change the way things are, we have to work through this anger, and to work through it we must acknowlegde it.

toru: May 05, 2008 - 03:36 AM PST

I found it! The NAACP speech last week.

But I still think we're misrepresenting this guy. The context of this quote is that he's speaking about different not deficent and he says this in the context of what was the expected learning styles of children- the differences between blk and wht. I'm not entirely convinced that this can be extracted from his speech and quoted as truth, or as a belief he holds because it seems that he was illustrating a point- not necessarily expounding on an 'truth'. If you read the transcript- it holds more as a illustration and less of a truth/fact.

toru: May 04, 2008 - 07:39 AM PST [quote=brianbunnell]
wright has found his microphone and used it to say things that are (or should be) demeaning to his own race. like suggesting that whites are better at left-brained activities and blacks are better at right-brained activities. the black brain isn't suited for mathematical and analytical thinking? how would you expect Obama to react to that statement?[quote]

But he didn't say this in his national press confernce speech. And that's what I don't get. WHy are we quoting all of these 30 sec clips when we know its out of context, and how have no clue where it came from to begin with? I am assuming that this is one of those sound clips that is being withdrawn from his sermons. Where is this quote coming from?

trenchael: May 04, 2008 - 04:38 AM PST Reverend Wright is someone who knows and has experienced a different level of racism than what exists today. It has made him (understandably) jaded and skeptical against a government that used to be biased against him on a regular basis.

So as he continues to express his skepticism through racially charged statements and conspiracy theories, it is not in the best interest for Obama to be seen as holding those same views from a political standpoint. And being a member of his church for so long, it's difficult to do that.

Wright has been referred to as an ego maniac for a number of reasons. First, a couple months removed from when he was brought to the forefront, he wants to explain himself. Clearly, if he had Obama's interests in mind - he would have let it die down. Then he professes to speak for all black churches. He says things that are completely incorrect - like all white children are right brained and all black children are left-brained. Then in these conferences, he talks about his admiration for someone as divisive as Farakahn...and make fun of one of the most popular presidents in history. Again, not the best idea to draw that kind of attention to yourself if you are trying to help a parishioner. And they can be seen as destructive.

I'm not saying he should have Obama's interests in mind. I mean, it would be nice for Obama, but Wright may see this as the best opportunity to get his message out to a much larger group of people.

I don't know - it just seems that he has been preaching for over 40 years, like having a mic in hand and is now getting a taste of being famous and is relishing that.

brianbunnell: May 03, 2008 - 11:54 PM PST my dad keeps comparing wright to al sharpton and jesse jackson, who have recently lost their credibility as serious leaders (like "nappy-headed hoes" was the biggest problem for african-americans in the last year... please...)

wright has found his microphone and used it to say things that are (or should be) demeaning to his own race. like suggesting that whites are better at left-brained activities and blacks are better at right-brained activities. the black brain isn't suited for mathematical and analytical thinking? how would you expect Obama to react to that statement?

maybe the constant raising of a ruckus isn't the best way for african-americans to draw attention to the idea that they want greater respect and dignity. compare wright/sharpton/jackson to Obama/bill cosby/colin powell... which group serves as better role models for black youth?

i think Obama handles this situation supremely well, and has once again shown the ability to be right on a consistent basis. i want somebody who thinks like him to be running this country...

toru: May 03, 2008 - 11:01 PM PST So, I just finised listening to the whole Reverned Wright speech before the National Press confernece last week, and I can't figure out how obama took what he did from it, and why he condemned wright. I have a tendency to space out when I listen to preachers, so I read the transcript and still don't get it.

What is he saying that is so off the top for a preacher? He's a religious figurehead, who in the context of this speech was annoucing a 2-day convention on race and relgion. From this context the NYT called him an ego manic. The reporter asked if it was a publicity stunt. I just don't understand why people don't put him in a contex- he was speaking before a conferences for christ sake! Not calling the conference for his only publicity, or why its offensive that he's saying racism exists- and has segregated our churches. What am I missing. Obviously, I don't pay attention to the Obama campaign- I'm a Hillary supporter. But I still don't see what the recent show down is about.I get feminism, but I don't get the this mix of politics and religion, why they are pitted against one another with these two figures. Someone with some insight on Obama help me out here.

This is what Wikipedia says: At a news conference the following April 29, Barack Obama decried Wright's latest remarks as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth".[51]. He accused his former pastor of exploiting racism and "giving comfort to those who prey on hate." He characterized Wright’s National Press Club appearance as a “spectacle” and described its content as "outrageous" and "destructive."