Arts & Culture
The Ethnic Particularism of Barack Obama
By Ilana Mercer / March 19, 2008
The solutions offered by conservative commentators to Barack Obama’s existential crisis have been conspicuous in their shallowness. Unlike Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Victor Davis Hanson is no fake scholar; Hanson has intellectual heft. Yet he proposed that "all Obama would have to do is apologize, quit the church, and begin talking about the issues." How about admitting himself to rehab, or, even better, expiating on Oprah? (I read on the Los Angeles Times’ blog that Oprah, wise woman that she is, had long ago quit Trinity United Church of Christ for reasons that evaded Obama, her protégé.) No, I give Obama credit. His reaction to the nation-wide reaction to Rev. Wright’s fulminating—everywhere on full display—was anything but shallow. It was, however, profoundly disturbing. Obama began his “More Perfect Union” oration with perfunctory praise for the American founding, before moving on to the issue that looms largest for him and for Rev. Wright: the sin of slavery. Accused of decontextualizing the message uttered by Obama’s mentor, rightist critics of the Rev. Wright have been subjected to a coruscating critique—Wright’s vile, vociferous, overwhelming hatred of whites did not, apparently, reflect the man’s mission. I hereby accuse the man who may become president of reducing the greatest revolution in history—politically and philosophically—to the eternal Mark of Cain all whites must seemingly bear: slavery. Obama situated his own mission firmly on the civil war and civil rights continuum—in this respect, he would be continuing “the long march of those who came before us.” This is not the universal philosophical route carved by the American Founders, the followers of the Lockean tradition of natural rights. Obama may be more gentrified than the vulgar Rev. Wright. However, by harking back to slavery, he has expressed the very particularism that is so disturbing about his mentor’s mindset.
Leveled at innocent white Americans, race is like stigmata. Lest modern-day whites fail to welt up and bleed at the mention of slavery, Obama, like other custodians of consensus in our culture, hammered home that he is “married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.” White Americans who’ve come out in droves for Obama deserve better. So does Obama’s (white) grandma. He tells us he loves her with all his rather intense being. But he considers that she too is marred by racism for “once confessing her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” It is a fear rooted in fact, but Obama conflates it with racism. FBI and Justice surveys repeatedly show that, as Patrick J. Buchanan has written, “violent interracial assault, rape and murder [are] to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community. In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.” It is, moreover, not racist to consider aggregate group characteristics—provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches—in how one invests precious scarce resources, to wit, one’s life and property. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decision in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. Obama’s grandmother was no different. Had she failed to treat individual blacks on their merit, he’d be justified in labeling her a racist. More material, if Obama brands his own grandmother a racist for failing to suppress a visceral reaction borne of the reality of crime, one hates to think of how he’d view ordinary Americans who “transgress” in this manner. In Obama’s America, you had better button up about the “color of crime.”
In this context, Obama’s indirect swipe at Geraldine Ferraro rates a mention. The former vice presidential candidate suggested that the Senator would not be where he is if he were white. Indulgently, Obama has taken this to mean that Ferraro implied his “candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action.” Wrong. Ferraro was pointing to the coolness of being black in America and the considerable leverage that identity affords those who cultivate it. What better proof of that than Obama’s cult like following? Obama’s “More Perfect Union” address perfectly demonstrates that he has embraced this politicized racial identity, because to do so is smart; because in America, black is beautiful. Obama continued in this fashion to expound on the defining issue that distorts his perspective as it does Rev. Wright’s: the alleged “racial injustice in this country.” “[S]o many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today,” he intoned, “can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” My family tree was truncated by an event far more fatal than was slavery: the Holocaust. I do not carry this legacy with me. I blame only those who planned and executed the Final Solution, mostly long dead. Members of my family have never ascribed their misfortunes and misdeeds to that contemporary calamity. They’ve owned their failings. Ditto most Jews I know. Speaking of whom, Obama further minimized Wright’s wickedness by postulating that many of us “have heard remarks from [our] pastors, priests, or rabbis with which [we] strongly disagreed.” I have never attended a synagogue in which the rabbi boiled with racial bile as does Rev. Wright. In fact, my favorite rabbi, my father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, was an anti-apartheid activist. Obama did concede that “the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial.” But since he stopped there, allowing only that some of Wright’s vitriol was “wrong, distorted and divisive,” let me dilate on what’s missing from Obama’s formulation: what Americans need to take away from Rev. Wright’s words is not this or the other political message. Some of the pastor’s statements have a core of truth; others are purely phantasmagoric. Wright’s words are not isolated expressions; they constitute a worldview, a belief system—a rank racist belief system. Americans need to ponder this: How and why did Obama become spiritually enmeshed with an impious pastor who adheres to such a philosophy? Obama’s Speech From Slavery explains it all.
POST A COMMENT
poor vision + imagination + haste = typos. Sorry.
Anonymous 5/26, you certainly jump to conclusions.Â
'"Blacks then may have resented slavery, I don't know."Are you dumb?'
Maybe, but I sure can provoke. When I said "then", I meant the 1950's and 1960's when segregation was the norm. Excuse me if I was a little bigoted during those times in Southern Mississippi as a child. I dealt mostly with whites then. I have dealt with a lot of blacks since. It is my opinion that black resentment of slavery greatly increased after 1964.
 "Easy for you to say, Anonymous 5/25. There are more important things
than race relations and the resentment of the privileged. It's called
freedom – i.e. NOT being in slavery"
 We totally agree here. Ask yourself this question though: "Why is the US the ONLY country in the world to require a disastorious war (that cost 640,000 dead and countless maimed) to end slavery?" How do you square Lincoln's repeated assertions that the war was not about slavery? What do you think of his desire to deport blacks after the war?Â
"Blacks then may have resented slavery, I don't know."
Are you dumb?
Easy for you to say, Anonymous 5/25. There are more important things than race relations and the resentment of the privileged. It's called freedom – i.e. NOT being in slavery. Not forcing Northern states that actually respected human rights and liberties to compete with slave labor. That's an important thing. Of course, if you disagree, you could always volunteer to indenture yourself to a lifetime of servitude. And being the sophisticated Southerner that you are, I'm sure you can appreciate the clean moral trade-off of putting up or shutting up when it comes to that offer and the experiment it offers you in understanding the relative merits of either being resentful or being a practical non-human.
Damn Southern Yahoos. No end to their efforts to drag the rest of the country down with their f^*$ing back-assward bullshit. Â
I grew up in the South during the 50's and 60's so I know first hand the damage that Lincoln's war did to racial relations. Blacks then may have resented slavery, I don't know. But I do know that whites deeply resented Reconstruction almost 100 years after it ended. So, Lincoln's war poisoned racial relations for at least about 100 years in the South. It appears that the damage from that war continues.
If Rev Wright and Obama blame the Founding Fathers for the present difficulties for blacks then I think they are mistaken. The much more likely culprit is Abraham Lincoln.
Shaun, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I would only say that a true dialogue on race needs to be a two-way street, as Buchanan pointed out in his WND column today. Tough questions (and honest answers) need to be sought. I think that Obama's speech tried to pose as a tough, honest assessment, but was really just an attempt to make the unpleasantness of his lunatic pastor go away. OK. Over and out.Â
Ilana compares Jewish success with Black failure not only by ignoring recent historical differences but broader historical patterns. It was not until the Middle Ages that Jews started becoming a "successful" minority group. Jews were employed as merchants and traders (businessmen) because nearly every other occupation was closed off to them – they could not become aristocracy, clergy, army officers. And it was not until a large segement of European Jews became physically indistinguishable from their European counterparts due to intermarriage that they began to rise as a group. Thus, Jews in Europe and North America are cultural and religious minorities more than they're <i>visible</i> minorities. Genetic and physical differences exist, but they're less prominent. Obama can never change his last name and fly under the radar as a White man the way many Jews have in the past. This is the same way that the troubled Irish immigrants in America were soon able to blend in within a generation or two with the wider American population.
Beauty bias also plays a role. Good looking people are on average more successful than those who are not for no other reason besides attractive people get more breaks. Therefore, if more members of your group look like the majority, they're more likely to prosper than those who overwhelmingly do not. This is in conjunction with everything else I've already posted in this discussion.
"Here's a study by Steve Sailer showing maps of imprisonment rates by race across the US
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm
The state with the highest black imprisonment rate is Iowa, which would tend not to lend credibility to your "urban vs rural" theory, which is really just grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to rationalize the obscene rates of crime among blacks. "
Sailer doesn't conduct "studies". He's a journalist who thinks he knows more than he really does. As for your Iowa comment, we would have to dig deeper than your superficial stats and conclusions. New York State is mostly rural, but New York City is entirely urban. Which part of New York State do you think has the highest concentration of Blacks – the urban city or the rural areas?
I don't have to grasp at straws. I try to make sense out of things rather than merely regurgitating data because it happens to support what I currently believe.
"Finally, Obama just doesn't know when to stop digging his own hole. Referring to grandma as a "typical white woman" is no less crude than some white bigot referring to Obama as a "typical black guy". Yes, Obama was making a moral equivalence between the rantings of his pastor and the well-grounded fear of his grandma. I say there is no comparison."
There is nothing particularily offensive about his remark. The statement suggests that while his grandma was loving and caring, she was not immune to making crude projections. If she was walking in the ghetto or an all-black neighborhood, her fear of black men may be reasonable. If she felt the same way on Wall Street, then her fear would be less than rational. No context was given by Obama about her remark. But he followed up by saying that his grandma on occasion made racial remarks that made him cringe. No specifics were given, but I suspect they were not only real observations but irrational ones as well. This would not be atypical for a white woman of her era.
Likewise Obama concedes that Wright is not the only Black man of his era that holds to views that are antiquited when it comes to race and race relations. These irrational views that his grandma and Wright hold, however typical of the wider communities from whence they came, are not typical of their overall humanity – and this is why, Obama explains, he doesn't disavow his grandma nor Wright.
Obama would understand more than most what the Black community needs and doesn't need and what the real and false causes are of the problems of black crime. He is one of the blacks that "made it" in America where so many have fallen.
Dan,
"The difference in crime rates in black vs white populations cannot be explained away by differences in income. They cannot be explained away by rural vs urban population densities. They can't be explained away by differences in one or two parent households (tragically, this difference is only a recent phenomenon and has exploded since the 1970's). None of those things could make up for blacks – at 13% of the total population – commiting close to 90% of inter-racial violent crimes."
The differences cannot be explained completely by any of these factors but these are contributing factors. It's a fact that crime is correlated with income and education levels. Blacks have a disproportionate amount of income earners below poverty line. And the government statistics that you cite show that crime has been dropping since the 70's, corresponding to the Black middle-class that has grown during that time. The more people have a stake in society, or perceive that they do, the more law abiding they become.
Most crime is within-race, but criminals don't limit themselves on who they will victimize. Therefore, interracial crime of blacks on whites is not surprising since black-on-black violence is disproportionately high compared to white-on-white violence.
And let me just point out the rates of crime are not the same as number of crimes committed. One can say that blacks murder 7 times more than whites, but what is the actual number of murders? Very small. Ideally there wouldn't be any, but presentation of data in certain ways makes things appear more fantastic than they actually are.
Now, let's look at which crimes are committed and prosecuted. Let's assume that the Judicial system is blind and that upon being caught, White and Black criminals are treated the same for the same crimes (even though this is not true). We must also consider that Blacks are pulled over more often, searched more often, so they will also be caught more often. Rape statistics are questionable as Blacks are disproportionately wrongfully accused, and on the whole, as much as 50% of reported rapes may not be rape at all (at least that many are dismissed after initial police filing) for all men accused of rape. Busted for prostitution and gambling at high rates? These shouldn't be crimes in the first place. Robbery, forgery, theft correspond to low income levels. In fact, it should surprise you that more Blacks don't rob when they have a single parent working full time in New Orleans earning $10,000 a year. Blacks may commit more small-time robbery, forgery, and theft, but those banking off robbery, forgery, and theft in the form of insurance fraud to the tune of millions a year, are Whites. Raw numbers don't paint accurate pictures – that's my point with Jared Taylor's use of government statistics.
Asian Americans are pre-selected people from Asia. They come here often with more money and more education than the typical American. Thus, crime rates for them will be low. If you think that Asians commit less crime, visit China to see first-hand that it's not true.
You're right that Black sub-culture plays a role. This is something Blacks have most control over and requires changing from within their community. But let's not forget that culture doesn't develop in a vaccum. PART of this culture derives from 1960s Jim Crow and Segregation. And like slavery, which legal ended in 1863 but continued on in the form of economic deprivation, Jim Crow and Segregation also endured long after they became illegal.
Wrong. Obama did not compare his grandma's fear of blacks to rabid racists. He made it clear that his grandma was and is nothing like a rabid racist; she raised him with love and care.
And Buchanan's quote  is from a "study" undertaken by well known White Nationalist Jared Taylor who distorts information he gathers. As I've remarked in previous posts, raw data doesn't explain the data. Do you really think it comes as a surprise to people that Blacks commit disproportionate amounts of low level crime? You don't think they're aware that prisons and ghettos are predominantly Black? While we're at it, what types of crimes get prison sentences and which ones don't? What role do chronic drugs addictions play in criminality? What about population density and urban vs rural environments? Which crimes are worse – the street crime robbery of $20 or the one that leaves a person without a home and food, or sends a country into war on false pretenses?
Go back to Ilana's blog where you can pat yourself on the back because it's clear that none of the her blog users are willing to debate the issues outside of the confines and shelter of that heavily censored pseudo-intellectual circle. Maybe buy yourself a racist bumper sticker from one of her readers' websites: http://www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com/
A word of advice: if you want to change things for the better, as so many of you profess on Ilana's blog, then you're going to have to open a dialogue with people who don't subscribe to your point of view. Persuade the wider community that your views are the right views instead of surrounding yourself with people who only agree with you. But this is not something any of you are genuinely interested in.
In his book Audacity of my Hope, Obama did not think very highly of his white mother and grandmother.
Here's a study by Steve Sailer showing maps of imprisonment rates by race across the US
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm
The state with the highest black imprisonment rate is Iowa, which would tend not to lend credibility to your "urban vs rural" theory, which is really just grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to rationalize the obscene rates of crime among blacks.Â
Sshaun, you are incorrect. I am trying to understand your point of view.Â
 I am well aware of the dangers of looking at "one-way" statistical analyses. The difference in crime rates in black vs white populations cannot be explained away by differences in income. They cannot be explained away by rural vs urban population densities. They can't be explained away by differences in one or two parent households (tragically, this difference is only a recent phenomenon and has exploded since the 1970's). None of those things could make up for blacks – at 13% of the total population – commiting close to 90% of inter-racial violent crimes.Â
 Actually, the Color of Crime makes use of indisputable government data, such as that found here
 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Indeed, the Color of Crime notes that Asians commit violent crime at one-fourth the rate of whites. Are we therefore to conclude that whites must face some underlying disadvantages (poverty, population density, lack of opportunity) that Asians do not?Â
I do not believe that blacks are inherently more prone to crime than anyone else. So why do they commit crime at such a greater rate than other races? Part of the difference may be explained away by some of the factors above, but not all of it. There is simply too much difference to explain away. I suspect that a good chunk of the difference may come from African Americans accepting a toxic worldview (very well espoused in Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals), enabled by such charlatans as the Reverend Wright stoking the flames of hate.Â
Finally, Obama just doesn't know when to stop digging his own hole. Referring to grandma as a "typical white woman" is no less crude than some white bigot referring to Obama as a "typical black guy". Yes, Obama was making a moral equivalence between the rantings of his pastor and the well-grounded fear of his grandma. I say there is no comparison.Â
There have been some (not many) attempts to discuss Mercer's article. Most posts heave dealt in personal insults and deliberate misrepresentation.Â
Buchanan quotes from the Study The Color of Crime, a summary of which is found here:Â
http://www.nocensorship.us/color_of_crime.html
 It shows what study after study has shown: black Americans are much more likely to commit inter-racial crimes than whites. Anon: deal with it.Â
If Obama really is serious about being a "post-racial" candidate, then he ( and his supporters) ought to be able to handle a little dissent. Mercer offers such dissent. Obama compared grandma's fear-of-blacks-comment (equivalent to Jesse Jackson's own fear-of-blacks) to a rabid racist's repeated hate-filled rants. There is no comparison between the two. But pseudo-progressives love to pat themselves on the back and pretend that articulate arguments like Mercer's constitute a backwards view. The opposite is true.Â
You're asking for sshaun to be prevented from commenting on your article(s)? Give me a break!! I think your article is crud, pure crud, and I support sshaun and any other poster the right to support or to criticize your work.Â
Joe Allen, I haven't derailed anything. Ilana posted a comment that I posted on her blog nearly two years ago in a lame attempt to discredit ME and have ME banned from Jewcy. I simply elaborated on the snippet she posted. Your right that her article on Jewcy decrying guilt by association is flawed. I didn't make this argument and couldn't care less if Ilana is a separatist or not. One of the many points in my post to Ilana's blog those years ago was that her positions appeal to said groups. Contrast that with Obama's speech which more than likely appeals to a much wider much more temperate audience.
And I take issue with me being the source of ad hominum attacks. Words I used to describe Ilana:
-intelligent
-compassionate
-charismatic
-bold
Her adjectives describing me:
-rat
-racist
-contemptible
-maggot
-repulsive
-unmanly
-scum
-malignant
-non-entity
-cerebrally limited
-coward
-gas bag
"Exactly this is the greatest fallacy of liberal "thinking" - accepting as fact that the "backwardness and failings" is atributable to racial policies."
No single factor explains all of it, but to act as though racial policies have not been a significant contributing factor is to lie. Affirmative Action policies have begun being reversed for years now and even when implemented they didn't have a substantial impact, aside from giving women a leg up (women are its greatest beneficiaries).
The fact that you equate today's affirmative action policy with Jim Crow, Segregation, and ethnic nepotism of the recent past goes to show that you have a lot to learn.
Yes there are unsavory politically incorrect causes as well. But seeing that you're unwilling to debate these "real causes", the discussion doesn't move forward, unfortunately.
"Are we supposed to believe, for instance, that the racial policies directed at Native Americans have played no part in the backwardness and failings that loom large over the Native American population?"
 Exactly this is the greatest fallacy of liberal "thinking" - accepting as fact that the "backwardness and failings" (do you include herein a higher tendency to rape, rob and murder?) is atributable to racial policies. Will present racial policies (affirmative action etc), where white males in particular are being discriminated against (in South Africa in particular, if you are white and male, you are basically a persona non grata), not by this liberal "reasoning" create generations of violence prone "backward" white males? Would that be justifiable?
If anyone honestly wants to solve the "backwardness and failings" they should look past the politcally correct excuse of past racial policies. Any attempt to solve the problem will need to start at identifying the real causes thereof (even though these causes may be unsavory and politically incorrect). With what those causes are I unfortunately caonnot assist.
 Â
If you want to subjugate a people without the necessity of resorting to
whip and gun, you need only give them handouts. The natural human
propensity to laziness will do all the rest. Within a few generations,
family structure will be destroyed and a social atmosphere will spring
up that disdains learning, knowledge, and honest work, and instead
rewards sexual conquest, thuggery, and intellectual laziness.
The more prehensile members of society who figure out how the scheme
works can game the system as a vehicle to achieve dominance. This is
easily done by capitalizing on intellectual laziness, and preaching a
morality of entitlement and victimhood to the masses. An easy vehicle
for this purpose is to pretend to bring historical wrongs to book,
proposing to make people who did no wrong suffer and pay for the sake
of those who were not victims. Those who believe the message come to
hate those who are being made to pay, and this hatred gives them their
sense of entitlement, relieving them of the guilt they would otherwise
endure owing to their status as beggars. This message is much easier to
comprehend than the technical minutiae of socialist theory, which is
only suited to fleecing the slightly more intellectual members of
society.
Institutionalized through schooling and religion, this mentality can be
spread through the working population as well. Every person can believe
that he would be able to live free from want, if only those who are
doing better were stripped of their property and rights — which fate
they so richly deserve. When economic conditions get bad enough, the
argument can be used to whip up crowds into a murderous rage.
The couching of political arguments in terms of race or religion
identity is simply the use of this ruse to take control of the beast
and ride it, grabbing as much power and money as can be gotten until
someone comes along with a better scheme and causes the beast to buck
you off. It has been said that elections are an advance sale on stolen
goods, and this line of reasoning can be used to whip up the fervor
with which the goods will be stolen.
The beauty of the tactic lies in the fact that guilt is used as a
motivator in a yin/yang kind of way — not only are gullible whites
motivated to impale their own interests in service of atoning for sins
they never committed, but the undeserving are assuaged of their own
guilt by feeling supremely justified in receiving the plundered loot.
And the beauty of speeches like Obama's is that he can make himself
appear to be a conciliator in the issue, even while supporting the
basic premises that his more intellectually honest pastor espouses. In
doing so, perhaps he will be able to seize the reigns of power, and
divert some of that torrent of extracted wealth to his own ends.
In the end, what it means to the rest of us is that the man behind
the gun who steals my sustenance will feel even more supremely
justified in doing his job.
It appears that Ilana, in pointing out this hypocrisy here, has
aimed much too high. The responses indicate that the audience here is
in fundamental disagreement about basic premises of life. These
differences are reflected in disagreements in definition of terms. Any
sensible argument would have to begin at agreement on axioms, something
that can be impossible to achieve, and is generally not worth the
effort. She has annoyed the intended recipient of her gift, and in
doing so has stepped in the product of its main industry. Perhaps she
should apologize for leaving a footprint in it, or perhaps the audience
can take satisfaction in having brought someone like her down to the
level of having to scrape it off her shoe.
sshaun seems to have a need to define its own existence in relation to I. Mercer.
sadÂ
This guy shsaun has completely derailed the discussion into an ad hominum attack on Ilana. Positing that Ms. Mercer's blog appeals to separatists/nationalists and should therefor be discredited is just as wrong as saying that Obama should be opposed because he appeals to Nation of Islam types. Guilt by association is exactly what is wrong with both arguments.Â
Ilana continues to castigate me on her blog using language that is uncivil. Apparently Jewcy critics represent a "fulminating horde". Because I attempted to engage in civil debate, she now considers me "repulsive unmanly malignant maggot non-entity scum."
The intent of debate is not to "damage [her] intellectually". I'm here to learn from her by allowing her to respond to what I see as faults in her editorial. Instead of defending her points, she would rather personally berate her debatee.
And that's a significant point because for all of Ilana's exquisite prose, she forgets that it is the substance of what she says that matters. I use simpler language than her because I'm a simple man, but I know enough to be able to read through a hollow diseased message even if it's masked with pretty words.
It seems to me that Ilana is every bit as intellectually and emotionally fragile as members of the fairer sex whom she so routinely condemns.
For the record Ilana, if it's raw stats that you're interested in, please note that millions of would-be slaves died on the bottom of ships on their voyage across the Atlantic. Let's say that 6 million died. The count could be even higher. If we add this death toll to the 300 year legacy of slavery that came afterward, what does it tell us about slavery versus the Holocaust? It's a horrific quesion to ask but I do so to show that such comparisons are inappropriate.
"Members of my family have never ascribed their misfortunes and misdeeds to that contemporary calamity. They’ve owned their failings."
I don't know in what capacity your family was affected by the Holocaust but I'm happy that you and your family have succeeded it. But the Holocaust took place in Germany, not America, and within a 6 year span, not centuries. Are we supposed to believe, for instance, that the racial policies directed at Native Americans have played no part in the backwardness and failings that loom large over the Native American population? Native and Black American slavery are American history, not European history. Just as Black African immigrants today disproportionately rise above native Black Americans in success, so have Jewish immigrants from Europe rised disproportionately above White Gentiles. This is to be expected from immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. But we cannot expect the same from the offspring of those whose mothers and fathers a mere generation ago were legally second class citizens in this country.
Let me add that as proof that I enjoy Ilana's work and her mind is that I've donated over $500 to her blog. She can confirm this. How many of her others "fans" and have shown similar support? I could probably count them on one of my hands. I've never asked for a pat on the back and would never bring this up but I have to show that I have no ill-will toward her and never have. I honestly don't know where her hostility is coming from. Is my position too logical, too sound, too grounded for her to respond without calling me names or labelling me as a "statist Left-Liberal". I'm a capitalist, rugged individualist, with pride in country and I claim no political leaning (Ilana is a hardcore Randian "classical liberal") except for one that calls for common sense according to the situation. I suppose then, that sometimes people will consider me to be a Liberal and at other times a Conservative, or something else. Alas, labels are just labels.
Thank you Zbird. Intellectual honesty at its finest.
Ilana, with all due respect, those are things that you advocate on your blog. You believe in free enterpries (free from government regulation), that the American South gets short shrift in the mainstream marketplace, that gays should stop parading around openly, that using the guitar as a musically masturbatory tool is superior to simpler styles, and that Affirmative Action that benefits non-Whites and women come at the expsense of oppressed White male minority (the zero-sum proposition). Btw, I'm a white male and a business owner, as you well know. I guess I'm just as racist towards myself as Obama is to his own genetics.
You have people who post on your blog who, on their own blogs, have advocated the deportation of Blacks, the killing of gays, and the subjugation of women. There is a guy named "Patrick O'Keefe" who supported these notions until a few months ago.
Your philosophy and the people whom you appeal to include White Nationalists/Seperatists so I also stand by that statement. On wikipedia and elsewhere it's stated that you've dissociated yourself from several online communities and publications because of their "anti-Israel" positions. This comes as no surprise to me and it shouldn't have to you if you were able to understand the kinds of people that you routinely associate with.
I urge Jewcy readers to read my comments here and on Ilana's blog and to do some fact checking on Ilana, her associations, and her positions on her blog and come to your own conclusions. It is Ilana that attacked me on this forum; I did not attack her. My debate has been civil. It is her who has spewed epithets such as "rat", "coward" and "contemptible" in my direction. My use of "crazy" was regarding her analysis, not her as an individual.
Anyone who frequents this blog knows what innappropriate comments look like, and sshaun's comments don't come close.
Ilana, if you disagree with sshaun's arguments, answer them. Or if you can't play ball with the big boys and girls, then go crying back home to your own blog where you can censor any big bad ideas that you find too troubling to consider.Â
But don't expect Jewcy to censor people just because you ask for it. They were more than generous giving you a forum in the first place.
–Z
I have signed off because of the contemptible “Sshshsaun,” who is too much of a coward to even give a correct e-mail. It’s plain for anyone scrolling through this individual’s posts here on Jewcy to see what he call respectful “argument.” In one comment he calls my article “Crazy; so crazy it’s frightening.”   If Jewcy moderators need any evidence that this rat needs to be kicked off the forum right away, here is a racist letter of his I once posted on my very permissive, uncensored blog. What a shame he has derailed the discussion for others: (http://www.barelyablog.com)http://barelyablog.com/?p=172 “From: sshaun002@sympatico.ca [mailto:sshaun002@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:16 PM
To: ilana@ilanamercer.comHello Mrs. Mercer,In your world, big business should go unregulated…the American South was not as racist as Hollywood portrays it, gays should be concerned about privacy issues rather than being accepted by society, technically proficient music is better than music that sounds good; white men are an oppressed minority.You’re married to a White man. You’ve had to modify your position to make it palatable to your own existence….You would do well in the new White Nationalist movements if only you could be White (perhaps you can pass as one now with your new surname?).Shaun” Â
…as usual: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164437&title=baracks-wright-response
–Z
Also, Ilana, I'm not a "rat". I like this Jewcy forum because here we can debate. On BAB my debatable points are censored by you so I never know what your responses are to my points. I want to mine the mind of Ilana Mercer because there is a lot of depth as well as compassion there. I've always told you that I admire your work and I enjoy reading it.
Ilana the quote is from an Anon on this board right above my reply. (03/19/08 10:20 pm entitled "Slightly hypocritical"). I was replying to his question directed at me which is why I put his question in quotes. This was not a misrepresentation of you.
I have not made any false attributions about you.
I'm not a mischief maker and anybody reading my responses here will be able to attest that my arguments in this debate are sound.
I like your blog and I encourage Jewcy readers to frequent it because your writing is charismatic, bold, and intelligent (even though I disagree with you 85% of the time).
Readers on this forum don’t know “Sshshsuan”. I do. I ought to have banned this individual long ago from my forum. I ask now that Jewcy step in and moderate this forum and prevent this mischief maker from misrepresenting my words and attributing to me comments that are not mine. In his previous comment, the rat “Sshshsuan” attributes to me in quotation marks words that are not mine. The many grammatical and stylistic infelicities in the paragraph ought to make that clear. This crass argument is not mine; never was. He knows this.  The contemptible “Sshshsuan” is making mischief, as he has done for years on my forum, and as I’ve allowed him to do. He is spoiling the debate for all those on the Jewcy forum who are debating in good faith. With this contemptible person on the forum, I will excuse myself from present company and no long partake. I hope that Jewcy moderators will step in and remove the malevolent mischief maker so that others can continue to discuss the matter honestly sans the fabrications and lies associated with operators like “Sshshsuan.” Â
Ilana, you regularily criticize present-day America but you uphold its history and founding on the level of mythology. Wright's criticisms of America are no different than yours except that he adds the racial component to it. This is your grudge against him. I don't know why. Race has been a central problem since America's inception and it has real consequences today.
You tell readers that he "hates White Americans" yet he was a Marine who served America, black and white. I didn't hear him use racial epithets toward Whites, did you? I didn't hear him argue that Blacks are superior to Whites, did you? I didn't hear him advocate violence toward Whites, did you? I didn't hear him say that other nations are better than America, did you?
Obama makes clear that no single group shoulders the burden of racial problems today. He advocates serious introspection on the part of Black and White Americans – something Rev. Wright needs to do more of because it is one thing to talk about past injustices and another thing to talk about moving beyond it.
"my point was the he rants and raves about whites,and there sins of the past,whilst he is clearly of a majority white background.in other words hes more white than black.should he feel bad for what his ancestors did to those black people?"
Your point is foolish and demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic genetics (genotype and phenotype). Let me clue you in to another fact - virtually ALL Black Americans have White European ancestry in their lineage. They're the genetic sons and daughters of Europe just as they are of Africa.
Under the American social construct of race which posits the 1/8th blood rule, Wright and Obama are told that they are 100% black and thus would have been enslaved if they were born two centuries ago. Given this reality, your question is fraudelant.
Why would it surprise you? He's a Black American, not an African, so he is likely to have "White" ancestry. He's also an ex-Marine. He's as American as apple pie.
 my point was the he rants and raves about whites,and there sins of the past,whilst he is clearly of a majority white background.in other words hes more white than black.should he feel bad for what his ancestors did to those black people?
If you don't want the government to do anything, then you have to argue that the government has nothing to do. If there is a lasting public responsibility to repair the damage inflicted upon the African-American community by centuries of discrimination, that would require government intervention. Since, libertarians don't want government intervention (especially not in a broad-based race neutral effort to properly fund public education, health care and job retraining) there must be no duty to African-Americans. So, the good libertarian response is to mandate historical amnesia or a statute of limitations on racial grievances.Â
All of this makes perfect sense so long as you don't actually visit the South Side of Chicago or North Philadelphia or Roxbury and see the very real scars that racism has left. Clinton or Obama will at least try to implement policies that will help heal these scars. No major Republican politician (other than the economically challenged Jack Kemp) has indicated that they even care. Â
Professor Mercer,
I don't know when was the last time I'd personally ever read anything you had written, but clearly what I've written above is a corrective of the previous reply. The discussion has progressed. Feel free to discuss (or criticize) the state as of Tuesday of the American dialogue on race, or if you prefer, we can let the caricature of Obama you've sketched out stand, pretend the issues he discussed don't exist or are unworthy or exploring, and stick to agreeing to the fact that you've criticized America.
Anon, someone, maybe you, stated above that “Mercer” is not critical of America and loves everything America stands for. Whoever wrote that had never read a thing I’ve written. That was what I referred to in my previous reply.
That accusation is patently ridiculous. I’m a classical liberal; not a neocon. From economics to foreign policy to culture—there is very little I don’t criticize about the US State (to distinguish from the American people).
http://www.ilanamercer.com/Economy.htm
Ms. Mercer,
I, a humbly anonymous but well-intentioned commenter on Jewcy, do not know much about the extent of your dialectical relationship with "Sshshshaun". Nor am I incredibly familiar with your other works. Familiar in passing? To a degree.
But what I do know is that your other works are not very relevant to what you write above. You can talk of your criticisms of certain U.S. policies just as easily as you can mention an anti-intellectual climate, or assertions without argument. And what does any of that have to do with what you've written regarding Obama's speech? About as much as it does with: Shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax— with cabbages—and kings.
Essentially what you've written is that Obama negates anything transcendental about him by addressing race in a way that only the intellectually dishonest found anything but completely honest. And the only others in the blogosphere to have done that so far are double-standards demanding conservatives who decry Obama's alleged lack of pride in America. But I see I've misperceived you. You weren't doing that. You were attacking his identity. Not the actual identity he forged within the context of some powerful and real, opposing currents in American culture – and the identity he actually addressed. But the identity of being falsely "cool" that is not only moreso a caricature immaturely projected onto him by his detractors than anything else, but a diversion from the rather substantive topic at hand. A caricature that says as much about his detractors as it does their or anyone else's willingness to actually hear, let alone engage in, an actual discussion on race in America.   Â
I understand why readers of Jewcy.com would assert what they “feel” Mercer believes in without having read a word of Mercer’s work, including an opposition to the war in Iraq voiced well before liberals and conservatives discovered belatedly that foray was wrong.
(I have also endorsed Ron Paul for president)
I understand all that–this is, after all, the anti-intellectual climate we inhabit; assert never argue.
But this individual, "Sshshshaun," who makes liberal and regular use of my blog, taking advantage of his host’s hospitality and intellectual honestly, ought to know better. Alas, ethics, like intellectual honesty, are in short supply.
For the intellectually incurious, here is a massive archive of Mercer’s indictment of American foreign policy, positions held well before they became fashionable in mainstream media, neoliberal and neocon: http://www.ilanamercer.com/War_Foreign_Policy.htm
Sshaun, when Mercer argues that I or anyone should feel only pride in America, but shame is forbidden, it's like saying that there's no distinction between what it would take to feel pride in something versus what it would take to feel shame. Everything America ever did and can do should only make me feel one way. The way Mercer says I should feel. What the country does is therefore irrelevant and need not be criticized – lest it make you feel the wrong way.
On a more erudite note, I forgot to link to the coverage on Angela Merkel's trip to Israel and comments. What a naughty German that Angela is! Naughty, naughty!
Anonymous, Mercer is of the myth-making school of thought that went out of style [thru reason, logic, and facts] somewhere in the 60's which asserted that America's founding and the Founding Fathers were near flawless and that any injustices in America's past are merely "warts" that have no enduring consequences today, and that because America is the greatest nation on earth, that people should not wish for it to even be better. That is, if you come from the Third World to live in America or you are the descendant of an underclass and face injustices in America, you should take your lashings and just be thankful that you're here.
American and Western civilization is the greatest the world has ever known. One can believe this and at the same time criticize it. Wright is more American than probably everybody on this board. Not only has he served the American military, but being a descendant of slaves puts his roots on American soil longer than almost all save the Native Americans. Moreover, he is a preacher that is more Christian than most – he helps to provide food, shelter, housing for the needy. He's certainly rough on the edges and wrong in some of what he says, but he is not the monster that he is being portrayed by the likes of Mercer.
Are we supposed to believe that Obama hates his own genetics or that Wright doesn't like Obama as much as the rest of his congregation (some of whom are White) because Obama is half-White? Nonsense. Stating the shortcomings of domestic and foreign policies made by the ELITE of society that adversely affects the poor – black AND white – is hardly racist. Wright illustrates that Obama is an example of the American Dream, a dream that Wright's generation could literally only dream of.
Let's proclaim our right to feel good about our slave-owning founding and racist past! Here, here! That's what America's all about.
Anything else upon which you'd like to refer to the moral authority of a Patrick J. Buchanan quote?
Personally, I think Angela Merkel more authoritatively addresses the failings that led to the Holocaust and what it takes to learn from the consequences thereof than does Ilana Mercer. But maybe that's just me.
And likewise, whatever the reasons for Mercer's self-professed "irrational grudge", I hardly consider a blog post on how people should just wish away their historical memories, rather than fully explore their twists, turns, faults, shortcomings, strengths, etc., illuminating of anything. But then again, I'm not sure that my family would have wished away either Hitler or the German society that, with open eyes, both brought him to power and sustained his quest for German glory – along with all the adventures that entailed – either. And to say as much is surely not a trans-generational grudge. It's a historical lesson in the limits of irrationality.
"Again, in fairness to Rev. Wright's rantings, I have read several commentators on the quasi-loony views of some of the right-wing "Republican preachers". Â
Loony statements have come from the mouths of the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson yet these men are/were kept in close contact with Presidents.
David N. Friedman, unless you're in the top 2% of income earners, then nothing changes for you. The tax rate remains the same for virtually everybody under the Obama and Clinton platforms. That is, if you're netting probably $500k or more per year, your tax rate will go up. It's fine to debate if that's fair, but please don't suggest that somebody making hundreds of millions per year will be effected in any meaningful way by a tax increase.
Socialism is where everybody earns the same amount regardless of labor. That's not what this is. This "redistribution of wealth" is not going to make the pauper into a millionaire or even put him close to 'easy street'. It's merely to get him off the street and into a job that pays a livable wage.
JSF's Obama quote is especially controversial and revealing of his intent.Â
Listen to this frightening demagogue when he says, JSF's favorite quote:
But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans."
What does that imply? Clearly, he means MORE GOVERNMENT. Obama offers not a whiff of real change–he wants doctrinaire socialism. He is shaking us down in the same style as Jesse J and Al Sharpton so his friends can have more stuff and more money. Taking from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" is an old, tired template. It is also one that the American people have always rejected–I fear they could finally say yes this year and that would be a tragedy for the nation and for black Americans.
This is more divisiveness, class envy and Robin Hood. This is a man who simply wants to dodge and deflect and change the subject. He has NO desire to talk about race except to try to exploit it. This man is a coward and a fraud.Â
Alas, there are black leaders with the courage to tell their people to take on personal responsibility to go out and take advantage of the beautiful advantages offered by this great nation.  This would be a CHANGE. More of the same shakedown philosophy might sell among the media elites who are quick to embrace white guilt instead of looking for unity. But a new kind of black politician has not emerged and some Americans are so desperate to see that person, they close their eyes and imagine that Obama is that man even when he tells us directly he is not and he is just another fraud here to shake us down to spend all the money in our budget for national health care disastrous global warming, and anything else he can do to impoverish us in the vain attempt to improve our souls.
The more America sees of this man, the more we regret dreaming he is something new. His vision is Pastor Wright's vision and it is one that seeks to divide and oppress us in retaliation for some fantasy that America is evil and oppressing others.
He looks like a typical old White man but with frizzy hair.
"as for rev wright,does no one else find it slighly ironic that the guy is clearly of largely white ancestry?! "
Why would it surprise you? He's a Black American, not an African, so he is likely to have "White" ancestry. He's also an ex-Marine. He's as American as apple pie.
You're way off the mark in your analysis of Obama's speech so much so that it's frightening. At no point did Obama blame today's Whites for slavery. His point was that the 'chasm' as he calls it between the races have roots in the past in a country that didn't live up to the ideals written in the Declaration of Independence, legally until the 1960s. These are indisputable incontrovertible facts.
His mission is to open a real dialogue, a starting point if you will, to help America live up to the Declaration, not to cast false dispersions which is what you're doing. This is an American ideal and it's a universal ideal that everybody benefits from. He goes on to explain the real as well as the misguided greivances of Blacks and Whites and asks all Americans to recognize them so that they can be solved.
His example of his grandmother was to illustrate the deep contradictions and perversions that we all carry within us (including Wright, who seems to believe that progress between blacks and whites hasn't changed because he came from an era of tremendous racial injustice, even though all signs show that enormous progress has been made. Obama is a poster boy for that change). It was also to demonstrate that the thinking has to go beyond raw statistics. You may be right that statistically his grandmother has more to fear from a black man walking on the street than anybody else. The question is why? Is it merely because he's black. Would his grandmother fear Obama when he grew into a man? Would she have reason to believe that other white women should fear Obama? No, because his upbringing was not one of severe poverty, violence, and lack of guidance. He didn't have a father, but he had a loving mother and two loving grandparents to fill that void.
Being black does not afford leverage nor is it 'cool' to be a black academic, politician, business person. Nor is black 'beautiful' in America where fashion models, movie actors and actresses, pornstars, are overwhelmingly White because only White beauty sells. Black talent sells in the form of entertainment and music. Obama is a novelty as is Hillary Clinton. They're firsts in what they're trying to achieve. For Obama in particular, it is not merely his skin color that makes him stand out, but his intelligence and brilliant oratory skills. If he lacked this skill, he would not be anywhere close to winning the Democratic nomination, nor would he have attended Harvard Law School and become a Senator.
Your comparison between slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation with the Holocaust is inappropriate and deserving of obloquy. As horrific as the 6 years of the Holocaust was in Europe, it cannot and should not be compared to other tragedies for the sake of one-upmanship, nor is it analogous to centuries of chattel slavery, broken families, legal segregation in schools, neighborhoods, occupational attainment. As grostesque as your approach may be, I can only say that comparing the fate of Native Americans is the only thing that comes close to analogous to the Black American experience. If one is compelled to draw such comparisons at least acknowledge that differences in quality and quantity of the events.
Your analysis shows remarkably superficial insight into the depths that Obama's speech was made to plumb. It warped minutiae supported by quotes taken absurdly out of context.
Mr. Wright has been pointing out many unpleasant truths about America's past such as slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, genoicide of native peoples, forced segregation, the Tuskegee experiment, endemic racism and warmongering. This is a welcome antidote to the politically correct American exceptionalism so much in style. If Mr. Wright has a hatred of all whites, that is clearly wrong, but Mr. Wright is generally correct in telling the truth about America's past and its people. One must acknowledge the past, not gloss it over, to move past it.
1. I heard the last part of Obama's speech – somewhat like a symphony with point and counterpoint – black anger, white anger, anger solves nothing, Rev. Wright, my white grandmother, let's solve problems, no one election will do it all, hope, white woman Amy and this old black man … – good schmooze. He gives a good speech – like Reagan and Kennedy. Can't say if it will wash away the issue. I think there are doubts in the minds of many over this very articulate Sphinx known as Obama.
 2.  Five hundred years ago, slavery was ubiquitous. Asians enslaved Asians, Africans enslaved Africans, Europeans enslaved Europeans, and all groups enslaved other groups. It was these "enlightenment hypocrites" like Locke and Jefferson and the like, together with the Industrial Revolution, that started phasing out slavery/serfdom in the "civilized" (e.g. Western Europe and North America) world. However, the agricultural South still needed slaves – hence, the white "indentured servants" of the 1600's went away but the black slaves remained for the cotton, rice, indigo, and tobacco.  So slavery – American style – became racial. But those "enlightenment hypocrites" paved the ideological way towards liberation. This is, however, not taught well in America where the population is spectacularly ignorant of any semblence of history.
3.  Again, in fairness to Rev. Wright's rantings, I have read several commentators on the quasi-loony views of some of the right-wing "Republican preachers".  However, American politics is a "gotcha" game so we are likely to listen to snippets of Wright, Robinson, Hagee, and probably some Hillary Lesbo-Priestesses exuding paranoia over Youtube for the next several months. Think if Mormon Romney and Yeehaw Huckabee had still be in the race of all the fun that would entail.
That even though he finds Wright's remarks offensive, he finds similar feelings, albeit in reduced form, all around him–even in his grandmother. The widespread nature of the feelings of anger (and although he never used to word 'hate it was implied) comes from an unwillingness to honestly confront the issue. But this unwillingness, even in Wright's case, according to Obama, doesn't come from genuine feelings of hatred, rather it comes from 'software' glitches in our thinking. That if only Wright saw the world in fluid rather than static terms his words would be different. In other words, most folks don't have the tools, tools that can be learned, tools that have never been taught, to deal effectively with this issue.
He says this because he feels he knows Wright deeply. That if you scrape away the barbed wire, his overall work is that of helping those in need. Obama feels that an honest dialogue on race can alter or debug the 'software glitches' in many people, and that he can lead this dialogue.
That being said, I'm thus far neutral in this campaign. But I do think it's important to at least understand what the candidates are saying.
"Cathal" wrote: "does no one else find it slightly ironic that the guy is clearly of largely white ancestry?!"
Could Obama’s spiritual adviser be overcompensating for not looking like Kunta Kinte?
On a more positive note, he sounds a bit like Chris Rock.
http://www.ilanamercer.com
im irish.
my ancestors were brutally oppressed by british imperialism.irish people suffered famine,poverty and general oppression whilst under british rule.this ended on mosr parts of the island when we gained independence in 1921.
i however bare no grudge against modern british people.why should I? they have done nothing to hurt me or my family,to boycott their goods would be ridiculous. the past is the past,the people who subjucated my ancestors are long dead. the only way you get over it is by moving past it,and embracing the future.
also how about the 10s of millions of white americans(if not more),who are descended from white people who came to america long after slavery was abolished?.the italians,jews,irish etc who came to the US at the turn of the 19/20th century,fleeing oppession and hunger. should their ancestors feel guilty too,for something they had no part in?
as for rev wright,does no one else find it slighly ironic that the guy is clearly of largely white ancestry?!
Germany, unlike many countries has tried to atone for their past. It is silly to boycott companies if they have admitted their past works and tried to atone. I say boycott,when discovered, companies that are still hiding their culpability. VW has tried to atone as has Mercedes. The Swiss banks should be the target.
All trans-generational grudge are stupid.
"It doesn’t seem logical or just to boycott good products—music included; Wagner is bound to come up—simply because they are German, were originated by Hitler, or were favored by him. Contemporary Germans—automakers and designers included—did not kill Jews. The majority of Germans did not kill Jews."
No, but should I enrich them after their ancestors enriched themselves by putting our forefathers in slave labor and absconding with their valuables? There is nothing wrong with a healthly grudge. The only question is how long it should last.
"It doesn’t seem logical or just to boycott good products—music included; Wagner is bound to come up—simply because they are German, were originated by Hitler, or were favored by him. Contemporary Germans—automakers and designers included—did not kill Jews. The majority of Germans did not kill Jews."
No, but should I enrich them after their ancestors enriched themselves by putting our forefathers in slave labor and absconding with their valuables? There is nothing wrong with a healthly grudge. The only question is how long it should last.
It's amazing how many people are picking through Obama's speech just looking for a couple choice quotes that, taken out of context, will support the reader's agenda. Â Â
–Z
Indeed, this is an utterly irrational grudge.
If, by the way, I could afford a BMW or a Mercedes I’d purchase one (most likely an SLR 722, manual transmission, the only thing I drive).
It doesn’t seem logical or just to boycott good products—music included; Wagner is bound to come up—simply because they are German, were originated by Hitler, or were favored by him. Contemporary Germans—automakers and designers included—did not kill Jews. The majority of Germans did not kill Jews.
Â
http://www.ilanamercer.com
"I blame only those who planned and executed the Final Solution, mostly long dead. Members of my family have never ascribed their misfortunes and misdeeds to that contemporary calamity. They’ve owned their failings. Ditto most Jews I know."
Perhaps, but what about those Jews who won't step foot in a BMW or Mercedes? Plenty of us exist (and I'm a child of the 60's, not WW2). Aren't we holding a grudge against the people who build those cars today, even though they had nothing to do with Holocaust? Are we wrong for not wanting to enrich those who killed our forefathers of days not very long in the past?
I agree with jsf. You're missing Obama's major point which is that everyone (blacks and whites) has issues with racism, and we can't make things better if we don't start talking openly about them. Perhaps you are taking issue with his psychological "every needs to sit on a couch and start talking about their feelings" thing, but I think he's right. We have to acknowledge that bad things were done to African American's in our history, and that the medicine devised to solve the problem (EEO, affirmative action, and various minority "preference" laws) may have unintended racist results against the white majority.  The majority did the hurting. The majority developed the medicine. And now everyone is sick.
Â
While you are entirely within your rights to oppose Obama's candidacy for his association with Reverend Wright, I think you missed the larger point of his speech, which is, "How do we discuss race in this country?" Your analysis seems to indicate that there is no discussion to be had at all, that it can merely be ascribed to a host of black pathologies rooted in their fixation with slavery. Even granting for a moment that there is merit in that argument, it ignores the portions of his speech that call for the black community to move beyond a simple relationship to that history, "embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans." It seems he is explicitly moving beyond particularlism in this and other similar statements. How you construct a worldview of racist score settling based on those words, (not to mention any particular action) is baffling, except to conclude that Obama has some sort of "secret agenda" that Reverend Wright let out of the bag.
Very well-articulated. The more I learn about Wright, and the less Obama does to truly condemn and distance himself, the more I dislike Obama. It's tough when a candidate with limited experience points to his judgment (a valid, legitimate thing to point to) but then reveals his judgment to be suspect.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!