The BN Village - View Single Post

Gmahogany777 · (#9 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunjufu

G... of course he has been spouting it for 20 years plus...that point is well made... However that is NOT the point i'm making. My point is that since this issue was stirred up, Obama dealt with it, it was dead.. Wright then choose to restir the pot in the most public way possible... So my point is what is the point? If he is about 'liberation theology' as HE claims his behaviour is a contradiction.. You don't liberate by destroying the very OPPORTUNITY that might give the BLACK struggle some prominance, furthermore even if Obama did shaft him, the question is, in the vcontext of the Election one could understand why it happened.. Therefore the question follows am i going to defend myself at the expense of the wider Black good, or take one for the team...

Wright choose to put himself BEFORE the 'Liberation Theology' he espouses and THATS why he is nothing but a self serving demigod..

Well, my take on it is that WRight POSSIBLY does not think Obama necessarily intends to make the Black struggle prominent as Prez, especially since he can't even acknowledge some of the more basic truths about race in this country, or some of the behaviors that this country has behaved in, things that are not even up for discussion or debate, but are documentable.

The fact that WRight was going along with the program initally, makes me think that something happened in the year and 3 months interim, that made him feel less REASON to continue going along and LESS reason to feel that Obama was really going to be any different than any other candidate/President, thus the comments about him being a typical politician. Prior to that race speech, WRight was giving SEARING critiques of HIllary Clinton AND Bill Clinton(who he at one time was ALSO casually supportive of , since we wanna act like he doesn't have the right to change his opinion on folks or like he doesn't have a track record of supporting folks then criticizing them something awful,lol) in the pulpit and basically endorsing Obama from the pulpit, eventhough churches are not supposed to endorse candidates if they want to keep their tax exempt status.I submit it was the marginalizing of him and his views as crazy/delusional/bitter/angry/old, in that race speech that made him "cool" on Obama.

Liberation theology does not have as one of it's tenets, only telling the truth about oppression when it is convenient. What kind of liberation are BLack folks going to be getting if they have to get it on a premise that is a LIE, or better yet on a premise that as it's core tenet says that Black liberation theology is fringe-esque /irrelevant/unrealistic and has no place in AMerica ?I got news for u, they wont' be getting liberation, they will be getting sold a bill of goods, AS USUAL..... Obama's whole articulated world view(from 2004 when he first came on the national scene), is CONTRARY to the idea of Black liberation theology, which has a NATIONALISTIC bent to it. So, it's really not a surprise that there would be conflict.

Farrakhan, Sharpton to a lesser extent and Black folks who have a nationalistic orientation in general, are rendering themselves and their worldview null and void and irrelevant by so blindly and completely supporting Obama. If ya'll don't think that that was/is the intent and purpose behind white support of a candidate like Obama,(that is to say to PROVE that race is no longer relevant), you haven't been paying attention for the past oh ....500 years......I sincerely hope what ya'll get out of the deal is worth that. Oddly enough, you saw some evidence of that in the Sean Bell verdict. Sharpton(and some regular rank and file Black folks) who initially wanted to call for a much more radical Black response, had to temper that when Obama basically came out with a predictably TEPID(this wasn't really about race) response. Sharpton's on Obama's dick, so he's boxed himself into a corner now,lol. THere will be more where that came from. MARK MY WORDS.

THe lesson in all of this for me, is that when you make alliances with folks based on Political EXPEDIENCY, instead of really sharing a common world view and common goals,(which is what I think Obama did, in relationship to Wright and his church, I think that's what WRight now thinks TOO, btw), a. you need to know that your are building a house on sand(therefore you should take it for what it's worth, and no more than that), and b. you need to know that just like YOU had/have a personal agenda, the other mofo may have one TOO, and that once those 2 agendas collide, you shouldn't be surprised, and you shouldn't be surprised that happened, and you shouldn't be surprised if the other person does not defer to YOUR agenda.......This man(WRight) has been doing his thing thing for 30 years, what makes you think he's going to accept that YOUR agenda is what is in the best interest of the Black collective, when you can't even show up whereever you hear Negroes are going to be, just cause some white folks and overly emotional Black folks(with NO concrete reason to think so but quite a bit of reason to think the contrary), seem sure that it is,lol.