Is Obama hurting the Democratic Party by not joining forces with Hilla

[kandrathe]

The full quote is: "Black men turning on black men- That is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat." The enemy is the oppressive society, not Whitey. It's the same target he's always had: institutional racism, no surprises there.

Hmmm, oppressive society. Who is the oppressive society? Who is the oppressor, and how are they oppressing?

Turn it around, and the quote is nonsensical; you don't hear about appalling levels of white-on-white violence, and nobody worries that the neighborhood they moved into is "too white" and therefore too violent.

I wouldn't move into a neighborhood run by Hammerskins or Aryan Nation. So, yes, a neighborhood can be "too white" and too violent for my taste.

Okay. So, what if tomorrow, incensed by your words, someone went out and killed Jeremiah Wright.

I haven't called Wright an enemy, and I'm clearly not calling anyone to any action. You're the only person who seemingly can decipher the vague allusions of Cone, but can't grasp the connection between the bigotry of one group and another.

Would that then be your fault? Of course not. Wright's church has dozens of clear, nonviolent, social activist ways in which one can change the government, or society directly. Obviously, democracy and the support for Obama is one of them, but there are other, less political ways, through church charity. What he's saying *could* be interpreted as a reason for violence, but the same was true of MLK, of Gandhi, of anyone; it could theoretically be true of what you've said here, without even having to twist your words beyond their obvious meaning.

Yup, I call that Jestrification.

Does Wright not have the right to speak out against these things?

Certainly, as does David Duke. And, those of us who are offended by bigotry have the right to object.

Is that how you are construing my argument? That I am exclusively considering numerical superiority? This is about oppression, not statistics. South Africa never had a white majority, and yet a white elite imposed Apartheid. Are you asking us to believe that this did not matter because whites were never a numerical majority? What a silly argument. Forty-two white men have been president, with not even a woman among them, let alone a black person. This is not just a trivial matter of numbers. I also did not use the word "minority" at all, to avoid being interpreted as you just did.

Have you ever lived in a *crack* neighborhood, or ever been harassed by street thugs who view you as their prey? I have, and I know people who have. Have you ever been to South Africa, or known anyone whose relations were "necklaced" by a mob? I have, and I know people who have. I have good friends who were/are ANC, and also those who were on the police force. Have you ever hired, trained, or promoted any minority? I have. I work daily with people from all parts of this planet, and many who come from *real* oppression.

So again, I would ask what you mean by oppression, and who is doing it to them? I would ask you what you mean by power, and who is exerting it upon whom? You call me silly? I would say you don't have a clue.

However, I don't think you understand Dr. King, the radical implications of his message, not just of hope, but also in condemnation of injustice.

No, I understand it. :-) Thanks for checking.

Personally, I view injustice and slavery in a broader context that transcends race. Slavery is the ultimate denial of a person from decisions that mold their future, but also the fruits of their labor. In my view, this is what your world view of socialism is doing to us all. I see your movement as giving government more control over the running of my life, and taking more and more of the fruits of my labor from me and through deficit spending enslaving my children. Jester, you and your socialist friends are enslaving us all.