I recently came across an article about Rev. Wright's recent media campaign on the Economist's website. Being a fan of the periodical and its (some say relative) objectivity, I thought I would share some of my thoughts here on DKos. The full article can be found here.
This is my first diary, so please be kind.
In the May 1st article, Lexington wrote:
Mr Wright's appearance at the National Press Club on April 28th before a massed throng of reporters provided him with the perfect opportunity to set those [mere] seconds [of media clips] in context. But he chose to do exactly the opposite....
He defended his remark about "chickens coming home to roost". He called Louis Farrakhan "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century". He talked about whites worshipping in church in the morning and putting on white Klan sheets at night. He defended his assertion that the American government invented the HIV virus to decimate blacks ("Our government is capable of doing anything."). He even argued that blacks and whites have different learning styles, further proof that he endorses the racist theory that blacks and white have differently wired brains.
The "chickens" comment, to me,is off the mark, but a better way of putting it is still in the same quadrant. Aside from Bush's blunt imperialist invasion of Iraq, the most likely cause of spite towards America would probably be our international corporations. Living overseas, I've personally seen local shops close down due to fierce competition from companies based overseas. Even though most of these new kids on the block tweak their lists of goods and services to better cater to local tastes, there is still a stark difference when compared to the traditional store a block down. Coincidentally, this view is supported in a special report by Newsweek conducted in the Middle East a while back.
The praise of Mr. Farrakhan is another example of a comment not quite right, but not quite wrong. From what I can discern from last-minute research, to say his comments are "important," while not logically incorrect, has a faint connotation of agreement. "Influential" would be better here, as in "Bush was named one of the 100 most influential people of the year by Time." (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
On the clan, the accuracy of the comment is plausible, but according to Freakanomics, an informative book co-authored by Nobel-winning economist Stephen Levitt, this scene would be more common around half a century ago. Depending on to whom Rev. Wright was speaking, he just might have hit the emotional mark, but to use it to describe the present is a bit mistaken.
The HIV comment has little excuse: in the days of Area 51 and JFK conspiracy theories, maybe, but scientific studies clearly show that the AIDS that affects humans originated in Africa; the first resultant death was Congolese.
On the learning styles of blacks, I don't quite agree with the Economist's view: how people of different races differ in learning styles is clearly a topic for the "nurture versus nature" debate, and to say that it is rascist only accentuates the impact of the stereotype of Rev. Wright on the author.
But, then again, Lexington does do a bit of research:
This was also a tragedy for Mr Wright. He is far more than the blustering buffoon who was on the stage on Monday. He has presided over an increase in the size of his congregation from 87 when he arrived in 1972 to 8,000 today. Trinity is a welfare state in its own right, providing more than 70 welfare programmes for the poor, the unemployed, prisoners and HIV patients.
He is one of the most liberal members of the black church, happy to question Scripture when he thinks that it forsakes common sense and unusually tolerant of gay couples, who can be seen holding hands in his pews. No less a figure than Martin Marty, who is probably America's most distinguished historian of religion and who happens to be white, has defended Mr Wright and said how welcome he and his family feel in his congregation. But Mr Wright could well be remembered as a race-baiter who helped to prevent one of his parishioners from becoming the first black president of the United States.
So the question is: why?
What inspired this calamitous performance? Egomania was clearly part of it. Mr Wright responded to the applause of the amen corner in his audience with ever more outrageous assertions. There was probably a touch of jealousy too. Mr Wright has seen his former protégé rise to heights he himself could never have dreamed of, and he has been caught up in the tailwinds.
This was largely detailed in DHinMI's recent diary. But the next part is one perspective I find quite interesting:
But there is also something deeper here: a generational struggle for control of black politics. Mr Wright belongs to a generation of activists—Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are other prominent members—who thrived in part by playing to the resentments of their black supporters. Mr Obama belongs to a much more pragmatic generation, people who want to get beyond racial polarisation and enter the political mainstream. Mr Wright's generation is not about to leave the stage quietly.
Just something to chew on while waiting for Sen. Clinton to throw in the towel.