Inaugural Bigotry and Scapegoating
Has anyone here heard about the invocational prayer at FDR's 1932 inaugural in which the minister prayed that God will help the nation end the exploitation by the Jews of all other Americans? Or the benedictional prayer at LBJ's inaugural in which the minister asked God for help in ending the Jews exploitation of blacks. What do you think? Pretty outrageous, right? In any forum, let alone at a presidential inaugural, right? To accuse an entire ethnic segment of immorality in the form of racial (or ethnic or religious) discrimination?? What would happen if such a prayer were uttered as part of an inaugural today? Would you express outrage? Would you expect most other Americans -- in the media, on blogs, etc. -- to express outrage or at least strong criticism?
ok, I lied. No such prayers took place at FDR's or LBJ's inaugurals.
But...
Today, in 2009, Reverand Joseph Lowery concluded his benediction at the Obama inaugural as follows:
“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.”
Translation: "God, please help us end discrimination against racial minorities by ending the injustice that is still perpetrated by the white people of America".
Well people, your thoughts and opinions? I say outrageous. If you said "outrageous" when reading about my fictional FDR and LBJ inaugural prayers above, and you won't say the same about what Lowery said, please explain what is sufficiently different for your opinion to differ between the two. Yes, I'm aware that whites, in aggregate and in terms of leadership, have been dominant throughout our history and still are, and that racial minorities have been discriminated against and to a much lesser extent still are, but is that enough of a difference to justify such an ugly, blanket charge against white Americans? I say certainly not. What do you say?
- B Rational's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I am relieved to see it was not just me, but I honestly almost fell off my chair when I heard that.
In a nation, where as I have said before;
...the highest paid most popular actor in the world is Black, ...the richest woman in America is Black, ...in a country that the soon to be dominant race is Latino, ...where Asian Americans are among the highest paid well educated segment in the country, ...where hip hop dominates the music industry, ...when white kids forsake proper English in lieu of a form of ebonics - because they think that's cool, ...and in a country that just elected it's first black POTUS...
...this guy, like so many others, have evidently got so much of their identity invested in being in a struggle, that he is unable to drop it, even now, even on such an important occasion.
It was a disappointment.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
+1
Yeah, that was uncalled for.
We aren't over de facto racism just yet, but we've made really big strides even in the past few years and especially today.
Hey, some people still think The South Will Rise Again. Some people are going to hold on to the old stereotypes and predjudices. Time will heal some, death will heal others.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I suppose that is so...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The dragon in my garage is fire breathing mad now
It definitely appears Joseph Lowery found a back door to solely scapegoat "white people" as sole purveyor's of racism and no that racism is directed at white's.
The fact that is was a speech, makes the likelihood of a gaffe more unlikely, even then it could be a Freudian slip.
I wonder what if Lowery is a college football fan and what he thinks of some of the darn good white running backs that receive little or no scholarship offers and are often to moved to FB, "to better suit their skill sets."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Why I wasn't upset
Mainly, because after he said it, the crowd was laughing. It was a moment of humor. To equate it to a serious indictment of white people is, well, taking it waaay too seriously. Besides, it's not just an indictment of white people. "...when yellow will be mellow?" Sounds like he's saying Asians are just too damned high-strung. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It was still a bad way to go
Even if you thought that was his intent -- to be funny.
It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Everything else was rather funny but then he said something about "white doing what's right".
That wasn't funny. I think it was a shot across the bow.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
putting it in context...
I don't know what to make of this comment. When it is quoted as it is above, it sounds like something from the 60's. Maybe he made up that clever rhyme 40 years ago, and he was so proud of it that he felt that he had to stick it in "his big benediction". Anyway, I'm not convinced he meant any harm from it (see below). Maybe he should have thought about how it could be interpreted as a combative statement. Maybe he did think about that interpretation, and left it in intentionally to play with our heads (preachers do things like that). In the end, I don't care enough about this guy to figure out what he was trying to do.
There are two reasons I don't think it was combative:
1) His tone of voice did not sound at all hostile
2) His entire benediction was peppered with the theme of "let us embrace what is right", so I don't think he was singling out whites for having a special problem embracing what is right. If you want to take his skin color identifiers as being meaningful, you could interpret this statement as embodying a racial heirarchy with whites at the top-- the minorities are just powerless beings whose main concern is social advancement while whites are on the verge of spiritual perfection.
In the end, I think I liked the benediction. I think the comments at the conclusion were a metaphor about the responsibilities of those with power to build a society that includes everyone. He said it in a sophoriphic tone...making me feel like that racial heirarchy is just part of a dream, or a memory from long ago.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
40's actually
It's (partly) a paraphrase of the lyrics of "Black, Brown and White"
written by Big Bill Broonzy, 1947.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It was just so out of place!
Lets take another look at what it is he said anyway;
when black will not be asked to get in back, (54 years have passed since Rosa Parks)
when brown can stick around, (Latinos will be the largest ethnic group in the US very soon)
when yellow will be mellow, (Well...it is hard to rhyme with yellow, should have consulted ludicrous)
when the red man can get ahead, man; (If he has any new ideas, we'd luv to hear 'em)
and when white will embrace what is right (.............................?)
...How relevant, timely and appropriate for the occasion.
NOT.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
How relevant, timely and
How relevant, timely and appropriate for the occasion.
NOT.
Exactly. What a wonderful way for a pastor to conclude our celebration of the progress we have made as a nation in overcoming prejudice and bigotry -- to blast an entire racial group as resisting or refusing to "embrace what is right" and stop keeping racial minorities down via racial discrimination. Well done, Lowery. I guess you couldn't fill five minutes without making a blanket, bigoted, prejudiced charge against hundreds of millions of people on the basis of their skin color.
As much as I might be tempted to stir this pot ...
all I can say is, grow a skin people.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ugh...Listen, considering the stratum and amplitute of...
...discomfort I have around Barack Obama...
...I feel like a 6'3" 220 lbs callus already.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Ah, but
what color skin should we grow?
;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I guess, based on Lowery's
I guess, based on Lowery's statement, it depends on whether or not you want to be one of the oppressed (inescapably kept down by racial discrimination) or one of the oppressors (uncontrollably discriminatory against minority races). Because apparently our skin color determines that.
LOL
That's not what you'd have said if anyone but BR posted this-- let's be honest with ourselves, GR...
...or maybe I'm wrong and you are transforming into an apologist for the practicioners of identity politics?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Hey, I don't have anything against BR.
I mean, once you get past his total a**holishness, complete lack of discernable rational thought, and the unreserved pompous attitude, he's actually a pretty nice guy! :)
(Again, meant as a good natured ribbing and not serious)
But to your point, I admitted that I would be tempted to stir the pot in general. I guess my comment was based on a feeling that (stated without regard to PC-ness) hey, they finally have one of their own in the Whitehouse. Let them have their day and vent if they want. It's not like they haven't been waiting a long time to be able to do so.
Disclaimer: I don't mean to purpetuate a "we" vs. "them" mentality here, it was just easier to state the thought in those terms.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4video here
You can get the video here
.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I call
false analogy with regards to your examples to Lowery's (as everyone here saw, anyway--come on--mello/yellow--you take that stuff seriously?) attempt at humor. Jews never had institutionalized power over any of those groups (Americans or blacks). Whites did (and in some areas do) have institutionalized power over blacks until very recently. Lowery, after all, walked with King in the civil right's era marches. It is his generation that suffered the consequences of exactly what he talked/joked about.
A more correct analogy would be if a Jew had said slightly disparaging remarks to the Egyptians after the exodus. Historical context and power relations are the difference here.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yes, as I indicated in my
Yes, as I indicated in my diary, I understand that in some cases to some extent, a historically oppressed group can have a bit more latitude in criticizing a historically dominant group, but...
What if Lowery had said "We pray to God to stop the white people of America, who are mainly bigoted, ignorant , selfish, cruel and evil, from oppressing all the other races and keeping them from having a decent chance at a decent life" -- how would you view such a statement, particularly as part of the benedictional prayer at a presidential inaugurual?
If you don't think such a statement would be worthy of strong criticism (not saying that's your view, but if it is), does the fact that African-Americans have a history of being discriminated against mean that anything any African-American says about any or all white Americans in any context on any occasion is perfectly acceptable and not worthy of criticism?
If you do think such a statement would be worthy of strong criticism, then past discrimination against African-Americans, and even what discrimination remains, is not a free pass on any such charges against white people, and we are into a discussion of what he said, what he seemed to mean, etc., right? And do you not think he was saying what I present in my "translation" in my diary? If you agree that that was essentially what he said/implied, is that acceptable or worthy of criticism?
Keep in mind BR...
...some of these very same people found ways to rationalize away Jeremiah Wright, so this wouldn't even come up as a ping on their radar.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No, I don't agree with your translation
I think you are playing very loosely with your interpretations. To change,
to
is ridiculous, unless
=
I find that a ridiculous hyperbole that says more about your psychology (as interpretation often does) than anything considering the text of his speech
is, as someone else pointed out above, rather written in the oratory style (flowery, poetic, full of imagery) of a preacher.
Also, the full quote reads,
Clearly, the introductory phrase invokes the historical nature of the struggle for civil rights and harkens back to how far we have come rather than an attempt to denigrate 'whitey' as you make it out to be.
I think, under the circumstances, it was a fairly mild statement. If I was black and old enough to hear direct narratives from actual slaves, if I was attacked by dogs and beaten by police for sitting at lunch counters where only whites were deemed suitable to sit, if I watched my daughter jolted off her feet and thrown yards across cement as her dressed ripped by the power of a fire hose, if I needed the protection of the army just to walk in to school, if I feared lynchings for stepping out of my place, if I did not have the right to vote even though I was a citizen of the U.S., if my good friend was shot in the head for speaking out against these above injustices (many of them institutionalized and systemic), all of which Lowery has experienced (or at least had counterparts that experienced), you better believe I might says something more than "may whites embrace what is right" when I had a platform. Especially, considering it was a reflection of how far we have come ("the joy of a new beginning") rather than an attack on current circumstances.
Where are these type of interpretations, insinuations, and outrages from the right when something is actually racist (e.g. Macaca)?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Whoa, whoa, whoa, and again
Whoa, whoa, whoa, and again whoooooaaaaa!!
I asked you a hypothetical question, intended to explore your position and discuss/debate the underlying premises, logic, values, etc., and you mischaracterize it as an "interpretation" and then say that my "interpretation" represents...
No biggee, but come on, man.
Sorry, let me rephrase
in a more civil way:
I disagree with your premise. Your interpretations (both in your hypothetical quetion and in your analogies in the diary above) go beyond the limits of acceptance.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Civility shmivility. I wasn't
Civility shmivility. I wasn't objecting primarily to your tone, but to your going off on a rant based on a sloppy misinterpretation on your part.
Now, to what "transalation" are you referring? [edit: I see you edited to clarify while I was writing my reply]
I do believe in site civility
I corrected my comment before I saw your reply to say 'interpretations' rather than translations.' I am a bit out of it. Tomorrow is the first day of classes, and I am a bit drained from prep work.
Anyhow, I do not think I had a sloppy misinterpretation. I think you are out of bounds in your analogies and in your hypotheitical question. Again, I can't argue with something that I do not accept at its foundation. I don't know where to go from there.
Edit: From your original 'translation' in the diary: I don't think he meant 'still perpetrated' as you present it.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Just FYI, I didn't mean
Just FYI, I didn't mean to characterize site civility as unimportant (although I can see how one could take it that way), only to point out that if you thought my primary objection was on that basis, you were wrong.
Now, I assume you understand the difference between a hypothetical question intended to explore and test someone's position vs. an interpretation of some particular statement, so I suggest and request that you stop mischaracterizing the hypothetical question in my comment to you and the hypothetical inaugural prayers in my diary as an interpretation of Lowery's statement.
As for "where to go from there" if you think there is a key difference between my hypotheticals and what Lowery said that invalidates my point, well, obviously where you can go from there is to point out what that key difference is, which you did. I was in the process of exploring your argument via a hypothetical when you took us on this unproductive detour (again, no biggee). If you want to go back to my hypothetical question and answer it, maybe we can have a good discussion.
Replies.
1. Should blacks get a pass on such speach in general simply because of past oppression?
Definitely not.
2. Should whites confront such speach in general?
Definitely yes.
3. Is there a time and place to do so?
Definitely yes.
4. Was this a time and place where whites should seek to confront such things?
Definitely not, IMHO.
This was no ordinary event and it culminates (in a way) a very long history. Let the blacks have their day. Let them vent and express how they feel if that is how they choose to use this time. Like I said, grow a skin (color of your choice).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4disagreed
4. Was this a time and place where whites should seek to confront such things?
In terms of failing to clap, booing, or making a scene at the inauguration? Absolutely not, I agree-- but that's only because it would have blown this minor thing way out of proportion and detracted from all that was positive and joyous about this moment inour history. But recording a criticism after the fact on SC or similar? That's precisely the right and proper way to express the criticism. Otherwise, Lowery just gets a complete and utter pass for what was at best a thoughtless and unnecessarily divisive statement, a statement that stands in stark contrast with the consistently thoughtful and wise statements on race of our new President.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Dude, just let it go.
It was one statement made at what had to be an emotional time for that segment of society. Just leave them alone already. If it is a pervasive problem there will be plenty of chances to confront it down the line.
I mean I don't feel good about the statement or where it was made, but in the grand scheme this one statement is nothing to get all bent out of shape over. Can't we all just get along? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Very proud of you GR
You are growing up right before our very eyes. :-)
Glad to see you are not interested in strangling the forward movement of our country, with petty divisiveness. Let's accept the past for what it was and move on!
I'm only half stupid
So, we should just not even comment on the statement?
I reject that. That's what we do here: comment on stuff, major or minor. I've already said that this is a minor thing, and nowhere have I said that Lowery is a bad guy, racist, etc and I do not think badly of the man at all. But it is my firm opinion that the way that you move on is that you address this kind of stuff when it crops up, whether it's Inauguration Day, Flag Day, Groundhog Day, or any other day!
Strangling forward movement, my foot :-[
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Heavens to Betsy...
I was just funning GR for sounding so 'new age'. Calm down!
I'm only half stupid
I'm calm, I'm calm...
I'm calm... very very calm. Placid, serene even. Check me for a pulse, there may not even be one, that's how calm I am :-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Talking out of the side of your mouth...
...In all honesty, that blunt edged prattle, the uncouth jeering of Bush, the acerbic hey hey - na na's to the helicopter....were disgraceful.
Listen, it was not only a humiliating series of tacky disrespectful displays by the left...it all accumulates to something...be it conservative speakers being greeted with malevolence on university campuses, to the shameful contempt we all witnessed yesterday, it is just a confirmation of the left's inherent rancor and animosity mongering.
It turns out you can't even invite them to a party?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It might just be a reaction
to the mantra of the Bush campaign, to prosecute the war and all things associated with it, that if you weren't pro-torture for example, you were un-American. When a President calls out those that disagree with him as unpatriotic for years, it's unrealistic to expect that there would be no backlash.
I'm only half stupid
Give me those examples please...
The backlash has been going on for years my dear...on SNL in the NYT on SC...please...Yesterday's exhibition was a embarrassment for the country, at the hands of the left.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Dixie Chicks
The utterly hysterical over-reaction is a perfect example. If you disagree with GWB, then you are somehow un-American. Ludicrous.
Our country is a democracy. We are free to jeer at our leaders if we so choose. That is the difference between the US and say N. Korea.
At the hands of the left. Dude many conservatives have been none too pleased with #43.
I'm only half stupid
How is this Bush's fault?
Are you saying he lead the charge against the Dixie Chicks? I seriously doubt that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The witch hunt
to censor the Dixie Chicks, and who you chose to blame for said witch hunt, is just another reason that I am overjoyed to see the Bush era go.
I can say one thing for certain, it wasn't the liberal leftists, or whatever you want to call 'them', that led the charge to burn the Dixie Chicks at the stake, figuratively speaking of course.
Good-bye and good riddance to those days. May they never return.
I'm only half stupid
Dixie Chicks?
Are you basing your whole dog and point show on, the Dixie Chicks.
I was expecting some clandestine list of these federal offenses!
I'm afraid this issue may very well be your hysteria Waterloo, your point is so lost, it may be the target of some Geraldo investigation. The claims you are making against Bush are absurd, he had nothing to do with the imagined oppression you have convinced yourself he is responsible for.
You say stuff like;
"Our country is a democracy. We are free to jeer at our leaders if we so choose. That is the difference between the US and say N. Korea."
Then sh!+ yourself because country music personalities criticize the DC's? Those criticisms of the DC's were launched by...Americans, people who found their message mistimed perhaps, but they didn't screw up a POTUS inauguration, and embarrass our nation in the process.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Please give me an example of where Bush ...
"calls out those that disagree with him as unpatriotic for years."
Bush has always been more than gracious to his detractors.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4When I say Bush
I mean all the folks who rabidly supported his agenda.
Bush wisely had his team of grunts do the dirty work for him so he could keep his hands 'clean'.
I'm only half stupid
Lowrey in general gets pushback
I was talking to friends in Georgia about this, and Lowery is evidently well known for this style of communication and routinely gets pushback over it. He is seen as a very divisive and radical figure, one stuck in the past who cannot see today clearly.
Personally, not knowing the man, it struck me as out of place but not unexpected of a man his age and with his experiences. One's worldview is different if you experienced the Civil Rights movement first hand.
It was free speech, but poor judgment. But not of the level justifiying a public lynching of the man. Least said soonest mended and all that.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Sure this is a prayer
sounds more like a rap "song" to me.
I'd be interested in your
I'd be interested in your thoughts/opinion on this topic.
I basically agree with you on the topic
His comment was racially divisive, and especially out of place on a day that shows how much progress we've made in race relations. However, I've got to say I can't help but be more amused than outraged - not that I should be, I just find passing that off as a prayer amusing - maybe that just shows my cultural disconect.
Have you heard others (in
Have you heard others (in your real-world community/communities, not the blogosphere) express opinions?
No, I hadn't even heard about
No, I hadn't even heard about the comment untill reading it about tonight on the internet. I watched the inaguration with an assembly of the students, but left after Obama's speech.
Do you know if the guys at
Do you know if the guys at RedState are commenting on it? (I can check it out, but just wondering if you already know)
Being asked to help:
Not really in my framework.
To say that we've totally turned a corner on race relations
is totally unrealistic, imho. We haven't really, and it won't happen for quite awhile, if it does happen at all. So pardon me for not joining everybody in all the post-Inauguration high-fiving.
Did anyone say that? To what
Did anyone say that? To what are you responding? (this isn't an open thread)
This thread is kind of about race relations, in a way.
I'm responding to this thread generally. Even though I didn't watch the Inauguration per se, I did read the speech by the Lowry, or whoever he is, and I kind of found the remark in question not that funny, if it was meant to be snarky, and I find the last phrase "whites will embrace what's right", kind of a broad-brushing of a certain group of people.
Isn't it clear
that there is a generational element here.
It's a shout out to the older generation, a humble look back at what a struggle looked like that was the cause of a civil war, riots, protest marches and all other manner of citizen actions that were the stepping stones to the moment we live in today.
I defer to Lowry's experience, age and lifelong work and take no offense.
Broadcasting 'Barack the Magic Negro' repeatedly on national radio is much more offensive than anything Lowry said.
I'm only half stupid
Ah, the voice of...
..."Paybacks Are A Bit@h" politics...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No it's not.
ML - Broadcasting 'Barack the Magic Negro' repeatedly on national radio is much more offensive than anything Lowry said.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So it's only "whitey" that's got to clean up his act :-p
Dammit, why can't us white people get to "be mellow"? That sounds like more fun.
Seriously... if we wanted a charismatic preacher prone to making clownish statements on race, we could have just skipped the middleman and used Jeremiah Wright...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
have to say... I thought it was kind of silly...
Kind of a cross between Lud-a-cris and Dr. Seuss.
An aside:
As an atheist, I have no use for Invocations OR benedictions personally.
I was just thrilled to be included in Inauguration speech when BHO said "....and non-believers".
Woohoo! I exist! Who woulda thunk it?
I survived the Bush Administration
Yeah I took note of that too
Barack kinda choked it out tho, it came out awkwardly, like he added it in at the last second...
As for the invocations, religious people would have a fit if they were left out in the cold all of a sudden. I don't think it's politically possible. However, it just seems like all the invocations and benedictions just became big distractions this time around, and in the end, none of the speeches of the invited clergy was very worthy of the moment, IMO. Warren's was rather flat... he just did not rise to the moment at all.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Left out...?
It was like a christian prayer festival!
There were prayers before prayers, at every event all day long....I was getting tired of the prayers...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman