Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people here claim to have been offended by Jeremiah Wright's sermon. But the question is, was what he was saying at all untrue? Those of you here who have denounced Wright (and by extension, Obama) for delivering an "incendiary" sermon, I suggest you do yourself a favor: calm down, take a deep breath, and check out whether any of his statements are actually true. If you agree that he is telling the truth, then you should not be offended by him merely stating the facts. Here are the "offensive" statements he made (which he echoed from Ambassador Peck, a white man):
Quote:
We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.
“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.
“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
Now tell me which of these statements you think to be false.
The untruth of all that is very simple, the other half of every line. Which truth is truly true, the beautiful half truth or the ugly whole truth? Many religious leaders throughout history have parsed the scriptures like a statistician uses numbers to prove a point, but as we all know, "figures never lie, but liars figure." Our churches throughout all time have been packed like the Nuremberg stadium with people willing to hear the half truths looking for an easy answer to their problems.
Some people here claim to have been offended by Jeremiah Wright's sermon. But the question is, was what he was saying at all untrue? Those of you here who have denounced Wright (and by extension, Obama) for delivering an "incendiary" sermon, I suggest you do yourself a favor: calm down, take a deep breath, and check out whether any of his statements are actually true. If you agree that he is telling the truth, then you should not be offended by him merely stating the facts. Here are the "offensive" statements he made (which he echoed from Ambassador Peck, a white man):
Now tell me which of these statements you think to be false.
They are all contemptible half-truths, as you well know --- simplified and taken out of their historical context to deceive ignorant and impressionable people. In their similarity to the propaganda spread by Chomsky, Galloway, and others of that ilk, they are also suspiciously close to plagiarism.
Using Wright's "logic", should we apologize for defeating Hitler and the Nazis, because German civilians were killed by Allied bombing during World War II?
This rhetoric is more than "incidendiary": that is a euphemsm. It might better be described as hysterical, mendacious, cowardly -- and traitorous.
They are all contemptible half-truths, as you well know --- simplified and taken out of their historical context to deceive ignorant and impressionable people. In their similarity to the propaganda spread by Chomsky, Galloway, and others of that ilk, they are also suspiciously close to plagiarism.
Then please explain what makes these statements "half-true", and do put the events in question in the proper historical context. For example, what's half-true about "We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism"? What's half true about “We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism." Would you care to elaborate on the other half of the story?
What's half true about “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.?
What exactly are people offended about when these events are in fact actual historical events?
Using Wright's "logic", should we apologize for defeating Hitler and the Nazis, because German civilians were killed by Allied bombing during World War II?
Where did Wright say that we should apologize for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Please post that statement so we can add that to the litany of "offensive" Wright statements.
Then please explain what makes these statements "half-true", and do put the events in question in the proper historical context. For example, what's half-true about "We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism"? What's half true about “We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism." Would you care to elaborate on the other half of the story?
1. No one alive participated in any of those events.
2. Fighting wars against the Indians was not at any time the policy of the US, but involved local actions against specific warlike tribes.
3. Two words: Civil War.
Quote:
What's half true about “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.?
These events were part of a total world war, and a final response to acts of aggression by Japan against our country and its allies. Many people "batted their eyes" and continue to do so. And no church in Japan that I know of is filled with people expressing vengeful hatred for the United States.
Quote:
What exactly are people offended about when these events are in fact actual historical events?
Re-read my original post. We are offended by a man who is so bitter over his own life that he insults the country that grants him life, liberty, and freedom.
Where did Wright say that we should apologize for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Please post that statement so we can add that to the litany of "offensive" Wright statements.
Slow down and read my posts before waxing indignant.
Then please explain what makes these statements "half-true", and do put the events in question in the proper historical context. For example, what's half-true about "We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism"?
The Half Truth of it, is we did not take the land from anyone, we bartered or went to war over it. Indians did not believe anyone could own land, and so sold the land for beads and trinkets not understanding our way of life. As for the war with the tribes, We had superior technology and won. But we can not judge that time periods actions with todays values.
What's half true about “We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism." Would you care to elaborate on the other half of the story?
We did not.. Ancestors, some may have, but we should not be held responsible for the actions of the dead. It has also been argued that back then being sold into slavery was a way of life, it made it easier on the families to feed the remaining family members, and many slaves entered into contract on their own to help themselves in the long run, not all slaves were treated badly, some were extensions of the families they served.
What's half true about “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.?
And by doing so ended a war, that would of killed thousands more than died from the two bombings. It taught us and everyone else the cost of such an action, and that it should never be done again, and we have fought hard to make sure it wont. Radical Muslims don't have the same morality we do, and would do it ten fold killing everyone on the planet for a misguided belief. Oh we batted an eye, we pleaded and warned the Japanese to surrender or we would have to do just what we did. Try reading a history book sometime.
What exactly are people offended about when these events are in fact actual historical events?
What people find offensive.. is that history was twisted and used to bad mouth this country, if he is so unhappy here, there are planes and boats still going to Africa, maybe he should get on one, he would be happier there.
Nevermind the fact that the Native Americans often took and kept slaves....are they lumped in with "WE"? Or seperate?
Many slaves were captured and sold by rival black tribes and shipped over here for sale.
Native Americans were the FIRST slaves of this country..history has no tally of how many were sickened, killed, captured.
Things someone would want to mention if they were to give a true account of the history of slavery in America..unless they were pushing a hidden agenda?
I'd like to know who this "WE" is???
The French? The English? The Spanish? Dutch?
I guess you could twist any historic event to your suiting if you are talking to sheep.
1. No one alive participated in any of those events.
2. Fighting wars against the Indians was not at any time the policy of the US, but involved local actions against specific warlike tribes.
3. Two words: Civil War.
None of your answers changes the fact that Wright's statements are historically valid. Whether war against the Indians was perpetrated by the national government or by the local government doesn't alter the fact that it was white settlers backed by government that dispossessed the native Americans of their land.
It's interesting you use the term "war-like tribes"...as if you are describing a newly discovered specimen of insect that can't precisely be identified taxonomically. Some Indian tribes were war-like? Can you say the same about the European settlers that brought guns, germs, and steel with them to colonize the Americas?
Quote:
These events were part of a total world war, and a final response to acts of aggression by Japan against our country and its allies. Many people "batted their eyes" and continue to do so. And no church in Japan that I know of is filled with people expressing vengeful hatred for the United States.
Well, but did Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually happen? Of course they did, and that's what Wright was saying. Do you deny that the US bombed these cities? If you don't, then what are you so offended about?
Look, the nuking of these cities may or may not have been justified; Wright's position is that it was not. Does that make him an anti-American traitor? I don't think so. Legitimate questions can be raised about the need for the nuking of Japan - questions about justice and proportionality - but people who raise these questions like Wright does shouldn't be labeled a traitor. That's just ad hominem nonsense from you.
Quote:
Slow down and read my posts before waxing indignant.
I said "Using Wright's logic, should we...."?
English is your native language, is it not?
And where in Wright's logic did you deduce that? Show us please. If not, I'm afraid you were putting words in Wright's mouth. Or spinning your own interpretation of his statement. The entire sermon of Wright - if you are able to cast off your blinders momentarily - was actually a warning against ill-considered retaliation by the US for the 9/11 attack. He was urging caution because, as he noted above, retaliation invariably leads to massive collateral damage among innocent civilians. He was using the verses in Psalms to bolster his point. Babies heads get dashed in the rocks! That was the crux of his sermon - delivered in English, by the way - which you apprently did not understand. Sorry, not much I can do to help you there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
