In Defense of Double Standards

Jeff Jacoby, a conservative columnist for the Boston Globe, is angry at Obama and at those who cheered his speech. We (I not only cheered, I wept) are guilty of accepting a double standard because, says Jacoby, if our clergyman had said the hateful things that Wright did, we would not have sat quietly in our pews for 20 years. Yet, we are willing to give Obama a pass. Obama not only should have objected to Wright's words all along the way, he should have left the church or worked to get Wright fired, just as Jacoby would have done if his rabbi had said equally awful things.

I know Jacoby's synagogue. It's in my neighborhood. I've been there. It's lovely. Airy. Light. It's in Brookline, a terrific part of greater Boston. Jacoby's synagogue's got comfortable seats, pretty ornamental touches, and a well-dressed, affluent, overwhelmingly white congregation.

The notion of a double standard assumes, in an odd way, a single standard. The criticism only makes sense within contexts uniform enough that our moral judgments should be the same. If I condemn a Democratic governor for paying for sex but excuse a Republican congressman for the same offense, then I'm guilty of applying a double standard.

But Jacoby apparently didn't hear what Obama said in his fearless, epochal speech. Who is this "we" who applied a double standard? Our glorious union is nevertheless imperfect because it is riven by divisions deeper than we are comfortable acknowledging. The racial division is so deep that politicians never talk about it except in platitudes so empty that they function as lies. Now Obama has.

IIf we apply a single standard, we are denying the fact that synagogues in Brookline are very different from African-American churches in Illinois. We can, and should, express our strong disagreement with the particularities of Wright's sermons, but if we stop there — and every political advisor in the land would have urged Obama exactly to stop right there — we will continue in our fantasy that there is a single culture, a single set of values, a single set of assumptions, a single view of history, a single vision of the future, a single set of constraints, a single set of opportunities for all in our imperfect union.

Obama is asking us to do what is perhaps hardest. What it takes adults to do. Obama in his speech is asking us to embrace difference and simultaneously to transcend it. That's why Obama presented contexts that not only helped us white Jews in Brookline understand why a Black pastor might say such things, but also acknowledged how race seems to white folks who don't see why they should be disadvantaged for outrages they did not commit.

Unless we accept double, triple, multiple standards, we are invisible to one another, and thus to ourselves. The thoughtless insistence on a single standard is unseemly and unhelpful, especially when it comes from those who live in privilege for whatever reason.

Jeff, you and I live in what is pretty much a white part of Boston. As far as I can tell, Brookline has made very little progress in integrating itself in the 20 years I've lived there. We're stalled. Stuck. Now, who did I hear talking about this just yesterday?

We as Americans need to seize the hope Sen. Obama presented us yesterday. It, at long last, gives us a way forward.

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech

Comments

[BlackJAC]

Can't a guy vent his frustrations anymore without being incarcerated on a 5150 or charges of sedition/insurrection? The extreme right has become so politically correct in their hyperpatriotism that they'd throw your entire family into Gitmo for even suggesting a remake of M*A*S*H or MCHALE'S NAVY or SERGEANT BILKO or even CATCH-22.

[JacobSinger]

Today I would like to make a suggestion; but making it is difficult, for a couple of reasons.

First, I must admit that I"ve been less than charitable to the more outspoken and aggressive Obama supporters"I"m guilty of referring to them as Obamaloons on occasion"and I"m sure that"s quite offensive to a person who is very fired up about a candidate that inspires them to such a zealous advocate.

Secondly, I have felt that to such advocates nothing short of glowing admiration makes it through their perception filter, so I"m somewhat skeptical that what I"m going to suggest is going to have any impact...but here it is anyway:

After reflecting on recent events concerning senator Obama, I"ve come to the conclusion that I would like him to succeed in his bid for the Democratic nomination; many issues that are important to me as a self-defined progressive are firmly mired in what can only be defined as "gray areas," as they either fall into categories of concern that cannot be illuminated sufficiently at this stage, or are simply too hypothetical or politically volatile to be discussed honestly in the context of a political contest. Ultimately that happens with all candidates in regards to some potential constituents.

My suggestion, as was foreshadowed earlier, is to those supporters who are"shall we say"aggressively enthusiastic. Please don"t misunderstand me¦I"m not taking a hypocritical stance here; I can get generate some pretty heated and unsavory comments myself on occasion, so I don"t mean to belittle anyone or talk down to anyone with my suggestion.

So, here it is: CHILL OUT.

I know this probably seems a waste of space for such a simple suggestion, but I just want to make sure that what I"m proposing is accurately understood.

I think right now is a somewhat volatile time for senator Obama, and I fear that the more aggressive of his supporters may be doing more harm than good. His detractors have grown in number in recent days, and I sense in some posters an uneasiness that could lead to realignment of their support. I don"t think this will be the case for many, but some were distressed by the Rev. Wright incident and subsequent speech by Obama, and I think there sensibilities are assaulted by supporters who attack them as somehow being traitors because they have let it be known that these incidents have shaken their faith in Obama"some shaken much more than others.

While this political season has shown just how unreliable political polling can be, current polls suggest that the rise of these issues is beginning to impact senator Obama"s efforts in a negative way. Alienating people who have stepped back to consider the ramifications of all of this will not help Obama"s cause.

I believe the key is to STOP and damper-down the impulse to post fiery rebuttals to those "on-the-fence" who are attempting to come to terms"sometimes through blunt and misinformed statements and questions"with issues that for them has called senator Obama"s candidacy into question.

I would suggest restricting yourself to rational discussion. I know, it is difficult not to reply harshly (and sometimes profanely) to comments that seem biased, racist, or just plain hateful and stupid, but I think the benefit of such self-regulation would be worthwhile.

And if you"re wondering, yes, I still have some issues with senator Obama"s platform, but I"ve decided he"s the best option we have this time around. I think many who are on the fence now will come to the same conclusion"but some who are more Independent/centrist-oriented in their political views will defect to (shudder!) McCain. And folks, four more years of criminal GOP rule just WILL NOT DO.

So chill out; you know, it"s the old saying "ya get more flies with honey than with vinegar."

[pheepher]

"Unless we accept double, triple, multiple standards, we are invisible to one another, and thus to ourselves. The thoughtless insistence on a single standard is unseemly and unhelpful, especially when it comes from those who live in privilege for whatever reason."


Amen brother!

[cocote]

You know, it seems like many people posting and replying here and elsewhere are not reading the same speech.

Some enterprising person with generous amounts of time should put the speech on a website, match up each anti-speech person with a pro-speech person and let them annotate the speech back and forth with each other. Maybe they'd just end up cursing each other out.

As someone who studies historical, the total ignorance about our history that I'm hearing is frightening and depressing. As someone who has studied race, slavery, emancipation, the willful ignorance on race is maybe even more depressing. I am depressed about it way beyond what it says about Obama's nomination or ultimate election.

is there really no way to speak to each other respectfully?

[monique]

Obama steps forward and tells us not to retreat to our respective corners?

Well, guess what? I wasn't in a corner.

I didn't attend a racist church. I didn't listen to racism. And I didn't support a church that spewed racism for 20 years.

He makes a speech about race and everyone thinks he has done something courageous? Did you forget why he had to make this speech? Is everyone just suddenly stupid?

No, his speech was not courageous. If I heard a preacher say such things, I would get up and walk out. And I don't even consider that courageous. It is just the right thing to do.

Yet he stayed and supported that church for twenty years.

[vanessa04]

Barack Obama asks us to do what he did not: Renounce racism.

He didn't renounce Wright's racism until it was politically expedient for him to do so. That is the height of hypocrisy.

Let me know when he decides to tell the truth, and I'll be interested in what he's telling us to do. Until then, I'll continue to do what I've always done - reject racism in all its forms.

[jade7243]

HuffPost's Pick

The double standards demanded of Wright and Obama -- in essence denying their constitutional rights to worship and associate and speak freely -- demonstrate the shocking ignorance that sometime passes for intelligence in this country.

Many of our cultural differences come from living very separate lives. We occupy the same space, but don't know each other. Mention "black history" and you get all kinds reasons from white folks about why they don't need to know it. Mention BET -- Black Entertainment Television -- and see how many cries of "reverse racism" it elicits. Yet the paradox is ABC, NBC, CBS and all the rest program to a recipe: black folk are the "hip friend" or "angry" (Omarosa?), the "comic" and in all cases subordinate to the white protagonist.

Quick... name a black news anchor on primetime.... There isn't one.

When John McCain was derailed from his candidacy in 2000, it revolved around a smear that he had "fathered" a black baby. That smear was circulated in South Carolina by "christian conservatives" and Karl Rove, Jr. Bush's "brain" . How refreshing would it have been if McCain had tackled the issue of race back then. After all, it was revealed the Strom Thurmond had a black daughter, as the result of a "less than concensual" relationship between him and a young family maid. Thurmond kept his daughter a secret until his death. McCain's child was not black but adopted from Bangladesh. McCain could have spoken about the importance of family and caring for children of all colors and how the "sin" of racism was used for political gain. But he didn't.

At least for me, Obama continues to amaze and impress. To not just touch, but fully embrace the razor-sharp issue of race in the middle of one of the tightest -- and most divisive -- presidential primary seasons in our history is astonishing. To do it with such purpose, and directness, historic.

We need to stop fretting around the edges of the issue. There is a double-standard. That's easy. The question we have to answer is why -- after all this time -- do we still have it and how to get rid of it.

We can't answer it in a 30 minute speech. We can't answer it by yelling at each other -- as satisfying as it is sometimes. But we can answer it.

[monique]

Well, a good start is not to elect someone to the presidency who participates in racism or supports racism.

I would not vote for a person who attended or supported a radical-right Christian church, and I will not vote for someone who attends or supports a militant, angry, anti-white church.

The best way to combat racism is to not be a part of it.

And Obama has supported a racist church.

[TheAirport]

Did you miss everything posted? I mean, really?

[KaAp]

Well Monique you have a big problem indeed. Hillary is part of a group known as the "family" (as Barbara Ehrenrich reported) and they are very frightening ... And McCain has a whole group of pastors who attributed Katrina and 9/11 to homosexuals, feminists etc etc ...

If, you listen to Rev. Wright he is not Anti-White there are many white members of the United Church of Christ ... and racism is a power formation ... to not acknowledge it is to support it ... to pretend things away does not transform them ...

So, Monique I guess you have to not vote which is a statement in itself ... or you can honestly listen to what Senator Obama and the other candidates are saying ... is there a possibility you can ... or is your problematic not really one at all?

[Zeusthunderbolt]

You do not know what hate is and wht obama grew up with till you have heard this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/antiobama-preacher-unlea_n_92471.html#postComment

[Doofus]

'Obama is asking us to do what is perhaps hardest. What it takes adults to do. Obama in his speech is asking us to embrace difference and simultaneously to transcend it. That's why Obama presented contexts that not only helped us white Jews in Brookline understand why a Black pastor might say such things, but also acknowledged how race seems to white folks who don't see why they should be disadvantaged for outrages they did not commit.'

Those of us who live in & around Boston barely have a clue about politics in the greater USA.

We think we know how it OUGHT to be, but we don't realize how it IS. I include myself. That's

what these two guys are telling you. Me too, mostly.

[IronMikeHouston]

So should black people understand a group of white people that belong to the KKK because their environment and surroundings are different than someone than the ghetto?

Barack's speech was stupid. He must of had a 3yo help him write the speech. He mentions some poor 9yo girl whose mom got sick and lost her job. The 9yo girl wanted to help the family budget so she decided that she could cut the food budget by tricking her mom into thinking she loved muster and relish sandwiches. So she ate the sandwiches for a full year.

I would love to talk to that girl. Why didn't mom go get food stamps. Barack's trying to change the system but there is already a government program to help people in that situation. If mom didn't go get food stamps then something stinks in the entire story. In fact the whole story is unbelievable. In fact I can't believe his advisors would let him tell that story to the voters. Are we that fringing stupid to swallow it? Yup, there are people that will turn their heads and stomach anything because Barack is their hero.

[KaAp]

Iron Mike Houston as unbelievable as you may find this the Clinton's removal of AFDC prevented many poor mothers with children from getting food stamps ... what was known as welfare reform ... you can look up the statistics if you want or I can respond to you by citing many statistics ... I am sending you a link from several different organizations that have conducted research on this:
http://www.center4research.org/poverty5.html
This is a clearinghouse site which links you to everything from the Children's Defense fund on ...

Please do the research before commenting ... I know before I went to grad school and the Clinton's cut AFDC I never thought I would make ketchup soup before ... but, I did ... and it is the reality ...

[limber]

I'm sorry that I read the original article, complete with its "I would leave my rabbi" statement, and worried that maybe the author had a point. ( As a pretty staunch aethiest, though, I might not be the best judge of when to leave your church, considering you could barely get me IN one after the age of 12.) Finding out that the author's a member of a synagogue in Brookline -- to one I've actually been to, no less! -- is alarming for the exact reason stated in the article: context is key.

But even from my admittedly heathenistic standpoint, the call to cast off Rev. Wright is disturbing. I love talking with religious people, many of whom have totally different views from my own. Often, I find what they say quite awful, such as the college friend who sympathetically told me that due to my non-participation in his religion I would burn in hell. But the conversations broaden my understanding, and that's invaluable.

I have no idea why we would want a President who only surrounds himself with people he agrees with totally. I want a President whose exposure to radically different thoughts and motivations causes him to examine his own boundaries, to test at what point something is a "step too far". It's hard not to look at the current President and wonder what might have been, had he had any real exposure to opposition thought -- because I don't think he's a fundamentally bad man, Bush. But I think he cast off anyone outside his strict ideology, and when you do that, you lose perspective.

Religion is tricky. Sure, a lot of what Rev Wright sounds totally nuts... but then again, some doesn't. It's hard to hear the AIDS accusation without remembering that the Tuskegee syphilis experiment truly did kill African-American men. And the anger against the American government, viewed through a historical lens, should not be condoned but is also not totally unjustified. Then again, my mother was raised by Irish Catholic nuns who told her that non-Catholics were subhuman -- quite literally, subhuman.

But here's the thing. Despite being raised by those wacky nuns, my mother did not swallow everything they said whole. She has a brain and she lived in the world, she saw society changing in a way those nuns couldn't. She married my father, a Protestant, one of those very subhumans she used to sanctimoniously pray for as a child (all the time thinking Protestants go to hell). She still goes to church, she occasionally objects to homilies, but nothing's perfect.

You can take in the good while identifying the bad, and Obama clearly does not believe the more inflammatory bits of his pastor's sermon. Reverend Wright's voice is important in his life, but why should Obama be accused of blindly following that voice, no matter what it says? It's hard to hear someone you love and admire saying something you disagree with, but it also helps you strengthen that boundary between what YOU think is right and wrong.

[MarineBugler]

Wow. Literally, wow.

You know, if anything, Senator Obama's speech seems to have ignited a resurgence in people's ability to connect with a greater good. Thank your for your post. It has been one of the best that I have read here.

I find it ironic, but the far-right pundits who have been so eager to put forth this 'Wright issue' may want to remember a little quote from Isoroku Yamamato:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

... he spoke these words after bombing Pearl Harbor.

[CTtransplant]

MarineBugler, I agree! Thank you, limber! And you, too, MarineBugler! I am more heartened in the past twenty four hours with what I am reading! Obama's speech definitely has ignited a resurgence! I am so very happy to see people actually reacting to it and sharing their thoughts. It enlightens me to hear others' points of view - and from that, I learn and grow. This is great!

I also remember Yamamato's words! How perfect an analogy! Obama has indeed awoken a sleeping giant! Let's keep the resolve growing!

[bridgeworker]

David, beautifully stated. Thank you. Here's to opening up the standards from a confining narrow one to the full spectrum of humanity - to working for an America that truly provides equality and justice for all.

[oafishcad]

People on the left-and I'm a liberal- are completely missing what's got people upset. Joe six pack isn't upset about race, in fact he doesn't give a damn, he's upset that Senator Obama's priest comes off anti-American. And by extension, Senator Obama is too. It's been a step by step erosion of Obama's patriotism, no hand on heart, no pin, etc. not a racial chasm. They turned Kerry, a war hero into an unpatriotic commie, they're doing it again. They have done the same thing over and over. Get over the race card. That ain't it. It's Democrats are cowardly anti-American sissies and big daddy GOP will protect you from harm and love America. It's been the same song since Goldwater. Maybe it's the left that only sees Obama's color and ignores the root of GOP reality. They'll do the same to Hillary if she gets the nomination.

[nk007]

oafishcad:

You say the working class are saying "Democrats are cowardly anti-American sissies..." I think you are generalizing a bit here. If that is what the working class thinks it is because they are fed lies. Here is A Rev. who is a former Marine being viewed as unpatriotic, while "chicken hawks" like Dick Chaney, Rush Limbough, and the whole host of neo-con pundits are viewed as patriots. I think It is time for Democrats to fight for truth about who is more patriotic and who has done more to sacrifice for the country.

[simmern4u]

nk007 - This is very true. Rev. Wright served this country in uniform honorable while the likes of Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and other neocons sat on the sidelines. I understand Rev. Wright when he say things like he did. Blacks in america have experienced or at least have some identical views as Rev. Wright. But I always say and I was raised to always put myself and the other person shoes before I form my opinion. Now, with that said, I hope someone shut down Fox News Channel for preaching racism, character assasination, and bias news reporting.

[honeybee49]

Well, I guess the proles must be stupid, too, since it's so easy to "feed" them "lies."

Oh, sorry--you said "the working class." My bad.

By the way, do you happen to sell any of your time for money? You know, as in "working," and being a member of the "class" that "works"? And if not, how is it that you have such superior knowledge about "the working class"?

As for the original post by David Weinberger--pure sophistry. But let me translate that big word for any "working class" readers who may be lurking here. It means "intellectual dishonesty."

[lspecski]

Reverend Billy Graham is a religious leader that I have much respect for and he has had an extremely positive influence in our country. A few years ago, there were tapes between Richard Nixon and Reverend Graham. Here are a few quotes, referring to the Jews control of the media "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," "I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I"m friendly with Israel. But they don"t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances."

There was another Reverend, Reverend Falwell who I had a lot less respect for, who has said the following things "The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews." "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." "There are almost as many alcoholics as there are negroes."

The new testament says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

I raise these quotes because they are/were highly influential, but the world did not disavow Reverend Graham for his clearly anti-semitic words, the conservative wing of our political landscape did not disavow Reverend Falwell for extremely incendiary comments...

And the new testament preached in churches around the globe is advocated by Priests and Ministers almost daily, yet we do not disavow christian leaders for oftentimes fervently preach that if you do not accept Christ that you are doomed to be condemned. Logic says that if you support that that you are supporting a church leader who is essentially saying that a large part of the American population everyday is doomed to be condemned, but we do not ask politicians to disavow church leaders.

If we sit and listen to sermons in any church, synagogue, or mosque, there will be much said that some or many will find offensive.

Religious leaders take positons everyday based on their upbringing, experiences, and religious learning. We should be bigger people than to take a religious association and judge the character of an individual based on that association. I would argue that it is more important to judge a person by how they believe inside and that leaders become stronger leaders by understanding differing views rather than putting our heads in the sand and ignoring that those views ever existed.

[ginnypoo]

One standard for lies, one standard that says you do not stand in front of the country for days on end saying lies. No politician is allowed to do that without having to leave office and resign from elections. This is what Obama did. He lied on all the channels, all the interviews, all the question. Over and over all day friday and the days before and after friday. Now in his wonderful speech he has admitted that he has been lying all the times he said he didn't hear it, id know, didn't agree, didn't think it counted, didn't care. It is sad to me that so many intelligent people heard him admit to his lies, and all they take away is a warm fuzzy glow. He looked us all in the face and lied in his arrogant fashion, and then looked down on those that asked. It scares me that so many are so enthralled and he is so near to power he does not DESERVE NOW THAT HE HAS SHOWN HE CAN LIE SO WELL, SO EASILY, SO OFTEN.

[RealistDem]

So your saying Bill Clinton should of resigned and left office after he said he didnt have sex with that woman? I mean that was a lie right?

[Herrington]

Who said what when? i guess we need a congressional investigation, because I and others have parsed what he said in the context of the questions to which he was responding, and found no lies. But I guess that doesn't matter if your objective is to brand him a liar on the basis of three or four questions. By that standard Bush and Clinton have to be somewhat more than liars.

[PuritanDescendant]

HuffPost's Pick

The reaction of many to Wright and Obama's speech reflect the view that many non-blacks still see blacks as "outsiders" or not truly "American" (never mind that their American roots go deeper than most whites). There is a huge double standard going on. A Black minister can't criticize America, but a white one can. A white minister can say that America was punished by God (pick a disaster, AIDS, 9/11, Katrina) for various sins, and there's no uproar or outrage. A black minister says America should be damned for killing innocents he is tarred and feathered. Let's be honest, justness of the cause aside, American's have killed many innocent people in Iraq.

Wright's statements are not that radical. What scares small minded people is the shouting, the African garb, and the color of the audience. Strip away these things, and in substance you hear the same thing in many different venues.

[Doofus]

It's one thing to claim that 'America was punished' for one foul sin or another.

It's another to call down 'God's Wrath' on America for whatever transgressions bug you.

Or at least, it would be if you believe in this sort of hooey. Many do, supposedly.

'What scares small minded people is the shouting...' Indeed, like a certain German tyrant of yore.

That, and any ensuing bolts from the blue.

[dutchess2]

Its sorta like if you believe the Bible...

You know, that part that says 'thou shalt not kill'....

Bible says those who break the commandments are in danger of hell's fire.

Did you read about the Tuskegee Experiement? of the several hundred men, 40 wives and 19 of their children contacted syphilis.... and were denied treatment.

Did you know the Tuskagee Experiement made the entire black community so suspicious they
question how AIDS got spread so quickly, and avoid transplants and blood donations?

[dutchess2]

Oh - its the shouting, its the clothes, its the emotion, its the passion, its the tone, its the content..

Its a HUGE permission for the bigots to complain, and demand, and threaten not to vote for Obama..

[LarBear]

PuritanDescendant ....

You said: " Wright's statements are not that radical. What scares small minded people is the shouting, the African garb, and the color of the audience. Strip away these things, and in substance you hear the same thing in many different venues." (never mind that their American roots go deeper than most whites). "
So, if what the Reverend Wright was "preaching" was being "preached" in Moslem Mosques across the USA, you would agree and be comfortable with that? How about on an Airplane?
You said: "The reaction of many to Wright and Obama's speech reflect the view that many non-blacks still see blacks as "outsiders" or not truly "American" So, in Obama's spin of "One America" why do we have a "Black America", "Black Community", etc?
You said: "(never mind that their American roots go deeper than most whites). " People with black skin grow up in the USA buying into a "Black America, Black Community"... So, Actually, Obama has NO roots in "Black America" then... His Father was Kenyan...
I basically agree about reactions... Rev. Wright re-acted over and over by blaming and enabling... A better response (rather than re-action) would be in telling young people with black skin to STOP blaming others for individual choices... Even if "Whites" supposedly brought crack to "Black America," blaming "Whites" will not keep you out of Prison for you making a very BAD choice...
The Obama's choice in their "Spirit Adviser" may speak to Loyalty, but NOT to GOOD Judgement... Sure does make Michelle's lack of Pride in the USA make sense though... Which "Country" is Michelle proud of? The USA, or "Black America"...

[dutchess2]

Um............ When the Ayatollah put out a demand that an author that had upsot him be illed, a survey of thousands of muslims in America, new citizens, even, said they would kill the author if they got the chance.

[fortuna]

So, to counter the hatred, we spew more hatred? Yeah, good plan.

[JacobSinger]

"So, if what the Reverend Wright was "preaching" was being "preached" in Moslem Mosques across the USA, you would agree and be comfortable with that?"

You didn't ask me that question, but I feel compelled to answer it by saying that YES, I would feel comfortable with, and for one simple but powerful reason: the right to FREE SPEECH.

It is a cornerstone right that has always defined what it means to be an American, and over the course of the Bush administration a concerted campaign of fearmongering has been established and exerted in an effort to thwart that right.

Make no mistake--when we start parsing what individuals can say in a public forum based on the promotion of FEAR, then we are giving up that right, and as a result, giving up a substantial part of what defines us as American citizens.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906

[dreamsmasher]

I am offended by your posting, you are essentially stating that "non-blacks" are racist and people of color are incapable of racism.
I of course am "white" and contrary to your belief I have never viewed blacks as "outsiders" or non "American." Yes, I'm sure there are people that do have that view but I do not believe it is as common as you are suggesting.
Please qualify your statement "never mind that their American roots go deeper than most whites" I would truly love to know how you come to this conclusion.
As for the next part of your posting, I take issue with your comment that white ministers can make inflamatory, outrageous or critical statements without uproar or outrage, you imply that these ministers are revered or put upon a pedestal for what they say, name one that has not been condemned for making comparable statements to the ones made by Rev. Wright. Instead of the "black" community condemning Wright for the racist comments he has made the "black" community is defending him under the guise of "our people have been wronged and enslaved" and "he is just venting frustrations caused by the white man", it's racist no matter how you defend it.
The only statement you make that I can agree with is "American's have killed many innocent people in Iraq" and the only reason is because you actually properly stated "Americans", we are all Americans and when we start labeling ourselves "African Americans", European Americans", Mexican Americans" etc. we are in fact dividing ourselves along racial lines, why not just say "White American", Black American", "Brown American" etc. it would mean the exact same thing point being we are all "Americans".
Your last comment, you show your racist colors by implying that non-blacks are all "small minded".
Need I remind you of Don Imus and how ONE small comment drew immediate condemnation and death threats and eventually firing.
Need I remind you of (forgive me because I do not remember her name at this time) the firestorm of controversy that transpired when the Golf Channel commentator uttered the word "lynch" when joking with another about Tiger Woods, she was immediately condemned by every black person that even heard or read about the comment, everyone EXCEPT her friend Tiger Woods was "offended" and now Rev. Wright spews his hate and you expect us to sit back and shut up.
In my day to day dealings I see racism perpetrated by ALL races but I do not condemn any particular race because for every bad seed there are thousands of excellent/great people of every race and every single person is racist to a point whether they admit it or not, it's the ones who will not admit it that are the scary ones.
One final thing, don't get me started on Katrina.

[Herrington]

"their American roots go deeper than most whites" slaves were imported for labor to the original colonies. The majority of Americans are descended from Scotch/Irish immigrants of the 19th century.

"you imply that these ministers are revered or put upon a pedestal for what they say, name one that has not been condemned" what"s the number, something like 37% of Americans identify themselves with evangelical churches, who by their continued attendance to these churches seems to suggest agreement by the standards to which Obama is being held. Since black Americans are something like 18% of the populace, it stands to reason that white evangelical preachers are supported by greater numbers than any black preachers.

Otherwise, right on!

[lwaxanatroi]

Inflammatory--here we go. I've been trying to figure out exactly why Rev, Wright's statements have created a firestorm whereas Falwell and Co. blaming natural disasters on the wrath of God merely spawns late-night humor. And there I think I see a glimmer. Rev. Wright is "inflammatory", meaning that his anger might light the flames of black rage, and that is extremely scary to a lot of white people. Rev. Falwell, in contrast, might say a lot of outrageous things, but his followers aren't going to become an angry mob. Not, by the way, that I think the African American congregation at Rev. Wright's church is going to become a mob, just that I think that this fear is the subtext of this whole controversy. Yes, there's the "never criticize the United States for anything it ever did in the past, including slavery and the extermination of Indians" crowd, which of course extends to a ban on criticizing anything the US is doing at present, but this isn't the whole story., It's race, damn it. White criticism of American policy is academic. it's whiny. It's sissy. It's "better Red than dead." Black criticism of America could lead to anarchy, riots in the streets, burning cities. That's the ultimate fear of every white person who ever even thought the "n-word" in his mind, let alone said it out loud. Rev. Wright exemplifies the idea that in the hearts of a lot of black citizens, there is still anger and resentment over white privilege, and if we think Obama has even the slightest hint of that anger in his own heart, we will not want him as our president. I hope we can be as adult as Obama asked us to be in his speech, but I have serious doubts on that score. I personally don't think Rev. Wright's statements were all that outrageous, and I don't think some of the posters on this site would have thought so either, had those sentiments been expressed by a white Harvard professor.