I thought the Moyers interview was phenomenal and was even pleased with the NAACP address. Yesterday's Press Club appearance though, just made me want to cringe. Not because I thought what he was saying was all wrong (some yes, not all), but because he was exposing thoughts that run through some in the Black community that White people will never really be able to understand and will automatically get defensive about.
So much for being post-racial. So, I don't think it is specifically Wright that is hurting Obama's campaign, I think it is the fact that we as a country have never REALLY dealt with racism that is threatening his campaign. Wright is just merely shinning a big ass spotlight on things.
I went to hear Jim Wallis last night and he made an excellent point. If we really want to start addressing the racial sins of this country, then listen or read Obama's speech on race and ask yourself if that is the direction that you are willing to commit to. I will add, that if embracing Obama's vision of racial reconciliation is what you what you want to embrace, understand that addressing the issues that Wright brings to light will be a part of the process.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
LOVE Wallis!!!
Is this thing really boiling down to a choice between a guy who has no problem staying in Iraq for 100 years, a lady who threatens to "obliterate" Iran, or a guy whose narcissistic old preacher has caused Obama to say in no uncertain terms:
"I have said before and I will repeat again that what some of the comments that Rev. Wright had made offend me, and I understand why they have offended the American people.
"He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign."
McCain seeks out and embraces racist homophobic preachers, courting their endorsement. Hillary's bible-study group includes every right-wing wack-job in Washington.
But yes, please let's play the religious figure who has been disavowed in an endless loop and ignore the nut-cases in bed with the other two.
Obama isn't just fighting Hillary for the right to fight McCain. He's also fighting the entire "liberal" media. Good thing we aren't talking about things that matter.
Racism is not the ONLY problem, but it certainly is a part of it.
I LOVE how some White folks LOVE to cling to the whole "it's not racism" mantra. Perhaps because they can then ignore their own privilege and feel all warm and fuzzy that this nation has overcome racism and we're all singing kuumbaya!
I understand that. But, the question still keeps coming up about what effect Wright has on Obama. And the fact that Wright spoke plainly and boldly about racism and the errors of the policies of this country is what is even bringing up the question in the first place. So yes, race and racism is the point if Wright keeps being brought in as a red herring to sink Obama's candidacy.
So I ask, is Wright just a guy looking to make himself famous or is he really concerned about bridging the divide between whites and blacks that he himself has helped widen?
So, to answer Rose's original question. I don't think he's looking to make himself famous. I think he does want to bridge the divide, but I think he sees his role in that as being someone who brings things to light. Now, some of what he brings to light is true. Like what he said at the NAACP dinner about difference not being the same as deficient. But, I think other things that he says is off base - like AIDS was started by the government to kill Black folks - but is born out of a deep distrust of this country.
All I did was begin the process of unpacking your own words, attempt to examine the sources of white privilege, and investigate your underlying assumptions. But we don't have to discuss it. I probably should get back to work, anyway.
"And how did whites become the dominant people and power in this society?"
Obviously, they evicted the people of color who were already living here - in many cases rather cruelly - and then created the society, in large measure on the backs of people of color, that they have dominated ever since. Go to school much?
O made a very good speech repudiating Wright.
the rightside is currently working overtime to try to keep wright stuck to O, but i think it will fail.
It was an excellent tactical speech....he repudiated the aids calumny and farrakhan.
the right side will try to make out that it is still an issue, but i think it is done.
here's my snyopsis.
"hey, batshit crazy old preacherman, i hereby repudiate thee and all thy works.
an don't u ever dare tell ppl again you know wat im thinking. cuz u don't, bitch."
;)
"hey, batshit crazy old preacherman, i hereby repudiate thee and all thy works.
an don't u ever dare tell ppl again you know wat im thinking. cuz u don't, bitch."
;)
Sometimes with treaties (that we often reneged-on later), sometimes we simply took their land and sometimes we slaughtered them outright with guns and white diseases.
Is this a game or are you completely ignorant of American history?
Sometimes with treaties (that we often reneged-on later), sometimes we simply took their land and sometimes we slaughtered them outright with guns and white diseases.
Well, if we're not from here, how did we get here? How come the peoples of color didn't come to us?
How come they didn't conquer Europe after crossing the Atlantic, using weapons such as treaties and guns?
"How come they didn't conquer Europe after crossing the Atlantic, using weapons such as treaties and guns?"
Again, obviously, since you're talking about hundreds of individual societies, there's no single answer. Apparently, many of them simply had no desire to invade and conquer other lands so, at least in that regard, they were more civilized than white Europeans.
If you have some point to make, now would be the time since I'm through answering your stupid questions.
If you have some point to make, now would be the time since I'm through answering your stupid questions.
Are you sure they're stupid questions?
There's no single answer to all those hundreds of societies? You mean some of them had the ability to cross the ocean, and others had the technology to conquer Europe, but luckily, they weren't the same groups? I see. So peoples of color didn't conquer Europe because they were more civilized. I see.
"So you're saying that people of color have better motives, and that's why there's no, say, black privilege?"
Ha! We were talking about the long-standing dominance of majority (technically advanced) whites over people of color. But I would say that if white people, say like you and Mr. you-know-who, instantly had your relative social positions reversed with blacks, the country would be on fire.
No, there is no such thing as "Black privilege" because the whole idea of privilege is based on the advantages that one receives based on the inherent racism in this country.
Now, Black people can have class or gender privilege...but I'm afraid that would be a little over your head, Bill.
So, before you go ask any further asinine and leading questions, how about you read up, and then maybe we can have an actual discussion.
"Now, Black people can have class or gender privilege..."
I think that suggests that it is classism, not racism, that is the great social divide now. Money, or wealth and the lack thereof to be more precise, is the root of unfair advantage (if it has not always been so). Somebody, Maher or Moulitas, correctly says that is the new 3rd rail of American politics. Obviously, because rich people worked so hard to make it that way.
Egalitarianism and meritocracy are today's greatest of American myths. Greater than the myth of "color-blind" society and, certainly, that of white, European meritocracy.
I'm still ordering my thinking on this issue. I haven't quite put it together. That's why I was asking questions.
What I was getting at is sort of a first-principles, big-picture discussion containing some of the following thoughts:
* that what we often ascribe to race is actually a function of culture, that is, thought.
* that human nature, with its strengths and weaknesses, is not a function of race.
* different groups of people have come up with varying ways of dealing with man's fundamental human nature, with its weaknesses and strengths. We also call that culture.
* that dominance is largely caused by technological advancement.
I don't know. Still working on it. When folks say white privilege, I think they're making far too broad an argument and getting into areas that are mostly a function of culture and human nature and ascribing them to race.
But I haven't hammered it out yet. If I ever do, I'll probably post it on my blog.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Bill, regardless of the meta question of how it all started through the development of cultures through history, we still have an inequitable situation, a symptom if you will, that is less than ideal.
If you are looking for an question which will give you the answer, "Well, of course. Things are as they should be because one particular culture made advancements in technology, resource management, organization, desire, etc." I doubt it will be of much use except to rationalize the status quo.
You have every right to believe the status quo is acceptable, but I think you would be wrong and the rationalization smacks of a social darwinist attitude that is more fitting for the jungle than a modern homogeneous society.
Yeah, I recognized the "social darwinism" trap, which is why I was trying to discuss things as they are and have developed, and not as they should be.
Also, btw, I am not denying white privilege. Mostly, I think it applies to things like law enforcement and freedom of young black males in groups to travel together without incurring suspicion. It also means younger white men can get away with breaking certain laws that a similarly situated group of young black men would end up with an arrest record for.
White privilege is not a gendered thing and doesn't show up just in law enforcement, though that is one area where it is probably the clearest to see.
I think the one way to look at White privilege is to reflect on the ease in which White people can move in this society without any question of their motives or intent. I think if folks are honest with themselves, they will find that is a pretty regular occurence, because by simply being White your presence is rarely questioned or considered an exception or a threat.
Now, I know people who live in areas where Blacks or people of color make up a majority, they may question the premise that I am laying out, but I still stand by it.
I knew you'd mention the Mayans. They don't apply in this case because they and their civilization were lost prior to the arrival of white man on this continent.
Anyway, the big thing the Mayans lacked with the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Islamic Civilization and the like was continuity of cultural transmission. IIRC, ditto the Incas. The Aztecs had some metallurgy, as did some other tribes.
I mean, surely you wouldn't compare Mayan civilization to the 12th Century Italian Renaissance? And while the Mayan pyramids were cool, they weren't quite the elegant pyramids of the Egyptians. And the Mayans used the corbel arch, not the Roman Arch. In any case, they were all gone before Columbus arrived.
When white men arrived in 1492, they met a collection of for-the-most-part stone age hunter-gatherer tribes, without written language and in many cases, who hadn't even invented the wheel yet, and certainly not the wheel-and-axle. In other cases, they met folks with some metallurgical capabilities, but who were nonetheless vastly technologically inferior. Most were quickly wiped out by diseases brought from Europe. The rest of the genocide and theft is a blot on European history.
It wasn't 200-300 years behind. More like 5-10,000 years behind. Doesn't make 'em bad people, or in any way say they got what they deserved. They didn't.
"Also, btw, I am not denying white privilege. Mostly, I think it applies to things like law enforcement and freedom of young black males in groups to travel together without incurring suspicion."
Or when you're applying for a job, or a loan, or walking around in a store, or on the street...
Rev. Wright is making valid points about latent racism in society as well as public policy. It's just that (mostly for white people, especially political and media elites): 1) he's delivering an uncomfortable message, 2) he's an uncomfortable messenger and 3) he's delivering the message in an uncomfortable manner.
I mean, surely you wouldn't compare Mayan civilization to the 12th Century Italian Renaissance?
That would be fun, but the Italian Renaissance didn't start until the fourteenth century. And lest we get into a pissing match about that, let me say first that I took a course on the Italian Renaissance in Florence.
It wasn't 200-300 years behind. More like 5-10,000 years behind.
I think you're underestimating how primitive Medieval Europe was. The Roman period and the Renaissance were bracketing periods with considerable technological expertise, but they even forgot how to make concrete in the period between.
You, earlier: I mean, surely you wouldn't compare Mayan civilization to the 12th Century Italian Renaissance?
Besides, the Twelfth Century Renaissance is a little-used term, and it certainly wasn't much of anything. The actual Renaissance started in the late Fourteenth Century in Florence.
The 12th Century Renaissance was certainly more than nothing -- it prefigured the "High Renaissance" in many ways, including development of science and the beginnings of the scientific method. Italy played an important role, which is why I called it the 12th Century Italian Renaissance. I was remember what a professor of the Middle Ages called it. But it should properly be called the 12th Century Renaissance. Sorry for the confusion.
And the Middle Ages, while losing some cultural transmission, was still a vibrant cultural period that's often overlooked and dismissed. There was a lot going on and a lot being transmitted.
And there were plenty of wheels and axles, to get this back to what was going on in North America in 1492. They were for the most part still in the stone age, not trying to remember how to set concrete underwater or rediscovering ancient classical texts -- because they didn't have any.
The secret of concrete was lost for 13 centuries until 1756, when the British engineer John Smeaton pioneered the use of hydraulic lime in concrete, using pebbles and powdered brick as aggregate. Portland cement was first used in concrete in the early 1840s.
Underwater? Huh?
It prefigured the "High Renaissance" in many ways, including development of science and the beginnings of the scientific method.
In much the same way that anything that comes before something else prefigures it.
Italy played an important role, which is why I called it the 12th Century Italian Renaissance.
for starters, establishment of the first european university -- at bologna, plus lots of other stuff, especially advances in jurisprudence. scholasticism, which would flower in the 13th century with Thomas Acquinas, started in 12th century universities.
yes, the romans could set concrete underwater.
And the 12th century was a big deal historically.
not to mention the byzantines, a/k/a, the eastern half of the roman empire, were still going strong. though in 1203 (extending the century by 4 years) Constantinople ran into a few problems with the crusaders.
the point anyway is that in the 15th century, there was nothing eqivalent in north america, nor were they even remotely close technologically to 11th century europe.
So much for being post-racial. So, I don't think it is specifically Wright that is hurting Obama's campaign, I think it is the fact that we as a country have never REALLY dealt with racism that is threatening his campaign. Wright is just merely shinning a big ass spotlight on things.
I went to hear Jim Wallis last night and he made an excellent point. If we really want to start addressing the racial sins of this country, then listen or read Obama's speech on race and ask yourself if that is the direction that you are willing to commit to. I will add, that if embracing Obama's vision of racial reconciliation is what you what you want to embrace, understand that addressing the issues that Wright brings to light will be a part of the process.
Is this thing really boiling down to a choice between a guy who has no problem staying in Iraq for 100 years, a lady who threatens to "obliterate" Iran, or a guy whose narcissistic old preacher has caused Obama to say in no uncertain terms:McCain seeks out and embraces racist homophobic preachers, courting their endorsement. Hillary's bible-study group includes every right-wing wack-job in Washington.
But yes, please let's play the religious figure who has been disavowed in an endless loop and ignore the nut-cases in bed with the other two.
Obama isn't just fighting Hillary for the right to fight McCain. He's also fighting the entire "liberal" media. Good thing we aren't talking about things that matter.
I LOVE how some White folks LOVE to cling to the whole "it's not racism" mantra. Perhaps because they can then ignore their own privilege and feel all warm and fuzzy that this nation has overcome racism and we're all singing kuumbaya!
Whomever is right or wrong isn't the point.
The fact is we are choosing a President not a racism doctor.
Well said.
I understand that. But, the question still keeps coming up about what effect Wright has on Obama. And the fact that Wright spoke plainly and boldly about racism and the errors of the policies of this country is what is even bringing up the question in the first place. So yes, race and racism is the point if Wright keeps being brought in as a red herring to sink Obama's candidacy.
So I ask, is Wright just a guy looking to make himself famous or is he really concerned about bridging the divide between whites and blacks that he himself has helped widen?
So, to answer Rose's original question. I don't think he's looking to make himself famous. I think he does want to bridge the divide, but I think he sees his role in that as being someone who brings things to light. Now, some of what he brings to light is true. Like what he said at the NAACP dinner about difference not being the same as deficient. But, I think other things that he says is off base - like AIDS was started by the government to kill Black folks - but is born out of a deep distrust of this country.
And McCain can't get away from Rev. John Hagee.
So?
And how did that "white privilege" come to be?
White privilege comes from being the dominant people, and thus power, in this society.
...anything else?
Obviously, they evicted the people of color who were already living here - in many cases rather cruelly - and then created the society, in large measure on the backs of people of color, that they have dominated ever since. Go to school much?
And how were they able to do that?
the rightside is currently working overtime to try to keep wright stuck to O, but i think it will fail.
It was an excellent tactical speech....he repudiated the aids calumny and farrakhan.
the right side will try to make out that it is still an issue, but i think it is done.
here's my snyopsis.
"hey, batshit crazy old preacherman, i hereby repudiate thee and all thy works.
an don't u ever dare tell ppl again you know wat im thinking. cuz u don't, bitch."
;)
Oh, just Rev. Wright's feet sticking out from under that bus over there.
*sigh*
an don't u ever dare tell ppl again you know wat im thinking. cuz u don't, bitch."
;)
You should write speeches for Obama.
We are saved, Alleluia.
Wait, Rev. Goddam America needs a proper funeral.
Sometimes with treaties (that we often reneged-on later), sometimes we simply took their land and sometimes we slaughtered them outright with guns and white diseases.
Is this a game or are you completely ignorant of American history?
I found a nice, grace filled, pastoral Roman Catholic priest, pastor from St. Sabina's in Chicago to officiate at Rev Goddam America's funeral.
Even matoko could go to this funeral.
Well, if we're not from here, how did we get here? How come the peoples of color didn't come to us?
How come they didn't conquer Europe after crossing the Atlantic, using weapons such as treaties and guns?
Again, obviously, since you're talking about hundreds of individual societies, there's no single answer. Apparently, many of them simply had no desire to invade and conquer other lands so, at least in that regard, they were more civilized than white Europeans.
If you have some point to make, now would be the time since I'm through answering your stupid questions.
Are you sure they're stupid questions?
There's no single answer to all those hundreds of societies? You mean some of them had the ability to cross the ocean, and others had the technology to conquer Europe, but luckily, they weren't the same groups? I see. So peoples of color didn't conquer Europe because they were more civilized. I see.
Thank you for the lesson.
Because they were nicer?
Or is your point that the Europeans were about two or three hundred years more technologically advanced than the native North Americans?
Think it might be genetic superiority, Bill?
Two or three hundreds years more advanced? Sure it wasn't a little more than that?
(And no, I'm not getting at genetics at all ...)
You're welcome. To sum up (just in case you missed it), motive is more important than technology. It's more important than just about anything.
Ha! We were talking about the long-standing dominance of majority (technically advanced) whites over people of color. But I would say that if white people, say like you and Mr. you-know-who, instantly had your relative social positions reversed with blacks, the country would be on fire.
Now, Black people can have class or gender privilege...but I'm afraid that would be a little over your head, Bill.
So, before you go ask any further asinine and leading questions, how about you read up, and then maybe we can have an actual discussion.
I think that suggests that it is classism, not racism, that is the great social divide now. Money, or wealth and the lack thereof to be more precise, is the root of unfair advantage (if it has not always been so). Somebody, Maher or Moulitas, correctly says that is the new 3rd rail of American politics. Obviously, because rich people worked so hard to make it that way.
Egalitarianism and meritocracy are today's greatest of American myths. Greater than the myth of "color-blind" society and, certainly, that of white, European meritocracy.
What I was getting at is sort of a first-principles, big-picture discussion containing some of the following thoughts:
* that what we often ascribe to race is actually a function of culture, that is, thought.
* that human nature, with its strengths and weaknesses, is not a function of race.
* different groups of people have come up with varying ways of dealing with man's fundamental human nature, with its weaknesses and strengths. We also call that culture.
* that dominance is largely caused by technological advancement.
I don't know. Still working on it. When folks say white privilege, I think they're making far too broad an argument and getting into areas that are mostly a function of culture and human nature and ascribing them to race.
But I haven't hammered it out yet. If I ever do, I'll probably post it on my blog.
If you are looking for an question which will give you the answer, "Well, of course. Things are as they should be because one particular culture made advancements in technology, resource management, organization, desire, etc." I doubt it will be of much use except to rationalize the status quo.
You have every right to believe the status quo is acceptable, but I think you would be wrong and the rationalization smacks of a social darwinist attitude that is more fitting for the jungle than a modern homogeneous society.
Yeah, I recognized the "social darwinism" trap, which is why I was trying to discuss things as they are and have developed, and not as they should be.
Also, btw, I am not denying white privilege. Mostly, I think it applies to things like law enforcement and freedom of young black males in groups to travel together without incurring suspicion. It also means younger white men can get away with breaking certain laws that a similarly situated group of young black men would end up with an arrest record for.
I dunno. I'm still thinking about it ...
I think the one way to look at White privilege is to reflect on the ease in which White people can move in this society without any question of their motives or intent. I think if folks are honest with themselves, they will find that is a pretty regular occurence, because by simply being White your presence is rarely questioned or considered an exception or a threat.
Now, I know people who live in areas where Blacks or people of color make up a majority, they may question the premise that I am laying out, but I still stand by it.
Yes. What did invading Europeans have in, say, 1200 AD, that the Mayans did not?
Anyway, the big thing the Mayans lacked with the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Islamic Civilization and the like was continuity of cultural transmission. IIRC, ditto the Incas. The Aztecs had some metallurgy, as did some other tribes.
I mean, surely you wouldn't compare Mayan civilization to the 12th Century Italian Renaissance? And while the Mayan pyramids were cool, they weren't quite the elegant pyramids of the Egyptians. And the Mayans used the corbel arch, not the Roman Arch. In any case, they were all gone before Columbus arrived.
When white men arrived in 1492, they met a collection of for-the-most-part stone age hunter-gatherer tribes, without written language and in many cases, who hadn't even invented the wheel yet, and certainly not the wheel-and-axle. In other cases, they met folks with some metallurgical capabilities, but who were nonetheless vastly technologically inferior. Most were quickly wiped out by diseases brought from Europe. The rest of the genocide and theft is a blot on European history.
It wasn't 200-300 years behind. More like 5-10,000 years behind. Doesn't make 'em bad people, or in any way say they got what they deserved. They didn't.
Or when you're applying for a job, or a loan, or walking around in a store, or on the street...
Rev. Wright is making valid points about latent racism in society as well as public policy. It's just that (mostly for white people, especially political and media elites): 1) he's delivering an uncomfortable message, 2) he's an uncomfortable messenger and 3) he's delivering the message in an uncomfortable manner.
That would be fun, but the Italian Renaissance didn't start until the fourteenth century. And lest we get into a pissing match about that, let me say first that I took a course on the Italian Renaissance in Florence.
It wasn't 200-300 years behind. More like 5-10,000 years behind.
I think you're underestimating how primitive Medieval Europe was. The Roman period and the Renaissance were bracketing periods with considerable technological expertise, but they even forgot how to make concrete in the period between.
I'm referring to 12th century Renaissance.
You, earlier: I mean, surely you wouldn't compare Mayan civilization to the 12th Century Italian Renaissance?
Besides, the Twelfth Century Renaissance is a little-used term, and it certainly wasn't much of anything. The actual Renaissance started in the late Fourteenth Century in Florence.
And the Middle Ages, while losing some cultural transmission, was still a vibrant cultural period that's often overlooked and dismissed. There was a lot going on and a lot being transmitted.
And there were plenty of wheels and axles, to get this back to what was going on in North America in 1492. They were for the most part still in the stone age, not trying to remember how to set concrete underwater or rediscovering ancient classical texts -- because they didn't have any.
Or above water.
From Wikipedia:
Underwater? Huh?
It prefigured the "High Renaissance" in many ways, including development of science and the beginnings of the scientific method.
In much the same way that anything that comes before something else prefigures it.
Italy played an important role, which is why I called it the 12th Century Italian Renaissance.
In what way did Italy play an important role?
yes, the romans could set concrete underwater.
And the 12th century was a big deal historically.
not to mention the byzantines, a/k/a, the eastern half of the roman empire, were still going strong. though in 1203 (extending the century by 4 years) Constantinople ran into a few problems with the crusaders.
the point anyway is that in the 15th century, there was nothing eqivalent in north america, nor were they even remotely close technologically to 11th century europe.
Color me skeptical.