Wednesday, April 30, 2008
He has a right to be angry...
I think we white folks in America should be more understanding of angry black people. Especially older ones who have endured profound racial discrimination in their lifetime. They had to live in situations in which they were denied basic civil and human rights. Denied respect. Yes, right here in America. They attended segregated schools. They were denied jobs. Forced to live in segregated neighborhoods. Denied service in ‘white’ restaurants. Had to drink from fountains designateed for ‘colored.’ Relegated to the back of theaters. On and on I could go. Yes, little wonder that when black minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright gets up on the pulpit in his Chicago church, he may sound a bit angry at times. He may even sound un-American. But really, he’s a good American. He even served his country in the military service for six years. And he constantly works for making America a better place. And by golly, he has a right to be angry with America. For the way racists in America have treated people of his race for a long, long time. –Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes, but there is a way to be productively angry, and a way to be destructively angry. People who speak like that do nothing, but perpetuate racism, and line their own pockets. It is the Reverend's 15 minutes of fame, and see how he is using it. Even his fellow Preachers claim he is motivated by narcissism and greed.
Mr. Wright is doing a great disservice to the African American population. They deserve much better than him.
C'mon, we know why this is a topic of yours: it stinks of controversy. You are the epitome of controversial newsprint.
Dear Anonymous:
I guess my point is that I understand why Rev. Wright is angry. And I suspect you'd be angry, too, if you were black instead of white. It's, oh, so easy, for the whites to tell the people who have been discriminated against to not be so angry, or to be productively angry. You'd probably have a different and more understanding attitude if you lived your life in a black person's shoes. --Jim Broede
Oh, I empathize, for sure! And, I am sure I would have different views and opinions, if I walked in ANYONE else's shoes, be it Black, Jewish, disabled,opposite gender, etc. Everyone is subject to prejudice, at some level, from someone, be it because of our behavior, our heritage, our social status, our way of dress, simply WHO WE ARE: the list is endless. But, when something upsets me, I try to find a constructive way to change it, or to change me.
Personally, I think Bill Cosby has a better take on the African American situation, than does the likes of the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, Rev. Wright, et al. At least he offers some REAL, doable solutions, not just stoking the fire.
Anyone, who has ever been in a history class, should understand the anger of the African Americans who were subject to the blatant racist treatment they received. Things have changed vastly, though not as quickly as most would like. History, as well as religious teachings, show us that there will ALWAYS be unrest, prejudice, conflicts, etc. We will always be in need of improvement. Perpetuating discrimination never has, and never will, work.
I was raised in a Democratic household.
I have voted mostly Republican since "coming of age". I tend to vote my conscience, though, not along party lines. I have leaned toward Senator Obama for quite awhile. I did support Gov. Romney at the beginning, mostly for his "business sense".
However, I do see Rev. Wright as having done damage to Sen. Obama's campaign. Whether we like it or not, we ARE judged by the company we keep. I think Sen. Obama has done an admirable job, distancing himself from the rhetoric of Rev. Wright, I just hope it has not been too late.
I think the black leaders should be more understanding of the majority blacks' needs, instead of fulfilling their own needs, and filling their own bank accounts. Do you think these fine outspoken men give their speeches for free??? Believe me, the more controversial the speakers are, the more $$$ they rake in, on the backs of those they claim to be helping. THEY are the ones that are setting back any progress towards equality that may have been made.
Sometimes fires have to be stoked to bring about changes. When the civil rights movement became militant in the 1960s, we started to see some big changes. And we still need more big changes. Our nation was founded on the basis of white supremacy. And we haven't yet fully rid ourselves of this stain and shame. And we need to get angry about it. That's why it's good to have the likes of a Rev. Wright. He's angry enough to not want to take it any more. Well, I say, good for him. I'm on his side. And let's recognize that many of our founding fathers were hypocrites. And it's time we righted some of the wrongs they perpetrated, and still linger to this day. --Jim Broede
I do not mean any fires of rebellion. I mean fires of hatred, and feelings of "paybacks". I lived through the riots of the 60s. There was nothing conducive to positive change, in carloads of black youths, with shotguns, riding through our neighborhoods, looking for "Whities" to shoot.
"...following the death of Martin Luther King in April 1968, the riots signaled the end of the carefully orchestrated, non-violent demonstrations of the early Civil Rights Movement."
The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that .."the riots had economically significant negative effects on blacks' income and employment."
Yeah, there were big changes, Jim Broede.
"Between 1965 and 1968, more than three hundred riots occurred, resulting in two hundred deaths and the destruction of several thousand businesses" (Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997,158–61; Graham 1980, 12)
"The “rebellions” resembled giant shopping sprees; most of the looters appeared to be in the melees “for fun and profit.”(Banfield 1968; Gilbert 1968, 180).
A very high number of those arrested during the riots admitted they were doing it for material gain. A "strong majority of blacks" believed the riots hurt, more than helped the civil rights cause. Did they attack Government buildings(because of
unequality)?? Police stations(because of claims of brutality)?? NO. They stole from and destroyed property of their own neighbors and communities! Over 2500 business in Detroit, alone, were totally destroyed. That was really helpful, huh?
BTW, there was a program in effect by the Small Business Administration in 1964, long BEFORE the riots took place. this program was created to "promote business ownership among African Americans"
"...by responding paternalistically to the riots and refusing to take a hard line against violence, liberal policymakers spawned a self-fulfilling prophecy that encouraged further self-destructive behavior. In effect, rioters were granted a moral holiday,
and their neighbors paid the price" (Banfield 1968; Van den Haag 1968; Burnham1968; Methvin 1970).
Did you know that Martin Luther King Jr. was booed, when he visited the riot sites in Los Angeles, following the violence??
That the black Congressman in Detroit had to run for safety after he attempted to bring calm to the crowd????
I could go on and on, on this subject. Let me finish by saying so much, much more was accomplished by one small, gentle black woman, who refused to take her assigned seat in the rear of a bus, in Montgomery Alabama. She was said to have been: "Sweet and soft spoken but made a statement that screamed so loud."
I am sorry for the length of this. I do hope you print it in its entirety.
One last thought:from the birth of "organized" governments, the majority of leaders have been hypocrites.
I fully support the civil rights movement, but realistically, and with a view of a more permanent result.
Post a Comment