first, being afrocentric and being a black nationalist are two separate things.

1) afrocentrism is a world view that encourages people of african descent-- regardless of nationality-- to understand that their cultural legacy is not limited to the last 500 years of interaction with european values; before slavery, there were vibrant african civilizations that had their own social and cultural values, some of which may not match up with what they have learned in western societies. for example, many african people today who come to the u.s. marvel at our emphasis on the nuclear family, whereas in africa and many other cultures on other continents, there are no such thing as cousins, only brothers or sisters, uncles and aunts are treated with the same reverence as mothers and fathers, and elders remain at the center of society as opposed to being sent to nursing homes. these values have nothing to do with nationalism; afrocentrism's antecedent in the 1920's was "negritude"--and then "pan-africanism" after that. at the core was this idea of self-respect as an antidote to the constant attacks on the self esteem and humanity of black people that was central to american apartheid, i.e., slavery and segregation, and colonialism elsewhere in the world. the values of afrocentrism have much moe in comon with american conservatism and libertarianism than anything else-- it encourages self reliance, picking yourself up by your boot straps, and hard work-- all american values with an added cultural expression that should no more threatening to you than the st. patrick's day parade or san gennaro festival. our diversity is what makes us great.

black nationalism, on the other hand, was a discrete philosophy that had three primary manifestations in the u.s., none of which are part of trinity united church: 1) the back to africa movement int he reconstruction period (which lincoln supported atone time) and later in the garvey movement in the 19-teens; 2) a political and economic philosophy articulated in the 1960's by malcolm x (pre-1964)and others that advocated for black communities to look to themselves and ultimately to separate from america in order to support the interests of black people since the government refused to grant equal protection under the law (jim crow segregation) or allocate equal resources to areas with high concentrations of blackpeople.; 3) the explicit intention of forming a separate state, with its own borders, own government and own currency which was advocated by a small group of radicals in the late 60's and early 70's. none of these have anything to do with trinity, and have nothing to do with anything in barack obama's 20 years on the public record.

why did he choose that church? 1) that was where he was living and working and it was the mainstream church in the area. in fact, the south side is overwhelmingly black. 2) he probably was seeking to connect with his black identity-- he is of mixed parentage and that shit is confusing in a society that is used to making people choose.

lastly, obama never said he was the non-racial or post-racial candidate-- the american media did. obama has never presented himself as anything else but african american, but the media and perhaps well-intentioned white americans, projected that label, that hope for our society, onto him. all obama did was say i want to run a campaign about issues, not personal attacks, i want to find our common ground instead of seeking to exploit divisions. he never said the divisions or differences do not exist, he simply expressed how he would approach and engage them.

in my view, post-racial is a myth, just as being color-blind is a myth. i don't want to be color-blind, i want to respect and love people for who they are, and that includes their cultural, ethnic or melanin content.

thanks for your response.

Too many are failing to put Reverend Wright's sermons in their proper context. See here also for some interesting insights.

gretz, thanks for your reply.

you write: "this sounds like the usual white-guilt rationalization of "L'Affaire Wright" ...it goes like this: "we're white people, and as white people we can't ever possibly understand the black experience. part of that experience includes slavery and Jim Crow and those tragedies are an indelible stain on this country's history that can never go away...." I happen to agree with all that. but since when has that given anyone a license to spew venom about this country and those of its citizens who happen to be white?

if a white pastor talked about black people in that way, he'd be out of a job, forever branded as a racist, anti-Semitic wingnut."

first, i ask that you try to read this without the convenient labels we are force-fed everyday... liberal this, latte drinking that. i am not interested in guilt. slavery and jim crow is absolutely something white americans can understand-- white americans lived through that period to. in addition, while different, the psychological damage that results from any system of supremacy and subjugation goes both ways-- it never feels quite right to degrade another; our own humanity senses that we have betrayed ourselves. or let us look at it in terms of 9/11-- every american instantly understood what it is like to leave in fear, to be hated, to be subject to random violence, to be under attack economically, socially and politically simply for being who we are-- american. well, that's what many black americans feel every day in some region of their experience. so i am far more interested in mutual empathy that motivates active steps towards change, than guilt, and an honest assessment and acknowledgment of our very recent history of racial apartheid in this country, with all of its psychological impacts. this is exactly the dialogue that has never taken place. instead, as a nation, we have tried to skip ahead, jump to a cheap optimism that skirts responsibility-- move along, there's nothing to see here-- and have retreated to the safety of our comfort zones. one of those comfort zones is, "its a black experience that white americans will never understand." well, white, jewish and protestant and catholic americans certainly understood enough to put their own lives on the line during the civil rights struggle. what has proven to make the difference, generation after generation, is human interaction that shatters our little pigeonholes, on all sides-- that's bill bradley's story after playing basketball, that's the story of countless veterans, countless artists, and countless students. It also is why the "coasts" get these issues a little faster than other places. So please, guilt has no use here-- an honest confrontation with our own baggage and a willingness to engage with other people's baggage until we are ready to let it go is a far more risky, painful and necessary affair.

second, what venom was spewed about america? what venom was spewed about white americans? what venom was spewed about jewish people? the real purpose of this post was to challenge the filters through which we have our dialogues and the filters through which we hear things, not to defend wright. the purpose of providing historical context and actual sources for wright's claims (sources who are all white by the way), was again, to force us to question our response to wright, not to justify or agree with his views. everything that preceded "god damn america" with the exception of "the government gives them the drugs" is historically accurate and verifiable facts-- native american genocide, japanese american internment, slavery, segregated schools and housing, unequal protection under the law, wage disparities, three strike laws, and prison expansion. these are facts. what makes them venomous? that they are spoken? and the "drugs" comment, as i submitted his sources (webb & parry), is probably wrong, but debatable. lastly, when you view the whole sermon, he says all governments fail, this government has failed (and sites those examples), says god damn america as long as she acts like she is god and she is supreme. and the purpose of this is not to be anti-american, it is to warn america and particuarly black americans against putting faith in one's government instead of in god. that is the prophetic tradition from which he and countless other preachers of every color come from-- warn the people, speak "truth to power." i'm not religious, but i understand. again, where is the anti-america venom per se? seems more like anti-arrogant, unjust domestic and foreign policy to me, especially since he doesn't start talking about america until he has mentioned all the other governments that have failed -- roman, british, japanese and german. lastly, i have a hard time calling someone who served for six years in the marines and the navy during the vietnam war an america-hater; if anything, rev. wright earned his right to criticize the u.s. government.

what venom was spewed about white people? because he said sen. clinton was white? and privileged? and rich? and that rich, white, privileged people control the u.s. government? well, these, i am afraid, are facts. over one-third of congressional members are millionaires. for the last two decades, over half of the cabinet members have been millionaires. and 97% of all of these people have been white. so is it venomous because the truth hurts? or is it because of how he is using the truth? i think it must be the latter, so for the record, let me say that i think he underestimates the discrimination and fear and terror that goes hand in had with being a woman in this society. ask our female soldiers. so sen. clinton very well may have felt the kind of anxiety and fear and hatred that rev. wright is referencing when he talks about cabs passing by, or being puled over by police, or being called names designed to degrade. that said, she has been white and affluent and in the halls of power for at least the last 40 years of her life. so again, can you please reference where rev. wright spoke of hating white people, or encouraged his congregation to hate white people? why does his church have white members? (self-hating, guilty white people?) if he teaches anti-white hate, why didn't his denomination, which is 95% white, cast his church out? again, i'm asking these questions in the spirit of challenging the way we consume information-- the media packages it for us, but do we unpack it for ourselves and interogate our filters, assumptions and fears?

what anti-semitic venom? criticizing israeli policy is not anti-semitism-- that happens in the kinnesit every single day. his award to farrakhan? he gave farrakhan an award for his decades long service to the black community in chicago-- the same community he serves; if it is now our position that the entirety of someone's life is to be judged by a few of their ignorant and absolutely hurtful statements, i expect that we need to take a lot of people off our money and a lot of names off our buildings. washington and jefferson, for crying out loud, owned people! a product of their times? yep, and so is farrakhan. yet, no one on their right mind will dispute the brilliance of jefferson's writings. well, the fact is, farrakhan has done good work in the black community despite some of his myopic and distorted views and statements (which, by the way, were made over 20 years ago, were truly stripped of context, and are contrary to many of his actions in terms of working with white or jewish people; here, again, anti-israeli policy is being equated with anti-semitism, and once you are painted with that brush, your public life is done in this country).

lastly, you say "if a white pastor talked about black people..." (what about graham, falwell, robertson? they had access to the president for generations). yet you say you don't understand the analogy i am making between a "black state" and a "jewish state." i'm trying to convey that there are reasons why it is ridiculous to play this equivalency game-- the playing field is not level. the playing field is tilted by historical context. the persecution and oppression of jewish people tilts the field so that it is justifiable in our mind to speak of the validity of a "jewish state;" if we spoke of a "white state" we would think it was racist and crazy. if we spoke of a "black state" we would think it racist and crazy. what allows us to fiercely defend the right of the jewish state of isreal to exist is our understanding of history and context. still with me? so now, i am suggesting that we do the dialogue a disservice if we speak as if "black" and "white" are completely interchangeable in the america, given history and context (not to mention all the other ethnic groups that get left out of this debate... we need less of a di-alogue and more of a poly-logue). yes, we are all americans, yes we have more in common than differences, yes we are interested in moving forward as one people, but there are no short-cuts. this facile equivalency is an attempt to just move on-- it say, the rules are all fair now, so just play. well that pretty much forces people to deny a portion of the forces that have shaped them, and that denial, instead of being cathartic, serves as another means of rendering a person invisible. this is why being "post-racial" or "color-blind" is so flawed-- the goal is to embrace and love allof who we are, not to be unable to see certain aspects of who we are (our unique history, culture, perspective). the "content of our character" includes our culture, which includes our history, which includes our distant and recent origins.

again, thank you for your reply; i hope this gets us a little further down the road.
peace,
gkp