In Reply To Pinko: Yes, This Is About Hatred ... And It Matters
[In reply to "Pinko," who posted a very challenging comment at my blog entry, "SIMPLY SAD: Rev. Wright's Speech Today," I offer the following short essay I drafted yesterday and posted at my website. The essay is called, "The Worst of Times Revisited." "Pinko," I am disappointed to report, is a pseudonym, and hence our discussion is considerably diminished, as those involved do not feel safe enough to be themselves. I apologize if anything I've ever posted on the web has left anyone feeling battered, frightened, or less than human. My intent is always to write according to who I really am, according to what I really feel and think. And I intend to always do that with respect and even affection.
The essay which follows explores what I believe to be the case: that there is a clear racial divide in the Democratic Party. Pinko believes that Reverend Wright is not fomenting hatred, as I suggested in SIMPLY SAD. No doubt I disagree with Pinko, which is OK. But I think my opinion is not merely flung forth as some form of bombast. I am sincerely concerned about the safety of a presidential front-runner I respect; I believe we are in the midst of some very unsettling racial conflicts.
What Pinko may not understand is that I am a child of the 1960s. My heart knows the grief of that era; I still feel the anxieties of those times, especially when I spot certain current trends very reminiscent of those vile days. And as I mention in the post that follows, Barack Obama and I are the same age. Mr. Obama, then, knows what I know, at least in part, and I can't help but think he is unbelievably anxious, too. - BG]
The Worst Of Times Revisited
(Live blogging.)
Barack Obama is speaking to the press right now in a formal press conference. He has again expressed his consternation with his former pastor. He just called Reverend Wright's "performance" (Barack Obama's words) at the National Press Club yesterday nothing but a series of "rants not grounded in truth;" he even calls Rev. Wright's words an "insult" (among many other things).
What we are seeing, I am sorry to say, is something grossly reminiscent of the mid-1960s. The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, Dr. King: these were the backdrop of both Barack Obama's childhood and my childhood, as we are the same age. And, just like the 1960s, we are watching a battle over racial supremacy: which black man -- or black group -- truly speaks for minorities.
Over the weekend, Rev. Wright spoke at length to the NAACP about the different "learning styles" of European whites and African blacks. He defended an evolutionary difference between the two "races," and he went so far as to argue that whites respond to the first and third beats in a musical four-beat measure, while blacks respond to the second and fourth. Related to this, Rev. Wright used the device that blacks are "different but not deficient." Yesterday, in fact, he spoke at length about this very idea, that difference does not imply deficiency.
Most people, most THINKING people, would agree with Rev. Wright that different is not synonymous with deficient. I think his locution odd and unfortunate, and I suspect it is not something that most decent people have ever promoted.
But what I want to assert is that the conflict we see is over what it means to be racist. Traditionally, racism has been attributed to those folks who do not believe that one race is equal to another. If I think being white is superior to being black, I am a racist, because, essentially and unequivocally, I do not believe blackness is equal to whiteness. That is traditional racism, and I believe that is the model of racism under which MOST Americans, including Barack Obama, operate.
Alas, what Rev. Wright has done is to flip racism on its head. His "different but not deficient" slogan now means that the racist is he who believes whites and blacks are EQUAL. Wright's response to this idea is simple: No, no, no. Not equal. Different. To Rev. Wright, whites learn in a different way from blacks, and it is wrong of whites to think blacks are equal to the task, whether that task be learning to speak English or to understand European music.
I am inclined to aver that Rev. Wright has actually advocated a type of intellectual and cultural apartheid, American-style. His is a twist on separate but equal. He maintains that the separation is due to the fact that we are all "different."
Hence, what we are seeing is a race war between African-Americans. This is a massive, and truly scary, disagreement. And it is as scary as those sorts of disagreements that led to the sorrows of the 1960s.
Just some thoughts, offered in sorrow with much anxiety.
Peace, pray for peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Bill Gnade
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Pinko understands that underneath your flowery rhetoric "my heart still knows the grief of that era" is a mendacious attempt at fanning the flames of racial hatred.
Looking at Wright through the lens of pallid white Christianity won't ever make sense. Wright is a NON STORY. He is not running for president.
A story not being told is that of McCain's ties to hate preachers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
In fact, loony WHITE preachers get to say whatever they want - with no fear of 24/7 coverage on Fox/CNN. Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians. No national outcry about that. Why? Falwell was nuttier than a Mr. Goodbar - but bless him, he was WHITE! Same goes for Fred Phelps - no round the clock coverage of him - even though he pickets the funerals of dead Marines. He's crazier than Mel Thomson - but he's WHITE.
save your sorrow - it doesn't interest me
Thanks for the comment.
Every assertion you've posted is wrong or fallacious, save two: You are indeed correct that Rev. Wright is not running for president, and Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps are indeed white.
Be well,
Gnade
I hope you haven't overlooked my reply to you on our initial thread.
My best to you,
Bill G.
By all means, stay mired in the cess pit of your own denial. I've never met a bigot who owned up to it.
But - it is absolutely true that John McCain has ties to Reverend Rod Parsley and Reverend John Hagee. Hagee, who refers to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" endorsed McCain - an endorsement he accepted. McCain sought out Reverend Parsley in Ohio, and called him a moral compass, a spiritual guide. Reverend Parsley has said that the prophet Mohammed received revelations from demons, and that Allah was a demon spirit.
These preachers whom you may admire, preach hate and intolerance. That you try to cloak your own intolerance in faux religious terminology doesn't make it any less distasteful.
Thanks for keeping the discussion alive.
It is fallacious to raise the specter of John McCain's allegedly nefarious connections to preachers who have endorsed him. The topic at hand is the undeniable fact that Rev. Wright has inflicted great harm on Barack Ohama, harm so great that Barack Obama has soundly criticized his pastor for outrageous, divisive and insulting remarks (Obama's very words). To divert our attention from what is nearly tragic to the apparent lunacies of John McCain's endorsers, is a red-herring. However, for a moment I will follow you down the trail you've blazed, despite the fact that you insisted in a related thread that there are far more important issues at hand.
The obvious difference between the McCain/Hagee relationship, which HAS indeed been explored in the press (and only yesterday Imus interviewed a Rolling Stone reporter who is doing a big exposé on Hagee, I think), is that Hagee denounces Muslims and Catholics because of their IDEAS, IDEAS which he thinks are empirically, philosophically, and historically wrong. He does NOT think there is something GENETIC about their misunderstandings; he does not think their errors are due to certain skin colors.
Moreover, John McCain does not attend Mr. Hagee's church (for even a day let alone 20 years), nor has he subsidized his ministry with over $20,000 in tithes in one calendar year.
So the comparison falls apart really quickly, particularly when we consider how much Barack Obama has emphasized the role his pastor has played in his formation. John McCain, who is an Episcopalian, has not touted his relation with Mr. Hagee as something akin to a father/son relationship.
(Let us remember that Barack Obama FREELY offered that his pastor, and his relationship to his pastor, are fair to query.)
And, just so you know, I am an Episcopalian moving into the Catholic Church. So my defense of Mr. Hagee is hardly a defense, as I think him absolutely wrong. But I will not rail against him here, not because he is white, but because he is irrelevant to the topic that yes, even countless blacks are discussing.
Jerry Falwell did indeed say that 9/11 was punishment for American "sins," as did many other pastors. However, unlike many other pastors, including Rev. Wright, Jerry Falwell (and Pat Robertson) immediately apologized. Rev. Wright has NOT apologized. And, contrary to your assertion, the media JUMPED ALL OVER Falwell and Robinson. (And I will add that I do not think Rev. Wright's "Chickens coming home to roost" remarks are all that offensive, as they are not racially directed.)
Fred Phelps, the absolute fringe loon who does not sit atop an 8,000-member congregation (the largest congregation) of a major mainstream denomination (as does Rev. Wright), has had hundreds if not thousands of damning reports in the media presented against him. And I have had a very unfortunate and shall I dare say disgusting run-in with the Phelps hate-mongers, so do not suggest that I or anyone ignores Phelps because he is white.
As for your suggestion that I am looking at Rev. Wright through a "pallid white Christianity," I should think I've done no such thing. There is no "white" Christianity; and I stand aside those many black Christian leaders who have denounced Rev. Wright as racist (sorry, but there are many). One prominent black pastor even said, "There is no BLACK church. There is only a Christian church." And to that I shout, "Amen!"
I am somewhat dumbfounded that you should continue to oppose even Barack Obama in this matter. As I said, I take my cues, in part, from him: If he is denouncing Rev. Wright, is he doing so from a "pallid white Christianity?" Hardly. Nor is Juan Williams of NPR, a black journalist who has written a book on the "black" church: even he finds Rev. Wright's words reprehensible. And the list of black leaders, preachers and intellectuals who also denounce him is not a short one.
If I am defending Barack Ohama, and I am, then why would you accuse me of racism?
My personal issue with Barack Obama is fixed solely on his apparent messianic presentation: He has been touted as savior, deliverer. I do not want a President who is a messiah; I want one who can simply execute the laws and policies of the land. I don't want someone who has a vision, who inspires. I want someone who can get the job done.
So, if Barack Obama can purge his campaign of this ridiculous messianic mantle it has put on itself, I think he could be a great president -- assuming he can do the nuts and bolts of being president.
Anyhow, my best to you this day,
Bill Gnade