Obama's ideal of racial relations

[jreeves]

Oh, well if there is a law against something that means it never happens.



Probably not. Irrelevant however. If you'd bothered to read, you would have seen that I said it was jusitifiable, not acceptable.



Who said blacks can't succeed? Its just the deck is still stacked heavily against them. This, understandably so, pisses some of them off.

You don't think some blacks discriminate against whites? If think so then what's your solution?

So you think it's justified to spew hate to thousands of uneducated people? Wonder if that hate fuels stereotypes toward whites? Just so we both know what the generally accepted definition of justified is here it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justifiable
jus·ti·fi·a·ble Audio Help /ˈdʒʌstəˌfaɪəbəl, ˌdʒʌstəˈfaɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tuh-fahy-uh-buhl, juhs-tuh-fahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide
So you think that calling the US the KKK States of America can be defended by being right, just or warranted?
How do you know that blacks have the deck stacked against them compared to any other race in the US other than stereotypical stats?

 

[ReillyT]

So you think it's justified to spew hate to thousands of uneducated people?

So you think that calling the US the KKK States of America can be defended by being right, just or warranted?

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of Larkin, but from my perspective (and I will hazard a guess that this is Larkin's perspective as well), it is not the language or even the sentiment is justifiable, it is the bitterness and anger from which it originates that may be justified (or at the very least understandable).

 

[jreeves]

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of Larkin, but from my perspective (and I will hazard a guess that this is Larkin's perspective as well), it is not the language or even the sentiment is justifiable, it is the bitterness and anger from which it originates that may be justified (or at the very least understandable).

So you agree to promote hate filled sermons to uneducated people that promotes stereotypical hate is wrong?

 

[AllieBaba]

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of Larkin, but from my perspective (and I will hazard a guess that this is Larkin's perspective as well), it is not the language or even the sentiment is justifiable, it is the bitterness and anger from which it originates that may be justified (or at the very least understandable).

Nobody said feelings were bad, Jillian.

The argument is whether or not it's racist.

It is.

 

[ReillyT]

So you agree to promote hate filled sermons to uneducated people that promotes stereotypical hate is wrong?

I don't know what "promotion" you are referring to, but I think that hate-filled anything is probably a bad idea, with respect to educated or uneducated people. By the way, what uneducated people are we talking about?

 

[ReillyT]

Nobody said feelings were bad, Jillian.

The argument is whether or not it's racist.

It is.

First, I am not Jillian.

Second, I believe the question pertained to Larkin's post, which I perceived to be stating that the anger and bitterness that spurs racist or hate-filled or [insert the description you like here] language may be justified (or as I said, at least understandable).

 

[AllieBaba]

First, I am not Jillian.

Second, I believe the question pertained to Larkin's post, which I perceived to be stating that the anger and bitterness that spurs racist or hate-filled or [insert the description you like here] language may be justified (or as I said, at least understandable).

Why, so you're not! Lol. Sorry about that. It's the "ls"

My response remains the same. Their feelings aren't invalid. But giving vent to them in a public place promotes the "justifiable" to "racism".

Is that better?

 

[jreeves]

I don't know what "promotion" you are referring to, but I think that hate-filled anything is probably a bad idea, with respect to educated or uneducated people. By the way, what uneducated people are we talking about?

Well, I mean surely in all churches there is young uneducated people, this would have been the case at Rev. Wright's church right? Do you believe that it is readily available to obtain the basis for the Black Liberation Theology? Why when Obama knows the basis for the theology of his church does he not disavow that church? Which promotes stereotypical hate filled messages to thousands of people.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, I mean surely in all churches there is young uneducated people, this would have been the case at Rev. Wright's church right? Do you believe that it is readily available to obtain the basis for the Black Liberation Theology? Why when Obama knows the basis for the theology of his church does he not disavow that church? Which promotes stereotypical hate filled messages to thousands of people.

Because he agrees with it.

 

[ReillyT]

I will try to take these one by one.

Well, I mean surely in all churches there is young uneducated people, this would have been the case at Rev. Wright's church right?

I see no reason to think that the congregation at Obama's church is in any way is uneducated. I can see how a certain type of person might jump to that conclusion...

Do you believe that it is readily available to obtain the basis for the Black Liberation Theology?

I think this sentence is nonsensical, but if I may hazard a guess, you appear to be trying to ask whether the tenents of Black Liberation Theology are knowable. Is that right? If this is your question, then I am pretty sure that they are.

Why when Obama knows the basis for the theology of his church does he not disavow that church?

I am pretty sure (and by "pretty sure" I mean 99.999% sure) that you don't really understand Black Liberation Theology, and you certainly couldn't know Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama's interpretation of Black Liberation Theology. In fact, based upon our previous dialogue, I am quite sure that you have no idea what James Cone's conception of Black Liberation Theology is either. Anyway, with that in mind, I can admit that I only have a minimal conception of Black Liberation Theology (just enough to know you are full of shit), so I am unable to answer this question - mostly because I disagree with the assumptions that underlie it.

Which promotes stereotypical hate filled messages to thousands of people.

This is actually a statement. It is merely a fragment. However... I know Rev. Wright has at least on one occasion said things that I disagree with. I don't know that I have ever heard say (or have heard of him saying) "stereotypical hate filled messages." Either way, I don't know what else to say about your fragment.

 

[jreeves]

I will try to take these one by one.



I see no reason to think that the congregation at Obama's church is in any way is uneducated. I can see how a certain type of person might jump to that conclusion...



I think this sentence is nonsensical, but if I may hazard a guess, you appear to be trying to ask whether the tenents of Black Liberation Theology are knowable. Is that right? If this is your question, then I am pretty sure that they are.



I am pretty sure (and by "pretty sure" I mean 99.999% sure) that you don't really understand Black Liberation Theology, and you certainly couldn't know Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama's interpretation of Black Liberation Theology. In fact, based upon our previous dialogue, I am quite sure that you have no idea what James Cone's conception of Black Liberation Theology is either. Anyway, with that in mind, I can admit that I only have a minimal conception of Black Liberation Theology (just enough to know you are full of shit), so I am unable to answer this question - mostly because I disagree with the assumptions that underlie it.



This is actually a statement. It is merely a fragment. However... I know Rev. Wright has at least on one occasion said things that I disagree with. I don't know that I have ever heard say (or have heard of him saying) "stereotypical hate filled messages." Either way, I don't know what else to say about your fragment.

Ok first of all, I didn't say his whole congregation was uneducated. I stated the obvious all churches that size contain people who are uneducated.

Secondly, I think we can derive Wright's interpretation of Black Liberation Theology from comments like; KKK states of America and whites have injected blacks with HIV. That's not drawing conclusions from abstracts those are concrete statements.

Lastly, whether or not you think I understand black liberation theology is irrelevant. The statements that Wright and James Cone made were hateful and stereotypical(as you have acknowledged earlier) and not right or justified.

 

[AllieBaba]

White pride. White power. Hitler was right. Stop the non-white immigration.

Do you fully understand all the subtle nuances behind those sayings? Are you truly hip to the reason someone might justifiably be compelled to use them?

If you aren't, then you must not pass judgment on white supremacists! You need to immerse yourself in their culture, walk a mile in their shoes, show some compassion....

Flipping idiot.

 

[Larkinn]

You don't think some blacks discriminate against whites? If think so then what's your solution?

Lets see...who would you rather have discriminate against you.

1) The people who run most companies, most fortune 500 companies, who have most positions of power, most house reps and senators, ALL presidents, etc, etc.

2) The people who are generally impoverished, who have only been governor of a US state 4 times, who are a handful of Senators, don't run many companies, etc, etc.

Which one is more likely to have an effect on your life? I'm sure the blacks hated the whites as a race quite passionately during slavery. I'm also fairly sure whites didn't give a shit since blacks had no power to do anything.

So you think it's justified to spew hate to thousands of uneducated people? Wonder if that hate fuels stereotypes toward whites? Just so we both know what the generally accepted definition of justified is here it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justifiable
jus·ti·fi·a·ble Audio Help /ˈdʒʌstəˌfaɪəbəl, ˌdʒʌstəˈfaɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tuh-fahy-uh-buhl, juhs-tuh-fahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide
So you think that calling the US the KKK States of America can be defended by being right, just or warranted?
How do you know that blacks have the deck stacked against them compared to any other race in the US other than stereotypical stats?

Reilly explained it well. As to your question, there are studies out there. One of which I linked too. Test yourself.

 

[ReillyT]

Secondly, I think we can derive Wright's interpretation of Black Liberation Theology from comments like; KKK states of America and whites have injected blacks with HIV. That's not drawing conclusions from abstracts those are concrete statements.

Why does Wright's statements about the state of racism in US society (which is what these statements both speak to) necessarily reflect on Black Liberation Theology? Does everything you say reflect on the tenents of whatever religious belief that you hold? Even if Wright did have one interpretation of the BLT, is it necessary that everyone who attended his church think in the same way?

Lastly, whether or not you think I understand black liberation theology is irrelevant. The statements that Wright and James Cone made were hateful and stereotypical(as you have acknowledged earlier) and not right or justified.

I didn't acknowledge that they were hateful or stereotypical. I merely said I disagreed with some of Wright's statements.

Since you ask...

Hateful? I think angry is probably a better term.

Stereotyping? To some extent the term KKK of America suggests that white society in the US today is generally more racist that I personally believe it to be. However, he doesn't say that every white person is racist, so I guess I don't think what I have heard constitutes stereotyping.

As for Cone, I have yet to see anything that he has written that is either hateful or bigoted. Maybe it is out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. All I have seen (which I pointed out to you earlier) is one quote out of context (in a way that mattered) and one purported quote that is actually several different lines put together and not all of which can even be attributed to Cone. So no, I have seen nothing of this nature about Cone. I have seen one very thoughtful interview with him on PBS though.

 

[William Joyce]

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

Black theology, nothin'. Try the U.S. government, the media, your schools, your bosses, you name it. All of society is participating in the destruction of the white race. Including, sadly, the white race.

 

[jreeves]

Lets see...who would you rather have discriminate against you.

1) The people who run most companies, most fortune 500 companies, who have most positions of power, most house reps and senators, ALL presidents, etc, etc.

2) The people who are generally impoverished, who have only been governor of a US state 4 times, who are a handful of Senators, don't run many companies, etc, etc.

Which one is more likely to have an effect on your life? I'm sure the blacks hated the whites as a race quite passionately during slavery. I'm also fairly sure whites didn't give a shit since blacks had no power to do anything.



Reilly explained it well. As to your question, there are studies out there. One of which I linked too. Test yourself.

It's not a matter of who I think I would like to discriminate against me. The question is do you believe in discrimination either way? If we as a country are going to eliminate discrimination, both sides need to stop discriminating. I am quite sure if I am interviewing for a position and a black or any other race is discriminating against me it is going to have a huge negative effect on me.

That's the reason whites, as well as blacks fought for the Union in the Civil War right because they didn't give a shit about blacks.

 

[Larkinn]

It's not a matter of who I think I would like to discriminate against me. The question is do you believe in discrimination either way?

No, I don't. That should have been clear when I said it was unacceptable.

If we as a country are going to eliminate discrimination, both sides need to stop discriminating.

Brilliant.

I am quite sure if I am interviewing for a position and a black or any other race is discriminating against me it is going to have a huge negative effect on me.

How many jobs have you ever interviewed where a black person was interested in hiring you? Of all the jobs I've worked, its been exactly 0. Once I become a lawyer, unless I go abroad in the international field, I suspect it will continue to be exactly 0.

That's the reason whites, as well as blacks fought for the Union in the Civil War right because they didn't give a shit about blacks.

All whites think the same?

 

[jreeves]

Why does Wright's statements about the state of racism in US society (which is what these statements both speak to) necessarily reflect on Black Liberation Theology? Does everything you say reflect on the tenents of whatever religious belief that you hold? Even if Wright did have one interpretation of the BLT, is it necessary that everyone who attended his church think in the same way?



I didn't acknowledge that they were hateful or stereotypical. I merely said I disagreed with some of Wright's statements.

Since you ask...

Hateful? I think angry is probably a better term.

Stereotyping? To some extent the term KKK of America suggests that white society in the US today is generally more racist that I personally believe it to be. However, he doesn't say that every white person is racist, so I guess I don't think what I have heard constitutes stereotyping.

As for Cone, I have yet to see anything that he has written that is either hateful or bigoted. Maybe it is out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. All I have seen (which I pointed out to you earlier) is one quote out of context (in a way that mattered) and one purported quote that is actually several different lines put together and not all of which can even be attributed to Cone. So no, I have seen nothing of this nature about Cone. I have seen one very thoughtful interview with him on PBS though.

So you believe that whites(he didn't say some whites) injected blacks with HIV? If so where is your proof? How is that statement not inflammatory and stereotypical? The reason the statments are directly attributable to BLT is because he has stated his teachings are based in BLT.

No he doesn't say every person is racist. Although he does state by the connotation that America is controlled by the KKK which is regularly viewed as racist, which is stereotypical.

This the article that you were referring to, it doesn't say that the reporting was false just misunderstood. I don't find it suprising that he would try to change his original statement to mean something else, due to fact that Obama has been engulfed in questions regarding his church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone#Controversy
An online columnist, writing under the pseudonym Spengler, attacked Cone's theology as "ethnocentric heresy" on Mar. 18, 2008,[10]. Another example, also put forward by "Spengler" and picked up by other media. is a statement from Cone's 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power: "In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors...Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not." [11]

Some scholars of black theology have noted that the controversial quotes do not neccesarily represent black theology as it is currently practiced or the views of people like Wright who practice it. [11] Cone has responded to the controversy by noting that he was generally writing about white churches that did nothing to oppose slavery and segregation and not about white people as individuals.[8]

 

[AllieBaba]

Which isn't surprising if you consider the percentage of blacks in the country, and/or the specific area in which you're interviewing...and if you take into account that it takes a certain amount of time for any immigrant (or in this case, enslaved) population to establish itself above the poverty level...why would we expect to have the same #of blacks as whites in the boardrooms at this point in history?

 

[jreeves]

No, I don't. That should have been clear when I said it was unacceptable.



Brilliant.



How many jobs have you ever interviewed where a black person was interested in hiring you? Of all the jobs I've worked, its been exactly 0. Once I become a lawyer, unless I go abroad in the international field, I suspect it will continue to be exactly 0.



All whites think the same?

Actually at my last job I interviewed with a black regional manager. But that is irrelevant unless you think you can draw conclusions from a few limited life experiences and project it on the whole population.

No and not all blacks think that whites have held them back either. Although, I'm sure that a few more do now that they have heard the teachings of Rev. Wright. Probably a few more that were encited with anger as well, which is my point.