Sorry folks, I don't see things the way
you do. To me Rev. Lowery's entire speech
was beautiful and soaring, anything but
divisive, and as I said before, altogether
a fitting conclusion to a historic day from
someone who has been there from the start.

Racial harmony was the way I read his
message.

And I believe in it with all of my heart.

I have nothing more to say.

You believe whatever you want.

All The Best,

Yeah, I second that Foxy.

I'd ask you - how many of you, really believe the goal of the Reverend was to be divisive, instead of inclusive?

For many of these matters, I've got to wonder if the intent is ignored in favour of scoring points via semantics.

Can you point me to other speeches by the Reverend where he has specifically shown to have racist views? Has he stooped to using the term 'whitie' like certain posters here who are trying to exaggerate or distort the issue?

I'm not in favour of preferential or prejudicial racial treatment for any group. Despite these comments I don't think the Reverend or Obama is either, though if anyone can prove otherwise then I'll listen. In lieu of that, I've got to assume this is petty point-scoring.

For a start why are you guys so under the impression that Mr Obama and his team of people are 100% perfect?

TRTL,
All the people that heard it, read it, and can bear to admit it, I think believe it.

I'm not going to go hunt up this blokes speeches to prove anything, this one in discussion is ample.

Why is a racist comment ignored? As KMB recently mentioned, if it were Mr Bush saying blacks need to pick it up a bit, you'd be really upset I am sure.

Unfortunately it happened, face it.

Foxy,
I think there was a lot of goodness in that speech, but like any talk:

"I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you, but I hate you too."

Just because a majority of it is positive doesn't mean the one bad bit doesn't have some measure of meaning. It isn't erased. It alters the meaning somewhat too.

Basically Mr Obama and his team said whites have been somewhat in the wrong.

They said it, not me.

Anyway I am not going to keep going on either, we simply disagree, which isn't the end of the world.

The election of President Obama has the potential to actually divide the country more along racial lines similar to the OJ Simpson case. Where OJ could not be guilty of murder in the eyes of black people just because he was a black hero and so any genuine criticism of Obamas policies by white people will be seen as a white plot.

KMB - Do you think none of the other races he mentioned are bigoted and racist.
What about the war in the Congo at the moment, the old flare up of the Rwandan tribal massacre. Then there is also the Sudan massacres in Africa. I bet if you study the history books you’ll find lots more too.

The red and yellow races have their own bloody histories of mass slaughter too.

Rev. Lowrys freudian slip in singling out only the whites as doing wrong shows the belief that many races seem to have that it is only a white failing, when a look into their own history which they often refuse to acknowledge shows worse massacres than what they accuse the whites of.

Racism is not really about skin colour it is about bloodline and even the tribe next door as was witnessed in Rwanda is subject to land and rescource hostility if there is no intermarriage between the two.

The conflict of skin colour is not going to go away just because Obama now heads the White House. If you read the Code of Hamarrubi in about 2000 BC, you would realise they were gloating over their victory over the whites from the North. Human nature being what it is has not changed because the leader of the majority has changed by skin colour in America. The conflict identified by skin colour in the hearts of many still remains, and not only in whites. Are the blacks claiming because of Obamas skin colour some dominance over the whites? If so the colour problem still remains. Are they celebrating his skin colour or his ability to lead America for all?