Guess I’m Not The Only One
Posted by
tgirsch
With respect to the Rev. Wright flap, Josh Marshall wonders aloud:
Here’s one other point I want to raise about Wright. Having watched the full sermons that his sound bites were grabbed out of, it’s pretty clear to me that the snippets running on Youtube were taken out of context and heavily distorted. (But that’s life, to a degree — political hits don’t usually come packaged with extenuating context) I’m also not going to get into the business of full-scale defenses of someone who has apparently suggested that the US government had some role in “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
But in the debate about Wright, which Sen. Clinton has just reignited, it seems to be spoken of now as an unquestioned assumption that Wright traffics in racist rhetoric or hate speech. But is that really true? I’ve seen some stuff that strikes me as whacky. I’ve heard soundbites that critics would not have much trouble spinning as anti-American. But are there really quotes that justify the charge of racism? I’m not saying that purely as a rhetorical question. I have not made myself a full Wrightologist. But I do get the sense that a lot of people believe he’s so radioactive that it makes no sense to point out when others are treating as granted claims that appear demonstrably false.
I’ve wondered the same thing. I’m sure I at least commented to that effect, if I haven’t actually blogged it.
I think it’s exactly right. I’ve blogged to that effect regarding the AIDS conspiracy, on which I’m sure he is factually wrong; his other remarks have always struck me as even less objectionable.
Never, ever take anything that comes out of the Noise Machine at face value.
Comment 3/26/2008
Generally speaking, “god damn America” does not require ’spinning’ to portray as anti-American, nor does accusing the government of intentionally inventing AIDs.
In addition to his general support of Farrakhan — an individual who would be considered dangerously homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-Caucasian/European by the same standards typically applied on this blog to conservative or pseudo-conservative groups — I’d expect that the statements comparing ‘zionism’ to white racism in the method that the man did would cover the necessary bases to demonstrate a personal bias due to matters of ethnic origin.
But, hey, that would ruin the whole point of your statement. Why bother with the easily-found truth when a simple bit of misinformation passes so very well?
Comment 3/26/2008
gattsuru:
Libertarian types constantly accuse the government of all manner of nefarious activities, with varying degrees of tinfoil hat-ness. That doesn’t make them anti-American, does it? I’ve heard them say that they’ll burn an American flag the day flag burning is banned. Is that anti-American?
In any case, one out-of-context quote does not an anti-American make.
As for the racial stuff, I’m certainly not going to defend Farrakhan, but I think you miss a point. If you have a transcript of the racist remarks in question, we could be done with this discussion in pretty short order. As with Josh Marshall, I haven’t researched it extensively. I’ve merely heard it repeated as an article of faith that Wright is “racist,” but nobody ever seems to cite specific statements in furtherance of that claim. Bottom line is, he may very well BE racist, but if he is, I haven’t seen compelling evidence.
Comment 3/26/2008
I generally haven’t seen a massive tendency to consider libertarians Exceedingly Patriotic Americans, although they do tend to do pretty well on average (mostly because there’s nowhere else to go). There are some rather irritating and alarmist ones, but the only folk belonging to that group that I’d defend either stick to the fairly well-documented governmental atrocities or predicting future atrocities.
But, yeah, one “out-of-context” (the context, Tgirsch, doesn’t help, since putting it on the same line as those damned syphliss experiments rather clearly removes the ‘metaphor’ defense) quote does not an anti-American make. Neither does two, since we’ve still got the “god damn America” quote. May I ask at which point the grains of sand become a pile?
Comment 3/27/2008
I don’t know exactly where that point is, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t at two sentences…
Comment 3/27/2008
“…assumption that Wright traffics in racist rhetoric or hate speech. But is that really true?”
Yes.
“But are there really quotes that justify the charge of racism?”
Yes
Comment 3/27/2008
“Is Morris too damn lazy to provide any evidence for his claims?”
Yes.
Comment 3/27/2008
Wright’s racism is obvious and does not need me to expose it. He has taken care of that. Anyone who can listen to his messages and not know he is racist is fooling himself. If you agree with Wright then you are also a racist.
Comment 3/27/2008
As expected, you don’t have any such statements to present. It’s an article of faith to you.
Comment 3/27/2008
This is another example of language controlling thought.
What does it mean to be anti-American? In keeping with the core values expressed by our founding documents, one can make a pretty strong argument that the majority of the governing body of the country is “Anti-American.” The events of recent memory, the policies and decisions are self-evident.
Let’s not confuse “Americanism,” an entity relating to the specific tenets of freedom, etc. on which the country was allegedly based with blind nationalism.
That’s the fucking rouse behind this whole semantic illusion. “Americanism” as it is referred to in these charges means nationalism. In that sense, there is no shame in being un-american. Yes, in that sense I think it deserves the small “a.” Those values no longer relate to America, they are simply a subset of values that characterize the personal, views of the ruling body thereof.
Don’t get suckered into this debate, people. If you do, then call the semantic BS. They prey on your patriotism, they assume you’re afraid to be classified as anti-American, so they will hold their vision of the country as the core values and play your disagreement with that as a disagreement with the core values of America. But they are not core American values - so the charge is fucking meaningless.
I am not anti-American, simply because I am anti-your-version-of-America!
Comment 3/27/2008
How about three? Accusing America of sponsoring ’state terrorism’ against black South Africans isn’t exactly well supported by reality, unless you use a ridiculously low distinction of sponsor (and, for that matter, state terrorism). That not a pile yet, I’d wager, though.
How about four? The relevant history books make it rather apparent that ‘we’ had little problem batting an eye over nuking folk. While there is certainly room for debate over the necessity of both or either Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think suggesting that the United States government did not “bat an eye” over the matter is a little anti-American and fairly irrational.
Is it a pile yet? How many grains does it take?
Comment 3/27/2008
Oh, yeah, digglahhh, that makes a lot of sense, there. It’s not anti-American to accuse Americans or the American government of obviously and plainly false crimes — it’s just anti-nationalism.
Comment 3/27/2008
Perhaps, one may be misinformed.
Accusing the government of manufacturing AIDS as a means of population control - likely fits into your designation of “obviously and plainly false crimes.”
Accusing the U.S. of being the among the greatest supporters and perpetrators of global terrorism - fully supported by the public record.
So, let’s not paint with such a broad brush here.
Here’s the other thing people need to understand about fringe conspiracy theories. This AIDS as a government engineered means of population control thing is not some lone fringe voice. This is much more popular than one may think. Has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself what it is about the black experience in the United States that makes such a seemingly outlandish theory fit into the puzzle of their daily existence?
Ditto 9/11 was an inside job theories. The thing to worry about here isn’t the potential merit of the assertion, it’s the fact that “the state” has engaged in enough real, documented atrocities that for a substantial amount of people, such wild theories aren’t eliminated by simple cognitive dissonance.
If there are lots of people in this country for whom a government engineering a disease to kill them fits within their worldview as shaped by the society in which they live - that’s an important notion. More important than whether a credible basis for the view actually exists!…
Comment 3/27/2008
I see a difference between having a pervasive “god damn America” attitude (which Gatt and others seem to attribute to Wright) and what was actually said, which I will paraphrase as “America dropped nukes on Japanese cities, so say god damn America for killing innocents. It is in the bible.”
The significance of the context (for the sake of those who have not picked up on this yet) is Wright is denouncing the killing of several hundred thousand civilians by the US at the end of WWII. One can certainly question his position on the issue, but it is disingenuous to lift three words from that sermon (god damn America) and use them to paint him as unAmerican.
Comment 3/27/2008
“As expected, you don’t have any such statements to present.”
Have you been under a rock for the last two weeks? Why should I keep repeating his bile just because you are too lazy to listen to Wright yourself?
Comment 3/27/2008
I’ll leave debating that particular assertion for another day, but it’s not what I brought up. Wright’s accusations included stating that ‘we’ had sponsored state terrorism in South Africa. For those without a history book nearby, the closest we did was fink on Mandela. I don’t particularly think that was a good move, but it’s a bit of a far cry from sponsoring state terrorism under any reasonable definition thereof.
Yes it has.
On the otherstand, I have more than a layman’s understanding of psychotherapy. Generally speaking, you don’t deal with a paranoid patient by dealing with the base assumptions alone — often they can’t be meaningfully treated, and it’s rather difficult to actually get treatment to work when the patient thinks that you’re trying to infect them with repurposed smallpox.
I’m also rather unsure how some sort of social PPD exception came into place in this conversation.
Comment 3/27/2008
You’re going to cite Freudian psychology and expect to be taken seriously?
Also, I think you’re aiming more for social PTSD than PPD.
As for the South Africa thing, I guess it depends whether or not you define Apartheid as a form of terrorism. Oppression, certainly; terrorism, depends on how you define the term.
Comment 3/27/2008
God, I hope not. Freud was an impressive example of what happens when you let your hypothesis dictate what data is acceptable. Rogers or Ellis are where it’s at for most neural types.
PTSD would require, in addition to other things, at least avoidance of the stimulus or stimulii which involved the initial event. That really hasn’t been the case. A few other diagnostic criteria are also pretty iffy. PPD’s diagnosis, on the other hand, is pretty easy to apply.
I don’t think oppression is a severe enough word for what the South African government did — I personally like the words ’systemic apartheid’, ‘mass imprisonment’, ‘pointless murder’, and ‘feloniously bad economic management’ — but they weren’t really into the whole killing and injuring as many people as possible for political purposes.
Comment 3/27/2008
Good thing Gatt is not a democratic campaign staffer, for if he was, he would stand to be accused of describing the black population of this country as paranoid and in need of psychiatric care.
Comment 3/27/2008
As did tgirsch, with the variation of them being significantly impaired and in need of psychiatric care. One more person jump in and say a variation on it, and we can probably get Jesse Jackson’s attention.
Honestly, Ted, are you enjoying shoving words down other people’s throats? I’ve never stated this is an issue for all, or even most or many, black individuals. Nor do I want to suggest that it’s limited to just or primarily black individuals — there are a boatload of white people blaming the government’s vast conspiracy to kill off the poor/the white/the whiny/the rednecks/the yuppies when they don’t get an ambulance fast enough, apparently since we eviiillll government-liking sorta folk like paying 15% of our wages for providing near-free care for them. Is it supposed to make the eventual death sweet or something? I’ve never been good with that taste.
It’s not about race. It’s about idiots, and I’m sorry to say that no racial group is immune to that particular disease.
Comment 3/27/2008
gatt, sorry, I meant to include a
at the end of my comment. It was intended as a commentary on the campaign and not your post. I understand your intent, and I guarantee if you had written that as a member of any of the three campaigns the words would have been shoved down your throat. Undeservedly so.
Comment 3/27/2008
gattsuru:
Ha! I offered up PTSD as an alternative not because I thought it fit what you were after, but because I didn’t think PPD fit. Of course, that’s because I was thinking of a wildly different PPD.
As for bringing up Freud, it’s been over a decade since I’ve studied my psychology (and it was only a minor), but I tend to view “psychoanalysis” and “Freudian quackery” as essentially interchangeable terms.
Comment 3/27/2008
Gatt,
Okay, fine, paranoia, conspiracy theory - potato, poh-tah-toe…
But, we can use your characterization if you prefer.
What is is about being American and Black that makes you more likely to a paranoid patient? Is there some sort of genetic predisposition? Is it just a coincidence that the most systematically disenfranchised segments of our population, as a whole, are willing to ascribe the most nefarious behavior and intent to their governing bodies?
Look at it as parent and child, what does your parent have to do to you to make you really hate that person, and think he/she capable of anything, of perpetrating normally unthinkable cruelties on you? I’m not talking about slam the door, “I hate you mom, I really wanted to go to that party.” I’m talking real pathology. Sure, a portion of those people are just crazy - but that craziness is unevenly distributed along racial and economic demographics.
So, unless your answer is, “poor black people are crazy,” I don’t think you addressed the question at all.
Comment 3/28/2008
I don’t think that’s really the case. There are a lot of individuals who are neither American, African, or Black who seem to tend more toward stupid and idiotic conspiracy theories, enough for any claims of genetic predisposition to be rather clearly ridiculous.
I think you’re underestimating how often this sort of behavior appears in other groups, including many that weren’t ’systematically disenfranchised’.
Given the other groups that do, I’d expect lackluster education (seriously, ‘metal doesn’t melt at that temperature, so it couldn’t have collapsed’ is the sort of mistake a high schooler shouldn’t make), unreliable leadership (and a media that doesn’t help that ie favorable media coverage of Jesse Jackson’s more idiotic and illegal actions), some cultural issues, and the rather pervasive and invasive welfare state (regardless of race, gender, creed, or religion, I’ve yet to see a ‘welfare queen’ that wasn’t paranoid and histrionic), long before race would pop up as an option.
I still don’t see how this line of discussion is supposed to matter. Patty Hearst’s potential Stockholm Syndrome didn’t make her psychotic actions any less psychotic, nor does whatever the hell was wrong with Fonda excuse her anti-Americanism. While Wright’s actions were on a (vastly) smaller and less harmful scale, he and his actions remain what they are, no matter how many claims he tosses out as excuses, he still stands by them. Excusing otherwise unacceptable actions for illogical reasons only encourages them.
Moreover, Obama is (allegedly) a rational human being, who came from a fairly affluent background with relatively little ’systematic disenfranchisement’, and only attended the man’s sermons as an adult.
Comment 3/29/2008
Gatt:
You’re still assuming that this particular line was typical of Wright’s sermons — a fact which simply isn’t in evidence. A few lines culled from seven years worth of sermons is hardly evidence of a pattern of behavior.
Anyway, do you explain Falwell and Robertson the same way?
Comment 3/29/2008
“You’re still assuming that this particular line was typical of Wright’s sermons — a fact which simply isn’t in evidence. A few lines culled from seven years worth of sermons is hardly evidence of a pattern of behavior.”
How many times does a person have to express his racism before it is enough?
Comment 3/30/2008
I’ve yet to make that assumption, and I think it’s rather irrelevant one way or the other. No one has presented information that the man has done anything but stand by his words, and my own attempt to find contrary evidence showed nothing.
Moreover, it’s been four years since the patently false accusations of creating HIV, nearly seven years since his “chickens coming home to roost” sermon, and with regular incidents involving Farrakhan (mostly through the church’s magazine, but some more direct interfaces over the last few years).
Sorry, folks. I’ll be the first to admit I’m a soulless animal, so maybe my experience is a bit different from other folk, but after the third or fourth time an individual starts spouting crazed nonsense, or the second or third time that he allows people using his name and the name of a church he founded to support quite crazed individuals, I don’t think I’d continue to support him. I certainly wouldn’t write a book titled from the man’s sermons and consider having him as a major part of a political council.
They seem more generically delusional, perhaps with a bit of phobia, rather than paranoid. Lack of decent education plays a pretty big role, though I haven’t looked into it enough for the other attributes to judge one way or the other.
Comment 3/30/2008