03-27-2008, 03:46 AM
Quote:I'm actually not trying to prove anything, I'm asking questions about connections and wondering about the consequences of rhetoric.
You have made the following statements. They are assertions, not questions. In no particular order:
That Jeremiah Wright is a hate-monger, a bigot, and a purveyor of bigoted speech. He inspires and promotes a violent separatist world view whose goal is black supremacy. He has called for the destruction of the "white enemy." He would never mention the part of MLK's "I have a dream" that mentions equality.
These are the things you outright assert. With leading questions, you then connect him to murders, race riots, drive-by shootings, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and on and on. But we don't even have to bother with those. I'd be satisfied with a halfway decent example of the above statements. The unique quote you have given from Rev. Wright in this thread is mostly a critique of American foreign policy, and contains nothing about separatism, black supremacy, destruction of whites, etc...
Have you thought about the consequences of your rhetoric? Because here you are on a public forum accusing a man of being the black equivalent of the Klan, which is a very serious accusation indeed.
Quote:This same Rev. Wright whose diatribes if reversed in color would make us all cringe at their overt racism and bigotry...
They also would not make any sense if they were reversed in colour. Liberation Theology is explicitly about oppression and community, and if you just free-form flip oppressor with oppressed, then you wind up with nonsense. If you made the claim that, in the USA, black people held white people in slavery for hundreds of years, legally defined as inferior or non-human, that they were kept out of their churches, kept away from power and wealth, and made to feel inferior for the colour of their skin, then you wouldn't be racist so much as just wrong. Wright's statement (suitably reversed) that "No white man will ever be considered for president" is senseless in the face of forty-two consecutive pale males in the White House. (Sadly, there is still altogether too much truth in his statement about women, regardless of race.) These are not racist statements yearning for black supremacy. They are fire-and-brimstone critiques of existing racism.
Once again, I'd like to see some words. What has Wright said that is so objectionable when swapped by race? Can you provide any passage, any statement, sermon, or article which, when reversed white-to-black, is cringeworthily racist without being entirely nonsensical?
-Jester