Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Art of Victimhood

I had to blog more about the Rev. Joseph Lowery and his the closing line from the closing Benediction at the Inaguration for our new President.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, 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. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen. Say amen. And amen.

The most juvenile, openly hostile and racist line ever delivered as a benediction at a Presidential Inauguration? I'd have to read through some history books to make that determination, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say- yeah.

Do blacks always embrace what's right? Do whites never suffer indignities? What the heck does "yellow will be mellow" mean? And last time I checked calling an American of Asian descent "yellow" or a Native American a "red man" was considered extremely offensive. And P.S. since the word "black" was used by a black man at the Inauguration of a black man is it finally okay to say black? Or do we whites need to stay with African American because we're white? Just checking, I can't keep up with the rules of the PC police these days.

But ha, ha, hee, hee... the mainstream media thinks it's all so cute and I mean he's black and he was a leader in the Civil Rights movement so, it's okay!

From the San Francisco Chronicle Headline: Lowery gives sole inaugural note of racial caution

Amid the outpouring of inaugural joy over the racial progress represented by President Barack Obama, there was a single, humorous mention of work still to be done.

After the first black president had been sworn in, Rev. Joseph Lowery' ended his benediction with a rhyme familiar to black churchgoers...

"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..."

"There was laughter from the enormous crowd. The 87-year-old civil rights pioneer continued:
"When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."The crowd thundered, "Amen!"

If this is all common rhetoric to black churchgoers then all I can say is "no wonder". No wonder many parts of the black community continue to struggle 45 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

But hey- at least The Chronicle covered the line- The Star Trib didn't, the New York Times didn't, the L.A. Times didn' get the picture. No they only made mention of the inclusion Lowery called for. What sort of reporter listens to that line and at least doesn't perk up and say "What did he just say?"-- When I heard the line, I didn't believe it was actually said until I saw it on youtube as it was so blatantly out of place with the soaring rhetoric of Obama.

I think his closing lines are 100% racist-- after all 43% of whites voted for Obama -- that's 2% more white than voted for John Kerry in 2004. Meanwhile only 4% of blacks voted for McCain- so where does the racism lie? White Americans seem to have no problem separating race from political viewpoint.

We are a good country who almost destroyed itself to end the evil of slavery. We have given trillions and trillions of dollars in the form of welfare to African Americans since Johnson's "War on Poverty"-- and for what? For generations of young blacks to still be dependent on our government? For poor black residents of New Orleans to stand on rooftops looking for the government to help them find a way out?

And the evolving black upper-middle/upper class? They're just doing what people do- taking care of their families, their needs- serving their own self interests. God bless them for that. They are not back in "their communities" in large numbers trying to fix the problems of those who are "left behind". Bill Cosby made remarks about poor blacks needing to take personal responsibility for their problems and Oprah Winfrey turned her charity work away from inner-city blacks (when all they ask for are "an iPOD and some sneakers") and turned her attention to Africa. Why can they make this distinction, but our government can't?

This all makes me sad, it truly does. But what makes me the most sad is this- the astonishment of so many black Americans that we just elected a black President. Did they really think it couldn't happen? They must of...and for that I'm sorry. I'm sorry that the color of your skin so defines who you are as an individual and that you believed that color could hold you back in this country. Nothing can hold you back in this country. Nothing...and for liberals to keep force-feeding black Americans the idea that there are valid reasons why they can't suceed in this country is dangerous. They are liable for this victim mentality that continues to persist.

By the way- where were the black Americans with their praise for Condoleeza Rice? A true feminist who chose career over family- a woman with a brilliant mind, a woman who was raised in segregated Alabama, who was friends with one of the four little girls killed in a Ku Klux Klan church bombing- Condi was right down the street when it happened. Our first black female Secretary of State who was 4th in the line of succession to President of the United States. Where was the praise for her? Did she ever make the cover of Ebony or JET or Ladies Home Journal for that matter? Oh, that's right she's a Republican. Of course Colin Powell- another Republican- has only recently become praiseworthy because he jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

So let's call this all for what it is- African Americans don't feel so strongly because we just elected a black man- they feel so strongly because we elected a liberal black man who they hope will be "the one" to finally deliver on the promise that government will give them what they need. He won't, it won't. It can't.

I believe that being disadvantaged has absolutely nothing to do with your race, your religion or your economic status...the only disadvantaged people in this country are those unfortunate children born to parents who don't love them. If you don't have parents (or at least one parent) who truly loves you, who instills strong values in you, who puts your interests ahead of theirs- then you are disadvantaged and you have my sympathies. But no amount of government -even a government that took children at birth and raised them can fix that problem for it's been around since the beginning of time. The best we can do is always hold everyone to the same high standards and expect the best from all Americans. (I also think getting these kids out of public schools would be an enormous help).

MLK (who Lowery worked closely with) said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Let me tell you the content of Rev Joseph Lowery's character (at least the character he chose to display yesterday)....crap. Bigoted crap. I also have major questions about the content of the character of the man who chose this man to give the Benediction yesterday- Barack Obama.

Lowery has made many highly charged remarks from the podium saying in 2006, “We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor,” -- he said this while President Bush was on the stage with him at an event for MLK. Classy.

Of course Obama knew that, he chose him anyway. If he wanted to be "bipartisan" if he truly wanted to come together and turn the page to a new day- he wouldn't have had a lightening rod like Lowery have the final word yesterday. I guess Jeremiah Wright wasn't available.

And did anyone catch the 100% Marxist line from Lowery's "prayer"? "When tanks will be beaten into tractors"-- Obama nodded his head when he heard that one, watch the youtube video. Help us! The President of the United States wants our tanks to turn into tractors? Can I help thresh the wheat comrade? The tanks defend the tractors - get it? So much for peace through strength- it's going to be peace through farm equipment under Obama.

As the other religious speaker of the day- Rick Warren- Mr. "Evangelical Climate Initiative"... well, it's not as courageous of a choice as it may have seemed, it was calculated. He'll be back to sell Obama's green policies to his followers- just you wait. I love how all the major newspapers refer to Warren as conservative- uh, no he's not.

The "prayers" for President Obama at the Inauguration most certainly set the tone for his Administration. A clear call for massive redistribution of wealth and retribution against those who have not yet "embraced what's right". The federal government- run by liberals- now has the power to turn those words into action.


Jesus said...

Excellent post. I agree 100%. I am a combat veteran and I have sacrificed to protect this country. The day I heard Lowery's prayer I felt like this wasn't my country anymore. I don't say this because I am white either. I am infact "yellow" as he would say, but that isn't of any importance. Or is it?

liz said...

Another brilliant post Sheila! I'm so glad you wrote on this subject because it has been bothering me for two days now post-inauguration. I still can't believe he said that. I know I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of public outrage and media outcry, but still, this is a new level. Your last paragraph is - unfortunately and scarily - spot on.

raisingmykidsright said...

Excellent, I wish the world could read this post.

Jim said...

As usual, racism is a one-way concept. Just like "diversity" requirements usually imply the replacement of one particular group, even if that group is already a minority and the group replacing them is a homogeneous collection of people. To spell it out, a city that's 20% white and 80% black is considered more "diverse" than a city that's 50% white, 20% black, 20% Hispanic, and 10% Asian even if this second city is far more "multicultural" than the first. If you took a literal definition of "diverse" instead of a corrupted P.C. code for "non-white" you'd think the city with more of a mixture was more "diverse."

Then you have the response where the government intervention with quotas (or diversity goals, or whatever they want to call them) causes more resentment and ill-will than if they didn't have such mandates. Then people think, "did Condi or Colon get that position because she/he was the best for the job, or was it because of a quota." "Are they getting more opportunity for career advancement at the expense of others because of their race?" A government mandated policy of reverse racism is no better, and perhaps more far-reaching and damaging to more truly innocent people, than a private policy of "normal" racism practiced by a few people (not a whole government). The fact that I have to say "reverse racism" also proved my point that "racism" is perceived as a one-way crime that only white people can commit. Of course, pointing out double-standards probably makes me "racist" in the eyes of those who benefit from the double-standard.

I strongly agree that the "War on Poverty" is a huge failure (and the answer isn't "throw more money at it"). It just served to increase the size, power, and expense of the Federal government while accomplishing the opposite of its stated goal. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We are encouraging poverty by rewarding it and raising generations of government-dependent people (who, shockingly enough, vote for a continuation of their benefits). The pyramid scheme of wealth redistribution from the more productive to the less productive cannot last, and you're setting up the poor dependent people for much greater hardship when you are forced to remove the assistance to which they have become accustomed. This may happen a lot sooner than people think, as we see news that CA will have to cut welfare to help with their horrid budget problems. Sure, this welfare reduction might be delayed by a "federal rescue," but then the problem grows and the inevitable failure of the system will be far more painful and far more widespread than if the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place.

Speaking of an increase in Federal power, one could easily debate the idea that the Civil War was when our nation nearly "destroyed itself to end the evil of slavery," but say that it was instead when the Federal Government nearly destroyed the country to gain control over the Southern states trying to preserve their rights. Yes, slavery played a large part in the dispute, but so did economic factors like tariffs that favored Northern industry, the South wanting to preserve their right to secession, and their overall desire to repel an invasion.

Mary said...

I agree, I agree, I agree. Thanks for putting this in words. It's been knawing at me for a week.