This is a response to the Rev. Rick Wright, pastor of Church of the Nations in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Church of the Nations partners with the CBF-affiliated University Baptist Church in Baton Rouge. Wright’s ministry is with internationals. Wright blogs at Live The Trinity
His most recent post is titled:“The child who cried ‘racist’” (or) For the sake of all the “racism” accusations must stop *now*
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how to leave a comment on Wright’s blog. So, I will comment on his argument, point-by-point below.
Here’s Wright:
Now is the time for all people of good will - liberal and conservative Republican and Democrat libertarian and statist “person of color” and white educated and not-so-much rich and poor of every political persuasion of every ethnicity of every socio-economic stratum of every whatever - to stand up and say:
“No more! No more shall we use the charge of ‘racism’ or ‘racist’ against those who disagree with us!”
Sorry. Ain’t happening. I DO NOT believe that we should be throwing around loaded labels like “racist” around all willy-nilly. To do so is irresponsible and downright reckless. But it would also be irresponsible to throw out the term in order to play nice with those who disagree with us. There are real racists out there. To quote a MTV pop-star from my generation, You Are What You Are. And there ARE many real racists out there peddling their hate. There is no need to drop these terms from our vocabulary. If the shoe fits….
Wright continues:
At first I was angry. Angry with people like Maureen Dowd and former president Jimmy Carter and a host of others - too many of them Christians who should know better. Playing with the word “racism” like two teenagers playing with a loaded gun. Because someone is going to get hurt. Using the word without any justification that I can determine. And so far as I can determine for no other reason that to demonize marginalize and silence the opposition.
…I concede that there really are some people who just cannot stand a (mostly) black president. (I admit I have not met any yet.)
…I was comfortable expressing in public my disagreements with President Bush. But now we dare not speak our opinion. Because we know someone will label us a “racist”. And end permanently the conversation.
…America elected Barack Obama president. A majority of white Americans voted for him. If President Obama is not re-elected (which is becoming increasingly probable) then what will you say? That people voted against him because of racism? Then how and why did they for him in the first place?
First, Wright is wrong. Barack Obama DID NOT win the white vote last November. Perhaps Wright heard this canard on talk-radio and didn’t bother to fact-check before including this false stat in his blog post? I don’t know. Obama won the election with 53 percent of the vote. However, only 43 percent of the white electorate, meaning ALL white voters, cast their ballots for Obama. So, no, “a majority of white Americans” did not vote for Barack Obama….
Second, I strongly strongly disagree with Wright’s assertion that people are using the word “racist” without any justification. Watched the news lately? Seen the signs? Go to a Town Hall back in August? Dropped in on a Tea Party? Based on what I’ve seen on my Samsung and experienced in person at a recent Town Hall meeting and Tea Party, I believe there is MORE THAN ENOUGH justification for me to determine that race is a motivating factor in the outrage and anger being expressed among *some* conservatives.
I do find it somewhat odd that Wright has not met an individual who is bothered by the fact that our President is black. Granted, I currently don’t spend much time around folks willing to express their racist sentiments, if they have any. Drop by a parking lot full of SEC tailgaters this weekend and you’ll hear at least a couple racist Obama jokes. Guaranteed. This is not to suggest that *all* or *most* would tell such jokes or even laugh at them. However, such jokes are told by *some* and *many* will indeed laugh. We’re talking about the South - the South that Jimmy Carter grew up in and the South that I know too well.
Thirdly, why the need to identify Barack Obama as a mostly black President? Obama identifies as a black man. Mostly? Obama himself has said:
“I identify as African-American - that’s how I’m treated and that’s how I’m viewed. I’m proud of it.”
One more quote from Wright:
Some have employed the tactic of imparting “racism” to anyone who disagrees with President Obama. They say “many people just cannot stand the idea of a black president”.
Um… that is a lie.
Who are these *some* who have charged racism against ANYONE who disagrees with Obama? ANYONE? And how do you define the word “many” ? There are definitely MORE THAN A FEW!!! people out there in the public square who frankly take issue with the fact that our President is black.
And Jimmy Carter was not wrong when he told Emory University students earlier today that:
“When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds…I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.”
Do I think that the overwhelming majority of the people opposed to President Obama’s policies are motivated by racism? Absolutely Not.
But clearly there are MORE THAN A FEW who do oppose our President who are indeed motivated by racism. Racism might not be the sole factor driving their opposition but it is indeed a factor.
Listen and observe. It’s obvious.
Related posts:
- God’s Warriors and Jimmy Carter’s Aphorism It’s impossible for a Fundamentalist to admit that He...
- Jimmy Carter Meets With Southern Baptist Bloggers From Associated Baptist Press ATLANTA (ABP) — Former President Jimmy...
- New Baptist Covenant and President Jimmy Carter Here’s my Recap of President Carter’s speech which you should...
- Anti-Obama Fundamentalist Baptist Pastor Visited By U.S. Secret Service According to Mike Brooks, CNN Security Analyst, the pastor of...
- Tea Party Racism: An Evangelical Ex-Congressman and A Southern Baptist Pastor Speak Speaking at the National Tea Party Convention, former United States...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I agree with you and President Carter. The racist overtones are very hard to miss. The Rev. hasn’t been watching or listening very closely, if he actually believes what he is saying.
Carter is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong.
1. Does racism still exist in the US? Yes.
2. Is every white racist in the US greatly bothered by the election of President Obama? Yes.
3. Are the signs mentioned by Carter racist signs? Yes.
4. Were Congressman Wilson’s comments in the joint session racist? Not at all. Not one bit. No.
5. Did Carter apply the term “racist” to the (genuinely) racist sign-toters in one breath and then mix in Wilson’s comments in the next breath under the same subject? You bet he did, and he was wrong to do so.
6. Is the “overwhelming portion” of opposition to Obama in the US right now of a racist nature? No. There are a great many LIBERALS unhappy with Obama in the recent past. And we know that people from the North and people from the Democratic Party are never racists.
7. Did Carter use the words “overwhelming portion” in describing who were the racists among us? Yes he did. I think that he employed a few “weasel words” later in the statement to give himself vague room to back out of the clear implications of his statement (that most of the people who oppose Obama from the right are racists), but the force of his comment ran contrary to your own statement: “Do I think that the overwhelming majority of the people opposed to President Obama’s policies are motivated by racism? Absolutely Not.” If Weaver is right, Carter is wrong. And we all know that, in this forum anyway, Weaver is always right.
Yessireee, we live in a racist world. But the Clintons took it on the chin for advancing the same agenda that is earning so much bad polling for Obama these days. They wised up and moved dramatically to the right. May he do likewise.
BTW, I’m not convinced that the President didn’t actually lie during his address, at least as regards abortion funding in the health care legislation as it presently stands amended. I heard a pro-life DEMOCRAT say much the same on the radio yesterday.
Very timely topic. Thanks for the forum to discuss.
Regarding abortion funding:
During Obama’s address to Congress, he repeatedly referred to “my proposal” and “my health care proposal.” But it seems that Obama’s “proposal” is at least different in same ways than the House bill. So, I expect Obama to keep his promises relating to abortion/immigration.
I do blame him for not taking control and providing more leadership. If he doesn’t step-it-up, he’ll have only himself to blame next election.
Back to abortion, I’m sure you’ve seen the BP op-ed on the abortion reduction bill and the Gushee/Hunter/Sider ABP op-ed response. I’m obviously supportive of Gushee’s position. But I can sympathize with those who don’t want more money going to Planned Parenthood.
It’s unfortunate that the largest abortion provider in America is also the nation’s leading (non-abortion) reproductive health care provider. Something like only 3% of total services at Planned Parenthood involve surgical and medical abortions. This topic would probably make for a good blog post, I’m sure.
Thanks BDW (or should I call you Aaron?) for taking the time to compose a response. I am genuinely sorry you have trouble leaving a comment. I thought it was as simple as “register, leave comment”. William has been able to - but perhaps I am missing something.
Rather than some huge rebuttal let me begin by conceding some of your points.
1) I stand corrected on the election results. And given your background and expertise have no reason to question your correction. Thank you.
2) Yeah… that opening statement was overstated and I actually knew that. Perhaps I should have been careful to qualify it with something like, “we will not throw the charge of ‘racism’ willy nilly against those who disagree with us”. Do remember this point - will come back to it in a bit. (And yet later I point out that careless use of the word “racism” when we are confronted by real racists. So I was not suggesting it be thrown out - not if you take the article as a whole.)
3) If President Obama does not bother with “mostly” then I should not either. That is a fine point. (I could explain where that came from - but to what end?)
4) It seems you are concerned about a lack of precision on my part. “Some” and so on.
4b) (added after I already designated #5) And I will concede even that amidst the protesters and tea parties and what not there is enough justification to argue that… (pay attention now)… *some* of the president’s critics are racially motivated.
Okay. Shifting gears:
5) I appreciate your care in trying to be precise with “no not *everyone* who disagrees with the president”. But I do have to ask you frankly, “Did Jimmy Carter qualify his sweeping generalization? Did Maureen Dowd?” You ask me to supply specifics. Let me ask you for specifics. Which high profile politicians or commentators were careful to say “I think a *minority* of these protesters/dissenters are motivated by racism”? (In the quote you provide Mr Carter does not qualify his generalization. If you employ extreme/inflammatory images or rhetoric… it’s cuz you are a racist. Not because you are an ill-mannered boor.) Why do so many “conservatives” think anyone who disagrees with the president on anything has been accused of being racist? (I bet you have an answer that.) Is *every* conservative writer, blogger, commentator, politician so amazingly wrong about this? I guess they have missed the careful qualifications as well…?
6) See - that’s the problem. I can concede “well okay I guess more people cannot stand the idea of a black president than I thought”. (Apparently I hang out with the wrong crowds.) Which leaves you affirming what I think is a more important point: that most people do not like what the president has been saying and doing (for the sake of precision “most of…”) for reasons that have nothing to do with race.
7) So why are we not talking about those reasons? (And - to be fair - the reasons *for* the president’s words, deeds, and proposals. The surge in hubbub about “racist motives” has detracted attention from the president’s agenda hasn’t it?) Why are we spending most of our time and energy on the racist motivations of the president’s critics? (I hope you have an answer for that.)
9) Cool. Glad we appear to agree. At least on the bigger issue(s). Even if I am wrong in terms of precision, checking a fact, qualifying my own generalizations.
Ah. I see the problem. There is no way to register! And I cannot find the widget that allows it. Might have to use a different theme…
Actually, I’ve tried to comment on your blog several times from two different computers. When I click “Login” under “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of each post, I am redirected (forwhatever reason) to (http://livethetrinity.net/wp-login.php?) which appears to be the unique address for your own personal wordpress blog. At least, that’s how I log in to update my own blog at (http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/wp-login). I’m no tech geek but I’m pretty sure that my browser shouldn’t be redirecting me to that address. Oh well.
I guess that I am concerned with precision. I’m not always precise myself but precision does matter especially when the subject matter is so serious. From your blog posts and old comments at BL.com, I’d say that you are usually concerned with precision as well.
I don’t particularly think the burden is on me to demonstrate which high profile politicians said what. From the birthers to the school address to these health care protests, “race” and “racism” have been a popular topic in the media for quite a while now. This didn’t begin with comments from Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter. If I were Carter, I would have tried to be more precise with my words. However, I share his sentiment and do not necessarily believe that he is wrong.
I really do not believe, though, that we can not ignore the racists and the racist messages that are being pushed in the public square. If we do, I fear that this *milder* form of racism will be mainstreamed and become more acceptable to society. I’m also not for ignoring deplorable behavior/speech in order to not detract further attention from this Administration’s agenda. So, I’m going to call a spade a spade. But I’m not going to call everyone who opposes Obama’s policies a spade…
I’ll conclude with a few more interesting tidbits. Granted, I didn’t fact-check these yet which I just saw on MSNBC. I know that MSNBC is likely to You what Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio is to Me. According to MSNBC,
Obama won 10% of the white vote in Alabama, 11% of the white vote in Mississippi and 14% of the white vote in Louisiana. Hard to get a majority of white votes nationally with numbers like those!
Thanks for the response.
At the risk of “thread drift”… “Leave reply” redirects to login so that you (not just me) can login as a “registered” user of the blog. If you are registered, you put in name/password and should be good to go. I will test it with a dummy account. (My blog has occasionally been hacked or royally pounded with spam - so no comments without registering and logging in. Seems to help.)
And thanks for the follow up.
I tried that. I have a wordpress account for this blog (bigdaddyweave.wordpress.com); username bigdaddyweave and it didn’t work either. If you find that your dummy account works, I may need to see about registering for a new wordpress account or something.
*Warning! Thread drift continues!*
Oooooooh now I get it.
I host the blog *myself* - so it will not recognize an account with Google, WordPress, TypePad, and so on. Nothing wrong with your account! The dummy test worked - so one can *register*, login, comment.
Dang! Mystery solved.
From the same MSNBC source, Obama received 26% of the white vote in South Carolina. 30% in the South as a whole.
Again, Jimmy Carter is why I shudder at the “New Baptist” Covenant.
Notice Aaron trying to defend Obama’s “reduce the number of abortions” lie.
Would you settle for a reduction of deadly racial attacks?
Never!
It’sthis kind of hipocresy that has made “moderate” baptists an endangered species…
President Carter has issued a high profile, inflammatory opinion on the unknowable and unquantifiable. If it’s led to any good result, I don’t see it.
President Obama seems to be trying to distance himself from it, as are others.
Re Obama’s plan. Where is it? Can we read it? Not the speech, not the promises — the plan, the proposal.
Can’t find exactly what President Obama said, but here’s how he reacted when NY Gov. David Paterson raised racism:
‘The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama’s advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.’ (NYT)
As a Southern Baptist pastor who went to a tea party and to two town hall meetings in Oklahoma, I did not see any evidence of racism. President Carter has once again embarrassed us and I for one wish he would fade off into the sunset. If you like him so much, you can have him.
Let me ask you a question. All 77 counties in Oklahoma went for McCain. That has never happened before. Does that make Oklahoma a racist state? No, we are conservative and we abhore Obama’s policies. Plain and simple. No color noted!
Brother BDW,
Jimmy is simply seizing an easy political opportunity. He’s tired and living in the past. He could do much better than shout out this vast minority position. He has just got into the stationwagon with the other 10 guys shouting the same line.
Prejudice will always be a factor in life …period.
What he did was simply wrong and offers no solutions IMHO.
Blessings,
Chris
It does not follow that if one speaks of one issue that one believes it to be the sole issue that is related to one’s object of concern. Many understand that an outcome is the result of multiple factors that operate additively and perhaps interactively (with the latter intensifying otherwise modest effects), each with varying degrees of intensity among various populations. Carter has a good bit of historical research to support his assertions.
Brother BDW,
The sitting President of the United States of American disagrees with your title and Carter as well…..at least he does as of today.
Blessings,
Chris
oops America,..not American
Obama, as is reported, does not like to address issues of race, given his two attempts (i.e., Wright, Boston) faciliated much criticism from the right, which he can ill-afford at the moment; thus where he can (and this is ‘a where he can moment,’ he seeks to minimize said concerns and allow others the lead. Nonetheless, that he ‘does not’ agree does not negate the point Carter was making, nor the literature that supports his assertion.
BDid and Rick Wright:
Both of you could learn a lot from Kari Friedrickson and Bryant Simon on the race and class politics of South Carolina in the collection Jumpin’ Jim Crow.
That said I take the position of President Clinton last night on Larry King and then President Obama on Letterman on the matter.
I came out of my chair when Clinton mentioned the SC Primary 2000 as indicative of the politics that shape Joe Wilson.
And for the record for both of you to chew on here is what Lee Atwater said in memo to Reagan/Bush in 84
In the South you have 3 groups the old Bourbon Dems, now reliably Country Club Republicans; the Blacks, reliably Democrats; and the White Populists.
The WP’s resent the wealth and power of the CC GOPPERS but still hold antipathy toward the blacks.
They are the “trump Card” in the game of politics of the South.
Joe Wilson knows that in his guts as does Mark Sanford close Furman friends Chip Campsen and his sister.
I know these people. I know South of Broad in Charleston, some of them great folks not like Wilson at all, but I know them.
And Stephen Colbert comes from the same place as well.
Read Jumpn Jim Crow. To the degree you don’t read JJC, is the degree to which you are ignorant on the matter; both of you.
Even so, BDid, countin on you to make sure Stewart Newman is honored at Baylor in couple weeks for one of the greatest and purest Baptist statements of the 20th Century when he said: WA Criswell does not speak for me.
Get that in the Baylor conference historical record.
Fox, let’s be clear on what Clinton said so that when one seems to suggest the assertion of “BDid” is in need of revision, one will be, instead, less forthcoming with such a suggestion.
the essence of Clinton 1: black or white, people would oppose health care reform, thus the issue is not driven by race as a main effect.
the essence of Clinton 2: race can, however, intensify the opposition to health care. whereas race may not be a main effect, it can be a moderating issue, nonetheless. and this is the essence of “BDid” and Carter, alike, and vetted scholarship.
Fox, i live in SC. Carter is not without a point, nor is “BDid” lacking one, either.
Re Clinton 2: Race can intensify anything, anywhere. Most public schoolchildren know this. But media has inflated this angle out of all proportion.
A balanced discussion of factors “of varying degree of intensity” would be welcome, rather than the tunnel-visioned “how much are Republicans, conservatives, tea-partiers, Joe Wilson, and/or people who opposethe Obama agenda motivated by racism” - palooza.
Actually, it would be fun to quantify. Add up the tea party and town hall attendance estimates around the country, cut it by half just to be safe (denominator); then add up the number of racial signs and statements or incidents
attributable to Obama opponents (numerator). Multiply the numerator times 100 for the anger factor. Find the fraction. Wholly artificial, and just as unhelpful.
K Gray: … Most … schoolchildren know this.
bapticus hereticus: yet it seems many adults do not given their denial. hooray for the children.
Lets also recognize that many who voted for Obama, did so expressing racist motives.
‘It’s time for a black president’
‘We don’t need another white guy for president’
and similar, are all racist comments.
To vote for someone because of his color is racist.
Do you agree?
Joe: To vote for someone because of his color is racist. Do you agree?
bapticus hereticus: I don’t accept the question, either in its positive or negative form.
BH,
You can pretend people don’t vote for or against a candidate because of color, but they do anyway.
So ‘not accepting the question’ is kinda like sticking one’s head in the sand, isn’t it?
Joe: BH, You can pretend people don’t vote for or against a candidate because of color, but they do anyway. So ‘not accepting the question’ is kinda like sticking one’s head in the sand, isn’t it?
bapticus hereticus: That people voted or not voted for Obama because of his race is not sufficient reason for calling one a racist. More information is needed. And let’s also acknowledge that the playing field in this country is not level when one considers majority and minority status, thus similar behaviors may in fact be driven by different motivations. Furthermore, one may engage in a racist behavior and not be a racist. Unless it can be demonstrated that a pattern of behavior and attitudes is operative, we need to be a bit more judicious in claiming that one’s state of being is that of racist. It does not follow that if one is voting for one that one must be voting against the other, although that may be the case.
Two qualified candidates with competing, yet legitimate programs, one white, one black. US history has only produced white presidents, and never a black president. If the deciding vote is for the black candidate given such may likely provide greater balance in our shared governance ideal, one is not racist for acting on said belief, and it does not follow that one is saying one is voting against the white because one hates whites.
The same candidates, but given the system will not follow the black person, thus the white person votes white, not because one opposes black people, but rather one fears that nothing will be accomplished with a black leader at this time. Whereas the effect may be the same as if one were actually a racist, the motivation is plausibly supportable on short-term pragmatic grounds, even if in the long-run said decision is revealed to be ignorant and anti-utilitarian.
ok, BH, let’s be clear then.
If someone voted for John McCain because he was the white candidate, what would you call that?
I have explained such above. If there is a point -you- would like to make, I am listening.