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.
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.
…to whom, when?
They are not synonyms to you? Or to Black people?
It’s OK. I’m fairly confident you’ll re-assert your original point as soon as possible.
I also said:
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.
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”
“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.
Something’s wrong with your keyboard, Allen: The words lied about came out as “quoted.”