Wright not wrong on question of race

Listening to audio of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he sounds almost like Adolf Hitler – in that I mean both men have a commanding presence that forces you to listen and a gravelly voice that can reach such high decibel levels that makes everything they say sound so harsh.

But when one actually reads the words spoken on video tapes that are causing some people to say that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has a “racist” minister, anyone of sense would have to conclude the Rev. Wright is justified in much of what he says.

We have a race problem in this country. It is a blot on what otherwise is the great existence of the United States of America. While it might not be as blatantly violent as it was decades ago, we’re not going to be able to move beyond racial issues until we honestly address how bad the problem was.

Too many of the people who are trying to turn the retired Rev. Wright into a political issue seem to be of the type who would prefer to ignore race out of some hope that the issue will go away and things can go back to the way they used to be – before all the loud-mouth civil rights types forced us to pay attention to the problem.

That’s basically what Wright is making us do when he says things like, “Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was.”

And when he talks about the United States’ involvement in activities that are construed by some people of the world as just as harsh and violent as any of the terrorist activity we condemn, he is touching on a vein of thought with some validity.

Let’s not forget the reason former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein ever rose from the ranks of third-rate dictators to become a serious threat to world peace is because the U.S. military backed him against Iran when it served our country’s interests during the decade-long Iran-Iraq War. Then, that fully armed pit bull turned around and bit us on the tushy.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we’re indignant,” Wright said. “Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards.”

And giving us a touch of Malcolm X beyond the version that filmmaker Spike Lee tried giving us several years ago, Wright adds, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Now some people are going to be upset that Wright has compared the 1945 U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons to the 2001 terrorist hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. How dare he make such an “un-American” statement!

But it is not a new thought. It’s not even terribly original. I recall a professor two decades ago at Illinois Wesleyan University (then and now, a very Midwestern place) tell us during a U.S. history course that when it came to deadly use of nuclear weapons, the scorecard for mankind read, “Harry S Truman – 2, Rest of World – 0.”

Admittedly, this professor wasn’t a Truman fan, and I know the arguments that use of the bomb saved lives by ending World War II more quickly. But the statement was a valid attempt to force us to consider the consequences of actions and judge for ourselves whether a positive outcome ever justifies the use of horrific means.

Now I understand that Obama on Friday made something of a public statement intended to put some distance between himself and Wright.

He said the private conversations the two men had were for personal guidance and never delved into the type of fiery rhetoric being criticized now. He said he would have publicly criticized such talk had he ever heard it personally.

But I really don’t think Obama has anything to be apologetic about. I was glad to hear that he is not totally denouncing Wright.

In listening to the so-called controversial recordings that some people would like to think of as more offensive than the Nixon tapes, the closest I can come to a statement to criticize Wright on is his comments about race and gender.

“Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said, adding later, “Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person.

“Who cares what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?”

While he’s right about the situation of African-American people in this country, there have been eras in our country’s story when people of Hillary’s gender were considered little more than non-persons.

One could just as easily make the statement that Barack has never had his gender defined as a non-person, and it would be just as accurate. Of course, that’s what we count on Michelle to be there for – to give him that bit of an intelligent female perspective whenever the testosterone levels of Team Obama get to be a little too high.

In fact, it is this balance between the inequities suffered by women and black people that I see as being behind the whole flap earlier this week that resulted in Geraldine Ferraro having to step down from her un-paid post as a Clinton campaign adviser.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position (as front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary),” Ferraro said. “If he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is, and the country is caught up in the concept.”

On a certain level, Ferraro (who herself was the first woman to be chosen by a major political party to run for vice president – remember 1984?) is absolutely correct.

The “country” is caught up in the “concept” of Obama-mania, which could result in the first non-white president of the United States. (I don’t want to hear about how he’s bi-racial, which makes him part white. Only half-wits who have a problem with it seriously bring that issue up).

Obama-mania is so intense that a segment of the liberal population that normally would be very receptive to the first serious campaign of a woman to be U.S. president doesn’t want to hear about her.

Clinton, who had hoped to campaign as the Democratic darling who would advance the country’s gender preferences into the 21st Century, instead is reduced to having to be the candidate of the political establishment. The progressives have turned elsewhere to the point that if she does manage to win election in November – the bulk of liberal talk is going to be about how we lost the chance to have an African-American president, not how we finally have a woman.

That fact has to be frustrating to Clinton’s hard-core fans, and all I hear in Ferraro’s comments to a California newspaper is that frustration being articulated. I don’t hear a racist, the way some people try to portray it.

I also don’t hear a racist when I read the words of Wright. When I listen to the words of Wright, I might think that someone has gone off their medication, but then second thoughts make me realize his reasoning, and that he might actually have a legitimate point.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I realize Wright used the word “n----r” during one of his sermons. The UPI Stylebook (which I use as a guide in editing this site) says, “Do not use racially derogatory terms unless they are part of a quotation that is essential to the story.” I honestly believe that particular quote was NOT essential to understanding what Wright is about, and that the only reason you have heard it on television newscasts is because some half-wit TV producer is infatuated with so-called “dirty” words.

Originally posted at www.ChicagoArgus.blogspot.com.