Racial Paranoia and Jeremiah Wright

By now, anyone who isn't aware of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's paranoid rants against America has probably been hiding in the same cave as Osama bin Laden. (I'd be willing to bet that bin Laden knows about them, too, if he's still alive.) The news is all over the web, so I won't waste your time by repeating it here. That's what Google searches are for.

What I would like to do, though, is to comment on several aspects of the controversy.

In Wright's latest speech, he asserted that criticism of him was tantamount to an attack on all black churches. What unmitigated arrogance! The idea that there might be African American pastors and church members who disagree with his paranoid statements doesn't seem to have occurred to him. In his exalted opinion of himself, he speaks for all black Americans, not just for some of them. I'll grant you, the black community seems to exhibit less diversity of thought than many other demographic groups, but the diversity is there, nevertheless.

Reverend Wright needs to spend time talking with conservative African American Christians such as Alan Keyes. I'm not sure whether Ward Connerly or Larry Elder consider themselves to be Christians, but they're definitely conservative African Americans. Having read the insightful things which they have written, I can just about guarantee that they do not share Reverend Wright's bleak and unpatriotic outlook on life.

Another African American who seems to understand racial issues a lot better than Reverend Wright is John L. Jackson, Jr. Mr. Jackson wrote a book entitled Racial Paranoia. I found that book at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I found it to be so fascinating that I read the entire book right there in the store.

Reverend Wright expressed the opinion that the U.S. government had created AIDS to destroy African Americans, as if black folks were the only people who had been killed by that disease! In his book, John L. Jackson, Jr. discusses that conspiracy theory, and he also discusses the conspiracy theory which followed Hurricane Katrina (to the effect that the government had planted a bomb in New Orleans' black neighborhood). Those are just a couple of examples of the type of paranoia demonstrated by putative black leaders such as Reverend Wright. In both cases, those theories seem to be politically motivated, with the obvious intention of portraying Republicans such as myself (and George Bush in particular) as evil people. (Never mind that it was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln who liberated them from slavery with his Emancipation Proclamation.)

Of course, racial paranoia isn't always politically motivated. Sometimes it's more personal. I could cite a number of examples from my own experiences here in Chicago and elsewhere. I have witnessed and been involved in incidents in which accusations of racism were made recklessly and without any factual basis other than the accusers' assumptions to the effect that the things which they found to be disagreeable must have been motivated by racism.

To my way of thinking, such accusations are a sign of racism on the part of the accuser, not on the part of the accused! The mere fact that a white man criticizes a black man for something does not constitute proof that the criticism is motivated by racism. The mere fact that a white man says "no" to a request for money from a black street beggar does not constitute proof that the white man is a racist.

Given a choice between hiring someone who takes criticism well or hiring a person to responds to any and all criticisms by saying, "You're just saying that because I'm black and you're white," who would you want to hire if you were currently looking for a new employee? The answer is obvious. In today's climate, in which accusations of racism seem to be made at the drop of a hat, hiring black folks can be seen, by some, as a very risky thing to do. So racial paranoia becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Knee jerk accusations of racism, in the absence of any substantive proof, are irresponsible and counterproductive. They foster the perception that African Americans do not take criticism very well at all. They foster the perception that African Americans think that the world owes them a living. And they foster resentment on the part of people who, in many cases, may have previously been sympathetic with the goals of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. They may even lead, in some cases, to a backlash which is ultimately harmful to the African American community.

I am particularly fascinated by the thesis of Racial Paranoia, as expressed by its subtitle: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness. In essence, Jackson argues that racial paranoia actually increases as genuine episodes of white-against-black racism decrease. The reason, he argues, is that many African Americans are aware of the societal stigma which is attached these days to racist words and acts spoken and committed by white folks. White folks who have made racist statements or done racist things have often lost their jobs, and sometimes even more, as a result of their words or actions. Consequently, there are often lingering suspicions on the part of African Americans to the effect that racism never really went away --- it just went "underground".

There may be rare occasions in which such suspicions are justified by the facts, but the unsubstantiated nature of the suspicions makes it highly probable that there are many more instances in which such suspicions amount to little more than vicious slander.

Racial paranoia makes it virtually impossible for a white person to do anything to disprove accusations of racism. Such a person can vehemently state that he or she believes strongly in racial equality and the need for civil rights, and can even cite examples of incidents in which that person took a stand against racism --- but a person who is guilty of racial paranoia is so solidly attached to his or her assumptions that actual evidence is ignored whenever it contradicts those assumptions.

When you create a no-win situation for white folks who genuinely reject the racism of the past and who fervently desire to see the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.' s famous dream, it tends to create resentment among the very people who once counted themselves as your allies.

If you treat people as if they're guilty whether they're guilty or not, then you remove the incentive for them to do right and you create a strong incentive for them to do wrong. That just isn't very bright! Even if you aren't motivated by any sense of right and wrong, it's in your best interest to refrain from making accusations which are likely to diminish the number of your friends and allies.

But there are considerations which go beyond utilitarian concerns. The Golden Rule is a universally recognized rule of ethics which states that you should treat people as you would wish to be treated. What does that mean? Among other things, it means giving people the benefit of the doubt, if indeed a reasonable doubt exists. It means not accusing people of malevolent motivations when you have nothing more than vague suspicions on which to base such accusations.

People who do not act in accordance with the Golden Rule forfeit their own moral authority. If they aren't willing to treat other people with fairness, as they would wish to be treated, then they have no right to expect others to treat them fairly, either. In the case of civil rights issues, that isn't smart, because the Civil Rights movement never could have triumphed as it did without a general recognition on the part of numerous white Americans such as myself that Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers had integrity and moral authority.

By casting a dark cloud over Barack Obama's campaign, Reverend Wright's intemperate words have diminished the likelihood that Barack Obama will be the first African American president of the United States. Is that really in the best interests of the black community, or in the best interests of Barack Obama? Wright doesn't seem to have given much thought to the likely consequences of his own actions. No wonder Barack Obama has been quick to criticize Reverend Wright publicly.

I was raised by parents who both taught me from a very early age that racism and racial discrimination were wrong. I was sympathetic with the goals of the Civil Rights movement. My heroes included men such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and George Washington Carver (whose birthplace in Diamond, Missouri was just a short distance from my home town).

My father took our family to Carver's birthplace on two separate occasions, because he wanted us to know where he stood on the issue of race. Dad bragged about having run in a track meet with Dick Gregory, in a way which made it clear that he admired Mr. Gregory. My father served as the Chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights, and he took a stand against racial discrimination even though there really wasn't any great public pressure to do so (since there were very few black folks in my home town of Springfield, MO). He preached at an African American church (Pitts Chapel United Methodist Church) at the request of the Rev. Houston Montgomery, who later became a good friend of ours.

In short, I didn't admire my father in every respect, but I strongly admired his stand against racism, and I incorporated those values into my own beliefs.

I don't regret having done so, but I have come to realize, over the years, that the issues are more complex than I once realized. Yes, there are racists in this world. Some of them are white. But more than a few of them are black.

White racists are absolutely on the wrong track, but that doesn't mean that all of their criticisms of the black community are completely unfounded. Some African Americans are good people who are worthy of admiration on many levels, but there are also a lot of black people whose behavior could be accurately characterized as dysfunctional, antisocial and morally bankrupt.

In short, black folks and white folks have a lot in common with each other. Members of both groups have a lot of good qualities and a lot of bad qualities. It's important to praise praiseworthy things, but it's equally important to speak the truth about things which ought to appall us. That's the only way that we will ever move closer to the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream of a world in which men and women are judged according to the contents of their character.

Creating an atmosphere in which people of both races are free to speak honestly will go a long way towards ending the racial paranoia which currently characterizes large numbers of African Americans. It's disingenuous to claim that you want "dialog" about race, when what you really mean is that you want a one-sided monolog in which only black folks have a voice.

I am growing weary of African American leaders, such as Dr. Wright, who claim to believe that racial discrimination and racism are wrong, while simultaneously demonstrating through their words and actions that they are guilty of the very things they claim to abhor. The divisive and hostile words spoken by such people hinder the chances that we will ever overcome America's tragic legacy of racism.

UPDATE: Here's a link to a good article about the relationship between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

To his credit, Obama has recently spoken out against Wright's conspiracy theories and anti-American words.

However, I can't help but observe that if John McCain's pastor had been an outspoken white supremacist, the chances of McCain ever been nominated or elected for president of the United States would be virtually nil, especially if McCain's relationship with that pastor had been as well-documented as Obama's relationship with Wright. Unless we wish to embrace double standards based on race --- in other words, racial discrimination --- we should hold Barack Obama to similar standards. Jeremiah Wright's views are every bit as racist and repugnant as any white supremacist's views.

Obama has claimed that he wasn't aware of Wright's paranoid views until very recently. How credible is that claim? Not very. In light of Wright's truculent response to criticism during the recent past, I find it likely that Wright made his views known to all of the members of his church on a fairly regular basis. The only way that Barack Obama could have been ignorant of those views would be if he had basically slept through most of the worship services, or stayed at home on those Sundays when such views were promoted from the pulpit. And if indeed he was ignorant of Wright's views, what does that say about his level of commitment to his church? Any way that one looks at it, the situation reflects poorly on his character.

More Thoughts About New Orleans

In my earlier 8/31/2005 blog post, "Some Thoughts About New Orleans", I suggested that it made no economic sens to rebuild New Orleans in its historic location (which is below sea level), due to the extreme vulnerability of that location to future catastrophic events.

I was pleased to subsequently learn that I was not the only one who thought that way. Dennis Hastert, Republican House Speaker, recently made a similar observation. However, he didn't go quite as far as I would prefer. His press secretary said that Hastert wasn't suggesting that the city should be abandoned or relocated.

I agree that New Orleans should not be abandoned, but relocation is another matter. The only way I can think of that the current location could be made reasonably viable would be if the area was filled with enough soil to raise the entire city substantially above sea level, so that levees were no longer as crucial to the survival of the city. Even if that could be done in a cost-effective manner (and that's doubtful), its close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico would still make it extremely vulnerable to future hurricanes. It seems to me that moving the city further inland, onto higher ground which was further from damaging winds, would cost a lot less than rebuilding the city in its current location. And such a plan would protect the city more effectively from future catastrophes.

Some Thoughts About New Orleans

If you read, listen to or watch the news, you're undoubtedly aware of the disastrous recent events which have devastated New Orleans and other cities and towns near the Gulf of Mexico. People will be recovering from the effects of Hurricane Katrina for a long time to come.

I grew up in Southwest Missouri, but I visited New Orleans back in the '70's, during a trip to Florida with my father and my brother. During that trip, we visited the French Quarter.

New Orleans has contributed a number of positive things to American culture, including its unique cuisine, as well as the style of music known as jazz.

However, what I saw in the French Quarter during my visit to that neighborhood was a cesspool of immorality. For example, posters visible from the street (and therefore visible to any child walking down that street) featured prominent, vulgar photos of strippers, their breasts concealed only by strategically placed stars or "pasties". I was not surprised, therefore, when I later learned about some of the more decadent aspects of Mardis Gras, where female celebrants have been known to parade around topless, and where public drunkenness and loutish behavior are fairly common.

Another well-known aspect of New Orleans culture is the prominent role of "voodoo" in that culture. Whether or not one believes that voodoo rituals have any real power, it is an incontestable fact that voodoo is a pagan religious practice which is incompatible with biblical Christianity.

Some people say that such things are part of what always gave New Orleans its "charm". I guess that's a matter of perspective. I personally don't find it very charming when people thumb their noses at God.

I don't consider myself to be a "prude". I've seen artistic depictions of nudes, and unlike some of my fellow Christians, I don't believe that such subject matter is invariably inappropriate in an artistic context. Nor did Michelangelo believe that that was the case when he painted the famous Biblical scenes on the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel.

However, there is a big difference between artistic, tasteful depictions of the unclothed human body and depictions which promote the lowest forms of sensuality, as did the posters I saw in New Orleans.

Other big cities, such as Chicago, also have strip clubs, but most of them display outdoor signs which only vaguely allude to the activities taking place therein. That's true even in Las Vegas, which is nicknamed Sin City for good reason (making it one of my least favorite cities in America). New Orleans, however, seems to have a unique and longstanding tradition of blatant and very public carnality.

None of this, of course, in any way negates the value of the lives of the people living in New Orleans. God loves them all, just as He loves you and me. At the same time, it should be pointed out that God also loved the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that love did not prevent him from destroying those ancient cities as punishment for their extreme iniquity. Love and judgment are not mutually exclusive.

Let me acknowledge that morally upright people also suffer during natural disasters. It would be presumptuous and unloving to say, of any individual victim of such a disaster, that that victim was being punished for his or her sins. That might indeed be true in some cases, but only God is in a position to know for sure. There are other possible explanations for why an individual might be the victim of such a disaster.

Moreover, even in situations where people really are being punished for their sins, that fact does not absolve Christians of the moral responsibility to show love, compassion and charity to disaster victims. After all, sinfulness is just a matter of degree. Not one of us can claim to be without sin.

Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that God has punished cities and even nations for practicing and tolerating ungodly behavior for prolonged periods of time. I suspect that that may have been a factor which led to the current disaster. No doubt, there were also ample environmental reasons which could be cited by meteorologists and other scientists. But it does not follow from the fact that a disaster is partially attributable to natural causes that the disaster was not also God's way of making a point. It is not for nothing that insurance companies often refer to such disasters as "acts of God".

Therefore, while I do sympathize with those who have lost homes, possessions and family members, I can't honestly say that I am eager to see the rebuilding of New Orleans, unless that city demonstrates a willingness to turn over a new leaf and reject the sinful excesses of the past.

Even apart from moral considerations, it seems to me that rebuilding New Orleans would be just plain stupid from a financial point of view.

New Orleans has always been extremely vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding on account of its location in what has been described as a "bowl" surrounded by levees. I'm reminded of Jesus' saying to the effect that wise men do not build their houses on sand. Perhaps there is a connection between New Orleans' obvious rejection of Biblical standards of behavior and its unwise choice to build on land which has always been poorly protected from natural disasters.

If New Orleans is rebuilt, it will be rebuilt with Federal money. That means that every American has a vested interest in how that money is spent. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply declare New Orleans to be a lost cause, and to build a new city further inland, in a place where such disasters are far less likely to occur in the future? Why should Americans from other areas of the country be required to subsidize the stupidity of rebuilding on unsuitable and extremely vulnerable land?

Yes, it's true that when fire destroyed substantial portions of Chicago during the 19th Century, the city was rebuilt bigger and better than ever. But that's comparing apples to oranges. Unlike New Orleans, Chicago was not in an inherently dangerous location. The Chicago Fire was caused by unwise building practices, not by any aspect pertaining to the location itself. Fires still occur in this city sometimes, as they do in any town or city, but modern building codes have substantially reduced the likelihood that another Chicago fire could ever destroy property on a scale comparable to the original Chicago Fire. But it is difficult to conceive of any innovation which would make the original location of New Orleans any less vulnerable to future disasters comparable to Hurricane Katrina.

There are probably those who favor the idea of rebuilding New Orleans itself, in its original location, based on their sentimental attachment to that city. However, the bottom line is that the city (80% of which is currently underwater!) is pretty much destroyed at this point. Even if New Orleans was rebuilt in its original location, most of the old historic buildings would no longer be there. Regardless of where the rebuilding takes place, nothing there will ever be the same.

When I heard that Katrina was headed for New Orleans, I prayed that God would spare as many people as possible, and I wept for the potential victims as I prayed that prayer. I still weep for the victims, and I pray that America will reach out to them with love and compassion. But I also pray that we will learn from the mistakes of the past, and that we will have the wisdom not to repeat those mistakes.

UPDATED COMMENTS AS OF 1/2/2005: My TV has been out of commission for the past couple of months, and I've been too busy with activities pertaining to my search for a new job to read the newspaper very much. I'm not sure what the status is down in New Orleans, in terms of the rebuilding effort.

I suspect, sadly, that people will fail to heed the lessons of the first disaster, and I suspect that they will try to rebuild New Orleans in its original location, even though it will probably cost almost as much money to do that as it would to simply rebuild the city in a new location. It is very much reminiscent of earlier situations in which people, buoyed by Federal dollars, rebuilt their homes in the same flood plains, along the Mississippi, which led to the destruction of their original homes.

I'm a committed Republican, and I'm glad I voted for Bush, but I was disappointed in President Bush's assurances to the effect that we would rebuild the original city, apparently at its original location. He said, in an obvious attempt to placate people angry at him for FEMA's slow response, that an America without a New Orleans was "unimaginable". Even if that's the case, relocating a city to a more sensible location is not tantamount to failing to rebuild the city. The current location of New Orleans is, by the admission of most serious scientists, an environmental disaster site. Destruction of wetlands has prevented natural processes from rebuilding the land which is lost every year due to runoff.

Compassion and common sense are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to show compassion for the people of New Orleans without subsidizing the stupidity of rebuilding the city on the original site.