home
Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II | 254 comments (254 topical)
Repost from previous thread. (4.85 / 7) (#21)
by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:13:06 AM EST
I'm really not sure what the point of this speech is. I mean, I know the point of the speech. But it seems not especially different than speeches that have been spoken for decades. I'm 37 years old and this message has been drummed into my head my entire life. "A change is going to come!"

Some changes have occurred. Some things are better, in some ways, than they were. Some things are worse, in some ways, than they were.

The obviousness of this speech is just astounding to me, though. Maybe it's because I've studied, written and performed music my whole life and I've studied linguistics my whole life. I've studied politics (and work in politics). I studied history, Etc. And nothing he is saying is especially informative. Yes, African music is different than European music. Asian music is different, too. French music is different than British music. I don't know too many musicians who claim that any beat is deficient to another beat. That's been pretty much decided for quite some time. Most of the musicians I know accept these differences as fact and generally appreciate the fact that this kind of diversity in music is wonderful. I don't even know anyone in "the academy"

I can't quite figure, though, what his point about this differences is. (Bad English, I know)

Is he implying that their are genetic differences? That would be a pretty radical assertion. I'm no biologist, but from what I understand, that kind of assertion has been debunked for years. Left brain v right brain? Creative v logical? I'm pretty sure that kind of theory isn't commonly believed by most biologists.

What is going on with this speech? He's obviously very well read and very, very smart. But I can't help but think that he's missing something.

I can only assume that he's using this as a way to maybe take these lessons that a lot of people already know and get that message out to other arenas. It's not new to me. Certainly that message should be sent out. Unfortunately, his reasoning and understanding of biology seems pretty awful.

This whole thing is just very odd to me.

He was well read (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
but not recently, it seems.  I am appalled to hear the Bell Curve theories of the right wing again -- and from the mentor of the man who wants to be president and proclaims he will improve education?  That, plus Ayers' theories that influenced Obama, pluse his stance on Fox against points central to teachers' unions, all ought to be cause for serious pause.

[ Parent ]
Support of (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:21 AM EST
charter schools also.  He has requested quite a bit of money for private and charter schools, I don't like to think what that will do to the public school system.  He doesn't seem to want to fix it, but move away from it and this message from his pastor cause me more concern.  I'm very disappointed.

[ Parent ]
I had the same reaction (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by daria g on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:54 AM EST
Shorter Reverend Wright re music, culture, linguistics - "Different things are different!"  

Who knew?  It sounded to me like he made a lot of references to make the speech sound like it had a lot more of a point than it actually did.  

[ Parent ]

He is missing the Christian Philosophy (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:02 AM EST
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." It seems he has involved himself in politics for quite sometime. The message and the medium are quite confusing to an ordinary Christian.

[ Parent ]
Strange Speech (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by santarita on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:56:42 AM EST
The overall theme is right - different should not be a negative.  We all have differences but we live in one country.  Recognizing that being different is not a negative is an important first step in learning to live in a country where there are so many differences.  If his speech helps people recognize that differences are not bad, then his speech (even with factual misstatements) is good.  But he does seem to elevate African American culture at the expense of European culture, which seems counterproductive to his overall message.  I would like to have seen him get beyond dwelling on the differences and tells us how people of different cultures can communicate. Otherwise we live in kind of a solipsistic world.  

[ Parent ]
The trouble is (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:29:58 AM EST
as right as he may be to criticize the 'corporate media' and as many positive or uplifting things he may have said in his speech, they always play, side by side, his G--d America clip. Just like Obama's 'bitter/cling comment, Rev. Wright's Jeremiad has provided the republicans with many snippets to use against him and Obama. The atmosphere has been poisoned with enough blame to go around.

[ Parent ]
I agree with your point (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:34 AM EST
about much of the theme of the speech being rather old hat. The "different not deficient" idea is nothing new or revolutionary. And he seems to imply that only blacks are seen as deficient which has been amply proved to be wrong lately, what with the very recent "bitter-cling" controversy, and also the  current anti-Muslim hysteria among some people in this country. I'm sure if I thought for a moment I could come up with many other examples.

I find it sad that anyone would be touting this speech as something important or groundbreaking. But then I didn't get why Obama's "race speech" was seen as some giant step either. They were both rather hackneyed speeches by flawed men, IMHO. I really resent that either one of them have been compared to MLK.  

[ Parent ]

Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II | 254 comments (254 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft