Would anyone with enough clout and authority tell Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut up! He gave another speech in which he emphasized differences between the black and white worlds completely ignoring the continuing damage he is doing to Senator Obama. I understand that the Reverend has every right to speak out on the very real issues of racial justice and the continuing inequality and racism that pervades the American society, but can he think strategically and not flame further controversies that the race-insensitive right (and Clinton) will exploit to damage Obama? Of course, he can. But he doesn't want to, because the Reverend, like many other Reverends (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Billy Graham, etc) are so used to being the supposed spokesmen for their causes that they cannot handle the spotlight shining on someone like Obama, even if it is for the moment. Let's remember the lukewarm support Jesse Jackson expressed for the Obama candidacy when it looked like he had no chance of winning, but he quickly corrected himself and jumped on the Obama bandwagon, but still without much enthusiasm.
Reverend Wright fully understands the potential remarkable change that Obama's presidency could bring to the country, and its racial relations, but he doesn't seem to care. I think that generational envy a lot of these leaders feel towards Obama's appeal across generations and races plays a large part in their utter indifference to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Actually in any normal and healthy society it would not matter what this guy is saying, because people would not be stupidly tying it to Obama.
That's like saying that every student that teacher George (who later turned out to be a serial killer lets say) ever taught was as bad as George.
By that logic, every person that reverend Wright ever spoke to is bad person.
In a society that uses common sense, this kind of "news" would be laughable.
This is related to why I think "liberation theology" of any stripe is an absolute crock of shit. A phrase that conservatives probably found least objectionable from Wright ("I'm so glad to know there is a God who knows what its like to be a poor black man") I found particularly revealing. Its as if he had to create a God in order to psychologically cope with his own very real alienation as a black man living in America. Its a classic example of "ressentiment" in the Nietzschean sense, in which one rationalizes that their suffering as member of a collective somehow brings them closer to God or promises them some moment of transcendence. Of course, anyone who is intellectually honest can recognize theat Wright's God is nothing more than a comforting fiction, a psychological defense mechanism, but its not easy for a lot of people on the left to admit that.
I think the distance between Obama and someone like Jackson is due to the fact that unlike Jackson, Obama is actually running is national candidate, addressing national issues, not simply focusing on the political empowerment of a peripheral group to which he belongs.
What you imagine as a positive attribute, the fact that he appeals to a lot of different races and socioeconomic groups, to some actually denotes a separation from the black American narrative and experience. The attack normally raised by the Right that he is "too optomistic" could just as easily come from someone who believes his candidacy to be niavely ignoring the struggle of the black community. Now this isn't the interpretation that I believe, but I think its the logic of those who said that Obama wasn't "black enough."
wishing that wright would shut up or disappear or otherwise disassociate from obama's campaign is the same as admonishing obama for having any associations with wright, isn't it? wright had an interesting question and answer session that I thought was in keeping with his faith and dedication to his congregation. I think it was a gesture toward that faith base which has been criticized and raked over the coals since this whole thing began rather than a political move on behalf of obama.
but even if he was trying to make things better for obama, the 'damage' he's doing is only a reflection of the high level of racism in america. a few weeks ago we were talking about having a discussion about race in america, but wright is not invited to participate because.... he'll prevent a black man from becoming president? I daresay he won't be doing it alone.
and what is this generational envy thing you're talking about? who is "someone like obama?" do black activists have an obligation to support a black candidate?
Ashley: I agree that the Reverend has every right to participate in the very important conversation(s) that we need to have in this country on race, and that Obama talked about in his speech in Philadelphia, but if you look at the content of Reverend's remarks, you can tell that he is purposefully undermining Obama. He stood in front of the media and made jokes, and mocked the regional accents of Lyndon Johnson and J.F.K. with the latter mocking being a deliberate mocking of "Obama as a JFK" metaphor. In his interview with Moyers, he claimed that if Obama becomes president, he will be knocking on the White House door, once again trying to underline not only his supposed (and fictional in my mind) closeness to Obama, but his potential influence on policy! This, in my mind, is a deliberate, cynical, and megalomanically selfish attempt to somehow punish Obama for distancing himself from the Reverend's remarks (regardless of the fact that Obama did it in a very gentle and respectful manner).
Bob Herbert, one of my favorite columnists in the Times, writes this morning about Reverend's "narcisistic" minute of fame: "The question that cries out for an answer from Mr. Wright is why — if he is so passionately committed to liberating and empowering blacks — does he seem so insistent on wrecking the campaign of the only African-American ever to have had a legitimate shot at the presidency."
And this quote brings me to your second question, if the civil rights generation of leaders have an obligation to support "a black candidate." Absolutely not. If someone like Alan Keyes was running, then no. But, in case Obama, absolutely they have an obligation. But Reverend Wright does not seem to care.
And I think James' point on ressentiment is excellent. It is also this feeling of ressentiment that makes Wright believe he is speaking on behalf of the "African American Church," making it into this monoloithic, homogenous entity, claiming it as a protective shield against any legitimate criticism that might be directed against him and not the African-American community. This, also, is a cynical and highly destructive way of politicizing race for your own ego. This behavior, coupled with his insistence on echoing the myth that the government has spread HIV to infect the black population, have caused me to lose any respect I had for the opinions of Reverend Wright.
Just a short p.s: the comment that you see as "deleted" was my comment, but it was full of errors and I didn't know how to edit it, so I just deleted it.
I just didn't want people to think I was censoring debate on my blog.
I think Pug's comments about liberation theology are unfair in so far as that movement was a significant one in addressing the centuries of disparity in Latin American nations, such as El Salvador, where the mainline Catholic Church had been supportive of the atrocities committed against ethnic majorities by the white minorities. So, let's not confuse the rantings of an angry reverend with the realities of liberation theology in general.
That said, I'm not surprised this has happened. I don't think it would have mattered if Obama had been harsh or gentle; at the end of the day, someone as angry as reverend Wright was going to become a figure in this campaign. That he has done so at an important moment where Obama's campaign seems to have hit some fatigue and Clinton remains around is certainly unfortunate...but also a symptom of something I've worried about for a long time--that 'electability' would appear in the format of who is least damaged by the end of the Democratic campaign season. And honestly, it wouldn't matter if Obama was the only candidate; McCain's cronies would be harping about race all over the place. And in a nation primed by Lou Dobb's xenophobia and the Minute Men's policing of the American way, in a nation in which English-speaking is associated with whiteness, and minorities are continually othered, evenly an audaciously hopeful person can be stymied.
Obama must shift the frames and not react but proact. In a time of soundbites, his intelligence and ability to deal complexly with issues, such as his relationship to the Reverend, may be his undoing, as they are not able to be marketed to a public already weary of the campaign and one that is increasingly being told that Obama is a 'black' candidate. It should not matter. But, it seems, it does.
Ryan,
You know much more about Latin America than I do, but my problem with LT is as follows:
Liberation theology may have made people more conscious of their relationship to the world, but my it does so through a paradigm that is, in my opinion, a transparent metanarrative and politically conveniant contrivance. In the _Antichrist_ and elsewhere Nietzsche attacks both Christianity and socialism for the same philosophical crime, that is ressentiment (not to be confused with mere resentment, thoughit cannot be seperated from it) in which one's suffering is rationalized, one's entire being reduced to an essence - "being closer to God," a part of a chosen people, or a revolutionary class - according to the respective narratives of Christianity of socialism. Not only is being externalized and essentialized into a collective, the flock, the proletariat, the herd, but one's own meaning is displaced into some moment never to be realized - the Day of Judgement, the Revolution - instead of placing meaning in the here and now, where it belongs. One may accept the narrative of a given religion or political ideology "to make sense" of their suffering, to give their existence meaning; but ultimatley this narrative, as comforting as it may be, requires one to sacrifice herself as HER OWN MEANING, since it requires her to belong to the flock, the nation, or social class.
Needless to say, liberation theology combines both the pathology of religion and political ideology.
Also, I tend to associate liberation theology with arrogant, cynical leftists that hold the attitude "well, these black/brown folks love their hand clapping and gospel music, so lets give 'em what they want." In other words, as long as they're politically conscious, let them have their world of bread and circuses, to use a phrase from a Christian writer that I deeply admire.
On a related note, I'm getting tired of how liberals and conservatives, blacks and whites, argue of the legacy of Jesus Christ, each group claiming him as their own. This bothers me because in the end it ends up establishing Christianity as the norm and the moral standard from which everyone else deviates. This ensures that we can never escape the incredibly limiting, insidious effects religion has on our society. Whether or not Jesus was on my side politically or not is of no concern to me since I don't think Christian values are particularly helpful.
I think that Obama has done enough and should just move on with his message and his campaign. As forcefully as he has done it before, and if he fails to win the presidency that says much more about this country than about him.
Then, this country really does not deserve him!
The more I look into what's being said about this topic, or about Obama's candidacy in general, the more I am reminded that hatred and fear are the storngest motivating factors behind the American vote. NYTimes articles and analysis aside, the prevailing discourse is rife with assumptions based on fear and anger, to the point that a fellow Democrat (i.e., not a frothing conservative) is quoted as saying, "I don't even think he's American" about Obama (from a washington post op-ed basically about how much the author hates obama). Comments on op-eds from any news source or blog show stubbornness and hostility, misinformation and righteousness on the part of the voting public. Even in this blog we're angry- I mean, I'm talking about showing my ass to Clinton. We're afraid- we want Wright damage control, we want the safety of thinking that maybe, one day, everyone will become enlightened and start thinking critically about identity, participation in the national project, the security of that project, and the possibility that "strandedness" can become a viable group to listen to so that the persistence of black and white constructs don't mire us in the past.
I have no idea what my point is.
Post a Comment