The Politician & The Preacher

[nattyreb]

The Politician & the Preacher
[col. writ. 3/15/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal


The recent quasi-controversy over the comments made by the Rev. Dr.
Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of the United Church of Christ, to which Sen.
Barack Obama (D.IL), both belongs and attends, has shown us how limited, and how
narrow, is this new politics peddled by the freshman Senator from Chicago.

Although first popularized via the web, the Reverend's comments caused
Sen. Obama to say he was "appalled" by them, and he has repudiated such
remarks as "offensive."

Just what were these comments? As far as I've heard, they were that Sen.
Hilary Clinton (D.NY) has had a political advantage because she's white;
that she was raised in a family of means (especially when contrasted with
Obama's upbringing); and she was never called a nigger.

Sounds objectively true to me.

Rev. Wright's other remarks were that the country was built on racism,
is run by rich white people, and that the events of 9/11 was a direct reaction
to US foreign policy.

Again -- true enough.

And while we can see how such truths might cause discomfort to American
nationalists, can we not also agree that they are truths? Consider, would
Sen. Clinton be where she is if she were born in a Black female body? Or if
she were born to a single mother in the projects? As for the nation, it may be
too simplistic to say it was built on racism, but was surely built on racial
slavery, from which its wealth was built. And who runs America, if not the
super rich white elites? Who doesn't know that politicians are puppets of
corporate and inherited wealth?

And while Blacks of wealth and means certainly are able to exercise
unprecedented influence, we would be insane to believe that they 'run' this
country. Oprah, Bob Johnson and Bill Cosby are indeed wealthy; but they have
influence, not power. The limits of Cosby's power was shown when he tried to
purchase the TV network, NBC, years ago. His offer received a corporate smirk.
And Oprah's wealth, while remarkable, pales in comparison to the holdings
of men like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.

Would George W. Bush be president today if he were named Jorje Guillermo
Arbusto, and Mexican-American? (Not unless Jorje, Sr. was a
multimillionaire!)

In his ambition to become America's first Black president, Obama is in
a race to prove how Black he isn't; even to denouncing a man he has
considered his mentor.

As one who has experienced the Black church from the inside, politics
and social commentary are rarely far from the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Martin L.
King spoke of politics, war, racism, economics, and social justice all across
America. His fair-weather friends betrayed him, and the press condemned his
remarks as "inappropriate", "unpatriotic", and "controversial."

Rev. Dr. King said the US was "the greatest purveyor of violence" on
earth, and that the Vietnam War was illegitimate and unjust. Would Sen. Obama
be denouncing these words, as the white press, and many civil rights figures
did, in 1967? Are they "inflammatory?"

Only to politics based on white, corporate comfort uber alles (above
all)" only to a politics that ignores Black pain, and distorts Black history;
only to a politics pitched more to the status quo, than to real change.


Politics is ultimately about more than winning elections; it's about
principles; it's about being true to one's self, and honoring one's ancestors;
it's about speaking truth to power.

It can't just be about change, because every change ain't for the better!

--(c) -08 maj