Fr. Massingale on Rev. Wright.
A bit late to the party–which is just fine–Marquette theologian Fr. Bryan Massingale offers a thoughtful op-ed on the Jeremiah Wright controversy (from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal):
The fact that many seem unable to move on is a signal that something more is fueling this ongoing discussion. And until we name it, we won’t be able to move beyond it.
I suspect that an underlying issue is this: Obama’s association with Wright raises in many whites an unarticulated fear that Obama may be an “angry black man.” They dread he may be a closet Al Sharpton, a secret Louis Farrakhan, a stealth advocate of racial hostility, an undercover agent for racial “payback.”
This sounds foolish, even preposterous, when put so directly. But race-based anxieties are not rational, and this would not be the first time that racial foolishness has affected the public discourse of Obama’s candidacy
How else would one characterize discussions such as “Is Obama black enough?” or “Is he too black?” or “Why are all the blacks voting for him?”
Because many whites know few (if any) black men in any depth, the Wright controversy makes them view Obama through the lens of “black men” that has been constructed for them. They see him through the filter of what they have heard – and perhaps fear – about black men. Obama becomes not a black individual but an entity based upon a composite of the few political black men whom whites “know” through the media – such as Sharpton, Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson. This is not rational, but it is real.
What is happening to Obama is a common experience for many black men. He has become a walking “ink blot,” a living Rorschach test, upon which is projected white fears, fantasies and anxieties.
As a black man who is also a Catholic priest, I am familiar with this dynamic. Over the years, many well-intentioned white parishioners have told me that I remind them of Denzel Washington (though I wish I were that handsome), Clarence Thomas (though I am a polar opposite of his political views) and Jackson (though I could never match his rhetorical riffs). I am seen through the prism of the only black men that they “know.”
I also have been told by well-meaning whites that I am “too soft on race” (i.e., not black enough) while others have written that I am nothing more than a “politically correct race hustler” (i.e., too black). I have had a white co-worker, a good friend, run from me in fear as I approached her at dusk, wearing a baseball cap and without my identifying collar. I have come to realize that for many, without their conscious awareness, I am a living “ink blot” upon which they read their own unexamined concerns, fears and anxieties.
This is one of the deepest tragedies of racism or any social prejudice: It robs one of the freedom to be an individual, to be “me” rather than a “category.”
Read the rest right here.
Thank you for so clearly writing what I imagine many of us have been inchoately thinking. I hope your remarks receive much further attention and I would be interested to see the response in the Milwaukee press.from clerical colleagues, and any other Church related response. I would only add that the much analyzed clips of Rev. Wright are incendiary to so many was because of the violation of the first American commandment — “I am your nation and you shall never put another allegiance –divine or human — before me.” I believe that the United Church leaders statements were excellent in putting this all in perspective without jutifying Wrtight’s rhetoric or other opinions.
This posting says it like it is..Older whites have less experience with African/American men and this might explain why Obama does well with under 50 and does so badly with older white women. Obama will handle the inevitable ‘swift boating’ with humor. and this will be both effective and healing.
A problem with what Fr. Massingale is saying, it seems to me, is that for a great many people, voting for president is not entirely or even mainly a rational act (and I would include myself). And if it is irrational to be wary of Obama because of racial fears, it’s also true that a lot of support for Obama is not based on rationality. Remember the term “Obama mania,” or recall Bill Richardson’s remark, “There’s something special about this guy. I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.” It’s not exactly a logical argument in favor of Obama for president.
I personally feel that Obama has convincingly dissociated himself from Jeremiah Wright’s political views, but I am not sure I could blame people whose gut reaction to Wright is so strong that it’s a deciding factor for them against Obama.
I am old enough to remember Martin Luther King, and the coverage of the 40th anniversary of his assassination made me remember what he was like and how different Jeremiah Wright is from him. Clearly you don’t have to be a racist to deplore the extreme remarks Jeremiah Write has made, since Obama himself has denounced them. But does not being convinced Obama was telling the complete truth make someone a racist?
Some years ago, more than ten, but I am not sure exactly how many, the Archdiocese of San Francisco held a colloquium on Race and the Catholic Church. The featured speaker was Father Bryan Massingale, SJ. I will never forget the first sentence of his speech:
“I am still waiting for an apology from the Jesuit Order for the racism I experienced as a seminarian and a young priest.”
He went on to explain how his well-meaning superiors constantly discussed how Bryan could be made acceptable to a Catholic parish. They never said,”How can a Catholic parish be made acceptable to Bryan?” Always from one point of view. That is how he introduced unconscious racism to us and helped us to see it in ourselves. Entering the room, everyone, if asked, would have said that there was not one speck of racism in them. Leaving the room, no one could have said that.
We need in our parishes to talk about seeing race from both sides of the divide. This election has given us an opportunity to do that.
What this whole Rev. Wright flap points up very clearly is the fact that any serious moral criticism of the United States of America (as it was, is, or ever shall be) is totally unacceptable in mainstream American politics. This is related to the comment about “the first American commandment.” Our brand of popular patriotism, grounded in a deep-seated American exceptionalism, holds as its first article of faith that America is “The Greatest Country in the World!” (cue the thunderous applause from about any crowd except perhaps Rev. Wright’s congregation).
The attitude is not, “My country right or wrong,” but “My country–always right.” And I am hardly exaggerating.
I don’t know that race per se is at the heart of this whole affair except for the small fact that institutionalized slavery is the biggest moral blot on our record as a people. We could argue about whether the nation’s treatment of native Americans is a worse blot, but the point is, you better not bring any of that up–or,say, question the moral legitimacy of dropping two atomic bombs on a couple of Japanese cities–if you want to succeed in politics in America. Rev. Wright brought such things up, and just about everyone agrees he is pretty much a whacko nutcase.
Seems to me Rev. Wright preaches the gospel, though he seems to have trouble with that technique of St. Paul’s, being all things to all people.
This thread should dovetail with the Taylor Branch thread and more!
I particularlu think of Sr. Jamie Phelp’s address at last year’s CTA convention on racism, “Church as communion beyond racism”embodying the vision of Jesus.”
Sr. Jamie quotes Fr. Massinggale about our problem opf “convenient amnesia.”
We need to see our history of how privlege triumphs and begin (all of us, black, brown and white) a period of real conversion- to really see each person as the uniquer creation of our God who died for us. Like Branch’s citing “I am a man,” we need to see others across all lines, not just race, but sex and sexual orientation as God’s special creation.
Massingale is right – our emotional conditioning makes it hard to participate in this process. Our Church, despite fine efforts by some, has not been terrificly helpful. Sr. Jamie complains particularly about”white flight” and parish closings – last week, I note. the Camden, N.J. diocese indicated it will be closing 46 (!) parishes.
The continuation of the Rev. Wright soundbyte approach to Mr. Obama is unfortunately a sysytem problem, as I see it.It wants to lump people, not see them as they are, both Obama and Rev. Wright in their totality as unique creations of God.
Each has spoken a truth to us, but maybe not in ways that you or I might fancy,
(Being all things to all men may not be a fair criterion; if we are a troubled people, we may need a sword to rouse us.)
We do need the gut check though and the call to conversion to deal not only with racism but all the bigotry that still runs through our country (and, yes, our Church.)
I criticize the nuclear bombing of Japan and question government policies and abhor nationalism. That is quite different than saying “God damn America” and “For the First Time I am proud to be an American.” What gets me in this whole affair is that Barack’s theme has been that words matter and now all of a sudden they do not. I guess I am the only contrarian here (other than the Republicans) who sees Wright’s words as a real problem. Already the general population, outside the democrats, are paroding Obama. We are heading for another miscalculation by the polls.
Massingale is right on so many things but he should forego infallibility the way all of us should. What he and others do not allow enough is that there has been herculean changes since 1960. Sure there is a lot to do and there were some advances made then that have been turned around. But for the most part there have been dazzling advances.
Inter-racial marriage is now more an elitist happening rather than general. Ok for Woods and Di Nero but apparently difficult for people in general.
This woman has a nice analysis of the whole questions. Though, by her own admission, she comes up short. She even fails to see a whopper that she relates. For example, why won’t she adopt a black child who are plentiful and at no cost, rather than the popular Chinese child who is desirable and quite expensive?http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/052606/052606a.php
David Pasinski said:
“”…that the much analyzed clips of Rev. Wright are incendiary to so many was because of the violation of the first American commandment — “I am your nation and you shall never put another allegiance –divine or human — before me.””
Actually David, the remarks by Wright are incendiary to so many because Wright said, and believes that
1) The American government invented AIDS in order to exterminate African Americans.
2) The American government smuggles drugs into the ghettos in order to facilitate the arrest and incarceration of African Americans.
It is these beliefs that are incendiary
I think the problem is that Jeremiah Wright appears to be condemning America, whereas Martin Luther King and other great civil rights leaders believed in American ideals and were criticizing the country for not living up to them. There is a major difference between saying “God damn America” and saying:
Of course, it is Obama, not Wright, who is attempting to become president. But to the extent people think Obama may buy into Wright’s sentiments, it is not surprising that they would reject him.
I agree with Bob Schwartz’s critique of my statment and that it is these beliefs that are incendiary — and the first regarding AIDS is a particularly hideous urban myth. The second regarding blaming the government for “smuggling in drugs” may be ludicrous at face value, but I think the complexities of the drug trade, arrest and trail proceedings, and our current situation redgarding prison population and, I believe I’ve read, the 1 :10 ratio of African American males somehow involved with the judicial system, make those connections fuzzier if still, at face value, incorrect.
Nevertheless, the point he and others raised is well taken about the important variances between some of King’a rhetoric and Rev. Wright’s. Yet I will still contend– while not agreeing with Wright’s judgement or beliefs — that what is replayed in those clips of what was probably a 30 minute or more sermon are most intolerable to manny because they strike a match to that pile of beliefs about “the shining city on the hill.” I think it is rhetoric that the first Jeremiah would understand.
To continue… check out the article “The prophetic anger of MLK” in LA Times on April 4. Two months before his death he notes King’s sermon at Riverside said that America “have committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.” “God didn’t call America to do what she’s doing in the world today.” In 1967, “I am sorry to say that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.” In 1968, he questioned whether blacks should plan to celebrate the bicentennial “Because it [the Declaration of Independence] has never had any real meaning in terms of implementation in our lives.” They will “…put black people in a concentration camp [like they did the Japanese]. I been on the reservation too long now.” These quotations are well utilized in this worthwhile essay demonstrating not only King’s struggle and disillusion, but also his hope, faith and the power of rhetoric inpreaching. Something Jeremiah Wright is an heir to — even with some admittedly outrageous beliefs.
I think if Jeremiah Wright had not said “God damn America,” the comments about AIDS, drugs, and chickens coming home to roost would have been a one-day story.
I think Wright has been unfairly judged–as a person–by about three minutes worth of what he said in a career of over 30 years of preaching and writing. But I wonder why nobody has attempted to defend him by putting the incendiary statements in some kind of context. We haven’t heard anything of his political views other than what was in those clips. I have read a number of articles about him, including an excellent one by Martin Marty ( http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30b00101.htm ), but I haven’t read anything in which someone says, “Yes, in that sermon he was harshly critical of America, but elsewhere he said that America . . . .”
David P,
As always distinctions have to be made. Despite Rev. Wright, Obama and the billionaire Oprah, we have come a long way since 1960. While there is a way to go I contend that it is the black leaders and white liberals who have sold out and hinder greater progress in our day. Jessie Jackson has said that he walks on the other side of the street when he sees a black male on his side, In similar fashion successful blacks, while they have advanced on the heels of the black poor, they hang out with them as little as possible. The black middle class is more Clarence Thomas than MLK.
The truth that no one wants to face is that blacks who have made it have fled to the suburbs and elite white company. Those very people talk a lot while projecting their guilt on others. They may well be the ones who are supporting Obama, both black and white.
And the ratio of blacks to whites will remain the same in the prisons.
Jeremiah, MLK and Jesus were stoned or executed. That is the sign of the true prophet.
Bill,
Do you really believe that we know a prophet is true only if he’s been executed? I find that difficult to swallow, to say the least. I would also like to know what it means to be more Clarence Thomas than MLK, and how the black middle class is more like Thomas. I live in a diverse Brooklyn neighborhood. We have lots of middle-class types–black, white, Jewish, Latino. How would I tell whether the black middle-class residents of my area are harboring Clarence Thomas-like views? Or is my sample already skewed because the environment is urban? Are you aware that Obama has admitted that race relations have come a long way? Do you have any evidence for your claim that “successful blacks…hang out with them [less successful blacks?] as little as possible”? How would you know? What are you projecting? (Obviously I don’t think you do know, but I’d like to see how you think you do.)
Bill,
Since when do successful people of any race, color, creed, or national origin hang out with the less successful in their particular category? And why would they?
All the Davids on this thread are getting it right!
David P.’s quotes from King are particularly enlightening. A lot of that stuff was plenty incendiary to a lot of Americans (including J. Edgar Hoover), and if King escaped being cast as an America-hating nutcase it was because of his personal gravitas and character and, finally, the fact that his great cause won out (at least to a remarkable degree in terms of voting rights and in other areas). (And who knows? If conservative talk radio had been around in King’s time, perhaps he would have been smeared into insignificance before having much of an impact.)
You could say that America, collectively, had to submit to some serious self-criticism, essentially facing up to its past misdeeds, for civil rights progress to be made. It’s called not being “in denial.” The Rev. Wright was not condemned for a few zany ideas or rhetorical overkill but for having the temerity to speak some home truths about the homeland–exactly the kinds of truths we need to face up to in order to overcome our country’s major problems.
Grant,
I don’t want to joust that what I have forgotten you have yet to learn but…please. Living in a neighborhood is quite superficial with working on boards, jobs, programs, and social settings with blacks. Your example is skewed because you hardly know people in your neighborhood. And compared to me you would probably get to know a tenth (if that much) of the people I get to know in neighborhoods we have been in. I used the words “stoned or executed.” I do get your question about Thomas. More precisely, more blacks are like Thomas than they are willing to allow publicly. In law enforcement they are tougher than white officers on “their own.”
For over forty years I have been on the Board of Directors of Black groups, been the Chairperson, worked in social programs, drug abuse, anti-poverty, housing etc. I have supervised them, been supervised by them, exchanged numerous social visits. Our families know each other. You get to know how people are by working with them in more telling scenes than by just seeing them in grocery stores and the like.
I notice that you have not asked your questions with due diligence. I answered them anyway and would be glad to continue to fill in your obviously deep lacunae.
I would not say they are any worse than white groups. My point is that too often they are as self serving as others. Just as many of the whites in the Barack campaign are also looking for jobs.
As far as my over all view of this matter, I agree with Cosby in that the black leadership has not concentrated on building life skills in its youth.
Bill,
It would be helpful to know what you think Clarence Thomas represents. I have no idea what you mean by due diligence, or how it relates to how I questioned you. I grant your experience, but only your experience, and find no particular reason to believe it speaks to wider trends in the black community–just as I made no claims about what my own neighborhood means for the experience of black Americans in general. I suspect it varies considerably from city to city. New York is not Chicago. Has anyone here claimed that black Americans, black leaders are incapable of being as venal as their white counterparts? Has Obama? Has Wright? I don’t think so. More straw men for you to knock down. It’s long past tiresome.
Incidentally, if you agree with Cosby on that issue you also agree with Obama. I hope that doesn’t send you in to a fugue state.
“It’s long past tiresome.”
“The bitterness of friends is sweet, the sweetness of enemies is bitter.”
” I suspect it varies considerably from city to city.”
This is mostly what you bring to this subject, Grant. Conjecture and surmising. Experience and facts would help.
I’ll settle for just facts, thanks.
A late note” Loka at fr. Kavanagh’s piece on this in the current print copy of America.
I still think it’s reall yabou tus!
Bob, you might be surprised to learn that I do agree with Kavanaugh. I just don’t agree that Rockefeller liberals like Obama and Wright are real prophets. Notice that Kavanaugh noted that the Obama candidacy is finished, which I have been maintaining.
Again, it is not that I say that Hillary is much better than Obama. Only that the Obama camp chose to discard a gender issue for their own ambition. It is acknowledged by all that there is very little difference between Obama and Hillary. So what is their intent on ousting a women for their own ambitions?