Korean Job Discussion Forums

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

I don't mind what Wright said about domestic issues. The US is run by rich white people. But he ought to stay away of the foreign policy stuff. Also that he took a trip to Libya with Farakhan makes him sort of a hypocrite on human rights.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

endo · Joined: 14 Mar 2004 Location: Seoul...my home

[quote="On the other hand"]

Adventurer · Joined: 28 Jan 2006

I think many people in the black community speak the way Wright does.
They often resent white power as they see it. There is some truth to the matter that it is still a white man's world and some say black men are not truly equal. Of course, part of the problem is the attitude many black people have in terms of striving for positive change rather than focusing on being victims which this preacher is doing. It is not so uncommon to hear these views among some black people.

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Some people might be interested in what Spengler has to say about Wright. (Or maybe not.)

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.

There are some quotes in the article from theologians who Wright follows. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

'The United States of Lyncherdom' was published in 1901, the same year that 105 people were lynched in the US. That's two people a week. This was not just a bad year. The federal government did little to stop the carnage. Between 1882 and 1968 there were 1,297 white people lynched and 3,446 black people lynched. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

Twain was not being simply 'sarcastic'. He was using his position to call attention to and denounce a horrendous situation at a time when polite society did not discuss these things publically. If people take the time to read it before dismissing the it, they will see that it is not sarcastic at all, except for the plea to the missionaries in China to come home and convert the Christians here. The work is a report/editorial on a particular event. I read it as a cry of anguish about an event that happened in his home state. It is also a public condemnation: "Its other name is Moral Cowardice..." Yes, it is impassioned because 'the people rose, lynched three negroes--two of them very aged ones--burned out five negro households, and drove thirty negro families into the woods'.

While I take OTOH point in mentioning this work of Twain's, I think it wasn't as effective as he'd hoped.

Back to the point of this thread. I cannot disagree more with Wright's choice of how to combat racism. Martin Luther King, Jr's approach of claiming the high moral ground was far more effective. Obama has thus far presented himself much more in the MLK tradition of seeking positive ways forward than the Black Panthers and (from what little I know of this Wright character) black liberation theology. I also have to ask why Obama didn't distance himself from this guy after attending a couple of his sermons. I'm disappointed.

Adventurer · Joined: 28 Jan 2006

I have a question. Suppose, you had in the 1980s someone who was pro-Sandinista who had his relatives blown up in Nicaragua and then the person came to the U.S. and killed people. Would someone say there was no connection at all between one event and the other. Can one say US foreign policy has nothing to do with the reaction of radicals or the promotion of said radicals has nothing to do with 9/11. Just as some were saying that Hezbollah's crossing into Israel led to a response from Israel, the actions of the US Government as perceived by Al Qaeda led to their response, and then the US Government responded by invading both Iraq and Afghanistan. These were all chosen reactions. People agree World War I was connected to World War II, but we can't objectively look at the actions of the U.S. Government. Why not? Governments are often quite immoral all over the world. Look at how the soldiers were treated.

Anyway, Al Qaeda no matter what the US Government has done is not good for anyone anywhere and must be rooted out. Frankly, I was expecting something like 9/11 but not on that scale before it happened. I was against the promotion of the fanatics and leaving Afghanistan was very dumb. The government messed up, but it doesn't seem like anyone has the bravery to say that. Why not?

Of course, killing innocent Americans is never justified by whatever action the US Government may have taken in its past relationship with Al Qaeda and how that relationship changed and things done in the Middle East as perceived by the locals. I do believe that violence does beget violence and sewing the seeds of warfare and violence spreads it and peace can spread peace. The end of the Cold War was mismanaged. As far as Reverand Wright, Obama should not have been associated with such a firebrand preacher who is so focused on racial differences. His sermons are not so Christian in my opinion. Obama should not have been in that church for so long with such a divisive preacher.