Hogwash. Blacks browns yellows can all be racist. I saw it in Africa. It was called tribalism there. The Tutsis and the Hutu had a war that was based on race. So, it is not just whites.
There are plenty of blacks in the white conference. I pastored a majority black church, with about 25% hispanic and maybe 20% white. The conference leadership never asked me about sending them to the regional conference. There was no discussion of race at all. It was just another church. The other church I pastored has become more and more black, with several black families joining. Again no discussion. There is even a former regional conference president who attends there. He preaches etc. why would he join a bunch of racists? Those that have joined there have several reasons for joining, the school, the services, the fellowship, etc. Racism is not a consideration.
The church above have sent black representatives to the non-regional constituency meetings each 5 years.
The NAD now has a black president.
Apparently there are blacks in the white conferences that do not see it as you do. You cannot seem to see beyond your own opinion.
Baldwin has an interesting take, but they are not synonyms.
I stand corrected.
And you have said that all whites are racists. Too hard to look up the quote. But I have quoted you before on this.
@Harry_Allen and /\ THIS /\ is exactly what i meant when I suggested previously that you don’t mean what you are saying-nor do you know what you are saying.
You are very adept at the wordcraft of slipping in a meaning that you then disavow…
Racism is also the black belief (artfully guised by the liberal agenda) that blacks cannot be racist-and that blacks bear no responsibility for the current loggerheads.
You need not my reminder of the roots of tribalism-as well the present fruit of it over there.
Be that as it may, I shall continue to pray for eye salve, that we can see beyond the relative melanin content shallow, mere skin deep-and meaningless-color. I pray I can know your white-stone engraved new name, for I believe I can trust in the content of your character.
Nor would I ever suggest you are a racist who just happens to call himself Adventist-a severe charge you intimated towards Allen (by your definition, as a male, you are MALE SUPREMACIST-which is a problem far deeper, longer, pervasive than “race”. As an aside, one could possibly also suggest you view yourself as a religious-supremacist. Whether that is your role or identity matters little at the end of the day )
One cannot go around with broadest of brushes tarring all white people as racist without getting some on yourself-I’d suggest that raising your expectations to look where racism is NOT you will breathe m ore peacefully. But nobody examines the hundreds of millions of DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist, preferring instead to focus on the very few (horribly tragic) incidents.
Your blindness to black on blackcrime, or black fatherlessness, or black criminal rates, or black abortion rates have nothing to do with the issue, according to you-
but seems to have inured you to any truth except your thinly coercively defined extrusions of the meaning of your finely parsed words.
Your words have a meaning, a meta-message, which you seem deaf to, and which yields you to an irrelevance in your quixotic quest.
Edit to add; DiAngelo and her supposition that white inability to talk about or admit their coerced racism means they are both fragile and racist might just as well be pointed at blacks who likewise cannot admit their own tribalism, err, racism- or how that tribalism might contribute to the black on black crimes (and all those other things you unsurprisingly and handily wish to gloss over)
This is not racism. One might call these examples “mistreatment,” “ethnic hostility,” “tribal conflict,” or other names.
However, racism, is different. Racism, first of all invokes the idea of “race,” which is a concept that has no basis in territory, national origin, ethnicity, or even biology.
Racism’s foundation is in relatively new notions of inferiority and superiority, and these are connected to skin color. It divides human beings into white and non-white sectors; ones via which white people then dominate non-white people.
Racism does this globally, in all areas of people activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. The reverse is not true.
So, just to cite the example you’ve provided—the Rwandan conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi in 1994—it doesn’t fit any of these descriptors. This was a fight between neighbors. It was based on ethnicity, which is a longstanding and legitimate anthropological metric for dividing human beings.
These African national groups are, both of them, non-white. So are, for example, Tanzanians, whose country borders Rwanda. However, the Hutu did not seek Maasai people to kill, and would not have slaughtered them had they come across them. They had a very longstanding, limited disagreement with Tutsi (and Twa) people, and deliberately murdered them.
This marks a common characteristic of ethnic conflicts: They’re typically of limited scope. This, compared to, for example, the so-called “Berlin Conference,” in which white supremacists dominated people who weren’t white, regardless of their ethnic group, all across “Africa.”
The conflict between the two non-white people groups you mentioned does not begin to compare to the system of white supremacy (racism) in range or sweep. Racism would designate a Tutu man crossing the Antarctic ice as a non-white person, to be dominated as a victim of racism. This would be long after even the most antagonistic Hutu had long lost interest in him.
So, yes, non-white people can mistreat each other. However, only the white supremacists have organized “hatred” into a global system organized around “color” and “non-color.” It’s a difference in scale, one might say.
Think of it this way:
Your wife may bake cookies, be good at it, and even sell some of her tasty wares to local stores. But you wouldn’t call what she does “NABISCO.”
Only one cookie-maker gets to call themselves NABISCO. Only one cookie-maker has a 1,800,000-square-foot facility in Chicago—the largest bakery in the world—with more than 1,200 employees who produce 160,000 tons of snack food every year. Only one sells $674.2M—nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars—worth of Oreos®, alone, every 365 days.
If what NABISCO does is “NABISCO-ism,” or “NABISCO Supremacy,” you can’t use the word “NABISCO” to describe what your wife does, one sheet pan at a time, even if she makes a delicious toll house. NABISCO is in another galaxy of operation.
Another way I say this is, “Black guys mug old ladies. White guys mug ecosystems.”
Non-white people may, any and all of them, mistreat other non-white people. But only the white supremacists have a mistreatment infrastructure to produce global mistreatment effects against non-white people. The reverse is not true. Only white people who practice racism, collectively, have a system; a race system. That system is racism. Racism is white supremacy.
Now, I’ve explained this to you, previously, and I’ve done so many times; the NABISCO example is one I gave to you, almost word-for-word, over two years ago.
It’s fascinating to me that the things I do repeat—e.g., that racism is white supremacy, and this is its only functional form—you respond to with fresh zeal, at each mention, as though I’d not already stated is, and disassembled your stale arguments.
However, the things I’ve never said—e.g., “all white people are racist”—you repeatedly assert you’ve seen me say, in a manner akin to your recently mentioned psychotic relative.
The historical dominance that white people have asserted, resulting in global catastrophes based on skin color, is an essential and basic fact of understanding what is meant by racism; i.e., at least, what Black people mean by it. (White people typically resist when I make these statements about racism. Black people tend not to do so,)
After my thousands of words, that you still cannot apparently grasp this fundamental detail—or even, perhaps, that you act like you don’t—is part of the very tone-deafness of which I was speaking, previously.
It’s an aspect of white hard-headedness that Black SDA parishioners would have to endure when reuniting with white ones in some future setting. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
I said:
You said:
In response:
If you think that these small examples of Black people and white people worshipping together, with a certain number of Black people in leadership positions, means that Black people, en masse, would willingly join white SDAs in shared leadership and congregations, why didn’t you just say that, in your last post?
Had you done so, I would have responded to what you’ve just written, above, doing so then.
As I see it, your overall point(?) is essentially irrelevant and non-responsive.
As for these observations…
…Ask him if he thinks there are racists in that congregation, as well as in the larger SDA denomination.
Then, ask him what he thinks the hope is of eliminating regional conferences and merging the populations of those congregations with white ones.
Finally, ask him what would he fear more in such a scenario: Shared power, or white dominance.
I know that you won’t, because—based on previous experience—the last thing you apparently want to hear is what non-white people really think about race.
Re: this…
…to whom, when?
I said:
You said:
In response:
They are not synonyms to you? Or to Black people?
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
It’s OK. I’m fairly confident you’ll re-assert your original point as soon as possible.
I said:
I also said:
You said:
In response:
You’re either mistaken, or lying. I suspect you’re lying.
And what makes it most pitiful is this: If I said it, why would I say it just once? Why wouldn’t I say it again? Why wouldn’t I say it often?
Do you get the impression that I don’t say what I believe, or that I’m hiding my thoughts on race from you, of all people?
If I thought all white people were racists, what, reasonably, do you think would be my reason for not saying so, and even saying so often?
There isn’t much I’ve said about race that I don’t say over and over again. Just above, I repeated an analogy that I used 2 years ago, and have shared many times.
Do you see me ever say, “I shouldn’t have said that”? If not, the likelihood is that I stand by what I’ve written. So, if I said that “all white people are racists,” why would I be trying to hide that I said it?
I’m not trying to prove myself to you. I’m just trying to document how insane your repeated charge sounds.
You said:
In response:
That’s not true, either: The software that Spectrum uses for this forum has very robust search capabilities. All you’d need to do is put the words…
“all whites are racists”
or
“all white people are racists”
…into the search function at the upper-right-hand corner of the screen, near your “A” icon.
All you’re going to find in this area, concerning me, of course, are exchanges like this one: Where I refute your silly accusation.
You said:
In response:
Something’s wrong with your keyboard, Allen: The words lied about came out as “quoted.”
Jason, don’t let that stop you!
Seriously though, when you do arrive at the pearly gates, please explain your plight to the One who knows how to ask questions how black fatherlessness impacts the community in these areas that you love - and tell them how you overcame these things, and what you personally constructively did to remedy them
Adam blaming Eve for his failures didn’t work any better than Cain blaming Abel-you blaming whites for these ills you harp on aeems to be equally off base.
Which again brings up that other issue-gender based discrimination is far more entrenched, systematic, and damaging to society. What have you done to correct this evil? Women still earn less…and are discriminated against, even in our very church.
There are far more instances where racism is NOT-but no one looks at those incidents. Not doing so, and focusing only on the “race porn” is a type of lie. It’s been opined that every day some 3 million police interactions are conducted which are clearly not racist-but according to you and your very restricted and intentional tunnel vision, these are irrelevant…
I appreciate what I think I detect as your concern, @Timo, and reject what I take as your usual false charges, but, most of all, as is typical, I don’t really understand what you’re saying, and, sadly, increasingly, I don’t care.
The one exception is this statement:
In response:
If you’re not lying, what are your example(s) of this?
Or is this an interjection by the moderator of this forum? I’m unclear.
I think it’s an addendum by you, @Timo. It seems more in line with things you’ve said before, and bears your amazingly indifferent approach to written communication.
What I can say is that the white default, to bringing up “black-on-black crime,” when Black people raise police brutality/white supremacy as a subject, is a racist chaff flare, or countermeasure, akin to those that warplanes use to mislead and deflect incoming missiles:
In other words, it’s a distraction, and not to be taken seriously.
As for your model—that white fragility has a Black counterpart—I agree!
However, it’s not a Black inability to “admit their own tribalism, err, racism.”
It’s a Black unwillingness to tell white people what Black people really think about racism. Most Black people find themselves unable to do this in an orderly, straightforward way, and/or without extremely high, often debilitating emotion. Because of this, they often avoid the subject.
Of course, if they do finally mount the will to speak to white people about race, they are usually met with high white hostility; e.g., of the sort you typically bring to my words.
The difference between me and many Black people, however, is not only is your hostility just laughably silly to me , but, as I’ve ably shown, when it comes to calm, orderly, logical discussions of race, to quote Captain America:
Hi @Harry_Allen, thank you for your question. That paragraph in bold was added by @Timo at a later time than his original post (hence his beginning it with “Edit to add:”). It was NOT written by a moderator. You can see what edits were made to a comment by clicking the pencil icon in the top right of a comment. In addition to showing what edits were made in the screen that pops up, it will also show who made the edits and at what time.
Stating (hundreds of times) that racism is exclusively white supremacy, reveals a horrible bias and will probably get nobody to agree with it.
The concept itself is flawed, and will remain flawed no matter how many times it is thrown in the mix. The color of my skin doesn’t automatically make me a racist. I wonder if the endeavor to persuade others that all white (and only whites) are racists may actually be one of the manifestations of racism,…
White supremacy is one form of racism, sure. But it’s not the only way racism is manifested. Living is SoCal we know well how rageful is the interaction between Mexicans and Blacks. That’s another example of racism. And there are tens, hundreds of forms of racism around the world.
I will not continue in this conversation because you have a clear agenda on the issue, and we already discussed it more extensively some time ago. No need for more of the same for me.
You know Harry, I would read your posts if you didn’t feel the need to double post everyone else’s words which we all have already read. Myself, George and others have tried to show you how absolutely ridiculous this is but your determined to continue the practice. Count me as one of those just not going to listen to what you are saying and it has nothing to do with content. It’s your presentation.
Same here. I have been scrolling down his posts. For two reasons, One is the format as you mentioned, and the second IS content, as I explained above in post #27. I am done with that issue.
I’m not clear what the “horrible bias” is, to which you refer, @GeorgeTichy.
What is it? Please state it, explicitly, as opposed to just saying that there is one.
As for this statement:
As I’ve already stated, white people typically reject these claims, on their face, much as you are doing now.
Meanwhile, non-white people typically do not. In my experience, a common non-white response is a nod, accompanied by a momentary, somewhat faraway gaze that seems to indicate a cognitive conclusion and insight.
I think of these exchanges as being akin to the acknowledgment of the “God-shaped hole” that many Christians say each person bears, even if not aware of it.
I think each non-white person possesses a “Racism has a sole functional form: White supremacy; Racism is a global system; All non-white people are victims of white supremacy in all nine areas of people activity”-shaped hole. At least, that’s been my experience.
Thus, I consider your conclusion, that, my emphasis, “nobody [will probably] agree with it,” something of an overstatement, particularly if one notes that most bodies are non-white.
You said:
In response:
I’m not clear what the “flaw” is, to which you refer, @GeorgeTichy.
What is it? Please state it, explicitly, as opposed to just saying that there is one.
You said:
In response:
That’s correct.
You said:
In response:
It’s an excellent question.
I say that it would first depend on how one defines the term racism.
Many white people define it weightlessly; i.e., utilizing a definition from Merriam-Webster that begins with the words, “A belief….” In other words, racism is a thought.
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as “non-white,” by persons classified as “white,” on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors “associated with” color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
[Note: It is incorrect to use the term “White Racism.” To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy].
So, based on that definition, the endeavor you critique—“to persuade others that all white (and only whites) are racists”—might only partially be one of the manifestations of racism.
That is, I do endeavor to persuade others that only white people can practice racism. That’s true as long as racism is white supremacy, and the first requirement for engaging in white supremacy is that one be white.
But I do not endeavor to persuade others that all white people are racists.
If someone were to ask me, “Are all white people racists?”, I would say, and I have said, “I do not know.”
So, if a white person said, “All white people are racists,” but said it, knowing it to be false, I would consider that a manifestation of racism, since deceit is the chief weapon of a racist.
You said:
In response:
Again, I say there is only one, and white supremacy is it.
I do this, in my answer concerning “Hutus and Tutsis.”
To the degree that the following are non-white people, I hold this to encompass your contentions re: “Mexicans and Blacks,” as well as re: “tens, hundreds of forms of racism around the world.” There is no such thing. (See “NABISCO,” above.)
Of course, now, and/or at any point in the future, I invite those who disagree to refute my argument.
You said:
In response:
You must be thinking about someone else.
I haven’t had any discussion with you about an “agenda” I possess, unless I spoke to you about this: The development of a counter-racist logic system that non-white people, globally, might adopt and employ, in order to eliminate white supremacy and replace it with justice.
• I think white supremacy, and issues concerning racism, can be coherently discussed by non-white people through such a prototypical system.
• I think the objections of racist suspects, aka white people, can be both met and disassembled through such a prototypical system.
• Most of all, I think non-white people can derive clarity in the midst of confusion, through such a prototypical system.
If I do have an agenda in this area, it’s that, and that’s it.
No Harry I haven’t changed my position. I hoped to communicate a second time that your opinion is important and should be read. I just think your audience is getting smaller.
If what you say is true, then please find at least a single instance, in any place, where I say, “All white people are racist.”
The number of white people in this forum who insist I’ve said this—you, @ajshep, @GeorgeTichy—seems to grow with each passing day.
Yet, no one can produce a quote.
Why is this the case, do you think?
Thanks for the suggestion.
Also, one more detail: Where is racism NOT, @Timo? Offer me GPS coordinates, please.
As well, please let me know: As a white person, how did you verify there was no racism in this place, and/or in these places? Walk me through your process.
In other words, because racism is white supremacy, and since, as a white person, you can’t be a victim of it, how did you correctly ascertain that there are such places?
Are these places that are permanently devoid of racism? Or, do they wax and wane there, like phases of the moon?
What happens if, in these place, a white person tries to practice racism? What I’m asking is, what happens, in order to make sure that their effect is undelivered?
I suspect that, as usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I expect that I will not get any useful answers to these pertinent questions; the ones that naturally jump out of your counsel.
I say this because, if you are a racist, your job, at least in part, is to a) make fun of me—e.g., to mock and ridicule me, and my efforts—and to b) withhold information that is useful; e.g., the answers to my questions.
Of course, I don’t know if you are a racist, or not.
What are “DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,” @Timo? Name one, please, and explain why it’s not racist.
As you do, keep in mind what I said to @JasonHines, in my response to his excellent essay, above.
He said racism “continues to infect and affect us.” Most here, including you, would probably agree with this statement.
I argued, however, that
If what I’m saying is true, then, again, what are “DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,” @Timo? You say there are “hundreds of millions” of them. So, name one, please, and explain why it’s not racist. I’ll respond.
But if what I’m saying is not true, then, clearly and objectively, refute it. I’ll respond.
There’s a popular belief that people of color can’t be racist because they don’t have enough power. Racism, the thinking goes, transcends prejudice. It’s a system of advantage based on race and people of color don’t have the institutional power to oppress others.
But Ibram X. Kendi systematically demolishes this notion in his provocative new book, “How to be an Antiracist.” Kendi, a lean man with long dreads and an encyclopedic knowledge of Western history, says the notion that black people can’t be racist is tainted by racism itself.
“Like every other racist idea, the powerless defense underestimates black people and overestimates white people,” Kendi says.
I would say you fall into Kendo’s observation. You overestimate whites and underestimate blacks.
I have said that you feel all whites are racist, and tell me I am lying when I say it. You do not say in so many words “All whites are racists”, but you infer it.
But see what you say in this post:
I am not the only one who thinks that you think all whites are racist:
Here is Timo from June 2, on I Can’t breath.
And Micheal Roberts, June 29, I can’t breath who was favorable to your side:
While I also appreciate harryallen’s perception of the problem, I take issue with the assertion that as long as Blacks face discrimination, all whites are somehow racist
About the black conferences joining the white ones:
I have shown you that blacks will join white churches when there are black churches near by. Why? I actually think they like the white service better than the black one. White worship services are different than black ones. Not inferior, just different. It’s a different culture.
An older black lady, I have mentioned before, left the black church she attended many years ago, joining the white one near by. Why? She thought there was some shenanigans going on that he did not approve of. I am not sure what, but she switched years ago.
Harry, you are just to narrow in your assessment; you cannot assume racism all the time.
I have probably said enough.
But I think you shackle yourself with White Supremacy. That may sound strange, but most whites don’t care what you think about race. They are just trying to get along. You can just live your life and be free, for most of us have no problem letting you be free. But you say all blacks are dependent on whites in some regard. But it is just really not so.
I own apartments; I am a big rich white landlord. All the tenants are black. Pretty racist, huh? They are dependent on me for their very housing.
But it really is just the opposite. If they stop paying rent, I go down, can’t pay the mortgage, foreclosure. I am actually dependent on them. And with Covid, I am not allowed to evict anyone! Fortunately, only one has stopped paying rent, for he lost his job. But if they all stopped paying, where would I be. Yep, in the toilet.
So, Harry, start living, stop looking over your shoulder, fearing some white supremacist lurks there. I think you will find it much more rewarding and exciting. You’ll actually get to know some real white people, too.
My tenant paid me rent. I fixed his broken toilet. I had a nice chat with a black barber the other day as he inspected my apartment to see if he wanted to rent it. Again, I was dependent on him, and all the people that come (they are all black), to keep in business. He decided to take the apartment, but asked if I would fix some things. I did.
How well would it go if I looked down on them and scoffed at their requests? I don’t, I treat them as equals, so I do OK with the business.
Have some cheated me? Yes. Do all of them do that?. By no means. I have had probably more trouble with white tenants, when I had a building at Andrews.
I am sure you see the above exchanges are somehow racist. But they are not.
Well, it’s not about “all whites are racists.” It’s about racism occurring only among whites - as if Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc., could not be racists too. This is our disagreement.
, but, as I’ve ably shown, when it comes to calm, orderly, logical discussions of race, to quote Captain America:
