Obama "enhances" Grandmother Story

[southern fox]

How is my first comment remotely bigoted? That anyone could think that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't profited from racism is beyond belief. Explain to me how I'm misinformed?

I’ll repost it:

The truth is black leaders need racism to exist to further their power.

My friend, the answer is simple. You have blanketed all members of an ethnicity, and all leadership positions therein, behind highly visible, symbolic, and controversial figures that you have fixated negatively upon. Essentially, implicating that black leaders need racism as a straw man in order to qualify for positions of leadership – as if affirmative action and whining about race is necessary because of some inherent shortcoming. Its an oversimplification that buries the individuality of people in preference for generalized simplicity and satisfaction of a preconception. To turn it around, would it be bigoted for a black man to claim that white leaders are greedy, secretive, and prone to cheating others based on symbolic business leaders like Ken Lay or Jeffrey Skilling, or any other of the myriad of corporate elite engulfed in scandal during the Bush years?

I never said Obama said it was white man's fault.

You essentially did, by implication:

He's a passive bigot or at the least a con man willing to work both sides of this issue. Most of us are in the middle and get along fine. I'm white. I have no issues with blacks, hispanics, or anyone else. But I do have an issue with being told it's all my fault. Well, it's not my fault. Black, white, brown, you can kiss my ass if you expect me to go out of my way to kiss someone's ass for something I didn't do.

Obama never blames anyone or any race. He asks us to look inward – and by “us”, he explicitly means all races. I have to say also, that the content of Obama’s speech is diametrically opposed to the summarization that you have provided by the last sentence. Have you read the transcript?

Perhaps I was a little harsh to call him bigoted.

A little harsh? Off the radar.

The fact that he's willing to coddle the racist vote is enough for me to understand he represents something I cannot condone

How is Obama seeking out the “racist vote”?

Denounce Wright and don't turn around and qualify it with a "but you know...." Wright had NO point. He's a bigot.

Wright made highly inflammatory and grossly unintelligent comments.

But, you know…. as Obama and others connected to the theological community has said, Wright is in fact a three-dimensional human being. That does not justify what he has said, but it’s a gross oversimplification of his decades-long ministry, that has generally not been racist, and has done great deeds for the urban poor. Obama’s speech insists that its important to seek out the origins of Wright’s outburst of anger rather than to simply dismiss him as a caricature of black racism. And not just Wright’s anger, but the American racial preconceptions and quiet resentments that are underneath people of all races towards other races, which have traceable and justifiable origins. Obama took the issue and made a frank appraisal of why certain large elements of the black community have anger towards the government, and why resentment still exists in many areas of the urban black poor. Often, blacks feel left behind and walled in, even if the Civil Rights Movement has had tremendous triumphs. Obama did not stop there, explaining why resentment exists in the white and immigrant poor, and how affirmative action has had a serious and deleterious effect on white/immigrant relations to blacks ( “…as far as they are considered, they have never been handed anything”). His perceptions on the catalysts of the Reagan Coalition, and the ire of conservative commentators are extremely keen. He even touches on how major media sources dig for evidence of racial divides in order to keep the news interesting (a bias towards sensationalism, and keeping ratings up).

The statement on Sunday mornings being the most segregated hour in the United States is highly accurate. Lets face it, there are serious racial divides in the different types of churches, even if both sides have no particular active hostility towards the other. I'm sure that white church-goers would have been welcome in the room in Wright's church – but they just don't go. There is a racial divide that Wright is fixated on, and angry at. Obama is dead-on in saying that this negativity osmosis is a terrible and reprehensible strategy in confronting the issue.

Obama can't disown a man who has been his friend and pastor with for 20 years no more than we could in his shoes. He may be opposed to everything that Wright said, but he can't do anything more than he already has done. Obama can only condemn and denounce Wright's words. After all, rejecting the valid existence of Wright's anger does no justice to the real issues that created Wright's harshness.

That Obama thinks we need a public dialog about race disturbs me because the backdrop he comes from is from the perspective of Wright.

Obama comes from an multi-racial genetic background, and grew up in the suburbs of Hawaii, and partly in Indonesia. He has no bloodline origins from former slaves that I know of. His father was an immigrant from Kenya, and his mother a white woman from Kansas. He attended Harvard, and had a decently-paying job as a lawyer and professor.

He could hardly be more different from the childhood and backdrop of Wright.

We're simply tired of being told that if 'we're black we need to be pissed at white people and if we're white we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Obama emphasizes how wrong it is to do exactly this – blame people.

Nevermind that millions of whites in this country were born of immigrants who weren't even HERE when slavery took place.

Obama does a pretty good job emphasizing this exact point. Again I ask, did you actually see the speech in its entirety?

You seem to have the impression that the speech was a tirade against whites, when in fact it was a highly balanced appraisal of racial relations. Its best to rely on primary sources and calm analytical sources as opposed to highly opinionated and angry talking heads that make up much of the American media.