Racism & Obama's Speech on March 18th, 2008

[Royd 0]

I'm not saying racism does not exist. I am saying that refusal to let go of the resentment does not truly free them from the shackles that they would be free of until they do so.

Quote

Take a page from Bill Cosby.

Or Condi Rice, or Collen Powell, or Shelby Steele, or.......

But they just aren't being black enough.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Brave and Elegant, or Arrogant?

They're not mutually exclusive. I didn't personally get an "arrogant" impression of Obama in this speech, but certainly it was a brave speech, he spoke elegantly and he could also be arrogant--I just don't think he was being arrogant here.

Quote

I ask these questions and provoke these thoughts in order to make people think, think about whether or not they can believe what they are being told,

Do not confuse, "I don't think he came across as arrogant", with "I'm taking his word as gospel and believe all I'm told."

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

One thing I found cool about that speech is that Obama did _not_ take the easy way out. He didn't say "I disown this guy." He stood by the man even as he condemned his words. Christians often call this "hate the sin, love the sinner." It's hard to do sometimes.

I believe it was the easier route. Had Obama "disowned" Wright no-one would have bought it given his history with the man. Standing by Wright as Obama condemned Wright's words was the only thing Obama could do to stand a chance of putting this to rest.

Agree to disagree there. For me, had Obama gone the "easy way"--as you put it--I'd be far less likely to buy anything else he said.



I don't think it was smart to use the term "disown", however, nor the supporting analogy.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I'm not saying racism does not exist. I am saying that refusal to let go of the resentment does not truly free them from the shackles that they would be free of until they do so.

These words bear repeating.

Take "racism" out of the above and this statement applies to anything and everything anyone harbors resentment for.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

People just don't attend a church for 20 years while at the same time rejecting the pastor's views. Obama's oh-so-elegant speech failed to account for this fundamental conflict of interest.

And therein lies the rub. Excellent speech on racism. Not-so-great response to his relationship with Wright. There was little more than a paragraph or two of a nine-page speech about his relationship with Wright. And it was a really bad paragraph at that.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[idrankwhat 0]

I thought it was an excellent speech, Lawrocket pretty much nailed my sentiments in his first post. I had to sit on it and re-visit the speech this morning because I thought that my views might have been tainted by the stark oratory contrast between Obama and Bush.
He needed to clarify some (non) issues that were dominating the media and I thought he did so courageously, eloquently and thoroughly.
Unfortunately the content of the speech will likely be reduced to sound bites and the national discourse will follow the lowest common denominator instead of debating the issues that Obama raised.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

There was little more than a paragraph or two of a nine-page speech about his relationship with Wright. And it was a really bad paragraph at that.

That's because it's impossible to write a "good" paragraph on it.

Imagine Obama knew nothing of Wright's aids or 9/11 type commentary, although imagining it is a very difficult task since that wouldv'e been THE talk of the church for a long time.

But imagine it's possible. We're still left with a candidate who obviously subscribes to the whole "black church" mentality, which disturbs me just as much as a candidate with a "white church" mentality would. We need candidates with broader world views than one who sits in a church with that much focus on one race's issues. Obama ain't that candidate in my mind.

Obama has been revealed as a man who subscribes to racism of one flavor or another, and he's lost my confidence.

Looks like Ingrid Newkirk gets my write-in vote yet again.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Butters 0]

F**k Whitey!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Gato 0]

Quote

And therein lies the rub. Excellent speech on racism. Not-so-great response to his relationship with Wright. There was little more than a paragraph or two of a nine-page speech about his relationship with Wright. And it was a really bad paragraph at that.

If you have the time (37 minutes), it's worth sitting through the actual speech. MSNBC has it on their website in its entirety. I think it's worth pointing out that it's a speech, not an essay, and as such, it needs to be heard in context from the man.

I personally don't believe anyone believes every single word coming out of a preacher/priest during a 20 year attendance. As Obama said, sometimes the unspoken finds a voice in church, in the barber shop, in the beauty shop.

If he spent more time talking about Wright, he would have taken away from what the real problems actually are - and as much as we all know how racially divided this country is, I think it's pretty ballsy of him (Obama) to stand up and say what a lot of us have been afraid of expressing out loud.

You want to know what's really amazing? Check out Hillary's speech right after. She begins by saying "I haven't heard or read Senator Obama's speech, but I'm glad he made it...."
A bit condescending and disrespectful, in my opinion, and certainly unnecessary.

T.I.N.S.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

He is a masterful orator, but he can't mezmerize all of us. The content of his speech - as well as the content of his character - is lacking.

You nailed that right on the head!

People keep talking about how impressive he is, whata masterful speaker he is, how he has plans for change etc.

What they do not seem to want to ponder is exactly what the message is, if it is or has been consistant, and what CHANGES is he planning on making?

[Gato 0]

Quote

What they do not seem to want to ponder is exactly what the message is, if it is or has been consistant, and what CHANGES is he planning on making?

If only some of us had asked those questions more thoroughly before the last election......or two.

T.I.N.S.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

If you have the time (37 minutes), it's worth sitting through the actual speech. MSNBC has it on their website in its entirety. I think it's worth pointing out that it's a speech, not an essay, and as such, it needs to be heard in context from the man.

I refer you to my OP. The link I posted is MSNBC and also provides video.

I also mentioned I prefer transcripts, but believe it's best in combination with audio and/or video.

It seems you'd rather me have said "There was little more than four or five minutes of a 37-minute speech...". OK.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I am saying that refusal to let go of the resentment does not truly free them from the shackles that they would be free of until they do so.

It's mighty hard to let go of resentment when what it springs from is the institutionalization of whichever -ism is under discussion (racism, sexism, classism...). In an ideal world, every person would have the same opportunities regardless of their race, gender or class status. In the US today, those who aren't white males start at least a half step behind - due to cultural expectations, lower quality of education and lower quality or lack of medical care, amongst other things.

How do we know that racism/sexism is institutionalized in the US? Because it's such a big deal that one candidate for president is a woman (she's not the first one, after all) and another is black. It's still a big deal when a non-white male achieves great (non-Hollywood/music industry) success. The race or gender of a white male is never specifically mentioned when he achieves greatness. We'll know the playing field has been leveled when a person's gender, race or class are not specifically mentioned when they make it big.

Until then, expect that those who have to work harder to remain a half step behind will harbor at least some resentment against those who have it comparatively easy. And ya better watch out, cuz that resentment can translate into political action. Which, strangely enough, may have the effect of someday creating said level playing field.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What they do not seem to want to ponder is exactly what the message is, if it is or has been consistant, and what CHANGES is he planning on making?

We don't get to talk about that sort of stuff because some people seem to think that a few sound bites from his preacher are more important. And if it wasn't that it would be his middle name, or a lapel pin, or........probably his choice of toothpaste or something equally as imperative.

[Butters 0]

F**k Male Whitey!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Gato 0]

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I googled it when I got home from work last night, watched it, then I came here.

I know you prefer transcripts, and that's cool. I didn't mean to imply anything about you; I was trying to point out that his speech had power, in the same way JFK, Dr. King, and Roosevelt had power when they spoke. The written words of what the man said pale by comparison.

I maybe jumped a bit at the word "paragraph" because so much of what we end up hearing on the evening news is just that - a paragraph.

And so many of us are content to leave it at that, and do no follow-up, no research to see if anything we are told is actually true.

T.I.N.S.

[SpeedRacer 1]

The bottom line is: There is absolutely NOTHING Obama could do or say that would ever satisfy the hardcore Republicans, who are determined not to let a Democrat in the White House.

The Republicans love the fact that this Wright guy turned up, and they will milk it for all it's worth.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[warpedskydiver 0]

Some of us are not actually republicans by definition, or by testing.

Liberatarian might be more accurate.

[SpeedRacer 1]

True, and I didn't mean "everyone" here. I meant the hardcore Republicans.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Obama is a good public speaker with a refreshing message of change and hope for many people. But before people blindly follow him with his sermons of change, it would be nice to see exactly what his platform is. He still hasn't laid out the details.

But he is not alone. Neither Clinton nor McCain can spell out exactly what a vote for either one of them will mean. They are all politicians. They say things the lemmings want to hear. They are all scum. They are worse than lawyers (sorry Lawrocket). But one thing is for sure. Obama, Clinton or McCain will be better than the current moron who holds the job.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The bottom line is: There is absolutely NOTHING Obama could do or say that would ever satisfy the hardcore Republicans . . .

Or anyone else not suffering from severe a case of White Guilt.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Ya know.. with all the proclaimed Libertarians and independents around here you would think that no republican would ever have a chance at any office.. yet so many of them seem to always voice the FAUX NEWS/Republican Party line.

Want to know what the days topics on DIZZY DOT COM are going to be tomorrow... Listen to right wing hate radio today.. and you will have tomorrows talking points.. spot on.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Or anyone else not suffering from severe a case of White Guilt.

Bull fucking shit.
Acknowledging that racism is real is not the same as white guilt. Acknowledging that sexism is real is not the same as male guilt.

Looking inside one's self for signs of treating others according to category rather than individual reaction is a good thing; using tools to do so (e.g. "was that racist? Did I react base on their being a hardcore Christian?" or any other official US category) is also useful. None of them are the be-all and end-all.

But a blanket statement that anyone who follows Obama is suffering from white guilt is one of the most ludricrous things I've read recently. If nothing else, would that also apply to african-american people, or hispanic, or native american people? Or are you only talking to white people?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Butters 0]

Quote

Ya know.. with all the proclaimed Libertarians and independents around here you would think that no republican would ever have a chance at any office..

What do you claim to be and who did you recently vote for ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

But a blanket statement that anyone who follows Obama is suffering from white guilt is one of the most ludricrous things I've read recently.

I'm not intending to make such a statement. There are many more facets to the man, the campaign, and the race than just this issue, and I think he's a viable choice for many people out there -- just not me anymore. In fact, I'm all out of candidates now.

I'm just trying to write in my vote here that the speech failed to cool my basic fear: "Is Obama a racist?".

For me, sadly, the answer is yes. Guilty by assosciation, as much as McCain is with Hagee, as much as Hillary playing the gender cards.

My point is not that anyone who follows Obama has White Guilt. It's that anyone who can't see a severe problem with a candidate who subscribes to a church with such racist views DOES.

. . =(_8^(1)