I'm gonna get killed for this, but...

[nikkixsugar]

I'm white. And I heard the Jeremiah Wright speeches (you know US of KKK and God Damn America) and am I the only white person who kind of agrees with him? That this country is run by "Rich, white, Americans?"
Here are a few videos...


[youtube:2ov4jzt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ[/youtube:2ov4jzt4]


I am in NO WAY associated nor affiliated with that church.

[Will]

Of course rich white people are in charge, and yeah they usually screw everything up. And we did, in a sense, bring 9/11 on ourselves by our murderous foreign policies in dealing with the Middle East, and we're very lucky it wasn't bigger and there was only one attack. The UK has faced several attacks already, and some places see "terrorist" attacks daily.

What I took issue with, though, is the idea that AIDS was created to kill blacks by white people. There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that's remotely true, and saying that it is true is dangerously ignorant.

[Tom62]

I agree with the priest that hate creates hate and that terrorism creates terorrism. If you keep pissing off people long enough, you should not be surprised that at one day they take revenge. But I don't believe that this has anything to do with skin colour. You don't have to be a male white to run a lousy administration. Just ask for example Mr. Mugabe or Kim Il Sung to run your county for a while and I'm sure that you won't recognize the USA back in just a couple of years. In any case I believe that one should not look at race but at people. Black is not better than white and visa versa. Should the priest in his speach have mentioned that then I would have respected him more. After listening to this speech I was also amazed that you can solve the terrorist problem by talking to a diety. So far praying never ever has solved any problem in human history. When something bad happens you should not pray, but remove the root cause.

[Will]

I would be curious to hear Rev. Wright discuss Conduhleeezzaaahh Rice. What with her being black, female, and an evil neocon.

[SteveS]

I'm sorry nikkixsugar, but I absolutely can't stand Jeremiah Wright.  To me, he's blatantly hypocritical and racist.

Simple racial bias test is to just substitute words and see if the statement is then (or still) racist.  For example, if someone said:

"poor black people are ruining America!"

Does this statement seem racist?  If the answer is yes, then how can this statement:

"rich white people are ruining America!"

not be racist?  Perhaps you object to me swapping "rich" and "poor" along with "black" and "white" (I figured this would press a few more buttons).  But if so, then what difference does the race make?  Why not say "rich people are ruining America"?  Why is it rich white people?

Just to clarify, although I can't stand Jeremiah Wright, I'm certainly not arguing that white vs. black racism doesn't exist.  I think it still does.  But, the cure for this can't be to create a new racism - it has to be to abandon racism!  Contrast what Jeremiah Wright says with what Martin Luther King said:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
 

Now --- I ask everybody --- what the hell is wrong with this?  If there is no racism, then race is irrelevant.  Black?  White?  Asian?  Who cares.  That is the cure for racism (in my strongly held opinion).  King's response to racism is healthy.  Wright's is diseased.  One is a move away from racism.  The other is a racist response to racism (its the same, just with the polarity of the bias reversed).

More stuff about Jeremiah Wright that bugs me: he says that his problem isn't with the American people, but rather with the American government.  This is the same rhetoric employed by Islamic terrorists.  He says that he doesn't dislike America, but that God has a serious problem with the actions of the nation.  This is the same rhetoric employed by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church followers.

He's building an $11,000,000 home in Tinley Park --- living the exact same lifestyle as the "rich white people" that he seeks to vilify.  In point of fact, "rich white people" are his neighbors.  Where did he get his $11,000,000?  From white people, or from black people?  His actions are like the House of Saud to me:  oppress your own, and deflect the righteous indignation against someone else --- in this case, steeped in racial rhetoric.

He says he's not divisive, and I say this is denying the obvious: he thrives on divisiveness.  He is famous because of divisiveness.  He has wealth and power as a result of catering to divisiveness.

Forgive me for digressing off of Jeremiah Wright specifically below, but my rant is pushing me forward.

People have said that this presidential race has been good because it is dragging racial discussion out into the open --- and I agree that this effect is good.  It should be out in the open and talked about.  But, I think there is an ugly truth that is coming to light, which is that there is more than one kind of racism and there is a lot of racism going around.  For an example of what I mean, I read a web article where a man expressed annoyance that at a dinner another man, discussing Barrack Obama, kept asking "What is he changing? What change does he stand for?". This man replied that the irony is that just by running as a black man he is change.  And, I find this troubling. He is change, simply because of his race?  But --- if we weren't racists, then wouldn't we judge him by the "content of his character" and not the "color of his skin"?  (Aside: No doubt many supporters of Obama feel that it is his character that they like --- I'm not casting all Obama-supporters as racists --- this is obviously not the case.  I'm just calling out this one particular attitude.)

I have no problem acknowledging that a black man running strongly for president could be indicative of healthier racial attitudes. Perhaps we should also feel that a woman running strongly for president could be indicative of healthier gender attitudes. But voting for Obama simply because he's black is no different than voting for Clinton simply because she's white.  Likewise on the gender issue.

To my mind some clear thinking will readily deduce that:
Vote for Obama because he's black =equals= Vote for Clinton because she's white.  Both are positions of racism.
Vote for Obama because he's male =equals= Vote for Clinton because she's female.  Both are positions of sexism.

Okay - I've spoken my peace.  I feel better now.  

[nikkixsugar]

To my mind some clear thinking will readily deduce that:
Vote for Obama because he's black =equals= Vote for Clinton because she's white.  Both are positions of racism.
Vote for Obama because he's male =equals= Vote for Clinton because she's female.  Both are positions of sexism.

Okay - I've spoken my peace.  I feel better now.  

While I still don't agree with your viewpoint, this quote of yours is the truth.

If you don't vote for Obama, you're racist.
If you don't vote for Hillary, your sexist.
If you don't vote for McCain your ageist (not many people have brought this one up.)

We're making history in 2 ways.

1) No matter who you choose, we'll have the first women/first black/oldest president. But......people are forgetting the ace in the hole........RALPH NADER!!! Although Nader is just what we need now, but won't get elected because he (perhaps rightly) refuses to play the bipartisan "game".

2) Remember, no matter who you choose, you're forever labeled as a person discriminatory of Black people/Women/Oldies (and in this case, not much of a goodie.)

There was a great commercial on yesterday about candidates.

1: "I like her pantsuits!"
2: "He seems like a funny guy!"
ANNOUNCEMENT: There's a better way to pick a candidate. Election '08 from Time Warner on Demand.

Lust, Love, & Greed,

Nikkixsugar

[Will]

Gah, SteveS made me change my answer.

I'm a rich white person, and I'm ruining America by being a member of the ACLU, Amnesty, and many other human rights organizations, as well as battling racism, sexism, and homophobia wherever it may be. Clearly, Rev. Wright stands against those things this rich white person stands for.

[SteveS]

Well for pity's sake, Will, knock it off and stop ruining America!    

Honestly, Jeremiah Wright's level of personal wealth only matters if he's hypocritical about rich people (which I think he is).  My major objection to him is not his wealth, gender, or race.  My objection to him is what he says.

[Msblue]

Perhaps he was referring to the corporations that have far to much influence on our govt. The Ceo's of these companies are usually "rich, white men"

I don't agree with everything he said. It just bothers we that when someone questions/criticizes the government's actions, they are labeled anti-american or unpatriotic.

[SteveS]

Hey Msblue - I agree with your point.  I don't think questioning or criticizing the government is unpatriotic or anti-American.  Regarding Jeremiah Wright, I think he's racist and hypocritical.  If the "Spirit of America" is against racism and sexism, if "all men are created equal" means that all people (men & women) are "endowed" with "unalienable" equal rights, then you could say he is anti-American in this way.  But this is confusing --- why not just say he's racist?

[pjkeeley]

In theory all racism should be treated as equally bad, no matter which races are concerned. But I think it is pointless to deny the reality; that there is a balance of power (political, social, etc.) between races that puts different races on unequal footing in many if not most places in the world. This is obvious to all. Where one race is subject to worse racial discrimination than another, I think racism directed against that race should be considered 'worse': it has far worse consequences for the group targeted. For that reason, I think I would be more likely to excuse Jeremiah Wright's racism than the racism of a white supremacist.

I hardly think there's anything good about it, but I do think this issue has been blown out of proportion. Then again, I don't live in America.  

[SteveS]

I don't really know if its been blown out of proportion or not, but I do agree in some sense with what you're saying, pj.  But, in another sense, I disagree.

I think its easier to understand the racism of a person like Wright than it is to understand the racism of a white supremacist (like David Duke), but I'm not very inclined to excuse it.

Also, I think what Wright is doing isn't without hazard.  Ending racism is a valid cause --- behaving in a racist fashion of one's own undermines the cause.  If its excusable for Wright to react in a racist fashion, would this excuse white critics of Wright's behaving in a racist fashion in turn?  No doubt, the white supremacists will see it this way and use his words and actions to "justify" their own racism.  Why play so stupidly into their jaded hands?  The cycle of "justified" animosity will begin to drive itself.

[nikkixsugar]

Over the last couple days, my opinion on Wright has changed, especially how he claimed that Obama was lying about not agreeing with Wright. I couldn't believe that!



Love, Lust, & Greed,

nikkixsugar