I’m 29 years old, and I’m already crazy skeptical and cynical when it comes to politics. So when I started reading comments this afternoon about how Obama’s speech, which I didn’t catch when it happened, was perhaps the greatest speech on race ever given by a politician, I had my doubts.

I watched the speech a few hours ago. Goodbye, doubts. America needs to listen to this speech until it sinks in. He put on the table all the issues I was hoping to discuss, and he said, much more eloquently, everything I’ve been trying to say. I’ve said multiple times that we never actually have a conversation about race because political sensationalism always takes over. Obama said the same. I said that Wright wasn’t a racist, even if I think his method of exposing racial injustice is manifestly unhelpful. Obama said the same. He laid out most of the important starting points for a real race discussion in America, and put forth a view of how we got to where we are today.

Will the conversation actually happen? Well, there cynicism takes over again. But if you’re a reader of this blog, please take 40 completely undistracted minutes to watch the speech, and then take time after to think. Jot notes while he’s talking, if it’ll help. I won’t be returning to the “Racism 101″ series until after Easter, and I don’t need to; this speech laid about a lot of really important things, and I think it should be the focal point of discussion for a while.

For clarification: Jeremiah Wright is not the kind of person I’m upholding as a model for racial reconciliation. I’m using the controversy as a springboard to talk about race issues.

Here’s Barack’s statement on Jeremiah Wright, which I think is appropriate and not just the right move politically, but the right move period.

On the other hand, here are some challenging thoughts on Wright’s preaching in context. (HT to Michael at BHT)

This is a very controversial piece, and I freely admit I may have to rethink some of this as discussion moves forward. Additional Point: One of the things I’m trying to do with this series is to demonstrate that one can agree with “liberals” or “progressives” (for lack of better words) on the causes and definition of racism without it becoming part of the Republican vs. Democrat power-play divide (“racism” vs. “race card”) on this issue (and also, one can agree on the causes and definition, while proposing a different solution to the problem).

Jon did a Google Reader share yesterday (Google Reader rocks, by the way) of the new video circulating of Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright (whom I’ve defended here previously), and many of his inflammatory statements about race (and a few on terrorism) in America. No doubt this is going to cause a firestorm. The Clintons will have to tread carefully here, as they’ve recently run into difficulty over the Ferraro gaffe. They’ll probably use it as part of their new “Obama is unelectable so you should nominate Hillary even though she lost” plan. Conservative pundits – though likely not McCain himself, who won’t want to revisit his “gooks” statement of 2000 – will be all over it in the general election.

Just for the record, watching rich white conservative men react with righteous indignation at Wright’s claim that rich white men run the country is, well, kind of appalling. ‘Cause whatever else you think of Wright, he’s, you know, right on that one.

The politics of all this makes it impossible, once again, to actually talk about racism. I’ll note that it is amusing (and by amusing, I mean “really sad”) the way this plays out. It goes sort of like this:

• White conservative person makes a statement about the effect race has on a vote.
• Liberal person claims “Racism.”
• White conservative accuses liberal of “playing the race card.”

And we never actually talk any deeper about whether or not racism was involved (or what racism even is). Ferraro’s comments are a good example (I know she’s not a conservative, but it illustrates the point). Ferraro’s statement that Barack is winning because of his race is a matter of sociological opinion/discussion, of course. I’d disagree with her (I think if Barack were running the same campaign as a white man, he’d have had this nomination wrapped up a month ago), but that’s a legitimate conversation of . But the question that many are unwilling to address is why Ferraro made the comment and what its effects are, and the answer to that seems to me to be – it’s an attempt to inject a racial element into the contest prior to PA’s primary, in order to favor Clinton.  So whether or not her statement was “racist” or “bigoted,” its effects are to use race in order to achieve a certain end (power for Clinton).

Here’s what I like about the fact that Jeremiah Wright is getting attention in this election, despite the fact that he’s over-the-top and there’s much he says with which I disagree: with a candidate like Obama in play, we might actually end up having a discussion about racism. It won’t happen in the media, but it just might happen across America anyway.

What I’m trying to do here is not to have the typical middle-class-white-man disingenuous “righteous anger” at someone like Wright, and to give his thoughts, as a representation of the black community, a fair and challenging hearing (this is America, right?). We tend automatically to deflect the arguments of people like Wright and never to really think about them. So, implications for political campaigns aside, here are the discussions about Jeremiah Wright’s views that I want to have (these are real questions, not simply rhetorical). I’ll show my hand right off the bat by putting my responses in brackets.

• Is Jeremiah Wright incorrect to say that since its founding, this is a nation that has favored whites at the expense of blacks? [No, not at all...and this is the fundamental conversation that needs to be had when it comes to defining and understanding racism in America.]
• Is Jeremiah Wright incorrect to say that America is an arrogant nation? [In some ways, we are humanitarian and do a lot of great things around the world, no question about it; but yes, we're an arrogant nation. That's standard as far as empires go.]
• Not taking Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” statements entirely out of context (“damn” was set up in contrast to “bless,” he’s talking about judgment/cursing), are his statements that America is deserving of judgment for its sins incorrect? [No, of course not. The point of his statement here is a good one: American leaders assume and invoke the blessing of God while doing things that He abhors. It's the sin of presumption Wright's getting at here. I don't think Wright or anyone else wants American destroyed in a cataclysmic judgment from God.]