Wright & Obama: when does "angry" become "hateful"?

[likearock 2]

One of the things that struck me about his speech were the words Obama used to characterize the most inflammatory of Wright's statements. He called them controversial and divisive, and also spoke of the anger that was behind them. He did not call them hateful, however. This was somewhat conspicuous since he did talk about the "hateful ideologies of radical Islam" in the same speech.

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

When we hear angry white people railing against blacks, we seem to have no problem in recognizing the hatred behind it. Do we have a double standard when it's the other way around?

For those who argue this is just semantics, I disagree. American culture and its underlying psychology make significant distinctions based on the presence or absence of hatred. Hate crimes have stricter punishments than equivalent crimes committed without hatred. It's a lot easier to sympathize with someone who's angry than with someone who's consumed with hate.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

When we hear angry white people railing against blacks, we seem to have no problem in recognizing the hatred behind it. Do we have a double standard when it's the other way around?

When we hear angry white Republican Evangelicals railing against America (in terms of allowing rights to homos) & saying it caused 9/11 & Hurricane Katrina, some of the Republicans are all for it.

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

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

When we hear angry white people railing against blacks, we seem to have no problem in recognizing the hatred behind it. Do we have a double standard when it's the other way around?

When we hear angry white Republican Evangelicals railing against America (in terms of allowing rights to homos) & saying it caused 9/11 & Hurricane Katrina, some of the Republicans are all for it.

Take republican out of your statement and you have it nailed.

Politics are a sideshow compared to hatred and religous intolerance.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

When we hear angry white people railing against blacks, we seem to have no problem in recognizing the hatred behind it. Do we have a double standard when it's the other way around?

When we hear angry white Republican Evangelicals railing against America (in terms of allowing rights to homos) & saying it caused 9/11 & Hurricane Katrina, some of the Republicans are all for it.

It sounds like you're saying that the above represents speech that is hateful. But, in spite of the fact that the substance of this thread is about hate, you don't even mention the word. Why is that?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

when does "angry" become "hateful"?

About the time it fully dawns on you how sick you've become of your in-laws' shit.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

when does "angry" become "hateful"?

Usually about the 3rd or 4th post in a Speakers Corner Thread. Sometimes sooner.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

IMHO

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

Freedom of speech is for everyone when you take actions and do harmful things to another that is when we have issues. No matter what Rev. Wright has said I do not believe he has committed any atrocities against white people.

Quote

When we hear angry white people railing against blacks, we seem to have no problem in recognizing the hatred behind it. Do we have a double standard when it's the other way around?

We have a double standard about every thing in this country.


History has a lot to do with it. In Germany if a school kid speaks ill of the Jewish faith it is punished much more severely then if the same words were spoken about the Christian faith. Reason the holocaust. Germans have a bad history of committing crimes and atrocities against people of the Jewish faith (actually many others as well). Same thing in the US there are people still alive who were told to get in the back of the bus they’re not even that old. Add that to the obvious slavery and all the horrors committed against the Black man and woman in this country I believe you can at least try to understand why there seems to be a double standard.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

Quote

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

We have a double standard about every thing in this country.

I submit to you that there have been more whites in this country that have suffered the fates you have mentioned, than there have been blacks who suffered those fates.

• Quote

[PLFXpert 0]

When one enjoys inflicting torment.

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

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

Quote

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

We have a double standard about every thing in this country.

I submit to you that there have been more whites in this country that have suffered the fates you have mentioned, than there have been blacks who suffered those fates.

Solely because they were white, with no underlying or contributing causes, at the hands of another race?

• Quote

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

IMHO

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

Okay, then. There's something in those segments that leads you to say they are hateful. What exactly is it? It's not enough to point to the motivations behind it, the lynchings and all the other past cruelty. Not every black person reacts to those circumstances the same way. Some will react with anger and hate. Some will react with anger but not with hate. MLK, Obama, and several others showed us yet another way to react.

Quote

Freedom of speech is for everyone when you take actions and do harmful things to another that is when we have issues. No matter what Rev. Wright has said I do not believe he has committed any atrocities against white people.

Of course, he personally has not committed atrocities. Many white preachers who preach hatefully also have not personally committed atrocities but it doesn't make their speeches any less hateful.

In any case, the measure of whether something is "hate speech" does not require that the speaker himself has acted upon it. The fact that it can inspire others to act violently is perhaps what makes it hateful.

For someone like Obama, who promises us so much in terms of healing the racial divide, shouldn't he be very clear about calling out hate speech no matter how justifiable its origins? I think his recent speech was a good start, but he kind of pulled his punches when he dismissed Wright's inflamatory sermons as merely "divisive". If they were hateful, they should be labeled as such.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

but they kill other black so they should be 9 times more pissed at other blacks

Quote

Destruction in black America is self-inflicted
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | September 5, 2007

DEBATING capital punishment at an Ivy League university a few years ago, I was confronted with the claim that since death sentences are more often meted out in cases where the victim is white, the death penalty must be racially biased. It's a spurious argument, I replied. Whites commit fewer than half of all murders in the United States, yet more whites than blacks are sentenced to death and more whites than blacks are executed each year. If there is racial bias in the system, it clearly isn't in favor of whites.

But if you choose to focus on the race of victims, I added, remember that nearly all black homicide is intraracial - more than nine out of 10 black murder victims in the United States are killed by black murderers. So applying the death penalty in more cases where the victim is black would mean sending more black men to death row.

After the debate, a young black woman accosted me indignantly. Ninety-plus percent of black blood is shed by black hands? What about all the victims of white supremacists? Hadn't I heard of lynching? Hadn't I heard of James Byrd, who died so horribly in Jasper, Texas? When I assured her that Byrd's murder by whites was utterly untypical of most black homicide, she was dubious.

I thought of that young woman when I read recently about James Ford Seale, the former Mississippi Klansman sentenced last month to three life terms in prison for his role in murdering two black teenagers 43 years ago. The killing of Charles Moore and Henry Dee in 1964 was one of several unsolved civil-rights-era crimes that prosecutors in the South have reopened in recent years. Seale's trial was a vivid reminder of the days when racial contempt was a deadly fact of life in much of the country. His sentence proclaims even more vividly the transformation of America since then. White racism, once such a murderous force, is now associated mostly with feeble has-beens.

Yet many Americans, like the woman at my debate, still seem to view racial questions through an antediluvian haze. To them, white bigotry remains a clear and present danger, and the reason so many black Americans die before their time.

But the data aren't in dispute. Though outrage over "racism" is ever fashionable, African-Americans have long had far less to fear from the violence of racist whites than from the mayhem of the black underclass.

"Do you realize that the leading killer of young black males is young black males?" asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan 16 years ago. "As a black man and a father of three, this really shakes me to the core of my being."

From Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights movement, came a similar cry of anguish. "Nothing in the long history of blacks in America," he lamented in 1994, "suggests the terrible destruction blacks are visiting upon each other today."

Happily, crime rates have declined from their 1990s peak. But it remains that the worst destruction in black America is self-inflicted.

In a new study, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms once again that almost half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, and 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by someone of their own race. (For white homicide victims, the figure is 85 percent.) In other words, of the estimated 8,000 African-Americans murdered in 2005, more than 7,400 were cut down by other African-Americans. Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, the BJS reports, they are six times more likely than whites to be victimized by homicide -- and seven times more likely to commit homicide.

Such huge disproportions don't just happen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned 40 years ago that the collapse of black family life would mean rising chaos and crime in the black community. Today, as many as 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. And as reams of research confirm, children raised without married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.

High rates of black violent crime are a national tragedy, but it is the law-abiding black majority that suffers from them most. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," Jesse Jackson said in 1993, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps . . . then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

It isn't an insoluble problem. Americans overcame white racism; they can overcome black crime. But the first step, as always, is to face the facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/05/destruction_in_black_america_is_self_inflicted/

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So my question is simple: when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?

Quote

I think there is hate, but considering many African Americans have been lynched, killed, segregated and raped believe they have something to be pissed at.

We have a double standard about every thing in this country.

I submit to you that there have been more whites in this country that have suffered the fates you have mentioned, than there have been blacks who suffered those fates.

Solely because they were white, with no underlying or contributing causes, at the hands of another race?

Hey quit paying attention to causation will ya?

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Yet many Americans, like the woman at my debate, still seem to view racial questions through an antediluvian haze. To them, white bigotry remains a clear and present danger, and the reason so many black Americans die before their time.

That's because people like Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson continually take the spotlight as their cultural leaders. They capitalize politically and financially on the hate and division, and the media loves it - because bad news sells. And Obama, unfortunately, is either of the same mold, or didn't have the balls to rebuke his "pastor". If folks like Bill Cosby, Herman Cain, Condoleeza Rice and Alan Keyes - could get more of the spotlight, I believe they could make a difference. But you know what they get called when they talk about personal responsibility and family values.

I put "pastor" in quotes for a reason. I've never heard any man of the cloth use such reprehensible speech. In my opinion he is merely a hateful megalomaniac dressed as a preacher. And for Obama to deny knowledge of that is ludicrous.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I've never heard any man of the cloth use such reprehensible speech.

Then you've never heard of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or maybe you think we never have.

But in any event, this is such a non-issue. I can't imagine that many people will choose to not vote for Obama because they think his church's pastor is a dick.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I've never heard any man of the cloth use such reprehensible speech.

Then you've never heard of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or maybe you think we never have.

But in any event, this is such a non-issue. I can't imagine that many people will choose to not vote for Obama because they think his church's pastor is a dick.

I do not give much to polls but, recent polls do NOT support your assurtion. right or wrong.

On another note, he threw his grandmother under the bus for a political situation. His grandmother for christ sakes. For something she (maybe) said in private. Called her typical white folk.

Can you even begin to fathom the fall out should McCail udder "typical black folk"?

In the end, Obama is a politiion. No better no worse than any of the others. So, one looks at the positions and votes. He in no hero or savior. No matter what the drooling left thinks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Then you've never heard of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or maybe you think we never have.

But in any event, this is such a non-issue. I can't imagine that many people will choose to not vote for Obama because they think his church's pastor is a dick.

I don't listen to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, so like I said, I've never heard a man of the cloth speak like that to his congregation. And it IS an issue. Either Obama condones and participates in the politics of division, or he doesn't have the balls to stand up to it. Either way, I don't want him in the oval office.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I can't imagine that many people will choose to not vote for Obama because they think his church's pastor is a dick.

They won't vote for him because he's been buying into that dick for 20 years.

Can you imagine the difference between how you and I are summarizing the situation?

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Called her typical white folk.

Usually, people who engage in such stereotypical speech are labeled bigots. What gives?

Where is the rabid outcry from the left? Could they be . . . hypocrites?

. . =(_8^(1)

[azdiver 0]

its not that hes a dick, its that Obama goes out and touts the we need change, and then he turns around and follows the thinking of this race mongering, America hating pastor, ive been to alot of different churches all over the us and have never heard a pastor say God damn America, or say anything degrading of another Race or Religion. If i were ever to be in church and here a Pastor do so I would not sit their and listen to, and would not be returning(and would probably not be welcomed back as i would not hesitate to voice my disapproval)

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Then you've never heard of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or maybe you think we never have.

But in any event, this is such a non-issue. I can't imagine that many people will choose to not vote for Obama because they think his church's pastor is a dick.

I don't listen to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, so like I said, I've never heard a man of the cloth speak like that to his congregation. And it IS an issue. Either Obama condones and participates in the politics of division, or he doesn't have the balls to stand up to it. Either way, I don't want him in the oval office.

Since we haven't heard McCain denounce Hagee yet either, I guess that means you'll be voting for Hillary Clinton.

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

[Lindsey 0]

when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?


I still don't know what he said. Haven't heard it or read it, so I can't give my thoughts on his particular statements. But I do have thoughts about anger and hatred. Anger is what you feel. Anger is yours, while hatred involves a very intense anger with a particular target, someone to whom you'd wish harm.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Since we haven't heard McCain denounce Hagee yet either, I guess that means you'll be voting for Hillary Clinton.

I don't see the equivalency. Hagee endorsed McCain for his pro Israel and pro life stance. McCain has accepted, but emphasized he doesn't agree with all that Hagee stands for. I hope he will specify, he may have already. unlike Obama, McCain's statement is credible -he hasn't supported Hagee with money and church attendance for 20 years.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[likearock 2]

Quote

when do statements like those of Wright go beyond being angry and become hateful? Were they in fact hateful?


I still don't know what he said. Haven't heard it or read it, so I can't give my thoughts on his particular statements. But I do have thoughts about anger and hatred. Anger is what you feel. Anger is yours, while hatred involves a very intense anger with a particular target, someone to whom you'd wish harm.

But doesn't hatred often manifest itself towards groups of people, rather than just an individual? Certainly, the "hate crimes" legislation I've seen is geared towards hatred that may be directed against others who have done you no harm and who only earn your hatred by virtue of their ethnicity or religion. That seems to be a major part of what people react to in Wright's sermons. Is there a psychological distinction between hating an individual and hating an entire group?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Since we haven't heard McCain denounce Hagee yet either, I guess that means you'll be voting for Hillary Clinton.

I don't see the equivalency. Hagee endorsed McCain for his pro Israel and pro life stance. McCain McCain actively sohas accepted, but emphasized he doesn't agree with all that Hagee stands for. I hope he will specify, he may have already. unlike Obama, McCain's statement is credible -he hasn't supported Hagee with money and church attendance for 20 years.

perhaps it didn't date back 20 years, but Mccain actively sought out Hagee's endorsement. Hagee is an apocalyptic theo-fascist with Armagededdon fantasies. Wright is a prick, but Hagee is much more dangerous.

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