A Self-Evident Truth

March 30th, 2008 at 09:42pm Mitch Mulhall 171

I have been studying separatism as a kind of background exercise in what I regard a troubling association between Senator Barack Obama and Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

Separatism is based on an idea that ethnic minorities cannot advance in a society dominated by an ethnic majority.

Separatism is an idea that is not without precedent in the writings of the U.S. founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, who penned what I regard the central premise of the United States when he wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” also wrote this:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people [blacks] are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.
~Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

Just what are these indelible lines of distinction about which Jefferson wrote? One thing these lines are not is racism. Let me stipulate that racism exists today. My Proof? For one, I offer Ed Troy’s comments about racism in his life. There is no denying racism is alive and living well today. But again, I don’t think racism is, per se, one of Jefferson’s lines of distinction. What, then, are these lines of distinction?

If you Google “indelible lines of distinction” the first hit you currently get is from davidduke.com. This fact is unremarkable except for this: it is wholly obvious to all that the kind of separatism promulgated by the likes of David Duke is wrong, but the separatism taught by Reverend Wright enjoys a largely stigma-free dissemination…

Thomas Jefferson struggled mightily to resolve slavery with otherwise honorable views. This historical fact is far more ably chronicled by writers far more learned than me, so I won’t trouble you with my palsied rendition now. Suffice it to say, Jefferson was a slave owner. I contend Jefferson’s thinking about these indelible lines is an out-growth of a rationale constructed to defend the anathema of human slavery. To use this, and other of Jefferson’s statements like it, as the basis for separatism, or segregation, is to reinvigorate the kinds of attitudes and thinking that Americans have toiled not merely to cast away but to put to rest forever these past 200 years.

The ability to embrace multiculturalism—that all men [peoples] are created equal—is not rooted in a person’s ethnicity. It is no more unique to a white slave owner who lived in late 18th century than it is, apparently, to at least one redneck who lives on the Western Slope of Colorado in the early 21st. I see in the lives of the people around me that thinking Americans of all ethnicities have, as a boy, girl, young woman or man, faced down the question of whether race is a basis for division or unity, whether the idea of the American melting pot is the truth or just some childish utopian fantasy. I’m not what you’d call a social creature, yet the circle of my friends and acquaintances here and elsewhere is nevertheless generous. To a one, the people I know reject skin pigmentation as the basis for any meaningful difference.

Black separatism, as with any form of separatism or segregation, is a rejection of multiculturalism. It can be nothing else. It is a declaration that any melting that has gone on in the American melting pot is wholly unnatural, that indeed the idea of the melting pot is not only an unrealistic pipe-dream, but also an undesirable, ineffective and aberrant state of human kind, perhaps, as William Blake, an English contemporary of Thomas Jefferson, wrote,

One law for the lion and ox is oppression.
~William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Proverbs of Hell, 1790

This snippet of a Blakean proverb intimates that subjecting animals of different links in the food chain to the same law constitutes oppression. While Blake’s membership in the Swedenborgian Church of the New Jerusalem, which taught that Newtonian Science was nonsensical hogwash, ought to give anyone pause, Blake’s Marriage nevertheless found traction among the likes of Aldous Huxley, C.S. Lewis, and Wallace Stevens. He may have influenced Nietzche’s theories of slave- and master-morality, as well.

I inject this literary reference to point out that people far more intelligent than me—no tall order that—have grappled with this subject long before any of us was a twinkle in our parents' eyes... and to demonstrate why the teachings of Reverend Wright tell me we have made no meaningful progress.

I find this a profound sadness.

I for one reject the premise of any form of separatist thinking. The central premises of separatism do not warrant victory on the battlefield of modern ideas. The pain the peoples of the United States have had to endure cannot and should not justify an abandonment of multiculturalism. I stand in opposition to any form of separatism, prepared to defend Ed Troy’s egalitarian, wholly color-blind, meritocracy.

For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Cheers,

Entry Filed under: Glenwood Springs, Politics, Religion, Aspen, Colorado, People, Garfield County, United Post, Spirituality

26 Comments Add your own

1. Hugh520 | March 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pm

[Americans have toiled not merely to cast away, but to put to rest forever these past 200 years]

Mitch I am in agreement with much of your sentiment, but not with its rejection of the Obama candidacy based on association with oratory which he denounced over a year ago when he declined to allow the Reverend Wright to announce his candidacy, and has repudiated in the strongest terms since.

His landmark speech on race talked most eloquently of the fact, the fact... of our imperfect union and his dissent from his pastor's "generational" anger. How much more can we, in fairness ask?

We cannot look into Barack's heart, but he has given us every indication that it lies in a new truth, a truth which has surfaced at various times in our culture, but one which reality sadly suggests is not self-evident yet. I believe his heart is at the vanguard, as close to Harriet Tuckman's and Robert Kennedy's as can be divined. I'm willing take him at his word.

I live in a city which in which people of every stripe aggregate together, not because their bigots, but because that's what we do. We aggregate. Blacks, Hispanics, Germans, Irish, Russians, Carribeans, Indians, artists, firemen and Police, Jews and gentiles, Italians and Greeks. No one told us we had to do this. No city planner set up these neighborhoods, but here they are. And furthermore, the people that live in them would look at you cross-eyed if you brought up the idea of separatism. They're proud of them. They even like showing them off once a year.

Go to little Italy during the feast of San Gennaro. Go to Queens in mid-summer for the biggest parade in the city when people from "down Islands" celebrate Caribbean day. Go to fifth avenue on March 17th, or in May for the Puerto Rican day parade.

So you want to give up on a man because he sits with his community on Sunday and listens to a fiery sermon. Never mind that he's there for the unique experience of community itself which he finds with his own -- let's toss him for his pastor's retrograde thinking.

It's clear that Reverend Wright's ideas while jarring to our ears and sensibilities are rooted in an American experience far deeper than than a google search on the philosophy of Separatism can ever reveal. But people aggregate. And I don't blame 'em for it one bit. It's what we do.

Cheers Mate, Hugh
2. Hugh520 | March 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pm

... I should have looked up the word aggregate, but I think you know what I mean by it.
3. Mitch Mulhall | March 31st, 2008 at 8:14 pm

No worries. I read "aggregate" as a verb.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that Wright’s sermons have been unfairly cherry-picked and assembled into unflattering audio loops in an attempt to impugn Wright, and by extension, himself. Separatism and black liberation were favorite themes in Reverend Wright’s messages from the pulpit. Obama knows this. As a candidate, Obama’s done an artful job of distancing himself from Wright’s teachings. What bothers me is that he thought it necessary to do so now. A twenty-year silence is tacit approval.

Cheers,
4. Hugh520 | April 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am

What we don't know is how much Obama loved hearing Wright preach about Christ. Maybe Wright is so good when he gets going about God's love that it's possible to take what works and leave the rest.
5. reckless G | April 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am

Hey, has anyone looked into how this old footage of Wright's sermons "leaked" into current media? I'm curious as to how this all got started in the first place. Seems like a classic tactic to undermine Obama's candidacy, and apparantly it worked (on Mitch at least).
6. Mitch Mulhall | April 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am

G,

[I'm curious as to how this all got started in the first place.]

That's easy. Revered Wright preached this message from the pulpit and the church recorded it. You can buy the CDs from the Trinity United Church of Christ website.

You didn't have too much trouble brushing aside Ward Churchill's essay, so I don't think you'll find Reverend Wright's teachings of any real significance...

Any chance Star Eagle will shed light on your question with a link from freedocumentaries.org?

Cheers,
7. reckless G | April 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm

No, I don't mean how did the sermons get recorded. I mean, how did they "suddenly" come to light TWENTY YEARS LATER??? Don't you find that just a tad suspicious? Come on, it's downright Rovian.

You are basing your allegations against Obama on cherry picked evidence. No doubt there were many more mild mannered sermons on Christian dogma than there were socio-political commentary. But I guess that doesn't matter to those determined to find Obama guilty by association.
8. alpha6 | April 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm

"The mob is fickle..." Soon they will forget. "Cherry picked evidence" I love that phrase. Anytime the evidence is there and its not liked, others claim it is cherry picked. Heck....how else do you get cherries except by picking um.

Yep...I'm back.
9. Mitch Mulhall | April 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm

G,

[how did they "suddenly" come to light TWENTY YEARS LATER?]

Well isn't that a chicken-or-the-egg question. The answer wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Obama is the front-runner in the Democratic campaign for president, would it?

Look, if you're cool with Wright's dogma, or confident that Obama has satisfactorily separated his views from Wright's, by all means support him. Your ever-definitive assignment of motive notwithstanding, I don't care what Wright thinks. What bothers me is, I don't know what Obama thinks. Nobody does. In fact, I contend we won't know until President Obama appoints his cabinet. And yes, this is a prediction of an Obama victory.

Alpha,

Welcome back. Michael's commentary this morning about the vacuousness of such sentiment notwithstanding, let me reiterate my gratitude to you by saying, publicly, "thanks again for your service, Sir."

Cheers,
10. reckless G | April 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Welcome back alpha, it's good to read you again.

Certainly no one can argue, not even you alpha, that those particular sermons were chosen out of thousands the reverend gave, in order to condemn Obama. That is the very definition of cherry picking.

It's pathetic that there are people who are obliging the cherry picker by rejecting Obama without ever even asking how and why this info got into the media in the first place.

I find it sad that good intelligent people can be so easily manipulated. Remember, that's how we got into this godawful war in Iraq; on cherrypicked evidence.
11. alpha6 | April 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Reckless,

you hit the nail on the head. People are easily manipulated..why..because the average American is an idiot that lets others do the thinking for them. They believe whatever is told to them in the evening news...no matter how ridicules.

In this particular case of Obama, I can't excuse him completely. After all this is not just someone he went to and listened to on Sundays, Obama himself states that this guy is a mentor. And, even if those sermons are not the norm, that type of rhetoric is not something that is done in passing, but based on a belief, real or perceived that Wright had/has. It's like the guy who does great charity work but then goes to lead the monthly KKK rallies. He doesn't do it all the time, but it is a part of who he is. And if I decide to attend those rallies...for 20 years, there is going to be some connection through association even if I am not a card carrying member of the KKK. That I think is the difference here.

Are certain people trying to make this into more then it is...you bet. And it just ain't the Republicans, the Clintons and that gang are slinging this trash as much as anyone...but then again, its about power and money and people will go to any lengths to achieve those.

I for one am just sitting on the sidelines watching the show. It's a lot like a mud wrestling event...no matter who wins, everyone comes out covered in mud.
12. Hugh520 | April 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Mitch, I would no more deny you your right to reject Obama than I would the Reverend's right to express his anger in a way that his mind and soul demand.

Which leads to the question, what kind of black anger is acceptable? Are we to be the arbiters of how black anger can and should be expressed?

We're agree, I think, that a pastor perhaps more full of himself than Christ's teachings tended toward rhetorical excess. But its history, and justification are hardier and more substantial than most kind hearts can bear.

There's the Malcolm X school, and there's the more Ghandi-like Martin Luther King school. As an interested party, I'd like to hear both.

Has anyone in the press asked how much of this kind of speech Obama was subjected to each year? What percentage of the Reverend's sermons were given over to this vitriol? Were they sparked by events, such as the killing of an innocent child in a Chicago neighborhood? It's been in the news all year how many killings happen on Chicago's South side.

One, One innocent victim is enough to make for a riot. The fact remains -- we think the reverend should protest in some palatable way -- as if these sermons were evolutionary, and not a reaction to some new senseless act of ghetto violence. The fact is, no one has told us yet.
13. Mitch Mulhall | April 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Hi Hugh,

[We're agree, I think, that a pastor perhaps more full of himself than Christ's teachings tended toward rhetorical excess.]

I’ll grant you that Reverend Wright may be given to what I find a deplorable rhetorical practice, but I’m completely willing to overlook this. Where preaching is concerned, this practice changes the essential focus of ministry to entertainment. Yea, it’s a fine line, but I’ve seen it toyed with, with poor results. What I’m more concerned with, if I haven’t made this clear yet, is the extent to which Obama has been influenced by Reverend Wright on separatism.

You reference Malcolm X and an MLK/Ghandi approach to liberation. There is a contrast, a meaningful, substantive contrast between these two approaches. You’ve heard both, as have I, as has anyone who had a pulse in the 1960s. One approach contradicts the idea that “all men are created equal.” The other embraces it.

Reverend Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream that one day… little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

Malcolm X said, “The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals, by the Government itself. But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God.”

Reverend Wright said, “God damn America.”

I think it’s fair to say Senator Obama’s sentiments lie somewhere within these perspectives. I also think that a voter might like to know exactly where Senator Obama's sentiments lie before pulling the lever for him. Until I find Senator Obama firmly aligned with Dr. King, there’s no way I’d consider voting for him.

Cheers,
14. reckless G | April 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Mitch,

It sounds as if you think Obama is some kind of closet radical. This just doesn't comport with everything we've seen and heard from Obama throughout his career and campaign. His message has consistently been one of uniting all people. He is no separatist, but for that matter, neither is Wright. Statements taken out of context can always be made to sound worse than they are. Wright's "God damn America" in the context of his speech about the ills of social inequality and corporate greed run amok, make perfect sense. Out of context, it sounds frightening and appalling.

Your standard for electing a president is that they be firmly aligned with Dr. King? Who would that be? Clinton? McCain? Surely you are not suggesting that we have anything to fear from an Obama presidency that could be worse than either of those two would deliver.

Let’s be clear, I’m no big fan of Obama, but rejecting him out of fear and suspicion that he might take the black cause to an extreme if he were elected just seems ludicrous. Aren’t there much more important concerns than whether a potential president believes every word his pastor uttered from the pulpit?

I’m surprised that you won’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. You claim that you won’t vote for a man whose sentiments aren’t fully known or understood, as if any politician’s are.

As I said on your other post, perhaps Wright’s rantings did influence Obama, but in a positive way, if it created in him a desire is to right the wrongs that are perpetuating racial tension in America.

What is most disappointing about this is that people like you, whom I admire and respect, are so willing to fall for this very obvious dirty trick. It’s detrimental to our nation to allow smear campaigns to derail our political system. This is how we ended up with George W as our president. If these tactics succeed with Obama, McCain will get elected, and then we are doomed for sure.
15. Hugh520 | April 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm

[Until I find Senator Obama firmly aligned with Dr. King...]

Who new that Bobby Kennedy would become such a lion for civil rights? Who knew that Lyndon Johnson would sign the Civil Right s act of '64 or the voting rights act a year later -- a Texas democrat?

Who knew that Lincoln would sign the Emancipation Proclamation or accept blacks into the Union Army? We don't vote vote for people because of the past, but because we see in them a bright future. And there's nothing Mitch, with all due respect that condemns this man that has any substance.

Hillary would pay $100 dollars for your vote, but she got it for free.
16. Mitch Mulhall | April 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm

G,

All this time I thought you were supporting McCain. You went out and registered Republican, became a heavy hitter in the Republican caucuses--and now you throw McCain under the bus?

Dirty tricks?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Cheers,
17. alpha6 | April 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Hey, I am sure this guy doesn't preach this every Sunday or whatever day, but it's what he believes.....but I am sure it is being Cherry Picked and we shouldn't consider it anything but.....

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

Sweet!!! are these guys something or what??
18. reckless G | April 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Mitch,

Now you know damn well that I became a Republican in support of Ron Paul and NOT to get the nomination for McCain, even though I agree with about 99% of his policies. If it weren't for his support of the Iraq occupation and threats against Iran, I'd definitely cast my vote for him.

There are some things worth protesting "too much." In my book, a person's devotion to a socially conscious if somewhat overly zealous pastor is not one of them.

alpha,

Back to your old modus operandi again I see. Maybe you should take a break from scouring the Internet for damning evidence to support your hatred of Muslims and try to stay on topic for once.
19. alpha6 | April 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm

I couldn't resist....besides, I don't hate Muslims, I have said before that I have some very good friends that are Muslim. I do have a certain disdain for radicals...Muslim or any religion or movement for that matter. Like the Dems tearing each other up, it's just too easy with Islamic Radicals...I mean, come on. It's ok to kill and rape a person if they are not Muslim? And this from the senior Imans in England.

I thought you would appreciate it..and besides in a weird round about way it was on topic...sorta. : )
20. Mitch Mulhall | April 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Wish I had embedded video sussed. For now, a garden variety link will have to do... Enjoy.

Hmmm. How's this for progress?

Cheers,
21. reckless G | April 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 am

I know you don't hate Muslims alpha. Just playing your way, oh king of provocation.

Mitch thanks for reminding me what a beautiful and tragic species we are.

Have a nice day!
22. Star Eagle | April 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Hey Mitch,

I posted a http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=198
(I haven't watched this one yet but it looked historically relevant to the discussion above) link on Frosty's blog about "W's defining moment" earlier tonite so to be sure I am trying to keep up with expectations all around.

THEN, I checked out the Mike Gravel website since I spent some time with him on Monday and like his spunk.

I had worn my John Lennon "Power to the People"
t-shirt in honor of his earlier video playing off of that song. He said the kid (15 I think) who does his videos had done another and it was coming out any day. Damn!! This one blows me away. Check it out for yourselves. The kid is creative. Don't miss the very last little video in the line of videos below. It is easy to miss because it is placed two spaces after the last easily visible one of Jerry Ford. This one also rings of true to the post above and shows Dr. King was a complex man and not just anybodies poster-child. Hence, a bullet.

Speak of the... welcome back Alpha! This site is for you, enjoy it, its a unique form of blowback.

http://www.gravel2008.us/

Just remember.. this ain't no disco.
23. Mitch Mulhall | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Hi Star Eagle,

[I had worn my John Lennon "Power to the People"
t-shirt in honor of his earlier video playing off of that song.]

I put on my USS Abraham Lincoln, CVN-72 cap to write this comment.

[I checked out the Mike Gravel website since I spent some time with him on Monday and like his spunk.]

You can read my views on Mike Gravel here.

Cheers,
24. reckless G | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 am

[Hmmm. How's this for progress?]

Hey Mitch,

HDYDT?

How did you do that

AWCI?

And why can't I?

Sue
25. Star Eagle | April 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am

Hey Mitch and Alpha,

Sorry its taken awhile to reply but I tend to wander away into other aspects of life.

Thanks for the info on Gravel-pederasty-war connections. Strangely interesting stuff!

Coming from a background of Greek Classics pretty much limited to reading The Iliad and The Odyssey (can't remember) and The Apology (can't forget), then, throw in the recent movie Troy, and, as you can see, it is a subject my street education seriously lacks.

To be sure gentlemen I note your perceptions and concerns, however I do find elements of the Gravel Platform to be intriguing (National Initiative for Democracy) .

Not being one to be pigeon-holed, I am actively pursuing a over-view of this election as I am, as usual, left watching the countries choices reduced to "bought and paid for". Therefore my real interest lies in "fixin the system", rather than, "who is our saviour" in this mess.

Are there "lessors of two evils" when it comes to the front runners? Probably, But, I have to say, Ralph Nader holds the greatest potential for real change as well as the highest degree of integrity I see on the stage today.

Liberals and Conservatives be damned!
26. reckless G | April 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

There was a time when Liberals and Democrats were the same thing. Oh well, everything changes. Except that one guy; what's his name? Connif I think it is.