As I alternate between reruns of Jeremiah Wrights "God Damn America" tirade and first-runs of the HBO's John Adams series, I see a surprising connection. Like many of the Revolutionary era, Adams believed that if we weren't careful, God would damn us or at least withdraw his support.
At some points during the war, Adams feared that the cause would fail because he saw too much greed and commercialism in the colonies. "I have seen all my life such selfishness and littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although we are engaged in the best cause that ever employed the human heart, yet the prospect of success is doubtful not for want of power or wisdom but of virtue." During the revolution, Adams -- evoking the manner of his Puritan ancestors -- told his friend Benjamin Rush that the colonials would only have a chance of winning, "if we fear God and repent our sins." He even speculated that God might intend for America to be defeated so that its "vicious and luxurious and effeminate appetites, passion and habits" would be cleansed, laying the foundation for a more-deserved victory in the future.
Adams wasn't alone in seeing the events on the ground as a reflection -- positive and negative -- of God's assessment. One minister ascribed the Continental Army's difficulties to the presence of slavery. Noting the brutal winter, the poor crops, the loss of cattle, and the seemingly imminent collapse of the army, a Quaker farmer speculated that it was part of a divinely-ordained set of plagues. When on July 20, 1775 the Continental Congress called for a day of prayer, it was accompanied by a call for fasting, self-reflection and a unified effort to "unfeignedly confess and deplore our many sins."
I don't mean this as a defense of Jeremiah Wright (or John Adams). It's just a reminder that there's a long tradition among preachers and politicians of asserting that if God is to bless us when we're good, He may damn us when we're bad.
Let move forward America.
My mother and step-father had four more children together in the space of nine years after I was born, and we grew up together in a middle-class household in white america where the subject of "race" was never discussed. My earliest recollections of having to be aware of race was when I was asked questions about the color of my skin by other classmates in first grade... "Why was my skin dark?", "Was I adopted?" race was certainly a hot-button issue in 1965-66 when I began school , but any awareness that my mother and step-father had achieved from growing up in their white neighborhoods in the 40's and 50's was insufficient in preparing them for raising a biracial child... and to complicate things, they were both in complete denial of their complicity in my mis-education. When I came home from school after having been asked questions by fellow students from my all-white school district, my mother then explained "the skin-disease story" to me... "other kids with this disease usually have dark blotches all over their bodies, so you should feel fortunate". When I would tell my mother about other boys and girls who would call me names or act aggressively for no apparent reason, I began to understand that I would get no further assistance from her to explain this rationale... my step-father was even more removed from the conversation and would only add, "You know what your mother said".
By the time that my step-father transferred jobs and our family of (7) had moved from the all-white Cleveland, Ohio suburb of Stow to the all-white school district of Portville in Western up-state N.Y. it was the spring of 1970 and I was in fourth grade, and already the veteran of many racial incidents and altercations between myself, classmates, and even some adults. My four younger siblings had also been told the same story, and had to explain the same things to their friends when asked why they had a brother who was black... "Hey, did your mother fool around a little bit??" I remember how much that hurt me when I heard it, and I'm sure that they felt just as badly when they did... nonetheless, this was a "subject" that we never discussed as a family, not once, at least in my presence.
I was taught through my observations of my mother and step-father to keep quiet about things that I wasn't sure about, and I was also taught to ignore the obvious.
As I matured into my teen-aged years and began to experience societies issues and insecurities in coming to terms with this countries racial in-equalities during the 70's, I felt an increasing need to rationalize and then codify the information that my mother had given me, regardless of what I was beginning to realize inside... I felt a growing discomfort/conflict, yet there was no one in my life to offer any other perspective... I had learned that black people were a part of society that we didn't talk about. ( There was a black family in my small town, and they were poor and lived in a run-down house near the river...I never had any opportunity or reason to associate with them)
I was a "B" student and also began taking an interest in sports where I was above average. Meeting other schools and student athletes were opportunities to then be exposed to populations that had not been inured by my story yet...I was just another black kid to them.
Communicating my experiences to my mother and step-father was difficult because they had no experience with racial prejudice, therefore when I had problems with other children it would be looked at as an issue that "I" had in getting along with others(as well as intra-family sibling issues).
Because "race" was being ruled-out entirely, by my mothers denial of my father, she could not logically use that rationale to explain any conflicts that I would have. My step-fathers complicity in this was to blindly support my mothers viewpoint.
The "white" viewpoint has always been that blacks(black society) were pretty well cared for, and what contact they did have would be polite and careful... What, with the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts being passed, the playing field had been leveled.(re: my mother and step-father's generation)
The feelings and comfort of my mother were apparently what was important, and her inculcation had to have been partly comprised of the idea that white society acted as the gate-keepers and care-takers of an infantilized black population.
questions:
How has black society formed its identity?
What role models have been used, and how does white society react to positive
black role models today? (Are they held to a more critical prism??)
Is there enough information readily available for black people to easily form a
positive racial identity?
Is it important that black society is able to connect accurately the dots of its social
evolution in America? and is it also important that white society can connect those
same dots??
What is White Privilege?
What is White awareness?
What is Whiteness?
What about Affirmative Action?
Is Race just a social construct?
How do we improve our society in America?
Is there any other way(besides the attrition of the old guard) to achieve this??
Dave Myers
www.discussrace.com
On December 2, 1863, when the "Freedom" statue was hoisted atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol, it was due to the workmanship of a slave at the Bladensburg (Maryland) Foundry, Philip Reid. He was responsible for the bronze casting that is a symbol of freedom around the world.
Who would Jesus bomb?
----
exorcize your tv.
The great John Adams, wildly underappreciate by the liberal historians of the past 50 years who continually rate Wilson, whose naivety laid the foundations for WW2, and FDR, whose hubris prevented him understanding the Soviets and refused to allow him to stop running for president, just below Washington and Lincoln, was one of the best historian-presidents (next to, perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman).
Adams understood the lessons of history. He knew all too well of nations and empires that get too soft, too wealthy, too effeminate, too childishly concerned with dividing up the nation into one group after another demanding more rights than the others, too good for the rest of the world.
Adams had seen the corruption of government at first hand and made sure that the people working for him were honest and, at least publically, moral. Adams had seen civil administrators given over to personal and civic vice. We keep seeing examples of this in both Democrat and Republican administrations and do nothing. Being like John Adams is too much work for us.
The easy-going, slave-owning, hypocritical Thomas Jefferson is much more to our liking. He was a liberal. Adams was a convervative. Jefferson was a liar. Adams, no matter how much his enemies hated him, were never able to accuse him of being dishonest.
Adams not only believed in God, he rendered God the honor of acting as if he believed in Him.
John Adams was courageous and understood statecraft. He was also one of the most honest men in this nation. His presidency was wrecked by "the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar," Alexander Hamilton, and the guilt-ridden slave owner, Thomas Jefferson - who hired hack writers to keep his name in print throughout Adams' administration - while accusing the president of all sorts of heinous actions.
Abagail Adams, seeing the perfidious betrayal of Jefferson, her husband's erstwhile friend, refused to speak to him ever again, even after he and Adams mended their friendship.
Adams understood that ordinary people, without proper education, saw only the surface and never the interior of candidates. An ardent supporter of republican government, Adams was never in favor of the United States as a democracy because people are so easily misled - we need only look at the two Democratic candidates to exemply Adams' wisdom.
Our educational system has been so politicized that it is a sham, a mockery of real scholarship. Students learn despite teachers sucked dry by their unions and textbooks that turn history into fairy tales, while continuing to proclaim the benefits of democracy.
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. It is not ruled directly by the people but by their representatives. The day the United States becomes a pure democracy it will be the beginning of the end of this nation and this nation's Constitution.
Why? One simple reason - the people are too lazy to take the time to understand what is best for their government. They will continue to have their heads turned by celebrity candidates, power-hungry pusillanimous pigs who suck at the public trough.
I read saami's post above: "God has nothing to do with the successes or failures of men."
That is the statement of a typical atheist who believes in juck science and magic, such as that we are all here by accident. His dogma is too small to allow real science prove to him that God not only exists, but that there is no other explanation for the order in the universe. Real scientists - those not protecting their grants by concocting global warming, global cooling and other yearly catastrophic scenarios - know this.
"There was never a democracy did that not commit suicide," wrote John Adams.
We have a razor blade in our hands.
The founders rebelled against tyranny; and if we are now ruled by tyrants, we should follow their example. CES.
------
kill your tv first, then the tyrants.
Concerning whether God would bless America or damn it, let's look at some of the issues that were most important to Jesus -
Jesus said don't just love your neighbor, but love your enemy as well. When someone strikes you on the cheek turn the other cheek to him also. This isn't an easy one to live by, but it was at the forefront of Jesus' message. It is nearly impossible to protect the citizens of a nation and live by this commandment. This alone makes government and Christianity almost mutually exclusive. Not to mention that concerning government actions, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. In other words, respect your government and abide by its laws, but don't confuse it with God and God's laws.
Jesus said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, cure the sick, give to the poor. Looking at America, this "Christian" nation has had quite a bit of trouble with these direct commands of Jesus. Because we have a capitalist economy, we are taught that getting our fair share and supporting the economy is more important than caring for those in need. I have to believe that God would choose to damn this outright greed, especially considering that we are already one of the richest nations in the world.
Let's look at the issue of gay marriage that was used for political gain. First of all, Jesus specifically says that marriage is for people on earth and that there is no marriage in heaven. That alone says to me that marriage is not sacred. Jesus also said that God only allowed divorce because people are hard-hearted. So, with that in mind, let's revisit the issue of marriage. What is more destructive to the institution of marriage? Is allowing gay people that love each other to marry more detrimental to the institution of marriage than allowing people to divorce? Why, if Americans are so concerned about the imagined sacredness of marriage, don't they try to pass laws prohibiting divorce? Reeks strongly of hypocrisy and an exploitation of Christianity to me - Somehow I think that would piss God off rather than please him.
As Reverend Wright mentioned, not only was this nation involved in many wars out of necessity, but it has engaged in some horrific displays of violence against innocents. This nation dropped 3 nuclear bombs on Japanese citizens. Our current administration lied to lead us into a war which has taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens as well as nearly 4,000 American soldiers. We have used excessive violent force against innocent civilians at times not because we had to, but simply because we could. Considering the words of Jesus, I'd have to say God would damn this nation for that violence.
Granted, there are many people in this nation that try very hard to live by real Christian principles. I applaud them, because it is not an easy life, and there is little reward unless you believe in Heaven. But for people to twist the words of Jesus for their own ends, while ignoring his specific, direct commandments is not only sickening, but surely worthy of being damned by God.
Even when I was a believer I saw the hypocrisy that was rampant among those that called themselves Christians, particularly our leaders in government. Before anyone denounces Reverend Wright for his comments, I would ask them to take a long hard look at themselves and at this country, and truly ask themselves whether God would bless them. The last time I checked, the words attributed to Jesus were very firm and resolute, and any deviation from them should bring about at least some measure of damnation. Perhaps there are many things about this nation that God would bless, and there are certainly many people in this nation that I personally believe would be deserving of a blessing, but to assume that God would refuse to damn this nation just because it calls itself Christain, or to assume that God won't damn someone because they go to church every now and then is pure fiction, and a perfect example of the false pride that is corrupting this nation - a pride which, by the way, God also damns.
Granted, there is probably no nation on this planet that should escape God's damnation. Granted, the attacks on September 11, 2001 were horrific acts of violence that should be condemned outright. But to argue that we are somehow free from God's damnation and condemnation is to pretend that God is willing to overlook our sins and atrocities simply because we say that we believe in him. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
I wash my hands of them (get it? little bible joke, there...)
----
stop watching tv.
It's not really religion v. non-religion. How can anyone imagine that only religious people vent their feelings? Give me a break. Or that only religious people - and they mean who? UBL? the pope? Pat Robertson? the Dalai Lama? - could say "damn America."
The point is that anyone could say "damn America" and anyone could say "goddam" and it will have - and I say this with scientific certainly - no effect whatsoever on "American values" or the constitution. But hyperventilating, unlike verbal damnation, can have some effect on the electorate, which I've noticed passing out on occasion, and they associate that with "something wrong happened", which means "something wrong could happen" from the associated candidate, which is probably bad, which means evil, which in turn means .... dammit!
Yes, it *does* matter. Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it true. Believing in something which is untrue does not advance mankind. Delusion isn't something with which we should be comfortable.
For ages, the majority believed that the Earth was flat. That did *not* make it true. And, it mattered, and in a large way.
When mankind gets to the point that believers - of all religions - are a minority, true advancement can take place.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/149/149syllabus5jeremiad.html
It's an account of The American Jeremiad tradition and how it differs from that practiced in Europe. Of course it is originally based on the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Old Testament.
Here's an excerpt:
Bercovitch contrasts the American jeremiad with its European predecessor. The European jeremiad depicted a static society condemned to fall perpetually from its mythic roots; it wailed from the pulpit and unleashed a torrent of guilt upon its audience. In contrast, the American jeremiad added the dimension of progress - the hope that public life can improve. The invocation of the American jeremiad involves three steps:
(1) provide a biblical or spiritual standard for individual activity and public life
(2) outline the manners in which a people has fallen from that standard,
(3) envision an ideal public life - with its concurrent individual benefits - that follows a return to the religious standard.
With this ideal, the American jeremiad sustains a paradoxical rhetoric of hope and fear - a tension between the ideal and the real. This tension is designed to generate the requisite energy to improve public life: "It posits a movement from promise to experience - from the ideal of community to the shortcomings of community life - and thence forward, with prophetic assurance, toward the resolution that incorporates (as it transforms) both the promise and the condemnation" (Bercovitch, p. 16). The key to the American jeremiad is its blurring of individual and communal pursuits.
Just food for thought.
I wish more people knew how hard John Adams fought against slavery when the constitution was being written. Do you remember seeing Amistad? So please don't come down on him for being a white supremist or something.
Adams must have been an irritating man to get along with, but he did fight the good fight.
A brief review of American history reads like a river of blood, on our soil and abroad. Ask the American Indian, ask Abraham Lincoln, ask the Vietnamese. Ask the everyday Iraqi on the street. Currently we in America are debating the legality of torture as a means of foreign policy. We have already condoned its use.
Self adoring liberty has indeed come with a cost, just ask the Romans...oh... there not around anymore? Catch a clue America, we are far from being clean of wrong doing in this world.
Can we be lifted up to overcome?...Yes...if we can be brutally honest about where and when we have shed innocent blood.
But if the cure is brutal honesty, I predict a sorry end for us. We can no longer be honest, if we ever could. Television now functions as the forebrain of the culture. Any sentiments that the sponsors don't want on the tube will remain relegated to the individual private mind.
This is reason enough, why television as we know it should die. It's not just abstract: Televised opinions make up the sole content of our national "dialog," and are owned outright by those who make money off of sowing distrust and difference.
-----
kill your tv. do it now.
Yes, this reaction happens with the Typical (good word) woman,regardless of etnic background.
We need to stop picking apart every word Obama says, or black folks say. Many of these white women do not like it, and this is why many of them are growing tired of these angry men trying to persuade them, the older white female voters, to go for Clinton or McCain, in support of this angry rampage.
The younger folks see this as static, stuck in a rut, not working type rhetoric so they move on. They leave the nest; they shut them out and keep on stepping. Folks if you are one of these angry, upset people, you need to realize that your day has come and is going away, and you will realize this by the division from your loved ones. People are sick and tired of this hating. Start by doing something positive. Find out what can be done for Post Traumatic Distress Syndrome. PTDS? So ,many folks are ending up angry, many of our vets are coming home mentally messed up, Angry. Some Vets are robbing and killing folks, some folks get this from seeing this anger on tv, scenes from the war, etc. We all need to stop our drama and start showing love for one another. Vote for Obama and Move on
Have you ever read Flannery O'Connor's alleged statement that, when asked why she and other Southern writers wrote about freaks, responded "That's because in the South we know a freak when we see one." Stupid statements by right-wing nuts are not often refuted - they are ignored, because we know right-wing nuts when we see them.
"Damn" does not necessarily mean to condemn to hell. It also means to denounce. If any god does not denounce racism, lynching, slavery, invading other countries for nefarious reasons, interfering with democratically elected leaders all over the world, racial profiling, the death penalty (note the recent article on Alternet concerning the Georgia Supreme Court's refusal to retry the case of a black man who is almost certainly innocent!), jingoism, and a multitude of other unfortunate behavior, I don't know what he or she or it might denounce!
I mean, with Christianity, we are talking about a god who supposedly actually condemned all of mankind to eternal suffering before Jesus came to save us from "our" sins because an ancient woman got convinced by a talking snake into eating a piece of FRUIT!
Before qualifying one's statements by saying they are not excuses for what Wright said, it might be fair to also mention all the seriously anti-American statements made by the likes of Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the religious right who compared the US to Nazi Germany and the USSR because of moral decrepitude; Ann Coulter, who called for the assassination of members of the supreme court; Rush Limbaugh who railed about fake soldiers; Rev. Hagee, a supporter of McCain who called the Catholic church a "whore," and a multitude of other Americans, right or wrong, who have exercised their freedom of speech.
Hm. I wonder if the difference is that Wright is a black and probably a progressive. Oh, gee. Probably not.
As for your conclusion, I must disagree with the notion that God would be doing the blessing or damning. Numbers 22-24 and James 3 gives us some insight into how words spoken by human beings can have this effect. This is also what Christ meant when he said that what comes out of the mouth is what contaminates a person, not what goes in. This idea is reinforced by his promise to the disciples that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be likewise done in heaven. That is why the unfortunate words which have shackled Pastor Wright to iinfamy should be understood as a call for his followers to ask God to damn America.
While I'm here, let me donate my two cents on Sen. Barack Obama's Race Speech. A problem of logic arises from Obama's defense. His absence from the Dec. 25th service provided the deniability he is using now. Fact is, Obama was the cause for Rev. Wright's unprovoked verbal assault on Clinton and whites in general. Sadly, this uncouth utterance usurped the joyous preaching of Christ's miraculous birth, during that sermon. The most offended should have been church members subjected to purely political rhetoric. If in fact, they had come seeking God's Gospel of Love and not a man's hateful ranting.