> > Which, on the face of it, seems reasonable. If you look more closely
> > however, questions arise.
> >
> > Charles -- like many others -- assumes that Wright's challenge to, and
> > unflinching description of white supremacy and imperial violence comes
> > from little else than "anger". In fact, it's the core of a consistent
> > and well reasoned *liberation theology* response to ongoing forms of
> > oppression. Like Charles, many commentators are saying that Wright,
> > as a follower of Christ, should stop mentioning American sins and,
> > adhering to Sen. Obama's 'vision', focus on 'hope' and
> > 'reconciliation'. (Ironically, many of these newborn theologians are
> > otherwise unconcerned about the finer points of Christian thought).
>
Doug
>I doubt that Charles would recommend this in any other other
situation. Obama, though, gets a free pass.
I think Charles is just saying it's worth a try, in this time, place, conditions. I'm not convinced, but I see his point. I'm not convinced because some white people, perhaps many, rise and become better under direct criticism. They can take it--they can listen to Rev. Wright and vote Obama against McCain. More importantly they can learn some things from what Wright is saying. The question is how many will take it, or learn anything, in this particular moment. Charles certainly has good evidence on his side of whiteness being a disappointingly stubborn affliction. Maybe he's right that more subtlety is called for at this instant, not to be all post-racial but to nudge along to the next stage.
Jenny Brown