Prometheus 6

All you have to do is suggest a Black person bears racial anumus and he or she must prove they have no hostility to white people. Suggest a white person has racial animus...hell, catch evidence of it coming out of his own mouth on his national radio show...and it's all about second chances, and understanding, and why did Black people make me do it?

The fake, strained outrage used as camouflage for the persistance of "othering" and all the suspicions that go along with it only exposes the "othering" even more. It's all about hip-hop now, Imus.  

Look at the bright side: Pastor Jeremiah Wright ends his sermon by pointing out that a CHRISTIAN (NOT MUSLIM) Jesus Christ calls us to love our enemies. This is the same Christian (not Muslim) God that conservative Republican religious zealots claim to revere.  So, at the same time that the Pastor seems like an extremist, he is a character witness for Obama's CHRISTIAN FAITH that he celebrates at his CHRISTIAN church!

There's another silver lining in this: Compared to his pastor, Barack Obama seems downright mild-mannered and temperately reasonable - the kind of reasonable Black person whom whites can understand. Pastor Jeremiah Wright makes Barack Obama look downright milquetoast in comparison.

Another bright side: Pastor Wright is light-skinned. He might not even be entirely Black! Maybe it's white guilt that compels him to be so fiery against his white breathren!

Another bright side: Barack Obama promptly and immediately denounced, disowned, disavowed, dismissed and discredited the pastor, who is about to retire anyway, and Barack Obama explained the considerable difficulty he would have had following his strong temptation to leave the church entirely. I Obama hadn't promptly and immediately denounced, disowned, disavowed, dismissed and discredited the pastor, we'd all be talking about his presidential candidacy in the past tense right now, bemoaning all of the lost promise and the unfairness of it all.

If Obama plays his cards right, he might come out of this looking more reasonable than he did going in!

Why does McCain's pastor supporter raise money for his school charities by holding slave auctions? 

http://truth-about-mccain.blogspot.com 

I'm not happy about it, but Black truthtellers have never been appreciated...we all know that.

I also wanted to add:

Obama spoke about what Wright SAID.

He did not and would not repudiate Wright himself and made that clear.

Hasn't been a Black religious agitator YET, in the history of A-MERRY-CA that hasn't been labeled as UNpatriotic....by a bunch of mofos, that, if they'd had their say, our Black asses would STILL be the back of the bus.

Well, you all know I believe Trinity's gotten a bad rap, and it's because it's an activist church.

If it was a Sellout Prosperity Preaching Hustling ' I gots mine, you gets yours' church....nobody would say ANYTHING about it.

folks got through...I can literally SEE the Brothers and Sisters, dialing furiously, to get through and not let the nuts hijack it.

Well, I got beef with Obama though he did as you said, Rikyrah, and talked about what Wright said.  I just think it high time for a teaching moment.  I mean, look.  We done been through this with Michelle Obama's statements and Tim Russert trying to manufacture some stuff and confront Obama with the Farrakhan Test.  Those two were enough especially allowing his wife to be subjected to that bs and acting as if she said something wrong.  He's good for talking about "that old politics."   That's a perfect way to turn some of this back on his accusers/attackers.  

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper's 360 panel last night and, I guess, he said something that Obama can't:  that there is a different kind of discourse and perspective that African-Americans have that White folk need to understand and stop actiing like we're supposed to be to think in cookie cutter style like them.  Gergen invoked Frederick Douglass' speech about the 4th of July.  I say there is not a single White person who ever lived or is living who is qualified or should ever fix their mouths to question any Black person's "patriotism."  I think Gergen even suggested that we are arguably even more patriotic.

Obama did note how Wright was a former Marine but we've seen how soldiers who have spoken out against the war in Iraq have been treated.  That's when you know it's about adhering to and pledging alliegance to an ideology, a particular narrative, vs. duty/respect/reverence to country.  But since we're bringing it up:  When has Hillary been called ni@@er?

Case closed.  

Well, you all know I believe Trinity's gotten a bad rap, and it's because it's an activist church.

No doubt.  White CONservatives use that "personal responsibility" as a front (that's you Sean Hannity).  Trinity's "Black Value System" is chock full of it but then it's too organic and authentic in its expression.  I'm getting tired of Black and White folk lending credance to Shelby Steele's theory.  And, to think, Hannity objected to the idea of the "bargain" Shelby said White folks want.  Obviously, part of the ideological adherence Black people are supposed to subscribe... Well, our host touched on it:  somehow we're supposed to adopt White folks "we've made so much progress" idea.  I got to Tonto that bs:  what do you mean "we" when that was all on and all about you?  Black folks didn't and don't have a "race" problem.

I’ve written this before and caught hell for it, but oh well:

Black folk are the TRUEST Americans.

Period.

Because we are the ONLY ONES who have consistently FOUGHT FOR this country.

I don’t mean fought in terms of putting on an uniform - though Blacks have fought in EVERY military conflict this country has had, beginning with the Revolutionary War.

Native Americans FOUGHT America - and lost.

Black folk have FOUGHT FOR America - and it is why we are loathed and despised. Because, right when you wrap yourself in all the myths and feel-goodisms about this country, Black folk say - come on now, you need to do THIS, THIS AND THIS.

We have fought FOR this country to actually LIVE UP TO ITS CREED.

My father was FORTY-THREE YEARS OLD before he was afforded his FULL CITIZENSHIP LEGALLY in this country. And, this was AFTER he had put his life on the line for this country in 2 military conflicts. So, I have little patience with folks who wrap themselves in flags and slogans, and think they’re going to cast aspersions on someone’s patriotism because they want to challenge these myths and feel-good notions that you have about America.

They hate the Dr. Wrights of the world because they put up a Mirror and say, ‘ slow your roll…this country isn’t what it should be. ‘

If you know your history

Then you would know where you're coming from. 

Then you wouldn't have to ask me

Who the heck do I think I am.   

Bob Marley

Rev. Wright is an obviously angry guy who believes a fair amount of conspiracy theory idiocy and apparently harbors bigoted feelings toward white Americans and, it would seem, the Jews but OTOH to cast him as Farrakhan or David Duke or someone similar goes too far. He is apparently not a full-time nut, spending the rest of his time doing more admirable activities.

Asking Obama about his association with Wright is fair game as is asking McCain about Hagee, another somewhat weird, religious bigot who thinks the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. That being said, Obama is not responsible for every statement Wright has ever made. 

Rev. Wright is an obviously angry guy

You think he has reason to be?

What are the "bigoted feelings toward White Americans?"

It's easy to throw out these idiotic, nut-job accusations just on a whim.  BTW, Bill Bennett, no matter what he said or any feelings he habors, still had the occasion and opportunity to talk about what Obama is teaching the Black community.

"You think he has reason to be?"

Sure. There's justification for anger and legitimate grievances for Wright to address. His most colorful statements, however, aren't really doing that nor are they likely to have been intended to do so.  To be inflammatory is to attract attention to and mobilize support for one's point but the downside is that being inflammatory is that it also alienates as much as it persuades.

"It's easy to throw out these idiotic, nut-job accusations just on a whim"

Did the U.S. government deliberately spread AIDS ? Or sell drugs to Americans?  If Senator Obama believed these statements were defensible then Wright would still be part of his campaign.

 "BTW, Bill Bennett, no matter what he said or any feelings he habors, still had the occasion and opportunity to talk about what Obama is teaching the Black community."

I'm not anti-Obama and vastly prefer him to his rival.

Did the U.S. government deliberately . . . sell drugs to Americans?

Hah! That question should be in the present tense. Ask that question to any (honest) person who has worked in federal law enforcement or intelligence for any appreciable amount of time. The Export Import bank was in the news just a few months ago for making loans to Mexican drug lords .

Did the U.S. government deliberately spread AIDS ?

No proof. I note the first reports of AIDS was among prisoners and Haitian refugees. Not immigrants or Haitians, but refugees in Federal camps. And though people have claims to trace it back to a Blond airline steward, or some Black guy, or for God's sake a green monkey, no one has traced the vector that wound up in prisons.

Or sell drugs to Americans?

I think so. We know for a fact they ignored the cocaine that came in on the return flights during the whole Iran-Contra episode. We know that's when the crack epidemic started.

And let me give you some unofficial observations from the ground.

Your typical pot smoker in the Black community is self-medicating to relieve stress, exactly like those guys who have a drink or three every night. But when the crack epidemic hit all the marijuana vanished frm the street for a whole year. Just gone...and a lot of the self-medicators tried crack as a replacement. Had the pot not vanished there would have been no crack epidemic.

Also, after the CIA/Contra connection was reported by that newspaper in Cali (not looking it up right now...) in NYC a series of incredibly large cocaine busts were made, huge shipments confiscated, yet no one was found to be responsible for them.

Yes. The federal government was involved, either directly or by turning a blind eye for the Contras.

Zenpundit, like I said, it's easy to throw out these idiot accusations. Obviously, it's too much of a task for you to justify yours:

Did the U.S. government deliberately spread AIDS ?

I asked you about your statement regarding "bigoted feelings toward White Americans." Please tell me when U.S. government became synonymous with "White Americans." Also, please tell me what the bigoted statement is. I asked a question but you responded to it by asking questions... about the U.S. government?

Note: I did not ask you: what was the "conspiracy theory idiocy?" No, I asked you which statements Wright made that were "bigoted feelings toward White Americans?" Right now, you're providing proof to how fake the expressions of hurt feelings are by White Americans -- quick to make accusations of (reverse) racism or "bigotry" but slow to ever stipulate to what exactly meets that criteria.  Frankly, that tells me you don't even have one save for this "alienation" idea of yours.

There is a difference between "bigoted" statement and those that "alienate."

Please tell me when U.S. government became synonymous with "White Americans."

Dude...you know you need to give up this particular point, right? 

Is that for me?

If so, the context is the supposed "bigoted" statements about White Americans.  But go ahead and make any out of context argument you think you got if that was for me.

If so, the context is the supposed "bigoted" statements about White Americans.

I get your point and agree with it. But the U.S. Government is synonymous with White America, both in the government's view AND White America's view. It started out that way and has not actually changed.

Also, please tell me what the bigoted statement is.

That I'd like to see myself. I'm willing to bet each one would be traceable back to physical facts. 

the U.S. Government is synonymous with White America, both in the government's view AND White America's

Well, I just want to see if Zenpundit subscribes to that notion. I don't know, maybe he's into public nudity. I suppose being fully exposed is his prerogative. Who am I to discourage him from such freedom of expression?  While he's at it, I'm thinking a tatoo to symbolize the not-so-subtle shift from his charges of "bigotry" to the way more ambiguous and lower threshhold of things that "alienate" would be in order.

I'm thinking while we're addressing that, White America has to come to grips with why alienation of African Americans (see Bill Bennett) is so normalized and then explain where they get the unmitigated gall, the sure audacity to act like Wright or anyone Black/African-American is obligated to "persuade" them and to be so circumspect as to not "alienate" them. Seems like there is an issue of expectations involved in this. It's just expected and, apparently, not a big deal how African-Americans are alienated on the regular but thou shalt not "alienate" White America. You must "persuade" them whether they are your audience of not.

I want them to deal with that mentality out in the open. I'm thinking it's a can of worms they don't want to open. Let's see if Zenpundit does. As for now (lol), I am not "persuaded" by his inability to answer a simple question about the very charge he made but, apparently, has no "justification" or "legitimate" reason for. Feeling "alienated" doesn't justify the charge of "bigotry."

Suddenly, distinctions between what is racist or "bigoted" vs. "unfortunate" or "absurd" aren't being made. Funny how that works.

Even with respect to HIV/AIDS being intentionally spread or in my view man-made, one just has to look at who it affects the most in the world. There is a website boydgraves.com that includes a flow chart that traces the HIV virus all the way back to 1971, along with an AIDS timeline which is details the evidence of the laboratory birth of AIDS. As a matter of fact this conspiracy dates back the year 1878 and the Federal Quarantine Act. So people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this theory out of hand.

Please tell me when U.S. government became synonymous with "White Americans?"

This question brings to mind a short but significant scene that takes place in the film "The Good Shepard" starring Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, Robert De Niiro and William Hurt. This particular scene was never mentioned in any of the mainstream reviews I read in newspapers, magazines and online sites at the time the film was released although it reinforced a theme that was repeated several times throughout the movie.

In this scene, the character Joseph Palmi (Joe Pesci) a Mafia don who has just lost control and ownership of three casinos in Cuba is visited by Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) the CIA's chief of counter-intelligence who is using the pseudonym of Mr. Carlson. Edward Wilson/Mr. Carlson wants Palmi's help in overthrowing the Fidel Castro-led Cuban government. He promises that in return for Palmi's assistance the U.S. government will cease its efforts to have Palmi deported to Italy.

Palmi considers the offer but he speculates aloud as to what Wilson/Mr.Carlson and the people that he represents really want. Palmi says that the Italians have their families and culture, the Irish have a homeland, Jews have their history and, after a very brief pause continues, "...even the niggers have their music but what do you guys have, Mr. Carlson?"

Carlson's response is quick: "We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting."

Regarding the HIV thing...  Wasn't there something about pharmaceuticals in drinking water that was just in the news?

So this idea that the government is beyond reproach or above perpetrating, sanctioning or otherwise permissable of less than honorable acts is grossly unfounded.  And the last people someone in America can talk to is African Americans who have had COINTELPRO and things of that order as part of what the government has done.  If anything, the burden of proof is on White America to show how African-Americans, e.g., are not harmed by government policies and things the government and citizens can and do play a role in perpetuating.  Who gives a f-ck whether it's a "conspiracy" or not?  I'm with P6.  Whenever you get through, you have to deal with the physical, tangible facts on the ground.  Intent, etc. don't mean sh*t to consequences.

On the drugs issue... we can easily note the markedly different responses to the crack epidemic and the METH epidemic.

Nquest,

No need to get all worked up dude.

"What are the "bigoted feelings toward White Americans?"

I arrive at that interpretation from listening to his sermons which are easily available on Youtube. While you can argue that Wright's rhetoric about white privilege and enemies is in the tradition of the Black church or Christinan ministry for social justice in general, it is also described in racially collectivist terms, which are, in fact, "alienating". Which gets to the next question of is the U.S. government being synonymous with white America, which Earl would probably say is something "grounded in physical facts" underlying Wright's argument. Legally, the USG is not of course and while I suspect Wright might see the two as the same I can't say that definitively. I do not, by the way, though historically White Americans did so well into the 20th century.

If you wish to dispute my contention that Wright that Rev. Wright comes to the table with some hostile feelings toward white Americans, fine but the logic of my assumptions here are at least as good as the upthread commentary justifying Wright's charges that the USG sells drugs or spreads AIDS.

Z - A large part of the problem for you and other white Americans is that Rev. Wright is not interested in coming to the table. He moved beyond all that quite a while ago.

That isn't a problem for me per se but your explanation is helpful nonetheless.

No need to get all worked up dude.

That's more idiotic than your still unsupported claim of "bigotry." I'll ask you this simple question again:

"What are the "bigoted feelings toward White Americans?"

You claim to come to that conclusion from listening to his sermons available via YouTube but you have yet to point out the statements that meet the "bigotry" criteria. There is no "logic" to your assumptions because you've provided no such thing. All you've done is make an idiotic claim which, again, is rather easy to do. It's obvious just how hard it is for you to substantiate your idiotic accusation.

You want to point me to YouTubes? Okay, point out the ones and the "bigoted" statements. Your logical shift from "bigotry" to "alienation" only proves how idiotic your accusation was in the first place.

While you can argue that Wright's rhetoric about white privilege and enemies is in the tradition of the Black church or Christinan ministry for social justice in general, it is also described in racially collectivist terms, which are, in fact, "alienating".

 

I asked you about "bigotry." You claimed Wright's statements were "bigoted." What's the problem and hold up with you supporting your claim? Again,

There is a difference between "bigoted" statements and those that merely "alienate."

I'll be upfront: I don't think you can substantiate your "bigotry" claim. Every tangent seeking comment you've made thus far is tangible proof, let alone your attempt to shift the terms -- from "bigotry" to "alienation" which doesn't make any sense in the first place since White Americans were not his audience (a point I made earlier).

And all you do is compound things with the "all worked up" tangent. Just say you're not up the task (of answering simple questions) and call it a day. The irony of it all. You call Wright's statements "bigoted" and then shift to talk about how they "alienate" White Americans but I'm supposedly the one whose all worked up. lmao

I suspect Wright might see the two as the same I can't say that definitively. I do not...

 

Then how do you explain your comments? Clearly, when I asked you, "What are the bigoted feelings toward White Americans?" you answered with questions not about what White Americans have/haven't done, etc. but you inserted the U.S. government.

It's at this juncture that I have to ask you about your mental health, blood pressure included. You're obviously having some issues dealing with simple questions, following the context and responding in a coherent and relevant manner.

With that as an accurate state of affairs, there is simply nothing for me to be worked up about. Zenpundit has shown himself unable to answer a simple question about a statement he made.

And since Z mentioned it...  Let's talk about WHITE PRIVILEGE.  Apparently we're supposed to honor this White Privilege by just taking Z's word for it regarding Wright's supposed "bigotry" when the mere accusation by African-Americans, e.g., of racism or racial ill-will or "bigotry"  committed by White Americans so often have to past a series of tests because mere "assumptions" or "interpetations" won't do. 

I mean, what is this?  an attempt to make P6 a prophet?

Look at this society. All you have to do is suggest a Black person bears racial anumus and he or she must prove they have no hostility to white people. Suggest a white person has racial animus...hell, catch evidence of it coming out of his own mouth on his national radio show...and it's all about second chances, and understanding, and why did Black people make me do it?

I mean, what is this?  an attempt to make P6 a prophet?

Anyone who tries gets thrown off the site, unceremoniously and permanently. 

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0srV-ZxSYg  

Was Bobby Kennedy's speech on the night of MLK's assassination a productive counterpoint to African American jeremiads like Rev. Wright and is Obama pointing us in the right direction by invoking this?      

Ubstu34 -

Please elaborate on your question. I don't understand what you are asking. Robert Kennedy's speech in Indianopolis was off-the-cuff. Given his obvious anguish and sadness at Dr. King's murder and, perhaps, less obviously, the assassination of his own brother five years earlier, I doubt that Kennedy was doing anything more than trying to express to an overwhelmingly Black crowd how deeply sorry he was for their loss and the nation's loss, too.

I guess my question is whether the legacy of RFK's speech has any place in the current discourse swirling around Rev. Wright's comments and Obama's attempt to respond to them.    

conciliatory maneuver...., for one aspiring to be president even of the ethnonationalist knuckle-draggers who made up the entire anti-Obama tempest in a teapot.

Ubstu34 -

After watching the Obama's speech courtesy of the link that you provided, my initial response is that Kennedy's aim's was to provide a balm of sorts to people that he knew had been deeply wounded. Obama's aim in invoking Kennedy's speech is much different. He references Kennedy's speech to make a point about himself and his campaign. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or hypocritical about Obama's actions but he is making a political stump speech. Kennedy had intended to make a stump speech as well but fate intervened and he made a much more personal and heartfelt address.

As I said earlier, Wow! I haven't stirred this kind of angst in some time:

Here's a partial quote from Wright's sermon:

" "It just came to be within the past few weeks y'all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama.  He doesn't fit the mold.  He ain't white, he ain't rich and he ain't privileged.  Hillary fits the mold.  Europeans fit the mold...Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color.  Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car... I am sick of negroes who just do not get it.  Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home.  Barack was.  Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture which is controlled by rich white people."

I suspect Nquest will interpret the sentiments above somewhat differently than do I, which is that Wright's perspective has some hostile feelings toward white Americans. I look forward to him continuing to futilely circle the wagons however and the long string of further verbal abuse that he will no doubt employ to cloud an issue that was clear enough for Senator Obama.

As for Rev. Wright himself, I'm still of the opinion that he's a mixed bag rather than someone completely beyond the pale but in his ill-considered remarks, he's handed a club to the Hillary campaign or the GOP or anyone else to bash Obama.

Z - The folks you name and even the ones you have not named were going bash Obama anyway. Billary certainly has done so. She may refrain from doing so over Rev. Wright only because she cannot afford to alienate any more black voters. As for the GOP, well, the National White People's Party has been playing the race card since at least 1964 so whatever it does will not surprise Obama or us.

Intent and effectiveness are separate issues. 

Hillary will - actually I'll say "may" - personally refrain from doing so but her surrogates will max this out. The ruthlessness of the Clinton's has no bottom. None. That she has stayed in at this point indicates to me that all leverage to switch even the pledged delegates will be brought to bear and some ppl will switch with enough pressure.

You are right about Billary but I'm willing to lay odds and wager money that she will not be elected president of the United States. It would be disasterous if the alternative is John McCain but we'll survive his foolishness, too. We just might need to teach the Democrats and its fifth column, the DLC, a lesson that they won't soon forget. The DLC are not our friends and a lot of us are getting real tired of fattening frogs for snakes.

"but I'm willing to lay odds and wager money that she will not be elected president of the United States"

Pt, I sincerely hope that she is not. She's somebody who has spent a lifetime cherishing the scores that she'd like to settle and surrounding herself with aides who tell her that every move she makes is righteous.

I look forward to him continuing to futilely circle the wagons

Z, the question remains a very simple one and it's clear you continue to show a clear inability to answer, directly, w/o bs:

"What are the "bigoted feelings toward White Americans?"

Wright's perspective has some hostile feelings toward white Americans

Now you've gone from "bigoted" feelings, to ideas that "alienate" to now "hostile feelings." What are those "hostile feelings", Z? It's really a simple question and Obama's response can't and won't help you. You made the statement that Wright's remarks had/have "bigoted feelings toward White Americans" and that's your burden of proof that is yours and yours alone.

1. "Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color."
2. "Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car..."
3. "Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was."
4. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country... controlled by rich white people."

The "hostile feelings"... no, the "bigoted" feelings expressed towards White Americans in #1 are?

The "hostile feelings"... no, the "bigoted" feelings expressed towards White Americans in #2 are?

The "hostile feelings"... no, the "bigoted" feelings expressed towards White Americans in #3 are?

The "hostile feelings"... no, the "bigoted" feelings expressed towards White Americans in #4 are?

Zenpundit, for some reason you're stuck in first gear:

"Look at this society. All you have to do is suggest a Black person bears racial animus..."

You're still hear SUGGESTING that Wright has "bigoted" (oops!! you've backed off of that)... Well, "alienating" or "hostile" feelings towards White Americans. Along the way (amongst other things), you've conflated White Americans with the US gov't, clearly for all to see, even though you claim you don't see them as one in the same. And, now, you're still hoping osmosis makes the case for you.

I suspect Nquest will interpret the sentiments above somewhat differently than do I

 

• Well, one would be hard-pressed to turn a statement (#1) that's about the indignities faced when African-Americans simply attempt to use cabs like other citizens into "hostile" or "bigoted" feelings towards White Americans. The issue is about being left on the curb due to racial stigma which may or may not involve a White American cab driver.
• One would also be hard pressed to tilt statements about the humiliating stigma at play in racial profiling (#2) as "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White Americans when it's the racial profiling situation that's clearly being highlighted.
• And it would be very difficult to show how the statement about being a black boy, raised by a single parent (#3) is somehow "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White Americans.
• Not only that but even the statements about "rich white people" controlling the country (do you dispute that?) can hardly be confused as having "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White America because a chord runs through every one of the 4 statements and that's the "feelings" about the circumstances African Americans are in. Whatever it "means to be a black man" in America has to do with living with that stigma and the challenges, obstacles and, yes, injustices that exist as a fact of Black life.

Indeed, the context was something to the effect that an Obama presidency would be one where there would be someone (Obama) who "who cares what a poor black man has to face every day..." So, contextual wise, that's the subject. As we can see, Wright set out to draw a few examples of what a poor black man "faces every day." 

Billary's desire to punish her enemies, real or imagined, does not bother many of us as much as her policies and seemingly endless transactional approach to politics does. Her support in granting Bush the authority to launch an immoral and criminal military attack against Iraq was an example of the kind of calculated cynicism that motivates her. She and her husband are classic examples of Democrats who talk left and act right. I am not a follower of Chairman Mao but Hillary and her aides are exactly the kinds of liberals that he once described as being a "corrosive element."

"You're still hear SUGGESTING that Wright has "bigoted" (oops!! you've backed off of that)... Well, "alienating" or "hostile" feelings towards White Americans. Along the way (amongst other things), you've conflated White Americans with the US gov't, clearly for all to see, even though you claim you don't see them as one in the same. And, now, you're still hoping osmosis makes the case for you. "

Can one be bigoted without also being hostile or alienating? These are not mutually exclusive concepts and you have inferred that I replaced one with another rather than using them as additional descriptors. He's all of those things.

You introduced the issue of conflating the USG and white Americans, not me. P6 even called you on it. I never brought in any of his statements condemning the larger society, which, ironically, really do go back to the Garrisonian tradition - but who these days would recognize that? I simply responded to you and gave you a direct answer as a courtesy. You can accept my answer at face value or not. And as long as we are on the subject that you raised, do you think the USG and white Americans are one and the same ? Do you think Rev. Wright believes that or not ?

Speaking of "face value" we can interpret words concretely, in isolation, or in the larger context in which they are spoken. How do you interpret someone else's words Nquest? At face value all the time ? Or in a larger context ? Do you look to see if the speaker is signalling to more than one audience or employing what our postmodernist friends might call "in-depth language" opaque to outsiders or more crudely, "code words"? No ?

I ask this because I suspect that you are a fairly sophisticated person, most commenters here are, and much of your bluster, tone, previous insults toward me and generally aggressive posture is little other than a lame attempt to bully me into telling you that I think the sky really isn't blue.

Let's parse Rev. Wright's words:

"It just came to be within the past few weeks y'all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama."

Who exactly is hating on Barack Obama? (Ok- except Hillary) The congregation? Why be ambiguous here ?

"He doesn't fit the mold.  He ain't white, he ain't rich and he ain't privileged"

Some artistic license. Harvard Law Review editorship carries a little bit of privilege as does membership in the U.S. Senate but I grant that it sounds good, oratorically speaking. Obama also has F-you money but he's not uber-rich.

"Hillary fits the mold."

Not my mold, unsurprisingly. Not even most Democrat's molds, numerically speaking. Presumably Rev. Wright was aware of the vote totals.

"Europeans fit the mold..."

Point to Rev. Wright. Hard to argue that there isn't a pattern present though not too many people would call it "European".

Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color.

A really weird statement, logically speaking. I grant that unprovoked suspicion by white strangers (or Arab cabbies) toward Black people is a racist action that must be intensely frustrating but it's not really relevant to Hillary. It also begs for her to uncork a counter-laundry list of UMC white feminist complaints. Hillary gives ample ammunition to savage her without dragging in all of that.

"Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car... "

Again, while not a fan of Hillary, women might post up some worries of their own.

"I am sick of negroes who just do not get it"

I am an outsider looking in here, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. In this day and age, when a Black man authoritatively refers to other African-Americans in a collective vein as "negroes" it is meant uncomplimentarily. Correct ? Sort of like they are a bit deluded, brainwashed, afraid to offend white society -along those lines ? If so that's a highly racialist subtext positing one group as the adversary or enemy and the group being spoken to as some kind of quisling or pawn of the "other".

Then again, what do I know, right  Nquest?

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home.  Barack was."

I was under the impression his mother remarried. senator Obama came a long way on great talent and hard work but let's not exaggerate  how far down he began. All of Black America, like any other part of America, is not defined only by one paradigm.

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture which is controlled by rich white people."

Is race the defining characteristic or bottom-line variable of this ill-defined "controlling group" of white people? If Rev. Wright believes this single-causation to be so then race is the primary prism of his worldview and when he talk broadly of having "enemies" but loving them as a good Christian should, it does not take a great deal of imagination to figure out whom he is speaking about.

Earlier P6 asked me if Rev. Wright was justified in feeling angry. I certainly think he is justified in feeling angry and given his age, his life experience represents a legitimate claim of harm done to him by governmental authorities that ought to have been at the forefront of upholding his rights. That can coexist easily with and explain attitudes and behavior, driven by bitterness, that are not so justifiable.

Rev. Wright is entitled to his views and to express them freely but don't cry me a river on how down is really up and how I'm dead wrong in calling the man out for what he's doing with full knowledge and intention on his part, at a time to garner the maximum possible exposure for what he sees as the Truth. He " ain't all bad" but neither is Wright beyond criticism. No one is.

See this video (props to Michael Fisher).

Seems to me like Wright's transposed speech clips in the video are in no way, shape, or form in conflict with what white folk are OPENLY discussing on its major news programs? Just talking about it from opposite sides of the equation.  So what's the problem? 

White, Christian, Male power structure indeed. 

Can one be bigoted without also being hostile or alienating?

You're asking the wrong question and making the wrong argument. You've yet to point out the "bigoted" statements or the "bigotry." So, it's obvious you've yet to show how hostility and alienation are the component parts that bigotry can't do without. That's just a statement about your argument. Whether one can be bigoted without also being hostile or alienating is irrelevant and addresses nothing I've said. I only noted your shifting terms.

You introduced the issue of conflating the USG and white Americans, not me. P6 even called you on it.

You speak with no understanding. P6 said (to me), and I quote: "I get your point and agree with it." Read back.
P6 explained the statement you mistook as him "calling me on it" like so:

But the U.S. Government is synonymous with White America, both in the government's view AND White America's view.

For the Hard of Learning, P6 merely intervened to say that the point of clarification/distinction is lost on you. You didn't even realize how you conflated the two. But I'll remind you because that's just what I do. In response to my one and only question about the very idiotic, nut-job accusation you threw out just on a whim -- the question of what "bigoted feelings towards White Americans" -- poor rhetorical/logical devices in hand, you remarked:

Did the U.S. government deliberately spread AIDS ? Or sell drugs to Americans? If Senator Obama believed these statements were defensible then Wright would still be part of his campaign.

First of all, Rev. Wright was very specific. Your non-sequitur was to: specifically off the topic.

???sell drugs to Americans??? which ones?? Wright specific given his specific context. And so we see the real issue you have. You have an inane race aversion. You can't bear to even stipulate to and specify it when it was specified, save for when you want to fabricate supposed "bigoted" offenses towards White Americans.

Let's parse Rev. Wright's words:

Let's not waste my time. Acknowledge how you never had a basis for your claim for what you perceived "bigoted feeling towards White Americans" and be done with it. I'm dogged in my persistance to rid the earth of bs. You started end with it and I bullied you away from ever returning to what you now know as a poorly thought out belief-perception of yours that the best you can do is say that's it's self-evident amongst "sophisticated" persons among whom that bs gets no play.

Neither is your scrabbling attempts to gather scattered pieces to different puzzles deserving of any play:

While you can argue that Wright's rhetoric about white privilege and enemies is in the tradition of the Black church or Christinan ministry for social justice in general, it is also described in racially collectivist terms, which are, in fact, "alienating".

In this day and age, when a Black man authoritatively refers to other African-Americans in a collective vein as "negroes" it is meant uncomplimentarily. Correct ? Sort of like they are a bit deluded, brainwashed, afraid to offend white society -along those lines ? If so that's a highly racialist subtext positing one group as the adversary or enemy and the group being spoken to as some kind of quisling or pawn of the "other".

Your mission, shall you choose to accept it, is to substantiate your claim that Rev. Wrights quoted remarks were "bigoted towards White Americans." All the psychobabble about "collectivist" this and "racialist" that are OFF THE TOPIC and does not support your struggling, fatally shoot in the foot, bogus claim.

Had you ever had anything to hang your claim on it you wouldn't have to go through all these off-topic manuvers just to try to fabricate a semblance of a justification for your claims that Wright holds "bigoted" feelings towards White Americans. The "racialist"+pawn is widespread in the media presentation of this issue in which Rev. Wright represents the scariest "other" of whom Barack Obama is presumed to be a secretly, sympathizing puppet. Surely Obama could not sit in those church pews and not been influenced by it: he never left after hearing the comments means... Barack Obama is really blackkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!

When you the racialist narrative in the mainstream media and the ideas inherent in your own views then I'll take you seriously. In short, you're projecting; particularly that "enemy" stuff.

Also, "collectivist" is something that's a bad word in your own ethnic/cultural specific worldview. Not only does invoking the term fail to address the question about your still unsupported claim but it has no resonance here and I do believe that was the point of Obama's speech today -- i.e. how things are viewed differently. Your implicit rant about "collectivist" this and that has verve in contexts specific to your specific cultural worldview. This very topic involving the preacher at an Afrocentric church should have informed your comments to where you did not make that mistake coming in.

Rev. Wright is entitled to his views and to express them freely but don't cry me a river on how down is really up and how I'm dead wrong in calling the man out for what he's doing with full knowledge and intention on his part, at a time to garner the maximum possible exposure for what he sees as the Truth. He " ain't all bad" but neither is Wright beyond criticism. No one is.

What is he "doing" and what does what he's doing have to do with your still unsupported claim that he holds "bigoted feelings towards White Americans"??? You didn't just decide to critique Wright, you decided to make a perception based claim that you're finding a hard time finding specific, substantive basis for. I didn't contend with the notion of you "criticizing" Wright and not even you "criticizing" Wright for what he's "doing." I differed with you on one specific claim of yours that still remains unsupported and all you can say is "I know the sky is blue" (read: I can't support my claim so I'll just insist that it is self-evident since I, Zenpundit, can't even prove it to myself, let alone anyone else).

For some reason, you didn't begin your posts on this thread claiming Rev. Wright held bigoted feelings about those he calls Negroes. And even after scrambling as you have, you still didn't. I wonder why?

And, yes, you don't know much. Obviously the "Negro"perjorative is too complexed for you. Hint: "pawn" is hardly an accurate translation for a term as fluid as it is. Plus there are other terms in the lexicon that are more effective. Besides that, you're reading an awful lot into the face-value (word only) context of that one line, let alone the full context of the clip in which Negroes hardly had a defined role. He just said, "Negroes just don't get it" and said nothing about whether said "Negroes" were pawns of the "other." You inserted and fabricated that all on your own.

Indeed, the whole clip was a rhetorical debate with the Negroes in their absence.  The Negroes, not White Americans, were the subject of the conversation.  The Negroes were the "folks hatin' on Barack Obama" as Wright noted at the beginning of the clip which is obviously why he returned to them and insisted that they "the haters" just don't get it.  Wright's Afrocentricity should also inform how Black folks, even their/our internal debates, are put at the center of the discussion.  Your problem is you've violated the first rule of common sense -- i.e. knowing who you're talking about/talking to -- in your make claim first,  find justification for it later approach here.  You have to have a sound basis for your claim first.  That's the second rule of common sense.

I simply responded to you and gave you a direct answer as a courtesy.

You are simply assaulting the truth with the deadly weapon of stupidity and dishonesty. You gave no such "direct answer." Recapping, your answer led to the question about the USG being synonymous with White America. And the deflect and redirect flu must be making it's rounds because you're the second person caught conflating the USG with White Americans who couldn't take the heat and decided to try to turn the question around on me which is simply asinine. I'm the one who questioned the conflation. My thoughts on it should be clear by that alone. But anything to obfuscate, huh?

Now that you've comb through a number of Wright's statements, finding different material from what you originally selected in your phony "sky is blue" (P6 is a prophet) game, have you finally located the statements that show Wright's "bigoted" feelings towards White Americans?   If so, please share them and please no more ignorance revealing attempts to try to turn Wright's direct statements to or about Negroes or any other Black people into a flimsy rationale that there's an invisible slam on White Americans involved in it as well.  And that's it: the best you can do is concoct an idiotic theory that, while Wright explicitly confronts Negroes, he's really saying something about White Americans?  

First your response tried to squeeze an offense/attack against White Americans out of Wright's issues with the USG and now the strength of you claim is an indirect slam on White Americans that you've perceived in your misguided, confused and just flat erroneous idea of what the Negro non-compliment means.   Negro / pawn.  That's not an accurate translation so your brand new house of cards is flatted just like your old one was when you first failed to point out Wright's supposed "bigoted feelings."

Tell me.  It's just the fact that he mentioned White people by name, class, power, etc. (and the differences between the experiences and power-relationships) that got you miffed.  That's "racialist", right?  You bought into that simplistic narrative.