Obama's ideal of racial relations

[Larkinn]

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.

And how many jobs have you interviewed with? And what type of jobs were they?

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.

No, not all blacks do. Most blacks believe that tho. The evidence is pretty fucking obvious.

Your point is that Wright effects other people? So what?

 

[jreeves]

And how many jobs have you interviewed with? And what type of jobs were they?




No, not all blacks do. Most blacks believe that tho. The evidence is pretty fucking obvious.

Your point is that Wright effects other people? So what?

Like I said a few life experiences are irrelevant unless you think you can project them onto the whole population, which is stereotyping, right?

Ok so we can say all blacks feel that way because a majority of them feel that way. What makes the blacks that don't feel that whites have held them back, feel the way they do?

No, my point is that Wright encited stereotypical racism. Obama knew the basis of BLT and supported the theology, which is wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

Like I said a few life experiences are irrelevant unless you think you can project them onto the whole population, which is stereotyping, right?

Its merely making a point of what should be an obvious truth. Blacks are drastically undereprested as hirers in our economy.

Ok so we can say all blacks feel that way because a majority of them feel that way.

What?

What makes the blacks that don't feel that whites have held them back, feel the way they do?

The fact that they are held back.

No, my point is that Wright encited stereotypical racism.

Really? Any evidence of this other than speculation?

 

[jreeves]

Its merely making a point of what should be an obvious truth. Blacks are drastically undereprested as hirers in our economy.



What?



The fact that they are held back.




Really? Any evidence of this other than speculation?

What may be obvious to you, may not be factually true. It's your own personal experiences that you view the world through, that's the reason it's irrelevant. I don't think that blacks are under represented as managers, due to their size in the population.
You can't draw conclusions about all blacks because you think the majority of blacks feel that way.
So you think that blacks that don't feel they have been held back, feel that way because they have been held back? What?
KKK states of America, whites injected blacks with HIV, rich white people control the country.....etc....

 

[ReillyT]

So you believe that whites(he didn't say some whites) injected blacks with HIV?

Actually, he didn't say whites at all. Here is his quote:

“The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis.[13] Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, ‘Let me make myself perfectly clear…’ Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie...[14] The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_sermon_controversy

But you already knew that, didn't you?

If so where is your proof?

Proof of what? If you are referring to whether the US government invented the HIV virus, that would be one of the statements that I disagree with.

How is that statement not inflammatory and stereotypical?

You changed the goal posts? Now inflammatory is the standard you want to use?

Okay, that statement is inflammatory. Is it hateful? I guess one could say that it is hateful against the US government, but I tend to think of it as angry.

Stereotyping? I guess he stereotypes all governments as lying entities... but that is also perfectly true.

The reason the statments are directly attributable to BLT is because he has stated his teachings are based in BLT.

I think Allie says crazy shit all the time, but I rarely attribute her craziness to Christianity.

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.

I have seen people say that he said "KKK of America," although I haven't actually seen the quote yet. In any event, "KKK of America" does not mean that he believes that the KKK control the US government. One would have to be a fool to take that interpretation. I believe it does reflect his view that the US government and its policies have kept African-Americans in a subservient position. One can disagree on that view.

This the article that you were referring to, it doesn't say that the reporting was false just misunderstood.

Actually, I think that I was thinking of another longer quote that used to be up on the Wikipedia page a couple of days ago. I quoted it earlier in this thread (or perhaps the other thread on the same general topic). It must have changed. I applaud you for putting in the surrounding text to that quote.

Here is an excerpt from Cornel West's book African American Religious Thought: An Anthology which speaks to that quote from Cone.

'Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not. He cannot be both for us and the white oppressors at the same time.'

In sum, to assert God's universal love for both the oppressed and the oppressor is to make God a monstrously immoral Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Cone's arguments is for the essential unity of God's love and God's wrath, God's love and God's righteousness go hand in hand with his rejection of the theodicy of vicarious suffering.

Cornel West, African American Religious Thought: An Anthology, page 857.

One can disagree about the breadth of God's compassion to oppressors, but there is nothing in this belief system that qualifies as virulent racism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, he didn't say whites at all. Here is his quote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_sermon_controversy

But you already knew that, didn't you?



Proof of what? If you are referring to whether the US government invented the HIV virus, that would be one of the statements that I disagree with.



You changed the goal posts? Now inflammatory is the standard you want to use?

Okay, that statement is inflammatory. Is it hateful? I guess one could say that it is hateful against the US government, but I tend to think of it as angry.

Stereotyping? I guess he stereotypes all governments as lying entities... but that is also perfectly true.



I think Allie says crazy shit all the time, but I rarely attribute her craziness to Christianity.



I have seen people say that he said "KKK of America," although I haven't actually seen the quote yet. In any event, "KKK of America" does not mean that he believes that the KKK control the US government. One would have to be a fool to take that interpretation. I believe it does reflect his view that the US government and its policies have kept African-Americans in a subservient position. One can disagree on that view.



Actually, I think that I was thinking of another longer quote that used to be up on the Wikipedia page a couple of days ago. I quoted it earlier in this thread (or perhaps the other thread on the same general topic). It must have changed. I applaud you for putting in the surrounding text to that quote.

Here is an excerpt from Cornel West's book African American Religious Thought: An Anthology which speaks to that quote from Cone.



Cornel West, African American Religious Thought: An Anthology, page 857.

One can disagree about the breadth of God's compassion to oppressors, but there is nothing in this belief system that qualifies as virulent racism.

Just leave out the rest of Cone's comment on God and white people. Yup do exactly what you claim the rest of us do. Thanks for playing.

 

[ReillyT]

Just leave out the rest of Cone's comment on God and white people. Yup do exactly what you claim the rest of us do. Thanks for playing.

That is the quote that jreeves was using. I was merely using the same quote, with an additional line that was found in the Cornel West book. Please feel free to include more of the quote if you like. I don't know what it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is the quote that jreeves was using. I was merely using the same quote, with an additional line that was found in the Cornel West book. Please feel free to include more of the quote if you like. I don't know what it is.

And that is the problem. You won't even educate yourself on what the man actually said yet you will argue about him not meaning it. By the way it has been quoted several times on this board already, including as I recall in threads YOU have participated.

 

[ReillyT]

And that is the problem. You won't even educate yourself on what the man actually said yet you will argue about him not meaning it.

Well instead of whining about it, why don't you educate me by showing me the part of the quote that I left out? I am not aware that there is anything else to it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well instead of whining about it, why don't you educate me by showing me the part of the quote that I left out? I am not aware that there is anything else to it.

From the VERY first post on this THREAD.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

From James Cone’s own, Black Theology and Black Power, 1997, Orbis, p.150:

So the rules Nazi's don't get me...

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/20...9s-church-breaking-the-james-cone-of-silence/

 

[ReillyT]

From the VERY first post on this THREAD.



So the rules Nazi's don't get me...

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/20...9s-church-breaking-the-james-cone-of-silence/

First, that is a different quote than the one that we were discussing.

Second, see post 18 as regards this "quote."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

See post 18 as regards this "quote."

Try reading the WHOLE thread and actually learning what the person your defending ACTUALLY said.

 

[ReillyT]

Try reading the WHOLE thread and actually learning what the person your defending ACTUALLY said.

I have read the whole thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have read the whole thread.

Yet you have no clue what Cone ACTUALLY said in regards this matter. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[ReillyT]

Yet you have no clue what Cone ACTUALLY said in regards this matter. Thanks for proving my point.

Wow... you possess outstanding rhetorical ability. Is this considered a valid form of argument... referencing a whole thread and then insisting that it validates whatever conclusion you want?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow... you possess outstanding rhetorical ability. Is this considered a valid form of argument... referencing a whole thread and then insisting that it validates whatever conclusion you want?

Try deflection now, you can not stand on your merit of the argument because when one actually reads what Cone said about whites your claim it is benign is proven false. Nice try though.

You want to defend someone, learn what they have said and done before inserting your foot down your throat. Especially when it is presented to you IN the thread your posting in.

 

[ReillyT]

Try deflection now, you can not stand on your merit of the argument because when one actually reads what Cone said about whites your claim it is benign is proven false. Nice try though.

You want to defend someone, learn what they have said and done before inserting your foot down your throat. Especially when it is presented to you IN the thread your posting in.

What exactly are we arguing? If we are arguing whether Obama's theory of race relations encompass what Cone has written, then these would be my points.

1. It is not clear what Cone believes. Certain portions of what he has written are certainly inflammatory, and arguably racist. However, he also has made a number of statements (see previously posted interview with Cone) that conflict with such an interpretation of his writings, and he has stated that this would be the wrong interpretation of his writings.

2. BLT is a general theological view. There is no Pope to delineate exactly what this theology means (although the Pope doesn't even actually speak for all Catholics). Different churches and different individuals within those churches adhere to their own interpretations.

3. James Cone is not Jeremiah Wright.

4. Jeremiah Wright did not make the comments associated with James Cone.

5. Jeremiah Wright is not Barack Obama.

6. Barack Obama did not make the comments associated with Jeremiah Wright (which I question constitute racism anyway).

7. Barack Obama disavowed the comments of Jeremiah Wright.

8. I have no reason to believe that Obama's theory of race relations encompass what Cone has written as you interpret it, and I believe your interpretation is facile.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What exactly are we arguing? If we are arguing whether Obama's theory of race relations encompass what Cone has written, then these would be my points.

1. It is not clear what Cone believes. Certain portions of what he has written are certainly inflammatory, and arguably racist. However, he also has made a number of statements (see previously posted interview with Cone) that conflict with such an interpretation of his writings, and he has stated that this would be the wrong interpretation of his writings.

2. BLT is a general theological view. There is no Pope to delineate exactly what this theology means (although the Pope doesn't even actually speak for all Catholics). Different churches and different individuals within those churches adhere to their own interpretations.

3. James Cone is not Jeremiah Wright.

4. Jeremiah Wright did not make the comments associated with James Cone.

5. Jeremiah Wright is not Barack Obama.

6. Barack Obama did not make the comments associated with Jeremiah Wright (which I question constitute racism anyway).

7. Barack Obama disavowed the comments of Jeremiah Wright.

8. I have no reason to believe that Obama's theory of race relations encompass what Cone has written as you interpret it, and I believe your interpretation is facile.

Now remind me again why Trent Lott was hounded out of a position of power? Ohh wait, you do not care. I forgot. That is different.

 

[ReillyT]

Now remind me again why Trent Lott was hounded out of a position of power? Ohh wait, you do not care. I forgot. That is different.

Would this be the diversion of which you so often speak?

You're right. I don't care. Get back to the issue at hand Sonny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Would this be the diversion of which you so often speak?

You're right. I don't care. Get back to the issue at hand Sonny.

It is the issue. Cone is a racist, you tried unsuccessfully to claim a single statement of his was "misrepresented" and taken out of context. When provided just one more small example YOU have now tried to change the subject.

Trent Lott has everything to do with it. Not only did he NOT spend 20 YEARS as a close personal friend of Thurmonds, he did not ever claim he was his mentor nor his religious leader. He also never, to my knowledge, wrote at least one book based on Thurmonds beliefs and teachings. Yet because he said a nice thing about his run for the Presidency years before he was branded a racist and driven from a position of power and attempts were made to have him resign or booted from the Senate.