Wow, this is so false and wide of the mark in every detail, I don’t know how to respond to it. Acknowleding that inequity still exists is not divisive or racist. Denying the inequity is what is divisive (and sometimes racist).
That’s a straw man. Acknowledging inequality is not racist. Claiming that the US Government invented AIDS to kill black people, is racist.
Really? What is it? Define “white culture?”
Well, I don’t know. I think it kind of diverts our attention from more important things. Slavery reparations, for instance. Ancient wrongs can never be remedied, because victims and perpetrators are long dead and nothing that is done to their descendants affects them. Yes, we as a society owe the African-Americans something – maybe even direct subsidies, or expensive programs to help them up the socioeconomic ladder – not because of anything done to their ancestors, but because they’re suffering now, and they’re people, and they’re Americans; that ought to be enough. But we owe that only to those who really are suffering in poverty, not to those who have made it into the middle class; and we owe them no more or less than we owe poor whites.
No it isn’t. It’s mistaken and paranoid, but it isn’t racist. It just expreses an irrational fear of racism by a man who grew up in an era where the government was undeniably racist and, more to the point, had deliberately given black people diseases before.
Well, you sure convinced me with that masterly analysis. 
It is absurd to complain about an “exception” when he happens to be the subject of discussion, isn’t it? It isn’t like I invented the man as some sort of silly hypothetical. 
Who says?
“Ethnicity” is, quite simply, subjective. If people think something is an indicator of “ethnicity”, it is.
There are plenty of people who self-idenitfy as “White”, just as there are plenty who self-identify as “Black”. They may self-identify with greater specificity when the situatuion demands it (ethnicity is above all situational - the hypothetical “I” may be “Canadian” when talking to an “American”, and “White” when talking to a “Black”, or “Jewish” when talking to a “Christian”, etc.)
I would agree that it would be absurd to deny that many self-identify with their (Black) skin colour.
I assert that it is equally absurd to deny that many self-identify with their (White) skin colour. And for exactly the same reason - such self-identity is oppositional and situational - which is why people in Africa do not by and large self-identify in this way.
This is why I submit it is foolish to argue, as you have done, that White cannot have the same meaning, is “racist” to self-identify with, etc.
The Anglo-Saxon culture that assimilated other white Europeans to create an ambient culture. It is fodder for endless comedians who accept a common culture. ‘Becoming white’, is a cliche. I don’t know how you expect me to ‘define’ a culture, but I can list attributes if you like.
If you find this specious, I can say the same thing about the definition of black culture that you mentioned, considering the context is electing a man who was the offspring of a white anthropologist, and a Kenyan Muslim, neither of whom shared in the black slave experience.
Here’s a good place to start.
:dubious: Just attributing racism to the PTB is itself racist? I don’t think so.
You should feel guilty for zero seconds. I want you to undertake no pennance. You should suffer for no lifetimes. You should feel no shame. Zero trauma is sufficient.
You think I tried to explain why there are such things as “black churches” to make you feel guilty or make you suffer? Really?
Black churches weren’t founded to make you feel guilty or to make you suffer, they weren’t founded to give you a taste of your own medicine to see how you liked it, they weren’t founded to exclude you. They were founded a long time ago for particular reasons, and they weren’t disbanded in 1965 directly after the civil rights acts were passed, because, get this, black people still weren’t welcome in many white churches in 1965. Even though de jure segregation was made illegal in the 1960s, that still didn’t end individual racism, or de facto segregation.
Wright was a pastor of a historically black church, a church that had no reason to be ashamed of its historically black status, a church that did not exclude white people. There probably aren’t many white churches today in 2008 that would go out of their way to purposefully exclude blacks, although they do exist, just like black supremacist churches actually do exist. So why do most blacks go to black churches, here at this late date of 2008? Because most churchgoing blacks are already members of a church, and those churches tend to be overwhelmingly historically black, because those are the churches they’ve went to since they were kids, because most people go to the churches that their parents went to. Should a black family leave the church they grew up in and go to a majority white church, just because nowadays that white church wouldn’t purposefully make them feel unwelcome? Is it racist to keep going to the church you’ve always went to?
So what do I think you should do with your new-found awareness? Nothing, except don’t complain that black churches, black colleges, black restaurants, black magazines, and black neighborhoods exist. All I’d like you do do is not be racist yourself, and if other people are racist and it won’t get you in trouble, call them on their racism. In other words, don’t be a jerk. It’s not complicated.
Lemur866 It’s funny how often people think repeating what you already know is going to somehow change things. I understand the historical reasons for black churches, but Black Liberation Theology and Black Nationalism are two very different things from a church that caters to a black community, and if you don’t know that, you should.
To be fair, the Rev. Wright isn’t Obama, and I don’t actually believe that Obama is really filled with anger and frustration - based on his own speeches.
I’m pointing out that the Obama defenders here are doing the man somewhat of a dis-service, since if we are to believe them (which I don’t), it would make little sense to vote for the man - or indeed any Black person.
I don’t either. I think he’s the best candidate to come along in my lifetime, but hey, that’s not the point.
Yea, I understand, but you touched on the heart of the matter and I was pointing that out.
No. It just means that social and ethnic categories are not scientifically delineated, but the fact that someone like Barack Obama can be adopted into the Black American community does not prove that the community is defined by nothing but skin color. I’m sure you would agree that that would be an asinine conclusion.
I say. If you disagree, give me a working definition of “white culture.”
No, it isn’t.
Not as their sole ethnic identification, though, at least no one but racists.
That isn’t what I said and that isn’t what is meant by identifying as “Black” in America. What I said was that it’s ridiculous to deny that that population of balck Americans descended from slaves is a genuine ethnicity unto itself, while simple “whiteness” is not.
Which is somethimng I already pointed out and which is why I also pointed out that the identification with the word “black” in America has to be understood in its specific historical and geographical context. It’s *not[/i[ just about skin color the way “white” is.
“White” has no meaning but skin color. Sorry.
No prob. I agree that the whole thing has done Obama immense damage.
To my mind, arguing as to whether the Rev. is, or is not, “racist” is something only of academic interest – the reality is whether he is “racist” or merely “paranoid”, “irrational”, and “filled with anger and frustration”, you don’t want someone with his ideals at the helm.
And how is that culture [i[defined*? Are only Anglo-Saxons white? What about Italians? Basques? Give me a bindingm defining characteristic which binds all “white” culture besides skin color.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I have said that Barack Obama is not ethnically Black in the way that I’m defining it. He’s been adopted by that community, he has essentially been perceived as part of that community all his life (and that this perception makes his actual genetic heitage almost academic), but I have no problem saying that he is not a slave desecndant and is not genetically part of the ethnicity which I’m talking about.
He’s not on the ballot, but I have no problem with his ideals. Do you have a problem with ideals of social justice, collective responsibility and community service?
Diogenes I just don’t feel like playing this game. I think that’s a ridiculous notion, but arguing it seems like a big waste of time.
No, the fact that a Black man is idenified as “Black” even though he shares not one scintilla of what you claim is the essence of Black identity entirely disproves the notion that ethnicity is all about “culture” and not “skin colour”.
I’m sure you would agree that calling a half-Kenyan “not Black” is an absurdity.
You have given me a “working definition” of Black culture that doesn’t in fact work, since the subject of the thread, the very man under discussion, does not fit within it.
Moreover, “ethnicity” is about self-identity, not necessarily “culture”. It is you is claiming, totally incorrectly, that one must share a specific “culture” in order to be an “ethnicity”. Not so. Culture is one possible measure of self-identity but not the only one.
No-one has only one ethnic identification. It is always situational. The strength of that identity depends on the situation - skin colour is an important identifier exactly because of racism.
Well, obviously I disagree, based on the above. If ethnicity is oppositional and situational, it makes no sense to condemn one half as “racist” but not the other half.
In my opinion, the only ones whose opinions of Obama were harmed by Wright’s statements were those who weren’t going to vote for Obama in the first place. This was just another example of Fox-brand Manufactured Outrage ™, and most of us didn’t buy it.
Luckily, Reverend Wright isn’t running for president.