  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Is Wright Right About Racism?Posted on Mar 27, 2008By David Sirota Since the 1960s, bigotry has undergone an aesthetic makeover. Today, the most pernicious racists do not wear pointy hoods, scream epithets and anonymously burn crosses from behind masks. They don starched suits, recite sententious bromides and stage political lynchings before television cameras. For proof, behold the mob stalking Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright has long delivered fiery (and occasionally outrageous) sermons, to little fanfare. Now, though, a gang of thugs is inflicting a guilt-by-association blow to Obama by excoriating his spiritual adviser for three specific declarations. Sean Hannity, Fox News’ own George Wallace, turned a fire hose on Wright for his church’s focus. “[The church] is all about the black community,” Hannity thundered, claiming that means Wright supports “a black-separatist agenda.” Pat Buchanan billy-clubbed Wright for saying, “God damn America.” The MSNBC commentator, who avoided the draft, implied that Wright, a former Marine, lacks sufficient loyalty to country. Out of context, Wright’s exclamation was admittedly offensive. But remember: It punctuated a speech about segregation. Buchanan, nonetheless, unleashed, deriding “black hustlers” and insisting descendants of those “brought from Africa in slave ships” owe whites a thank you. “Where is the gratitude?” he asked. Fox’s Charles Krauthammer berated Wright for saying the 9/11 attacks were “chickens coming home to roost.” Krauthammer labeled the pronouncement “vitriolic divisiveness” despite our government acknowledging the concept of “blowback”—or retaliation—that Wright was referencing. The CIA knows that when it supports foreign dictatorships, there can be blowback from radicals. While blowback is often immoral and undeserved, its existence is undisputed. Yet, Krauthammer alleged that Wright takes “satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents.” In promoting the Wright “controversy,” most media outlets joined this mob and embraced “colorblind racism,” says Duke University’s Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of “Racism Without Racists.” It is polite pinstriped prejudice shrouding bigotry in feigned outrage against extremism—the operative word being feigned. After all, John McCain solicited the endorsement of John Hagee, the pastor who called the Catholic Church “the Great Whore.” Similarly, according to Mother Jones magazine, Hillary Clinton belongs to the “Fellowship,” a secretive group “dedicated to ‘spiritual war’ on behalf of Christ.” She is also friendly with Billy Graham, the minister caught on tape spewing anti-Semitism. But while Wright’s supposed “extremism” blankets the news, McCain and Clinton’s relationships with real extremists receive scant attention. Why is it “controversial” for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he’s right about racism? Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been describing as their political “firewall” the states they believe Obama will lose. That’s campaign-speak for “race wall”—one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren’t the near purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified. ABC News reports that Clinton’s campaign is “pushing the Wright story” ahead of the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. The crass tactic is designed to motivate the racist vote by reminding whites of Obama’s connection to the African-American community. Put another way, Clinton’s message has become simply: Obama Is black.
Wright probably expected this brouhaha. He says our government is “controlled by rich white people” and our culture afflicted by racism. Though these statements are also deemed distasteful by the Establishment, they are truisms. You can see their veracity in the collected portraits of white millionaires commonly called the congressional photo directory. Or, just turn on your television and watch the mob continue stoking the Wright “controversy.”
© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Iraq Exploding as Shiite Fights Shiite Next item: Guilty by Observation Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
«1 2 3
4
Comment Pages:
«1 2 3
4
By Gregory Logan, March 28 at 6:32 am # I was wondering how those whites who oppose Obama were going to make his race an issue. Now we know-they’re going to accuse him of reverse racism. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the treatment that some whites visited upon blacks in this country, should not be surprised that some blacks are going to be angry. What I can’t understand is why, after everything that has happened and is happening, we blacks are expected to reassure whites that we mean them no harm? We ought to be scared of you! We’re outnumbered by a substantial percentage, and whites control all of the guns, money, and food. What are whites so afraid of? A minister making a speech? I don’t believe that the tactic will work, because working class people of all races are so disgusted with Republican policies and the state of the economy that they want someone who can improve things, regardless of that person’s race or gender.
By Sid, March 28 at 5:46 am # The idea that the government would deliberately infect black people with a disease is just crazy talk, isn’t it?? The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance. At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/ tuskegee/
By Chris in IL, March 28 at 8:21 am # Re: Re: Obama Refused to Turn His BackI don’t think your analogies hold water. Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article