Imagine Undoing Racism

The problem is racism can never be refuted. White people are even unknowingly racist simply by being white. End of discussion. How can one prove otherwise…

Hopefully you’ll abide by this rather than to continue making irrational and unprovable assertions about whites being genetically and necessarily racist.

By this logic one can make the exact same allegation against anyone of any race even though there is no scientific evidence to show that DNA compels a person to think in any particular way about anything including skin color, either his own or anyone else’s.

Instead, and as the old show tune goes:

You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear
You’ve got to be taught from year to year
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade
You’ve got to be carefully taught

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be carefully taught

Thus, racism is irrefutably a product of nurture rather than nature, parents not appearance, and teachers instead of genetic or facial features.

The Gospel According to Eyeore, Chapter 1, verse 1.


Thank you “captain obvious”. Spelling it out for you -

You missed the whole point. Just to be clear - I am not the one claiming all whites are racist. But, any disagreement about race ends up claiming white supremacy is inherent to being white. Any difference in viewpoint gets punctuated by this accusation.

Human nature being what it is, any minority is going to accuse the majority of racism. Growing up in place that was completely “raceless” at the time (Sweden), I was in total awe of the problems in the US, especially in the SDA church when I joined. I first laid eyes on a black person was on the ship coming over. So, I don’t need to be educated about how racism is spread.

This was a reply to @NY_G_PA2

1 Like

You said end of discussion.

I’m out.

It helps to be somewhat nuanced.

And you call me Captain Obvious?


And you said, “I’m out.”

Racism deniers are best summed up in this Japanese proverb 井の中の蛙大海を知らず. (look it up)

Where are we - in junior high? Yes there is racism, but when math and Monopoly are declared to be racist, we’re in weird territory. We don’t speak coherently, but with clichés. This way we don’t have to think about what we’re saying, as we place everybody in their pre-determined box, base on our own prejudices.


I wonder about the motive driving some media and certain government representatives in the U.S. when certain acts are chosen and picked to be repeated over and over before the eyes and ears of our nations citizens. Could there actually be a motive to inspire violence among civilization, a motive to inspire us to hate each other, a motive to inspire and wash minds to become more racist in their words and actions?
Is it possible that some “leaders” and media sources have an unspoken agenda to lead us into self-destruction? Could there be a motive to create experiences that will justify a declaration of a different kind of political leadership, one that is more Totalitarian? Personally, I tend to lean on the side of caution and question rather than quickly jumping on a fast moving train.
Yes, I have read the responses from those who took the time to do so. I really need to ask if the title of this article stating to “Imagine” implies that it may also be unimaginable to undo what has taken place and to only look forward to the life in heaven even more than we have.

Yes. Why are we surprised things are going haywire? Haven’t we been predicting totalitarian government takeover… Nothing ever really happens the way we anticipate; and from the direction we expect.

The dichotomies just keep piling up- in the name of “freedom”, our freedoms are disappearing - in the name of “inclusion”, people are being divided - in the name of “fairness”, partisan politics dismisses half of the country - in the name of “law”, lawlessness grows. The wrong has become right; and what used to be universally right, has become wrong. Men aren’t men; and women aren’t women; and children get to choose their gender like ice cream options. But it all happens so insidiously and slowly like boiling a frog, which, if placed in cold water, will not detect the water getting hotter, and will boil to death.

1 Like

Thanks, @Sirje.

As a remedy for, or to, what, please?

To what are you referring, when you say, “the reruns of 9/11 today”?

Your responses are not clear, Sirje.

Are you saying racism disappeared during rescue efforts on 9/11, and in the days afterward?

Is that what you’re saying? Because, clearly, this isn’t true.


Thanks, @NY_G_PA2.

I’m not clear why you say my response is “not particularly Christian,” when it follows the counsel of Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV):

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


1 Like

You’re right, Harry.

It’s impossible for me to know about or determine what Jesus “Good News” is all about by quoting conflicting memory verses.

So I don’t know what Jesus would have said or done about slavery, abortion, democracy, inflation, movie going or a thousand other topics as he himself didn’t write one word about any of them.

When I wrote the reply it was 9/11 and there were numerous re-runs of the conflagration. I used it to demonstrate real racism, unlike some of the racist accusation being thrown around today.

No, racism didn’t disappear on 9/11 but it was humanity’s finest hour amidst its worst. There have been other examples of it in wars and famines etc. Racism has been around a long time. These days it’s used to shut down discussion rather than open it up to fresh air. Not helpful.

I was just curious if you had a solution to dealing with it - other than throwing blame around like the leaves of autumn.

1 Like

I’ve not said this, @NY_G_PA2.

I’ve said that it is well within Christian parameters to hold people responsible for their thoughts, speech, and action.

When I say blame, I am using it in this context; in the light of Matthew 18’s counsel for how brethren should settle disputes. Even though those who practice racism may not be “brethren,” the format of Christ’s counsel is still useful and applicable, I believe.

Also, this format is not usually applied. Most racism is unaddressed, and, even more, its perpetrators are deceitful and secretive, thus making it difficult for non-white people to effectively carry out such a protocol as Matthew 18’s.

Indeed, I’d urge it is usually for this, and related reasons, that blame becomes the default; i.e., the white people who are most responsible for non-white mistreatment do not self-identify, let alone accept responsibility for their actions.

Just as an example, look at the current debate over whether or not the recently departed QEII holds responsibility for brutal mistreatment of her non-white subjects — in Kenya, for example — during her reign.

No such confusion seems to be taking place in [white] Ireland, however.

One can make reasonable estimates based on what He said about similar matters.


1 Like

Thanks, @sirje, but I’m still unclear: Are you saying the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center were acts of racism?

If so, why? Besides thinking the idea is wrong, I’ve never even heard this argued before.

If it’s not what you’re saying, then, what are you saying?

What does this have to do with racism?

Well, whether it has or not, it certainly exists, now, and should not.

I suspect what you may mean is, "These days, charges of racism are used by non-white people to shut down white people from saying what they want to say, out of fear that, when they speak, they will be accused of being racist."

If so:

a) I find it interesting that this is what you think, or what may first come to mind, when you think of racism.

b) Applying The Maximum MaximAnything said about victims of racism is better, more truthfully, said about white supremacy (racism) itself — white supremacy has always been “used to shut down discussion rather than open it up to fresh air.” This is true because the racists are, first of all, deceitful, and, secondly, secretive.

For example, consider the case of Louis Allen, a Black man who, in Liberty MS, witnessed a white politician kill another African-American man in the early 1960s:

When this happened, Allen was told to shut up about what he’d seen, or he would be killed. In other words, back in those days, not just “these days,” racism was “used to shut down discussion rather than open it up to fresh air.”

Mr. Allen thought so, too. So, he bravely reported what he’d seen to the local sheriff. Nothing was done. However, soon after making his complaint, Allen was killed.

It has been very common for non-white people to be killed if they complained about racism. Take a look at this video, hosted by Oprah Winfrey, about the recently-built lynching memorial in Alabama:

Typically, people knew who carried out these acts — as you can see, they were frequently memorialized with photographs, and many of the pictures were made into postcards.

However, instead of having the perpetrators arrested, racism was “used to shut down discussion rather than open it up to fresh air.” This was done via racist threats of violence, against Black people who objected, and threats to white people of inter-group rejection if they spoke up; banishment from white social circles and relationships; expulsion from the white group.

Even today, many Black people do not object to, or make complaints about, racism because they fear white people will make life even more difficult for them if they do so. In other words, those white people will use racism "to shut down discussion rather than open it up to fresh air.”

So, it’s odd to hear you make this statement. One could even say those who make similar ones — not you, of course — possess no idea how easy they have it.

My solution is that white people stop practicing racism.

If they do not, Black people should compensate.

Remember the Bob Newhart sketch?

That’s my solution.


1 Like

I’m convinced that an omnipotent and loving god would never demand that anyone make decisions about matters that supposedly effect one’s eternal soul based on reasonable estimates.

Hence, we have the Holy Spirit whose work is ever present and takes precedence over scripture.

Thanks, @NY_G_PA2.

A couple of detailed thoughts.

No. 1:

Suppose you had said:

“I’m convinced that an omnipotent and loving god would never demand that anyone make decisions about matters that supposedly effect one’s eternal soul based on reasonable estimates derived from what He said about similar matters.

(In other words, had you used my whole statement, and not just two words from it.)

Had you done so, one could reasonably ask, “Why?”

In other words, why couldn’t God do exactly that? It doesn’t seem outlandish God could expect, given a book He helped author, people to apply its wisdom in matters about which He’s not explicit. (I mean, even run-of-the-mill corporate policy handbooks do this.)

Imagine if you were bleeding out of your liver onto the hospital floor. You are getting light-headed.

Your doctor applies bandages, then, rushing to prep an operating room, says, “For the next 20 minutes, put ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIQUID in your mouth, or you will DIE!”

As he leaves, your girlfriend peels open a cup of yogurt and hands it to you. “It’s not a liquid,” she notes, “It’s a semi-solid.”

If you were a smart person, you would not take the yogurt. But that would be making a reasonable estimate derived from what your doctor said about similar matters.

No. 2:

If God does exist, and if He is a Maximally Great Being, I’m not clear why He, in His nature, should conform to your convictions, or why you should think any of your convictions are binding, or even reasonable; i.e., on what basis you should think this is so.

This seems somewhat akin to when you, in a just-under-the-wire post, said,

To what degree is such an assertion self-refuting, given it is composed of words and thus, by your definition, a speculative assertion?

The Bible is a book — or a collection of them; of statements — written by, and primarily addressed to, people who did not know, and who could not have known about, anything which besets 21st century people; e.g., “democracy, inflation, movie-going or a thousand other topics.”

Because of this, it seems the Holy Spirit a) chose wise, God-fearing scribes, and b) influenced their output in such a way as to make biblical counsel timeless.

So, for example, when one reads the Ten Commandments, though composed even centuries before Christ, one doesn’t say, “These are so out-of-date; they don’t say anything about racism.”

Instead, when one reads them closely, what becomes clear is all of them are about racism. (I said as much to @juge, in a response, last year.) They don’t mention racism, because “racism” would have been as meaningless a word to their first, primary audience — desert-crossing Israelite ex-slaves — as H-bomb, or, even, bomb.

Thus, at best, the Bible had to be written in terms an illiterate, 1st century Palestinian shepherd could follow, but, at the same time, ones which would make sense to a 21st century, multiply-degreed, relativistic cosmologist, like George Ellis, also.

I’ve said all of this, to you, before. This is what I meant by “reasonable estimates,” but I could have, probably, better, said clear, unending principles from which any person can make rational, contemporary applications.

This statement is not true. Scripture says no such thing.

In describing the Holy Spirit, Christ says, in John 16:13:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

In John 14:26, He states:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

A Holy Spirit who says things which “take precedence over scripture” would be of no use in a world, per the Bible, full of spirits (1 John 4:1-5).

That’s why His counsel triangulates with Jesus’s words, and why He does “not speak on his own,” but “only what He hears”; i.e., He’s not here to originate ideas, but to affirm the ones God has given already.

His ministry is congruency. Hence my original statement.


1 Like

Clearly you missed the implication that I’m not impressed by proof texting.