Via commentor DW, at Sweetness & Light, who expresses my attitude about this entire Black Perpetual Victim Theology perfectly: New Pastor: Wright’s Sermons Are Art Form
“…but as a Black man in America i can still see that this country has a way to go and all this talk of get over it is just that talk.”
Doc, maybe it would be helpful if you could enlighten us as to precisely what it is you want.
Do you want money ? Is that it ? Do you want every white person in North America to open his or her wallet and fork over some cash and maybe apologize while we’re at it ?
Do you want us to just leave ?
Do you want affirmative action programs where black people will be given preference over whites ?
Do you want people to be better educated over the injustices of the past, like having, say, a black history month ?
Do you want programs specifically designed to help black people succeed, like a United Negro College Fund or something ?
Do you want a country where a little black kid can grow up to be an MD ?
“Paging Doctor Harris…”
Do you want a country where a black man can become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ?
“General Powell, the red phone…”
Is it helpful to have it so that when a vicious crime is committed by blacks against whites, like the Christian/Newsom murders or the Central Park jogger rape, that it is acceptable for the black community to say that “the bitch was asking for it” ?
Do you want it so that black rappers can spread a message of hate and violence and get rich doing it -at the expense of black youths ?
Enlighten us, Please – just what the hell do you WANT ???
You’re an educated man, and a not unreasonable one, I suspect, so explain to this poor, dumb, northern cracker how people like the Reverend Wright, or Al Sharpton are doing anything other than keeping the old animosities alive. Yes, there’s plenty of hard feelings to go around but I think people like those two want it that way. Name one black person that Sharpton’s stood up for that wasn’t a violent criminal asshole. Or, better yet, name one violent criminal asshole -who happened to be black- that Sharpton hasn’t stood up for ?
And that’s supposed to give the black cause (whatever the hell that is) legitimacy ?
Guess what -all it does is alienate and piss-off white people who would ordinarily be sympathetic to disadvantaged blacks. How does that help anyone -black or white ?
It does give people like Sharpton and Wright a nice, lucrative career, though, doesn’t it ?
So I’m all ears, Doc. What’s the solution ?
And this is the key point for me:
Guess what – all it does is alienate and piss-off white people who would ordinarily be sympathetic to disadvantaged blacks. How does that help anyone – black or white?
After I knew about all the Rev Wright nonsense, I only thought ill of Barack Obama. But now after the mass media, Barack Obama apologists and Black leaders and Black media members have come out and stated that Rev Wright was correct and this is typical among “Black Churches”, I find my attitude about Blacks completely changed. So, as DW stated, I went from being sympathetic to disadvantaged Blacks to now being pissed off and looking at average Blacks in an entirely different way. Now, when a Black person walks by, I don’t just go on my merry way seeing him or her as just another American, but rather I now find myself thinking “hmm, there’s a Black person, I wonder if they are normal like me or a raving lunatic like Rev Wright?”
And no, I don’t feel good about feeling this way, but this is what Barack Obama’s race-baiting candidacy and his apologists have wrought. Nice job.
I don’t have enough time to expand on this, as I should have been in bed an hour ago, but I wanted to pass this along…
In my surfing around the conservative/anti-idiotarian blogs and milblogs that I regularly read, I have come across bloggers who are actually praising, in one way or another, Barack Obama’s speech and claiming that they felt Barack Obama was trancending race in his presidential campaign. Considering I have been researching this guy for over a year now and have known about his “radical roots” (as Rolling Stone called them) for that time, I have a very difficult time figuring out how people have been falling for this guy’s lies. The only thing I can figure out is that they are willfully blind or just plain ignorant of his background.
And, maybe it will come as a surprise to many of you at this point, Jeremiah Wright is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to the radical leftists, radical Islamists and, yes, terrorists in Barack Obama’s circle of friends, acquaintances and political allies.
Again, I don’t have time to highlight specific passages here, but please do read this post by Rick Moran at RightWingNuthouse from 23 FEB 2008: OBAMA AND THE RADICALS: SOULMATES?
I would think people would be interested in someone whose background includes association with people of this ideology:
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” This earns Ayers at least some spiritual kinship to Osama Bin Laden. (In last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, which of course went to press before Sept. 11, Ayers maintains that this was “a joke.” In a more serious vein, Ayers was quoted by another Times interviewer as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
[ … ]
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].”
Be sure to check this out as well. Apparently Rev Wright has a degree in Islamic History and sympathizes with the terrorists of Hamas: TUCC’s Church Bulletins from July 2007 Probably Make Whether Obama was Present on July 22 Irrelevant
AllahPundit at HotAir:
Hey, guys? If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?
Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media:
Barack, your speech was bullshit.
Barack, this isn’t about generations.
Barack, this isn’t about the black church.
Barack, this is about a pathological minister whose uncontrolled anger wounds his own people and keeps them down.
Barack, this is about a man who ignored that rage for his own political gain and even now won’t admit a huge mistake and looks for nuance and excuses.
Barack, this about a woman who went on scholarship to Princeton and Harvard and still hates America.
Barack, you say you want Black-Jewish reconciliation but you hung with an anti-Semite.
Jim Geraghty at NRO (via ACE):
Geraghty, on the question everyone except those in the media asks: If Obama disagreed so vehemnetly with the racist, anti-semitic, anti-American crackpottery spewing out of this strutting peacock of a toad’s mouth: Why did he continue bringing his young daughters to be schooled in Uncle Jerry’s Happy House of Hatred?
Ace at Ace of Spades HQ:
“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”
Yeah, meanwhile your uncle is telling his parishioners that white people created AIDS to exterminate them.
That’s kind of harsh stereotype too, huh?
In fact, I’d guess that sort of notion would make it sort of easier to do harm to someone of another race. Hate speech can impel hateful acts, right? Dehumanization? Depersonalization? This ringing any bells, jagoff?
AllahPundit at HotAir:
Hail he of the immaculate standards for associating with racists!
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
But that wasn’t quite true, was it? It’s almost as though he’s an abject hypocrite who’s making up his “principled” positions on race as he goes along to maximize his electoral advantage, isn’t it?
Once again, Don Imus and “nappy headed hos” is deemed worthy of denunciation and calling for his firing, because it is offensive to Barry’s daughters. But, this Black Liberation Theology is just fine and dandy! Give me a break.
The peculiar theology of black liberation
Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.
What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash…
One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago’s Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:
Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?
Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question …
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven’t answered – you haven’t answered my question.
Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.
Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says. But that way lies apolitical quicksand.
Since Christianity taught the concept of divine election to the Gentiles, every recalcitrant tribe in Christendom has rebelled against Christian universalism, insisting that it is the “Chosen People” of God – French, English, Russian, Germans and even (through the peculiar doctrine of Mormonism) certain Americans. America remains the only really Christian country in the industrial world, precisely because it transcends ethnicity. One finds ethnocentricity only in odd corners of its religious life; one of these is African-American.
During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:
Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.
Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.
Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. 
In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a “drop of the bucket” and “dust on the scales”, in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the “Chosen People”.
That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology.
Many things that the liberal academy has adopted, though, will horrify most Americans, and not only “black liberation theology” (Queer Studies comes to mind, among other things). It cannot be in Obama’s best interests to appeal to the authority of Cone, whose unapologetic racism must be repugnant to the great majority of Americans, including the majority of black Americans, who for the most part belong to Christian churches that preach mainstream Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches unconditional love for a God whose love for humankind is absolute; it does not teach the repudiation of a God who does not destroy our enemies on the spot.
Whether Obama takes seriously the doctrines that Wright preaches is another matter. It is possible that Obama does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach. Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago’s black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago’s largest and most politically active black church.
Obama views Wright rather at arm’s length: as the New York Times reported on April 30, 2007:
Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.
Obama holds his own views close. But it seems unlikely that he would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s. Obama does not come to the matter with the perspective of an American black, but of the child of a left-wing anthropologist raised in the Third World, as I wrote elsewhere (Obama’s women reveal his secret , Asia Times Online, February 26, 2008). It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is.
1. See William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).