toast

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/?hpid=topnews

One other point which has evolved out of the story that won't die: Wright will have a book out later this year. I would guess strongly that it would be around October if Obama gets the democratic ticket nomination (even in the unlikely VP slot). I can't see this having a happy ending for Obama. As far as Wright's apparent ideological perspectives, some critical thoughts are in order.

"repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities"

I believe this line of thinking goes back to the Tuskegee Experiment. That however dealt with syphilis and ended at least a decade prior to the AIDS epidemic, more likely much farther back still. If we're going to accuse a government conspiracy, it may make sense to be aware of what facts may be uncooperative for that conspiracy. AIDS for example initially afflicted homosexual men and specific blood disorders at phenomenally higher rates, not these racial minorities. It is only now with different cultural norms for sexual contact among racial minorities, notably blacks, that AIDS would be making it's 'intended target' suffer. Despite this, AIDS is roughly treatable and containable in HIV form and with simple precautions isn't very easily acquired. I would have to say that if the government wanted to use a virus to exterminate some race, it would be extraordinarily difficult to engineer one that would specifically target one race over another owing to the massive amounts of genetic cross-breeding that have occurred over thousands of years. This AIDS was invented by government to kill off (insert repressed minority) is pretty silly. The more prominent 'black' cultural theory dealing with drugs and the CIA has at least more credibility, but is still equally and fundamentally ignorant. Accordingly, the percentage of blacks who believe this line of rubbish is correspondingly low (10-15%), but the fact that a significant portion does believe it is alarming to say the least.

"had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American"

Two flaws here. First, the media doesn't have to 'say what you said', they're using your own DVD to 'say what you said'. IT'S YOUR WORDS, shut the hell up and stop pretending you're being misrepresenting. If anything, his rhetoric since then makes me believe that he was underrepresented by those statements, not misrepresented. Second, Obama distanced himself slowly and with incalculable timing, as befits a politician with little track record like himself. What he should have done, and what I had thought he tried to do, was explain what his own views are in relation to the inflammatory things Wright said in his sermons. Obama managed to point out in a very adult and sensible manner that racial tension exists, and that people do sensibly adopt very radical views in relation to this tension which cannot be easily dismissed or ignored (even though they should be). Most of Wright says doesn't stand up to determined scrutiny of facts, but as with most people committed to ideas, it's not like facts are going to get in the way of what he thinks is right. Sounds vaguely familiar to some other people in politics lately (both of the last two presidents for example).

"He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions" -- This may be, based on the rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that doesn't make it mainstream or tolerable. And besides this, very little of these systems of belief stand up to reality (much like any other system of religion actually, but we'll ignore that problem for a moment). It is difficult if not impossible to have a cogent series of arguments with people who are willing to discard factual assertions in the process of making their own points.

Which brings me to several more serious assertions. "He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color." -- This is in reference to Farrakhan. I'll ignore his defence of Farrakhan's anti-Semitic commentaries for a second and focus on this line of reasoning.
BLAMING PRESENT DAY WHITE AMERICANS FOR SLAVERY DOES NOT ADVANCE BLACKS AT ALL. None, zero, zilch, nil, nada. Obama said as much, Oprah has pointed this out. Cosby has, along with many others. We, or at least I, have done nothing which has enslaved anyone. I despise people equally, regardless of their racial heritage, and I likewise tolerate people regardless of it. Race matters not at all if I am making decisions about who I would associate with (intellect reigns supreme here), who I would prefer to work with (competence here), etc. Apparently it does matter to people like Rev Wright. This notion is unsurprisingly bigoted. The next problem with this line of reasoning is that it asserts that 1) slavery is a uniquely European-African problem. It is decidedly not. And 2) that white Europeans were not the people who came forth and decided to abolish slavery, in Africa (after they had already done so in Europe). It is ridiculous nonsense to blame people for a mistake they recognized and corrected themselves almost two centuries ago in some cases.
"Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot." -- So to continue in this line of reasoning, it is assumed that somehow a formal apology (along with some fiscal considerations) will somehow erase the social and economic differences between blacks and whites. Dubois would hardly have agreed, as he had stated over a century ago that if the central racism that deterred and caused some separations between races were to be cast out of existence, it would not result in instant equality at all. The culture must adapt, must grow and learn how to succeed. It is entirely possible that that culture cannot succeed in its present form and would need to adopt changes. At present black cultural leaders seem to be suggesting that it is white America's lack of 'acceptance' that holds blacks back. Most people can find some basis in this argument, but it really holds no water. There are elements of any heritage or cultural memories that are worth treasuring. Trying to presume that successes over a thousand years ago however must translate into success now is foolish. The world changes, cultures change, people change. Learn, adapt, move on. And stop waiting for an apology from people who haven't done anything to offend you themselves.

"He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua" -- I'm not as put off by this, mostly because it doesn't surprise me. People who don't like American capitalism tend to love communists (Chavez, Che, etc). I agree fundamentally that communist theory presents some advantages, but these advantages do not translate into the real world. People just aren't wired for intrinsic reward value systems yet. While capitalism has gaps and flaws, it does at least allow people to chase after things to sate that internal value system with tangible and accountable goods (until they wake up a realize what actually matters to them, which usually happens when they have enough money and stuff or they read too much Marx).


More on Farrakhan in a few.