Parents Weekend and Reverend Wright
It is Parents Weekend at Northwestern University in Evanstorn, Illinois, and I am here visiting my son, a freshman, and my daughter, a senior. My oldest daughter graduated from here last spring so I guess that qualifies this alumnus of that other institution resting high above Cayuga's waters as a member of the Northwestern community.
Last night, my son and I attended what I understand was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's first public appearance since the election. The audience of approximately 1,200 consisted of students from Northwestern and neighboring colleges and various luminaries of the Chicago scene, including, William Ayers. We didn't get to stay for the entire event because Reverend Wright arrived late (we were told he was caught in traffic!), and the program began almost an hour and a half after the scheduled start time. The simple fact is that I flew out to Chicago to see my kids, and not to report on a speaking event. Still, I thought that at least some of you would be interested in my observations (particularly if this is going to rekindle another mini media frenzy).
Reverend Wright was invited to speak by a group called For Members Only, a Northwestern black student alliance, after the Reverend had been unceremoniously disinvited last spring to receive an honorary degree from the University in the midst of the media frenzy over some of the choice excerpts from his sermons. I don't condone what the Reverend said in those snippets by any strech of the imagination, but Reverend Wright, principally through his church and his ministry, has been a pillar of the Chicago inner-city community for decades. The honorary degree he was to receive was well-deserved and earned the hard way, and frankly I have to say that I am embarassed by the University's decision to deny him the honor that was to be bestowed on him. It is a university for heaven's sake and it is where we are supposed to embrace diversity of opinion. Instead, I surmise that the University deferred to angry and wealthy donors who, ironically but in reality, endow the university with much of the funding that is, inter alia, used to provide financial aid to students in need. I understand the University's decision, but I disagree with it without reservation.
My guess is that if you survey some of the media reports about Reverend Wright's address today, you will read about his pointed jabs at the press and what he and his family and parishoners had been subjected to last spring, and you might also read about Reverend Wright's brief but unambiguous and unqualified praise for and support of Barack Obama. But the election of Obama and the media frenzy surrounding Wright's bit part in the campaign were really side issues last night. The focus was on the fact that, at Northwestern and other elite universities across the country, the systemic lack of equal opportunity between blacks and whites in American in 2008 is as plain as day. Four and one-half percent of my son's freshman class is black, or put another way only 81 of the almost 2000 Northwestern freshman are black. This represents a little more than a one percent decline from the freshman class of 2007.
I didn't hear, or candidly maybe I didn't understand, the solutions being proposed by Reverend Wright, and the passionate students and other guests who spoke before him (again we were unable to stay for the entire program, including the question and answer session with Reverend Wright). Reverend Wright spoke of the simple truth that there are many, many black students across the country who meet the academic qualifications required to attend Northwestern, but he also pointed out that most of those students come from families that could never afford the 50,000 dollar-plus annual cost of matriculating there. I am by no means a rich man (honestly), I will owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in college loans after my kids graduate, but I have a good job and a wife who accepts the financial responsibility I have to the kids from my first marriage, and somehow we will manage during the decade-plus that it will take to pay off the debts I have incurred. The same cannot be said for too many African American families whose children are well-qualified but simply do not have the financial means to attend institutions like Northwestern. To be sure, as I have written here time and again, the nagging inequality of opportunity between black and white Americans will not disappear simply because we made history and elected our first African American president this week.
Reverend Wright also spoke at length about the need to move away from teaching black kids about black history and culture through the prism of the standard European-American model of what constitutes "our" history and "our" culture. His historical overview of black education in America was measured and riveting at the same time. Reverend Wright spoke with a mix of eloquence and humor, with no hint of bitterness or anger, and his presenstation confirmed to me, and more importantly from my perspective, to my son, that he is a brilliant scholar who is nothing like the man caricatured by the media during the presidential campaign.
Finally, like most of you, I am a political junkie, and I could not help thinking about the actions President-Elect Obama took last spring to disassociate himself from Reverend Wright. I believed back then when I was a loyal supporter of Senator Clinton and I am even more convinced now, that President-Elect Obama threw Reverend Wright under the bus because he had to, because for political reasons he had no other choice It is just silly to pretend that Senator Obama "didn't know" after twenty years about the things Reverend Wright said from the pulpit. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. That said, I just don't blame Obama for what he did because the simple fact is that he had to abandon Reverend Wright if he was going to be elected president. And that, I submit, is a real tragedy; the young senator from Illinois, the man who rekindled hope in millions of Americans around the country, was forced to conform with those "white" norms Reverend Wright spoke about last night, just as Jackie Robinson in another less critical arena and in another era had to endure the brutality of overt racism in order to play on the white folks' field of play.
I think Reverend Wright knew perfectly well what his parishoner had to do last spring if he was going to break one more previously inpenetrable racial barrier and become president. And I think, in the end, that's why Reverend Wright did what he did before all those masters of the universe at the National Press Club. Reverend Wright took one for the team and gave the pundits the red meat they craved, and that is one measure of a man this humble blogger takes very seriously. I probably couldn't sit through some of Reverend Wright's sermons and I particularly detest what he said about 9/11. That's just not my thing and I really have no interest in debating the Reverend or anyone else about that way of thinking. But, still, Reverend Wright has earned my respect, and he gave me a personal gift last night, and he did so by speaking to my son and the other students in the audience, and by causing them to think a little bit outside of the box and through the eyes of their less fortunate American brothers and sisters. And isn't that, as distinguished from doing things like politicizing the honorary degree process, supposed to be what a university is all about?
Bruce
Would be nice if it was only merit that posed the challenge for attendance at Nothwestern. (Congrats on yours meeting that standard.) No hope of that, though, in the U.S. The only national universities we have are the military academies. Kind of fits with the luminaries on our currency being politicians, not writers, artists, or scientists, (which I used to enjoy seeing on European bills, pre-Euro).
November 8, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not impossible and we were well on the way in the 60's and 70's without bankrupting the nation and without going for the European system which has it's own downsides. For example, when I went to UW-Madison as a resident of Wisconsin, it was ranked right up there with the Ivy Leagues. Or UC-Berkeley, right up there, considered one of the best educations in the world. Or, another, CUNY, which rose from a free-tuition-for-the-poor college to prominence in many fields.
Yes, those institutions were not total open meritocracies, there were major "preferences" built-in: for residents of the tax-paying area that supported them, The "outsiders" had to meet much higher standards and pay much more, and my point is, there were that many wanted to. And many prominent thinkers that wanted to teach or do research at those institutions.
What I saw happening in my lifetime is that many boomer parents, beneficiaries of that system, turned their back on that system, when having much smaller families with much more "precious" children, apparently, bought into the paradigm that their kids needed to break into the Ivy League to rub shoulders and network with the old elite there to be successful. State universities were not good enough anymore, everyone wanted to get their kids into the private schools, and the resulting lack of support led to a downward spiral--where first state universities become not as desirable to a bigger group than ever before, then state universities less able to draw good faculties, actually lose quality, state get less support as they do so, etc. Further downward spiral: many more employers fall into the same belief system as those parents--i.e., the kid has Harvard on his resume, he's automatically considered a better hire because he has rubbed shoulders with an "elite."
November 8, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The above was supposed to be posted as a reply to Tom Wright's comment, not bslev's post.
November 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant we have no non-tuition universities that I know of. State schools have lower costs for residents, but are still incredibly expensive if they are the flagship school, like University of Illinois/Champaign.
November 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a study published a few years ago on the composition of the student bodies at "flag-ship" state universities. It found that students increasingly come from upper-middle class families, i.e., another example of trickle up economics. Joe, the plumber, pays taxes, but John, the doctor, gets his kid into the state u. The public pays a declining percentage of tuition and other support to students.
Here's to the Big Ten states for electing Obama. But when I was a student at a Big Ten U back in the seventies, I paid not one penny of tuition. There were full ride scholarships available from the state based on parent's income and student merit. It's unfortunate that poor kids can't get into the top private universities but it's public neglect of the fundmental infrastrucure of our coutnry that keeps them out of public universities.
November 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind, Bruce, that it is known that Rev. Wright basically told Obama before his announcement to run that he knew he might have to be thrown under the bus.
Also keep in mind that as a popular preacher he himself knew all about pandering to his own audience. That's why he knew he might have to be thrown under the bus. When you look at the "god damn America" sermon, do you see someone being totally honest there? I don't, I see someone pandering to his audience with hyperbole. He gets what Obama did because he did it himself, I am sure, quite often, i.e., there's one Rev. Wright, when talking to universities and things like civic and corporate boards and to people like young Illinois representative Obama, then there's the Rev. Wright of the pulpit.
The one I really don't get that tape of Father Michael Pfleger making fun of Hillary. That man lost all my respect doing that. He was not just pandering, it was almost as if he was doing a demeaning parody of Rev. Wright type preachers. He made a fool of himself by not being himself. As a former Catholic, I saw him as selling his soul to the devil just to be looked at as a cool guy by that community. :-) And it didn't come close to play as authentic, he just looked like a clown. He deserves any lengthy penance he is getting in loss of respect.
November 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA:
Been meaning to respond to your comments. First, I think places like your alma mater, UW-Madison (my law school), Michigan, Minnesota, etc. are still doing a great job educating in-state kids but, as bluebell writes below, it's getting expensive and there is more and more pressure I think to take in out-of-staters who pay higher tuition. By the way, I understand your point about parents trying to gain advantage by sending their kids to private schools, but I can tell you that my experience is that is only true to an extent, and all universities, public and private are receiving record numbers of applications. That, of course, could change in a number of ways, in light of economic conditions.
Second, I agree with you about the critical role of public universities, but also I think one of the points that Reverend Wright and the students and faculty who spoke before him were making is that it is also an imperative that African Americans be integrated into private schools as well. As you suggest, there is at least a presumption at the threshold that private schools provide certain advantages that most black kids do not have access to.
Third, as I wrote below, I tried to pack too much into this post, and one result is that I don't think I really fleshed out the electoral component as much as I should have. I have no doubt that Reverend Wright is a showman, has a big ego, etc., but I also think that it just make sense that he had to know that Obama would have to "disown" him once he went before the National Press Club. That said, in retrospect, I wish I would have narrowed the focus of the post and I'm glad you helped move things along, as always, with your poignant observations. Thanks.
Bruce
November 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the doubly-good post, Bruce. I wasn't here to comment on Wright at the time, and after, it didn't seem politic. Maybe now's a good time, when I've had months to sit on it.
Basically, I regard that episode as deeply embarrassing - to us. That that man was pilloried for the God Damn America sermon, by liberals & Dems, was nothing more than a partisan punishment beating. Yes yes, if it helps, Obama 'tossed him under the bus' - for political reasons. I'm happy (as an Obama-backer) to say that, because I believe it. If people think less of him for it, so be it. I don't.
But to those who pounded on Wright, for political reasons, for that God Damn America sermon? I'm just hoping maybe now that the primaries & election are over, we can get a grip. I just re-read that sermon again, maybe for the 10th time.
And other than thinking he's wrong on the origins of AIDS, I'd give him about a 98%. (And BTW, Wright is NOT the first preacher or politician to say something wrong about AIDS.) The repeated theme of the sermon was We Confuse God And Government. He makes the congregation repeat it. It makes me incredibly angry, still, the hypocrisy that allowed many of us to tear that man down, when now we're happy to be "fair" to Powell, Bush, McCain, on and on.
That 'God Damn' sermon praised Bill Clinton, emphasized the oppression of women, highlighted & asked an AA congregation to repeat, "All colonisers ain’t White. Turn to your neighbor and say “oppressors come in all colours.” It hammered on the mistreatment of Natives, it was emphatically NOT anti-Semitic, it supported Roe vs Wade, it critiqued the powerful financial interests, on and on.
AND it went straight after the lies, and the bombings and the deaths of the innocent in Iraq. And he stood & said this in April 2003. Just after the invasion. Let me ask all the liberals on this site, where was Colin Powell at that time? I'm calling people out here, make no mistake. You forgive Powell, and condemn Wright? Please explain why we should condemn a man for his words, which we rip out of any sensible context, and then to join tearfully with the very man who helped damn hundreds of thousands of lives to an early end.
That sermon laid out a batch of historic bloody truths, and he said that people weren't gonna be able to hear him - not take it in. Above all, he laid out how GOVERNMENTS are not GOD. A pretty damn good liberal tenet, I think. Maybe if he said THE GOP is not GOD, then it would've gone down more easily. Then he said Governments Change, and listed a batch of gov'ts, like the Egyptian colonizers, who were overthrown. Maybe he needed to say Change Will Come & The Bush Years Will End, to get full sign-on here.
And then his grand sin, read by us - deliberately, and politically - as being some almighty anti-patriotic, hate-filled attack on America. He listed of a stream of governments which had fallen, governments which were part of, yet not completely identified with their people. I really am staggered that people found it offensive, and could not manage the same degree of mental nuance they offer each other, every day. Really. I guess those 90 million political conversations I've had about other nations, where we spoke of 'Russia' and 'China' - without always pulling apart government & people - never happened.
Governments can oppress, torture and kill. Any question on that? And is there anyone here who has read the Bible & wants to argue that it does NOT contain repeated DAMNINGS of leaders, governments, nations and peoples for their actions? This is a simple thing. 'Blessings & cursing is in the Bible, it’s in the Bible.' Wright knows what his Bible says, and he knows people - even in his own church - will find it hard to hear. And us? Oh, we all know the Bible has those damnings of gays & adulterers & on and on, and we seem fine to wrestle with those, but the 1001 verses calling down nations? Suddenly they don't exist.
It was just Reverend Wright doing the damning. That episode made me ashamed. Not of Wright. But of us.
November 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I wish I could have put into words what you just did. This has been bothering me for months and I hope more people come to realize this.
November 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
November 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright is an intelligent man, well educated with broad experience of the world. An ambitious man, influential and powerful, who took a failing church of a few dozen and built it into a megachurch of over 8000. He created a church of such wealth that it was able to reward him with a million dollar retirement home for the work he's done. He's a performer renown for his fiery sermons, long before they splashed across our tv screens. He's an extremely complex man and can't be defined by just his works, his "God damn America" sermon, his dry humping of the podium as he screamed, "Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty," his Moyers interview, or the press conference.
You want to intellectualize this one sermon admitting one error, "Government lied about inventing the HIV-virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Leaving out "the government gives them the drugs," and, "The Government lied about Pearl Harbour," and "Condeskezza Rice" and "Uncle Clarence" and so much else from that one sermon. You want to leave out all the other sermons, "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty," and "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary ain't never had to work twice as hard as the white boy in the next chair."
How did Wright build a church from a few dozen to 8000, big enough and wealthy enough to do all the good work that it ended up doing? You can bet it started with the performances. Facts, exaggerations, and lies delivered in the most inflammatory way that fired up the people's emotions to move them, draw them in, and manipulated them towards his goals. Sometimes worthy goals, sometimes not.
The emotion was anger, anger toward the government, anger toward the rich white people, anger toward the black sell outs. The message was us versus them.
You can see the performer in the press conference. Wright had just come off his successful Moyers interview and was feeling cocky. He thought he was intelligent to handle anything but he got carried away. I've been a professional musician, I know how you can get carried away on the emotional feedback you get from the crowd. But behind the show what was the message? Black children aren't doing as well as white children in school because the white teachers are using left brain methods for the way left brain white children learn. Black children are right brained and learn different. White people are oppressing black children for the way they speak but they never put down JFK for his Boston accent.
Listen to all the clips we have and look at how he uses the word, "enemy." In the sermon you analysed he asked the people to "say enemies." Who are the enemies. The government, the rich white people. "Who cares what a poor black man has to put up with every day in a country and culture that is controlled by rich white people?... Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and a culture that was controlled by rich white people.... It just came to me why people are hating on Barack Obama, he ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged...Hillary fits the mold... Barack knows what its like to live in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary ain't never had her people defined as non persons... Jesus taught me how to love my enemies. He taught me how to love the hell out of my enemies." Listen to the tape and you get the snark as he says, "love my enemies."
On Moyers Wright intellectualizes like you do here, leaving out the most inflammatory rhetoric, all the emotional content, as you just pick over truth that floats on the surface. The real message is deeper, its anger and its us versus them. I can't separate out the one sermon as you do from the other tapes I've seen. Not when I see the same venom and anger is a somewhat subtler form there. I have a very different view of that sermon. I'm sorry I didn't so much directly address your post with my views of that sermon in isolation from all the other things he's said. If I have time I'll try to do that later.
November 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear you oceankat. Also vaguely amused to see us two arguing about who can be truly the less angry. ;-) Lemme hit my own experience quickly, because it tilts how I see Wright. I grew up Fundy Baptist. Saw dozens of preachers who whipped up emotions, played on resentments, hated on "elites," HATED on gays, loose women libbers, communists, liberals, the media. That whole white TV preacher brigade? Them.
But who got disqualified for kissing up to them, praying with them? McCain? Hillary? 90% of Congress? Nope. About the only way we found to draw the line on those clowns was if they made comparisons to the Nazis. Yet this shit was on TV for decades. Part of our bloodstream. Hating. Anger. Division.
Actually, I'm not being intellectual in the least. I've been there. Lived that shit - grew up in it. But I also spent a lot of time in churches from Portugeuse Charismatic services to ultra-liberal to pagan to dead old Church of England with dandy choirs to SE Asian mosques to tons of Liberation Theology. And Wright? Was smack in the middle of Liberation Theology. But them Fundy Baptists? Well, I got thrown out of my own church's pulpit for preaching on poverty & segregation in my own village. Age 17. In my best light blue polyester suit. ;-) And I watched my favorite Minister get locked out by our local churchs (as often happens in these little places), constantly called "the skirt in the pulpit," smeared as a lesbian. One of the Ministers is now the local elected member. There's some hardline shit down there.
Do they work on emotion? Ohhhhh, a tad. Funny thing though, so too do a lot of other parts of our lives. Ever watched Obama speak & see a crowd get swept away? Think Hillary - when she "hit her stride" - wasn't working emotions? You're a musician, you know that there's always emotion in play, but also talent, realities, the whole mix. King, Gandhi, JFL/RFK, Churchill, FDR - emotion pounded through it.
Once that argument falls aside, we're left with his inflammatory statements. Does he inflame? Damn straight. As do 1001 university debates I was in. Was Pearl Harbour known about ahead of time? I've heard that. Did Bill C help the AA community as well as use it? Heard that. Ever heard Rice or Thomas called names? Who cares what a poor black man has to put up with? Ummmm, for the last 8 years, that strikes me as a fair question. Left brain, right brain? I donno, I've heard lots of debate about gay brains, women's brains, men's brains, pre-literate brains, the internet's effects on brains. And the thing is, I've not only heard views on those things expressed at university, but EVERY DAMN WEEK IN WHITE CHURCHES.
The "enemies" bit & venom & anger & us vs them, I agre halfway, but not 100%, ok? Damn sure, he did us/them, and got angry. However. The "enemies" quote was actually quite fair, and insightful I thought. He was referencing the US military in Iraq - he spells it out as "Operation It’s Really Freedom" and a "culture of war." Does he only see white people as oppressors? No, clearly he doesn't. He spells that out as well. But do I suspect he said lots of stuff that WAS "us vs them" as in "black vs white?" Yes. Does it bug me much? Not really. This site we're on right now TRADES in us vs them. The primaries were felt by many people to be us vs them. Almost any discussion of international relations sees us vs them arise. Wright's us/them happens to be a bit different. Do I LIKE that approach much? Not really, oceankat. I "get" it, and I'm an angry bastard who's spent too much of my life expressing that. But I don't think it's a great way forward. Does it sometimes give us enough grip on reality to help us make murky decisions? Yeah, sometimes.
Am I saying he was gentle Wright, meek & mild, faultless & pure? Not a chance. He's got a big ego, he lets facts slide on by because he got to be the Pope of his local Pulpit, he likely had lots of us/them hatred in him, he may well have had an unacceptable personal life & money may have been a close friend of his (I don't know these latter things.) But I can rhyme off a dozen preachers over 30 years on national TV that rang all those bells too.
Which long ramble brings me back home. Anybody who's looked up close at the life of Colin Powell, JFK, LBJ, MLKing, Bill Clinton will find that they shared SOME of these characteristics, these behaviors. I can still weight them, their intelligence & insight & courage VS their failures as people. I'm not equating them. But my question still gnaws.... Why is this man so despised by the liberal-left, while Colin Powell gets considered for Cabinet? Why are Democrats who backed Iraq not flogged here? There are a lot of of dead in the ground, backed by lies, us/them, anger & hatred, right? Whereas Wright... same failures in ways I guess... but he sure as shit didn't produce death in that quantity.
November 8, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When these sermons hit the airwaves Wright was not despised by the liberals here. Almost everyone here wrote posts about what a wonderful man he was. After the presser and Obama tossing him aside it flipped. Black and white you know and I'm reacting somewhat to that. I was, as you'd expect, anti Wright but I don't feel I demonized him. I tried to see the good and the bad at a time when almost no one was willing to see anything bad. Or even to discuss the most inflammatory anti Hillary rants.
Emotion, yeah they all use it from Martin to (deleted due to goodwin's law) and I have no problem with it depending on what its used for. I have just as much a problem with Wright as I do with Falwell and others.
When I first read the "GDA" sermon I thought it was great. These were the things "we" needed to be reminded of. It was the other sermons attacking Hillary and Bill, stirring up anger against whites to drive black people against her that bothered me. Degrading Bill to break black allegiance to him that he had earned so Hillary wouldn't get benefit from it. But as I listened to the clip and reread the sermon something just didn't feel right about it.
It was the section where Wright talks about not seeing the log in your own eye while pointing out the speck of dust in the other that got me thinking. He then spends a lot of time detailing the "specks of dust" the erroneous things "we've" believed throughout our history. So true, so right on, except for the AIDS genocide thing. Then I began thinking who is the "we?" I was reading it as a white man.
"We believe God ordained African slavery.... We believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and superior to everybody else too.....We believe God approved of African slavery. We believe God approved segregation. We believe God approved Apartheid, and a document says “all men are created more equal than other men” – and we’re talking about White men..... Look at the lily-whiteness of the G-7 nations"
Was he removing the speck from their eyes so they could see the errors they've made? Did he really believe he and his congregation were part of that we? Were the people sitting there thinking, yes, we believed those things? It began to seem to me that he was saying they, not we, and the one's sitting there getting more and more riled up and angry were the one's who had suffered the things done by the "they's" who had believed all those things. The "inventing the HIV-virus as a means of genocide against people of color," no longer seemed like a stupid mistake but the cherry on the top. The last bit of what "they" did and were still doing to those sitting there listening to this sermon. Who are they? The government run and controlled by the white people.
At first I read the sermon much as you did but as I looked at it in a new light all I saw was Wright pandering and inflaming understandable anger born of legitimate grievances. Rather than fostering healing and change he was promoting more anger and more division. This sermon was just a milder form of the same anti white hatred he stirred up to get people to vote for Obama not Hillary.
I know the score and minorities have been getting the losing end for a long time. Wright's done a lot of good things, things he never should have had to do if blacks had lived in a free society. I acknowledge that. But the way he went about getting the power and influence to do that good work kinda sucks. Does the good he did out weigh the harm he caused by inflaming that anger and divisiveness? Yeah, probably. Just don't tell me he's a great man.
November 9, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Oceankat. Part of our gap is clearly timing. I got here in May, and by then, Wright was roadkill. The Powell thing plus Bruce's post triggered my response. One of the first things I wrote here was how hard it would be for Obama to decide who was central to making decisions which have to be publicly aired - as against those with muck on them who would have to be rehabilitated. And as much as I was impressed with Colin Powell's words the other day, I think his actions, the responsibility he failed to carry, mean he shouldn't be eligible for new service. When I then heard Wright's name, I couldn't help but feel that he was being judged MORE harshly.
I also think part of what you're hearing in Wright is simply age. If he'd said those things about apartheid or the G7 say, 10 or 20 years ago, they'd have probably felt more relevant. A lot of preachers have a hard time moving on - they get used to the emotional support & operate in quite a closed environment. Wright had that feel & sound to me at times. And yes, some of what he says was just rhetoric, twisting people's tails to get them riled up - knowing certain tried/true buttons would trigger a response. As for the Hill & Bill stuff, well... I loved Bill, not Hill, and saw more of Bill in Obama than anywhere else.
In sum.... I'd agree he's a talented man, done some good things - not great, agreed, he's no King. Do I still admire that '03 sermon? Yeah. Damn fine sermon, by my books, for that time & place. Would I still choose him over pretty much all the white TV preachers? Yes sir, with boots on.
So. I think we can safely say you've taken this on points, you miserable bastard you. Good talkin' with ya. [Note/self: Read up, on EVERYTHING, next time Oceankat comes calling.] ;-)
November 9, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its all been colored by the intense emotions raised by this election season. People really cared for once. I've tried to stay as free of that as possible but I'm human too and not immune. Three things crossed the line for me and Wright's two sermons attacking Bill and Hillary were top on the list. So it was hard to see him without some bias.
But you're right, I'd take Wright over any of those white tv preachers any day. They both stoked up us versus them for influence and power but his was born of righteous indignation, no matter how he misused it, at injustices I saw as well as he and in the end I think we both wanted to get to the same place. The white preachers stoke it up to perpetuate injustice and to get to a place that I wouldn't want to live in. Thanks for helping me to see that again.
November 9, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Wright spoke as he did at the National Press Corps, I really wondered if his motivation was to help Obama snap out of a painful paralysis, so that Obama might help himself politically by cutting his ties of affection and loyalty to a man he surely thought of as a substitute father figure and mentor.
If so, it was not only a loving, but also a patriotic thing for Wright to do. Isn't it genuine Silver Star material to voluntarily take the hit so that others may live to win the war?
November 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey WW. Looking back at Wright, it does seem odder & odder to me. At first, the media was all in a fever. After that... months of rumors that Wright was going to be all over the media, release albums & books, and basically attempt to "get revenge" or "get Obama." But it didn't really happen in any big way. So... we must have misread it SOMEHOW.
His press conference also stands out as "odder" now. Sure, his "ego" was on display. He landed some punches on the media & critics, and appeared to enjoy himself. But here's the thing nagging me. Not only did he NOT follow it up very much (which a huge ego should have led him to do), but... this man is also a great showman, knows what he's doing, with decades of experience. As AA notes above, Wright speaks in academic worlds, church worlds, community worlds. He KNOWS these different "pitches."
So maybe his press conference show was... just ego. But maybe he's canny as well. He's enormously well-educated & literate & fast. He's thought for decades about the political positioning of the AA community. My gut & my eyes still say, his ego was driving. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see some memoirs someday showing that Wright thought about what he was doing, and that his reasoning was different than it appeared.
November 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post. Wonderful discussion. Cafe getting better!
November 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Universities. My family has been spread pretty widely across US, UK & Can. universities, and we all come home & swap notes (see: brawl) about quality, cost, etc. The conclusion is pretty clear - that many top dollar US & UK schools are trading more on reputation than content in their Undergrad years. That is, tuition has "soared" to $3-$6,000/year for Canadian students, but Queens, McGill, Waterloo - maybe 15 or 20 in all - were producing equal outcomes to the more expensive schools.
The big name schools were good in terms of the student-to-student conversation, and carried a reputation with its own value, but in terms of what the school itself provided? Well, certainly some seem to have a "reputation bubble" forming.
i.e. It MAY be possible to find sufficient public funding to provide widespread, good quality, undergrad degrees, at low tuition, without bankrupting the taxpayer. And though I am disgruntled about education in general, the sad condition of my gruntles hasn't, I think, affected my objectivity on this.
The other rising debate here (esp. in Quebec & on the Prairies) is on the Graduate Tax idea. To simply be done with upfront payment hassles & student loans, and replace it with a % increase in the income tax paid after graduation (according to years & degrees taken.) Let's get rid of any upfront barrier for poorer or middle class kids. There are dozens of ways to refine this, but the debate is also on in Scotland & England, and seems to have some fundamental strengths to it.
November 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wright thing has always had loose ends -- too many "it just doesn't fit" aspects. --- Who put together the clips and why did no one ever even try to find out? -- Why, with 30 years of sermons on video and audio tape did no other "horrific" examples ever come to the surface? -- Why were so many willing to accept that the clips were unforgiveable without ever looking at the context of the various statements? And how could you draw conclusions about what Obama "sat there" and listened to without understanding their context? -- How could the person who wrote the incredibly deep and touching "Audacity of Hope" sermon be the same joke who pranced and cavorted so disgustingly before the Press Club?
The two sermons from which "chickens coming home to roost" and "God damn America" clips were taken are not in the least outrageous or unpatriotic or anything objectionable, if you read them in full. (The "chickens" comment in the 9/11 sermon, by the way, was clearly identified as a statement made by someone else, a US ambassador, in a Fox News interview no less. The sermon really isn't offensive, Bruce -- he was arguing that the congregation should not respond to 9/11 by hating.) I'll admit that I find Wright's heated, overblown, angry style *very* off-putting and could never sit there and listen to it. But it doesn't affect others that way. (I also don't like slap-stick humor, even when everyone else assures me it's wonderfully done.)
On the other hand, I haven't seen the full sermons from which "US of KKKK" and the Dec 2007 comments about Hillary Clinton came (and I can't imagine there would be ANY context in which the Clinton comments could be considered acceptable!). Those comments, like the later ones later at the Press Club, were clearly designed to offend .. and achieved little else.
I'd always thought, because of the timing of those later 'performances' (i.e., after Obama's Springfield announcement, when Wright's invitation to give the benediction had been rescinded) they represented intentional and perhaps vindictive trouble-making by the left-behind mentor carried out to trip up the protogee who had surpassed him ..... BUT they just as easily could have been "taking the hit" as suggested here. Certainly the effect of the Press Club statements was to essentially force Obama to sever all ties, probably a necessary step if he was to succeed in the campaign. Interesting idea.
I'm not surprised to hear that there is a great deal more sense and depth in the man and his message. Interesting report from the Northwestern appearance. Thanks.
November 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Bruce, but Rev Wright on Moyers' show as well as at his news conference flat out said that Obama was only saying what he was saying because of political expediency. In other words, Obama was lying. That's what you are agreeing with.
Another explanation is that after Obama was telling the truth and not doing what was politically expedient as Rev Wright said. I submit that Rev Wright created this situation by practically calling Obama a liar. In the same situation, I would have terminated the relationship as Obama did. I don't like being called a liar and I can easily imagine that Obama would also not like it.
My two cents....
November 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a great thread! Echo TheraP's comment above. the Cafe has this ability to amaze and instruct. I have read some very powerful writing here in the last couple of weeks....
November 8, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce. Thanks for the post, and being tolerant of me re-brawling the Rev Wright thing. Apologies for dragging things away from education as much as I did, and probably blocking people out who wanted to talk about Northwestern & education & your kids!
And double thanks for not hurling those Yiddish insults at me. I owe ya. I was sure i was gonna get "schtinker" or somesuch....
November 9, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey quinn:
Are you serious? Thank you, thank you, thank you for generating some really interesting dialogue in the thread, in paticular your colloquy with oceankat. I'm glad you liked the post, but to be honest I think I tried to cram too much into it, and in retrospect I wish I would have focused on the academic freedom angle on its own, or else just on reporting what Reverend Wright spoke about. But I think things worked out well and, as always, I am both humbled and tickled by your wit, and your intellect, and your ability to pick and choose from your unique experiences and background.
Thanks for minding the store while I remembered what a lousy drinker I am yesterday (drinking bloody mary's at the bar while we watched Northwestern get shellacked by Ohio State and knocked from the top 25 yet again). I did take a great nap though afterwards. :) Life's simple pleasures, eh? Cheers.
Bruce
November 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off-topic personal message for Bruce: there is another amusing chapter in the continuing saga of a doofus here. Dan K will now become another likudnik, that or Hillary supporter or a racist. I've never been able to figure out which of those three MJ considers more of a slur. ;-)
November 9, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy. He's the Cafe jester. More importantly, of course, MJ is caught in a maze of contradictions and downright hypocrisy with respect to his alleged heartfelt anti-AIPAC perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his unwavering adoration for President-Elect Obama, who with his first appointment has selected a guy to be his chief of staff who out AIPACS AIPAC. I don't agree with Dan K about the I-P conflict either (I think it's the mirror image of cookie-cutter AIPAC approach to the conflict), but at least he is being honest about where Obama seems to be coming down on I-P matters (namely where just about everybody else in Washington is). MJ, and some of his more serious and like-minded thinkers on the issue around here, are struggling, and in MJ's case, just being ridiculous as usual.
November 10, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oy back atcha, I didn't expect a response, and you are bad, your bluntness inspires me to do the same. I see racism in such state of denial. Simply because of the color of Obama's skin, some special new empathy for the Palestinians' situation is suspected, the excuse bing that he's smart enough to hide it. I, on the other hand, see someone who means what he says when he says it, and when he doesn't believe something, he doesn't prevaricate or pander, rather he does the equivalent of voting "present." He hasn't done that with the Israel topic. There's nothing he's ever said or done that belies that he truly has a classic Democrat view of U.S.A./Israel Exceptionalism. He's also clearly not a hawk in the military sense, except when it involves terrorism. There he's hawkish, he's a "no excuses" kind of guy on terrorism, i.e., injustice, poverty is not an excuse. He's just like he has presented, he supports the idea of Israel, just like, oh, Howard Dean or Russ Feingold supports the idea of Israel. I don't think we'll be seeing him going all Jimmy Carter on us. You are correct it is funny watching them twist in the wind trying to explain the Rahm Emmanuel appointment.
November 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely worth a read on topic:
Has lots of analysis of different steps by the campaign and of good input from leading civil rights figures.
November 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink