QUOTE (Jayrod @ Mar 27 2007, 11:51 AM)
Is that not what he was saying? I'm sorry my logic skills must be lacking, what with actually trying to MEAN what I say. When he says that "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," I assume he means exactly that.
Am I crazy here? Can some other FBG's put in a ruling on this? He is implying cause and effect relationships. My reading comprehension is usually pretty darn good, at least it was when I was in school.
And BTW, I read the whole speech and the entire thing is nothing but an attempt to link himself and his family to the Civil Rights movement. He takes more liberties with cause and effect in regards to the timetable than just this. It is a huge jump in logic to assume that his comments aren't meant to associate the relationships he is pointing out. He is trying to directly associate to Selma Alabama. That is his whole point.
I see what you're saying, but I have to disagree with a few things.
I think things were stirring not only because of Selma, but because of everything going on across the nation in the civil rights movement. Things were likely stirring because of Selma, but they weren't stirring ONLY because of Selma. You know what I mean? Selma was a major event in the civil rights movement, but it wasn't the culminating event, nor the concluding one, it was just a milestone.
Just like the civil rights movement, and what was stirring across america, made it easier for his parents to get together, made them hope that he could live a good life wasn't the ONLY reason they had him, but it probably played a significant role in them getting together and believing that they could work out.
I wasn't meaning to be overly critical of your reading comprehension, but I am saying that I think you're reading it quite a bit more literally than it was intended to be read. This becomes more clear when you hear the whole speech, and see these comments in context.
I'm an obama supporter, and even I was a bit wary when I first heard the criticism around this speech. Naturally, I read the transcript and really tried to understand what was said. I got a good understanding of what he meant to "have a claim on Selma", but it wasn't until I watched him and heard him give the speech that all my doubts about the legitimacy of the claim were removed.
I've tried to point out in this this thread why him saying that he has a claim on Selma is a valid claim. It's not because he was the direct result of them marching across the bridge, but his life has been largely influenced by the events that Selma celebrates. That is the message he was trying to get across, and largely did so, even if he used less than precise language.
And I'd also have to disagree with this comment of yours:
QUOTE
And BTW, I read the whole speech and the entire thing is nothing but an attempt to link himself and his family to the Civil Rights movement.
His speech did include relating himself to Selma, but it was much more than that. It was a call for responsibility, to say that the job isn't done, to pay honor to those who sacrificed in the past, but also to say that much work needs to be done. People who are doing it, the so called "joshua generation" need to be every bit as disciplined as those who stood up to abuse in the civil rights movements without resistance.
He's calling black men and women of our generation to be involved, to show discipline, to fight for rights, to not think of using proper grammar as "talking white". The speech was a challenge to the current generation to pick up the fight their parents started, and to usher in generations of prosperity for our children.
I'm not quite sure how you overlooked all of that, and only saw a political speech intended to tie him to Selma. Granted, that was a part, but it was a part, rather than the whole.
)
