who will then dare . . ?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

Reverend Wright said that it is the black church - not himself - that is under attack. And he's been accused of egotism for suggesting so. But I would go further than he did. The right-wing-controlled media are attacking Wright as the means to silence ALL DISSENT. After Wright is media-lynched, who will then dare to comment in public about our genocide of millions of native Americans, as Wright did yesterday? Who will dare to note that those chemical weapons that Saddam was supposed to have were the chemical weapons that we sold to him, as Wright did? Who will speak up for the native peoples of El Salvador and Nicaragua that we paid to have butchered for us, as Wright did? Who will point out that the very people who sent us to war on lies, and who now question the patriotism of our likely nominee, avoided military service - he called Cheney out by name - as Wright did?

Superficially, the purpose of a lynching is vengeance. There is one or a few direct victims, but at root lynching is a crime committed against the entire community of which the victim is part. Wright spoke fearlessly of our nation's long, sordid, and continuing history of violent oppression. Is he accurate in all particulars? No. But in the main, Wright is speaking out for the values that you and I most cherish. And he is performing a moral service - one among many. I'd bet he's done more to fight oppression over the course of his life, and more to lift the oppressed, than ALL of the members of DemocraticUnderground combined. We're just armchair Democrats.

At stake is whether progressives will let the Right dictate what does, and does not, constitute “crazy speech”. Is it politically inconvenient for this to arise now? Maybe. Maybe not. But since when is it pragmatic to sell-out our principals? Now, with a Democrat poised to be President, now is the time for progressives to take the political initiative.

And to defend our own.

[mrbluto]

1. Please explain...when can I offer a critique and not be racist?

Please explain...when can I offer a critique and not be racist?

Are there rules posted somewhere?

Because it seems that if I have something critical to say, some times even if it's merely not positive enough, I get called a racist.

It's very confusing.

Am I supposed to just set aside my opinion or logic when dealing with a non-white person? Can I call in a pinch-hitter of the appropriate race to make my case? Or am I shit out of luck and expected to remain silent?

I've made lengthy posts looking at an issue, pro & con, weighing possibilities, likliehoods, and dynamics of the political situation only to be basically called a cracker in not-so-few words, often in one-liner responses.

Is there some time in this century when I'm not going to get the race card played against me?

Does it reek of a dangerous narcissism to anyone, besides myself, that Wright equates an attack on him as an attack on "the black church"?

Does Obama's repudiation of him count as an attack?

Oh. I thought not.

mkay - bye.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

2. as I say, this attack is broader than "the black church".

And I don't regard Obama's statements as a repudiation of Wright, or as an attack. Obama repudiated some of Wright's comments, but went to pains NOT to repudiate the man who baptized his children.

[orleans]

3. i watched his speech, so did my family

and we loved it.
there was a thread here with lots of raves.

we didn't view it as something he was doing to harm or help obama--it was the discussion of race/of children/how they learn/language/viewing others who are different/etc.

i was shocked to hear tweety the next day saying what a horrible thing wright did, and how horrible the speech was. (even the guy on cnn seemed very impressed by it, i thought)

and tweet's "guests" were all bashing the speech & wright.

then ed schultz came on tweet (i had heard him on his show earlier praising the speech)
and he defended wright and the speech

and i wondered what alternate universe we had seen the speech in on sunday night.

apparently it was a bad thing. everyone hated it. and hates him. and is mad at him (including obama?)

and my family & i are sitting here, in the minority, agreeing with only ed schultz??

i don't get it.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

4. it is disconcerting, confusing, and sad. If it weren't for the significant harm

this is doing to Obama at this crucial juncture, I think progressives would be defending Wright. My mother, for example, is outraged that "the man just couldn't pipe down and lay low for a while".