Letters to the Editor
thehappychickenwillsmile
Published Letters: 19
-
A non-flaming counter-argument to Joan's
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
I am blown away that you and I watched the same interview. There are definitely thoughtless extremists on the left, as well as the right. I was expecting that kind of grandstanding. I don't agree with Wright on everything, but the interview blew me away because he was so not like that: he seems so temperate, and so steeped in his religion, and the work his church does. He seems to feel he's obligated to say things that are true, whether they are comfortable or not.
There are taboos in our culture, just as there are in all. The right wing media has had a huge effect, shaping our sense of those taboos. When we drop bombs in Iraq, civilians die. No politician can bring that up in our public discourse. Immediately, they would be called part of the "hate America crowd."
And all of us get used to accepting things you can't change. And yet, when you talk of MLK-like changes, those happen when people refuse to accept them anyway. You violate taboos, and hold on to a principle, whether popular or not.
Wright's point about media manipulation is real. If you speak without filtering it with political expediency (as most public people would,) others can easily take advantage.
He does focus too much on the negative. I agree with Obama. You won't change these things if you just criticize. You have to give people something better to reach for, and you have to show your confidence in their goodness.
But, if you would look again closely at both the clips, and Wright discussing them, you'll see he just assumes that side:
"God Damn America": Wright and Moyers discuss it, and agree that the prophets loved Israel, but hated it's waywardness. Damn commonly means drop it, it's rotten. But this means I condemn it for the bad things it does, adding at the end of his famous "damn" litany, "as long as she tries to act like she is God." So, damn it for actions which we could potentially change. He also acknowledges his right to free speech (ie, the good in this country) immediately afterwards.
With the second clip, he says: the people in psalm 138 moved from wanting revenge against armies to wanting revenge against innocents, and ties it to our situation today ("we don't care who gets hurt in the process.") God, he says, wants you to move beyond that. He makes the argument "violence begets violence," mentioning instances in our history where innocent people were killed by Americans. Note, also, his use of "we." "We've got to change what we're doing." So, he sees himself and his congregation as part of American actions, a collective action that should change.
He assumes our potential to change, and he sees himself as part of the whole, pushing to make things better. He holds the US to this purist principle, don't harm innocents. That's not the same as being thoughtless and dismissive of Americans. It's a complex message about a difficult issue. That's what so moved me. Lately, whenever the Obama camp gets cornered, they turn and reach a deeper place.
I believe in America, and the goodness of it. But we did drop bombs on innocents. I want to be able to say that without being labeled unpatriotic. I want that, because I want us to reach for something better, and, surely, first we have to be honest. Part of the American dream is reaching for that high moral standard. I say it again, I believe in that often-dismissed, idealistic dream, just as I know that in the real world it is hard to achieve.
-
Oh, and
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope Moyers interviews Hagee too
-
Why walk on egg shells?
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where do you get "enormous self-regard" from? I think it's because he doesn't edit himself to avoid controversy. People only do that if their vain, presumably. But, you could argue, he simply sees himself as apolitical, and therefore won't change his behavior to fit what is politically expedient.
I can't remember the last time someone like that has emerged in the public sphere. And I think it causes culture shock among the media. You guys are so used to people being careful about what they say, someone being blunt blows you away. And yet, there's greatness in that too, in saying things directly, and holding everyone to a high standard.
He focuses too much on the negative, and assumes people know the positives in their country and selves. He has a handful of genuinely nutty opinions, on HIV, and the US apologizing for Hiroshima. But, often he simply holds the US to a high standard (e.g. innocents should never be harmed) and does so in an apologetic (sometimes humorous) way. And he is a black leader. Maybe, here, there's a generational difference between us, Joan. As a youngish white dude, this just doesn't freak me out.
Remember our national conversation about race? We're never going to get anywhere, if anyone, on either side, is ultra-sensitive. Race is just a canard anyway; we're all just people. If I point out how Kennedy speaks, and do it in a gentle, humorous way, I'm not "making fun of white people," except in the eyes of someone who's completely on edge.
True, for his nutty opinions, he might find his way into the Roger Clinton category, but by no means is he this devastating racial problem fort Obama, unless the media make him into one (A friend of mine from Pennsylvania quoted his mom. She said, she doesn't really know the details, just that there's something scandalous having to do with race. So, the manufactured issue worked.)