Thank you for your considered response, Dave. I really appreciate it.
I’m not afraid to call it racism.
Implicit racism is just as harmful as overt racism.
Implicit racism allows us to ignore what’s happening here.
Jim Crow sanitized itself safely out of view and went underground as mass incarceration.
Eugenics sanitized itself safely out of view and went underground as mass abortions.
How is honoring Edward Allred by La Sierra and Loma Linda Universities not inherently racist, given the outrageous racist statements he has made in the public record?
It takes my breath away.
Cups of iniquity eventually fill up.
California Catholic Daily: Faces of the American Holocaust – Dr. Edward Allred, MD
In a 1980 interview with the San Diego Union, Allred spoke freely of what motivates him. At that time he claimed to have personally aborted 250,000 babies in the previous 12 years.
“Population control is too important to be stopped by some right-wing pro-life types,” the newspaper quoted Allred as saying. “Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect of democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I’d set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could. Maybe one in Calexico would help. The survival of our society could be at stake… The Aid to Families With Dependent Children program is the worst boondoggle ever created. When a sullen black woman can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us it’s time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles having babies for welfare is the only industry the people have.”
Edward Allred, SDA in good standing: this is the vocally racist man La Sierra honors as a model of entrepreneurial success for Adventist students, creating The Allred Center for Financial Literacy, his “success” spawned from aborting 250,000 babies and separating poor people from their money.
Forbes: More recently Allred sued one of the abortion rights movement's biggest nonprofit advocates, Planned Parenthood, for wooing the Kaiser Permanente HMO away from his abortion clinics. He lost the battle last year when California legislators intervened in the dispute.
His latest scrape is over getting slot machines into Los Alamitos. In the two years since his other partly owned track, Ruidoso Downs in New Mexico, added 300 slots, the track went from losing about $1 million a year to making a profit. But getting slots into Los Alamitos will mean fighting Indian tribes and Nevada interests to change the state constitution, which limits one-armed bandits to Indian casinos.
Allred is characteristically unfazed: “We’re going to get into the fight.”
What should the bar be, in order for the system to be dominant?
What I gave, in part, is the definition of a racist. I hold it to be true.
In other words, if true, that’s what one would have to be.
It’s an objective standard. My “view” doesn’t enter, here.
By the word “this,” do you mean racism?
If so, please explain, giving examples of things with which race has nothing to do.
In other words, I’m going to do what the racists do on a global scale: Make a lot of misjudgments, and offend a lot of people unnecessarily.
In a race system, any charge made against a victim of race—a non-white person—is always better made against the system.
By saying “it had nothing to do with racism,” you’re saying that, by voting for Donald Trump, white people in Ohio, directly or indirectly, in thought, speech, or action, in any area of activity, did not help to establish, maintain, expand, or refine the system of race (white supremacy).
How would you prove this?
I don’t know what you mean by “your criteria.”
The definitions I’ve given of practicing racism, and racist are either true, or not.
If they are not true, they are not criteria.
If they are true, they’re not mine.
If you mean to say that these definitions are not true, say that. Then, say what the true definitions are, and then please say why they are true.
Racism (white supremacy) exists. So, white people can either:
a) Act to eliminate it, and do so,
b) Act to eliminate it, and not do so, or
c) Act to establish, maintain, expand, or refine it, and do so.
The only white person I could certifiably say is not a racist is a).
By this statement, are you saying that white people who, by thought, speech, and/or action, create racism are not racists?
Can a person who voted for Trump for economic reasons or dissatisfaction with Hillary be a racist?
So, since a person who voted for Trump for, lets say, economic reasons, did NOT act to eliminate white supremacy (a.), but rather did (b.) by not voting for Hillary, who expressed support for implicit racism, that individual would be racist.
I asked: If the blacks who voted for Trump were racists.
1, Any white voter who voted for Trump for whatever reason is a racist.
2. Any black voter who voted for Trump for whatever reason, by definition, CANNOT be racist.
So, any white who voted for Trump, regardless of motive, is racist, and any black who did the same, is not.
That is making a judgment based on SKIN COLOR alone. In my mind, any judgment or idea based on skin color alone is a racist one. Let me repeat: Any judgment based on skin color alone is a racist judgment. That is my criteria for racism.
Therefore, since you make that judgment, based on skin color alone, you are a racist. .
This dialogue above is going in circles for weeks now. It’s all the same nonsense, the same sickening arguments. I can believe @harryallen is spending (literally wasting) so much time engaging in a conversation intellectually so poor. And, for a Pastor to say all that, and reveal so much bias and poor judgment is just astonishing, totally disappointing, and honestly,… sickening.
Harry accuses me of being a white supremacist. I am no such thing. In his mind all whites are suspect.
He does make judgments on the basis of skin color as you can see.
Now white folk have done all kinds of bad things to their black and brown brothers. I am not doing those things now, never have done them, and neither are you. You are NOT a racist. Neither am I. But our skin somehow betrays us.
I am not going to join this discussion. Thought I know that, based on what other whites did, especially to the blacks in the US, we the whites in general will always be “suspects” until proving we are not “one of them.”
If @harryallen generalizes the problem, extending the racism stamp to all whites indiscriminately, then I have no reason to even consider his points. It’s an irrational approach, and I don’t like it. I wonder if he is/is not white though.
At this point, nothing Seventh-day Adventists could possibly do would surprise me.
I’ve lived long, and seen a lot, but I’m sure they’re not done yet.
Once you brag about personally aborting 250,000 babies and are honored in august SDA institutions for entrepreneurial literacy, and then you build an Adventist church next to your personal racetrack, all…you should pardon the expression…bets…are off.
In your thought experiment, the white person does not do a)—act to eliminate racism, and succeed—but does b)—acts to eliminate racism, yet does not do so.
Now, in fact, there’s another choice: They may have done c)—acted to establish, maintain, expand, or refine racism, and did so. In other words, it’s not certain that a white person who was voting for Trump did not do c). (If it is certain, you would have to state why.)
In fact, it’s arguable that, if you do b), you might also do c) necessarily; by default. It may not be certainly the case, but it might often be so.
However, let’s continue as you’ve laid this out.
This doesn’t follow.
Regarding 2), Black people can’t be racist, because racism is white supremacy. Obviously, the first requirement for being a white supremacist is that one be white.
Regarding 1) the standard for racism / racist that I gave in #230, and to which you reply, above, it stands whether a white person is voting for Trump, vacuuming the floor, preaching a sermon, killing Black people, flying in space, having a picnic, playing football, carrying a Tiki torch, baking a fresh apple pie, etc., etc.
In other words, what it proposes is that, given the existence and dominance of racism, it’s reasonable to suspect any white person of being a racist who, by thought, speech, or action affirms that, “Getting rid of white supremacy is not as important as __(fill in the blank with any of the above activities)____.”
In other words, think of it as similar to what Christ says in Matthew 12:30, when he states, “He who is not with me is against me.” In this instance, Me is “the elimination of white supremacy (racism) and the replacement of it with justice.”
These are silly criteria. I’d argue that they speak to either a) a lack of need on your part, as a white person, to have to discern who’s racist, or, b) if you are a racist, the need to speak about this matter in a confusing way.
Obviously, any judgment based on skin color alone can’t be racism. Why?
Racism is white supremacy. It’s the only functional form of racism.
One can make judgments, based on skin color, that, “in and of themselves,” quote-quote-unquote-unquote, are not racist.
a) Any judgment made by a non-white person, including the judgment, “If that is a white person, he or she may be a racist.”
b) A white person, looking at me, may judge, “Your skin is darker in hue than mine.”
c) A white person, looking at me, may judge, “You are non-white.”
c) A white person, looking at me, may judge, “There are far more people in the known universe who look like you, in terms of color and non-color, than who look like me.”
(Now, given the dominance of white supremacy, in truth and in fact, I, and many non-white people, upon hearing a white person make any of those a) - c) judgments, might suspect, or conclude, that whatever is coming next is not going to be good for us; i.e., racism. That is why I said, “‘in and of themselves,’ quote-quote-unquote-unquote.”)
Overall, think of this in terms of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Christ didn’t mean by this statement, “Don’t judge, or use judgment.” He meant, “God will treat you the way you treat others.”