i read about 53 1/2 blogs a day. all about the u.s. democratic primary. i kinda skip mccain and nader blogs ... just not as riveting to me. i am admittedly obssessed and addicted to this 2008 political contest.
i even read pro-clinton blogs cuz i like to see how those human beings think and process info.
well there are a few nagging loose ends about rev wright that i think are dangling ... and obscuring clear vision ... the way a loose strand of hair gets in the faces of people who have straight hair or stray hairs ... but anyway
1) rev wright's sermons should not be discussed by anyone who has not seen the entire sermon -- i have heard some say that context is an 'excuse' used by pro-obama supporters. but context is neither partisan nor does it convey preferential treatment. it merely is. it is intellectually lazy to divorce speech (or anything else) from its context. however, language in particular cannot be taken out of context. it is ALWAYS context that defines the language in play (i challenge you to do your own research). take the example of the word "that". which "that" is she talking about?
that 'that' or the other 'that'. well, maybe i'm talking about
that one over there (don't get me started on there). over where? oh, you mean the person to whom i am speaking would have to be standing right next to me to understand what i mean by that? and this is not some indirect advocacy for bill clinton's is 'is' redefinitions. this is based on linguistic study i did once upon a time at grad school that i never imagined would have any real life impact on the real world. but 'that' and 'this' cannot be taken out of context.
well, before we get to the specific words rev wright issued let's try a less vague example. for all of you who are hard to persuade. let's take the word 'brother.' i would use nigga but that's very controversial ... so when a black man calls another black man whom he is not related to 'brother,' does it mean brother in the sibling sense? perhaps you would have to know the context of the situation: how are the two men connected to each other? in my hypothetical example they do not share any blood as it turns out. so here we see if we audio or videotaped their convo - splicing the word brother - we might assume ... that they did share at least one parent. never mind that the way in which 'brother' is defined here arises from the
context of a specific black experience.
does the same word have the same meaning in a different context? let's say a white man comes in a restaurant that uh sells
cheese and he approaches a black male salesperson by saying "hey, hook it up brudda" (and the white man puts extra emphasis on the 'dd' as opposed to the 'th' and he is sure to leave off the -er). how does the white man mean 'brother'? and how does his audience (of one) interpret the 'brother' claim? is the context important? what happens when the black cheese-seller then punches the white man in the face? can we conclude the black man took this form of 'brudda' as an insult? and what happens when the white man acts perplexed as to why a black man would take this as an insult? perhaps, yes, just perhaps (for all you doubters) context might inform the explanation of this situation. perhaps.
now, let's get to the actual beef. the soundbites of rev wright's sermon cannot stand alone. and i think the media is negligent in reporting on statements taken out of context. if we take statements away from their parent-statements, if you will, then all we are doing is using those words to be understood as we intend; not attempting to understand them as the speaker intended. we can take words out of context to convey ANY meaning we like. but then we cannot call that communication we must call it ... propaganda. you are using de-contextualized words to promote your own interpretation or agenda.
if rev wright had made a brief three-word proclamation such as, "God damn america." then he would have to be held accountable to that three-word statement. context would still have a very important role but there could be no waffling on what he
meant by those words. rev wright's actual sermon references pacifism and the words of a white U.S. Ambassador who used malcolm x's famous phrase "the chickens have come home to roost."
now, i am happy to get into a debate with ANYONE who has listened to the ENTIRE sermon. that's fine ... i think we would end up disagreeing about foreign policy and not race.
2) rev wright aint spit no hate speech -- i am troubled by the majority of people who now quick-term rev wright's soundbites as 'hate speech.' again, if you've only heard the soundbites you might jump to that conclusion. but you'd be jumping not deducing with your intelligence. but all of that aside, even the soundbites alone do not point to HATE. they point to critique. and they also point to a very different perspective on america than we see in popular media and culture - what obama in his race speech termed distorted. i would not use the term distorted for rev wright because that lays a negative value on it. i don't think his perspective is any more negative than blind patriotism. they are just different. an analogy i like to use is the half empty/half full perspective. a blind patriot might see the glass (of america) half full. and rev wright definitely sees it half empty. obama's speech attempted to provide the context for rev wright's half empty perspective. rev wright views the black experience in america from the bottom up; from the position of the poorest of the poor; from the disenfranchised; as a recipient of the very worst legacies of america's history.
one could disagree with that perspective but should one totally discount it? and when we categorize this as hate speech are we missing half of the dialogue on race? rev wright referenced the notion that america gave black people AIDS ... is that hate? no. did he say i hate america for giving us AIDS? no. did he say i want to kill all white people because they caused 9/11? no. did rev wright accuse white people of certain things that may or may not be true? yes. is that hate? no.
when rev wright's words are reduced ... and reduction is the key process ... to hate speech they are very easily discarded and dismissed. the words become detached from real human meaning - whether you agree with the meaning or not. when rev wright's words are reduced to hate speech there can be no foundation for commonality and compassion and no path towards GREATER UNDERSTANDING; because by then the words have been simplified into pure hate: words easily tossed in the trash, picked off a sweater like lint, reduced like a sauce until they are just burnt up remnants on a frying pan. if those in the media and public sphere continue to mitigate rev wright's words to a little hate-filled corner we will continue to hate each other.
closing remarks:i suggest that mainstream america is so unused to scathing criticism (since the loss of malcolm x) two things happen: 1) people percieve rev wright's words as hate speech, and 2) disconnection from those who are most critical about america and her history -- the disenfranchised -- deepens.
do i discount this perception on the part of the bloggers, the pundits, hillary clinton, joan walsh, pat buchanan, and even many people of color?
i am REALLY REALLY trying not to: that's why i wrote this blog. i do not want to discount the visceral reaction that likely 50-60% of america had to rev wright's soundbites ... because i understand what it's like to have a different perception of reality ... i understand what it's like to be discounted because i see things in a way you've never even conceived of.
i can only join the voices of those white and brown, yellow, and black alike (in the minority) who are calling on americans and the media to be their best selves ... to stop being intellectually lazy, and to start looking at why they are so hurt by the small number of words uttered by rev wright.
let LOVE rule!
Posts
