Posted on 05/01/2008 1:16:18 PM PDT by Kaslin
Whenever a political figure lets fly with some remark that bounces badly, he or she is likely to protest that it was taken "out of context." The implication is that, if the critics would just read (or, better yet, quote) the rest of the speech, the offending utterance would be seen in a different and far less offensive light.
But is that really true? The defender of the statement almost never points to anything else in the speech that actually modifies the damage done by the words in question. We are asked to assume that it is there, somewhere, but it is never quoted for our benefit -- or the speaker's.
The most recent orator to try to take refuge in this imaginary hidey-hole is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual adviser for the past 20 years. In a sermon that has been excerpted on television innumerable times in recent weeks, the good reverend was bewailing the miserable condition into which America's white citizens have allegedly forced blacks. He charged, among other things, that whites actually invented AIDS to afflict the black population of the country. Working himself up into a righteous frenzy, he seized on the expression "God bless America" and declared that it badly needed revision. No, he thundered: The right view was "God damn America!" The listening parishioners cheered enthusiastically.
Given the long and close bond between Wright and Obama, reporters wasted no time asking Obama for his comments. And Obama, it hardly needs saying, wasted equally little time repudiating his pastor's words, and indeed in denouncing them. Thereupon the reporters went back to Wright.
It was very simple, Wright explained to Bill Moyers in a genial TV interview. The offending expression had been "taken out of context." A small snippet of his sermon had been seized on, and broadcast to the world, as if it were a fair representation of his opinion. It was, he seemed to be saying, no such thing -- as the rest of the sermon (the "context") made clear.
Well, if it wasn't, surely there was a ready remedy. Let Wright simply quote some of that omitted context -- the parts that softened those searing words. The part, for instance, where he went on to say, "Now, my friends, that of course isn't my whole view of America. Our country has done many good things." But he didn't tell Moyers about that part -- for the very good reason that it isn't there. The omitted "context" simply doesn't exist, and Wright is lying when he suggests that it does.
Obama, too, wasted no breath trying to dig his pastor out of the hole he had dug for himself. He made no attempt to suggest that "God damn America" was unrepresentative of the general thrust of Wright's sermon. He simply did what any decent or even sensible person would do -- he denounced the statement and left Wright to extricate himself from it as best he could.
Wright's performance was both outrageous and pathetic. It was outrageous because it was a gross libel on his country -- a country that has been good to him, and has done much to improve the condition of his fellow blacks. The very fact that one of his black parishioners is a serious candidate for the presidency is testimony to how far our black fellow citizens have come from the sheer inhumanity of slavery.
And it was pathetic because, having made that blunder, Wright had no better defense than to lie that it was softened by omitted snippets of "context" that simply aren't there. Hasn't Wright ever made a mistake? Doesn't he even have the guts to admit it?
Out of context?
Nobody had to cherry pick anything. All you had to do is stand there and let it land in the catcher’s mitt!
A "context" can also be an occasion.
You can say the same thing at a political rally and a sports rally -- "Tear them limb from limb!" -- and it can mean two different things.
A lot of the time, "I was taken out of context" means "Things I said privately have been made public and treated as if I said them to a crowd."
Look at the instant messaging scandal in Detroit for examples.
It doesn't look like that helps Rev. Wright much, though.
Taking words out of context is a mainstay of democrats, which is probably why they accuse republicans of doing it.
My very favorite example was propagated by scores of liberals, most notably Ted Kennedy, who chastened George W. Bush for attacking Saddam Hussein because there was an “imminent threat.”
Bush did, in fact, use the words “imminent threat.” Here’s the context (from his 2003 State of The Union Address):
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
In other words, we could not afford to wait until there was an imminent threat. This is the complete opposite of declaring that Saddam was, in fact, already an imminent threat. And this little bit of syntactical legerdemain has been embellished in a million “Bush lied, people died” slogans.
>A lot of the time, “I was taken out of context” means “Things I said privately have been made public and treated as if I said them to a crowd.”<
Whitey was never supposed to hear it!
My favorite explanation of context is these two Bible verses:
Genesis 4:8 “and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”
Luke 10:37 “Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”
Context is important....
Sometimes it absolutely is.
Simple rule:
Left ‘blunder’ no matter heinous (Bill Ayres) how long the passsage (Bill Clinton), how direct the meaning (Rev. Wright), just needs to be understood because of the persons ‘experiences’ and ‘culture’ and ... you know the drill = “YOU have a problem for bringing it up - Move on! We need to talk about health care for all, etc.”
White or Right-win blunder, no matter how private or misunderstood (Trent Lott, et al), no matter how long ago (slavery), no matter how many apologies given or lives and treasure paid (Civil War, set asides, welfare, affirmative action) = “we will never let this go!”
Sneakyuser
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.