Letters to the Editor
Valkyrie607
Published Letters: 121 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Hold on One Second...
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The ONLY reason Rev. Wright continues to be a source of fascination for the media is that it allows them to paint Obama as a Scary Angry Black Man, by virtue of his association with Rev. Wright, who really IS an Angry Black Man, although his scariness depends entirely on the listener's level of White Paranoia.
Is Wright running for President? Has Obama released a statement saying, "I agree 100% with everything the Rev. says, he is my top advisor?" No? The why the fuck are we still talking about this? Joan? NYTimes? Reporters? Hello?
........
p.s. shout out to Weeping for Brunnhilde!
-
To Dr. Rhymes
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you! Nice job, your posts were eloquent and well thought-out. Indeed, it makes me wonder: what is America's problem, after all. This whole affair is ludicrous. White America discovers, once again, that black America is a tad angry. Horrors! Who would have thought--but how could they possibly--America the great--stop telling us about it!
You reminded me of Pat Robertson bitching about African-Americans' lack of gratitude... for food stamps.
I must agree with a previous poster: aside from Glenn Greenwald's blog (which I now have bookmarked) I am now spending less and less time on Salon. I used to come here because I could find news stories that took a different tack than the MSM. Because there was actual news, instead of empty talk. Because the writers were intelligent and really thought about their columns before committing words to print (or screen, whatever). These days? Not so much.
-
@ Brunnhilde
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for that succinct synopsis of liberalism. Your description of a liberal response to 9/11 perfectly mirrors my own: not "I hope somebody kills the bastards that did this," but, "Shit, those dudes must have been supremely pissed off--and I can think of a few reasons why. I hope we DON'T bomb anybody--I just want this to stop."
The difficulty here is that empathy is blocked by guilt. And white Americans know (subconsciously, often, but they know) that they bear at least some responsibility for the fact that racism is not dead in America.
Our ancestors made certain choices. They made choices that were morally reprehensible. And now we must deal with the consequences. Me personally, I can look back and find slave-owning ancestors, abolitionist newspaper-starting ancestors, and ancestors who were fishing off the coast of Norway while all this stuff was going down. Nevertheless, it is now my responsibility, fairly or unfairly, to confront the legacy of white supremacy.
I believe that white Americans need to do this in general: to open their eyes and ears and really become aware of the ways in which white supremacy has been the dominant ideology in this country for centuries, how this has benefited them and their family (no matter when they came to America) and how the legacy of violence and discrimination against black Americans still lingers in every community. If the Jews can still acknowledge the effect that being enslaved had on them, why is it so terrible for blacks to do the same?
The answer to that question lies in the question of responsibility. The idea of liberalism you espoused also requires a large measure of personal responsibility: to be honest with oneself about the benefits one receives from a system that is not equal in the way it distributes opportunities and wealth.
It is MOST uncomfortable when you realize that other people have been suffering, and you have been accruing advantages because of that suffering. This is the thing that Rev. Wright brings before us, which we do not want to confront.
We all want to be good people. We don't want to hurt other people. But when it comes right down to it, we'd rather not know about the pain and anger of those without power, who suffer because of the actions of a government purporting to represent us. Because it's too damn uncomfortable! I don't see any way around this. People are going to be discomfited one way or another. Sometimes persuasion must give way to direct action.
-
Such a thing is possible?
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Appearing more devoid of convictions than is typical."
Yikes!
-
@ Electro
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're one of those guys who "don't do nuance," is that right?