One Ask Behind

Thanks, @ajshep.

That “systematically demolishes this notion”? :smile:

Dr. Kendi is welcome to his ideas. I’d invite him to explain them by refuting mine.

He hasn’t done so, and he hasn’t offered to do so. You’ve merely presented a quote, purportedly, by him.

See above.

That’s not true.

At this rate, I need a “That’s Not True” button, when replying to you, just to save keystrokes. You must be dynamic in church board meetings. Thank Heaven for minutes, eh? :wink:

You say that I have SAID the following: “All white people are racist.”

If you had made a statements about my feelings, I would have merely said that you’re not credible on my thoughts.

You haven’t, in this instance, spoken about my thoughts. You’ve spoken about my words. So, present the evidence.

You are, as we say in hip-hop, bugging.

Great. That’s better. You’re actually quoting me. This is progress. We’re halfway home.

The above, three excerpts are all true statements. Now, extrapolate the part that states, “All white people are racist.”

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Gonna call foul, here, and not reproduce these quotes. I’m going to skip over them, though not without comment:

Again, for the second time in your response, you’ve bent the discussion to one about my feelings.

Thus far, up until now, your charge has been that I’ve said something specific, namely: “All white people are racist.”

So, I’ve asked you to produce evidence of this.

In response, you’ve started talking, not about what I’ve said, but about what I think.

You’re not credible on my thoughts.

Also, now, you’re bringing in “evidence” that you are “not the only one who thinks that you think all whites are racist.”

These other people are not credible on my thoughts, either.

You can’t change the game mid-stream, @ajshep. If nothing else, two things should be obvious:

  1. I pay very close attention to what I say, and

  2. I pay very close attention to what other people say.

If your charge is that I have said, “All white people are racist,” produce the evidence for the charge.

If you don’t have the evidence, say, “I have no evidence.” But do that before you try something novel.

Moving on to the next sub-topic:

a) We weren’t discussing this. We were discussing why Black, or “regional,” conferences are not eager to merge with white, or “state,” conferences.

b) Your statement, thus, is not responsive to my quote.

Prove it.

Actually, no, you haven’t.

You make a lot of contentions. But when I ask you to explain, or, better, when I pose a specific question—the answer to which would probably splatter what you’ve just said—you 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 racism—a non-white person—during the existence of racism is usually more appropriately made against racism, itself.

E.g.: “I think you shackle yourself with White Supremacy.”

Response: "I could never ‘shackle myself’ 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 can’t 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.

“Under such conditions, any white person who says to a non-white person, ‘I think you shackle yourself with White Supremacy,’ is either a white supremacist, or should be strongly suspected of being one.”

Yes, probably. I say probably, because I can’t speak about white people’s thoughts; e.g., about what they “care.”

But, given white supremacy, I’d argue, “just trying to get along” is enough.

It’s like when I said to @Arkdrey that Black people, in such instances, are not talking about how you and other white people “think,” but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.

Doing that is enough for white supremacy, if the system is racist.

Sadly, you’re 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: “contingent on or determined by.”

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.

“So, Harry, start living, stop looking over your shoulder, fearing some white supremacist lurks there.”

What kind of language is this? What is it that you imagine that you’re saying to me? How, in your mind, do you imagine I am supposed to receive this suggestion?

You haven’t refuted a single contention I’ve made. Ever. I’m not talking about in this specific forum. I’m talking about in every interaction we’ve had over the past few years.

I’ve refuted every single one you have, however. The system of marking my responses that @GeorgeTichy and @2humBaby so resent—“You said”; “In response”—is 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 can’t make serious responses, don’t post.

I am a patron of Spectrum’s system “in good and regular standing.” Also, I practice Seventh-day Adventism. Since you are a pastor, technically, I am also your parishioner.

I’d 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 “paah,” and glib dismissals about getting to know “some real white people.” You have a detestable bedside manner.

I could be a computer program, responding to you. Don’t talk to me about what I know. Read my words and respond to my words…in terms of my words. The only reason you propose I don’t know “some real white people” is because my ideas are probably intolerable to white people like you; the ones you deem “real.” They probably are real: Real white.

You, and the other white people you know, need to up your game. These dull recollections of friendly Africans and adoring, Black congregations will not mend the howling breach this culture is facing. There is another generation evolving with wholly different concepts of the world and where it is going. As I pointed out, above, a recent Pew Research report affirms that the majority of Black Lives Matters protesters are white, young, suburban Democrats. How did that happen…in five years?

Do you think your gentle bromides are what they want to hear, as an explanation for why the world is the way it is? “If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses?” (Jeremiah 12:5, NIV)

Keep up, or get out, Allen.

HA

As I said to @Timo:

  1. So, name one.

You’ve done that. You’ve named five (5):

Great.

Now, here’s Part 2:

  1. In each instance, please, explain why those exchanges are not racist.

By not racist, I’m saying ONLY the following:

I want you to show me, to my satisfaction, that no part or aspect of those five (5) exchanges, in any way, directly or indirectly, x) “involved,” y) was “affected by,” or z) was dominated by persons described in any, and/or all, of the following ten (10) categories:

a) Numbers 1 through 4, below, plus, below that,

b) Numbers 1 through 6:

Racist =

(1) A white person who, directly or indirectly, speaks and/or acts, in a manner that helps to establish, maintain, expand, and/or refine, the practice of White Supremacy (Racism), at any time, in any place, in any one or more areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and/or War.

(2) A White Supremacist.

(3) A person [white] who practices White Supremacy (Racism).

(4) Any white person, who is mentally or physically able to speak, and/or act, to eliminate White Supremacy, but who does not do so.

Racist Suspect, and/or Suspected Racist =

(1) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who exists any place in the known universe, at the same time that any person classified as “non-white” exists, and functions, in direct or indirect subjugation to persons who practice White Supremacy (Racism).

(2) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who exists, and/or who had existed, during a time when White Supremacy (Racism) is, and/or was, practiced among the people of the known universe.

(3) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who, during any socio-material condition dominated by White Supremacists (Racists), has not proven, by both word, and deed, to the Victims of White Supremacy (nonwhite people), that he, or she, is not a White Supremacist.

(4) Any person classified as, and/or generally functioning as, “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who is suspected of practicing Racism (White Supremacy), by any person who is “non-white.”

(5) Any white person who receives social and/or material “benefits” as a direct or indirect result of White Supremacy (Racism), but, who does not utilize all of those social and/or material “benefits” to help to eliminate White Supremacy.

(6) Any person classified as “white” and/or “Caucasian,” who, during any socio-material condition dominated by White Supremacy (Racism), attempts to engage in any form of sexual intercourse, and/or “sexual play,” with any non-white person.

HA

Thanks.

You wrote:

When you posted that, were you just “tossing it out”?

Or were you responding to a contention, purportedly by me, that, “All white people are racist”?

It is.

However, I have responded to this disagreement, with an argument.

You have not.

HA

I need you to show me to my satisfaction that when I bent over my black tenant’s commode, cleaned up the leaking feces, and then fixed it so that he continued to be able to defecate, I was acting in a racist way, and as a white was dominating him in some fashion.

But perhaps, it just may be, we White Supremacists have some odd ways of showing dominance.

It looks like I can edit even when the thread is closed! So, Harry says I have to show that the above action (fixing a black tenant’s leaking poopy toilet) is not racist by his criteria:

So here goes, Harry. by the numbers:

  1. Cleaning up a black tenant’s toilet does not establish or maintain White supremacy. Hard to think that cleaning up a minority’s toilet that had broken would establish anything like that
  2. Would a white supremacist clean black toilets?
  3. ditto
  4. Seems by taking the role of toilet cleaner, you are not establishing Wt. Spr.

Now 1-6

  1. This one is tough. If a a black is in subjugation to a white anywhere, then I being white am a racist. Well, cleaning black toilets does not prevent another white from subjugating someone somewhere else. So I guess I fail here.
  2. Another tough one. If I live during a time when racism existed, in the known universe, BTW, then I fail. So failed again. Can’t prevent racism in others.
  3. Gotta prove I am NOT a white supremacist. Again, can never prove a negative. Failed again.
  4. Another tough one. If I am suspected (not proved, BTW) of being a racist, I fail again. I did not realize this was going to be so hard.
  5. Receiving benefits; well, getting on your knees to clean up the poop does not seem to confer any benefits, but who knows?
  6. Sex… Well, I spoke to my wife about this one. She did not think begin covered with poop would stimulate passionate sexual desire. But that is just one white racist’s opinion…

So, it looks like you are right, Harry. The toilet job was as racist as could be.

So, this white supremacist will clean black tenant’s toilets, but you won’t, and I am the racist. I think my tenants would prefer my doing to your talking.

And your logic is bad as well:

You say my land lording of black tenants in like slave owning Southern planters.

This example shows the error, and I mean real error, of your thinking Harry. Read carefully.

There are similarities: I and the southerner own the property. We also are depending on blacks to succeed. But there the similarities end. You think that stating such an analogy clinches the argument. You don’t consider the real differences.

  1. The planter owned the slaves. I don’t own my tenants
  2. The planter beats the slaves if he does not make profits. He makes them work harder. If I do not serve my tenants and keep the building up, they will move away. I have no power to prevent them except to give excellent service. I serve them.

There are similarities here, but the analogy breaks down because you do not acknowledge the differences. And so your analogy fails. It is bad reaonsing. And you have not refuted my statements on my being a servant to the tenants.

Here is the basic difference: If the slaves do not serve the master, they loose. If I, as a landlord, do not serve my tenants, I loose.

Good luck.

1 Like

Seriously, I hope.

Harry, there is no person on this forum with so much racial animus as you! Can’t you see it?

Your last post was filled with frustration. You feel I have said nothing here that counters your assertions, but you cannot see the contorted reasoning you use.

The toilet example shows it. How can my action possibly be interpreted as racist?

Ah, could you hand me that plunger, Harry?

1 Like

Yes. That’s #2, of five.

No, no, no, no. That’s not how this works.

Let’s walk through the exercise:

I said, to @Timo:

@Timo didn’t respond. I expected that. I suspect that, when it comes to race, he’s utterly out of his league, and that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But you did respond. You came along, and said:

So, now, by this, you were answering the question I’d asked @Timo. In other words, you were giving me examples of “DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist"; some of the “hundreds of millions” of them. Five, to be exact.

I’d told @Timo:

And you’d named five, which was great.

However, you didn’t explain why they weren’t racist. If you recall, that was the whole point of the exercise.

Perhaps you thought these were “self-evidently” not racist. However, if racism is, as I hold, deceit, secrecy, and violence, probably nothing is “self-evidently” not racist.

So, I told you that you’d done the first part of the exercise, but not the 2nd part:

Now, a big part of the conflict between white and non-white people, over racism, is this: What is racism?

White people tend to have one sort of definition. If you read my response to @JasonHines’ great essay, above, you’ll see that I said white people seem to

I also pointed out, what I call,

This is what you’ve done, repeatedly, of your congregants, and above, of your tenants.

But, as I also said to Hines, white slaveowners did the same thing.

In other words, white people, today, like you, say you aren’t racist, because you didn’t own slaves. But slaveowners said they weren’t racist either.

When I look at this, I can either:

a) Believe you both, or

b) Be specific, re: what I mean by racism.

I chose b), and negatively defined my terms:

That was the assignment: The one I put to @Timo, but that you stepped into with a response; one for which I am grateful.

However, now, you’re saying this:

But, to quote Destiny’s Child, no, no, no, no, no: That’s what YOU have to prove. THAT’S the question I asked @Timo:

You, basically raised your hand, like Arnold Horseback from Welcome Back, Kotter, and said, “Pick me!”

So, I picked you. But I’m not doing your homework for you.

What are “DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,” Allen Shepherd? You say there are “hundreds of millions” of them. So, name one, please, and explain why it’s not racist. I’ll respond.

HA

You’re kidding, correct? :rofl:

No, it’s not frustration. I like I said to @Timo, I can do this all day. :smiley:

It’s momentary annoyance. You just give the sloppiest, most flaccid responses. I get the feeling that if I spoke to children, I’d do better, because they would:

a) answer the questions, and

b) tell the truth.

And, again, that was really just temporary. :smile: The stuff you say is wack, but it’s still very useful for illustrating how racism works.

Part of why I’m here is to make my system of thinking about racism logical. That’s why I so frequently walk through my responses to you, in detail—like I did directly above this one—and take the time time to do so.

I don’t feel anything. :thinking: Like I’ve said more times than I care to count, you’re not credible on my thoughts. So, you shouldn’t waste time talking about them.

I read what you write, and respond in a nuanced, procedural way. That’s how I know that you drift away, as though senile, from direct, puncturing questions. You did this, above, when I said, “Explain why these interactions are not racist.”

If my reasoning is “contorted,” as you claim, what you should do, as a forum participant, is point out the contortions, and then describe how a noncontorted response would read.

Just saying, “You cannot see the contorted reasoning you use,” is weak sauce. Is that the way you pastor?

You are mischaracterizing the exercise, and the precise question at stake. See my response.

I’m not here to help you with toilets. I’m here to point out why I said that I suspect you are a racist, and to build my reasoning into a body of counter-racist logic.

HA

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.