do people really think Wright gave 30 years of steady hate speech?

[BklynChick]

You know they have looked at all of the tapes and have come up with 5-6 clips of about 2-3 minutes (tops) each. What makes anyone think that this type of speech dominated his preaching? If it did, we would be seeing it. It's way more complex than this, as Obama outlined in his speech yesterday.

[blogslut]

1. I doesn't matter if they think it

What matters is that they repeat it. Over and over. 20 solid years of hate. That's Jermiah Wright. Say it boldly. Say it again and to as many people as possible. The phrase becomes magical. It takes on its own truth despite the complete lack of evidence behind the statement.

It's "The Surge is Working" for Hillary supporters.

[Drachasor]

2. Well, it goes to show you that the media isn't doing it's job and Obama's speech didn't sink in

The media often doesn't try to paint a fair story anymore or delve for the truth. Part of it, I hear, is that investigative journalism just isn't getting funded the way it used to. Part of it is undoubtedly that the "truth" doesn't get them as much money (perhaps the best reason I've ever heard that the media needs some amount of public funding -- though that has problems).

Obama's speech was so powerful on many levels, that the part where he tries to put Wright in context didn't fully sink in, imho. Part of that is probably that we aren't used to trying to UNDERSTAND others, and instead are more focused on judging them and then confirming our judgments.

[navarth]

3. well if they don't they certainly will after the M$M is done with them.

I thought that was a great speech. I'm really hoping this guy gets elected now. I think he's our best shot.

[Igel]

4. No, I don't.

But I also can't imagine that the Afrocentric push Wright had was mostly absent from his preaching. It was too big a part of the church's draw, if you looked at the webpage from early 2007.

I assume that had they wanted, they could have had a 30-minute montage of Wright's "controversial"-yet-justified verbiage, or perhaps 60 minutes' worth. But who would have watched it? 5-6 clips of 2-3 minutes provide enough varied material for the way news channels run in this country. More is unnecessary; therefore it's unprofitable; therefore it's not just uncalled for, but frowned up. Now, could I be wrong, and that's all they came up with after combing the archives assiduously for 10 months? Sure. I could be wrong.

Part of Afrocentrism wasn't just affirming what blacks are; it was also denying what others are. It was about instilling pride, but also in-group solidarity. Part is good, part is pure divisiveness. The line between the two can be fine, possibly even negative in width. But it can be drawn in many instances.

Wright's hate-talk is simply issues at the border of in-group and out-group, making the lines painfully clear; but Wright also patrolled the borders like a kelty. A candidate about unity who chooses a church that pushes a particular division ... sketchy. And post-racial? Nuh-uh. Sorry.

Take "Identity churches" as an example. Most are racist; some few are violently so. Not all--not that it matters to people whose only brush is 3 meters wide. The church I was in for years could be called an "Identity church" in that it officially had a doctrine of Anglo-Israelism. The ministers were pushed on this, however: Was it a racist doctrine? The official conclusion: No--the only reasons to be concerned about it was because it was a traditional doctrine in the church, and therefore sort of time-honored, and for interpreting Bible prophecy. Since bible prophecy was a questionable topic in general, and discussing the topic as a topic with no other application made for mind-bogglingly pointless sermons, the doctrine was entirely a non-issue. But one particular minister every 3-4 years pushed the boundaries in a way that was easily racist and very divisive, and that minister was called on the carpet the following Monday morning at 9 am and told to put a sock in it or walk. And he'd apologize next time he was at the podium, the tapes made of those sermons were excluded from the tape library catalog OR he'd redo the sermon in a studio to remove the racism ... and then we'd all get copies, even if we were in the audience when he gave the original.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. They don't think.

Clearly.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Only idiots who believe what the media feeds them will think he gave 30 years of hate speech

Some people are just so gullible and will believe whatever the media feeds them.