New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Rush Limbaugh, Jeremiah Wright, and the race conversation
 
Opinion: Rush Limbaugh, Jeremiah Wright, and the race conversation Print E-mail
By Dwight McKissic   
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

(ABP) -- Controversial quotes regarding race made by Jeremiah Wright and Rush Limbaugh were used in efforts to thwart a presidential campaign and the purchase of an NFL team. Responses to the Wright and Limbaugh quotes reveal the fact that blacks and whites in the United States are miles apart with regard to racial understanding.

In this country, blacks and whites often live in the same neighborhoods, work on the same jobs, sometimes go to the same churches and schools, and their children play on the same teams -- but we really don’t know, understand or fully appreciate each other beyond a surface level. Therefore, we need to get together in an organized and orchestrated fashion and seriously talk about the pink elephant in the room: race.

When blacks have a discussion about race, usually there are no whites present, so an important perspective is missing. The reverse is also true. Consequently, when the discussion spills over to our television sets and newspapers as a result of some major event (such as the recent presidential campaign and Limbaugh’s unsuccessful bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams), we discover that blacks and whites often have vastly different interpretations of the appropriateness or legitimacy of racially tinged statements or incidents. We vicariously talk to each other through quotes and sound bites without truly engaging each other in honest and sincere dialogue.

The recent, highly publicized Limbaugh quotes surrounding his NFL bid and the Wright quotes surrounding Obama’s presidential campaign demonstrate that such quips can be damaging, divisive and detrimental to effective communication. Rush Limbaugh and fellow conservative commentator Sean Hannity used Wright’s words in service to an effort to convince the American public that they should not elect Barack Obama as president. Black leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson used Limbaugh’s words to convince the NFL that Limbaugh should not be allowed to be the owner of an NFL team.

What do the Wright and Limbaugh incidents have in common?

Wright and Limbaugh are not viewed as racist, extremist or polarizing figures in their own communities and among their own constituencies. But they are obviously viewed in this manner among outsiders. Limbaugh and Wright supporters believe that their quotes were exploited, taken out of context and unfairly politicized -- or that if they had been allowed to explain themselves to an objective audience, their comments would not be viewed as offensive. In Limbaugh’s and Wright’s worlds their remarks would be rational, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist. Anybody who would think otherwise would simply be mistaken.

The problem is that Limbaugh and Wright live, function and communicate in completely different worlds. Therefore, if America is to avoid a race war, the inhabitants of Wright’s and Limbaugh’s two worlds must come together and engage in earnest and forthright dialogue.

Perhaps, out of their shared pain, Limbaugh and Wright can host or spawn a series of dialogues across the country under the banner, “Racial Reasoning and Healing in the Age of Obama.” Both men know what it’s like to be fairly or unfairly quoted or misquoted, depending upon one’s politics, perspectives or process of reasoning.

Obviously, an open, honest conversation about race is perhaps the most difficult conversation to hold -- but it is one that America desperately needs to have. Black people and white people are still too distant from one another. We need to come together and talk. “Come, let us reason together.”

-30-

William Dwight McKissic Sr. is pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and a former president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. This column is adapted from a post that originally appeared Oct. 15 on his blog, New Blog for a Pneuma Time.

 

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.

 

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (28)Add Comment
no comparison
written by Dr. J, October 27, 2009
The good pastor should have done his homework prior to writing this article. All of the racists quotes attributed to Rush were fabrications. There was no doubt about Wright's racists comments because they were telecast for all to hear. The comparison between Rush and Wright is dishonest. Rush never uttered those despicable statements. Some hateful blogger began the lies which were quickly picked up by the mainstream media without vetting. Disgusting.
Wright's statements were racist- I don't care what members of his community think. Perhaps Wright's community should begin an open honest discussion regarding race. Since Rush did not make racist statements, he has no more obligation to begin discussion than any other non-racist.
...
written by robber, October 27, 2009
1. Amen Dr. J, you are right on about the "quotes" supposedly made by Limbaugh. Amazing that since the two quotes being circulated were proved to be false, no other quotes have surfaced from Limbaugh that could be viewed as racist. Anyone who compares Wright to Limbaugh is completely dishonest.

2. After reading your last article sir, in which I currently have the final comment, you have zero credibility to talk about what anyone should do regarding discussions about race. You hate and bait.

3. Any time a person would try to bring up this discussion in public, they risk sanctions and condemnation by the Politically Correct Police. Years of forced silence can not just be undone by saying, "hey, let's talk." Stop the public bashing of those who don't agree with you -- and I say this to both sides of the so-called "aisle" -- and maybe one day there can be an open discussion.

4. As a high school teacher, I can tell you that 80 percent of the remaining racial problems in this country come from the adult generations. Kids in school are amazingly indifferent when it comes to race, ethnicity, disabilities, etc. They truly offer hope for the future. Of course the schools will break them of this indifference, and make sure they see the differences and live accordingly. You know, all human beings are 99 percent exactly the same genetically. I prefer to look at what we have in common rather that what we do not.
...
written by pjerwin, October 27, 2009
Amd while race isn't much of an issue for today's teens, the SBC isn't much of an issue for today's young CBFers, but the "old guard" of the civil rights movement and the "moderate exodus" won't let them get on with real life.
Thanks Dr. J
written by tenor1, October 27, 2009
When it comes to comparison between Limbaugh and Wright, "J" is absolutely correct. Wright is an America-hating racist, and, like Sharpton and Jackson, wants only to perpetuate the issue. The Rush haters only hear what they want to hear, make up what they want to make up. If Rev. McKissic wants to hear constructive dialogue on race issues, it has to start on a basis of honesty.
Good Example
written by mcskinny, October 28, 2009
Bro. McKissick,
This article is a good, if not great, example of one of the main reasons the discussion of race issues have continued for so long. Using untruths on one side or the other to counter truths from the other side and taking either or both out of context.
The "preacher's" racist comments quoted by the radio commnetators are on tape. Tapes of the racial comments attritibuted to Rush Limbaugh are non existant because they are fabricated..
...
written by kash, October 28, 2009
McKissic didn't give any specific quotes. My understanding is that the players themselves were unhappy with the way Rush talks about the NFL and certain players. Particularly his comments about McNabb back in 2003 where he indicated McNabb wasn't as good as the hype, it was just because he was black (sort of the way Rush feels about the President). I don't understand Christians being quick to defend either Wright or Limbaugh, since they both seem intent on dividing the country rather than uniting it.
...
written by kash, October 28, 2009
McKissic wrote: "Wright and Limbaugh are not viewed as racist, extremist or polarizing figures in their own communities and among their own constituencies. But they are obviously viewed in this manner among outsiders. Limbaugh and Wright supporters believe that their quotes were exploited, taken out of context and unfairly politicized -- or that if they had been allowed to explain themselves to an objective audience, their comments would not be viewed as offensive. In Limbaugh’s and Wright’s worlds their remarks would be rational, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist. Anybody who would think otherwise would simply be mistaken." How is that being dishonest? Aren't your replies (Dr J, robber, pjerwin, mcskinny, tenor1) simply proof of McKissic's point?

...
written by wmdmckissic, October 28, 2009
The above comments clearly document the point of my article; Blacks and Whites simply view racial issues differently, generally. Sharpton submitted quotes from Limbaugh in his letter to the NFL Commissioner that are not in dispute that most Blacks would view as racially insensitive if not racist. Media matters list numerous quotes not in dispute that would be viewed by Blacks the same way. That’s why if this problem is going to be resolved the two sides need to talk.
response to Kash
written by Dr. J, October 28, 2009
It is an outrageous indictment of the preacher's community to say that: "In Limbaugh’s and Wright’s worlds their remarks would be rational, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist. Anybody who would think otherwise would simply be mistaken." Any community that would think Wright's statements were rational, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist is a community of racists who are in dire need of diversity training.
to wmdmckissic
written by robber, October 29, 2009
Media Matters? You're not serious. Now I understand where you get your information. Also, if you're going to mention quotes included by Rev. Sharpton then tell us what they were.

Honestly, this persecution of Limbaugh is getting older than dirt. I bet if you did a radio show for three hours a day, for 20 years, I could make a list of quotes that I, as a white man, could view as racist (if I was so inclined to search for such things). If I wanted to find racism in your articles, I'm sure I could do so, because as you rightly state we see the world differently. But I see no organized effort to quell your free speech. I don't even see an organized effort to quell Rev. Wright's speech, or Rev. Sharpton's speech. (Generally I think most people just ignore it and move on.) I do see an organized effort however to quell conservative speech, whether it could be deemed "racist" or not. And you sir are a part of that effort (see your first article). I repeat my point that if we would take away the PC Police the world would be free to speak honestly about race.

It is impossible in this world to speak for very long and not offend somebody, especially if they're looking to be offended. But instead of talking about it, too many want to just quell the speaker. That's my point.

Some of your statements have merit, but until you get off the "get Limbaugh, get Ingraham, get whoever is conservative" kick then as I have said before, you have no credibility. I will make you an offer. I will seriously and prayerfully consider your statements, if you do the same with mine.
...
written by kash, October 29, 2009
"Any community that would think Wright's statements were rational, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist is a community of racists who are in dire need of diversity training." And the point is, the other side thinks the same way about Limbaugh.

"but until you get off the "get Limbaugh, get Ingraham, get whoever is conservative" kick then as I have said before, you have no credibility." The other side could just as easily say, until you get off the "get Obama, get Pelosi, get whoever is liberal" kick then YOU have no credibility. Don't you see that you are just proving McKissic's point that until we honestly evaluate our own side's prejudices and unrelenting positions no dialogue can take place? But then, perhaps you don't really desire dialogue. It is the moderates who actually want to sort this stuff out, the ideaologues on both sides like the situation just like it is. McKissis is one of the moderates trying to push through the angry absolutist rhetoric.
to kash
written by robber, October 29, 2009
What the heck are you talking about? When have you ever seen/heard/read me playing the "get Obama" game? I don't look to "get" anybody, that's why I reject those who do. How dare you lump me in with that crowd. I am proudly conservative, but I do not play that game, and you don't know me well enough to accuse of such hogwash. If I am anything, it is a cynic. I lost faith with all politicians long ago. That's not even what this discussion is about. You're mistaking me for someone who gives a rat's rear end about Washington politics. You're off point, off subject and off your rocker. I must have really said something intelligent because you responded with a personal attack. Don't ever respond to anything I say again without apologizing for your comments above.
...
written by wmdmckissic, October 29, 2009
to robber
Sharpton’s quote was regarding Limbaugh comparing NFL players to the “Cryps and the Bloods” and comments about Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick. “I do see an organized effort to quell conservative speech...” It is civil speech that’s being sought, not quelling conservative speech. I am a conservative. The whole point of my article is that we need to engage in reasoned dialogue and seek to understand before we are understood. Therefore, I will take you up on your offer to prayerfully consider your statements.
to robber
written by kash, October 29, 2009
I am not sure how you could have interpreted that as a personal attack. I was trying to make a point about how the two sides represented by those who find nothing offensive in what Limbaugh says and those who find nothing offensive in what Wright says are equally unable to see it from any other point of view. I simply turned the words that you said to McKissic around as to what someone on the far left might say to someone on the far right. I meant "you" in the general sense, and certainly, if you have never said anything negative about Obama or Pelosi, I apologize for implying that someone who defends Rush Limbaugh might also give voice to the things he says about Obama and Pelosi.
...
written by kash, October 29, 2009
And of course, I apologize for suggesting you don't want dialogue. Particularly since you ended with such an open invitation for continued discussion: "Don't ever respond to anything I say again without apologizing for your comments above."
...
written by ABP Reader, October 29, 2009
kash, there's lots of thin skin around here, as you've recently learned. As a white male, I appreciate your willingness to interact honestly and truthfully with McKissic's very important call to an "honest conversation about race."
response
written by Dr. J, October 29, 2009
I believe in this instance "honest" is the operative word.
response
written by robber, October 29, 2009
to wmdmckissic:
Much of what I said regarding this article is because I read your last article. I pray we both find God's direction.

to kash:
yes, I demanded an apology, and I wasn't going to entertain any rhetoric from you until I got one. You have the right to say what you want, but I wasn't going to converse any more with you until I got an apology. However, I got my apology, so no hard feelings. I believe I overreacted, and I apologize for that. But there is nowhere I would want to be less than with that group of Republicans complaining about Obama, et al. Please do not put my in that box. I am not one of those. Peace to you.
more response
written by robber, October 29, 2009
wmdmckissic:
By the way, I would agree with anyone, Limbaugh included, who said NFL games look like battles between the Bloods and the Crips. That is what it looks like sometimes. That's why I stopped watching the NFL. Unfortunately college football is becoming too close to this as well. I'm not entertained by players taunting or hurting each other; or dancing and prancing after even the most mundane plays. Sorry.

Kash:
I defend Limbaugh because I believe firstly he has the right to say what he says. Secondly because I have probably listened to thousands of his shows and I have never heard him say anything racist. Profound, yes, controversial, sure, but not racist. I think the McNabb remark was stupid, maybe arrogant, but not racist. The fact that he is attacked so vigorously by the left proves he is winning the arguments.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 29, 2009
The problem, Dr J, is that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is accused of dishonesty.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 29, 2009
robber, let me get this straight: you're claiming that "being attacked so vigorously" is a sign that one is winning an argument?

In that case, ____ is winning the argument.

If only your naive position could actually be true.
...
written by kash, October 30, 2009
Hey, no hard feelings at all. I am glad you took the time to explain your position more thoroughly. And I agree that Rush has the right to say what he says, but he should also expect to put up with the consequences of being inflammatory in his rhetoric (hence troubles buying a football team). He certainly reaps the benefits of being a controversial figure, so I hardly feel sorry for him for the downside. And I liked your comment about the youth of today, and I hope you are right, that they are for the most part getting past the racial baggage of older generations.
...
written by kash, October 30, 2009
And again, I still think McKissic wasn't trying to defend Rev Wright and demonize Rush, I think he was saying that as Christians we need to be careful not to buy into extremist rhetoric on either side of what is PERCEIVED as a racial issue (even if you don't think that Rush is racist - I actually am not sure how Rush actually feels about anything, since he is an entertainer who says whatever he thinks will get him the best ratings, but I do think he plays up the "white male as victim of the left" role on his show). My take on this article and the one he wrote on respecting the office of the President was that as Christians, we need to recognize that the perception of racism is real, and we can be sensitive to that without compromising our criticism of certain Obama administration policies. The key being to critique the policy accurately and without vitriol and without attacking the person. Which you seem to already try to do, Robber, but there are many on both extremes that seem unable to discuss substantive issues without throwing in unhelpful hyperbole and name calling. And that is where the opportunity for the other side to yell "racism" comes in. So we just need to watch how we engage in dialogue and criticism of the President, and not do so in the manner of Rush or Wright. At least, that was what I got from McKissic's pieces.
fair enough
written by robber, October 30, 2009
Hey kash I agree with much of what you say, seems like the more we talk, and explain what we mean, the more we understand each other. Funny how that works. Maybe that's what McKissic meant. If so, then I think he went about it in an odd way.

P.S. I don't know what ABP Reader meant, and I don't want to know.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 30, 2009
robber: Lol, I thought he was quite straightforward...

As to the article: Maybe we can start by understanding what makes an insult "racist" to the black community. Why were Wright's comments not racist? Are any insults from whites to blacks not considered racist?
response to jesdisciple
written by kash, October 31, 2009
"Why were Wright's comments not racist?" McKissic points out that they did seem so to those outside his "community".
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 31, 2009
kash: Yes, and I'm asking why... Maybe we can get on with the conversation.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 31, 2009
Oops, I misread your comment. I'm asking the black community why they weren't racist.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.