Did you know that Haiti’s problems are run by greedy white folks? You would have if you read Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope!
[T]he pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.
“The painting depicts a harpist,” Revernd Wright explained, “a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. … [E.A.]
But what does that actually mean?
This excerpt is from The Audacity of Hope, and paraphrases the original speech of that title by Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright. Because Obama’s publisher apparently has declined to make the contents of Audacity searchable on Amazon.com or Google Book Search I don’t know what comes before or after the excerpt. So is this talk about “white folks greed” in this excerpt
a) used to condemn the speech of Rev. Wright?
b) neutrally support the speech
c) used to agree with the speech of Rev. Wright
The answer appears to be (c). Other statements in the passage are part of general religious political rhetoric, such as references to our “fallen world” and to “the callousness of policy makers.” While clearly the general tone of the statement “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” is an echo of Rev. Wright’s racist rants, Obama seems to mean something quite different, though equally disturbing.
Obama’s speech on race appeared to rephrase the “white folks greed” paragraph as follows:
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze â€“ a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns â€“ this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
The “callousness of policy makers” is echoed in “a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests,” while the religious “our fallen world” is secularized into “the middle class squeeze.” The analog of “white folks’ greed runs a world in need appears to be the line: economic policies that favor the few over the many.
So by “white folks greed,” I think Obama means globalization, free trade, and economic connectivity.
Obama appears to view anti-white racism as the leftism of idiots, a fiercely intelligent intuition that the global system is fundamentally unfair combined with shocking ignorance as to the actual mechanisms of control and exploitation.
If this is what he meant when he approvingly cited Rev. Wright’s “white folks greed” line, then Obama would be an unremarkable academic liberal.
It also would make him the worst President in generations.