I have questioned whether or not I should respond to this reaction of the Obama speech. I must say it angered me to read some of the comments and ideas in this reaction, and quite honestly I felt if I had responded to this quickly I would simply be jumping head first into a written war of words. My goal here is not to simply say things for the sake of saying them. Nor is it my goal to in a sense retaliate to an attack. You see, unlike like some people in the political arena, I don’t find it necessary to use scare tactics to get my audience to listen. No, instead, I am responding simply because you have given me no other choice. I will not be the appeaser of inadequate accusations. I will not simply stand by and let another person push the great lie. The Nazi’s believed that if you told a lie long enough people will start to believe it or at the very least comply with you. The Bush administration uses this tool constantly. From weapons of mass destruction to the fact that we must give up our freedom (Patriot Act) if we want to be free. It was wrong when the Nazi’s did it, it was wrong when the Bush administration did it, and it’s still wrong when you try to use it “harmlessly” in a class reaction. Now don’t get me wrong, it is not my intention to put you in the same company as Hitler or Bush, far from it. What I am saying, however, is do not let your emotions get the better of you. When you allow this, things start to suffer, such as your arguments and credibility.
Take your statement about Obama having the media in his back pocket. Are you actually trying to say that Obama, a young senator from
Next you said the Senator loves Wright who is black and his Grandmother who is white and to denounce him would be like denouncing his grandmother for racial slurs she has said around him. First off, paraphrasing is not your strong suite my friend. I mean, really, “in essence”? I think if you looked at the speech again or read the transcript you might not feel the same way.
You then went on to say you actually cringed when you heard this. That he did not separate himself enough from Rev. Wright, which you believe, was the goal of the speech, a goal in which he failed to reach. Well once again this is simply not the case. It was not the intentions of the Senator to distance himself from Wright, but to show that he is not Wright. He did not make these claims, his Reverend did. Must we all be held accountable for the words of our religious advisors? Isn’t there a separation between church and state for a reason?
It’s funny how where you see something cringe worthy, I see something praise worthy. I think it says something about a man’s character when he doesn’t simply take the easy political way out and deny his involvement with a man who has shown his family compassion over the years. I don’t agree with many positions of my friends but this doesn’t mean I would ever deny my friendship just because of something my friend said. The words Wright said may not resonate well with most of the American public, but at the same time we must think about why a person would raise such radical claims. Why is there this frustration and hatred for the American government and ideology?
You say Obama tiptoed around the Wright issue, but in fact he delved deeper into the issue than one might notice at first glance. You see, in talking about what caused these outbursts of racial intolerance was deep seeded ideologies on the problems of a culture. Obama made it a speech about race because it was already an issue of race. Black peoples’ struggles, white people’ struggles, and every color and hue in between‘s struggles. It’s not black people who cause white problems or vice versa. We all struggle with different issues, but in the end we all struggle, and the only way to move forward as a nation is to come together as one. This is the message Obama was trying to convey, and he did so with eloquence and poise. I have waited to give this response because I know how much it stings when one’s political views are attacked. We do not always think with clear heads in times of anger. This is how wars are started, freedoms are lost, and lines of communication are severed. We must learn to use central processing as apposed to peripheral. We must take time and think before we act. "He only will succeed in attaining the eminence at which we aim . . . who shall learn to speak correctly before he learns to speak rapidly."
- Quintillian, Institutes of Oratory, Book 2, Ch.4
No comments:
Post a Comment