This is not racism. One might call these examples âmistreatment,â âethnic hostility,â âtribal conflict,â or other names.
However, racism, is different. Racism, first of all invokes the idea of ârace,â which is a concept that has no basis in territory, national origin, ethnicity, or even biology.
Racismâs 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 youâve providedâthe Rwandan conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi in 1994âit doesnât 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: Theyâre typically of limited scope. This, compared to, for example, the so-called âBerlin Conference,â in which white supremacists dominated people who werenât white, regardless of their ethnic group, all across âAfrica.â
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 âhatredâ into a global system organized around âcolorâ and ânon-color.â Itâs 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 wouldnât call what she does âNABISCO.â
Only one cookie-maker gets to call themselves NABISCO. Only one cookie-maker has a 1,800,000-square-foot facility in Chicagoâthe largest bakery in the worldâwith more than 1,200 employees who produce 160,000 tons of snack food every year. Only one sells $674.2Mânearly three-quarters of a billion dollarsâworth of OreosÂŽ, alone, every 365 days.
If what NABISCO does is âNABISCO-ism,â or âNABISCO Supremacy,â you canât use the word âNABISCOâ 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, âBlack guys mug old ladies. White guys mug ecosystems.â
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, Iâve explained this to you, previously, and Iâve done so many times; the NABISCO example is one I gave to you, almost word-for-word, over two years ago.
Itâs fascinating to me that the things I do repeatâe.g., that racism is white supremacy, and this is its only functional formâyou respond to with fresh zeal, at each mention, as though Iâd not already stated is, and disassembled your stale arguments.
However, the things Iâve never saidâe.g., âall white people are racistââyou repeatedly assert youâve 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 detailâor even, perhaps, that you act like you donâtâis part of the very tone-deafness of which I was speaking, previously.
Itâs an aspect of white hard-headedness that Black SDA parishioners would have to endure when reuniting with white ones in some future setting. Ainât 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 didnât you just say that, in your last post?
Had you done so, I would have responded to what youâve just written, above, doing so then.
As I see it, your overall point(?) is essentially irrelevant and non-responsive.
As for these observationsâŚ
âŚAsk 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 wonât, becauseâbased on previous experienceâthe last thing you apparently want to hear is what non-white people really think about race.
Re: thisâŚ
âŚto 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:
Itâs OK. Iâm fairly confident youâll re-assert your original point as soon as possible.
I said:
I also said:
You said:
In response:
Youâre either mistaken, or lying. I suspect youâre lying.
And what makes it most pitiful is this: If I said it, why would I say it just once? Why wouldnât I say it again? Why wouldnât I say it often?
Do you get the impression that I donât say what I believe, or that Iâm 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 isnât much Iâve said about race that I donât 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, âI shouldnât have said thatâ? If not, the likelihood is that I stand by what Iâve written. So, if I said that âall white people are racists,â why would I be trying to hide that I said it?
Iâm not trying to prove myself to you. Iâm just trying to document how insane your repeated charge sounds.
You said:
In response:
Thatâs not true, either: The software that Spectrum uses for this forum has very robust search capabilities. All youâd need to do is put the wordsâŚ
âall whites are racistsâ
or
âall white people are racistsâ
âŚinto the search function at the upper-right-hand corner of the screen, near your âAâ icon.
All youâre 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:
Somethingâs wrong with your keyboard, Allen: The words lied about came out as âquoted.â
Jason, donât 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 didnât 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 lessâŚand 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 ârace pornâ is a type of lie. Itâs 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 irrelevantâŚ
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 donât really understand what youâre saying, and, sadly, increasingly, I donât care.
The one exception is this statement:
In response:
If youâre not lying, what are your example(s) of this?
Someone(?) said:
In response:
Iâm not clear: Is this a statement by you, @Timo?
Or is this an interjection by the moderator of this forum? Iâm unclear.
I think itâs an addendum by you, @Timo. It seems more in line with things youâve said before, and bears your amazingly indifferent approach to written communication.
What I can say is that the white default, to bringing up âblack-on-black crime,â 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, itâs a distraction, and not to be taken seriously.
As for your modelâthat white fragility has a Black counterpartâI agree!
However, itâs not a Black inability to âadmit their own tribalism, err, racism.â
Itâs 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 Iâve 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 âEdit to add:â). 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 doesnât 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,âŚ
White supremacy is one form of racism, sure. But itâs not the only way racism is manifested. Living is SoCal we know well how rageful is the interaction between Mexicans and Blacks. Thatâs 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 didnât feel the need to double post everyone elseâs 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. Itâs 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.
Iâm not clear what the âhorrible biasâ 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 Iâve 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 âGod-shaped holeâ that many Christians say each person bears, even if not aware of it.
I think each non-white person possesses a âRacism 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 activityâ-shaped hole. At least, thatâs been my experience.
Thus, I consider your conclusion, that, my emphasis, ânobody [will probably] agree with it,â something of an overstatement, particularly if one notes that most bodies are non-white.
You said:
In response:
Iâm not clear what the âflawâ 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:
Thatâs correct.
You said:
In response:
Itâs 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, âA beliefâŚ.â In other words, racism is a thought.
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as ânon-white,â by persons classified as âwhite,â on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors âassociated withâ color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
[Note: It is incorrect to use the term âWhite Racism.â 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 critiqueââto persuade others that all white (and only whites) are racistsââmight only partially be one of the manifestations of racism.
That is, I do endeavor to persuade others that only white people can practice racism. Thatâs 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, âAre all white people racists?â, I would say, and I have said, âI do not know.â
So, if a white person said, âAll white people are racists,â 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 âHutus and Tutsis.â
To the degree that the following are non-white people, I hold this to encompass your contentions re: âMexicans and Blacks,â as well as re: âtens, hundreds of forms of racism around the world.â There is no such thing. (See âNABISCO,â 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 havenât had any discussion with you about an âagendaâ 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, itâs that, and thatâs it.
No Harry I havenât 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, âAll white people are racist.â
The number of white people in this forum who insist Iâve said thisâyou, @ajshep, @GeorgeTichyâseems 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 canât 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 Iâm asking is, what happens, in order to make sure that their effect is undelivered?
I suspect that, as usual, you donât know what youâre 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 meâe.g., to mock and ridicule me, and my effortsâand to b) withhold information that is useful; e.g., the answers to my questions.
Of course, I donât know if you are a racist, or not.
What are âDAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,â @Timo? Name one, please, and explain why itâs not racist.
As you do, keep in mind what I said to @JasonHines, in my response to his excellent essay, above.
He said racism âcontinues to infect and affect us.â Most here, including you, would probably agree with this statement.
I argued, however, that
If what Iâm saying is true, then, again, what are âDAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,â @Timo? You say there are âhundreds of millionsâ of them. So, name one, please, and explain why itâs not racist. Iâll respond.
But if what Iâm saying is not true, then, clearly and objectively, refute it. Iâll respond.
Thereâs a popular belief that people of color canât be racist because they donât have enough power. Racism, the thinking goes, transcends prejudice. Itâs a system of advantage based on race and people of color donât have the institutional power to oppress others.
But Ibram X. Kendi systematically demolishes this notion in his provocative new book, âHow to be an Antiracist.â Kendi, a lean man with long dreads and an encyclopedic knowledge of Western history, says the notion that black people canât be racist is tainted by racism itself.
âLike every other racist idea, the powerless defense underestimates black people and overestimates white people,â Kendi says.
I would say you fall into Kendoâs 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 âAll whites are racistsâ, 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 Canât breath.
And Micheal Roberts, June 29, I canât breath who was favorable to your side:
While I also appreciate harryallenâs 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. Itâs 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 donât 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, canât 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. Youâll 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 donât, 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, itâs not about âall whites are racists.â Itâs about racism occurring only among whites - as if Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc., could not be racists too. This is our disagreement.
Same here as well, after months or years of watching it happen the time has come when I just go right on by without looking or reading. Just not worth the effort wading through all the he said I said she said they said you said everyone said, over and over and over again.
Dr. Kendi is welcome to his ideas. Iâd invite him to explain them by refuting mine.
He hasnât done so, and he hasnât offered to do so. Youâve merely presented a quote, purportedly, by him.
See above.
Thatâs not true.
At this rate, I need a âThatâs Not Trueâ button, when replying to you, just to save keystrokes. You must be dynamic in church board meetings. Thank Heaven for minutes, eh?
You say that I have SAID the following: âAll white people are racist.â
If you had made a statements about my feelings, I would have merely said that youâre not credible on my thoughts.
You havenât, in this instance, spoken about my thoughts. Youâve spoken about my words. So, present the evidence.
You are, as we say in hip-hop, bugging.
Great. Thatâs better. Youâre actually quoting me. This is progress. Weâre halfway home.
The above, three excerpts are all true statements. Now, extrapolate the part that states, âAll white people are racist.â
Go ahead. Iâll wait.
Gonna call foul, here, and not reproduce these quotes. Iâm going to skip over them, though not without comment:
Again, for the second time in your response, youâve bent the discussion to one about my feelings.
Thus far, up until now, your charge has been that Iâve said something specific, namely: âAll white people are racist.â
So, Iâve asked you to produce evidence of this.
In response, youâve started talking, not about what Iâve said, but about what I think.
Youâre not credible on my thoughts.
Also, now, youâre bringing in âevidenceâ that you are ânot the only one who thinks that you think all whites are racist.â
These other people are not credible on my thoughts, either.
You canât change the game mid-stream, @ajshep. If nothing else, two things should be obvious:
I pay very close attention to what I say, and
I pay very close attention to what other people say.
If your charge is that I have said, âAll white people are racist,â produce the evidence for the charge.
If you donât have the evidence, say, âI have no evidence.â But do that before you try something novel.
Moving on to the next sub-topic:
a) We werenât discussing this. We were discussing why Black, or âregional,â conferences are not eager to merge with white, or âstate,â conferences.
b) Your statement, thus, is not responsive to my quote.
You make a lot of contentions. But when I ask you to explain, or, better, when I pose a specific questionâthe answer to which would probably splatter what youâve just saidâyou merely ignore it.
The chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the primary tool of deceit are words. Racists say things to non-white people that are not true.
The secondary weapon of a racist is secrecy. Racists withhold useful information from non-white people.
So, for example, racists ignore the questions non-white people ask, not giving answers, or, falling back on Weapon #1, answering them deceitfully, and/or untruthfully.
(One can answer a question untruthfully without using deceit. This happens, for example, when one gives an answer that is untrue, but does not know this.)
Of course, I am not calling you a racist, and never have, even though you have referred to yourself as one at least three times, and I suspect that you are one.
The Maximum Maxim: Any charge made against a victim of racismâa non-white personâduring the existence of racism is usually more appropriately made against racism, itself.
E.g.: âI think you shackle yourself with White Supremacy.â
Response: "I could never âshackle myselfâ with white supremacy as much as white supremacy shackles me with white supremacy.
"White supremacy dominates me in all nine areas of people activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. I canât do that.
"Under white supremacy, no non-white person can make a decision about anything that cannot be overruled by one or more white people. The reverse is not true.
âUnder such conditions, any white person who says to a non-white person, âI think you shackle yourself with White Supremacy,â is either a white supremacist, or should be strongly suspected of being one.â
Yes, probably. I say probably, because I canât speak about white peopleâs thoughts; e.g., about what they âcare.â
But, given white supremacy, Iâd argue, âjust trying to get alongâ is enough.
Itâs like when I said to @Arkdrey that Black people, in such instances, are not talking about how you and other white people âthink,â but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.
Doing that is enough for white supremacy, if the system is racist.
Sadly, youâre at least half a millennium late with this insight.
Under white supremacy, no non-white person can make a decision about anything that cannot be overruled by one or more white people. The reverse is not true.
That is the very Oxford Dictionary definition of dependent: âcontingent on or determined by.â
See above.
So, you could say almost exactly the same thing about a Southern plantation of enslaved African people. Almost word for word.
Go ahead: Try it.
Thanks.
So, two things:
1) I strongly suspect that you may be a racist.
I say this because you readily deploy so many speech behaviors that racists do; e.g., deceit; secrecy; mocking and making fun of non-white people, especially the ones who are talking about eliminating white supremacy and replacing it with justice.
âSo, Harry, start living, stop looking over your shoulder, fearing some white supremacist lurks there.â
What kind of language is this? What is it that you imagine that youâre saying to me? How, in your mind, do you imagine I am supposed to receive this suggestion?
You havenât refuted a single contention Iâve made. Ever. Iâm not talking about in this specific forum. Iâm talking about in every interaction weâve had over the past few years.
Iâve refuted every single one you have, however. The system of marking my responses that @GeorgeTichy and @2humBaby so resentââYou saidâ; âIn responseââis designed, in part, to assure that everything stated is addressed.
If the brave new world of united Black / white conferences was ever realized as an SDA promised land, you, for the reasons I gave, above, would probably have to be left behind, like Moses in the cleft of the rock. More on this below.
2)Spectrum has generously provided this forum for the exchange of ideas on important issues. So, respect the process. If you canât make serious responses, donât post.
I am a patron of Spectrumâs system âin good and regular standing.â Also, I practice Seventh-day Adventism. Since you are a pastor, technically, I am also your parishioner.
Iâd hate to think that, in a church full of Black people, like the one you say you oversee, this is the best you can do on race: Reminiscences about sweet apple âpaah,â and glib dismissals about getting to know âsome real white people.â You have a detestable bedside manner.
I could be a computer program, responding to you. Donât talk to me about what I know. Read my words and respond to my wordsâŚin terms of my words. The only reason you propose I donât know âsome real white peopleâ is because my ideas are probably intolerable to white people like you; the ones you deem âreal.â They probably are real: Real white.
Do you think your gentle bromides are what they want to hear, as an explanation for why the world is the way it is? âIf you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses?â (Jeremiah 12:5, NIV)