I think he was wrong to Tweet the quotes because:
- They were out of context. Jackson was speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. His comment was aimed at people who claim to represent the interests of black people, who suffer disproportionately from a lack of health care.
- They affirmed people’s misconceptions. From the retweets, it seems some of Piper’s predominantly white, conservative followers think: people of color talk about race too much, it’s not such a big deal anymore.
I agree with both points. It's so important that people realize he was speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. The second point is what bummed me out the most about his tweets :(
ReplyDeleteAnother irony of the day, Piper posted a really important article today about how race DOES matter to abortion (and I agree with him wholeheartedly)...but apparently it does not matter on the healthcare issue?!?
ReplyDeleteweather you vote yes or no on the HC bill should have nothing to do with your race. Jesse Jackson was wrong to disrespect the Congressman in that way.
ReplyDeleteit's hyperbole to make a point. jackson was saying - if you claim to represent black people, you can't vote against their interests (this was the implication others in the room drew from the comment).
ReplyDeletejohn piper has been known to use hyperbole to make a point too! the lack of context and the assumptions of his followers make the tweets wrong. period.
Jesse Jackson is notorious for making hyperbolic statements.
ReplyDeleteNote Again: if you claim to represent black people, you can't vote against their interests (this was the implication others in the room drew from the comment).
So what if someone in congress was black and thought the current healthcare bill was against their interests? I understood the exaggeration but I thought it unnecessary. Your interests are not different than mine because my skin color is different from yours. Nor should you first represent your race before your constituents. In my mind that further separates and divides our cultures. Both statements worry me. I understand that people of certain races hurt more than others. Although to work off the conclusion that races suffer due to discrimination and now to try to address discrimination by means of HC seems to me to be the equivalent of treating a patient with fever reducing treatments when he has kidney stones. It might reduce the symptom but it won’t stop the hurting and in fact might cause other unforeseen problems.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the premise of your argument - why do you assume that ALL black congressmen claim to represent (only) black people? Did they say in their campaigns "I'm black, you're black, so vote for me?" I realize that ostensibly voting for a person of your race (other than white, because that would be racist) implies that they are going to look out for issues that affect your race, but jumping to that conclusion is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really bothered by the racial implications, but by the error in the logic of Rev. Jackson. Similar fallacies in logic can arise regarding women's issues, particularly abortion. Some (pro-choice) people say "If you are a woman, you should support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Do you want someone telling you what to do with your body?" Similarly, men are often lambasted for being pro-life, the argument is because they aren't women, they can't empathize. I'm not black, but does that mean I can't be bothered by disconnects in logic?
Victor and Erica share a similar concern, I'll address it briefly: he was talking to the Congressional Black Caucus. The group includes all African American (AA) members of Congress. It is focused on the concerns of the AA community. Jackson was saying - to members who specifically focus on the issues of the AA community - you can't claim to represent this community and vote against their interests.
ReplyDeleteOne more piece of inside baseball, he was speaking to one member of the caucus (indirectly). That one member voted against the bill because he is running for governor in a very conservative state. Jackson was rebuking what he saw as a choice of personal political interests over the needs of constituents (AA and others!)
Needless to say, the issue has been blown (slightly!) out of proportion!