I was surprised by Matthew Ladner's narrow treatment of the Jeremiah Wright controversy and his failure to penetrate beyond an incomplete interpretation of the debate in his piece ("An unholy relationship," April 7). Though I want to make my opposition to Wright's words clear, I also think that Mr. Ladner's treatment of the situation was one-sided and less than thorough.
I find three main problems with Mr. Ladner's argument. First, his facts are often shaky and unfounded; he not only puts words in the senator's mouth, but he also misreports Obama's positions regarding Wright's statements. Second, Mr. Ladner misinterprets some of Wright's words, takes them out of the context of a church sermon and fails to see the connection between these statements and the anti-imperialist rhetoric that is common in leftist discourse in the United States. Third, Ladner has a narrow and distorted view of the nature of church participation
and engagement.
One of the main points Mr. Ladner presents in his article is factually inaccurate. He calls it "unconscionable that Obama failed to condemn or, at the very least, disassociate himself" from the statements made by Reverend Wright. This is absolutely false. Barack Obama has unequivocally denounced, rejected and condemned the statements made by Wright, who was promptly taken off the Obama campaign. Suggestions by Mr. Ladner to the contrary are categorically wrong.
Moreover, in pointing out that "Wright said it, Obama did not" before misattributing Wright's statements to Obama, Mr. Ladner succeeds in revealing his own "daring hypocrisy" more than Obama's. Ladner writes: "Sadly, the message that Obama has chosen for himself and his family is a message of victimization. It is a voice that in no uncertain terms tells black Americans that a government 'run by rich white people' has infected them with AIDS, addicted them to drugs, financed the oppression of their racial brothers and sisters in Africa and continues to enslave them through a combination of crooked institutions and overt racism." Here, Mr. Ladner levels a grave accusation against Senator Obama by implying, if not overtly stating, that Obama has chosen this message for himself and his campaign, and that he readily subscribes to the subsequent points about AIDS, drugs and so on. Though I have mentioned this already, it apparently bears repeating that Barack Obama has "in no uncertain terms" denounced and rejected these divisive remarks.
Mr. Ladner also misinterprets Wright's message and fails to recognize that such statements are not singular in their extremism. Certainly not the first Sept. 11 critic, Wright did not go as far as former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who called the Sept. 11 victims "little Eichmanns." From those who subscribe to Sept. 11 conspiracy theories - like the "Loose Change" films - to fans of Michael Moore's shaky arguments and members of our own Tufts community ashamed of U.S. actions abroad and our alleged consumption of more than 60 percent of the world's resources - potentially anti-American rhetoric is not uncommon even in moderately liberal-leaning circles. Many such people would say they are ashamed to be Americans in light of what they call an imperialist foreign policy, a disposable consumerist culture and a seeming arrogance and indifference in our dealings abroad.
Though he presents the quote in its entirety, Mr. Ladner fails to fully understand Wright's message: "God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." In this statement, Wright doesn't sound so different from commentators on the far left, from members of the far right that denounce genetic research as playing God or even from some antiwar protesters in the Tufts community. However, Mr. Ladner takes this statement to mean that Wright (and by extension, Obama) is definitively opposed to America in general, even though he is only criticizing our country insofar as it subscribes to American supremacy. In addition, Mr. Ladner fails to see Wright's remarks in the context of a church sermon. A fire and brimstone preacher does not say, "I think we need to have a serious discussion about racism in America and American foreign policy." He uses language that, to us, seems harsh and fiery.
Wright does not, as Mr. Ladner claims, tell his congregation they are resigned to be "pawns in a ... game of white-man chess." Rather than adopting a victim frame, Wright encourages his parishioners to engage civically and directly confront the issue of race in America, as Obama has so eloquently done in his recent speech on race in Philadelphia. Mr. Ladner criticizes the reverend with opening "the slowly healing wounds of our country." But it is important that we recognize that there are wounds, that our country does have a racist past and that we need to confront this directly rather than lay the issue of race to rest and turn a blind eye to it.
Finally, Mr. Ladner presents an excessively narrow view of what it means to be involved in, or donate money to, a church. While I don't consider myself especially religious, I am a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC), the same church to which Senator Obama belongs. Our church is committed to tolerance and acceptance; in my hometown of Boulder, Colo., ours is one of the only churches, if not the only one, that accepts people from the LGBT community as members. In donating money to his church, Obama is not supporting an "outpost for deception, paranoia, prejudice and even hate," but an institution committed to promoting love of one's neighbor, helping the poor and sick, and improving the lives of those less fortunate than oneself.
From my church in Colorado to Barack's in Illinois, the UCC casts a large umbrella that encompasses many different viewpoints and ideologies and encourages debate among them in order to bring an increased appreciation of the merits of different viewpoints. Isn't this the kind of openness to diverse opinions which is so lacking in Washington and which we want in our next president? In contrast, Mr. Ladner argues a narrower view and commits the same errors as the media by choosing to vilify two or three sermons out of Wright's 20 years of preaching and service to his community.
Whether black Americans or white Americans, we are all Americans. We sing the same anthem and our hands cover hearts that beat for the same flag. Encouraging discourse between members of these two communities will hopefully lead us to realize that we are members of one community and so must confront the issue of racism together and head-on. I personally find Reverend Wright's remarks to be deplorable and hateful. But to say that Senator Obama carries a message other than one of hope and unity is to distort facts and stoop to a level no longer acceptable in political discourse.
Daniel Wolf is a sophomore majoring in political science.
