Why Wright is sabotaging Obama—an African perspective

African Lady writes:

The problem Barack has with black leaders such as the Rev. Wright is that he failed to understand them.

When reading his book, “Dreams from my Father,” I was repeatedly moved to tears by the deep love and respect that Barack has for black people everywhere (Africa or America). By the way, it is very easy to miss that part of him in the book because of his dry and unemotional writing style.

Barack sees religious meaning in the black American experience, and so he sees black Americans as a special people of meaning to humankind, because they continue to suffer and endure under the yoke of racism and poverty. I think this is similar to how some Jews see their suffering through the ages.

Barack sees himself as the savior of his people (his name means blessed one in Swahili), a leader who will elevate black people from their despair—not via the rhetoric of black militancy (which he has contempt for), but via the old fashioned way, hard work. Barack is no slacker, and he sees political and social activism within the American political framework as the means for black empowerment. He really is no radical. Barack wanted to show and teach black Americans that white racism can indeed be defeated, and that black and white reconciliation is possible, and that yes, he, Barack Obama, the son of an African man can be elected to the highest office in the land.

Well there was one problem. Barack did not understand that many black Americans like Wright cling to their status of perpetual angry victims. The Wrights of black America have no intention of being “emancipated” by the likes of Barack, a newcomer who is not even really “black” in the real sense!

I can tell you that the tiny African immigrant community in the U.S. are not at all surprised that Wright is sabotaging Barack Obama . Many of us knew all along that black Americans would ruin it for Barack Obama. Turns out we were right.

I for one am enraged at how his candidacy has been destroyed by “one of his own.” On the other hand, I am also relieved that he will not be president, because it would have been too painful to watch the ugliness of black American militancy his presidency would have unleashed.

Black America does not deserve a great leader like Obama. They still have a lot of growing up to do. It is shocking that Barack did not realize this.

- end of initial entry -

Jonathan Silber writes:

Regarding the comment posted at your site today by African Lady, about the sabotage of Obama and his campaign by his pastor and mentor of twenty years Jeremiah Wright: I understand her to say that Obama, being himself no slacker, means to improve the lives of American blacks through old-fashioned hard work.

Is this work to be performed by Obama himself, or by the blacks in need of uplifting and improvement? And where in his writings or public comments has he said any such thing?

From the excerpts I read from his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia—I’ve not read it in its entirety—and from the accounts of others, I understood him to say, in effect, that it is white Americans who have more work to do: white Americans who, still being racists, need to indulge the angry, hateful behavior of American blacks towards them, and to give blacks more of their money and more special treatment. Am I mistaken in this understanding of mine?

Also, I would enjoy learning from African Lady her opinion, and the general opinion of black emigrants from Africa, of American blacks; and her opinion of life in America as compared to life back in the part of Africa from which she came.

LA replies

Yes, that was the unmistakable meaning of Obama’s Philadelphia speech, as I discussed here. Contrary to the belief of African Lady and most other people, Obama’s message about racial reconciliation, which would obviously imply an end of black victimology and white-guilt mongering, is not his real message. His real message, revealed in his Philadelphia speech, is that blacks are justified in hating America as Wright does, and will be continue to be so justified until America’s racial problems are solved, and that solving these problems is solely the responsibility of whites.

In that speech, Obama revealed himself as a standard white-guilt hustler, underneath his shiny veneer.

Steven Warshawsky writes:

I respectfully disagree with African Lady’s analysis regarding Reverend Wright and Barack Obama.

First, she completely ignores that Rev. Wright is Obama’s own “spiritual advisor” and the leader of the black racialist church that Obama and his family have attended for many years (not to mention have donated tens of thousands of dollars to). That is the reason Rev. Wright’s ridiculous and racist rhetoric is damaging Obama’s candidacy.

Second, Obama still has not repudiated Rev. Wright in a clear and definitive manner. For example, during Obama’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday last weekend, he could not (or would not) identify a single concrete example of any of the “controversial” statements made by Rev. Wright that Obama says he heard and rejected. Not a one! Obama may be “cool” and “articulate” on the outside, but he has given the public no reason to believe that he does not share Rev. Wright’s twisted world view.

Lastly, Obama plainly is not a believer in improving oneself and one’s community “via the old fashioned way, hard work.” Obama is a firm believer in the modern liberal (socialist) creed of “social justice,” i.e., taking from the capable, productive, law-abiding members of society and giving to the poor, lazy, and destructive members of society. He supports affirmative action in education and employment; he supports sharply “progressive” taxation; he supports expanded “social programs”; he supports “reform” of the criminal justice system; etc. etc. Indeed, almost by definition, anyone who (in African Lady’s words) “sees political and social activism within the American political framework as the means for black empowerment” is not a believer in hard work and “old fashioned” values. Like Rev. Wright, Obama is a taker, not a builder; a destroyer, not a defender. The only difference is that Rev. Wright’s chosen realm is religion; Obama’s, politics.

African Lady replies:

To clarify some points in response to everyone’s comments:

My understanding from his book is that Barack believes that the way for black self respect and empowerment is through the hard work of old-fashioned participatory politics and social activism which, he believes, will translate to economic opportunities for black people in the private and public sector.

He also believes that black radicalism and its anti-white rhetoric is a lazy excuse for blacks to be politically inactive and withdraw from the greater society. Instead he believes that blacks should reach out to white Americans and form coalitions to fight the greedy corporations for their common interests.

Barack does not expect whites to indulge the angry hateful behavior of American blacks towards them because he himself does not approve of the angry hateful behavior of black radicalism. He makes that reasonably clear in his book when he wrote that he considers black radicalism as immoral and corruptive. He calls black radicalism “one more feeder of fantasy, one more mask for hypocrisy, one more excuse for inaction” (page 203). He was concerned that anti-white rhetoric damages the efforts of coalition building and caused emotional pain to other people i.e. white people (page 203).

He does believe that white America still has to do more to help disadvantaged blacks, and so yes that makes him a modern liberal believer of social justice. That does not make him a destroyer or a taker or a white guilt hustler in my opinion.

I do agree with Mr. Warshawsky on one very point with regard to Obama which I would like to add to. Given his history with a radical like Rev. Wright, he should have come out very early on in his campaign (before Wright became an issue) and denounced black anti-Americanism and anti-whiteism in the same way he strongly denounced black homophobia a few months back to a black congregation. He should have let both white and black Americans know his true beliefs and not assume that everyone is going to read his difficult book to decipher his ultimate positions on race.

Barack needs to find his voice.

LA replies (April 30):

African Lady writes: “My understanding from his book is that Barack believes that the way for black self respect and empowerment is through the hard work of old-fashioned participatory politics and social activism.”

African Lady seems unaware of the contradiction in Obama’s position that she is approvingly citing. Hillary makes the same contradictory statement. Obama and Hillary, trying to sound like regular Americans, talks about the virtues of hard work, of never giving up, etc. But the “hard work” they’re talking about is the “hard work” of getting government programs passed to give people money! Their paeans to hard work and self-reliance actually signify the opposite of hard work and self reliance. It’s a typical leftist fraud, by which leftists appropriate non-leftist language to advance leftist purposes.

As for Obama criticizing black radicalism, the truth is that he devoutly attended one of the most radical, anti-American black churches in America for 20 years without a word of protest. I think we can now definitely state that Obama is a liar. I cannot remember anyone telling lies of the scale of his lies—lying about his whole life, presenting himself as the opposite of what he really is.

As for Obama and white guilt, Obama clearly stated in his Philadelphia speech that Wright-style demonization of whites is understandable, until whites end racial inequality. Since it’s impossible for whites to end racial inequality, Obama is justifying black demonization of America to the end of time.

African Lady writes (6:30 p.m. April 29):

Barack finally found his voice! I just listened to his speech denouncing Wright. Yeah!

Jim N. writes:

African Lady writes: “Barack sees religious meaning in the black American experience, and so he sees black Americans as a special people of meaning to humankind, because they continue to suffer and endure under the yoke of racism and poverty.”

It’s hard to empathize with Obama’s alleged reverence for American blacks, when their “yoke of poverty and racism” today is largely self-imposed. Black people in America have been given every opportunity to join the mainstream culture and in large numbers have refused. It’s not just the Reverend Wrights who are perpetual victims, it is the ghetto blacks in general. They insist upon maintaining their own language, their own music, etc. (all of it deriving from, and reflecting the mentality of, slaves and slavery), not as a collective memory of their heritage the way other American ethnic groups do, but as a sign of defiance. The Reverend Wrights are simply the mouthpieces for such people. The Wrights exacerbate things, true, and no doubt put ideas in peoples’ heads that would not be there otherwise, but in the end they merely give voice to many (most?) American blacks’ apparent desire—sans any requirement of obedience—to remain on the plantation forever, in the care of Massa Whitey.

In the end, I suspect Obama suffers from a similar problem to McCain: he is unable to reconcile competing loyalties and form their political expressions into a coherent philosophy. He’s a bit schizophrenic, in other words. The black part of him requires that he play the black identity politics of the ghetto blacks (since only ghetto blacks are “authentic” blacks), while the white part of him forbids it. Thus, we end up with what you, Larry, and others have suggested: a standard message of black defiance, wrapped up in a nice, white-friendly Yalie package designed to obfuscate it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Send