I have thus far avoided commenting on the situation with Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright and the various sound and video clips that have been circulating over the last several days. It has come up in numerous conversations that I have had with a number of very different people, however, and I have been giving it some thought, although I haven’t the time to get into my conclusions (some of which aren’t fully formed anyway) at this point. Further, I am interested in hearing/reading Obama’s speech as part of that thought process.
One thing that came up in a conversation yesterday that struck me as relevant, although I have not heard it noted elsewhere (but that may be because of my somewhat limited exposure to the coverage on the subject) is the issue of how it can be that people like Wright, and more importantly his parishioners, could buy into conspiracy theories such as the notion that the US government created HIV to kill African-Americans. To wit (via the Seattle Times):
He [Wright] also has suggested the U.S. played a role in the spread of the AIDS virus: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
On the one hand, I consider that (to use a technical term) to be crazy talk. On the other, however, we, as a nation, tend to forget things like the Tuskegee Experiment wherein the following took place:
The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.
For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance.
At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.
Such actions certainly make believing any number of theories about HIV and the federal government far easier to believe than they otherwise ought to be. There is also the fact that many, many African-Americans were systematically denied the vote into the 1960s, and that lynchings still were taking place into that same decade, it is not hard to see how a man of Wright’s age (he is currently 66) might have a somewhat jaundiced view of the US on the subject of racial justice. The Civil Rights era was hardly one of the government treating African-Americans with respect, for that matter (e.g., loosing dogs on crowds, spraying them with fire hoses, deploying the National Guard to stop school desegregation, etc.).
This is not to defend Wright’s statement, or Wright himself. It is just something to think about.
I will say this: while it is true that the politics of victimization are a detriment (I would argue, at least) to many in the African-American community, I would also argue that the white majority tends to be blithe in its willingness to pretend as if progress on matters of race means we can ignore the past–especially a past that is not as far distant as we would like to think that it is.
Sphere: Related Content
March 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Steven, I have mostly avoided this whole “Wright” issue. However, for whatever it might be worth, let me say that yours is the sanest and most intelligent commentary I have seen on the topic.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
What do these comments do for those who look up to Wright? Nothing, they give those who are not in a particularly good position in life excuses why they have not succeeded and at the same time hold them captive from their true potential. The leader of the U.S. represents all its citizens of every race and religion and as a leader he/she should not be associated with a hate filled man like Wright, no matter what. You can say that Wright’s background or life events have defined him and excuses him from his words of hate, but I would say that his actions not his life events not only have defined his character but also his soul, would we think the same of Gandhi if he acted this way considering his life events? If a person like Wright married, baptized, and held a position in a candidate’s campaign wouldn’t anyone with a lick of common sense say that they share the same value system? The whole Obama speech was one of political expediency and not a true speech about race and unity. If Obama did not agree with Wright why would he title his book Audacity of Hope after one of Wright’s speeches? Obama cannot disown Wright as Obama sat in the pews at Trinity Church for over 20 years and listened to this garbage. If he thought Wright was a hate monger or disagreed with his “words” Michelle and Barack had every opportunity to leave, but unfortunately they did not.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Two thoughts…
1> One big problem in politics over the last 30 years or so is the inability of anybody to confront blacks who say outrageous things. Rev Wright wasn’t just a pastor, he has been politically active in a number of areas for years. Yet no politician has the ability to say “we don’t want people like you in our cause”. If the Daley machine or other Chicago power would have been strong enough to say “good riddance” then his words would have been tempered considerably. This lack of backbone allows demagogues to flourish without the normal checks of decent society. This check tends to be in place for white lunatics — crazies like Fred Phelps or David Duke are persona non grata in polite society — but some blacks have enough power to override the stigma of spouting crazy ideas.
2> Obama has run as a blank slate. People can see what they want to see in him. Conciliator — check. Extreme liberal on some issues — check. Overachieving academic and politician — check. Reformer — check. I think this is damaging because it falls outside the well scripted picture he projects. He’s not from the happy, healing place; he’s from an angry, hating, and paranoid place. This issue is tough for him because it contradicts his carefully crafted persona.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Excellent points here. I agree with Dr. Shugart (sp?) in that this is one of the best takes I’ve seen in the blog-o-nets.
I still think that Wright sounds like a Dalek, though, especially on the clips where he is getting really worked up.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I second MSS’s comment.
The whole thing is–as Obama might say–a part of political “silly season.”
I guess since the Obama-as-muslim canard didn’t stick, making him somehow responsible for his pastor’s sermon seemed to be a better strategy of obfuscation.
The dollar is at record lows, the government has just taken an unprecedented step at propping up an investment bank, we are spending billions of dollars and losing thousands of lives trying to militarily stabilize an intractable civil war of our country’s own creation and the only thing people think matters is Obama’s relationship to some South Side of Chicago preacher.
This is truly absurd.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
In the same vein as this, I recommend the Pithlord.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I agree with the fact that this is defecting the electorate from what is really important like the economy, Iraq, the rise of radical islam, China, Taxes, Social Security, universal health care or not, ect, but we need to know who are leaders are and we do not know who Barack Obama is, was or will be if he is elected to the most powerful position of leadership in the world.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Steven, I 100% agree with your post.
CV, did we really know George W. Bush? We knew Nixon…
I think we should give Obama chance. Hillary and McCain are just so much of the same. We want to be a country that leads and elected Obama is a chance for voters to actually give change a chance.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
His total lack of experience, his naive world view, his lack of answers to the most important questions facing our country and his association with people who hate this country and white people makes me think that this is not someone you should trust to be your leader. What upset me the most is there are so many qualified people to be president but Obama, Hillary and McCain are all we get? By the way I really don’t trust anyone from the Chicago political establishment. The way that city has been run cause me to be a little weary.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Oh I forgot about this guy too. Anyone remember Tony Rezko or is he just another Obama faded memory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoin_Rezko
March 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA34A.htm
This article goes into the Tuskegee Experiment with a lot more depth and a different perspective relative to the time in which it took place. It has some good points to consider.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Or how about the fact Obama’s connection the Bill Ayres of the famed 60’s terrorist group, the Weather Underground Organization.
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-bill-ayers-problem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1847524043861152897
March 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I’m not defending the Tuskegee Experiment, but I feel like it takes quite a leap in logic to go from the Tuskegee experiment to deliberately loosing the AIDS virus. Endangering the lives of 400 individuals does not constitute proof of genocidal ideation, and if you look around at the experiments of the time, you’ll find that the Tuskegee study was not alone. The military exposed soldiers to radiation from atomic blasts in large numbers “to see what would happen,” and often the participants did not know the risks, or receive adequate medical care after. Seeking out these types of incidents and labeling them as proof of deliberate malice is ridiculous. They are proof of insensitivity to the needs of the individuals who participated, and nothing more.
Conspiracy theories such as those advanced by Jeremiah Wright are popular because within the population to which they appeal, they provide a way to explain something that is complex in a context that is emotionally more palatable than reality. It is easier for some to believe that AIDS was deliberately let loose on the black population than it is to ask the tough questions about the disease and its social context, the answers to which explain why it is so out of control in Africa and within some minority populations in the US.
As far as Wright and Obama go, I’m not sure how far to take the connection. On the one hand, you know that there is some exageration going on here, and I’m not quite ready to buy into Fox News’ version of reality in which Obama secretly hates America and has ties to all kinds of separatists and so on.
But on the other hand, one has to wonder why, if he really, vehemently disagrees with this man, has he remained a member of the congregation for so long? His official word is that he didn’t know Jeremiah Wright held these views, and that never once had he heard them, and that if he had known he would have left the church; but that seems a little difficult for me to believe, as I’ve been a member of multiple church congregations for much shorter periods than Obama was, and been much less intimately involved with the pastor, and been able to get my finger on the pulse of the person’s basic belief system. In fact it is hard for me to believe that in any social situation one could go two decades without having an idea what the other person’s political and social views are.
This gives me a problem, because both of the offered explanations - the one advanced by conservatives, and Obama’s official statements on the matter - are “off” in some way, feeling exagerated in the one case, and unbelievable in the other.
The net effect on me is that I wish I was smarter so that I could figure out the reality that probably lies somewhere between the hype and the spin.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
CV - You forgot to mention that Obama also likes to torture animals and drink the blood of babies.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
[...] Mike Huckabee was on Joe Scarborough’s show and has views similar to what I was getting out on Tuesday regarding Wright (especially the bolded part): HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it’s a valid one, that you can’t hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can’t. Whether it’s me, whether it’s Obama…anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements. Now, the second story. It’s interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say “Well, I didn’t mean to say it quite like that.” JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS… HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you’re not. I know you’re not. I’m just wondering though, for a lot of people…Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK? HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them. JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what’s the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters. HUCKABEE: I don’t think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it’s not October. It’s March. And I don’t believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote. And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me. [...]
March 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Ratoe:
Hell he might “likes to torture animals and drink the blood of babies”; can you tell me with certainty who Obama is or what he believes? I have been following this guy for a while and I still cant determine what his stance on some issures are.