Black Intelligentsia: Holla If You Hear Obama

Right on! Reverend Wright! Right? Or should America just forget the last 300 years? Whoops, compassion freeze, sorry. I must have left my humanity in my other pants.

By now Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons have been extracted from their context and examined as if they comprised that totality of his sermons and discussed (dissected) to the point of distortion. But more important than that, they have been extracted from the history from which the Black community's anger was born (had its birth).

Yes, whites admit that in the 1860 census 3,953,696 blacks of the Southern population in 1860 were the slaves of 385,000 "owners."

The 1860 census showed the following:
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
The total number of slave owners was 385,000

But didn't the white population also freed these slaves? In fact, didn't they fight a war to free them, and once they freed them, didn't they give them the right to vote so they could exercise self-determination. After the civil war white America stopped persecuting them, right?

Why is he so upset. After all, the white community said it was sorry. Isn't that enough for almost two hundred fifty years of institutionalized slavery and another one-hundred fifty years of institutionalized persecution. Gee whiz, you'd think white people had lynched thousands of African-Americans and that the U.S. government had failed to protect them.

"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched. These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded. Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched. That is only 27.3%. Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes." Berea College

"The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob." Questia Encyclopedia

But the government tried to make it right, right?
"State and local governments in the South did little to curtail lynchings; various laws against mob violence were seldom enforced. Three times (1922, 1937, 1940) antilynching legislation passed the House of Representatives, only to be defeated in the Senate. Although the term has fallen into disuse since the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, similar practices still occur, often classified today as "bias crimes."" Questia Encyclopedia

While lynching is wrong, they had good reasons. They were all for capital offenses, right?

"The accusations against persons lynched, according to the Tuskegee Institute records for the years 1882 to 1951, were: in 41 per cent for felonious assault, 19.2 per cent for rape, 6.1 per cent for attempted rape, 4.9 per cent for robbery and theft, 1.8 per cent for insult to white persons, and 22.7 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at a 11.5 In the last category are all sorts of trivial "offenses" such as "disputing with a white man," attempting to register to vote, "unpopularity", self-defense, testifying against a white man, "asking a white woman in marriage", and "peeping in a window.""

How could anyone quibble with those obvious death penalty offenses, especially "disputing with a white man."

The Reasons Given for Black Lynchings

* Acting suspiciously
* Gambling
* Quarreling
* Adultery
* Grave robbing
* Race hatred; Race troubles
* Aiding murderer
* Improper with white woman
* Rape
* Arguing with white man
* Incest
* Rape-murders
* Arson Inciting to riot
* Resisting mob
* Assassination
* Inciting trouble
* Robbery
* Attempted murder
* Indolence
* Running a bordello
* Banditry
* Inflammatory language
* Sedition
* Being disreputable
* Informing
* Slander
* Being obnoxious
* Injuring livestock
* Spreading disease
* Boasting about riot
* Insulting white man
* Stealing
* Burglary
* Insulting white woman
* Suing white man
* Child abuse
* Insurrection
* Swindling
* Conjuring
* Kidnapping
* Terrorism
* Courting white woman
* Killing livestock
* Testifying against white man
* Criminal assault
* Living with white woman
* Throwing stones
* Cutting levee
* Looting
* Train wrecking
* Defending rapist
* Making threats
* Trying to colonize blacks
* Demanding respect
* Miscegenation
* Trying to vote
* Disorderly conduct
* Mistaken identity
* Unpopularity
* Eloping with white woman
* Molestation
* Unruly remarks
* Entered white woman's room
* Murder
* Using obscene language
* Enticement
* Non-sexual assault
* Vagrancy
* Extortion
* Peeping Tom
* Violated quarantine
* Fraud
* Pillage
* Voodooism
* Plotting to kill
* Voting for wrong party
* Frightening white woman
* Poisoning well

"Many of these victims were ritualistically tortured. In 1904, Luther Holbert and his wife were burned to death. They were "tied to trees and while the funeral pyres were being prepared, they were forced to hold out their hands while one finger at a time was chopped off. The fingers were distributed as souvenirs. The ears...were cut off. Holbert was beaten severely, his skull fractured and one of his eyes, knocked out with a stick, hung by a shred from the socket."8 Members of the mob then speared the victims with a large corkscrew, "the spirals tearing out big pieces of...flesh every time it was withdrawn."" The Brute Caricature http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/more/brute_page.htm

But white America "kind of" felt it was wrong to lynch but not completely wrong and not always wrong. Sometimes it just cannot be avoided. James Cutler in his 1905 book Lynch expresses white America's refined attitude that lynchings "can only be justified on no other ground than that the law as formulated and administered has proved inadequate to deal with the situation?that there has been governmental inefficiency..."

What a magnanimous concession. That's one kind of self-determination; the determination to take the law into your own hands - a right reserved for whites.

How could this magnanimous concession possibly offend Reverend Wright and the Black community? Isn't it so obviously sound, so obviously white?

Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology at Ferris State University, found the following: "In 1921-22 the United States House of Representatives and Senate debated the Dyer Bill, an anti-lynching bill. This bill provided fines and imprisonment for persons convicted of lynching in federal courts, and fines and penalties against states, counties, and cities which failed to use reasonable effort to protect citizens from lynch mobs. The Dyer Bill passed in the House of Representatives, but it was killed in the Senate by filibustering southerners who claimed that it was unconstitutional and an infringement upon states' rights. The following statements made by southern Congressmen during the Dyer Bill debate suggest that they were more concerned with White supremacy and the oppression of Blacks than they were with constitutional issues.

Senator James Buchanan of Texas claimed that in "the Southern States and in secret meetings of the Negro race [White liberals] preach the damnable doctrine of social equality which excites the criminal sensualities of the criminal element of the Negro race and directly incites the diabolical crime of rape upon the white women. Lynching follows as swift as lightning, and all the statutes of State and Nation cannot stop it."

Representative Percy Quin of Mississippi, spoke of lynch law, "Whenever an infamous outrage is committed upon a [Southern] White woman the law is enforced by the neighbors of the woman who has been outraged? The colored people of [the South] realize the manner of that enforcement, and that is the one method by which the horrible crime of rape has been held down where the Negro element is in a large majority. The man who believes that the Negro race is all bad is mistaken. But you must recollect that there is an element of barbarism in the black man, and the people around where he lives recognize that fact."

Representative Sisson of Mississippi said, "as long as rape continues lynching will continue. For this crime, and this crime alone, the South has not hesitated to administer swift and certain punishment....We are going to protect our girls and womenfolk from these black brutes. When these black fiends keep their hands off the throats of the women of the South then lynching will stop...."

Representative Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina claimed that the Dyer Bill would eliminate the states and "substitute for the starry banner of the Republic, a black flag of tyrannical centralized government...black as the face and heart of the rapist...who [recently] deflowered and killed Margaret Lear," a White girl in South Carolina. Tillman asked why anyone should care about the "burning of an occasional ravisher," when the House had more important concerns.

Senator T.H. Caraway of Arkansas claimed that the NAACP, "wrote this bill and handed it to the proponents of it. These people had but one idea in view, and that was to make rape permissible, and to allow the guilty to go unpunished if that rape should be committed by a Negro against a white woman in the South."

Despite the hyperbolic claims of those Congressmen, most of the Blacks lynched had not been accused of rape or even attempted rape. According to the Tuskegee Institute's lynching data, the accusations against lynching victims for the years 1882 to 195l were: 41 percent for felonious assault, 19.2 percent for rape, 6.1 percent for attempted rape, 4.9 percent for robbery and theft, 1.8 percent for insulting White people, and 27 percent for miscellaneous offenses (for example, trying to vote, testifying against a White man, asking a White woman to marry) or no offenses at all. Even those Blacks who were accused of rape were not always guilty -- and, of course, they were lynched before getting criminal trials. Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish social scientist who had studied American race relations, claimed that the 25.3 percent of lynching victims accused of rape or attempted rape included innocent people. According to Myrdal,"
(Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, Ferris State University)

Still, isn't Reverend Wright quibbling with acts that are so far in the past that they should have been forgotten?

"In 1955, Emmitt Till, a Black fourteen year old Chicago youth, visited his relatives in Mississippi. Till apparently referred to a female White store clerk as "Baby." Several days later, the woman's husband and brother took Till from his uncle's home, beat him to death -- his head was crushed and one eye was gouged out--then threw his body into the Tallahatchie River. The men were caught, tried, and found innocent by an all-White jury. The case became a cause celebre during the civil rights movement, showing the nation that brutal violence undergirded Jim Crow laws and etiquette." (Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, Ferris State University)

But white America no longer lynches or rather rarely lynches. Have they learned from their mistakes or have they found a better way, a more subtle way? Is it so subtle that many whites are blind to it, can't see it, don't see it or simply don't want to see it? Is what is subtle to white America not subtle to Blacks? Is it blatant and damnable? Is it now vicious and hidden, cloaked with a new language and the absence of the old racist language? Have new methods been found to keep African-Americans "in line?" Is there a new subjugating fear, the fear of institutionalized death and imprisonment?

Just because Jeff Grabmeier's "In Death Sentences Linked to History of Lynching in States" (summary of research, conducted by David Jacobs, Jason Carmichael, a graduate student at Ohio State, and Stephanie Kent, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and published in the American Sociological Review) found the following, it doesn't mean that whites are still subjugating and punishing blacks for having the audacity to expect equal rights to really be equal.

"Researchers found that the number of death sentences for all criminals ? Black and white ? were higher in states with a history of lynchings. But the link was even stronger when only Black death sentences were analyzed."

"Our results suggest that the death penalty has become a sort of legal replacement for the lynchings in the past," Jacobs said. "This hasn't been done overtly, and probably no one has consciously made such a decision. But the results show a clear connection."

"Another study finding reinforces this idea. Results showed that the number of death sentences in states with the most lynchings increased as the state's population of African Americans grew larger, at least to a certain point. The researchers believe that is because, as their numbers increase, Blacks are seen by the white majority as a growing threat."

"The findings showed a clear link between the number of lynchings, the proportions of African Americans in the states, and the number of death sentences. "We found that violent acts in the distant past still seemed to be linked to current legal decisions about who will live and who will die.""

And just because the following evidence from Durose, Matthew R., Smith, Erica L., and Langan, Patrick A., PhD, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2005," (NCJ215243) (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2007) was found, it doesn't mean that white America continues to commit damnable acts.

"In both 2002 and 2005, white, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped by police at similar rates, while blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be searched by police. About 5% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop. Police found evidence of criminal wrong-doing (such as drugs, illegal weapons, or other evidence of a possible crime) in 11.6% of searches in 2005."

But that's just one research.
"Police issued tickets to more than half of all stopped drivers and arrested about 2.4% of drivers. Male drivers were 3 times more likely than female drivers to be arrested, and black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be arrested."

"In 2005 black (9.5%) and Hispanic (8.8%) motorists stopped by police were searched at higher rates than whites (3.6%). The likelihood of experiencing a search did not change for whites, blacks, or Hispanics from 2002 to 2005."

"Blacks (4.4%) and Hispanics (2.3%) were more likely than whites (1.2%) to experience use of force during contact with police in 2005. Blacks accounted for 1 out of 10 contacts with police but 1 out of 4 contacts where force was used.

Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000) "Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Yet blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment."

Welch, Ronald H., and Angulo, Carlos T., Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, "Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System" (Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, May 2000)
The report Justice on Trial from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights notes that though "blacks are just 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of the drug users, and despite the fact that traffic stops and similar enforcement yield equal arrest rates for minorities and whites alike, blacks are 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses. Moreover, more frequent stops, and therefore arrests, of minorities will also result in longer average prison terms for minorities because patterns of disproportionate arrests generate more extensive criminal histories for minorities, which in turn influence sentencing outcomes."

In 2006, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,737 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

* 66.2 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
* 21.3 percent were motivated by anti-white bias.
* 6.1 percent were driven by bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
* 4.9 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 1.5 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.

But that's all been corrected, right - Wright. In the United States doesn't everyone have an equal opportunity to succeed, and in times when the economy suffers, and the chasm between the rich and the poor increases, don't we all suffer the same? Right, Wright? Let's start over with no hard feelings. White America has changed - really.

Here are the numbers.
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in White American households:
$745
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in African American households:
$2,766
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Hispanic American households:
$1,043
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Asian American households:
$1,381
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- Median income of African American households in 2006: $31,969
-- Median income of Hispanic American households in 2006: $37,781
-- Median income of White American households in 2006: $50,673
-- Median income of Asian American households in 2006: $63,900
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- African Americans living in poverty in 2006: 24.3 percent
-- Hispanic Americans living in poverty in 2006: 20.6 percent
-- Asian Americans living in poverty in 2006: 10.1 percent
-- White Americans living in poverty in 2006: 8.2 percent
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

What are white America's answers to these questions and these facts?

Look at what white America has done for blacks since blacks were emancipated. They let them vote. Well, they eventually let some of them vote. Well, some places let some of them vote. Did Whites pass laws that hindered Blacks voting rights? Now-a-days whites don't prevent or hinder them from voting. Well, except in Ohio and Florida and a few other places.

Certainly, seeing that so little economic progress has really been made by the average African-American and watching white America extrapolate the success of a few high profile African-Americans to representing a successful integration into the American socioeconomic landscape can be more than frustrating to a person who has fought so long and hard. How long do we expect the Reverend and the Black community to bless America when it has done and continues to do so many damnable things in its past and its present? The African-American community has watched a white elected white President drive the country further into debt and dismantle programs that are intended to aid the disenfranchised while simultaneously aiding wealthy corporations and spending trillions on a war. Has he taken money that could have been used to make Americas greatest wrong and given it to his cronies? He did and it doesn't bother him. In many people's view that is a damnable, callous, hideous act. It certainly isn't an act that deserves God's blessing.

If we don't subscribe to the heresy of racial inferiority, and stupidity of simply plain laziness, what other explanations are open to us? Pure chance? It's a lottery and they're just unlucky? Oh gee, it's just the way things are. They just want a free ride. Are there no whites who expect that? The difference is - a lot of whites get it. They have a lot more advantages just by being white which means they are far less likely to start out being poor.

Could it be that to some degree the attack on the Reverend and by implication Obama is a verification that a large portion of the white population still has little or at the very least an incomplete understanding of the heavy price that African-Americans had to pay to earn the meager progress that they have gained? Could it really be that the degree to which whites are offended by what Reverend Wright said is the degree to which white America fails to understand what Blacks had to suffer and to understand what was done to them. While America would like to think that the playing field is level, is their view just distorted? Even if the field appears to be level, might it really be wishful thinking? Haven't African-Americans been forced to start on the goal line and trudge the one-hundred yards while white America has constantly started at mid-field or closer? With a larger percent than whites being born into poverty and near poverty and the median income being far below that of whites, is their trek down the field far more difficult? Much of white America says, "No."

Should we be saying, "Yes, you are right, we were wrong, damn wrong, and we continue to fail to right those wrongs."? Should the United States, not just individuals, be sued for allowing the enslavement of an entire race and denying them the rights that they have as Americans? There is always money for unethical and unnecessary wars but not for our own disenfranchised people.

Does white America simply want to forget about the past? Do they fail to understand that the past is still a part of the present and is still having profound effects? Is white America's concept that reparations for three hundred years of slavery and diminished rights have been paid accurate or merely laughable? Has it even begun to be paid? How can white America possibly considered that an apology is even remotely sufficient?

Are we a great country when we commit despicable acts? Should we be blessed by God when we commit damnable acts against our fellow humans? Are we really spreading real democracy when we deny the very thing to our own population that we claim to be spreading, and then deny equal rights to the people that we claimed to be saving from the tyranny of slavery and denial of civil rights? Have we continued to terrorize in blatant and subtle ways the people that we claimed were freed from tyranny and whose rights white America claimed they were protecting?

Can we commit these damnable acts and then criticize Reverend Wright for saying what really needed to be said for America's damnable acts? Considering the past and the present, how wrong was it for the Reverend to say, "God damn America!"? Should it be said until there are no more damnable acts and African-Americans are really treated equally or should he and the rest of anti-racist America say "Gosh darn America" or "Please stop oppressing us" or just stay quiet and take it like we expect a slave would?

Right on! Reverend Wright! Right? Or should America just forget the last 300 years? Whoops, compassion freeze, sorry. I must have left my humanity in my other pants.

By now Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons have been extracted from their context and examined as if they comprised that totality of his sermons and discussed (dissected) to the point of distortion. But more important than that, they have been extracted from the history from which the Black community's anger was born (had its birth).

Yes, whites admit that in the 1860 census 3,953,696 blacks of the Southern population in 1860 were the slaves of 385,000 "owners."

The 1860 census showed the following:
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
The total number of slave owners was 385,000

But didn't the white population also freed these slaves? In fact, didn't they fight a war to free them, and once they freed them, didn't they give them the right to vote so they could exercise self-determination. After the civil war white America stopped persecuting them, right?

Why is he so upset. After all, the white community said it was sorry. Isn't that enough for almost two hundred fifty years of institutionalized slavery and another one-hundred fifty years of institutionalized persecution. Gee whiz, you'd think white people had lynched thousands of African-Americans and that the U.S. government had failed to protect them.

"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched. These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded. Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched. That is only 27.3%. Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes." Berea College

"The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob." Questia Encyclopedia

But the government tried to make it right, right?
"State and local governments in the South did little to curtail lynchings; various laws against mob violence were seldom enforced. Three times (1922, 1937, 1940) antilynching legislation passed the House of Representatives, only to be defeated in the Senate. Although the term has fallen into disuse since the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, similar practices still occur, often classified today as "bias crimes."" Questia Encyclopedia

While lynching is wrong, they had good reasons. They were all for capital offenses, right?

"The accusations against persons lynched, according to the Tuskegee Institute records for the years 1882 to 1951, were: in 41 per cent for felonious assault, 19.2 per cent for rape, 6.1 per cent for attempted rape, 4.9 per cent for robbery and theft, 1.8 per cent for insult to white persons, and 22.7 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at a 11.5 In the last category are all sorts of trivial "offenses" such as "disputing with a white man," attempting to register to vote, "unpopularity", self-defense, testifying against a white man, "asking a white woman in marriage", and "peeping in a window.""

How could anyone quibble with those obvious death penalty offenses, especially "disputing with a white man."

The Reasons Given for Black Lynchings

* Acting suspiciously
* Gambling
* Quarreling
* Adultery
* Grave robbing
* Race hatred; Race troubles
* Aiding murderer
* Improper with white woman
* Rape
* Arguing with white man
* Incest
* Rape-murders
* Arson Inciting to riot
* Resisting mob
* Assassination
* Inciting trouble
* Robbery
* Attempted murder
* Indolence
* Running a bordello
* Banditry
* Inflammatory language
* Sedition
* Being disreputable
* Informing
* Slander
* Being obnoxious
* Injuring livestock
* Spreading disease
* Boasting about riot
* Insulting white man
* Stealing
* Burglary
* Insulting white woman
* Suing white man
* Child abuse
* Insurrection
* Swindling
* Conjuring
* Kidnapping
* Terrorism
* Courting white woman
* Killing livestock
* Testifying against white man
* Criminal assault
* Living with white woman
* Throwing stones
* Cutting levee
* Looting
* Train wrecking
* Defending rapist
* Making threats
* Trying to colonize blacks
* Demanding respect
* Miscegenation
* Trying to vote
* Disorderly conduct
* Mistaken identity
* Unpopularity
* Eloping with white woman
* Molestation
* Unruly remarks
* Entered white woman's room
* Murder
* Using obscene language
* Enticement
* Non-sexual assault
* Vagrancy
* Extortion
* Peeping Tom
* Violated quarantine
* Fraud
* Pillage
* Voodooism
* Plotting to kill
* Voting for wrong party
* Frightening white woman
* Poisoning well

"Many of these victims were ritualistically tortured. In 1904, Luther Holbert and his wife were burned to death. They were "tied to trees and while the funeral pyres were being prepared, they were forced to hold out their hands while one finger at a time was chopped off. The fingers were distributed as souvenirs. The ears...were cut off. Holbert was beaten severely, his skull fractured and one of his eyes, knocked out with a stick, hung by a shred from the socket."8 Members of the mob then speared the victims with a large corkscrew, "the spirals tearing out big pieces of...flesh every time it was withdrawn."" The Brute Caricature http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/more/brute_page.htm

But white America "kind of" felt it was wrong to lynch but not completely wrong and not always wrong. Sometimes it just cannot be avoided. James Cutler in his 1905 book Lynch expresses white America's refined attitude that lynchings "can only be justified on no other ground than that the law as formulated and administered has proved inadequate to deal with the situation?that there has been governmental inefficiency..."

What a magnanimous concession. That's one kind of self-determination; the determination to take the law into your own hands - a right reserved for whites.

How could this magnanimous concession possibly offend Reverend Wright and the Black community? Isn't it so obviously sound, so obviously white?

Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology at Ferris State University, found the following: "In 1921-22 the United States House of Representatives and Senate debated the Dyer Bill, an anti-lynching bill. This bill provided fines and imprisonment for persons convicted of lynching in federal courts, and fines and penalties against states, counties, and cities which failed to use reasonable effort to protect citizens from lynch mobs. The Dyer Bill passed in the House of Representatives, but it was killed in the Senate by filibustering southerners who claimed that it was unconstitutional and an infringement upon states' rights. The following statements made by southern Congressmen during the Dyer Bill debate suggest that they were more concerned with White supremacy and the oppression of Blacks than they were with constitutional issues.

Senator James Buchanan of Texas claimed that in "the Southern States and in secret meetings of the Negro race [White liberals] preach the damnable doctrine of social equality which excites the criminal sensualities of the criminal element of the Negro race and directly incites the diabolical crime of rape upon the white women. Lynching follows as swift as lightning, and all the statutes of State and Nation cannot stop it."

Representative Percy Quin of Mississippi, spoke of lynch law, "Whenever an infamous outrage is committed upon a [Southern] White woman the law is enforced by the neighbors of the woman who has been outraged? The colored people of [the South] realize the manner of that enforcement, and that is the one method by which the horrible crime of rape has been held down where the Negro element is in a large majority. The man who believes that the Negro race is all bad is mistaken. But you must recollect that there is an element of barbarism in the black man, and the people around where he lives recognize that fact."

Representative Sisson of Mississippi said, "as long as rape continues lynching will continue. For this crime, and this crime alone, the South has not hesitated to administer swift and certain punishment....We are going to protect our girls and womenfolk from these black brutes. When these black fiends keep their hands off the throats of the women of the South then lynching will stop...."

Representative Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina claimed that the Dyer Bill would eliminate the states and "substitute for the starry banner of the Republic, a black flag of tyrannical centralized government...black as the face and heart of the rapist...who [recently] deflowered and killed Margaret Lear," a White girl in South Carolina. Tillman asked why anyone should care about the "burning of an occasional ravisher," when the House had more important concerns.

Senator T.H. Caraway of Arkansas claimed that the NAACP, "wrote this bill and handed it to the proponents of it. These people had but one idea in view, and that was to make rape permissible, and to allow the guilty to go unpunished if that rape should be committed by a Negro against a white woman in the South."

Despite the hyperbolic claims of those Congressmen, most of the Blacks lynched had not been accused of rape or even attempted rape. According to the Tuskegee Institute's lynching data, the accusations against lynching victims for the years 1882 to 195l were: 41 percent for felonious assault, 19.2 percent for rape, 6.1 percent for attempted rape, 4.9 percent for robbery and theft, 1.8 percent for insulting White people, and 27 percent for miscellaneous offenses (for example, trying to vote, testifying against a White man, asking a White woman to marry) or no offenses at all. Even those Blacks who were accused of rape were not always guilty -- and, of course, they were lynched before getting criminal trials. Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish social scientist who had studied American race relations, claimed that the 25.3 percent of lynching victims accused of rape or attempted rape included innocent people. According to Myrdal,"
(Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, Ferris State University)

Still, isn't Reverend Wright quibbling with acts that are so far in the past that they should have been forgotten?

"In 1955, Emmitt Till, a Black fourteen year old Chicago youth, visited his relatives in Mississippi. Till apparently referred to a female White store clerk as "Baby." Several days later, the woman's husband and brother took Till from his uncle's home, beat him to death -- his head was crushed and one eye was gouged out--then threw his body into the Tallahatchie River. The men were caught, tried, and found innocent by an all-White jury. The case became a cause celebre during the civil rights movement, showing the nation that brutal violence undergirded Jim Crow laws and etiquette." (Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, Ferris State University)

But white America no longer lynches or rather rarely lynches. Have they learned from their mistakes or have they found a better way, a more subtle way? Is it so subtle that many whites are blind to it, can't see it, don't see it or simply don't want to see it? Is what is subtle to white America not subtle to Blacks? Is it blatant and damnable? Is it now vicious and hidden, cloaked with a new language and the absence of the old racist language? Have new methods been found to keep African-Americans "in line?" Is there a new subjugating fear, the fear of institutionalized death and imprisonment?

Just because Jeff Grabmeier's "In Death Sentences Linked to History of Lynching in States" (summary of research, conducted by David Jacobs, Jason Carmichael, a graduate student at Ohio State, and Stephanie Kent, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and published in the American Sociological Review) found the following, it doesn't mean that whites are still subjugating and punishing blacks for having the audacity to expect equal rights to really be equal.

"Researchers found that the number of death sentences for all criminals ? Black and white ? were higher in states with a history of lynchings. But the link was even stronger when only Black death sentences were analyzed."

"Our results suggest that the death penalty has become a sort of legal replacement for the lynchings in the past," Jacobs said. "This hasn't been done overtly, and probably no one has consciously made such a decision. But the results show a clear connection."

"Another study finding reinforces this idea. Results showed that the number of death sentences in states with the most lynchings increased as the state's population of African Americans grew larger, at least to a certain point. The researchers believe that is because, as their numbers increase, Blacks are seen by the white majority as a growing threat."

"The findings showed a clear link between the number of lynchings, the proportions of African Americans in the states, and the number of death sentences. "We found that violent acts in the distant past still seemed to be linked to current legal decisions about who will live and who will die.""

And just because the following evidence from Durose, Matthew R., Smith, Erica L., and Langan, Patrick A., PhD, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2005," (NCJ215243) (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2007) was found, it doesn't mean that white America continues to commit damnable acts.

"In both 2002 and 2005, white, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped by police at similar rates, while blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be searched by police. About 5% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop. Police found evidence of criminal wrong-doing (such as drugs, illegal weapons, or other evidence of a possible crime) in 11.6% of searches in 2005."

But that's just one research.
"Police issued tickets to more than half of all stopped drivers and arrested about 2.4% of drivers. Male drivers were 3 times more likely than female drivers to be arrested, and black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be arrested."

"In 2005 black (9.5%) and Hispanic (8.8%) motorists stopped by police were searched at higher rates than whites (3.6%). The likelihood of experiencing a search did not change for whites, blacks, or Hispanics from 2002 to 2005."

"Blacks (4.4%) and Hispanics (2.3%) were more likely than whites (1.2%) to experience use of force during contact with police in 2005. Blacks accounted for 1 out of 10 contacts with police but 1 out of 4 contacts where force was used.

Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000) "Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Yet blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment."

Welch, Ronald H., and Angulo, Carlos T., Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, "Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System" (Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, May 2000)
The report Justice on Trial from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights notes that though "blacks are just 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of the drug users, and despite the fact that traffic stops and similar enforcement yield equal arrest rates for minorities and whites alike, blacks are 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses. Moreover, more frequent stops, and therefore arrests, of minorities will also result in longer average prison terms for minorities because patterns of disproportionate arrests generate more extensive criminal histories for minorities, which in turn influence sentencing outcomes."

In 2006, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,737 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

* 66.2 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
* 21.3 percent were motivated by anti-white bias.
* 6.1 percent were driven by bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
* 4.9 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 1.5 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.

But that's all been corrected, right - Wright. In the United States doesn't everyone have an equal opportunity to succeed, and in times when the economy suffers, and the chasm between the rich and the poor increases, don't we all suffer the same? Right, Wright? Let's start over with no hard feelings. White America has changed - really.

Here are the numbers.
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in White American households:
$745
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in African American households:
$2,766
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Hispanic American households:
$1,043
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Asian American households:
$1,381
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- Median income of African American households in 2006: $31,969
-- Median income of Hispanic American households in 2006: $37,781
-- Median income of White American households in 2006: $50,673
-- Median income of Asian American households in 2006: $63,900
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- African Americans living in poverty in 2006: 24.3 percent
-- Hispanic Americans living in poverty in 2006: 20.6 percent
-- Asian Americans living in poverty in 2006: 10.1 percent
-- White Americans living in poverty in 2006: 8.2 percent
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

What are white America's answers to these questions and these facts?

Look at what white America has done for blacks since blacks were emancipated. They let them vote. Well, they eventually let some of them vote. Well, some places let some of them vote. Did Whites pass laws that hindered Blacks voting rights? Now-a-days whites don't prevent or hinder them from voting. Well, except in Ohio and Florida and a few other places.

Certainly, seeing that so little economic progress has really been made by the average African-American and watching white America extrapolate the success of a few high profile African-Americans to representing a successful integration into the American socioeconomic landscape can be more than frustrating to a person who has fought so long and hard. How long do we expect the Reverend and the Black community to bless America when it has done and continues to do so many damnable things in its past and its present? The African-American community has watched a white elected white President drive the country further into debt and dismantle programs that are intended to aid the disenfranchised while simultaneously aiding wealthy corporations and spending trillions on a war. Has he taken money that could have been used to make Americas greatest wrong and given it to his cronies? He did and it doesn't bother him. In many people's view that is a damnable, callous, hideous act. It certainly isn't an act that deserves God's blessing.

If we don't subscribe to the heresy of racial inferiority, and stupidity of simply plain laziness, what other explanations are open to us? Pure chance? It's a lottery and they're just unlucky? Oh gee, it's just the way things are. They just want a free ride. Are there no whites who expect that? The difference is - a lot of whites get it. They have a lot more advantages just by being white which means they are far less likely to start out being poor.

Could it be that to some degree the attack on the Reverend and by implication Obama is a verification that a large portion of the white population still has little or at the very least an incomplete understanding of the heavy price that African-Americans had to pay to earn the meager progress that they have gained? Could it really be that the degree to which whites are offended by what Reverend Wright said is the degree to which white America fails to understand what Blacks had to suffer and to understand what was done to them. While America would like to think that the playing field is level, is their view just distorted? Even if the field appears to be level, might it really be wishful thinking? Haven't African-Americans been forced to start on the goal line and trudge the one-hundred yards while white America has constantly started at mid-field or closer? With a larger percent than whites being born into poverty and near poverty and the median income being far below that of whites, is their trek down the field far more difficult? Much of white America says, "No."

Should we be saying, "Yes, you are right, we were wrong, damn wrong, and we continue to fail to right those wrongs."? Should the United States, not just individuals, be sued for allowing the enslavement of an entire race and denying them the rights that they have as Americans? There is always money for unethical and unnecessary wars but not for our own disenfranchised people.

Does white America simply want to forget about the past? Do they fail to understand that the past is still a part of the present and is still having profound effects? Is white America's concept that reparations for three hundred years of slavery and diminished rights have been paid accurate or merely laughable? Has it even begun to be paid? How can white America possibly considered that an apology is even remotely sufficient?

Are we a great country when we commit despicable acts? Should we be blessed by God when we commit damnable acts against our fellow humans? Are we really spreading real democracy when we deny the very thing to our own population that we claim to be spreading, and then deny equal rights to the people that we claimed to be saving from the tyranny of slavery and denial of civil rights? Have we continued to terrorize in blatant and subtle ways the people that we claimed were freed from tyranny and whose rights white America claimed they were protecting?

Can we commit these damnable acts and then criticize Reverend Wright for saying what really needed to be said for America's damnable acts? Considering the past and the present, how wrong was it for the Reverend to say, "God damn America!"? Should it be said until there are no more damnable acts and African-Americans are really treated equally or should he and the rest of anti-racist America say "Gosh darn America" or "Please stop oppressing us" or just stay quiet and take it like we expect a slave would?

I find it very interesting that half or more than half of Spanish Americans are voting for Hillary Clinton. From what I have heard it is because they want to show their support and loyalty to the Clintons. Because of the good things Bill Clinton did for the Spanish American during his time as President.

BUT, I personally feel they should support and vote for Barack Obama. Because, during the Civil Rights Movement. African American's protested and died for minorities to have equal rights in America.

Spanish American's are the largest and fastest growing minority group in America today. Spanish American's and Asian American's have been able to benefit and capitalizing on the American Dream. More so than African American's

I feel that all minorities should vote for Barack Obama. They would not have the rights they have today, if it was not for African American's protesting and dieing for equal rights in America.

Spanish American's, as well as the other American minorities should look at it this way. If Barack Obama wins and becomes our next American President. It will open the doors and increase the chances for minorities of other races to become President one day.

Barack Obama, is ready to be our next President. All he needs is the opportunity to show what he can do. He has been compared to President Kennedy, in having the unique ability to unit people of all races.

"When there is hope in the future. It gives you power in the present"

Have A Gratitude Day,

Dwayne McKinney

Obama Speech On Race (video)
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3947978n
Barack Obama's Speech On Race (Transcript)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/politics/main3947908.shtml

As an American Christian ("white" still, but someday soon simply "human")I have to point out that being damned for our sins is simply one step on the road to redemption. It's the one right before renouncing our sin.

"Within This America"

We are in the midst of observing something incredibly thrilling and of mammoth historic significance in this country. I predict that future generations and perhaps we, will someday reflect on the Presidential Campaign of Senator Barack Obama, as a secondary story and in truth, that is how it should be.

Several months ago I watched the movie "The Queen" starring Helen Mirren. In my efforts to mentally locate a basis for what I wanted to express in this writing, that film seems great example. In short, from my perspective it is in large part, a film about progress and change. But perhaps more importantly, it is about leadership failing to take the measure of, and to respond to the will of the people. It is a film about blinding myopia and rigid tradition which were the basis for crippled leadership. This column is also about the potential for people, citizens with deep seeded beliefs and dreams having an impact and creating real possibilities.

In spite of my optimism, clearly we cannot predict what further level of success Senator Obama will enjoy through the remainder of his campaign. What I have come to know is that is possible, "a very real possibility" that he may become the next President of the United States. That realization alone, speaks volumes about this country, its citizens and the reality of the American Dream.

As a child I would sometimes rush through the wonderful birthday meal my mother had prepared, only focusing on and anticipating the birthday cake that awaited me. Nearly completely failing to appreciate that two separate events were contained in that year's celebration. As we continue to go about our work on behalf of our candidate, we should be thoroughly enjoying the "fact" that through this campaign to date, we have already orchestrated what is quite possibly the most significant event in this nation's recent political history. I for one hope Americans never lose sight of or fail to fully appreciate this. Without question securing the Democratic Party nomination and the White House are further critical goals to remain intently focused on. But for many Americans such a reality is only just becoming fathomable.

Before I continue and in an effort to ensure my past ideological failings are fully exposed, let me share some insight into myself. I am an African American, fifty four years old and a native of Cleveland, Ohio. I am college educated and a retired U. S. Naval Officer and former business professional. In short, politically I am significantly right of Teddy Kennedy and perhaps even Senator Obama. So in truth, had you asked me one year ago if this level of success was remotely possible for this candidate, I would have responded that such a thing was both a pipe dream as well as a dangerous proposition. Let me say that I no longer believe either of the foregoing, and also that I was pointedly wrong. I was wrong in my manner of thinking, and wrong about America. I had mentally fallen victim to visions of the same depressing political paralysis that I had long despised.
.
Media pundits and long time politicians repeatedly tell us that speeches, passion, dreams and movements are not the stuff that political leadership is made of. In my view, one has only to recall even from youthful historic studies, visions of just those things as the basis for garnering support for forming and defending the fledgling United States of America. Not only have the long time political insiders seemingly forgotten this, but they also shamelessly and publicly state their disbelief in the importance and substance of it. I can only imagine that this is due in large part to deeply ingrained institutionalized concepts and political ideology that defy them clear vision of the very America that they have committed themselves to report on or the Americans they profess to represent. Oh yes, our career politicians want us to vote for them but they don't think we really understand and appreciate their methods. Then selling this hollow notion of experience, while locked in an egotistical comma, failing to respond to our many in citizens living in most every variety despair. The reality is, they don't fully understand and appreciate that the citizens have lost faith in their ability to adequately examine the needs of the people, or their willingness to even fully grasp and carry out such basic concepts as the "will of the people". I am genuinely perplexed as to how on a grand scale, American politicians unknowingly wander lost into this unknown place. A place as in the aforementioned movie, where "they simply don't understand that they don't understand".

In the history of this generation there is a new story, not only that of traditional vitriolic words, callous tactics and seedy improprieties which litter the landscape of our political leadership. There is now the far more compelling and intriguing story of the "Children of Light", the many Americans who have loosed themselves from the grips of fear, myopia, silence and indifference. Citizens who have become galvanized by a purposeful dream and belief in an "America within" with the power to change America throughout.

So many have risen to work together for something wonderful in a unified quest for a new brand of leadership. I am heartened and energized by what I have seen and learned from my country of late. In spite of our many troubles and differences, many still believe there is within our grasp a magnificent reality of untainted leadership, equity and freedom to choose that should be thoroughly considered and fully appreciated. There is a visible movement of the many, the we, who are taking an active stance politically and simply refusing to eat "the devil's hor dourves". The diverse and delicately blended we, who are galvanized in casting our votes and having a voice in making our choice for the next President of the United States. We, who are joined in our effort to overturn this nation's inefficient and rustic political machine.

Certainly, there are many challenges and disagreements to face and battles to fight. But now, no mater how daunting the task or how dismal the outlook, or how deeply painful the scars, I am convinced without question, that "within this America" of today, "there is something greater".

L. A. Walker

© Leon A. Walker, March 2008

ROLAND MARTIN WHITE WASHES WRIGHT & OBAMA

I've always felt that Roland Martin was biased toward Obama. On news programs he always adds some spin to let Obama ... and, now Wright look better. First of all ... CNN's title of the article is 'The Full Story' ... huh uh ... CNN'S full story maybe. Plus, who cares if an ambassador wrote most of the 'chickens coming home to roost' speech. Martin makes a big thing about 'context' ... and, yet the ambassador's context was much different than Wright's ... not to mention, less emotional ... less incendiary ... and, over a period of time, not in a context of speeches that were racially explosive, divisive, anti-American ('god damn America'... the government created AIDS to get rid of blacks ... 911 govt. conspiracy ... etc.) ... and, not after giving Louis Farrakan a lifetime achievement award ... that's context! Personally, I don't need Roland Martin's INTERPRETATION ... Martin's article doesn't justify Obama exposing himself, and his family to Wright's racist associations, and hate speech for over 20 years ... (another aspect of context). As eloquent a speech writer and speaker Obama is ... I think his ambition over shadows his honesty and patriotism ... and, I don't trust him.

Let me get this straight:

It is alright to talk about the revolution, Lincoln, and Pearl Harbor, but any talk about the Tuskegee experiment, COINTELPRO, or white flight is off limits...

YOU MUST BE OUT YOUR GOD D*** MIND!

brightledge, you are a racist. Confess.

Billy Joe,

Also it seems to me white people don't want to be reminded of their unspeakable past. It doesn't just begin with racism. White's have brought nothing but death, pestilence and destruction where ever they have gone. From the aboriginee people all over the world, to the colonization of more than 3/4 the world, and how this affected the people they subjugated. You'd better do your home work kid. Find out a little bit about the white mans' past.

brightledge, "White's have brought nothing but death, pestilence and destruction where ever they have gone.", Who brought the modern medicine to Africa that saves millions every year? Oh, I am sorry, Pastor Wrights says that the CIA invented AIDS to kill the Africans. I apologize for the CIA inventing AIDS and spreading it. brightledge, you are as rational as Pastor Wright and his student, Obama.

How is it that in remembering and blaming the ENTIRE white race for the shameful past of slavery, that is is conveniently forgotten that it was black africans who initially captured and sold neighboring black tribes to the white slaver??? Just a curious question...

I'm a white male who prefers to date black females, as such I have a page on a black social site. Never once has anyone baited me.
I think the old adage "If you don't have any thing good to say, don't say anything." works wonders.

Joyce- Not sure that it is blaming the entire white race for slavery. I am pretty sure it has to do with failing to realize white priviledge, male priviledge, etc. We have had power over others for hundered of years, have changed the rules to keep others down and refuse to admit any culpability. Remember the Founding Documents? Big debate in the continental congress to make sure blacks could never be a threat to the white majority, hence the compromise of black men counting as 3/5 of a white man. If that is not stacking the deck, and Plessy V. Ferguson, and Jim Crowe and poll taxes and pay toilets and the rest of the crap the powerholders have pulled doesn't deserve an apology from the State (and dominanat power group) not sure what does.

Brianna, I agree with Pastor Wright about Israel being a terrorist state. We should stop sending taxpayer money that is used by the terrorist state to oppress third world people, the Palestinians. Nobel Prize winners, Carter, Bishop Tu tu, and Nelson Mandela, amongst many other Nobel peace Prize winners agree with Pastor Wright on this issue. Let us move on to other issues now.

There is no doubt Mr. Obama wants to be president. There is no doubt his recent speech was a carefully calculated strategy to further his presidential aspirations. In this he is no better or worse than any of the other presidential aspirants. Herein lies the rub. Obama stakes his claim to fame on not practicing politics as usual. Yet, he acts no differently from any other candidate, and still wants to be treated differently. He asks, please don't ask me any more about my pastor damning America but notice how I can damn Muslims like I was Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, he was supposed to be Kennedy, today he's Lincoln come back from the grave. Who will he be tomorrow? Who is he really?

It's amazing how preoccupations with racism completely blot out the sexism which is far more insidious and pervasive in this election.

Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose just as the Roman Empire had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity. The past has nothing to do with the present (wink, wink).

I can't understand why Obama talking about race is such a big deal. That's all they do at his church anyway! Only they do it the other way around. I have never been racist, but being a woman of Middle Eastern and Latin American origin, I have suffered extensive discrimination. What bothers me the most about the discussion is that Obama approaches the race issue as if he was innocent in it! He is not, his pastor is not and his church of 20 years is not. Take a look at this and tell me it is not divisive, discriminatory and race oriented.

This is the "Statement of Faith" published in Obama's church's website at http://www.tucc.org/about.htm:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

If these people consider Africa the mother land, maybe all of them in that church should return to Africa ... how do you thing they would like it?

I never liked Obama since moment one and, although I loath Hillary, I'd rather vote for her as the Democrat candidate than for Obama. Being able to write well and being a good orator doesn't guarantee a good president.

Mar - you are against a church that believes in helping Africa and Africans? Why? How is that racist? Plenty of Latino people in the U.S. only support candidates who are committed to helping Latin American countries and people from Latin American countries. Is that racist? If they speak Spanish and talk about their love of their Peruvian or Columbian homeland would you tell them to go back where they came from? Plenty of Jews in Synagogues around the U.S. talk about how they are committed to helping Israel. Do you think there is something wrong with that? Is it wrong for an Orthodox Greek church to speak out in issues affecting Greece? If they say they consider themselves Greeks and that they love Greece would you tell them "Why don't you go back there then?" Multiculturalism is part of American life for many of us. It seems you are trying to say the Trinity United Church of Christ is racist because it believes in helping its congregants and people like them - that makes no sense to me.

Why do you seem to assume that just because Obama belongs to a church that believes in helping black people and African people that that is what his presidency is going to be all about? Hillary Clinton belongs to a church too, and they believe some things I am sure she personally disagrees with. Remember, in this country we have separation of church and state. I believe people are entitled to worship in private.

Also-Sue-apparently you did not listen to Obama's speech. If you did you would realize he does not have "A black panther mentality" or "a victim mentality". In fact his speech is about getting past both those things. Obama has vehemently denounced the racist and anti-U.S. Government things his pastor has said. But remember when his pastor grew up. Have you ever heard of Cointelpro? How about the Tuskegee Experiments? You might want to look those up. Also, did you know that the same terrorists who bombed us on 9/11 (including Osama Bin Laden) were the ones we propped up to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s? Context is everything. I don't agree with what the pastor said but I understand it.

In his speech Senator Obama talked about how both whites and blacks have genuine concerns about how their race is treated and perceived by the other in this country. He said the Reverend Wright was wrong and could not see all the progress that has been made by blacks and between the races since the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. Yes it was a politically motivated speech and one he did not want to make - I wish he didn't have to make it also. The less I hear about "Sexism" and "Racism" or gender and race in this election the better.

The Rev. Wright is an old man who is stuck in the past, but he is also a father figure of sorts to Obama. You ask, how can Obama associate with a man who says such hateful things, for 20 years...how can he expose his children to this? Maybe your view is incomplete. The Rev. Wright may have a black panther/victim mentality in some ways, but many people seem to think that all this church and this pastor is about is attacking the U.S. government and white people. No - the church is mostly about helping people, helping the poor get by, helping addicts recover, helping marriages survive. It is also, like most churches, about holding religious ceremonies like baptisms and marriages. It is NOT mostly about the handful of inflammatory remarks you can see on Youtube made in a handful of the 50+ sermons Rev. Wright delivered every year for decades.

The Reverend Wright is strongly against prayer in schools and other intrusions of the church in public life (unlike some of the religious leaders McCain is working with). He is a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian rights. There are many good things about the guy and when Obama says the Reverend Wright does not hate white people I believe him - Wright may be crazy and he is clearly angry at/distrustful of whites, which makes me uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean he hates all whites.

It is amazing how people just don't have much of a problem with preachers who preach hate against gays and lesbians endorsing Republicans. It doesn't create this kind of a fuss. But an angry black guy really gets people excited. I guess its not hard to see why - most of us are white and only a few of us are gay/lesbian or care about someone who is.

Also, I fail to see how sexism is a much bigger issue in this race than racism. Both are issues and they are different. I don't think one is worse than the other - saying it is strikes me as that "victim mentality" some of us decry. Sexism has definitely hurt Senator Clinton just has racism has hurt Senator Obama. Nobody on Obama's staff has said Hillary Clinton would never get where she is if she weren't a woman or married to Bill Clinton- though plenty of people have said this outside of the campaigns. Of course such statements are sexist nonsense. But If Obama was white he wouldn't have to deal with people like Geraldine Ferraro trying to make his race an issue (and Sen. Clinton standing by as she did so), or Bill Clinton comparing him to Jesse Jackson when the only thing they have in common is they are black candidates who won the black vote in SC (Bill Clinton also won the vast majority of the black vote in SC in 1992-nobody had a problem with that), or Tim Russert asking him if he agrees with Harry Belafonte's criticisms of the Dept. of Homeland Security when Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Belafonte other than that they are both dark-skinned and frizzy-haired.

Also, many black people I have spoken to think Obama might be assassinated - I've even heard some white people say this. I haven't yet met anyone who is particularly afraid for Senator Clinton's life in this election.

People are just too eager to stir up racial resentments in this election. The Reverend Wright is not the black David Duke and Obama is not the Reverend Wright anyway.

Brightledge,
LOL...I am a white woman and you are right...ignorant is ignorant, no matter what the color or race.

Obama's speech was one of the best I have ever heard since Bobby Kennedy's when MLK was murdered....the other one was Obama's speech at the Democratic convention.

All things considered, it is a good thing that we are again advancing the discussion on the issue of race in the United States. Shoghi Effendi referred to racism as "the most challenging issue" facing Americans. The unity of this republic, and really, the unity of the planet depend upon all of us addressing this issue in a compassionate, understanding, thoughtful, fair-minded manner.

It's not amazing that out of hundreds of Rev. Wright's sermons, parts of sentences were cherry-picked to give the impression that he is preaching hate, damning America and "spewing venom". Neither is it amazing that without bothering to investigate the full context of those words certain people are so eager to condemn Wright and Obama. And although rage DOES exist in the black community, much to the surprise of white people it seems, I guess unlike the Jews who will "never forget" we blacks are supposed to just "get over it". Oh and we are supposed to know that feminism trumps undoing the legacies of slavery and racism any day. I almost forgot to ignore the fact that slavery as practiced by the colonialists who purchased from black slave-traders was the more brutal than previously known to humanity.

>>>>no one's bugging your tired old Third World Students Association meeting<

O really...? I wouldn't be so sure...

====

Not very insightful comments on race:

Some societies are more egalitarian than others. Ours is definitely better than some (such as Sudan or China) and worse than others (such as much of Western Europe, which has become much more culturally diverse in recent years). We also have a unique history of racism protected by law for 3/4 of our existence. Of course we will face problems between groups, but we strive to be the best.

"As far as racism goes, America is doing a great job without Obama's pastor teaching Obama how to lead us to that Nirvana where I gather Blacks lead and whites are the little people?"

And...how did you gather that? Such nonsense indeed.

To Abe,

I do consider myself a citizen of the world. I have lived in three countries so far and I am not even 50. So there. I have never voted in my life, but I have paid my taxes religiously to all these countries that don't consider I have the right to vote. I don't belong to any one country. I don't complain about the country am in and I have never worked for the cause of my country of birth. I find it an hypocrisy to leave in a foreign country and complain against it and then support all the causes of your original country. It doesn't matter which one is your country. If you love it so much, if it is so superior to the one you live in, then move back there.

Now, I am talking about foreign born people. But this church is a different story. These are people born here whose relatives came from Africa several generations ago. They are not Africans, they are Americans, with all the advantages that implies. Africa is a very poor continent, plagued by lack of resources for everybody, wars, poverty, corruption, indeed, not a very nice place to live in. Africa is not the ideal continent and Africans are not the ideal people. Neither is America and Americans. The fact of the matter is that black people are better of in the USA than in many other countries - but they still complain! In Brazil there was also slavery, yet blacks over there don't feel they are better than whites because of that and they don't have organizations (religious or not) that promote the interestes of the African continent or any particular African country.

Furthermore, this is a church and I am an atheist who hates all churches and religions, since in my eyes and experience are all a manipulative way of control of the masses. If you have more than two brain cells, you cannot stomach fairy tales and if you want to be the president of the US, then you MUST use your brain to make good decisions BEFORE you ever imagine yourself in that exalted position. If you are so stupid that you associate with a radical and racist church, then it is hard to avoid judging you a little on the light side of the intelligence spectrum.

I completely agree with Wright on the issues. What I don't agree with is his delivery, the environment in which he chose to deliver those speeches (they are not sermons), and how hypocritical it is that he is against prayers in schools, but has no problem delivering a politically charged, endorsement speech in his church??? But mostly I don't agree with Obama talking about America's racism when in fact he belongs to a racist church - for 20 years, no less! It just doesn't make any sense.

Lastly, Wright and this church are very clear regarding their position toward Israel. They consider it a terrorist state and they consider their agressions an opression just as bad as slavery was to the black race. How come then now Obama is all sweet to Israel? So, one of the two, either Obama dumped his allegiances of 20 years (which is not a good thing) just because he wants to be elected president, or he is telling lies for the same reason. Either way is not a good sign of things to come.