Glenn Loury: The Missing Voice of Jeremiah

Glenn Loury

Glenn Loury

Are we supposed to be hoping that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s hair-raising 15 minutes of fame are over?

The black polymath Glenn Loury and I are puzzling in conversation here about all that the YouTube and network frenzy left out — the blessed insight and fellowship of black church life in America, but also the radicalism of its perspectives.

It’s commonly observed in the black church that the Sunday morning worship time is the most segregated hour in American life. It’s been my white-guy experience, all the same, that the African-American Christian church — with its manifestly, audibly distinctive roots in slave history and modern ghetto experience — lives out the most open and exemplary, all-embracing and anti-tribal God-consciousness I’ve ever imagined.

Professor Glenn Loury of Brown is a child of the South Side of Chicago, well known for his sometimes wayward path toward the mountaintop of university economics. He tells of his own redemptive engagement with the church, and his own searing confrontation with Jeremiah Wright. His disappointment here is that the “prophetic witness” of the black church was so zealously bound, gagged and anathematized in the political and media caricatures of Reverend Wright — as if we could not bear to know how differently the South Side of Chicago thinks and talks about, say, the Middle East, or the fate of Native Americans, or the US Constitution’s long compromise with slavery. “How could those three quarters of a million African-American descendants sitting on the South Side of Chicago not have that history vividly in their minds, and how could it not be reflected in the spiritual witness and inspirational preaching that would come out of their churches?”

The think that worries me, Chris, more than that the black church will be somehow denigrated and lose respect (because I don’t think there’s any keeping the black church down, okay?)… The thing that worries me more than that is that the root of this “prophetic voice” that comes out of the African American church — “America, you’re not as good as you think you are… America, you’re not so high up on that city on a hill that you’ve constructed for yourself that you cannot go wrong…” You know, the capacity to be critical — My fear is that that voice will be somehow rendered unacceptable, that the need for a presidential candidate to establish for the broad mainstream of the American people that he is not some kind of radical… will somehow bring with it the conclusion that the critical context out of which it came was itself illegitimate, ridiculous, absurd, … not worthy to be considered for another moment; let’s move quickly onto the next case.

Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury, in conversation with Chris Lydon, May 16, 2008

Comments

31 thoughts on “Glenn Loury: The Missing Voice of Jeremiah

  1. “America, you’re not as good as you think you are… America, you’re not so high up on that city on a hill that you’ve constructed for yourself that you cannot go wrong…”

    I find it ironic and deeply tragic that most – including most “liberals” – misinterpreted the sermons as parallel to the simplistic “God will rain fire and brimstone on this sinful nation” message of John Hagee and his ilk.

    It’s like describing Crime and Punishment as hardboiled crime fiction. Speaking of which, I find close parallels between the Wright sermons and Kierkegaard, who warns us not to confuse a perfect and immutable God with flawed and hubristic human piety.

  2. My fear is that that voice will be somehow rendered unacceptable, that the need for a presidential candidate to establish for the broad mainstream of the American people that he is not some kind of radical… will somehow bring with it the conclusion that the critical context out of which it cam was itself illegitimate, ridiculous, absurd, … not worthy to be considered for another moment; let’s move quickly onto the next case.

    As was said, the black church is not monolithic. Obama’s message was always nuanced and difficult, Rev. Wright just made it harder for him in the end- not the old quotes. We strained to understand and we even agreed with Wright somewhat or more than that on the particulars.. After all, I read Susan Sontag now and nod- she who said a few days after 9/11 ( albeit too soon) that our chickens have come home to roost. So it was more than the criticism that snapped us out of the message and onto to Rev. Wright himself. It was he who cloaked himself, wrapped himself and defended himself as “the black church” of which he is surely a part as Obama said, but not the whole, as he would have had us believe as he rocked back and forth on his heels, cheered by his defiant supporters in the audience ( at the press club?)

    That alienated at least this very sympathetic listener -especially right after the Bill Moyers interview which softened me considerably. It was after that interview that I realized that this was a very difficult thing to bridge “out there”. And I don’t think Obama shied away from it either until Wright took it over the top. Correct me, Wright was equating the black church with himself all the while that it was really a personal emotionally rendered falling out between two people in the public eye that I barely understand.

    I was thinking all along of Chris’s remark in that interview with M. Haynes in January about Martin Luther King- about the black church being such a treasure, an unrecognized American treasure. I wanted Chris to talk more about that and he does a little more in this interview. Perhaps Loury should interview on a follow-up.

    I have often thought in the light of what we have been blessed with, so many gifts from the black community, given harsh oppression and racism some of which filters forward to today, that the anger that has surfaced pales. It was hard for me, even in the light of that, to understand what seems to be a nurturing of victimhood, anger, even hate, in those excerpts from Wright.

  3. Sontag’s comments (“an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions”) and Wright’s sermon are only superficially similar. Wright is using 9/11 to make a theological, not political, point.

    The sermon is built around Psalm 137, which has often been used (by people like John Hagee) to claim God’s blessing in seeking revenge against enemies when they have done you grievous harm: “happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us/he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

    Wright (like Kierkegaard) says the human-created Bible is wrong. God is perfect in his love and does not sanction violence, no matter how righteous the retribution may appear to be. Revenge in an entirely human creation that only begets more violence because the other side is also going to claim righteousness.

    Wright is not saying 9/11 was justice for the sins it has committed. He’s saying that claiming divine blessing when killing human beings is blasphemy, period. That’s why God “damns” America.

  4. I am not sure that the similarity is so superficial ( ie that Sontag’s was merely political) but Amen (!) Grant to what you say about claiming divine justice for killing human beings even though it is my belief that it is still we in the name of God ( a higher consciousness) doing the damning. This is exactly what I mean about nuanced and difficult as a political message. Wright’s theological bleeds into the political here but was also too much about Wright himself in the end and too much of a message for Obama to have to deal with,the tsunami coming at him,at this time. You have to run to the electorate that you have ( to paraphrase Rumsfeld).

    I guess I have to check Kierkegaard.

  5. I worded that poorly. Wright’s sermon is political in the sense that he’s responding to and attempting to give meaning to worldly events. And it is shaped by his experience and the black experience in general. He’s offering a solution – nonviolence, pacifism – grounded in his theology. And he is making an appeal to God’s authority. But he is not, contrary to what many commentators have said, claiming that 9/11 was divine retribution/punishment for America’s sin. It was retribution from people who also believe they’re carrying out the Lord’s will. Wright believes God is above all that, and claiming God is “on our side” is like football players praying for victory and the other side’s defeat. That’s the sin of hubris.

    Sontag’s conclusion is essentially the same – that violence begets violence. But she’s starting from wholly different premises derived from her analysis of imperialism and geopolitics. I don’t think she’s advocating pacifism – just for the US to stop bigfooting around the planet if it doesn’t want to stir up violent resistance.

    I think it was wildly unfair (but probably inevitable) for the media to attribute Wright’s religious pacifism in any way to Obama (much less attribute things to Wright that he didn’t say). Obviously, Obama’s foreign policy views aren’t determined by pacifist theology or a theological reading of American history, any more than McCain’s are shaped by Rev. Hagee’s apocalyptic visions.

    Wright was operating under an entirely different “kairos,” or rhetorical situation, than a politician or pundit. He was not speaking to a general audience but to his own flock, with whom he shares a special bond and to whom he has a spiritual responsibility.

    YouTube has brought us a brave new world where the “public” can savage a defenseless community out of sheer ignorance. That’s one reason KIerkegaard hated the “public” with white-hot passion (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/PRESENT.HTM). And now so does Rev. Wright.

  6. Oops. I meant to excerpt the best part of that Kierkegaard rant:

    The Media is an abstraction (because a newspaper is not concrete and only in an abstract sense can be considered an individual), which in association with the passionlessness and reflection of the times creates that abstract phantom, the public, which is the actual leveller. . .

    More and more individuals will, because of their indolent bloodlessness, aspire to become nothing, in order to become the public, this abstract whole, which forms in this ridiculous manner: the public comes into existence because all its participants become third parties. This lazy mass, which understands nothing and does nothing, this public gallery seeks some distraction, and soon gives itself over to the idea that everything which someone does, or achieves, has been done to provide the public something to gossip about. . . .

    The public has a dog for its amusement. That dog is the Media. If there is someone better than the public, someone who distinguishes himself, the public sets the dog on him and all the amusement begins. This biting dog tears up his coat-tails, and takes all sort of vulgar liberties with his leg—until the public bores of it all and calls the dog off. That is how the public levels.

    Delicious.

  7. Amazingly modern if that is Mr. K’s. But he had no internet. not that I think the internet alone can save the world.

    The reckoning (with oneself) comes at the moment of decision:to dig into one’s pockets for support, to vote or not, for or against, all unavoidable. Not acting is also a choice. As well we can choose to try to understand the issues, the controversies and dig deep for wisdom. There is periodic evidence that the mass does just this, and doing it lately, getting more involved. “the media” is no longer what it was- we are in a sense more involved in it- like me/you here. What would Kierkegaard say today? He would possibly note pain and anxiety about “the direction we are headed” and the realization that we must come together and act, that many hope we have a moment and a way.

    Wright was operating under an entirely different “kairos,” or rhetorical situation, than a politician or pundit. He was not speaking to a general audience but to his own flock, with whom he shares a special bond and to whom he has a spiritual responsibility.

    If Wright was offering non-violence and pacifism why does he sound so angry, provoking, belligerent? Why do I feel that he stirs it up but I don’t know where he is taking it or leaving it in terms of what you do where you go when you leave the building? It is understood by those who want to understand that he was speaking to his flock and perhaps we were not meant to hear this but nevertheless it is a stretch for some. So the fact is that it was bound to and did get out to the media and test us all during this election season. But more than that we saw also the press conference a very self-serving retributive public response that in a way damned again- this time it seemed Obama ‘s candidacy.

    That said, Wright may have been doing Obama a favor in more ways than one.

    But Obama had to jettison him completely after his delicate attempt at bridging because the Reverend was not helping it was an impossible bridge for a man attempting above all to bring people together. Obama’s message is not entirely political, I read it very spiritual- or it attempts to go beyond that place where Wright seems to reside. It seems to me that Obama embodies a more inclusive message and more pacifist in nature.

    I still want to hear Chris on the treasure of the black church. I think we are missing this opening if we leave it with the worst ( interpretations) from Wright’s sound bites and last performance.

    Thank you Grant for this.

  8. Obama finally distanced himself from Wright because he became a political liability, not because of Wrights statements or actions.

    Wright said nothing that was dissimilar from the things he has been saying for the last 20 years. So I wonder why now has his words and thoughts become so objectionable to Obama? Why must he cut his ties now? Why were not these same views and opinions that Wright holds towards America, Jews and Whites in general seen as terrible and beyond acceptance 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago?

    I actually enjpy Wrights honesty. His hate for America,Jews and Whites makes it easier to see where he is coming from. Obama on the other hand seems to be masking his true feelings for the time being. Once he is elected maybe the Obama that came to love and embrace the rev Wright and his teachings will come out from behind the mask.

    As to the Black church( I didn’t know there was only one) hopefully there are many that do not have reverands that spew such hate and venom the way Wright does. Which makes Obamas choice of Wrights church all the more disconcerting.

  9. “If Wright was offering non-violence and pacifism why does he sound so angry, provoking, belligerent?”

    Because he really is angry – righteously angry (cf Martin Luther King’s Vietnam speeches – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92-r05TH9qs&feature=related). Being a pacifist does not mean one renounces anger.

    But he’s also human. I think Wright could rightly be accused of hubris for the spectacle at the Press Club. But I’m more sympathetic than most because I think he was dragged into the public spotlight and his 40-year career was shat upon unfairly by virtually the whole country.

    He didn’t ask a future presidential candidate to join his congregation. He doesn’t lead a “moral majority” fundraising scam or a Political Action Committee to lobby in Washington, like virtually all his counterparts on the right. And he wouldn’t have been defiant at the Press Club had he not been accused of everything short of pederasty (see above) by the moronic mob. He’s a preacher, not a saint. I don’t think many of us would have kept turning the other cheek.

  10. Grant: “Being a pacifist does not mean one renounces anger.”

    Well I am really angry too but I am not preaching. Preaching carries responsibility. The MLK Youtube excerpts leave me in a wholly ( and holy) different place than the Wright excerpts that I saw. I need to take more time than I have to express why.

    “But he’s also human. I think Wright could rightly be accused of hubris for the spectacle at the Press Club. But I’m more sympathetic than most because I think he was dragged into the public spotlight and his 40-year career was shat upon unfairly by virtually the whole country.”

    The Bill Moyers interview mode I think was a classier response( and Wright should have stopped there) and one that could possibly make a communication in the wider world as it did for me but you had to allow the nuance. The MLK was for everybody, simple and true.

    Wright chose his responses. For the Press Club presentation he deserved the rejection and counter responses from even those who would have otherwise stuck up for him. Bob Herbert in the NYT hit it on the head in my view.

    The “whole country” was not trashing Wright (nor to blame) any more than it trashed Howard Dean’s ( for the”scream”). In fact the whole country is the victim here too. We have been done a disservice by the media circus “feeding frenzy”. Wright walked into himself unprepared ( it seemed). And we out here are perhaps getting wise to already with the swift-boating business and all that. It’s about time- we must. Wright’s audience was never the whole country- he just didn’t fly well or know how to fly well out here.

  11. Wright is no MLK; that goes without question. MLK kept his cool in vastly more trying circumstances. And Wright makes allusions in his sermons that MLK would never have (the “chickens coming home to roost” was clearly meant to reference South Chicago “native” son Malcolm X) and his “political” critique is far more pointed.

    But despite that harder edge, the sermon is not a “kill whitey” screed as has been alleged. It does not attempt to justify the 9/11 attacks. The message is pacifist, just like MLKs, despite the fact that Wright takes a less elegant path in making it.

    Also, MLK was speaking to the nation. Wright was not. Nor was he running for office like Howie Dean. The sermon wasn’t private, but it wasn’t quite public, either. Do we know what John McCain’s pastor’s sermons sound like?. Or George Bush’s? Or Hillary Clinton’s?

    In fact, I found the interest in the sermon to be more than a little perverse and voyeuristic, despite the thin patina of news “value.”

  12. This is way over the top, but when this story broke I couldn’t help be reminded of the way Nat Turner was described in the Richmond Enquirer after the slave rebellion of 1831:

    A fanatic preacher by the name of Nat Turner (Gen. Nat Turner) who had been taught to read and write, and permitted to go about preaching in the country, was at the bottom of this infernal brigandage. He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation, that could be assigned.

  13. Grant: In fact, I found the interest in the sermon to be more than a little perverse and voyeuristic, despite the thin patina of news “value.”

    True. A lot of the news can be described as such. (Terry Schiavo)

    But with that there is or was an opportunity for deeper understanding and appreciation that was lost. It crystallized in the thin state… maybe not quite. A better take would be that the conversation began ( again) and may pick up as we get into the general election. I am troubled by the voting in W. Va and Kentucky which may be less pro-Clinton than anti- Obama for racist reasons.

    RC32- ( which is a glaze: Rhodes32) I take note in your post that you are very suspicious of Obama and sure that his true feelings are masked. I don’t think a person can mask such feelings as you describe over such a long period. I sense none of that.

  14. No argument there. Most preachers can only dream of a potential Teaching Moment of that magnitude. That was MLK’s particular genius – to jujitsu hate and prejudice into moral force.

    I blame Wright for blowing that opportunity, but I’m also pretty peeved at Obama. I think the latter completely misread where Wright and the Trinity Church more broadly is coming from.

    Obama wanted to use Wright’s phrase, “The Audacity of Hope,” as a kitschy statement about a post-racial America. But Wright doesn’t believe America is post-racial, and views what he sees as the media’s attack on him as proof. And that’s why he’s not that interested in a “national conversation about race.”

    The “Audacity of Hope” is hope in the face of knowing that the world basically sucks and that things are never really going to change. It’s a very Kierkegaardian, existential sentiment – or rather, anti-sentiment – that grew out of the disappointments, frustrations and factionalism of the post civil rights era that began with MLK’s assassination.

    Obama didn’t come to the church seeking spiritual answers; he came on Saul Alinsky’s advice that churches are good base stations for community activism. He probably did find a “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” spiritual uplift, but he only experienced it on the surface. Wright is a bluesman, more Leadbelly than Bobby McFerrin:

    Home of the brave, land of the free

    I don’t wanna be mistreated by no bourgeoisie

    […}

    I tell all the colored folks to listen to me

    Don’t try to find you no home in Washington, DC

    ‘Cause it’s a bourgeois town

  15. Potter,I don’t doubt that you feel Obama harbours no racist or anti American sentiments. Never the less that does not mean he is innocent of such feelings.

    Do I have proof? No I just have my own common sense and as so many people like to say, I just connect the dots. I find it fantastically unbelieveable that a man could participate in a church where such venom is being handed out as if it were candy at halloween. You actually think a man of Obamas intelletual capacity could belong to any organization that directed hate at so many people and not know about it?

    Would you be so generous with your good will if it was a white Republican that belonged to Aryan Nation? Of course you wouldnt. You would call it like you saw it. As would I.

    Obama has surrounded himself with people who harbour anti American feelings. His wife is a prime example, as his his friendship with former terrorist William Ayres. So do I have proof, No but he sure likes to hang around people who don’t like this country very much.

    As to your comment about racist voters in KY,and W.VA. You may be right. On the other hand would you say all the black voters who are voting for Obama based strictly on race are also racist. Let’s face it, on the issues Clinton and Obama are in almost total agreement.

    Grant. D You are correct in Obamas picking of Wrights church. Saul Alinsky has played a huge role in Obamas political life. Obama was basically agnostic before he so conveniently found God.

    This is just another reason that I feel this guy is as phoney as a three dollar bill.

  16. “Would you be so generous with your good will if it was a white Republican that belonged to Aryan Nation?”

    An unfathomably obnoxious analogy. Thanks for bringing the discussion down to carnival barker level. I can’t tell you how much I enjoy arguing with an air raid siren.

  17. Yes Grant I was just about to say the same thing- the analogy stinks. Aryan nation is not that church in the south side of Chicago. Hell no! BUT the comparison R32 gives gives away one who has not really done his homework with an unprejudiced mind before forming such a harsh opinion.

    If I were Obama I would have joined that church and stayed there all these years I think (and we really do not know what he heard or agreed with or felt) for many reasons. One reason would be to understand the black community better, a community with a different background/history than my own but to which I belong undeniably.

    Grant:

    “Obama didn’t come to the church seeking spiritual answers; he came on Saul Alinsky’s advice that churches are good base stations for community activism. He probably did find a “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” spiritual uplift, but he only experienced it on the surface. Wright is a bluesman, more Leadbelly than Bobby McFerrin”

    I like Wright as bluesman. But how would either of you ( Grant, RC32) know what Obama was seeking and what he got from that experience spiritually? I admit I have not read Obama’s book but as I said above he seems advanced to me. Contrary to RC32′s idea- you can’t fake that. But this is all based of course on my own perception of these matters.

  18. It’s not that I doubt Obama’s sincerity, or that he had a true spiritual experience at Trinity. His Philadelphia speech was masterful.

    But I think like most earnest mainstream liberals, he approaches race and faith at an intellectual level. He analyzed his experiences, made a hypothesis and drew conclusions. He concluded that people both black and white deep down are yearning to move beyond all this unpleasantness and all we really need is hope and the will to do it. It just happens that those are also excellent campaign themes.

    But the blues isn’t about the head, it’s about the heart – the wounded heart. Grace through suffering. And therein, I think, lies Wright’s complaint about “political convenience.” It’s simply not possible to run a blues-based campaign: electoral politics is about papering over contradictions and uncomfortable truths that might split various constituencies. And that’s an anathema if you believe in preaching “The Truth.”

    Wright was never interested in being a consensus-building politician, and in a way Obama drafted him against his will. I think Obama on one hand honestly believed that Wright had valuable insights that could be expressed without the angry-sounding cadence of a black preacher. But the politician in Obama also thought he could borrow some of the authenticity and gracefulness of the African American experience. But it appears that he never explicitly asked Wright whether he was willing to lend it.

  19. I also apologize about my outburst. I have no problem with someone making an argument about my hypocrisy. I’d honesty like to hear it. But I do prefer that it be an actual argument and not a throwaway line making false equivalences.

  20. Grant D. You don’t like my analogy because you are not willing to admit to the similarities between the two groups. Black liberation theology forms the core identity of Wrights church. Wright parrots much of what black theologyn Dr James H Cone has written and spoke of. Wright is also an outspoken supporter of the racist rev L Farrakahn

    If one reads about black theology and then reads about some of the beliefs of white seperatist groups, it is easy to see how they run paralel to each other in many of their teachings.

    Is Aryan nation a mirror image of Wrights church ? No. Are there striking similarities in their belief system? Yes. Would you or Potter give a white conservative who held some of these beliefs the lattitude and forgiveness that you give Wright and Obama? Hell no.

    The only obnoxious thing I find about this debate is the fact that intelligent people will perform the most incredible intellectual gymnastics so as to not have to admit to the obvious racism of a man like Wright, and the condoning of it by Obama.

  21. they run paralel to each other in many of their teachings.

    Why is it so difficult for white conservatives to grasp the intrinsic difference between a terrorist white hate group and what they believe to be a minority hate group? Even granting for the sake of argument that there is some similarity (which is for the record is complete bullshit in this case), the historical context and that makes the comparison utterly absurd and highly inflammatory.

    There’s a reasonable argument to be made that Louis Farrakhan and perhaps Jeremiah Wright are bigots or worse, and that I’m a total hypocrite for defending them. Dragging the Aryan Nations into this can only serve to convince me that you’re an ignorant troll who’s not worth any more of my time. Maybe that’s what you’re after, but there you go.

  22. RC32 – regarding racism- then why do I think you have your own version of it?

    ‘Would you or Potter give a white conservative who held some of these beliefs the lattitude and forgiveness that you give Wright and Obama? Hell no.’

    Wright and his followers deserve all the rope ( understanding) we can muster in the light of history. That is the big big difference.

  23. I needed to drag the Aryan nation into this, so that we could cut out the B. S. of defending racists like Wright and others who use past injustices to spew present day hate.

    As I said racism isn’t rocket science. You just seem to think Wright and blacks have a better reason to hate Whites than whites have to hate blacks. I see it as basically the same thing.

    By the way I like the way you phrased your opening. You state that there are terrorist white hate groups. Yet there is only groups that I believe to be minority hate groups. You can’t even admit that a minority hate group exists . I guess there is no such thing as a racist black. Once again the intellectual gymnastics.

    If calling someone an ignorant troll because they don’t agree with your world view is a way of winning arguments than so be it. You win. Maybe your not so different from the people you defend.

  24. I guess there is no such thing as a racist black.

    I said no such thing. If you want to try to make the case that Wright is a racist, or that the black liberation church is a kind of 50s-era John Birch Society, please be my guest. Who knows, I might even concede the point if you can make the case with an actual compare-and-contrast argument or something resembling insight.

    You ain’t going to get anywhere with argumentum ad hitlerum – if you can’t understand why it’s beyond the pale or you’re just trying to derail the thread. I don’t know why you persist and I really don’t care.

  25. Before this thread gets derailed and I bow out, Grant- your post of May 22nd at 5:50 pm was very much appreciated. Thanks.

  26. Potter, Wrong. Your rationalizing and excusing immoral behaviour. I’m not going to go into the long history of who is the greater victim and which group has been wronged more by society.

    There is no valid reason for excusing hate or minimizing it’s cause.

    Grant D. I don’t need to make a case that Wright is a racist. He has done a far better job of it than I could ever hope to.

    By the way did you know that according to the teachings of Dr Cone and black theology, there is no such thing as a racist black,only whites can be racist. There you have it the argument is over.

  27. Potter my version of racism is very simple.

    A person or group of people that dislikes another person or group of people based on skin color or ethnicity.

    I don’t get into giving one group or person more rope as you would say because of their skin color. I work with and oversee people of all nationalities and races. Once you start favoring one group over another or one person over another because of their skin color than you are discriminating against all others.

    Most people I know would prefer to be treated the same as everyone else. No special considerations needed or given.

  28. RC32-21 Correction on this mischaracterization and my final:

    “I don’t get into giving one group or person more rope as you would say because of their skin color.”

    Potter actually said here:

    “Wright and his followers deserve all the rope ( understanding) we can muster in the light of history. That is the big big difference.”

    You could not be ignorant of this history, where racism towards skin color comes from and it’s effect. No you could not.

  29. No potter I understand racism and the effect it has had on black culture. I also understand two wrongs don’t make a right. If rev Wright was discriminated against or treated poorly by segments of the white community,as I’m sure he was,than I can understand his hatred of whites. (I still don’t get the jew hating,I guess thats just the in thing these days) I actually have no problem with it,

    What I don’t like is the way many people try and disquise what it really is. HATE, or at the very least a strong dislike.

    I had a problem logging on to the forum so I had to change my username.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>