Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning”

  1. death Says:

    Darwin was right. Check out the movie:

  2. MotherLodeBeth Says:

    Was looking for info on the two people ( Dr. Carter G. Woodson and Dr. Geneva Smitherman) Jeremiah Wright had mentioned in his speech which CNN carried and did seacrh for info and found your site. All I wanted to add is the man is basically suggesting in my opinion that we go back to separate but equal schools which the blacks fought against when working for integration. And it also would suggest that he agrees with men like Jimmy the Greek and others who got fired for saying blacks had certain traits that made them better at certain sports.

  3. Steve from Florida Says:

    Mr. Eden, I’m really floored in reading this that you could get through Wright’s passage and come to that conclusion. From watching every minute of the Moyers, NPC and NAACP, I think you’re so far of base that perhaps different does not mean deficient should have an exception clause for you. You said “should we now re-segregate our schools”, how did you get there from what he said? We have special education because it’s clear that we have members of society who would not get the full benefit (e.g. learn) from traditional education, art school taught differently than business school. If you were to look at success/dropout rates in the US since integration isn’t it higher for blacks? Isn’t it possible that in a school system designed by whites, run by whites and taught by whites that perhaps another group might not naturally succeed because perhaps just as individual learning styles differ, there might be societal or racial differences. I’m not saying there are, I’m sure there are enough PhD candidates to sort it out. But, unlike you, I don’t think Wright is racist for bringing up prior research that points to it and encouraging discourse on the subject. If its false it won’t stand up to the light of day, but is there a harm in considering it? I think, therefore I am! What’s your story?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Frankly, I’m floored that you DON’T get it.

    Wright said, and I quote from my article’s link, “African and African-American children have a different way of learning.” And as he develops this idea, he’s not just talking a LITTLE different; he is describing a completely different, mutually exclusive subject-object distinction.

    How do you put white children and black children in the same room when they cannot learn in the same way? Seriously? Does the teacher say something in object oriented “white” and then translate it into subject oriented “black”?

    Furthermore, this simply expounds on very clear racial separatist ideas that Wright has already displayed. This is a man that talked about “Africentrism.” He preached a “black value system,” with a commitment to the “black community, the black family, and the black work ethic.”

    This is a guy who gave Louis Farrakan – who has similar racist and racially separatist views – a “man of the year” award.

    And I am pointing out that hard core white racist and white supremacists are only too happy to accept Wright’s premises, and then run with them.

    So get off the floor and get with the program.

  5. Michael Eden is uber cool Says:

    I really think you need to go back to school and take a few sociology classes and learn more about contemporary forms of racism before you start calling people of color racist.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Don’t quite get the name, but the Michael Eden of this blog wouldn’t have made such a comment!

    You see, you think that racism is an issue for sociology majors to resolve; I think it’s a moral issue.

    I could also frankly care less about “contemporary forms of racism,” as I am not so naive as to think that racism isn’t nearly as old as humanity. Do you truly think for a second that you understand racism better than a 19th century slave? I don’t mean to be insulting, but you would frankly have to be an elitist nincompoop to think something like that! And unlike racism, THAT would be quite contemporary.

    And you’re implied view that I have no right to “start calling people of color racist” is a pretty darn racist position itself. Particularly when you don’t have any idea what color my skin is, or what race I am. Clearly, you have obtained your nuts from some Marxist sociology professor who IS an elitist nincompoop. Racism is a hateful attitude that anyone of any race can have toward a member of any other racial/ethnic group.

    But thank you for taking the time to read and comment.

  7. Stop-Obama » Sunshine Fermentation Democrat a la Bush Magnificant Says:

    […] Wright put it well. He claimed Blacks were somehow unable to learn from “objects” and used the example of […]

  8. Frightening Obama Videos: The Afrocentric Socialist Redistributionist Radical President? « Start Thinking Right Says:

    […] and racial views that Barack Obama partnered with William Ayers to fund, and consider the extremely similar views championed by Jeremiah Wright.  They all championed an incredibly Afrocentric vision of […]

  9. Mad Bluebird Says:

    Jeremaih Wright is a stupid annoying jerk and all around cunt why dont he go and jump off a cliff

  10. justin is uper SEZY! Says:

    Jeremiah Wright says “Jesus was a poor black man” and then points at the bible and says “It’s in that book! It’s in that book!” if any of those retards in his building were to pick up a bible for themselves and read some of it, it says nothing about Jesus’ race. That’s just one little example of all his BS.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Glad that we agree.

    I wrote an article titled “Jeremiah Wright Needs To Go Home And Read His Bible” on that very sort of stuff.

    The “liberation theology” taught at Obama’s church is not Christianity; it is Marxist theology repackaged in Christian terminology, so that what comes right out of the heart of the devil SOUNDS “Christian.” Liberation theology was developed by the Sandinistas to help them win over a population that was overwhelmingly Catholic. Pope John Paul and the man who is the current Pope (now named Benedict) both condemned liberation theology as a heresy.

    Sadly, the current President of the United States is far more Marxist than he is “Christian.” And both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are thrashing angrily in their graves.

  12. Cheers Says:

    Kinky hair is different from straight hair. So what? Is one lesser than the other? Just because there is a history of perverting differences, that doesn’t mean we can’t transcend that and learn to appreciate differences. And lastly, any serious student of world history knows that white European society has not always been successful (hello, the “Dark Ages”, famine, disease, poverty among the lower classes, civil wars and unrest) and African societies have had long periods of success (Ashanti empire, Songhai Empire, the Dahomey kingdom, successful trading in Taghaza salt mines, to name a few). Come on, dig a little deeper.

  13. Michael Eden Says:


    Boy, I wish you could see how truly astonishingly stupid your argument is.

    Kinky hair? Is THAT what you think I wrote about? Where do you quote me railing on kinky hair and how straight hair is clearly superior? In point of fact, I NEVE DO THAT.

    Which is to say, what you do is – lacking any real straw man to talk about based on what I actually wrote – is to invent your own. If I had said anything that was truly worth demagoguing, you wouldn’t have had to manufacture your own example that had nothing to do with me, would you?

    You are clearly the only person in this discussion who has a problem with black people’s kinky hair. Your own incipient racism is crawling out of you.

    I despise you people who cannot find one single thing wrong with what I said and therefore either completely ignore what I wrote or create your own straw men to deceitfully attack me with.

    You make other fundamental mistakes, too. For instance, your use of the term “the dark ages.”

    Do you know where that term came from? It came from Voltaire, the famous atheist, who fabricated it as a literary polemical device to contrast what he viewed as “the dark age of Christian thought” with the glorious light of the secular Enlightenment. And yet it is easy to show that the Enlightenment – most especially the advent of science – was the direct result of Christianity on the Christian West.

    Here is a more scholarly article on the Little Ice Age that was what REALLY caused your ideologically-demagogic “Dark Ages” period.

    Historians are increasingly walking away from and distancing themselves from that highly prejudiced and polemic term that you used out of the same prejudice and bias and rhetorical propaganda that characterized Voltaire.

    If you weren’t so historically illiterate, you would realize that the age of the Romans was a period of global warming that was actually warmer than we enjoy now. Their civilization thrived and their crops thrived during this warming. One of the things that ultimately ended the Roman period was an ICE AGE. And it turns out that human civilization thrives when the world is warm and struggles when the climate starts getting cold.

    This has happened before: the Old Kingdom in Egypt was destroyed by climate change. Things went from wonderful to nearly impossible for the Old Kingdom – which basically vanished as a result.

    The human race ended a truly desperate period during the ice age. The governing structure of Rome was weakening and collapsing even as increasing numbers of barbarians began to migrate toward the warmer regions and threatening the weakening empire. And the only thing that preserved civilization was the Christian church – as imperfect as the Church was and as imperfectly as they acted. They preserved civilization during a period of difficulty and struggle when you had to hack out your meager existence.

    YOU should dig a LOT deeper.

    I would also point out that I NEVER demonize African civilization in my article the way you just demonized Western civilization with your “dark ages” crap.

    On my view, EVERY people group has a heydey that they can look back at with pride. Whether you are Hispanic (the Aztecs and the Incas), whether you are nordic (the Vikings), whether you are Chinese (the dynasties, the Great Wall), and yes, whether you are black, your people – the race and culture that you came from – at one time accomplished something great that you can take pride in.

    So, on the one hand I completely agree with you that Aficans and the black people who have come from Africa ought to be very proud of the civilization and the accomplishments their civilizations attained to. On the other hand, I am charging you as a flagrent liar for accusing me of having ever said anything to the contrary.

    My criticism about Jeremiah Wright has NOTHING to do with that, you nitwit. Rather, what Jeremiah Wright was clearly saying is that – probably because of Darwinism – black people are literally entirely and fundamentally different from white people on the level of their brains. And that invites the ugliest aspects of Darwinism and Nazi social engineering. And yes, it invites accusations of genetic racial inferiority – particularly against blacks whose brains just can’t compete with the brains of the other, “superior” races.

    I merely quote the title of Darwin’s most famous work: “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

    On the hateful view that Jeremiah Wright cherishes, it becomes inevitable to begin to conclude that blacks, sadly, were NOT “favoured races” and are evolutionarily inferior to the superior race of whites.

    Most black people would readily agree with me, which is why they become very uneasy and very upset when people start speculating about race-based differences between blacks and whites. It is an ugly can of worms that ought not be opened.

    You owe me an apology for your presentation. I am blocking you until you either provide me with that apology or at least have the decency to show me where I mocked “kinky hair vs. straight hair” and said that blacks had never attained to any decent civilization as you falsely insinuate I did.

  14. Cheers Says:

    Let’s get one thing straight. No one insulted you so relax with the name calling. You’re not the most sophisticated debater. you argue based on emotions not on facts. Where did I say that you “demonized” African culture? Where? No where. One of the hallmarks of healthy discussion and debate is avoiding putting words in other people’s mouths because that is basically the equivalent of “making shit up”, which you are doing. My point was simply to address your statement here:
    “The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.”.
    What record are you actually looking to? How far back are you going? How do you define success? You are so well-versed on European history but I’d be surprised if you know anything about African history outside of slavery with the same degree of intimacy. But you’re convinced that you are right and anyone offering new or alternate ways of looking at something is met with your internet wrath. Good luck with life.

  15. Cheers Says:

    it’s also sad that you know so much about some random ass Ice Age but you don’t know that “Hispanic” is not a politically correct term. I would say that that might be a culturally and timely relevant factoid for you to learn when you’re done being paranoid and ridiculous.

  16. Cheers Says:

    My point about kinky hair and straight hair being different is what we call an analogy. Not sure if you’ve heard of it or not. If we, for the sake of argument, assume that Wright is correct, that the thought process of the two groups are different, it would be considered an immutable characteristic, like kinky hair and straight hair. They’re both hair, but they have different needs. One type gets oilier easier while the other gets drier than the other. One type has more cuticle layers while one has less cuticle layers and needs more attention in the colder weather, for example. My point in this analogy is that highlighting a difference does not mean or does not have to mean establishing a hierarchy. it just means establishing different approaches for the same result. In the case of learning- different learning approaches or integrating different learning approaches- with the end goal of passing the class. Just like with the hair analogy- the goal for both is healthy hair- but their approach will be just a little different- less water here, more water here.
    Truly, your anger with Wright’s argument is really about your stinginess and laziness. If there happened to be any merit to Wright’s argument, it would require some education overhaul and a redistribution of resources to cater to the needs to black students and clearly that idea bugs the living crap out of you.

    And seriously “most black people”? Who says that? Are blacks a monolithic group? Did you have a meeting with “most black people” to find out if they agree?

  17. Michael Eden Says:


    I see I’ve got a firehose to deal with.

    I’ll just reproduce your first comment:

    Kinky hair is different from straight hair. So what? Is one lesser than the other? Just because there is a history of perverting differences, that doesn’t mean we can’t transcend that and learn to appreciate differences. And lastly, any serious student of world history knows that white European society has not always been successful (hello, the “Dark Ages”, famine, disease, poverty among the lower classes, civil wars and unrest) and African societies have had long periods of success (Ashanti empire, Songhai Empire, the Dahomey kingdom, successful trading in Taghaza salt mines, to name a few). Come on, dig a little deeper.

    When you are responding to MY article and MY comments, you RESPOND TO THEM. You don’t invent analogies that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID. If you want to lecture somebody about “kinky hair,” have the decency to go to the article of somebody who writes about it. Because when you bring up “kinky hair vs. straight hair” and pretend you are making some kind of point on the article that I wrote, you are making “non-sequitur” your debating technique. And I’m not going to waste my time on that. That’s point one.

    As a conservative, if I start talking about “kinky hair” and “straight hair,” I very quickly get called a “racist” by the forever-angry left. So somebody like you drags that stuff into my articles, yeah, I get pretty sensitive about it pretty quickly.

    Anyway, you’re pretty annoyed over the “demonization” thing when you started out doing the same thing to me that you say I did to you.

    Further, when you use incredibly biased and slanderous terminology such as “Dark Ages” to define Western Culture – and I documented that bias – you are no better than the worst of the people you are railing against.

    Let me put it this way: I NOWHERE slammed “African culture” the way you did in merely using that biased propaganda phraseology of “Dark Ages.” There WERE no “Dark Ages” other than in the warped minds of atheist polemicists like Voltaire who wanted to contrast the “Dark” of Christianity against the “light” of pre-Christian pagan Greek civilizatiion.

    So again, what I observed you doing was being INCREDIBLY biased in your incredibly selective understanding of history. And I went after you for that.


    I am amazed at you hypocrites. You say:

    Let’s get one thing straight. No one insulted you so relax with the name calling.

    But by the end of your comment where you tell me that, you are insulting me:

    But you’re convinced that you are right and anyone offering new or alternate ways of looking at something is met with your internet wrath.

    Unless you think you were “praising” me claiming that, you snide liar.

    And then you got going:

    Truly, your anger with Wright’s argument is really about your stinginess and laziness [not an insult, I guess I’m supposed to conclude; who wouldn’t feel happy being told they are stingy and lazy?]


    it’s also sad that you know so much about some random ass Ice Age but you don’t know that “Hispanic” is not a politically correct term. I would say that that might be a culturally and timely relevant factoid for you to learn when you’re done being paranoid and ridiculous [apparently also not an insult. I suppose I should always love it when somebody tells me I’m “paranoid and ridiculous,” right???]

    It’s funny. I live in California. I am SURROUNDED by Hispanic people. My church has a thriving Hispanic congregation that, by the way, we refer to as “Hispanic.” My Democrat-Party owned state officially uses the term “Hispanic” all the time in official government reference. It is also terminlogy that the Obama administration continues to use. It was used in the 2010 Census.

    There are huge numbers of people coming from Central and even South America as well as from Mexico. It is a valid term to use.

    So I’m simply going to point out that you are a truly warped person who attacks people as racial bigots without any justifcation whatsoever.

    You told me to have a nice life. Please get lost and here’s hoping you have one as well (just somewhere other than here).

  18. May Says:

    Both black and whites can be predominately right brained. Doesn’t mean they are not logical though they just tend to be more hands on and creative too. More bored in a left brain institution. shame the world could do with their creativity. Don’t give up learning which ever way righties.

  19. Michael Eden Says:


    I don’t know if your final “righties” is a slam on conservatives or not. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that by “righties” you mean “right-brained people.” What I DO know is that in saying “both blacks and whites can be predominately right brained” is another way of refuting LIBERALS. Because guess what? It’s NOT all about RACE.

    Blacks are in NO way inferior or superior to whites. Differences are mostly cultural and based on worldview. And when blacks have a worldview that accepts more than 72% of their surviving children being born out of wedlock and more than 60% of total babies being murdered in abortion mills, THAT’S where your difference comes in.

    Blacks are in a state of disgrace right now not because they aren’t as smart as whites, but rather because they have more than ANY other group been deceived by the demonic poison that their Democrat slavemasters have spoon-fed them. And they will CONTINUE to remain in a state of disgrace until they wake up and get right with God.

  20. Pamela Chung Says:

    I love how Dr. Wright explained this concept granted it may not be all children but it is alot of children. This is something that needs to be acknowledged and celebrated for a artistic and intuitive student.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    Pamela Chung,

    Sorry that you believe that “a lot of” black children are biologically inferior to the children of other races such that they need to be taught down to their intellectual capacity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: