My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« The military-educational complex, and other school news | Main | The media silence on the "true" legacy of Martin Luther King »

April 04, 2008

Comments

The hugely overblown Jeremiah Wright issue has clearly been ginned up by the right to discredit Obama. Moreover, Obama's speech in Philadelphia, while necessitated by the Wright controversy, could well go down in history as a turning point in race relations in this country. That said, there are clear differences between Wright, who in my mind is a borderline nutcase, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

One obvious difference is that, until a couple of months ago, 99.99% of Americans had never heard of Wright whereas in 1967 MLK was already a household name. Another is that MLK was not the pastor of a candidate for president.

The biggest difference, however, is that MLK never indulged in wild and unfounded accusations or broadside denunciations of entire peoples. MLK never accused South Africa or Israel of "state terrorism" -- or the US government of promoting it -- even though apartheid in South Africa was in full flower in the mid-60s and Israel had just annexed the West Bank. Had AIDS been know in the 1960s, MLK would never have accused the U.S. government of manufacturing the virus to wipe out blacks.

MLK was a transcendant figure in US history. Wright will hardly merit a footnote.

I wasn't trying to equate Wright with King. The post was about the similar media response to the two, the history of which seems to have been forgotten.

That said, both clerics, one far less eloquently than the other, link America's violence abroad with its treatment of the underclass, mainly blacks, at home.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

  • War_prez_prima_1
  • Bushvaca2nh
  • Dscn1145_2
  • Dscn1144_1
  • Dscn1144_4
  • Dscn1137_3
  • Dscn1137_4
  • Dscn1051
  • Dscn1046
  • Dscn0883_1
  • Dscn0881_1
  • 422d683505eb4821_1