Advertisement
Jewcy Book Club
Welcome Authors
Benyamin Cohen
& Matthew Rothschild
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
- 12/08: Seth Greenland
 |
Jeremiah Wright In Context Pt. II |
|
 by Daniel Koffler, March 23, 2008 |
||
TAGS:
Michael Weiss takes me to task for insufficiently gnashing my teeth over Jeremiah Wright and his preachments. I say he's missing the point of my writing on the matter entirely.
I don't regard Wright as much more than a left-wing Falwell, whose ass
politicians
Jeremiah Wright: Yes, let's put him in context on the left periodically feel themselves required to kiss,
like Bill Clinton did in 1998. Jesse Jackson is a morally ambivalent figure. That didn't prevent him from being Clinton's go-to confessor. Remember Joe Lieberman lauding Louis Farrakhan in 2000? Democratic candidates still feel compelled
to ritually smooch Al Sharpton's rings, and Sharpton's antics --- e.g.,
doing his damnedest to get an innocent man, whom he knew was innocent,
convicted of rape --- are a match for anything Wright has done.
Michael's position --- and mine --- that associations with these awful priests constitute a mark against every candidate (though not a disqualifier), and that that standard applies across the board, is not a popular position. In particular, it's not the position of those who think Obama's tie to Wright is an exceptional disqualifier. I most certainly said, but maybe should have been more explicit to avoid misinterpretation, that context clearly justifies King and Douglass and clearly inculpates Wright. Because of the contextual discrepancies, there is no comparison between King's or Douglass's indictment of America and Wright's. (Though Wright's lack of eloquence relative to King and Douglass is hardly the problem with his preachments. Would Michael have less of a problem with Wright if he were more eloquent? I wouldn't.) And that's just the point.
I didn't excise the first two sentences from the Douglass quote to conceal the context. On the contrary, I immediately placed it in context. (When reading of a Douglass reference to America's "bloody and shocking" crime, does anyone need to be told he's referring to slavery?) Then I reiterated the contextual discrepancies between Douglass/King and Wright, not once but twice. But the sort of people who put together the Obama-Wright-Malcom X-68 Olympics video don't care about context, and their intended audience wouldn't know how to care about context. They would have attacked Douglass and King as anti-Americans, and Michael knows that. He knows because their equivalents in those days did. (They would have also attacked Michael as anti-American for his concurrence with King on Vietnam.)
Conversely, there is a surfeit of remarks from the heroes of the civil rights movement that could be ripped out of context, put into Wright's mouth, and recycled into a viral anti-Obama email that might have devastating effect. and take some --- some, not all, some --- of Wright's indictments of America and place them in the context of slavery and segregation and they are unobjectionable. Less eloquent than King or Douglass, of course, but truth doesn't supervene on eloquence. (If King had been less eloquent, he wouldn't have been any less right, though he may have been less effective.)
Wright's problem is that he thinks the power of the US government is still arrayed against black people, that American institutions are still dripping with racism, that the economy is a set up by the white man to keep the black man down. The resentments he's propagated and allowed to fester all follow from that paranoia and ill-will. But he's not a cartoon. Governmental power used to be arrayed against black people; many institutions were dripping with racism (and some, like the criminal justice system, still do exemplify subtle forms of racism); and he lived through it.
Despite his Falwellian ugliness, the other salient difference between Wright and a Falwell is that propagating hatred was Wright's hobby, not his vocation. Most of Wright's ministry is a black self-empowerment effort --- granted, with a nasty, separatist element to it. (The real precedents for Wright are Marcus Garvey and Booker T. Washington.) Of course it's somewhat self-defeating to try to lift black people into the middle class while attacking middle-classness, but Wright's contradictions stem from bitterness, not cynicism. And there were occasions when he overcame his bigotry in genuinely admirable ways. Newsweek reports:
As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors.
At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians—a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member.
Obviously that doesn't exculpate the horrendous demagogy he spewed. But it mitigates the idea of Wright as a simple-minded bigot, in particular his tinfoil hat theories about the origin of AIDS. What would his congregants do after being told that the government created AIDS in an anti-black conspiracy? Go have unsafe sex? Not if they continued listening to Wright, because he spurred HIV testing efforts and heavily lobbied for safe sex. His moment of decency on gay rights also makes him different from a unidimensional bigot like Hagee, Parsley, Falwell or Robertson. (If anyone can find a reference to one of the horrific white evangelicals McCain has courted committing to tolerance for people different from them, I'll stand corrected. Similarly, what is worse, promoting a paranoid conspiracy about the origin of AIDS, or promoting the idea that condoms don't work and lobbying against a vaccine for the virus that causes cervical cancer? I'm utilitarian enough to think it's not close.)
Taking in the totality of Falwell's life and work, he really was a cartoon, unless evidence I haven't seen emerges to the contrary. Taking in the totality of Wright's, the picture is violently self-conflicted and complicated, and though on the whole unsympathetic, the reasons for Wright's character deficiencies are important to understand. Taking in the totality of King's life and work, the picture is clearly sympathetic. In either of the latter two cases, given the current political environment, it would be easy to put together a two minute hate to bring the Hannity-Limbaugh right to orgasm. Taking tiny snippets of King's life and editing them appropriately, one could make him appear to be on a par with Wright without much difficulty.
Dr. Leonard Felder wants you to stop being such a people-pleaser,...
Bridging the gap between my mundane secular world and the mysterious,...
Why Hollywood Counts on the Holocaust During Oscar Season
Would bombing Iran prevent a catastrophe, or cause one? On the...
How Chanukah has changed since you were a kid
| Dev Blog | Privacy | FAQ | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
naftali
This isn't about preaching styles or preaching context. It's about a presidential election. The question, it seems, is whether you are trying to rationalize--in this case the word has been changed to 'contextualize' (nice move, whoever came up with it)--Obama's association with this church, which simply takes away the luster from Obama's strategy of universalism.
If Obama loses his association with being a universal candidate, he's toast. And that, Daniel, puts you in an awkward position of having to care about what preachers say, as if it matters to anyone else but their congregations--people have the right to believe in silly things. They even have the right to believe and say dangerous things.
In this case, those silly things could effect who becomes president. This isn't about Wright at all, it's about the public perception of Obama.
Daniel Koffler
In this case, those silly things could effect who becomes president. This isn't about Wright at all, it's about the public perception of Obama.
Well, of course.
naftali
the more you are trying to unring a bell. And Obama keeps on losing that universality. I think your best strategy is to wait for Obama to do something strong to rebuild himself, and then underscore that.
And if he doesn't do something strong, then look for the election to break along the same lines as the OJ trial.
Phantom
I stopped questioning his "universality" after hearing the speech he gave after the Wright video went viral.
As for those who continue demonizing Wright on the one hand and praising Douglas and King on the other, let's just say that Wright and those of his generation may have more for which to be angry and frustrated than Douglas or King. More than a century after Douglas' speech, blacks in America were still not treated equally. Those who condemn Wright today like to brush over that fact. And regarding the righteousness of King's speech about the Vietnam war, it may be viewed as righteous and justified now, but it wasn't then. Only time will tell if Wright is as correct about our war in Iraq as King was about our war in Vietnam.
David Kelsey
As much as I may want to believe your excuses for Obama, the more I read about him, the less I feel he makes sense as a candidate. He is simply too close to black nationalism. Why should we be comfortable with that? And your point about politicians kissing the rings of Sharpton and Farrakhan are only useful in pointing out that most politicians are whores. That's different. Wright's influence on Obama appears to be more sincere and genuine, which is more disturbing. Most of us don't really believe that Lieberman shares Farrakhan's views in any significant way, even in moderate form.
If you need me to explain the difference further, I can do so.
naftali
It is eerie O Phantom how you pop in just when Daniel should be responding--saying something pretty much along the lines of what Daniel would say if he were making a good point.
But, one hundred years after Douglas there was Jim Crow. It should also be noted that almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified then an abolitionist movement grew and became a powerful political force. We should also know that it was the Southern contingent who wanted Blacks to have one full vote, but the North, fearing it would be continually outvoted did not wish for this to occur. Hence, the committee solution, 3/5. During Wright's lifetime he saw the dismantling of Jim Crow, a Black man argue before the US Supreme Court and win, that same man being appointed to the Supreme Court, the passage of the 1964 civil rights act, Black folks holding virtually every prominent position in society with the exception of President and Vice President, and the most popular public figures and role models also being Black. There will never again be a Great White Hope in the US.
So, I'm not sure I understand your point about Wright's world--which is qualitatively different than Douglas' world. If I condemn Wright, and I will, it's because he's an idiot with that certain skill of getting folks to fork over ten bucks. I'll respect the latter skill, but he's still an idiot.
King's Vietnam speech was wrong, and to be wrong makes one quite normal. One can even be wrong and be quite intelligent. But it was wrong. Compared to what followed after the US withdrawal, the US ended up, by its presence, staving off the execution of millions of people. Vietnam became a bloodbath, not just a war, but a bloodbath after the US left.
Even if in 50 years we find that Iraq was a mistake, we will still know that Wright is an idiot. If you wish that I should stretch this across the political spectrum--let's just quote HL Menken--"no one ever went broke...." Consider it stretched.
jujubee
"let's just say that Wright and those of his generation may have more for which to be angry and frustrated than Douglas or King. "
So brutal slavery and gov't sanctioned segregation is not as bad as what blacks have to deal with today? What are you smoking?
Phantom
What's worse is to suffer indignities, prejudice, and second-class status for more than a century after the promise of equality and justice is made. How much patience do you have Mr. Juju? Enough to suck it up for 100+ years without being angry and frustrated?
naftali
C,mon. I know you know better than that, Phantom.
Let me ask you if you've noticed this phenomenon. I've casually observed patterns of assimilation, getting into the system and rising through it by different minorities and immigrant groups. It seems as though the key to the most important doors is literacy. Not just being able to read and write, but the ability to have mastery over the dominant language of this nation. I think literacy is able to overcome any vestiges of racism. It seems to be very powerful. Which is why I say that Wright is an idiot, because all he has to do is emphasize literacy instead of playing to hatreds and anger.
But let's go back to your point. Let's take the Caribbean sugar plantations--where if you, as a slave, tried to escape they would burn your legs off. And we'll compare that to getting slighted by a taxi late at night. You tell me, which is worse?
Or, let's move it forward to the days when Black jazz musicians couldn't stay at the hotels in which they performed--and listen to those musicians tell the stories. Take Clark Terry--he tells the stories with humor. He acknowledges that is was a terrible situation, but his sense of humor is more powerful than that negativity. And there isn't a trumpet player alive today who doesn't practically worship Clark Terry.
Let's move ahead to today and go to the bastion of 'white male power', the country club with a fine golf course. You can now see white folks bow and scrape before a Black man, and pay--if auctioned--thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands of dollars to play just nine holes with Tiger Woods. And they would also do it for Lee Elder and Charlie Spikes--now.
Things are different, and they are improving.
For Jews, though, things are getting worse. Kids need armed protection to go to a Jewish Day School in London. Kids are attacked regularly in France if they wear Yarmulkes, and Iran is trying to perfect the crematoriums of Auschwitz because those atrocious factories took too long. And this is after thousands of years of Jim Crow type of laws regarding Jews--(right, in the Magna Carta there is a provision that if you owe money to a Jew you don't have to pay it back), Inquisitions, pogroms, and 'restrictions' on Jews in the US as late as the 1950s. And yet, if any Rabbi tried a 'hate whitey' sermon on any Shabbos, that would be his last sermon in that shul.
Cavanaugh
...fixed, no. And naftali, are you saying, as juju would interpret, that getting beaten up on the way to school is worse than the Holocaust? (That's reductive, you'll say; yes, just as reductive as juju's remark.) You hold up assimilation for black people as success; what do you say about assimilation and Jews? How can black people become more literate (by which I presume you mean educated generally) when predominantly black schools are chronically underfunded, teachers with bad records or insufficient credentials are sent to teach in these poor schools to get them out of predominantly white schools, economic disempowerment keeps most black people from being able to afford college, affirmative action in state schools has been overturned (at least in my state, I don't know about yours) and blind tests show that college entrance evaluators are, generally speaking, likely to judge the same essay by a Tenisha Davis worse than by a John Smith or a Mary Wright or even an Elisheva Goldman?
naftali
Long time no argue.
Regarding your first question, no I'm not saying that at all. Are you sure you understand Juju's point correctly? I think he's saying that institutionalized abuse and murder are worse than psychological slights--which a a person has the inner strength to deal with.
Nor am I saying that assimilation is what we should all strive for. But I am saying that if a person focuses on racism, then it seems that they are also talking about being excluded from the mainstream of society. If a person wishes to move into and up through mainstream culture, then literacy and skill seems to be more powerful, that is, able to overcome negative attitudes and barriers towards that person.
Now I'll tell you, my family lives in a strange part of the country where overall the schools are markedly inferior to schools in just about every other state in the US. We also live in a very culturally diverse area where the grade school is diverse, but the middle schools breaking off from the elementary school would be considered either a predominantly Black school or a predominantly white school (forgive the capitalization, I have no idea what is correct anymore). And it just depends on where you live, the boundaries are not drawn according to income. I suspect years ago some school district official drew the lines by tossing darts at a map. So schooling is an issue for us. So I have to take on the responsibility myself. I know what is required for a good higher education, and I just have to make sure and teach my kids to get up to that level. My kids get very good grades, but their skills aren't up to kids from other parts of the country. I ask my oldest, did you practice writing today in school? No, we don't write very much. I think, how in hell can you improve or learn to write if you don't practice? That isn't an issue of funding.
Collectively, do we solve this by throwing more money at the guy with the darts and the map, or at the teacher who doesn't require the kids to write every day? I don't think that will solve the problem.
One question. Does the blind test remove the kids names from the paper? If so, then it's an issue of practicing and tough evaluation to build skill.
Phantom
Naftali and Juju, I think you guys are missing my point. I'm not saying that Black Americans have it worse now than their ancestors. What I'm saying is that Black Americans had certain hopes and expectations when they were emancipated and promised equality. We're talking about living, feeling human beings here. Year after year, generation after generation of INEQUALITY and second-class status after being promised the promise of America is, in my view, maddening.
I'm not a Black American. So I can only imagine this in my mind. But when I do, I feel angry, VERY angry. I cannot blame Jeremiah Wright, nor anyone else from his generation, for being angry and frustrated that America, the last refuge of the world, still has this problem.
I also take exception with your comparing the Jewish world experience with the Black American experience. How can you judge the experience of another minority group just because the experience and standing of your minority group has improved substantially? As an Armenian-American, I can say my ancestors suffered too (albeit elsewhere), and now we are free and prosperous in America. But that doesn't make me less sympathetic to the greatest and most oppressed minorities in America. If anything, it makes me more sympathetic. It seems fundamentally unfair to oppress, victimize and take advantage of a class of people for not just years, but centuries, and then (1) condemn them for their anger and frustation (as everyone here has done with respect to Jeremiah Wright), and (2) blame them for not being perfect within one generation (as you, Naftali, have done in your last post).
I don't mean to encourage "infantilizing" Black Americans. But I also don't think it is fair to expect superhuman patience either.
As for your literacy argument, why should Black Americans have to become "literate" in order to get the same respect as illiterate whites? You're simply feeding the same racism that is the root cause of this problem in the first place. Literacy and education should be a means to improve ones economic status, and that's it. It shouldn't be necessary to make others color-blind towards you. Moreover, it shifts the burden, as usual, from the racist to the victim. If anything, education and literacy should be used to free people from their racism and prejudice, not the other way around. Why should Jeremiah Wright preach to his followers that they should educate themselves and become literate (and of course, here you're assuming that his followers are illiterate in the first place) so that White Americans will stop being racist? It's a ridiculous notion.
naftali
Give people credit for the ability to be cynical. Are you saying that ex-slaves got their hopes up after the Civil War? They knew they weren't legally slaves, but after that, what?, going to live on Fifth Avenue. They were still farmers, and they were still looking at the same land. And they were still looking at the same white folks. Give them credit for being smart enough to figure that out.
And could you explain how I 'blame them for not being perfect within one generation'? Dude, I don't even get how you came to that conclusion. I said that I'm living in an area with the same problems that Cavanaugh pointed out were somewhat exclusive to Blacks. I said that those problems weren't at all exclusive to Blacks, and that some problems can't be solved through institutions or just by being angry. And if there is anger, it best be channeled into literacy and skill and humor. Then it becomes productive power. Isn't that what Wright himself is doing? Isn't he a man of literacy and speaking skill and a sense of humor--besides being a frickin' idiot?
naftali
Either I didn't see your last paragraph or you added it while I was writing. Here's the response.
I'm saying that illiterate whites also get no respect. Believe me. Or just read Faulkner. Or just talk to some illiterate whites and tell me how much esteem you give them. I'm saying that there is great power in literacy, and it is so great it can break barriers and racism in each person that you meet.
And no, I wasn't assuming that his followers are not literate. Barak and Michelle Obama are far from illiterate. I'm closer to illiterate than they are. C'mon, man. I know you're more logical than that.
Anyway, I think we agree on the power of literacy.
Anonymous
They already have equality of opportunity, they can only achieve equality of result by abandon their ethnocentrism.
Phantom
People complain that Jews, Greeks and Armenians are very ethnocentric, yet they are among the most prosperous groups in America. Why should Black Americans have to abandon their ethnocentrism to achieve like results? Moreover, you must live on Mars if you believe what you said about equality of opportunity. Do you think a kid going to an inner city public school is going to get the same tools for success as the kid who goes to a private school in the suburbs?
Phantom
Quoting Naftali: "I'm saying that illiterate whites also get no respect. Believe me. Or just read Faulkner. Or just talk to some illiterate whites and tell me how much esteem you give them. I'm saying that there is great power in literacy, and it is so great it can break barriers and racism in each person that you meet."
Naftali, what you seem to be suggesting is that by being "literate" a black person can change the mind of his racist white audience. And what I'm saying is that the burden should not be on the black person to change the mind of his racist white audience. The audience should not be racist in the first place. For example, in the context of your "illiterate" white person, that person by default gets the respect of his white peers until they realize he is illiterate. Why shouldn't Black Americans get that respect by default? Why must they prove they are worthy of respect first and then get the respect, whereas the white guy gets the respect until he proves he doesn't deserve it? It's not fair. This is America. These basic fundamentals are supposed to form the foundation of our Nation. That they don't even now, and certainly they didn't during Wright's youth, is maddening, isn't it?
naftali
They all come in and move up. I know you're responding to Anonymous, but that person is so....anonymous.
You know, there's a phenomenon going around, like a virus, that no one even thinks of becoming self-taught anymore. My dad learned about engines, cars, plumbing, electricity--we never had a repairman come to the house when I was a kid--and he taught himself everything. There's this idea that people can't accomplish anything unless it's mediated by some type of institution. What's with that? I don't think that there's ever been equality of opportunity--institutionally. I don't think there ever can be.
But individually, people can accomplish a great deal with few resources. That's the story of America--or perhaps it's the story of the human race.
naftali
I'm saying that regular folks, not idiot racists, who experience this normal racial twinge that both Barak Obama talked about, and Jesse Jackson talked about (saying his saddest feeling is when he is walking down the street, feels he's being followed, and feels relief when he sees the person following him is white), will respond positively to literacy, skill, and humor.
There's no burden of doing anything to change anyone's mind. It's just good for you. And being literate, skillful, and humorous has other benefits as well. That's for regular folks. I'm not concerned about impressing folks at a KKK rally. And really, no one should.
Please don't tell me about default respect to white folks. Maybe one day I'll tell you how much respect I got after bike riding in Beverly Hills and going into a shop to get a phone number. The guy at the counter practically peed on me with his eyes. I have lots of stories like this.
Yes, people are judgmental. And they will find a way to be judgmental. And they spread it around evenly. That's because that's just the way they are. I take solace in my belief in karma or Jewishwise, middah-knegged-middah. Same concept.
Anonymous
"Do you think a kid going to an inner city public school is going to get
the same tools for success as the kid who goes to a private school in
the suburbs?"
Lots of asian immigrant kids go to inner city public school.
Anonymous
Are you kidding me? What in the world is wrong with everyone? The "minority" of this country isn't the minority anymore. I, as a NON racist, NON bigoted, white man....get called "white boy" at my job by angry customers. Hmm. So, where are MY "Reverend" Jacksons, and "Reverend" Sharptons? No where. Political correctness has destroyed this nation. We are too worried about corrupting someone with the TRUTH, than we are about taking care of our current generation. Black, white, green, red and blue. Racism comes in ALL forms. But for some reason, we want to focus on WHITE racism. Sad, sad, sad.