It's interesting that Obama supporters seem to be redefining what it is to be a racist. Is there a difference between being a racist and being a bigot?

It's interesting that Obama supporters seem to be redefining what it is to be a racist. Is there a difference between being a racist and being a bigot?

Bill Clinton has already redefined what "is" is, so Democrats should be able to redefine what "racism" is with no sweat. :lol:

Thanks. I have been so busy pointing out Obama's shortcomings, I was just trying to say something positive about him.:lol:

 

I have a feeling that Obama will be condemning more statements that have been made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

 

But he will conveniently not have been at church when he made them.:lol:

racism: n. 1. the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. 2. discrimination or prejudice based on racism.

 

(The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, 1985.)

 

Granted, my dictionary might be old...but there is none of that in Rev. Wright's newsletter.

 

The term "racial discrimination" is generally considered to mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Therefore, would it not be accurate to say that any person/group who is accused of limiting another person’s/group’s fundamental freedoms based solely on race/color are being accused of being racist? Wright apparently sees all whites through the same set of glasses, and thus applies the term “white supremacists” towards any white person having decision-making power of any kind in of our economic, political, educational, militarily, and police institutions.

 

Such statements by Wright are inflammatory, offensive, inaccurate, bigoted, and IMO - racist on his part.

Sorry, but their are certain terms that imply a negativity that cross appropriate boundaries. Certainly the "n-word" is one. The use of the word "lynching" recently got one golf analyst suspended. And the term "white supremecy", when painted with the broad strokes that Wright uses is offensive to me because it implies that ALL white people are supremicists (racists).

 

And while he may not say that blacks deserve anything more than whites, he sure as heck stated that the problems from which his race suffers is caused exclusively by whites (actually, "white supremicists", per Wright's terminology). This relates directly to the statements of Bill Cosby in which he stated it is time for his race to take personal responsibiity for their problems and not look to place the blame anywhere and everywhere.

 

Statements contained in Wright's writing:

 

Black Africans do not control the economic systems, the military or have control over the resources and until that changes, white supremacy will still be in charge!

 

White supremacy controls the economic system in America, the healthcare system in America and the educational system in America. Hurricane Katrina has pulled the blinders off of all Americans and shown us what white supremacy means at its ugly core and what it has done to the fabric of these “still-yet-to-be-United States".

 

Educating our children to the reality of white supremacy becomes crucial for African Americans and for all Americans. Africans do not control the military, the police, the legal structure or any of the means to enforce their race prejudice.

 

We need to educate our children about the white supremacist’s foundations of the educational system, the educational philosophy and the very curricula that immerses them in a culture of white supremacy from kindergarten through graduate school.

 

In the flood waters of white supremacy that our children have to negotiate economically, educationally, culturally, socially and spiritually, there are not only sharks in those waters, there are also crocodiles, alligators and piranha!

 

We deconstruct the vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy with hope. Our hope is not built on faith-based dollars, empty liberal promises or veiled hate-filled preachments of the so-called conservatives.

 

None of the above seems the slightest bit racist to you?? Not at all?

 

Are you part of the white supremecy that controls our education system, economic system, political system, military, police, etc...? Because I don't see that he has made any distinction whatsoever between white supremicists (i.e., racists) and good, honest, well-intentioned white Americans. If you are white, you are a predatory white supremicist.

 

At a bare minimum, he has stated that our Congress is run by white supremicists. Did you vote for any white supremicists in any recent elections? Since the Commander in Chief - the head of our military - is the President, he has also called him a white supremicist. I personally object to someone calling my Presdient that term (and frankly, I'm not a huge G.W. fan). As far as I'm aware, my children are not being taught by white supremist educators. If I find out they are, they will be removed from that school. I have worked in federal law enforcement almost 22 years. I'm not aware of any of my law enforcement peers that are white supremicists. In fact, quite a few of my co-workers are black, including the head of my agency, who is appointed by the President.

 

Maybe I'm reading his rant all wrong and if I am, I am honestly more than willing to listen to an opposing opinion. But my read of his writing is simple: I am white. I am therefore a white supremist. I am the cause of all the problems from which the black race suffers.

 

That qualifies as racist to me. I don't care how Webster defines it.

 

Not a lot of time to post - my students will be coming in soon. More later, BUT...

 

I think Wright uses the term "white supremacy" to show that we do, indeed, have a government and military that is led, primarily, by whites. Maybe this is his way to promote the action we all call for, for those black americans that are living in poverty to take the steps they need to bring themselves out of those conditions. I don't take his words to mean that all whites (or those in charge of our military or government) are racist, just that by numbers alone, white americans control those areas. Again, I don't make the definitions in the dictionary, but I can form my own opinion, as can you.

 

The whole education issue brings up a good point, as I am a teacher. I don't teach history (though have the certification to do so) but our children (my school is 98% white) are not taught about the Wounded Knee massacre or the plight of the Native Americans, nor do they know much about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they know that it stopped the war, but they do not know who was killed or really how. To me, this is very troubling. It is easy to gloss both of those issues over (one to ignore completely), instead of dissect and explore them. The result are future adults who come away with attitude that "we" (the US) are always right, no matter what decision we make. That is how we teach our history and I would imagine (though I don't know) what Rev. Wright means about education. We have to teach the curriculum that we are supposed to.

 

For me, since I don't teach history, I can bring up these issues for discussion/exploration in my Chemistry II class. This is a senior elective and in our study of nuclear science, we take a hard look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are able to tie in the plight of Native Americans (I could explain, but no time), the Bikini/Marshall Islands testing, the USS Indianapolis (sinking and trial of Cpt. McVay) and some other issues, where I try to convince my students to look at things themselves, regardless of what anyone has told you - to draw their own conclusions and be thinkers - strangely, they never know my opinions and argue as to what they think my beliefs are.

Hmm, you aren't paying attention.

 

Tell me, do you see any quotes from Wright himself in the thread before I made my post?

 

Find one, and show it to me. Just ONE.

 

That was my point.

 

:sssh:

Not a lot of time to post - my students will be coming in soon. More later, BUT...

 

I think Wright uses the term "white supremacy" to show that we do, indeed, have a government and military that is led, primarily, by whites. Maybe this is his way to promote the action we all call for, for those black americans that are living in poverty to take the steps they need to bring themselves out of those conditions. I don't take his words to mean that all whites (or those in charge of our military or government) are racist, just that by numbers alone, white americans control those areas. Again, I don't make the definitions in the dictionary, but I can form my own opinion, as can you.

 

Come on. The term "white supremacy" does, and always has, meant something far more sinister than that to which you so suggest he so innocently applied it. And even if his word usage was done as a way "to promote black Americans to take the steps they need to bring themselves out of those conditions", it is inexcusable. Could a white person ever justifiably use the "n-word" to inspire a person of white color without being (correctly) called a racist? Wright seemed pretty darn clear to me that any white person in charge of the institutions he outlined were white supremacists and that this statement was not based on sheer numbers alone. You're right - you're entitled to your opinions, as am I - but I honestly don't see how this writing by Wright would not offend the sensibilities of most white Americans. Actually, unless you are indeed one that falls into the category of truly being a "white supremacist" (and there are, sadly, definitely those type out there), I would think it should offend all white people.

Tell me, do you see any quotes from Wright himself in the thread before I made my post?

 

Find one, and show it to me. Just ONE.

 

That was my point.

 

:sssh:

 

Your thoughts on the one that was posted?

Come on. The term "white supremacy" does, and always has, meant something far more sinister than that to which you so suggest he so innocently applied it. And even if his word usage was done as a way "to promote black Americans to take the steps they need to bring themselves out of those conditions", it is inexcusable. Could a white person ever justifiably use the "n-word" to inspire a person of white color without being (correctly) called a racist? Wright seemed pretty darn clear to me that any white person in charge of the institutions he outlined were white supremacists and that this statement was not based on sheer numbers alone. You're right - you're entitled to your opinions, as am I - but I honestly don't see how this writing by Wright would not offend the sensibilities of most white Americans. Actually, unless you are indeed one that falls into the category of truly being a "white supremacist" (and there are, sadly, definitely those type out there), I would think it should offend all white people.

 

 

I don't doubt that he uses the term "white supremacy" for the shock value. Where I would be concerned about racial intent is if he used the term "black supremacy".

I don't doubt that he uses the term "white supremacy" for the shock value. Where I would be concerned about racial intent is if he used the term "black supremacy".

 

He's not using the term for shock value. He truly believes what he is saying: if you are white, you are part of an evil, insidious white supremacy whose main goal is to oppress people of color.

 

Odd how some people can throw out such terms and thought concepts so loosely, yet not be branded a racist.

He's not using the term for shock value. He truly believes what he is saying: if you are white, you are part of an evil, insidious white supremacy whose main goal is to oppress people of color.

 

Odd how some people can throw out such terms and thought concepts so loosely, yet not be branded a racist.

 

I don't personally know then man, so I don't know what he truly believes. This my analysis of what I have read/seen.

Not a lot of time to post - my students will be coming in soon. More later, BUT...

 

I think Wright uses the term "white supremacy" to show that we do, indeed, have a government and military that is led, primarily, by whites. Maybe this is his way to promote the action we all call for, for those black americans that are living in poverty to take the steps they need to bring themselves out of those conditions. I don't take his words to mean that all whites (or those in charge of our military or government) are racist, just that by numbers alone, white americans control those areas. Again, I don't make the definitions in the dictionary, but I can form my own opinion, as can you.

 

The whole education issue brings up a good point, as I am a teacher. I don't teach history (though have the certification to do so) but our children (my school is 98% white) are not taught about the Wounded Knee massacre or the plight of the Native Americans, nor do they know much about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they know that it stopped the war, but they do not know who was killed or really how. To me, this is very troubling. It is easy to gloss both of those issues over (one to ignore completely), instead of dissect and explore them. The result are future adults who come away with attitude that "we" (the US) are always right, no matter what decision we make. That is how we teach our history and I would imagine (though I don't know) what Rev. Wright means about education. We have to teach the curriculum that we are supposed to.

 

For me, since I don't teach history, I can bring up these issues for discussion/exploration in my Chemistry II class. This is a senior elective and in our study of nuclear science, we take a hard look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are able to tie in the plight of Native Americans (I could explain, but no time), the Bikini/Marshall Islands testing, the USS Indianapolis (sinking and trial of Cpt. McVay) and some other issues, where I try to convince my students to look at things themselves, regardless of what anyone has told you - to draw their own conclusions and be thinkers - strangely, they never know my opinions and argue as to what they think my beliefs are.

 

Just like students are not taught about the Barbury Pirates. A group of African Muslim pirates who controlled the Mediteranean Sea for centuries. They plundered villages along the coast and enslaved an estimated 1.25 million Europeans. My point is that there is a lot of history that is not being taught becuase there simply not enough time

I don't personally know then man, so I don't know what he truly believes. This my analysis of what I have read/seen.

Why do you need to personally know Jeremiah Wright to know what he believes? That is a pretty high hurdle to clear. Rev. Wright says that Trinity is a church based on the black liberation theology, the church's website is clear on that point, and the man most often cited as the founder of black liberation theology, James Cone is on record saying that Trinity is the best example of a church adhering to the black liberation theology. Trinity even sells Cone's seminal book on black liberation theology on its web site.

 

Rev. Cone and other black liberation theologians believe that there is a different set of rules controlling admission to heaven, based on the color of one's skin.

 

Rev. Wright claims to be a black liberation theologian and the basic tenets of black liberation theology are well documented by James Cone and other adherents to the philosophy. Rev. Wright has had ample opportunity to put distance between himself and Cone's writings and has instead embraced them.

Why do you need to personally know Jeremiah Wright to know what he believes? That is a pretty high hurdle to clear. Rev. Wright says that Trinity is a church based on the black liberation theology, the church's website is clear on that point, and the man most often cited as the founder of black liberation theology, James Cone is on record saying that Trinity is the best example of a church adhering to the black liberation theology. Trinity even sells Cone's seminal book on black liberation theology on its web site.

 

Rev. Cone and other black liberation theologians believe that there is a different set of rules controlling admission to heaven, based on the color of one's skin.

 

Rev. Wright claims to be a black liberation theologian and the basic tenets of black liberation theology are well documented by James Cone and other adherents to the philosophy. Rev. Wright has had ample opportunity to put distance between himself and Cone's writings and has instead embraced them.

 

Therein lies the problem in much of discourse in American politics (on any side). As long as we do not sit down with them, get to know them - then "THEY" can remain a demon or an impersonal character of what we dislike. When we sit down and/or dig deeper in relationships people are harder to demonize and more often common ground can be found to dialogue within.

Therein lies the problem in much of discourse in American politics (on any side). As long as we do not sit down with them, get to know them - then "THEY" can remain a demon or an impersonal character of what we dislike. When we sit down and/or dig deeper in relationships people are harder to demonize and more often common ground can be found to dialogue within.

 

:thumb: