Wright: Controversy over sermons ‘unfair’

[Swamp Fox]

No one is scrambling to Wright's aid, he is just irrelevant to the election. He isn't running last I checked, and I don't give a shit if he is a racist, if I were black I'd be a racist too, there's lots of justification for that given our history.

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/african/2000/lynching.htm

When was the last lynching that took place? I doubt that anyone still alive has participated in one. It's like I can say that I'll hate and kill all the Muslims because they invaded Europe during the Dark Ages.

 

[Swamp Fox]

And I find that a lot of that hatred comes from the right wing conservatives who claim government is the foe.

Government isn't a foe, BIG government that tries to control everything is a foe.

 

[jreeves]

That's pure BS.

What part is BS, I can provide links if you need them?

 

[jillian]

Too bad they're all crooks............what happened to the days when people got elected to office to become public servants, not to suck the people dry and get rich?

Were they ever like that? It's always been a mixture of doing things for your constituents and getting someone for oneself and one's cronies.

You're nostalgic for something that never existed, although I will agree that Haliburton's war profiteering went far beyond acceptable patronage.

Like I said, it's about which party is more in line with what I believe. And this incarnation of the repubs which has been hijacked by the radicals and has driven out its moderates doesn't represent me.

 

[The_Hammer]

When was the last lynching that took place? I doubt that anyone still alive has participated in one. It's like I can say that I'll hate and kill all the Muslims because they invaded Europe during the Dark Ages.

Wow you are pretty ignorant. Lynchings weren't as common place, but still occured during the 1960's. There was also the death of James Byrd Jr who was dragged from behind a truck.

And that's only an example of racially motivated lynching. Anyone who is killed on the basis of race, vigilantism, or some wierd tradition is considered lynched.

 

[jreeves]

Wow you are pretty ignorant. Lynchings weren't as common place, but still occured during the 1960's. There was also the death of James Byrd Jr who was dragged from behind a truck.

And that's only an example of racially motivated lynching. Anyone who is killed on the basis of race, vigilantism, or some wierd tradition is considered lynched.

I am sure there has been no black on white violence in that same amount of time?

 

[The_Hammer]

Were lynchings of black Americans wrong, hell yes. Did white America today as a whole have anything to do with any of these lynchings, hell no? There is no excuse for racism, white or black. Obama subscribes to a racist theology, the very basis of the religion is racism, Black Power. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denounced this movement as angry and divisive. Don't you think he understood white racism and why the movement was counterproductive?

K you're a moron. Research black liberation theology. Research Black Power. There is a HUMONGOUS difference with the White Power movement and the Black Power movement. Additedly, there were elements of the black power movement that were racist, however the primary focus of the black power movement, was to gain empowerment and independence from a posistion in which little or none existed for black people as a whole. It does not espouse racial superiority. Seperation is not necessary, however assertion of right as equals is. The White power movement on the other hand believes in assertion of right primarily because of racial superiority. It attacks other races instead of building itself up. I have no problem with white pride. There is a distinct difference between, "My ancestors did this and I am proud of that." and "Your ancestors were stupid and because mine weren't I'm proud of that".

 

[midcan5]

Which part?

The Obama assumption.

 

[The_Hammer]

I am sure there has been no black on white violence in that same amount of time?

Are you retarded. People on this damn site do not read posts. Did I say that there wasn't black on white violence? No moron. I was responding to the ludicrous idea that "O well lynchings don't happen anymore. Yah!".


And that's only an example of racially motivated lynching. Anyone who is killed on the basis of race, vigilantism, or some wierd tradition is considered lynched.

 

[midcan5]

Government isn't a foe, BIG government that tries to control everything is a foe.

I'm afraid that distinction is a little tough to explain to a terrorist. Got a measuring stick?


'Now Osama, we really do like your oil, er I mean your culture, and please stop telling us we support the bad guys. They aren't really bad till we say so.'

 

[jreeves]

K you're a moron. Research black liberation theology. Research Black Power. There is a HUMONGOUS difference with the White Power movement and the Black Power movement. Additedly, there were elements of the black power movement that were racist, however the primary focus of the black power movement, was to gain empowerment and independence from a posistion in which little or none existed for black people as a whole. It does not espouse racial superiority. Seperation is not necessary, however assertion of right as equals is. The White power movement on the other hand believes in assertion of right primarily because of racial superiority. It attacks other races instead of building itself up. I have no problem with white pride. There is a distinct difference between, "My ancestors did this and I am proud of that." and "Your ancestors were stupid and because mine weren't I'm proud of that".

Ok, that's the reason Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called Black Power movement angry and divisive right? Consider this....

According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.

Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960's, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/racewar.htm

 

[jreeves]

The Obama assumption.

Hello, he wouldn't be attending the church if he didn't subscribe to the basis of the church.

 

[The_Hammer]

I really should. ignore your entire response, because it quite literally has nothing to do with what I posted. What I was mentioning were the differences in black vs white power movements. You go off on a diatribe attempting to explain how blacks are just as, if not more violent than whites.

I'm not going to defend what those persons have done. I'm not even going to attempt to go on about how many black people in the past were killed by whites blah blah blah blah.

I will say this though. The 1960's were a very very very tough time for our country. The civil rights movement was necessary because of the RAGING disparities in racial treatment by our government. The civil rights movement promoted equality, not dominance or superiority.

Let me put it to you this way (k buddy, this is the frame not the argument so pay attention). Lets say that for a while, because of you were blackr, if you said something bad about someone white you could roll for what could happen. You could be beaten, killed, lose your job, or if extremely lucky have absolutely nothing happen. When someone who is white does the same thing to you, they would go about with relativel impunity. Now lets magnify this to actual crimes, such as rape, murder, theft, etc etc. You would most assuridly be treated worse than your white counterpart for comitting that crime.

Now we have the goverment saying "Hey that's actually wrong. You can't be biased when convicting." and you're now told that because you are black, you should be treated the same way. That means that you won't be killed for "minor" infractions such as whistling at an attractive woman (see Emmet Till) but can do things, and yes commit crimes as normal, and you should get fair treatment.

Folks then were not "out to get whitey". They wanted equality. They did not promote violence, but there were some idiots, as there are today, who like to do stupid shit and saw "Hey now I can rob that white bastard and not get killed, but actually get a trial!" and ran with it.

However I would like you to also consider the number of white on black crimes reported vs convictions and the number of black on white crimes vs convictions. Also look at sentencing. I am sure that your will see that for the same age group a white person committing a crime will have gotten a less harsh sentence vs a black person in the same age group. Look at cases where there have been attempted pleas of insanity or evidence supporting the perpetrator was retarded or insanse. It is likely that you will find that more white persons will have had their pleas accepted or if they were retarded, their sentences reduced or have had special circumstances given to them. Black persons in the same category just go to prison.

 

[BrianH]

When was the last lynching that took place? I doubt that anyone still alive has participated in one. It's like I can say that I'll hate and kill all the Muslims because they invaded Europe during the Dark Ages.

While I agree with your logic....as far as people not being apart of lynchings anymore, there was a lynching a few years back in Jasper, TX.

I would say that people who believe racism exists in a large scale are living in a fantasy world. There is not long large-scale racism of whites against blacks. What you do have, is older blacks teaching their kids to blame all of their problems on the white folks and the government (because of something that happened 40 years ago), while little white kids (most) are brought up to "not judge people by the color of their skin." Obama, Wright, Jackson, Quannel X, those are the racists. The basic fact is that people are different, and it's our difference that make us who we are. The other fact is that naturally, people are more comfortable with others who are more similar to them. I've said this before, but go look at a school lunch room. 99% of the time, you'll see the blacks sitting together, the whites sitting together, and the hispanics sitting together. It's not that they all hate each other, but they're just more comfortable around others that they have a common factor with. You throw somone in a circle surrounded by different races, and they're going to choose their own race---doesn't mean they're racist.
I believe the real racists ones are the Jesse Jacksons, Rev. Wrights, and Quannel X's that come out of the woodwork and cry "injustice" every time a black man is killed by a white or hispanic person, but doesn't give a flyin dog turd if a black man kills another black man, or if a black man kills a white or hispanic man.

 

[jreeves]

I really should. ignore your entire response, because it quite literally has nothing to do with what I posted. What I was mentioning were the differences in black vs white power movements. You go off on a diatribe attempting to explain how blacks are just as, if not more violent than whites.

I'm not going to defend what those persons have done. I'm not even going to attempt to go on about how many black people in the past were killed by whites blah blah blah blah.

I will say this though. The 1960's were a very very very tough time for our country. The civil rights movement was necessary because of the RAGING disparities in racial treatment by our government. The civil rights movement promoted equality, not dominance or superiority.

Let me put it to you this way (k buddy, this is the frame not the argument so pay attention). Lets say that for a while, because of you were blackr, if you said something bad about someone white you could roll for what could happen. You could be beaten, killed, lose your job, or if extremely lucky have absolutely nothing happen. When someone who is white does the same thing to you, they would go about with relativel impunity. Now lets magnify this to actual crimes, such as rape, murder, theft, etc etc. You would most assuridly be treated worse than your white counterpart for comitting that crime.

Now we have the goverment saying "Hey that's actually wrong. You can't be biased when convicting." and you're now told that because you are black, you should be treated the same way. That means that you won't be killed for "minor" infractions such as whistling at an attractive woman (see Emmet Till) but can do things, and yes commit crimes as normal, and you should get fair treatment.

Folks then were not "out to get whitey". They wanted equality. They did not promote violence, but there were some idiots, as there are today, who like to do stupid shit and saw "Hey now I can rob that white bastard and not get killed, but actually get a trial!" and ran with it.

However I would like you to also consider the number of white on black crimes reported vs convictions and the number of black on white crimes vs convictions. Also look at sentencing. I am sure that your will see that for the same age group a white person committing a crime will have gotten a less harsh sentence vs a black person in the same age group. Look at cases where there have been attempted pleas of insanity or evidence supporting the perpetrator was retarded or insanse. It is likely that you will find that more white persons will have had their pleas accepted or if they were retarded, their sentences reduced or have had special circumstances given to them. Black persons in the same category just go to prison.

Well lets see some proof of your claims. I'm not saying that blacks haven't had a hard past, but this notion that whites today owe the blacks today some retribution is BS. Racism is wrong, regardless of which skin color is perputrating the racism.

As far as black power goes;

The movement for Black Power in the U.S. came during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Many members of SNCC, among them Kwame Ture, were becoming critical of the nonviolent approach to racism and inequality articulated and practiced by King, the NAACP and other moderates, and rejected desegregation as a primary objective.

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

 

[midcan5]

I came across this and it offers a perspective close to my own concerning race.

http://www.afrochat.net/forums/thinktank/18416-racism101-symbolic-racism-us-kkk.html

"When discussing the current indifference of whites to the cumulative impact of past racism, perhaps political scientist Roy L. Brooks put it best: “Two persons — one white and the other black — are playing a game of poker. The game has been in progress for some 300 years. One player — the white one — has been cheating during much of this time, but now announces: ‘from this day forward, there will be a new game with new players and no more cheating.’ Hopeful, but suspicious, the black player responds, ‘that’s great. I’ve been waiting to hear you say that for 300 years. Let me ask you, what are you going to do with all those poker chips that you stacked up on your side of the table all these years?’ ‘Well,’ said the white player, somewhat bewildered by the question, ‘they are going to stay right here, of course.’ ‘That’s unfair,’ snaps the black player. ‘The new white player will benefit from your past cheating. Where’s the equality in that?’ ‘But you can’t realistically expect me to redistribute the poker chips along racial lines when we are trying to move away from considerations of race and when the future offers no guarantees to anyone,’ insists the white player. ‘And surely,’ he continues, ‘redistributing the poker chips would punish individuals for something they did not do. Punish me, not the innocents!’ Emotionally exhausted, the black player answers, ‘but the innocents will reap a racial windfall.’”

 

[jreeves]

I came across this and it offers a perspective close to my own concerning race.

http://www.afrochat.net/forums/thinktank/18416-racism101-symbolic-racism-us-kkk.html

"When discussing the current indifference of whites to the cumulative impact of past racism, perhaps political scientist Roy L. Brooks put it best: “Two persons — one white and the other black — are playing a game of poker. The game has been in progress for some 300 years. One player — the white one — has been cheating during much of this time, but now announces: ‘from this day forward, there will be a new game with new players and no more cheating.’ Hopeful, but suspicious, the black player responds, ‘that’s great. I’ve been waiting to hear you say that for 300 years. Let me ask you, what are you going to do with all those poker chips that you stacked up on your side of the table all these years?’ ‘Well,’ said the white player, somewhat bewildered by the question, ‘they are going to stay right here, of course.’ ‘That’s unfair,’ snaps the black player. ‘The new white player will benefit from your past cheating. Where’s the equality in that?’ ‘But you can’t realistically expect me to redistribute the poker chips along racial lines when we are trying to move away from considerations of race and when the future offers no guarantees to anyone,’ insists the white player. ‘And surely,’ he continues, ‘redistributing the poker chips would punish individuals for something they did not do. Punish me, not the innocents!’ Emotionally exhausted, the black player answers, ‘but the innocents will reap a racial windfall.’”

A hypothetical poker game, ah yes, it explains everything clearly.

 

[BrianH]

I came across this and it offers a perspective close to my own concerning race.

http://www.afrochat.net/forums/thinktank/18416-racism101-symbolic-racism-us-kkk.html

"When discussing the current indifference of whites to the cumulative impact of past racism, perhaps political scientist Roy L. Brooks put it best: “Two persons — one white and the other black — are playing a game of poker. The game has been in progress for some 300 years. One player — the white one — has been cheating during much of this time, but now announces: ‘from this day forward, there will be a new game with new players and no more cheating.’ Hopeful, but suspicious, the black player responds, ‘that’s great. I’ve been waiting to hear you say that for 300 years. Let me ask you, what are you going to do with all those poker chips that you stacked up on your side of the table all these years?’ ‘Well,’ said the white player, somewhat bewildered by the question, ‘they are going to stay right here, of course.’ ‘That’s unfair,’ snaps the black player. ‘The new white player will benefit from your past cheating. Where’s the equality in that?’ ‘But you can’t realistically expect me to redistribute the poker chips along racial lines when we are trying to move away from considerations of race and when the future offers no guarantees to anyone,’ insists the white player. ‘And surely,’ he continues, ‘redistributing the poker chips would punish individuals for something they did not do. Punish me, not the innocents!’ Emotionally exhausted, the black player answers, ‘but the innocents will reap a racial windfall.’”

While I appreciate the poker analogy, we're all assuming that the "poker-chips" were never redistributed. and the white player kept them all. It's a good analogy, but it's obviously a biased analogy that believes that the whites kept all of the "poker-chips", which would incinuate that affirmitive action doesn't exist, nor numerous newer financial opportunities (for minorities) for college. There have been many things done since the 60's that were designed to alleviate black poverty and give the blacks and equal fighting chance. After the Civil Rights Act and the sinking of racist white America, the next generations of black/whites have equal opportunities. IMO, the game started all over with equal or no "poker chips". Kids born today are just as likely and have just as much opportunity as the next kid, without regards to race.

 

[The_Hammer]

Well lets see some proof of your claims. I'm not saying that blacks haven't had a hard past, but this notion that whites today owe the blacks today some retribution is BS. Racism is wrong, regardless of which skin color is perputrating the racism.

As far as black power goes;

The movement for Black Power in the U.S. came during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Many members of SNCC, among them Kwame Ture, were becoming critical of the nonviolent approach to racism and inequality articulated and practiced by King, the NAACP and other moderates, and rejected desegregation as a primary objective.

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

Wow yet again you ignore my post, again. I'm perplexed. I mentioned nothing about white people owing black people, in fact I specifically said I was going to avoid the "they owe them" spiel.

In addition, your initial claim is that blacks are more violent and racial violence against whites has been on the rise since the civil rights movement. Care to show me statistics? I can show you sentencing by race and prison pop. It's actually quite appalling. But your claim comes first if you don't mind.

O and congrats on quoting a single paragraph on a multipage artilce. If you read the whole thing you'd notice that racism was yet again not advocated. Nor was agressor agitation. They were proponents of not being passive, not going out and beating up white people.

 

[jreeves]

Wow yet again you ignore my post, again. I'm perplexed. I mentioned nothing about white people owing black people, in fact I specifically said I was going to avoid the "they owe them" spiel.

In addition, your initial claim is that blacks are more violent and racial violence against whites has been on the rise since the civil rights movement. Care to show me statistics? I can show you sentencing by race and prison pop. It's actually quite appalling. But your claim comes first if you don't mind.

O and congrats on quoting a single paragraph on a multipage artilce. If you read the whole thing you'd notice that racism was yet again not advocated. Nor was agressor agitation. They were proponents of not being passive, not going out and beating up white people.

I have already quoted one article showing the stats, but I guess you refuse to read it. But since you insist here is another site for you.


In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said about white racism, which gives the illusion of Euro-american as a violent and threatening community. Yet this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance at the interracial figures show that European Americans are often targeted for interracial crimes while they seldom practice it.



http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

I suppose it's whites that cause these types of stats.