Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology
Acton Commentary ^ | 4/2/2008 | Anthony B. Bradley

Posted on 05/22/2008 5:19:29 PM PDT by markomalley

What is Black Liberation Theology anyway? Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright's recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:

Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of 'blackness.' It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says 'No' to the encroachment of white oppression.

In the 1960s, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.

The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression.

James Cone, the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression.

One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone's context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.

American white theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society.

For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black -- “blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. "White theology," when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God's liberating work in the world.

As such, black theology is a survival theology because it helps blacks navigate white dominance in American culture. In Cone's view, whites consider blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective but subjective -- a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.

The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."

Black Liberation Theology as Marxist Victimology

Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today's terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton's world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).

Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright's liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation

One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination -- which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blt

1 posted on 05/22/2008 5:19:30 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine
Monday , May 5, 2008
FoxNews/Hannity's America
[special Friday night edition--original airdate May 2, 2008]

(some key excerpts)

JOSE DIAZ-BALART, TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Liberation theology in Nicaragua in the mid-1980's was a pro-Sandinista, pro-Marxist, anti-U.S., anti-Catholic Church movement. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts. His church apparently supported, in the mid-'80s in Nicaragua, groups that supported the Sandinista dictatorships and that were opposed to the Contras whose reason for being was calling for elections. That's all I know. I was there.

I saw the churches in Nicaragua that he spoke of, and the churches were churches that talked about the need for violent revolution and I remember clearly one of the major churches in Managua where the Jesus Christ on the altar was not Jesus Christ, he was a Sandinista soldier, and the priests talked about the corruption of the West, talked about the need for revolution everywhere, and talked about 'the evil empire' which was the United States of America."

REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: "it's based in Marxism. At the core of his [Wright's] theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous."

SCHENCK: "I was actually the only person escorted to Dr. Wright. He asked to see me, and I simply welcomed him to Washington, and then I said Dr. Wright, I want to bring you a warning: your embrace of Marxist liberation theology. It is contrary to the Gospel, and you need, sir, to abandon it. And at that he dropped the handshake and made it clear that he was not in the mood to dialogue on that point."

The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html

Obama's Church: Gospel of Hate
Kathy Shaidle, FrontPageMag.com
Monday, April 07, 2008

In March of 2007, FOX News host Sean Hannity had engaged Obama’s pastor in a heated interview about his Church’s teachings. For many viewers, the ensuing shouting match was their first exposure to "Black Liberation Theology"...

Like the pro-communist Liberation Theology that swept Central America in the 1980s and was repeatedly condemned by Pope John Paul II, Black Liberation Theology combines warmed-over 1960s vintage Marxism with carefully distorted biblical passages. However, in contrast to traditional Marxism, it emphasizes race rather than class. The Christian notion of "salvation" in the afterlife is superseded by "liberation" on earth, courtesy of the establishment of a socialist utopia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CD9E14-B0C9-4F8C-A0A6-A896F0F44F02

From "45 Communist Goals":
#27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Louis Farrakhan, at the annual Saviours' Day celebration in Chicago, Feb. 25, 2008: "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better"..."If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4337417

Louis Farrakhan, at the Millions More Movement rally in DC, Oct 15, 2005: "...what Mao Tse Tung did was, he went to the cultural community, and they [Farrakhan spreads his arms beneficently] accepted his idea."..."Mao Tse Tung ... had a billion people whose lives he had to transform."..."the idea of Mao Tse Tung became the idea of a billion people, and China became a world power on the base of the culture and the arts community. If we had a ministry of art and culture in every city we'd create this movement [in the U.S.]."
Source: http://thedrunkablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/communist-plot-noted.html

Louis Farrakhan, Santiago de Cuba, February, 1998: "There is not a member of the black masses in the United States who is not proud of the example set by Cuba and its revolution, with Comandante Fidel at its head"
Source: http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/farakhan21898.html#says

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Obama's pastor and spirtual advisor "crazy uncle" of more than 20 years, honors "Honorable" Minister Louis Farrakhan with the "Jeremiah A. Wright Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer Award" at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.
[it appears the original video was removed, but this one is identical to it]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW2OhkZ0RSg

2 posted on 05/22/2008 5:27:34 PM PDT by ETL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

How Liberation Theology fits into Commie World Revolution:

Excerpt taken from “We Are The Next Target” (1994):

The goals and methods of Communism

Yet it seems almost incredible that any ideology could lead to well-coordinated deception on such a huge scale. Whenever the word “Communism” is mentioned, most people think of a philosophy, a political theory, an economic system, or perhaps a political party. But Communism is none of these. Before we can understand the Communist role in strategic deception and terrorist warfare, we must answer one critical question: What is Communism?

Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin are widely known as the founders of Communism. However, not everyone who professes the ideology of Marx and Lenin is a true Communist. Lenin himself defined Communism as an international organization, akin to the Mafia, whose members would constitute an elite corps of professional revolutionaries.[40] As he described it in 1902, “In form such a strong revolutionary organization in an autocratic country may also be described as a ‘conspiratorial’ organization... such an organization must have the utmost secrecy.”[41] Shortly after seizing control of Russia in 1917, Lenin revealed the secret of Communist success in a booklet, declaring that “The Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power... unless the strictest, truly iron discipline prevailed in our Party.”[42] Naive believers in Marxist ideology are constantly purged from the Party, for the organization can rely only on those people blindly willing to obey orders.[43] Communism explicitly disavows all moral rules, and its members must constantly shift tactics, sometimes even carry out seemingly anti-Marxist actions, as its leadership adapts the revolution to changing circumstances.[44] Thus Communists possess the fanatic discipline needed to carry out deception on a scale beyond the imagination of most outsiders, including staging their own alleged “collapse.”

The ultimate goal has been stated openly by every major Communist leader since Karl Marx: a world government dominated by the Communists.[45] Lenin described how, to overthrow existing governments, the Communists organize parallel revolutions in each country. Most of the Communist Party structure must operate underground, invisible to the larger population, while it uses both legal and illegal methods, including deception and, in Lenin’s own words, “terrorism.”[46] Its secret members, operating under strict orders, infiltrate the highest levels of the target government and its military, as well as the labor unions and other popular movements, the communications media, and even the anti-Communist opposition itself.[47] From these positions, the Communists can orchestrate an apparently spontaneous, violent revolution, while paralyzing the efforts of the target government to respond effectively. The confused population, unaware of the well-organized forces behind the crisis, negotiates a series of compromises leading to further instability and finally to the victory of Communism.

As growing numbers of nations fall to the revolution, it becomes possible to reunite them under a Communist world regime.[48] This is being carried out in a two-stage process. The transition step to this “new world social order,” as American Communist William Z. Foster called it,[49] involves merging the newly captive nations into regional governments.[50] The Communists have explicitly worked toward creating a united Europe,[51] a united American hemisphere,[52] a pan-African regional entity,[53] and, for the Middle East, a pan-Arab regime.[54]

Marxism-Leninism, then, is not an ideology, but a strategy for achieving world revolution. Communists are the disciplined members of an international organization that uses Marxist-Leninist techniques. And terrorism is a key ingredient in the success of such revolution. To see how the entire strategy works, we now turn to an overview of Communist revolutions in action.

Wars of national liberation

Because open warfare against target governments would simply lead to defeat, the Communists always disguise their revolutions as civil wars. They camouflage their intentions by pretending to fight for the liberation of one class of people from another, using a divide-and-conquer technique against a nation’s social structure. This method is referred to as a “war of national liberation,” and it adapts its tactics to the unique circumstances of each country. Such a war can pit industrial workers against capitalists, as in Russia, Catholics against Protestants, as in Northern Ireland, blacks against whites, as in South Africa—or Arabs against Jews, as in Israel. The Communists do not openly identify themselves, acting instead as representatives of the supposedly “oppressed” class of people.

By painting their revolution as a spontaneous uprising of “oppressed masses,” the Communists hope to convince the target population that it faces an unwinnable war rooted in fundamental social tensions. If the government is also paralyzed and cannot stop the terrorism, public morale quickly drops and the weakening government loses popular support. Believing that the revolution must eventually win, the population abandons active opposition to the terrorists and instead sues for peace at any cost. The perception ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the government collapses altogether.

Any “war of national liberation” can be divided into seven steps:

Step 1) To establish themselves in the minds of the target population as a force to be reckoned with, the revolutionaries must first force a heavy-handed reaction by the government. Their tactics are based on a 1969 book by Brazilian Communist Carlos Marighella, the Mini-Manual for Urban Guerrillas, which has been translated and distributed to terrorists throughout the world. Marighella explained how to use such frightening violence that “the government has no alternative except to intensify repression. The police roundups, house searches, arrests of innocent people, make life in the city unbearable... The political situation is transformed into a military situation, in which the militarists appear more and more responsible for errors and violence... The urban guerrilla must become more aggressive and violent, resorting without letup to sabotage, terrorism, expropriations, assaults, kidnappings and executions, heightening the disastrous situation in which the government must act.”[55]

Step 2) Having provoked a harsh reaction by the target government, the Communists now flood the Western news media with stories of government atrocities, real or fabricated. The goal is to begin isolating the government from Western, primarily American, support. The revolutionaries label convicted terrorists as “political prisoners”; they invent elaborate stories of secret prisons and “death squads”; and they hide among civilians during fighting, causing the government to kill innocent people accidentally. Such heads of state as Chiang Kai-shek of China, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, and the Shah of Iran have been portrayed as corrupt and repressive. The South African government has been painted as being violently racist, while the French colonial administration in Algeria and the British rule in Northern Ireland have been labeled as undemocratic. Similar publicity attacks have been used against South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Rhodesia, El Salvador, Argentina, and dozens of other nations. The news media has always cooperated in these smear campaigns, never allowing the target regime a fair chance to respond to the charges.

Step 3) The Communists can now count on the U.S. State Department to pressure the target government to begin giving in to the revolutionaries, supposedly for the sake of “human rights.” The regime offers compromises, including political reforms, the release of captured terrorists, and military cease-fires, which allow the terrorists to regroup and seize territory. But the revolutionaries also increase their demands, taking advantage of the government’s weakened image.

Step 4) As the government loses prestige, the Communists escalate the revolutionary violence and general unrest. They organize mass demonstrations, which agitators turn into riots. Labor unions go on strike, building toward a general labor strike that cripples the entire economy. Marxist professors in the universities indoctrinate and recruit naive youth, who join the growing ranks of Communists and terrorists. And some Communist agents even infiltrate local religious organizations, masquerading as priests or other clergy so as to neutralize opposition and recruit more people into the revolution. This can be seen, for example, in the Liberation Theology movement in the Catholic and Protestant churches, which teaches that Jesus was a Marxist revolutionary. Liberation Theology is active today in many parts of Latin America, Africa, and the far East.

Step 5) Since the Communists are only a tiny minority of the population, they must create the illusion of popular support. By waging terrorist warfare against the very people they claim to be liberating, the revolutionaries can frighten the people into passive or even active support of the revolution. In China and Nicaragua, the Communists murdered peasant farmers in rural villages; in Algeria, they maimed and killed Arab muslims; in Northern Ireland, they have killed thousands of Catholics while “kneecapping” thousands more with guns and electric drills;[56] in South Africa, they have burned to death many hundreds of blacks with “necklaces”—tires soaked in gasoline, placed around the victim’s neck, and lit on fire.[57] The revolutionaries accuse the victims of “collaborating” with the government, sending a powerful message to the rest of the population not to resist.

Step 6) Now the Communists are ready to enter the final phase of their revolution. With the target government steadily losing control over the country, the revolutionaries step up general terrorist violence while simultaneously negotiating for a new government. To accomplish this, the Communists often must split their revolutionary movement into two wings: an extremely violent faction pretending to oppose any peace agreement, and a more political faction that projects an image of pragmatism. The two factions secretly coordinate their activities, carrying out a “good cop/bad cop” scenario. Frightened by the escalating terrorism of the revolutionaries, the government makes concessions to the seemingly moderate faction, hoping to discourage the forces of violence. As the Communists tighten the vise, the government bargains away its remaining strength.

Step 7) Finally, in the name of democracy and “human rights,” the U.S. State Department withdraws its support from the embattled regime, using diplomatic pressure to force out the old government entirely and replace it with another. The Communists have by this time maneuvered themselves into position to join the new coalition government. Because this new regime is weak and divided, the Communists quickly move to consolidate total power for themselves. Their naive liberal allies are executed, followed by systematic mass terror against the whole population. A Communist regime has been imposed.

These seven steps describe the pattern of a war of national liberation. This strategy has been used, with slight variations, against almost every nation now under Communism, and is well under way for many remaining non-Communist nations.[58] As we have seen, terrorism is a cornerstone of this strategy.


3 posted on 05/22/2008 5:27:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Excellent article, btw.


4 posted on 05/22/2008 5:29:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Boy, this would be a really great thread for any students interested in doing a research paper on the subject. I’m sure their left-wing, former hippy instructors will grade the papers fairly and honestly.(did i say that?)


5 posted on 05/22/2008 6:11:52 PM PDT by ETL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ETL

I once received an “F” on a paper because I failed to toe the party line. What I did was turn the thrust of my professor’s reader on its head using only the sources contained in the same. To be fair, the professor told me that if I turned in a paper resembling my rough draft, he would fail me. I did, and he failed me. I took the issue all the way up to the dean, and my paper was regraded (without any explanation) to a C-.


6 posted on 05/22/2008 6:22:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ah, it’s just the same crap other Marxism is. People who hate and who are stupid enough to say so by action, deed and word.


7 posted on 05/23/2008 12:12:39 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson