Interview with Rev. Wright
June 10, 2009 - 2:30pm
Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave a lengthy interview the other day.
What exactly do you suppose he meant by this?
"Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ..."
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story
There are a few Jewish babblers, if I'm not mistaken.
To all Jewish babblers: Have you been trying to prevent Barack Obama from talking to Rev. Wright? Please 'fess up.
I wasn't but if he's gonna talk like that, maybe I should start.
I didn't know Sean Hannity converted.
It's too bad Wright undermines himself by not actually thinking through his paintbrushing of American Jews.
I wonder if Obama goes back to Wright when his popularity hits the can, lol.
How reliable is the source of that interview?
I am sure its an exact quote. Possibly its taken out of context. It would be interesting to hear the tape. If it were a continuation of a statement about Zionists or AIPAC lobbyists in the adminstration, then the phrase, "them Jews" would have a specific context, and would not be "paintbrushing of American Jews", as Apples puts it. If not, then its plain ignorance. Regardless, he should know better than to use such indelicate phrasing because it will be misinterpreted, and in fact, I think he probably does, so all things considered I think he is probably grandstanding and playing to prejudice intentionally.
He probably thinks he is "speaking truth to power" or some such.
Thing is this kind of phrasing that reflects base prejudice is rampant in our society. It would be nice if people suceptible to it were not in positions of influence in our society.
Here is the part that was left out by Stockholm:
"Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not do so for fear of offending Jews and Israel.
"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said."
Dunno Cueball, the lines in the article under the one stockholm put in the thread appear that he's using the wider paintbrush
"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said.
Ha, we cross posted Noise! I agree with your assessment BTW re the OP
Well if he meant Israel - why didnt he just say Israel? he specifically said the Jews and Israel. And if he meant that Israeli lobbyist are "keeping him from the WH", why didn't he say that instead of teh "Jews"?
Either way, Wright is dead wrong. He can play an anti-semitic blame game all he wants, but obama threw him under the bus all on his own.
lol nice Stargazer...a bit quicker to the post than I.
Some of the editorializing in that article at the bottom is to the point of silly.
Right...it was the efforts of Wright that made race an issue in '08. Ghislane is right, I'd really like a new source on this.
Well if he meant Israel - why didnt he just say Israel? he specifically said the Jews and Israel. And if he meant that Israeli lobbyist are "keeping him from the WH", why didn't he say that instead of teh "Jews"?
Do you think it's possible that Wright is as ignorant - or as incautious with his words - as the Zionist organizations and Jason Kenney etc. which always mention Jews and Israel in the same breath?
I'm more interested in the content of what people say than the expressions they use. And what he said last year about America being racist, and what he says here about Gaza Durban II and U.S. policy, when you forget about the ignorant "Jews" addition, is dead on the money.
I wouldn't expect ideological purity or political sensitivity from a preacher. But his analysis of race in the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy was light years ahead of Obama's - which is the precise reason Obama had to dump him.
In any event, I'll also wait to see the full text of this so-called interview with the Newport Daily Press before calling him names.
I saw all that. Sure, if those sentences were reordered, then there is a clear attempt to prejudice his meaning. But Ghislane is right, unless Wright is stupid, he would have used a more specific term. This is so easily misinterpreted and manipulatable, then you really have two conclusion. He erred stupidly, or he was knowingly playing to prejudice.
Unionist - do you agree with me that he is wrong that it is "the Jews/Israel" that are keeping him from the WH? It is quite obvious that Obama disowned him way before being elected.
And his wording is anti-semitic. If he didn't mean it that way, he should come out and clarify/apologize etc. as this is all over the net - with the one choice quote being linked.
It is pretty small potatoes though compared to a white supremicist shooting people at the Holocaust museum in DC today though.
You left out the third: he genuinely believes "Them Jews" are prepared to prevent him from communicating with Obama.
Is this the first time he's mentioned "Jews" in this sort of context? I wonder how he'd answer the question "who controls the world banks?"
Snert - a quick web search will show similiar quotes from Wright in march 2008 where he apparently caused another debate similar to this.
You left out the third: he genuinely believes "Them Jews" are prepared to prevent him from communicating with Obama.
Is this the first time he's mentioned "Jews" in this sort of context? I wonder how he'd answer the question "who controls the world banks?"
What's your point? You think there is an anti-semitic conspiracy of "Muslims, Arab oil sheiks, and leftist trade unionists"?
Got anymore poison the pond type questions you would like to ask?
Unionist - do you agree with me that he is wrong that it is "the Jews/Israel" that are keeping him from the WH?
Duhhh, no kidding.
You don't even have a clue exactly what question he was asked. Example: "Have you tried to communicate with Mr. Obama? Answer: Hahaha, those Zionists wouldn't let me near him even if he wanted to see me." That would be a lot more innocent in my book. It's the expression "them Jews" that excited Fox News (which is no doubt where Stockholm found this juicy item).
Duhhhh, no kidding. Which converted do you think you're preaching to?
No it's not "all over the net". When I checked earlier this afternoon, there were about 10 Google hits, all based on the same truncated interview with the high-profile famous newspaper the Newport Daily Press.
Nice of you to acknowledge that there's a difference between the two events. Interesting, though, that you would even think of putting the two into the same sentence.
The thread's topic was the number 1 story on the newport daily press site....Guess what the number 2 most popular story listed on the website was?
editted: It appears the story fell back to #5. Incidentally, if this is where he got that story from...there is no mention of the gunmen being white supremists and he's invented that part.
Here's the audio from the Wright interview. Found it on the Drudge Report - which linked to it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/10/rev_wright_them_jews_w...
There's an unfortunate history of urban black anti-Semitism in some quarters. Particularly in Chicago and NYC. Many of Wright's comments have been distorted, particularly by the Murdoch news empire. Unfortunately, this stupid and bigoted comment doesn't appear to be one of them.
Funny the stuff that comes out of peoples mouths when they think they are speaking off the record.
So listening to the audio, it doesn't sound like an interview - more like a conversation in a group of people.
"Them people" or "them Jews" are both bigoted comments, there is no denying that, however, he sure didn't lie about politicians compromising their beliefs. Obama says there is no racism in America. That was strictly a political comment made to appease white voters. That to me is just as repulsive as anything the reverend said in the sound bite linked to above. Denying the experiences of millions of people is just as abhorrent. Obama is not quite the vision of hope many people wished he was.
I really wasn't expecting a whole hell of a lot from either of them quite frankly.
Stargazer: "Obama says there is no racism in America."
I do not believe that Obama has ever said that.
Obama's most important speech on race was the one delivered in Philadelphia in March 2008. The full transcript is available here. There is perhaps plenty to agree with, and plenty to disagree with in this speech. But he certainly recognizes the continued existence of racism in the US:
"This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own."
If someone can find a quotation in which Obama says that there is no racism in America, I will happily stand corrected.
I believe his comments were surrounding Katrina. Here is a source:
"And Obama? In response to the devastation of New Orleans after Katrina, perhaps the greatest act of racist mass murder ever to take place in this country, he declared: “I do not subscribe to the notion that the painfully slow response of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security was racially based. The ineptitude was color-blind.” If Obama can deny the obvious racism of Katrina’s aftermath, what possible defense could he offer Black people against the less obvious but equally murderous racist workings of capitalism"
Take that Nineth Warders! You're just whiney wimps crying racism......
"At the same time, Obama’s willingness to cover up the system’s racist crimes means his presidency would be seriously threatening to the Black masses. Obama has already signaled his support for harsh measures. For example, in his book The Audacity of Hope, he went out of his way to declare that “conservatives -- and Bill Clinton -- were right about welfare.” Obama knows full well that Republican denunciations of welfare were part of the “Southern Strategy” of rallying racist support for cutting government aid to the poor. He also knows that Clinton borrowed that strategy, promising to “end welfare as we know it.” In office, Clinton kept his promise, cutting off 60 percent of welfare recipients; his attack hit the poorest sections of the working class and was particularly devastating to people of color.
The pretense of color-blindness in this racist society can only mean a capitulation to racism. Indeed, as his campaign has progressed, Obama has increasingly sounded like he is running to become this country’s first blind president. In his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, he said about his time campaigning in the state: “I didn’t see a Black South Carolina or a white South Carolina. I just saw South Carolina.” He has denied that racism is still a factor in public policy issues, and rejects “the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor.” And he is supposed to stand for “change we can believe in”!"
More here:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/obama81.html
If someone can find a quotation in which Obama says that there is no racism in America, I will happily stand corrected.
You're right, he didn't say that. What he said, which I found profoundly wrong and dangerous, especially when he connected it with U.S. policy on Israel, is this:
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
This was the moment when Obama showed his true face - when he showed clearly which side of the American divide he chose to line up with.
I really liked this passage from the President's speech:
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress had been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old - is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know - what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed, not just with words, but with deeds, by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
I never declared myself ready to defend all or even most of Obama's remarks about race in America, about Reverend Wright, about Hurricane Katrina, etc. I merely deny that Obama says there is no racism in America. Even his remarks about Katrina, quoted by Stargazer, are not tantamout to a declaration that there is no racism in America: they merely claim, incorrectly or correctly, that this particular response was colour-blindedly inept.
I'd be happy to explore the comments that Stargazer and Unionist quoted, but I think that the thread drift would be too great.
I merely deny that Obama says there is no racism in America.
Yes, and as I pointed out, on that incredibly narrow point, you are correct. It's like the difference between:
1. "There are no rich or poor people in the U.S.", which even a bleeding idiot wouldn't say; and
2. "American is not characterized by a deep divide between rich and poor", which is the equivalent of what Obama said. Obama condemned - nay, abandoned - Wright for saying that racism is endemic to America.
Perhaps you might want to comment on his claim that the conflict in the Middle East originates not with Israel, but with radical Islam (which no one in Palestine had ever heard of during the first four Arab-Israeli wars).
He is a panderer to power and wealth, which we were told he needed to be in order to win the election and then implement his startlingly progressive program. Campaign from the right and govern from the left, we were told. Right. Sure.
It is no surprise or accident that the perennial defenders of Israel on this board are still attacking Rev. Wright (who I think you'll agree is a political nobody in the scheme of things) and drooling over Obama.
Well, I'm certainly no perennial defender of Israel, and have no use for Wright anymore.
When did Obama say this?:
"Perhaps you might want to comment on his claim that the conflict in the Middle East originates not with Israel, but with radical Islam"
When did Obama say this?:
"Perhaps you might want to comment on his claim that the conflict in the Middle East originates not with Israel, but with radical Islam"
In his famous speech that people are still drooling over - I quoted it just four posts ago, and torontoprofessor linked to it six posts ago, so please review the thread. Here it is again for your convenience:
What do you think of that thesis, josh? Sounds a bit like Daniel Pipes, no?
Political rhetoric from someone doing damage control. Notice you haven't seen it repeated since he assumed office.
Political rhetoric from someone doing damage control. Notice you haven't seen it repeated since he assumed office.
The rhetoric? No. Just the continuation of Bush's Middle East policy.
Tell the Israelis that.
Tell the Israelis that.
Do they sound scared or desperate to you? Maybe I'm missing something. Did I miss Obama mentioning that the Israelis shouldn't be murdering all those people in Gaza? I don't read all the newspapers, so it might have slipped by me. Was Obama the first president to suggest that two states might be a good idea? Has he called for Israel to comply with U.N. resolutions? Has he suggested that maybe possibly they should stop occupying the West Bank and Golan? Or wait, how about a little nuclear disarmament?
Let me know when you detect a policy shift that doesn't require a microscope to measure.
There's an unfortunate history of urban black anti-Semitism in some quarters. Particularly in Chicago and NYC. Many of Wright's comments have been distorted, particularly by the Murdoch news empire. Unfortunately, this stupid and bigoted comment doesn't appear to be one of them.
That is very true, unfortunately, and part of the reason was because Jews played such a prominent role in the civil rights movement, and a break with white dominance essentially meant a break with Jews. Also black neighbourhoods in Northern cities were often Jewish neighbourhoods before that. Jews didn't resist Blacks moving into theiir neighbourhoods like many Catholic ethnics did, but they often quickly vacated the neighbourhoods. They did however often retain property (as storeowners or landlords) which reinforced the old stereotype of the Jew being an economic exploiter.
Jesse Jackson made anti-Semitic remarks in the past and allegedly Al Sharpton did (my Jewish friends in the US all think he is an anti-Semite) but I'm not sure exactly what Sharpton said or did.
Tell the Israelis that.
Do they sound scared or desperate to you? Maybe I'm missing something. Did I miss Obama mentioning that the Israelis shouldn't be murdering all those people in Gaza? I don't read all the newspapers, so it might have slipped by me. Was Obama the first president to suggest that two states might be a good idea? Has he called for Israel to comply with U.N. resolutions? Has he suggested that maybe possibly they should stop occupying the West Bank and Golan? Or wait, how about a little nuclear disarmament?
Let me know when you detect a policy shift that doesn't require a microscope to measure.
Some may not be satisfied unless Obama burns an Israeli flag on television, but the statements he has made so far, in public and in private, are an encouraging, albeit modest, steps in the right direction. If you don't think the Israelis aren't quite nervous, or that the Palestinians aren't more optimistic, then you haven't been following things closely enough.
Seen it before. I am not buying it.
Tell the Israelis that.
From the Palestinian perspective, I imagine this all looks like a well warn charade, the US makes as show of putting preassure on the Israelis, the Israelis bitch and complain. The US does nothing to force the issue because Israel is a "stalwart ally", and the president unconditionally supports the "right of Israel to exist", and the whole thing falls apart because the Knesset is unable to come to a consensus about which hectare of land is not an inviolable part of Israel.
"Oh well! That's democracy, aint it a bitch" says the State Department spokesperson, and the status quo is maintained.
I well remember the occassion of George Bush Sr., promising action on the Palestinian State when the US needed Arab allies during the first Gulf War. That promise evaporated shortly after the truce was signed, and after Kuwait had ethnically cleansed its large population of Palestinian "guest workers". It's very hard not to see it as a well worn shell game played out by the US adminstration and their ally Israel.
Until we see something concrete, Obama's guilded words are no better than Clinton's well crafted speeches or Bush's tough talk.
I suppose it's somewhat useful to re-iterate Fidel Castro's point in his remarks on President Obama's speech in Cairo. As long as the President is making speeches then he isn't killing Muslims or Palestinians, or ... , is he?
At lunch today, when I asked my friend Said from the West Bank what he thought of Obama's speech, he said, "you said it yourself: speech."
Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Thursday tried to step back from a controversial comment he made earlier in the week, explaining that when he said "them Jews" were keeping him from getting access to President Barack Obama he meant to say "Zionists."
"I misspoke. Let me just say Zionists."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23642.html
Still total bullshit because the implication is that it was only Zionists who were upset with Wright, when in fact it was the yahoo flagwavers like Sean Hannity and company, not "Zionists" who freaked out over Wright's statements.
It's tough being a Zionist these days.
"Wright - "I misspoke. Let me just say Zionists.""
So, in other words, Rev. Wright agrees with what a lot of people have been saying which is that the word "Zionist" is often used as a code for Jews in general. When people who genuinely are anti-semitic want to express their views in code they just go on and on about evil Zionists when in fact they are really talking about all Jews - Zionist and non-Zionist alike. Thank you Rev. Wright for clearing that up.
As Jeffrey Goldberg states, "He regrets speaking plainly instead of deploying a euphemism."
Perhaps he was referring to Obama's chief of staff and his main advisor, who happen to be Jewish and have never (to anyone's knowledge) bucked the official line of mainstream American Jewish unquestioning support for Zionism.
The number of Jewish supporters Obama had in the Democratic party, and to whom he owes his election, is no secret.
Obama is snugly ensconced in the pro-Israel lobby, if only because his advisors and financial supporters won't have it any other way.
The Rev. Wright, unlike his detractors on babble, sees through all that cheap talk about supporting a two-state solution and human rights for Palestinians, without condemning Israel's attacks on Gaza and Lebanon or the illegal occupation or the daily assaults on Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The Rev. Wright was factually correct. It is unfortunate that he thought he was speaking off the record, or that he simply is not a tactful person.
Perhaps he was referring to Obama's chief of staff and his main advisor, who happen to be Jewish and have never (to anyone's knowledge) bucked the official line of mainstream American Jewish unquestioning support for Zionism.
The number of Jewish supporters Obama had in the Democratic party, and to whom he owes his election, is no secret.
So..I am assuming that like Rev. Wright, you meant to say Zionists instead of Jewish here? How many Jewish people are there in the US? Amazing that he owes his election solely to them! I guess they really do control the world.
"The Rev. Wright was factually correct. It is unfortunate that he thought he was speaking off the record, or that he simply is not a tactful person. "
Why don't you just say that its unfortunate that Rev. Wright said something blatantly anti-semitic. Who cares if he thought he was speaking off the record. Since when is that any excuse? He clearly makes no distinction whatsoever between Jews and Zionists and he obviously has a negative opinion of both - this is an open and shut case.
Wright is factually wrong, vis-a-vis why Obama won't contact him, for the reasons I noted above. What you call "not tactful," I call bigotry.
Nor is Obama "snugly ensconced in the pro-Israel lobby." Their reaction to his Cairo speech and some of his appointments speak otherwise. Obama is the least "pro-Israel" president in thirty years.
Emanuel and Axelord both happen to be Jewish, but the latter has shown himself to be far less enamored with AIPAC and Co. than the former.
Obama does not owe his election to the Jewish vote. The only state he won due to that vote was probably Florida, and he would have won the election comfortably without it.
On top of that, most of the exit polls showed that Jewish voters in the Democratic primaries often tended to favour Hilary Clinton over Obama.
Wright is an ignoramus who, like the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, Jewish Defence League, Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, AIPAC, and other such, habitually confuse Jews with Zionists and supporters of Israel.
The source of this confusion, of course, is not Rev. Wright, but all the others. He is just the powerless preacher who gets sucked in and blamed - while the rest tut-tut and carry on with their crimes. Applauded by their cheerleaders here.
How dare you insult the good Rev. Wright calling him an ignoramus. He is well read he has written books. If he believes that there is no distinction to be made between Jews and Zionists and he hates both - then I have to conclude that this is his considered opinion after much research. Take him or leave him.
Rah, rah, zis boom bah!
Yay Israel!
"The people who take their inspiration from us do not thank us but attack us. We find ourselves in a very dangerous situation. We are again the scapegoat on all sides...We helped the blacks, we always helped them...I feel sorry for blacks. There is one thing they should learn from us and that is gratitude. No people in the world knows gratitude as we do; we are forever grateful." - Elie Wiesel
I'm sure josh and Stockholm are on the same page!
I don't know about Stockholm, but Wiesel and I are not on the same page. And if you actually read what I posted, or have posted in the past, you would know that. This is not a matter of "gratitude," or lack of same, it's a matter of scapegoating and bigotry.
Well I hate to break it to you all, but many Jews are very prejudiced against blacks. It isn't a bloody one way street eh.
Last time I was at my boyfriend's families Rosh Hasannah dinner I was told that native people should just "get over it" and how much they were playing victim. On top of that. they could not see any similarities between the plight of Jewish people and those of FN people. It was just a matter, for them, of FN people pulling up their socks and quickly assimilating. No empathy, no nothing. No idea of the history of FN peoples. no real idea of how reserves work. Nope, it was just "those people really have a huge community problem".
Can you imagine if I would have said Jews should just get over the Holocaust? Not bloody likely that would come from my mouth, nor be acceptable.
My point is that someone chose to say how much blacks may not like Jews but no one said the reverse, which is equally true, if not more so simply because they are white and hold the balance of power (as whites).
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am well aware that there are Jews who are prejudiced against blacks. The topic of the thread was about one person who made an anti-Semitic remark. It would still have been anti-Semitic had he been white. I was simply trying to point out the historical fact that in some urban areas in the U.S. there has been anti-Semitism among some blacks. For the reasons torontoprofessor pointed out.
And my point was that it goes both ways. I am unsure how you cannot possibly see what I was getting at. Someone above said blacks held anti-semitic views. Okay, I believe that. I also believe that some Jews hold anti-black and anti-FN sentiments.
Do you realize how hurtful it is to hear "They should just get over it" from a Jewish man who I respected and whom I thought would understand, being a Jew who had family die in the Holocaust? It was such a huge disconnect and it was incredibly hurtful but I was expected to keep quite. Not rock any boats and leave the comments to stand on their own. It was an incredibly horrid feeling of betrayal. Yes, I know this is a personal thing I am mentioning but racism is personal.
Who expected you to keep quiet? And why?
Also, it is becomoing apparent it does not go both ways, or any way at all other than 1 way, for some.
Remind, it was such a soul deflating position to be in. How do I react to something like that? It was made clear that I have family on a reserve. It was made clear that my roots are FN. What is there to argue? I'm having dinner at someone's house. I don't want to ruin it for everyone else so as usual, I sucked it up and shut up.
Yes, I am sure it was, it is soul deflating to even read about it, and to feel your dispair over it.
Was your silence, so others can "enjoy" their discrimination, worth it?
And I do not mean that question as a negative rejoinder, but as a real question about how you are left feeling being worth it?
My long dead now, white father in law did much the same over Christmas dinner one year, to his own children of FN heritage, and I realized it was an abuse pattern of his, and I put a stop to it, because obviously they had been so conditioned to accept it, that they felt it was their lot in life to just stay silent and accept it.
Never again did he do that to them, at least in my presence, and indeed for many years after, when we went to visit, he locked himself in his room to punish us. Best visits my partner ever had with his siblings and grandmother. :D Of note, our daughter was never allowed to have contact with him, if we went to visit, she stayed with her other grandparents. We were not going to allow him to damage her pride in her heritage even by 1 racist remark, but we could not cut ourselves off from my partners siblings who desperately needed other family contact.
I don't know. The organizer of the dinner was nothing like her husband. She was an amazing person. She was all about women's rights and she was incredibly sweet. I don't think she needed to be in the middle of a debate because her husband said something hurtful and stupid. I was just pleased to be invited and to experience my first Rosh Hassanah dinner.
That's horrible about your father in law remind. On that same note, my son who resides in Calgary now has gone from being a socialist to being a racist. There is something about Alberta that changes people. Any ways, that is for another thread.
Makes one really uncomfortable, I am sure.
Speak euphemistically, and leave early.
Funny that you say that stargazer, but one feels different when ones crosses the BC Alberta border, it is like a shift in the energy patterns or something.
Well, I am glad that your overall experience was not a loss, but I am worried about how this has been internalized with you, as I know how such affects my partner. The greatest impact comes long after the event horizon.
"Well I hate to break it to you all, but many Jews are very prejudiced against blacks."
Jews (with the exception of a few Falashas from Ethiopia) are white and many white people are prejudiced against Black people - but I think that if you look at the history of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement and in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and the extent to which Jews tend to vote for Black candidates for public office in the US to a vastly greater extent than do any other segment of the white population - I think its fair to say that by and large the proportion of Jews who are prejudiced against Blacks is probably far, far lower than the proportion of WASPs who are prejudiced.
let me say something 1st of all when ever we talk about a group hope yall know that we dont mean all. I seen nuff mandem spark it about jews but also adress that der nuff proper ones. Think about it like this to sum1 who aint faced racism u know they can use a wide paintbrush. But when u have teh brush used on u everyday n u know it aint true u tend to not use it on others. When im sayin white ppl be like thsi yall know I dont mean all u know. Same here the view in the hood being also like sum1 said of owning the businesses as well ppl see major bankers being jewish, the israel tip, n also remember that a lot of brothas are in teh Nation. So with that comes u know the tip about a lot of jewish tingz being copied from Kemet and being changed and claimed as their own which is why a lot of concious ppl got a beef with that n I do too. If ur proper but ur jewish n u were talkin to Rev Wright he wouldnt be tryna body u if u good he good ill bet money on that.
You gotta realize the difference in which different groups talk about race, racial issues n just shit in general. It difference cultures remember that and culture is shared meaning in essence am I right? So if u dont share his meaning ull take it different then the audience he usually preaches too which is blacc ppl. Understand? U can say it anti-semetic right, but I dont know bare tingz about wright but if he just a regular brotha who a preacher then the MSM that feeds that zionism = jews he aint gonna know better and on top of that read the 1st line of this paragraph. Ur taking it out of context because take it in from a blacc point of view.
RP, I agree with the spirit of your whole post, and I think that's exactly what the MSM and some posters here have done with Rev. Wright's remark.
But ignorance and little mistakes can do lots of damage. He could limit the damage by apologizing, sincerely, and I think he did that. The ignorance has to be identified and fought also, because it doesn't really help the struggle. It helps the enemy.
I haven't seen any apology by Wright. All he said was "oops! Did I say "jews", sorry I meant to say "zionists" silly me".
Not much of an apology.
exactly he needs to realize that he in the public eye so u know unfortunately he has to get caught up in politriccs n this what it all about it bs as fucc but u know thats how they operate and thats how they tricc ppl there a reason they swear the whole truth and nothing but the truth too bad they dont follow it
edit- Agen a huge reason shit operates this way is beacuse capitalism is profit driven and profit is above everything even the truth. Remember that I seen a saying that was like n it true democracy and capitalism are not compatible.
I haven't seen any apology by Wright. All he said was "oops! Did I say "jews", sorry I meant to say "zionists" silly me".
Not much of an apology.
I'm a Jew and an anti-Zionist. It was clear from his context all along that he was targeting Zionists and not Jews. Once he retracted and corrected his comment, I was, and am, very pleased.
When Obama threw Wright under the bus, I sided with Wright. I'm pleased to see that I made the right choice.
also wanna say about the obama thing. His general tip has been to subtly say that racism doesnt exist not only to appeal to white voters but to get past the fact that if he didnt a lot of white ppl would be like he less qualified n got in on AA or some shit lol(stupidest shit I ever heard btw lol) he a sellout str8 n simple.
Which angle u wanna take? Race? AFRICOM nuff said. Class? Bailouts Nuff Said. Promises? All his policies nuff said Same as Bush? Well I still see the Patriot Act, and Homegrown terrorism Act of 2007 aint been dismantled so I guess I can still be put in for life if a cop says im a terrorist so there u go. Want me to keep going?
I haven't seen any apology by Wright. All he said was "oops! Did I say "jews", sorry I meant to say "zionists" silly me".
Not much of an apology.
I share your first sentence, but you're wrong about Wright. Even if I were to accept your belief that he was "targeting Zionists," which I don't, it is a canard to say that Zionists prevent Obama from dealing with him. As I said in numerous posts above, it was the right-wing talk show hosts that were most exorcised by Wright for his supposed "anti-American" statements. Zionists were an insignificant factor in the controversy. Therefore, Wright was engaged in a pure scapegoating. Of Jews.
I don't think the comment is defensible. So, I am not going to bother.
Mee neither, but I respect Josh and this is a topic that can get out of hand.
Stock, I think it is true that what you said about the history of Jewish people involved in anti-racism. That's why the greatest thinkers and philosophers I respect are and have bee Jewish. I just don't share the views in the rest of your post.
On thing I do have to say though is that there certainly is a movement afoot in that Zionists certainly do have a say in the course America is taking towards Israel and the Middle East. It's not just the Zionists, but the Xian right. To me, that is a huge problem. When a foreign country is practicing genocide, we have to stand up to that. Too bad most of your posts don't really touch on that.
Thought I'd revive this thread - in which some babblers were still hoping that Obama represented something positive - in light of the passage of time and particularly this recent interview with Rev. Wright by Chris Hedges - I'm just quoting an excerpt:
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright recalls Obama's fall from grace
“And for him to have been a community organizer in one of the poorest communities in the city, Altgeld Gardens housing project, and now to be painted into a corner where he can’t address health care for the poor,” Wright said. “He took the public option off the table. What happened? What happened is politics happened.”
“King would be saying to us the same thing today he was saying in 1967 and 1968,” Wright said. “He would be condemning our nation’s utter disregard for the poor. A strong nation cares about all of its citizens regardless of their color or their race or their religious beliefs. Malcolm, once he broke with the Nation of Islam, and found that God, or Allah, really does have children that don’t look like you, would be appalled by our buying into a military option as a way to peace, as a way to finding common ground. The military option is not an option. King and Malcolm would agree with that.”
“I was walking through the airport a few weeks ago,” Wright said. “I saw on the cover, I think, of Time Magazine, Osama bin Laden’s picture. The caption on the cover said ‘Justice.’ I said, ‘How about murder? It was an assassin’s hit.’ What really bothered me as I read more about it was that Barack and Hillary [Clinton] and the war folk were sitting in the war room watching the hit. There were cameras in the field. It was a hit, two right above the eyebrow. Why, why, why did you murder that man? We have international courts. We have trials like the Nuremberg trials. Why did you murder him? Why not put him on trial? And I sat up in the middle of the night, about 10 days later, with the answer. I said, because you didn’t want him to talk. If he starts talking on the stand everything comes unraveled. We will have to look at the Cheney war machine. A trial would rip to shreds the lies we have been telling ourselves and our American public. We can’t afford that, so we murder him. We murder him and call it justice. That one really hurt. I said to myself, this is the Barack you once knew who cared enough about humankind to work in Altgeld Gardens with the poor, to not run against an African-American female, who now calls for a professional Navy SEAL assassination, a hit, and watches it. It’s like that story you heard your dad preach and you know from seminary in Acts, where the demons said to the seven sons of Sceva, Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you? Who have you become?”
He says some wonderful profound inciteful lyrical things. Post 77.
Too bad he says despicable ones. Post 1