Thus revealed, the creature buried its nose in the tire-tilled soil...
April 29, 2008
Reverend Wright, go away
Category: Serious

Before yesterday, I really didn't think Jeremiah Wright was all that bad. Well, I admit that I thought he was "out there" -- and certainly a liability to Obama -- after first seeing the snippets of Reverend Wright's sermons on YouTube early this year (or maybe even last year; conservative websites were harping on them long before they became the talk of mainstream media). But when I had the opportunity to listen to the full sermons I found it obvious that they had been taken entirely out of context for the purpose of vilifying the man and, by extension, Barack Obama.

Sure, "God damn America" sounds pretty harsh, but Wright was chiefly talking about the American government -- and the injustices towards "racial" minorities that he attributed to it in that sermon, for the most part, have been well documented. When he thundered that "America's chickens are coming home to roost," he was quoting former US Ambassador Edward Peck and highlighting that our country is far from being an innocent bystander on the international stage. Far from gloating that America had gotten its just desserts with 9/11, Wright was simply pointing out that "violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism" -- and that, as we move forward, we need to recognize this reality and stop perpetuating the cycle. And the sermon from which Obama lifted the title of The Audacity of Hope was probably one of the best and most interesting sermons that I've ever heard. I haven't heard all that many sermons, of course, but considering that I'm hardly Christian I was surprised by how engaging I thought it was. I listened to it twice.

(Okay, I have no idea why the heck he went off on how Hillary Clinton has never been called a "n-" and how that fit in with that Sunday's lesson -- I haven't heard the full sermon or seen the transcript -- but he's probably right about that. Right?)

I even enjoyed watching Rev. Wright's interview on Bill Moyers Journal. True, that he described Obama's actions as those of a (typical) politician was a little dickish, as Bill Maher put it, but I liked that they showed lengthier clips that put Wright's comments in context and gave him the opportunity to talk more about his service to the country and his community. Here, it seemed, was the fair and accurate portrayal of the man that the media had deliberately hidden from the public.

And then in separate speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club, Wright fucked up. To be sure, there's probably something to be said for his assertion that most Americans know very little about the black church, and I agree with his mantra that "different" does not necessarily mean "deficient." Yet "separate" does not necessarily mean "unequal" -- and the kinds of differences that Wright argues exist provide both hateful and "well-meaning" racists with legitimate reasons for advocating the same kind of separation that was deemed unconstitutional during the Civil Rights Movement. How can integrated schools work when Wright asserts that whites and blacks learn differently because their brains work differently? (Seriously, in this respect, can you think of a more problematic statement than Wright's contention that, "in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we [are] comparing apples and rocks"? Again: apples and rocks? Never mind that Obama and even Wright himself have proven perfectly capable of learning despite being part of a Western educational system that supposedly places people of purported African descent at an inherent disadvantage.) How can diverse individuals come together and truly learn from each other when their interests in music and other subjects are influenced not by cultural, environmental, or other substantive factors but, supposedly, by their DNA? Dogs and cats are "different" -- and not "deficient" in that neither species is objectively superior to the other -- but unless a particular dog and cat had proven capable of getting along in the past, I would hesitate to place them in the same room unattended. And yes, I'm aware that many dogs and cats do get along famously, but by suggesting the existence of physical differences that do not actually exist -- that "race" goes beyond the superficial and that "culture" is a product of biology -- Wright's comments can more be easily adapted to serve the forces of division rather than unity.

(Also, accusing the US government of creating AIDS as a means of genocide against Africans? I mean, it could be true, and Wright is correct about the Tuskegee experiment, government involvement in the crack epidemic of the 1980s, and other injustices that suggest our government would not have been above such an act. But since there will never be any convincing proof of this AIDS conspiracy (as if the government would ever let that information become public knowledge -- imagine the fallout!), publicly asserting one's belief in it is not at all helpful. To most Americans, it sounds completely nuts.)

So like Obama, here is where I break with Rev. Wright. Granted, he should be able to say whatever he wants to say, but I hope that, after these most recent remarks and Obama's unequivocal rejection of his comments, people will stop bloody paying attention. Yet what I find most disturbing and unfortunate about recent events is not what Wright said, or the potential that his comments have to completely derail Obama's candidacy, but that he actually seems to be gaining support. And whereas before I thought that a national dialogue on race might be helpful, I now think there is an excellent chance that it is totally going to suck.

-posted by Wes | 7:21 pm | Comments (5)
5 Comments »
  • Jaded says:

    I have much to say, as I'm sure you might expect. It's late, however, and since I'm old, I need to go to bed! I'll post my thoughts soon though.

    Good post, Wes.

  • dave says:

    Actually I think Wright might ultimately help Obama. It's such an absurd issue that Obama can't but handle it correctly given enough time, as opposed to a legitimate issue where time would make things worse. There is nothing new to be added to the argument except defenses and forgetting.

  • Dar says:

    I didn't think his comments were too crazy either.

    It''s over-blown. It's one of those instances of conservative verbal patriot-baiting. They know what he really meant, but they're playing the outraged American patriot card.

    It's like when attacked Kerry during the 2004 campaign when he said that the U.S. should be more sensitive in its foreigh policy approach. "Oh my God he wants to cuddle up to Bin laden!!!".

    Rat bastards all of them.

  • Wes says:

    Jaded: No rush... take your time. 🙂

    Dave: Possibly... though I'm not sure how helpful Rev. Wright will be in the short term, and right now I'm a little worried that in the short term Clinton might actually manage to steal the nomination. I'm more worried about the impact that the Wrights of America (and the Pat Buchanans, Bill O'Reillys, Sean Hannitys, Geraldine Ferraros... and so forth) will have on this greater national discussion of "race." Assuming that ever happens, anyway, since I don't think the people will be motivated enough to even bother with it unless Obama wins in November.

    Dar: My problem isn't so much his "anti-American" comments -- which, while certainly unfortunately phrased, are mostly defensible -- but his more recent claims that numerous social and cultural differences are rooted in "racial" and biological variations. And I find the fact that hardly anyone in the media is jumping on those more dangerous comments disturbing, since it potentially suggests that they agree with them. Not to mention that I've seen numerous commenters on blogs and whatnot who agree with Wright's views on those issues.

  • dave says:

    I guess whether or not the Wright decoy works, someone of his ilk will hit the scene throughout this race.

    The difficulty with the media addressing Wright's biological comments I think can be explained by this book I read many years ago on racism which listed the 'rules of racial standing' which said something to the effect that in America, if a black person criticizes another black person, the criticism is given an inordinate amount of credibility from the start, and similarly, if a black person defends another black person, the value of his defense is limited, especially in areas where there is a question of racism, the suggestion being that the defense must be based on solidarity rather than logic, but that the criticism must be made without prejeduce. I've seen this in practice, where someone will make a comment similar to what Wright said, and defend the statement by saying, "so and so agrees with me, and he's black', as though skin color rather than science qualifies someone to make a socio-biological assessment. I think that's why people don't want to touch the comment. I support my interpretation by pointing out that the media was all over James Watson for making statements based on a similar philosophy. What was disturbing then was how many people claimed that Watson's unscientific claims were scientific based on the fact that Watson said them - regardless of the fact that they were anecdotal, presumptive, irrelevant, and most importantly, devoid of any of the evidence for which Watson is an expert, namely direct observation of a genetic basis.

    On the other hand, the amount of jujutzu that the Right would use if the media attacked or supported Wright makes it better that nobody is questioning those claims. I don't really think any good can come from focusing on statements like that. It just gives amplification to the worst elements of the commentary-o-sphere.

Leave a Reply...