By Daniel Bein
In yet another attack article posted recently on Vdare.com, Pat Buchanan takes aim at Barack Obama's recent speech regarding race relations and his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Mr. Buchanan starts out with some of the same arguments we've been seeing about how Obama should have abandoned Wright and his church long ago in response to Wright's inflammatory rhetoric.
The insinuation is that Obama's acceptance of Wright is proof that he actually agrees with these views. Never mind that none of Obama's policies suggest this, nor does his voting record or anything else in his political past.
As was recently pointed out to me, this is a man who ran against former Black Panther Bobby Rush for his congressional seat in 2000. This is not the typical behavior of a devoted, far left black nationalist.
The truth is that Barack Obama does not necessarily share the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright simply because he has been closely associated with him. It is absurd that all of these writers are willing to suggest this. As Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger), points out in a recent commentary, John McCain is not attacked for accepting the endorsement of John Hagee, whose own conspiracy theories and doomsday prophesies rival the statements of Jeremiah Wright.
Buchanan also accuses Obama of lecturing white America and blaming whites for the failings of the black community. This is not what Obama was doing. Obama suggested that years of violence and oppression have had a profound effect on the current state of black America, but he did not blame white people. He simply stated that white Americans should acknowledge this. I agree.
To acknowledge this isn't to accept blame, and the argument that blacks are entirely to blame for the problems they face is misleading and intellectually dishonest. As is claiming that social welfare programs (the same ones that have been decried by conservatives for years) should somehow have served to lift up the black community. Obama, statist that he is, is also wrong in thinking that these kinds of programs are the solution to the problem. The solutions to the problems facing black America are black self determination and the ability to control their own communities.
It is outlandish to me that Buchanan (who I have a great deal of respect for) would suggest in his article that black Americans should be grateful to a white America that has done so much to "lift up blacks" with programs such as of welfare, Pell grants, Section 8 housing, Medicaid etc. But these are not real solutions, and I don't think that welfare or Section 8 housing is particularly uplifting thing for anyone. Nor are these things gifts offered by a magnanimous establishment as atonement for past sins.
The right seems to have a real problem admitting that the past has a huge effect on the present in regards to race. Many would rather blame black Americans for their own situation, citing symptoms (such as the negative influence of gang culture and hip hop music) as reasons for the high crime rate among black men, rather than addressing the problems.
On the other side of the coin are the Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, blaming whites for everything and doing a disservice to the black community by harping on every race issue that reaches the headlines, hurting the black community in the process. Race relations will never be resolved with both sides oversimplifying the issue, denying reality and blaming the other. I think that despite his flaws, Barack Obama recognizes this.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Imagine the nation's response if McCain had attended a church for twenty years with the following "value" system:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Pay close attention to numbers 11 and 12. Equality is equality, and this particular church as well as its members who make a "personal commitment to embrace the value system" do not believe in equality, they believe in separatism.
Separatism in and of itself does not mean inequality.
Also I find it amusing and sad that conservatives are now pretending they believe in equality, when opposition to "leveling" is one of the few universals in conservative ideology.
"Separatism in and of itself does not mean inequality."
Point taken, however I would not call myself a conservative.
The fact is that we would never elect a politician that has pledged to put the interests of the "White Community" above everyone else. Racist "value systems" like this cannot suddenly become acceptable just because they come out of the mouth of a minority.
"The fact is that we would never elect a politician that has pledged to put the interests of the "White Community" above everyone else. Racist "value systems" like this cannot suddenly become acceptable just because they come out of the mouth of a minority."
Obama has never pledged that, he was a member of a church that has.
But the point is this: You say "we would never" elect a guy who is associated with racial nationalism. Conservatives would. My point is that conservatives are wrong to bash Obama for being associated with this church. If all of those points you listed applied to a white conservative candidate, all of these old right guys would have no problem with it. They don't fear racial nationalism, they fear BLACK nationalism.
"If all of those points you listed applied to a white conservative candidate, all of these old right guys would have no problem with it. They don't fear racial nationalism, they fear BLACK nationalism"
You are correct that all of these old right guys would have not problem with it...and you prove my point in saying so. If an old right guy was running (and happened to be a member of a church that supported a strictly pro-white agenda) many people would have a major problem with it, and not just black people. Liberals, the media, any minority...hell, most everyone... except white racists. Jesse, Al, and Wright would have you believing that this "white devil" candidate was the grand dragon of the kkk. The same does not apply (according to you) in the case of a black candidate in a black church preaching racism.
You should be afraid of ANY racial nationalism. What is best for a segment of this country's population is not always what is best for our country.
I want a candidate that worships the USA, the constitution, and freedom. Jesus and black vs. white are way down the list of important things for a president to worry about in my opinion. I don't care what church he goes to, they are all nuts. I would just hope that a man, fresh out of Harvard Law with obvious political aspirations would have the common sense to choose a church that doesn't preach a racist doctrine. Is that too much to ask of a candidate, a bit of foresight?
If your point is that it's easier to attack a white nationalist as opposed to a black nationalist in the media, you're right. But the point I'm making is primarily about the conservatives.
That being said, I don't think that black people being concerned with their own interests is wrong. It is harder to accept that white people would feel this way due to the history of white dominance in America, but it's only natural for any group of people to put their own interests first. That's not to say that a group of people should promote their own interests at the expense of another, that is when things go terribly wrong.
I have three problems with your statement that "Jesus and black vs. white are way down the list of important things for a president to worry about in my opinion. I don't care what church he goes to, they are all nuts."
First, you are discrediting your point by saying that you don't care what church a president goes to, because that's exactly why you're saying Obama is fair game.
Second, you just said that "all" churches are nuts. This would suggest that you believe that ANY candidate who goes to church should be subject to criticism because all churches are nuts.
Third, most American's don't feel that all churches are nuts and they would not support a candidate who does. That point of view would turn off just as many people as candidate's association with a radical church.
The point is that everyone has their hang ups, yours is that you think all churches are nuts. Some are hung up on the views of Obama's church. But you're also claiming that race shouldn't be a primary concern of a president. I seriously doubt that with this war and current health care and economic crisis that Obama would be focusing his energies on radically promoting black interests. He'd continue the same misguided programs that any other liberal mainstream Democrat would.
I am not a candidate, it doesn't matter what I think about churches.
I never discredited my point by saying that I don't care what church he goes to, it doesn't matter what church he goes to. He could be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, doesn't matter. Forget that it is even a church, take God out of the picture. What if it was a different type of clubhouse, like the Shriners have, or the Masons, and they were teaching a racist doctrine? Once you take away the God veil and the church it starts to sound a lot like a racist social organization. Have you ever been to the kkk website? It is some really scary stuff, mostly because it portrays its members as proud white Christians who are against violence and only want to protect the interests of their own race. You and I know better because of the terrible history of violence and terror that organization has been involved with over the years, but some young redneck from Kansas might be more easily influenced.
Now, I can see you foaming at the mouth formulating your response that will criticize me for comparing Obama's church to the kkk. Hear me out. The church isn't on that level, but it is a foot in the door so to speak. Young people show up there eager to be influenced by a positive message (they are in a church for God's sake) and they are taught right along side the ten commandments that they are different, separate, treated unfairly by the world and should respond accordingly. This type of thing taught to children can lead to much more extreme forms of racism and separatism when they are adults.
Perhaps a person who is so often compared with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been better off attending a church that promoted racial harmony rather than separatism.
Look, I'll probably still vote for the guy if I don't write in Ron Paul. With this parade of losers what choice do I have? I'm done.
I believe you did. Your comments suggest it. You do care what church he went to if the church has a racialist agenda. So claiming you don't care what church he went to can't be accurate. Even if you take God out of the equation, it has to matter what church he went to when you point out yourself that taking out the religious doctrine makes it look like any other organization. So you do care what organization (church, specifically) he belonged to, judging by your statements.
I don't foam at the mouth when I write these responses. I'm no Obama lover and you can compare any similarities with his church to the Klan and I won't fault you for it.
Any racial nationalist group can be compared to the Klan because that's what they are (a violent and stupid one with no redeeming social value, of course).
I've actually considered an Obama vote but I don't know that I can do that in good conscience. I'm still all for Ron Paul and I wish he'd gone third party. I may vote for Nader, I may abstain or I may find someone else. I'm not sure yet.
I just feel that Obama is a better choice for the right than McCain, not that one need choose either of them.
Lew Rockwell suggests that libertarians may be more in line with the left than the right in some ways in this article that Dylan posted on the "left conservative reference center" on the main page. It's worth reading.
Post a Comment