As I have been tilling the soil of my mind with the rusty broken tools that I have, trying to test viability and perhaps germinate and plant the seed that the OT (as well as @Harry_Allen) have brought to the table, despite the rocks and stumps I was struck by a possibility by discing deeper.
Whatever else I feel about Mr Allens blatant assertions about racial supremacy, I sense that male supremacy, as well white supremacy may have a “nest” within “the remnant”. I’m quite certain most would agree that Adventism has a perhaps not exclusive but certainly unique claim of remnancy, and the inculcation of that concept explicits we own -and value-“religious supremacy”. We do this on a number of levels and in diverse ways, not the least which includes denominational baptism, attachment of doctrinal distinctives so said baptism, as well in how we have considered, treated and even shunned members who wish to join another flock. The majority of churches allow members to join other faith communities without pretending the member is voluntarily, tragically, forever choosing sheol (especially because harsher judgment is visited upon them becauseS/HE ONCE KNEW THE TRUTH).
That is pinnacle of hubris, nadir of denominational supremacy, and perhaps spiritual malpractice.
Harry, thanks for allowing me to scratch deeeper, and consider your strange concept further.
While an SDA, the pride and arrogance was apparent. It’s so inbred, I don’t think they even hear themselves! It’s normal. To hear the comments about other Christians was terrible (and not true). But, it’s what they’ve been told all their lives, so it’s parroted without any thought that they could be wrong. Of course, part of spiritual arrogance is not being wrong, everyone outside your group, is by default, “wrong”.
I had no idea that the SDA church didn’t transfer a person’s name to another denomination. The moment I learned that “truth”, is crystallized in my mind. Talk about hubris! It’s not important in any meaningful way…but shows the audacity of any group to not honor your wishes about your name.
It shows what the SDA church views as “The Truth”.
It’s a very difficult problem to discuss in a rationally-coherent manner, largely because it’s emotionally charged for many as a part of their identity, which I think is one of the biggest issues with chunking up societies along racial identities and aligning one’s own identity to those chunks.
The broader form of “racism” becomes more of a “socio-political statistical model” than it is some specific context that can consistently relate behavior of individuals with that of the group it attempt to cast them into. As such, it’s an incoherent model, because it simply doesn’t work when other conventionality is introduced… which is other than “black / white” race context, or some other factors of success that define some social enterprise against which we compare racial disparity.
So these discussions could be exhausting, but we can’t avoid these if we are to move on to some viable “post-racial” future. And it may very well mean some form of reparations as a form of support for those who arguably stuck in poverty due to some context of the racial past, and event present. And it may mean for some also looking for a broader context of inequality, that’s not merely correlated with race.
I think Daniel addresses a topic that is very hard for us whites to truly understand… especially when different people come together for discussion and yet have different definitions and different perspectives for the same words/topics. How we live and treat others is very important and as Christians we should follow Christ’s example. He loves every single person ever born and who will be born. He came and died for every one. We…you…me…black, white, male, female, young old…none of us are worthy of the love and grace that God has given to us because we are all sinners. And yet, “while we were still yet sinners, Christ died for us” Romans 5:8 That’s God’s love and His grace. That’s His example.
So the question remains how do we each individually allow God’s love and grace to do it’s work in our lives…for how can we hate and condemn a person, be they white or black, and still claim to be followers of Christ? “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” 1 John 4:20 and " Everyone who hates (works against) his brother [in Christ] is [at heart] a murderer [by God’s standards]; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15
I think we can all agree that racism is hate and the Bible is very clear that we are not to hold hatred in our hearts…and people will disagree, but it goes both ways. I have seen both sides act hateful and start name calling. I have never seen a single person change their minds because people start calling them names. I would venture to say that those who are quick to call people names and make accusations based off of nothing more than the color of a person’s skin are not interested in changing people’s minds or even show them the love that Christ freely bestows on everyone. That, brothers and sisters, is shameful and that is not the example Christ has given.
Numerous times we are told in the Bible to forgive. "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”"Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” Matthew 18:21,22
“Bear with each other and forgive any complaint you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” Colossians 3:13
Scripture says we are to forgive…and that means even if they never ask for forgiveness. Hard to fathom but scripture is clear on what happens if we do not forgive.
"Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. 35 “That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.” Matthew 18
Wrong has been done to a great many of people and in many ways I have seen great strides to correct this wrong…it is a slow and painful process but what great reward there will be when we see it through to the great and glorious day when we will see Jesus in those clouds. That is our goal. and our focus should be on reaching as many people as we can with that glorious hope. And it has to start with forgiveness and love.
We are all humans born into this sinful world and we all have made mistakes, some unintentionally and others intentionally. No matter the intent God is ready to forgive us of all…should we not offer that same forgiveness? For the day you can allow yourself to forgive…on that day you will truly be free.
So, it is with those words that I offer my words of forgiveness to the author. For though you will admit it or not, you know that you have put words in people’s mouths that they themselves never spoke and put the wrong intent behind why 3 people got up and walked out after you started speaking about how we must stand up and join in the protests, making them something it was not, I will forgive you. For it is only through forgiveness that we can move forward with our mission to reach all people with the love of Christ. I pray that God will continue to bless you and your family and that you may find true healing for the wrongs you feel have been committed.
I don’t know what this means. However, what I’m saying is please answer the questions I’ve asked, especially the ones marked “Q:.”
You said:
In response:
If I’ve not answered a question that you’ve asked, please ask it again. I might not have seen it, or understood that it was a question.
I’ll answer it, and continue answering your questions, on the condition that this remains balanced; i.e., that you answer the questions I ask. To me, this is a condition of correct relations, particularly between white and non-white people.
I said:
You said:
In response:
The statement says:
No one is mistreated.
It says nothing about “feeling.”
You said:
In response:
Actions which might appear to be “mercy” or “charity” in the context of injustice (e.g., white supremacy) become dutiful in the context of an opposing order; e.g., justice.
By analogy:
In the context of vehicular anarchy, I am bound to do nothing in or with my car should I, say, run over a pedestrian. So, for example, in such a setting, I might just keep driving, or toss my half-full strawberry shake in the direction of the body. I could do this, having done nothing “wrong,” per the rules, because there would be none.
However, in the context of vehicular road rules, such as those which most municipalities possess, were I to run over a pedestrian, I would be bound to stop my vehicle and contact emergency services.
In the first instance, the act of stopping and attending to the injured would be an act of “mercy” and/or “charity,” because nothing would be demanded or required.
In the second, it would be one of duty, bound intrinsically to the coherence of the social order. The same is the case in my definition of justice, above.
You said:
In response:
See above.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Actually, I am. It’s probably just that you’re not used to hearing these ideas put this way.
Let me say that in another manner: If I went to the Apollo Theater, on 125th St. in Harlem, on one of the nights when the building isn’t packed with Caucasians, and said, “White people have turned skin color into the culture,” what you would then hear is quiet, followed by an entire building filled with the joyful, harmonic chords of Black concurrence. You might even hear people start to applaud.
Now, if you then got on stage and replied, “Again, you are not making sense when in comes to both linguistic convention and semantic necessity that requires coherent concepts,” what you would then hear is distinct laughter, an explosion of boos, both followed by the rhythmic shoetaps of Sandman, as he extends his lengthy cane to pull you off the proscenium.
Put yet another way, remember the post where you said, “If you are talking about structuring a culture in which you make it your job to remind me about my “white guilt”… then sorry. You are on your own”?
I thanked you, then said, "I’m not interested in your, or any white person’s, ‘white guilt.’ I don’t even care if you experience guilt, or not. Indeed, I’m most reminded of one activist’s objection that, in the fight to eliminate racism, the problem is that white people are moved so easily to guilt, but with such difficulty to shame.
“More, I’m interested in non-white people finding the language, and a suite of correct thought and action, with which they can engage the race system, aka white supremacy, and eliminate it. That’s my prime objective in this area, generally, and even the reason I poked my head in this forum a week after it started.”
That’s what’s going on here: I am working out the language of counter-racism on behalf of non-white people. That’s why, particularly to white ears, the things I say sound harsh, awkward, nonsensical, etc.
As a Ukrainian Jew with Middle-Eastern roots, you, I’m confident, possess memories of sounds, particularly of language sounds, that remind you of "home,” wherever that may be.
Well, that’s what I’m trying to create: Sounds that remind non-white people of home. However, that home has yet to be built, because that home is one where white supremacy (aka racism) has been deleted.
You said:
In response:
Culture is what a person does.
You said:
In response:
Well, first of all, it’s not what I call them. It’s what they call themselves.
This isn’t a term with which Black people came up: You see it in books by white people. This happens as early as the times when Black people were not allowed to read, or write, on pain of death.
So, when you say, “what you would call ‘white people,’” you appear to be playing fast and loose with the truth. And I’ve seen this happen many times: Once a Black person starts to talk about racism, people start talking about white people as though no such thing exists.
This is especially the case when racism is equated with white supremacy. That’s what the prevalence of the term “white privilege” is about, I believe: White people resisting being identified with white supremacy, that being about what they are actually talking.
This is the kind of behavior that should immediately make any non-white person suspect that the white person who does this a white supremacist, because that is the kind of thing a racist would say.
Second, regarding the claim that white “functional behavior rules…fall on a rather broad spectrum of beliefs, habits, and attitudes,” what I am saying is that they do, but they are not broad enough to eliminate white supremacy.
But they all contain milk. That’s what make them cream. So, if you wanted to pontificate on the wide spectrum of ice cream, C.O.W.S. will not be impressed.
You said:
In response:
Functionally, yes.
In other words, whatever the variations might be in their opinions, the function is what happens to Black people in jail.
You said:
In response:
They are victims of it.
You said:
In response:
I don’t know what this means.
You said:
In response:
Morgan Freeman is a non-white person. As such, he is a victim of the race system (aka white supremacy).
Because of this, his statements come under V.G.Q.: Victim’s Guaranteed Qualification. Under V.G.Q., every non-white person who is subject to and/or a victim of the system of white supremacy is totally “qualified” to say anything that he or she chooses to say, that either directly or indirectly pertains to race, racism, and/or counter-racism.
The statement that you’ve made is one that white people typically employ, in order to affirm the notion that statements non-white people make about race are, often, themselves, racist. Indeed, it’s so popular a conjecture, and so subtle, that even many non-white people believe it.
But this is like saying a kid who punches back when hit is just as guilty as the one who punched first. Equal actions can have different meanings within different frameworks. As I said in my NABISCO analogy, everyone is making cookies. But only one gets to call themself “NABISCO.”
Thus, despite what white people would have us all believe, a Black person saying, “I hate white people” is not equal to a white person saying, “I hate Black people.” It’s not, because 1) both speakers are responding to white supremacy, and 2) that means white supremacy directs what happens next, and what happens next is least likely to benefit the Black person.
These are the limiters of which I spoke, the chief one being white supremacy; the system, itself. “Supremacy” means, to reference Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” “King of the hill, top of the list, cream of the crop, top of the heap, A-number 1,” etc. When you’re all of those, you are, to quote KRS-One, “solo, single, no more, no less.” Anything that tries to be equal to you gets shut down in the name of your primacy.
This is what I meant when I said a system of mutual Black/White Supremacy would quickly decohere and become vague. One hasn’t developed, though, because white supremacy limits any and all challengers to the throne.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Because, when I say “White supremacy,” I’m talking about what one might call a “super-ethno-cultural context.”
You said:
In response:
I don’t understand what you mean.
You said:
In response:
Please give me two or three examples of this.
You said:
In response:
I’m always looking for it. Part of the way I try to find any incoherence in it is by subjecting it to “brute force attacks,” like this one. In other words, talking about racism in disembodied white contexts, like here, and seeing what happens; putting the ideas “through the paces,” so to speak.
What I mostly get are better, clearer ways to express the ideas. Again, a lot of that has happened, here, in SPECTRUM; not all of it, but a lot.
One of the best moments, for example, came when @Danny expressed the same sentiment @Paul62 does, below: Essentially it was, I can’t wait till all this [race talk] is over.
I responded to Danny the same way I responded to Paul62, because none of these are original objections. (When talking about race with white people, I tend to hear the same objections frequently repeated.)
Neither was Danny’s 2nd, other objection new; essentially, his was @sirje’s: Resentment over my using words in “non-dictionary” ways. (You, thirdly, made a similar objection, re: “linguistic convention and semantic necessity.”)
However, when Danny said it, I sought to really respond to what he’d stated in a way that I hoped would clarify what I was doing. The result was, to me, one of the best explanations I’ve made, yet, of why I use words this way. Indeed, the response I gave you is influenced by it.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Yes.
You said:
In response:
Your story makes me want to ask you:
Are you white?
If so, how do you know?
If not so, how do you know?
I’d be seeking rather detailed replies to 2 or 3. Based on your responses, I would proceed with further inquiry, until I felt I could construct a model.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Well, I am assuming that a) white supremacy began through some manner of events and/or causes, and b) white people make statements about non-white people when we are not around.
I said:
You said:
In response:
No, no, no: You’ve not answered my questions.
You said, “These guys looked more Asian than they looked white.”
I’m asking you:
When you say, “These guys looked more Asian,” what do you mean by, “looked more Asian”?
In other words, describe it, with words. What do you mean by “looked more Asian”?
When you say, “they looked white,” what do you mean by, “looked white”?
In other words, describe it, with words. What do you mean by “looked white”?
So, what do you mean by “racial attributes”? Please define the term.
That is, you did not answer the question.
You said, “In the past, there’s an attempt of constant expansion of the dominant cultures, that typically coincided with racial attributes.”
Which “racial attributes”? Describe, say, six or seven of them.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Thanks.
You have not answered the question.
Here it is, again, in its entirety, and not in the edited way that you presented it:
Q: By the [original statement, above], do you mean that there are places, in the known universe, where:
a) …people do not understand what white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning?
If so, where is this place, and who are these people; i.e., what do they call themselves, how many of them exist, etc.?
I said:
You said:
In response:
Is your wife white, or non-white?
You said:
In response:
Thanks.
You have, again, not answered the question.
Here it is, again, in its entirety, and not in the edited way that you presented it:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Thanks.
You, for the THIRD TIME, have not answered the question.
Here it is, again, in its entirety, and not in the edited way that you presented it:
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Oh, thanks.
Q: What is “colonial expansion”?
Q: When did “European nations” start “colonial expansion,” and when did they stop “colonial expansion”?
Q: At any point during the “colonial expansion of European nations,” were there any white people involved in it, or affected by it? If so, how, and why?
Q: At any point during the “colonial expansion of European nations,” were there any non-white people involved in it, or affected by it? If so, how, and why?
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
Well, like I keep saying—and this, above, is a perfect example of it—in “racial matters,” any criticism made of a non-white person (or non-white persons) is always better, and more accurately, made of the race system (aka White Supremacy), itself.
Please just answer the question.
You said:
In response:
Dashing chap.
You said:
In response:
Really?
When you say that, what is difference between King Ferdinand’s “lines” and, say, those of fellow Spaniards, like chef José Andrés…
Put another way, what’s your reasonable estimate that, after he granted the Asiento, had Ferdinand come across these people, or their ancestors, he would have traded them for rum?
You said:
In response:
You’re talking about “thinking,” again, when I’m talking about function.
I’m not asking you, “Did Ferdinand say, ‘I’m white, and I only want non-white slaves!!’”
I’m asking this:
Q: Did Ferdinand, by his actions, create such results as if he had issued the above dictum?
Again, you say: “It may come as a surprise to you, but the concept of ‘whiteness’ is a relatively recent concept, and didn’t originate with self-identification of ‘white people’. None of the colonists self-identified as ‘white’. They generally ran with ethno-cultural context that they pledged allegiance to. They didn’t think in terms of their ‘whiteness’ like you are attempting to frame it to be.”
First of all, what you’re talking about are possibly the very early stages of a system that became, at some point, "racist."
So, even though you’re being mad general, here, in terms of which colonists, where, and when, let’s agree, as you say, that, “None of the colonists self-identified as ‘white’. They generally ran with ethno-cultural context that they pledged allegiance to. They didn’t think in terms of their ‘whiteness’ like you are attempting to frame it to be.”
Obviously, that didn’t last. This is my point. To the degree what you describe was a, or the, initial state of the system, that’s the way initial states tend to look: Not fully defined, but, inevitably, with the seeds and markers of what they will become built into them at the start.
That’s why there are clear, consistent notions of color difference, in a system that will abstractify the same in ways of which Ferdinand could only dream, even given “pledges” to a “ethno-cultural context.”
In other words, despite all the social fluidity you allege, what one never sees, as the system you’ve brought up calcifies, is:
a) “Spain” filling ships up with “Portugal,” “Brits,” or “French,” or
b) “Africa,” filling ships up with “Spain,” “Portugal,” “Brits,” or “French.”
Why?
Again, let me ask you this, because you didn’t answer it before:
Q: A “British” ship is full of non-white slaves. The slaves don’t like the way the trip is going, so they start to attack the “British.”
Meanwhile, a “Spanish,” “French,” and “Portugese” ship, each also full of non-white slaves, come across the struggle going on.
Do the “Spanish,” “French,” and/or “Portugese” ships:
a) Ignore the “British,” and keep sailing?
b) Help the “British”?
c) Help the non-white slaves?
What is your answer, and why is it correct?
You said:
In response:
See. Above.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
I’ll take it under advisement. But since you’re recommending this, it suggests you’ve already done it.
So, please just answer the question. This should be easy, given the courses you’ve taken.
That is exactly how non-white people feel about the problem of racism.
This is why I always say: In “racial matters,” any criticism made of a non-white person (or non-white persons) is always better, and more accurately, made of the race system (aka White Supremacy), itself.
But, I arguably haven’t run over anyone in context of the new social order you are talking about. The guys that were running over people were running over them in absence of the rules or me being there. So, again, you keep trying to switch and bate the context here.
I agree that as a society we should take care and maintain some healthy baseline. I do agree that American system as a whole should formulate some form of compensation for slavery victims of the past, especially those who could be traced to present-day poverty. In short, those who need help - should get help.
But, the context of what would be “just” would be very difficult to determine, since there are a lot of factors involved today that have nothing to do with slaver and segregation context of the past, and I’m one of these factors. Any action on my part would not be a form of justice, but would be a form of charity and mercy. And you assuming a different formulation of justice wouldn’t change the meaning.
A rose by a different name …
I don’t really care how you would be received in Apollo Theater, on 125th Harlem, because you are attempting to communicate with me, and that doesn’t work with semantics that you change on the fly.
You understand that society is a context of negotiable contracts, right? Any setting for “duties” that we have to each other are contractual in nature. The same goes about our agreement about language, which is arbitrary framework of meaning that we use to communicate to each other.
If you switch semantics on the fly and I don’t agree with it and decide to stick with semantics of the rest of the population, then you are forever banging your head on the wall of cultural majority that you will forever find “oppressive”.
Perhaps it’s a more important question that all of the conversation about semantics, that likely wouldn’t convince you anyway…
What would US where white supremacy was deleted look like? Can you describe how would US look like in such setting. How would it be different in your context personally?
I’d agree that intentions are a critical part of relations between people. But I would not reduce those interactions to intentions.
You see a 16-year-old cashier that you hate, and she’s walking home from work. If you run her over with your Cadillac Escalade and kill her, then keep going, in court, you will suffer a certain fate. This is especially true if witnesses report that, earlier in the evening, they saw you scream at her, “I hope you DIE!”
But if you fall asleep at the wheel of your Mini Cooper, because you were out late feeding homeless and sheltered women, run her over, and kill her, then stop and call 911, your fate will be different.
But hers will not be.
Likewise, in racial matters, intentions are important. But so are effects.
So, again, this requires some set-up. Here’s what happened.
You said:
So, this is exactly what you said: “this ‘new civil rights” context’”—whatever that is; you have yet to say—performs two tasks:
It fixates on race.
It reminds everyone that they are black or white.*
These were your words.
So, I said:
I’m astounded by how accurate this little piece of code remains. That it does is just further proof that white supremacy is a system. It it wasn’t, this maxim might fail as often as it succeeds.
Then, I said to you:
Then I showed eight images and/or videos of the following:
• The scarred back of an enslaved non-white person
• White and non-white drinking fountains
• A Ku Klux Klan group photo
• An “alt-right,” “neo-Nazi” gathering
• A graph comparing Black / white median wealth
• An all-white law partnership group montage
• An TV ad for skin lighteners
• A news piece on the 2015 chokehold police killing of Eric Garner
Then I said:
“If your answer to this question is ‘Yes,’”—in other words, if you’re saying “this ‘new civil rights’ context” reminds people that they are Black or white" more than these eight images and/or videos—“please kindly explain and support that response with examples.”
In other words:
a) Explain what “this ‘new civil rights’ context” is.
Then:
b) In each of the eight cases, show how “this ‘new civil rights’ context” reminds people that they are Black or white," more than the phenomena depicted in these eight images and/or videos—slavery, the KKK, etc.—not to mention the mere images themselves.
That was “the assignment.” Very straightforward. Based on simple, clear statements, and simple, lucid responses and illustrations.
So, again, let’s see how you did:
You began by saying:
In response:
I didn’t know what that means, and still don’t.
Further, it’s not responsive. This is a very, super-simple exercise. The only complicated, or nuanced part, is this question: Am I talking about the eight sets of images, or about what they depict?
Anyway, I say:
Q: Please explain the term, “Jussie Smolleting.”
Then, you said:
I took this as a major “punking out,” and said as much in response:
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
MAJOR FAIL.
You don’t appear able to even follow your own line of questioning. I strongly suspect that you are “Chicago Police Department-ing” your way out of this. (I trust that this is not your tactic for my other Qs:.)
You did not say, “No Black person’s back looks like that, does it?”, etc.
You said, "this “new civil rights” context … fixates on race. It reminds everyone that they are black or white."
Now, I’m dumb enough to know that “contexts” don’t act: People act, and those people are either white, or non-white.
I’m also dumb enough to know that you probably weren’t arguing that white people “fixate on race,” or that white people “remind everyone that they are black or white.”
So, I said, “You’re saying non-white people ‘remind everyone that they are black or white’…more than this; i.e., white supremacy?”
And you ducked.
Your answer is a non-sequitur. Arkdrey, you ran for the hills.
So, I said, please try again, and please answer the question as it was asked.
YOU’RE. STILL. NOT. DOING. IT.
I suspect that the reason you won’t answer this simple question, in the way I put it to you, is this: You would have to admit that, not only are you wrong, you are wildly wrong. You didn’t see where that little “new civil rights” statement was going. You truly underestimated the possibility of the scenario you were opening, when you spoke.
There is no rational person to whom you could show the text of our exchanges, who could then say, “Yeah: This “‘new civil rights’ context” reminds people that they are Black or white more than slavery.” That’s just stupid.
You said:
In response:
Batting 1.000. This is an absurd answer.
First of all, either there is racism against Black people, or there isn’t.
If there is, then of course, racism against Black people is going to dominate the business of “reminding everyone that they are black or white.” That’s my point!!
But, more, if there isn’t racism against Black people, then what do we mean by “Black people,” or even the expression, “fixate on race”? If there isn’t racism against Black people, these concepts become utterly meaningless.
You said:
In response:
What I’ve pointed out is that, like many white people, you declare these insignificances as though they were great insights.
You may want to keep talking to white people about racism. They are the bound to take such arguments seriously.
You said:
In response:
Siiiiiiiiiigh….
I mostly ignore this issue, but I guess I’m bound to say the obvious, because you keep bringing it up like you’ve solved a great social plague:
There are white people who are darker-skinned than many Black people. Some of those Black people “passed” as white people. Some still do so. There is a long history of this. Indeed, one of the most famous stories of escape from slavery is built on this very phenotypical/social nuance.
But if you went to Ellen Craft, with the little bit of science information you’ve just shared, based on your work in visual effects, as a way of explaining the reasons for her subterfuge, she would look at you like you’re crazy. This would be appropriate.
You sound like one of those people who’ve recently found out that there is, actually, no “gene for race,” and, so, are happy to declare the whole thing a myth and mistrial. Again, I say, tell it to your Nigerian clients and see what they don’t say to you.
You said:
In response:
If this is true, then there should be no one who has meaningful knowledge of what “Black” or “white” people are, racially, except those who were directly subject to what you call the “American Segregation System.” That would only include American people, perhaps a few visiting foreigners, and particularly those who were in the South before 1964.
But that’s obviously not true. I know this from my own direct experience. If what I was saying about white supremacy was as you imagine it is, it would only be an aspect of this limited spatial and temporal context you keep evoking.
But if so, there is no way that I could travel 11,000 miles, land in Brisbane, then give an accurate lecture about the general racial qualities of Australian TV…having never watched Australian TV.
This is why I asked you to name places, in the known universe, where:
a) People do not understand what white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning;
b) People do not understand what non-white people are; i.e., where this term has no commonly, or generally, understood meaning;
and, most of all, where
c) Non-white people dominate white people—where non-white people overrule white people’s decisions, in all areas of activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war—and those white people are unable to do anything about this fact.
Also, in each case, I asked you to tell where these places were, and who these people are.
You essentially hemmed and hawed. You didn’t name a single such site. And you can’t. Because white supremacy is a global system. If it wasn’t, I couldn’t say to Australians, I bet this is what you see on TV, pertaining to race, having never watched TV in their country.
If it wasn’t, I couldn’t land in a hotel room in New Zealand, turn on the tube as I unpack, flip channels at random, and, almost immediately, hear Maori rappers discoursing on how the British stole their land and broke their treaties.
I couldn’t go to Holland and meet a Surinamese woman, telling about how the Dutch raped them, literally and figuratively. I couldn’t go to Rotterdam and see Black men carrying white men’s bags in the hotel. I couldn’t go to Nova Scotia and talk meaningfully to residents there about police violence against unarmed Black males. My Black friend couldn’t go to South Africa, a decade after apartheid ends, come back, speaking of the Afrikaaners, and say, “They are the nastiest people on Earth.”
None of this makes sense, or is even possible, in a world as racially delimited as you imagine this one to be.
Hip-hop music is global. But few of its listeners have ever been to the South Bronx, where it started.
Why do you think that a power system like white supremacy, connecting so deeply to human selfishness and defending the planetary minority—white people—from statistical irrelevance would be less mobile, even with a half-millennium start and hellified motivations?
You said:
In response:
Fascinating.
You keep talking about “American slavery and segregation.” I’ve never raised the subject, and only mentioned it responding to you.
You said:
In response:
Q: A question: You’ve been here 22 years.
What happens when you share your notions, of how racism works, with Black people, especially southern Black people; ones whose families go back in this country for centuries?
You said:
In response:
This would be a sobering piece of analysis if you were talking, analogically, about an impotent system without causal power or significance. As any news feed will tell you, racism is not.
When I first read this, once I finally understood it, I said to myself, "He sounds like a person who either a) doesn’t have a sense of humor, or b) doesn’t know how humor works.
However, I realize that, strictly speaking, neither of these may be true. You may be a real cut-up, and, in fact, I suspect that you are.
So let me just take what you’ve written at face value and respond:
The critical error in your statement is in the the second paragraph. What you leave out is the word “necessarily.”
What you should have said is this:
“The fact that these are understood and laughed at doesn’t necessarily in any way reflect on the reality or logical coherence of the subject matter.”
In other words, a joke may be funny by not reflecting on the reality or logical coherence of the subject matter; that is true. For examples, jokes that rely on puns are this way, to a great degree.
However, there is at least one kind of humor where what you’ve stated is almost always false. It happens to be the area in which Mr. Rahman is engaged.
That area is observational humor, especially satire.
There are so many delights in Mr. Rahman’s reverse racism joke that I could write a sizable essay on it. But, for now, what I’ll say is that, obviously, it reflects on the reality or logical coherence of its subject matter. For you to posit that it doesn’t is nonsensical.
Basically, Rahman takes the common white trope of “reverse racism”—the idea that non-white people “can be racist, too”; that they have parity with white people in this area—and shows it to be blarney.
Straightforwardly and analytically, he catalogs the massive infrastructural and organizational enterprise non-white people would have to mount, everything, including a time machine, in order to make one little joke—“Why can’t white people dance?”—into a racist one.
That’s the payoff from his Rube Goldberg machine. But the humor builds, then explodes, because of his dry allusions to Europe’s crimes—the Middle Passage, the Berlin Conference, the Opium War, Vietnam, etc., etc.—flipped inside out. Racism works for white people because they’ve done the heavy lifting already. That’s what non-white people didn’t do, and that’s why the joke works.
Indeed, I have to say this, another way: For you to offer that his piece doesn’t reflect on the reality or logical coherence of its subject matter suggests you really don’t want to believe that there is a race system; in other words, that you have a stake in this negation.
Also, again, you didn’t answer my questions: Do you think he was in “white on black US slavery and segregation” when he told it?
In other words, what country could he have not been in, because no English speakers there would understand the thrust of the joke, or would have thought it funny, if they did understand it? Tell me, and, in each instance, tell me why.
You said:
In response:
All I can say is if you ever have the privilege, I’d want to film the encounter. And bring popcorn.
You said:
In response:
You don’t even see the contradiction within your own statement do you?
You begin by saying, “There are no monolith of ‘white people.’”
But of course there is: It’s the monolith of people who are white. Even if they vary, they don’t vary as to whether they are white, or not.
So, when you say, “There are people with varying cultural backgrounds that don’t look or behave the same way, and that have varying beliefs,” well, that may be true. (It’s not clear how true it is.) But it’s also not clear how significant it is.
It’s like saying, “Yeah, a Cadillac Escalade can run you over and kill you, but there are all kinds of cars, including Mini Coopers, which are small.”
OK. But Mini Coopers can run you over and kill you, too. In fact, all cars can run you over and kill you. In a certain sense, when you think of it, a car that can’t run you over and kill you is of no use as a car.
In a similar way, white people have all kinds of beliefs, backgrounds, and behaviors. So do cars; that is, they reflect these. But they’re still all cars.
Likewise, white people are still all white people. The first requirement for being a white supremacist is that you be white. This doesn’t mean that all white people are white supremacists. But it does all mean that they could be; in other words, they all meet the first, minimum requirement.
As for your conclusion that the “category of ‘white race’…is purely subjective,” well, no, you haven’t proven that, either. For example, I’ve never met a white person whose skin looked like Flavor Flav’s, or even like Kamal Harris’s. So there is something objective about being white; it can’t just be anything.
But, even more—and this is truly problematic—you seem to be implying that subjective things are not real. Meanwhile, I’d argue that they’re always really to those who hold them to be real…that being a great analogy about whiteness, also.
You said:
In response:
I’d say, yes, except for the white supremacy part.
You said:
In response:
I don’t know how Aamer Rahman would answer this question.
But if it were asked of me, I’d say, “All white persons.”
And if I were then asked, as would be reasonable, “What is a ‘White person’?”, I’d say the following:
"White Person" =
(1) Any person who considers him or her self as “white,” and, who is considered as “white” by a substantial number of other persons who consider themselves as “white,” and who generally function as “white” in all areas of activity.
(2) Any person “classified” as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” and, who generally functions as a “white” person in his or her relationships with other “white” persons, and/or in his or her relationships with “non-white” persons.
(3) Any person not classified as “non-white,” who does not consider him or her self as “non-white,” and who generally does not “function” as a person who is considered to be, and/or who has been “classified” as “non-white.”
(4) Any person who is “classified” as, and/or who is generally “accepted” as a “white” person by other people who are also classified as, and/or generally “accepted” as “white.”
You said:
In response:
I’d say, “See the above definition.”
You said:
In response:
Actually, no: The reason I discuss whiteness in terms of function is to keep it from being, to use your word, “subjective.”
(Rahman’s joke is about whiteness as a function, also.)
I said:
You said:
In response:
I consider the angle you’re taking on this issue both distracting and irrelevant. It’s not a point of mine.
Black people clearly dominate basketball, as players. Why is this the case? You’d have to ask someone who pays more attention to the sport.
My issue is that Black multimillionaires, masters in their sports, still recall, know, and experience the sting of racism; their fame and wealth do not protect them, despite white people insisting that they have nothing about which to complain.
This is more telling to me than statistics about whether or not white men can jump.
You said:
In response:
Racism, in the form of White Supremacy, is the greatest motivating force, by people, that exist among the people of the known universe.
Every person in the known universe is either practicing White Supremacy (Racism), or, he or she is compelled, at all times, to re-act to those persons who are practicing it.
Both the practice of White Supremacy, and the re-action to it, affects all people, in all areas of activity, including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.
You said:
In response:
Respectfully, this is silly.
I actually feel like I’m being punked. You talk as though non-white people, planetarily, have not been through at least half a millennium of ongoing, abject terror at the hands of people who, in numerous cases, insisted that they were, and are, white.
You’re like a medic who arrives on a battlefield, looks at guys whose legs have been blown off, and, to save their lives, immediately orders massive airdrops of funky platform shoes. “That’ll restore lost height,” you smile.
I mean, according to you, those non-white people in Ghana, Guam, Hawaii, or the UK, who can’t stand white people do so, not because, as Susan Sontag said…
…but because of “white on black US slavery and segregation.” Wow. I’d love to hear you explain away 9/11.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
The members of the set.
You said:
In response:
Lovely young women.
You said:
In response:
You’re asking me if I would ignore them…in what context, or toward what end?
In other words, I wouldn’t observe them pray, or go to mosque, and, on that basis, decide that they could not be racists, if that’s what you’re asking.
You said:
In response:
I don’t know what this means.
If they are white, and I had the pleasure of meeting these women, say, for lunch, and getting to know them, I’d take them all as distinct, I’m sure. I would try to learn about their lives, families, and their countries.
But if, say, after months of this, my “handler” said, "Harry, you’ve gotten to know these women as individuals.
“Are any of them racists?”
Unless one had said she was, I would say, “I do not know.”
If she then asked, “Do you suspect any of them are?”, I would say, “I suspect any white person of being a racist, as long as the chief weapon of a racist is deceit, the secondary weapon of a racist is secrecy, and the tertiary weapon of a racist is violence. That’s only ‘due dilligence’”
You said:
In response:
You’re misquoting me, but I’ll briefly, in this instance, not head back to correct you.
In “racial matters,” any criticism made of a non-white person (or non-white persons) is always better, and more accurately, made of the race system (aka White Supremacy), itself.
That is, those three steps you’ve outlined, above, are what the Racists do, collectively, to non-white people.
Now, regarding them being “representative”: They’re representative, much the way that any cubic cc, inch, foot, or mile of a hurricane is representative of the whole.
You said:
In response:
More problematic, you mean, than lining the bottom of Atlantic with Senegambians?
By definition, it can’t be. If it was, that would make racism a losing proposition for the White Supremacists. Thus far, it’s not. Remember: Business is a-boomin’.
Again, most of this conversation I find exhausting, mainly because there are a lot of tangents that I simply wouldn’t have time or energy to reply to.
I think I’m largely interested to know what would “deletion of white supremacy” would look like for your vision of the US? How would the laws be different? What would be different?
And, @Arkdrey, before you do—or rather, before I do, and respond—I should have commented on these statements.
You said:
…and you said…
My position is not that white people are my proverbial enemy. The White Supremacists are my enemies, and they are not “proverbially” so.
Neither do I hold that, “if you are white, then you are essentially a white supremacist.” First of all, I don’t know what “essentially a white supremacist” means; either you are one, or you are not.
Second of all, deleting that adverb—“if you are white, then you are a white supremacist”—doesn’t represent my view, either. Indeed, in a post to @Sirje, I said no non-white person should ever call a white person a racist (aka white supremacist).
That said, looking at your post of my stereotypes, you said:
In response:
@Arkdrey, I was very curious to see what examples of stereotyping you would bring. I say this because I work fairly deliberately, in order to avoid doing this.
Reading these examples, however, made me wonder if you know what a stereotype is.
At least three of them—the last ones—are queries. Typically, stereotypes aren’t rendered as questions. Now, I mean, I guess one could ask a question about a stereotyped idea and, in so doing, possibly betray that one may possibly hold a stereotype to be true; e.g., asking a new Black acquaintance if he’s good at basketball—as a white music editor once inquired of me—or an Italian one if he’s in the Mafia.
But note the attendant qualifications. Someone asking a question may not hold a position on the issue under questioning, and thus may not hold the stereotyped position. (This is analogous to @Sirje’s “crossing a dark street” thought experiment: One could cross a dark street to avoid Black males and not do so with racist intent.)
As well, stereotypes are usually decontextualized. So, for example, asking a new Black acquaintance if he’s good at basketball might be stereotyping, but not if you’re about to lace-up for a quick, after-work game.
Further, stereotypes are typically based on commonly held ideas within a populations. Continuing with with the three queries, they all seem too abstract to be expressing a stereotype.
That is:
The third to the last is attempting to qualify the nature of two unknowns: “Brit” and “from Portugal.”
The 2nd to last asks whether the people with the ability to overrule the decisions of others in nine areas of people activity (?) are white, or non-white. (Also, now that I look at it more carefully, so does the last one; the last two are identical.) What commonly held idea is even being expressed?
Moving up to the first ones, they all seem too abstract and arcane to fit the charge of “stereotype”:
• That, as a population, white people have a collective effect.
• That a person who says racism doesn’t exist might be a racist.
• That racism, based on collective white power, is stronger than any other kinds of “skin-color collectives.”
• That racism, so described, is based on white identity.
None of these seem to resonate with the charge of stereotype; they’re structured more as formulations. If they do so resonate, though, please qualify the stereotype being restated.
Indeed, the one closest to fitting your charge, possibly, is my exchange with @Sirje, in which I said, “This is a typically white thing to say.”
What does @Sirje say? That she won’t be burdened with guilt for racism.
O.K. But this is something white people do frequently say, particularly in these contexts. (In fact, you also said made a similar statement, in your first post to me! And both outcries, yours and Sirje’s were unprovoked: I never raised the specter of guilt, and I said this in Sirje’s case.) There’s even a term associated with this phenomenon: “White guilt.”
So, in toto, if you’re charging stereotyping, I think you need to make your case. I rest mine.
Most white people think of racism, or race—I use the terms interchangeably—as harsh feelings and sounds; in a sensory way. They do this, because, to them, that’s when racism becomes most apparent. That’s when they notice it. Hence, when white kids see Black kids doing “the same things” that, when they do it, gets called racism, they think, that’s racist, too.
In fact, though, a more useful way to think of race, or a more functional way, is as field ; as a context where certain kinds of outcomes are likely ; i.e., ones that “favor,” or “empower” white people, and “power- less ” non-white people.
You said:
In response:
Beautifully stated.
This is one of the reasons I encourage non-white people to not call white people racists, unless that white person, first, say that they are racist, or a racist.
This is a concise and fine post, capped off with this excellent proposal. I hope white people who want to talk about racism with non-white people—in order to end it—embrace this.
Re: your first and last points, though, my suggestion is aimed at non-white people, and it’s this: That, in order to avoid confusion over terms, we adopt and use a definition of racism that works towards its elimination.
(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].
Mr. King, I have to respond to something you said. It is regarding the Black Lives Matter group. What people don’t seem to understand is that the Black Lives Matter group’s main purpose is to hold the police accountable. Many unarmed African-Americans were killed by police officers for things that didn’t warrant killings. Most of them have not advocated killing police officers. The key to finding the reconcilliation that you mentioned in your comment is to understand the pain of African-Americans in certain situations. You said that you would stand between the author and the KKK and take a bullett. But would you speak out against an injustice against an African-American if one were unjustly killed by the police?
That’s not something that I prefer to call myself.
Just because someone in the past convinced people into thinking that it both exists and that it’s a big deal, doesn’t mean that I should play by the same rules and believe and parrot it as some distinguishable concept.
The term “white people” or “white” doesn’t even show up in print until 1610, so obviously it’s not an essential concept that we’ve inherited through the dawn of time. Race is a fairly recent construct.
Sure, and chocolate ice-cream contains milk too. Get it?
What percentage of “black people” in prison would you estimate to deserve to be in prison for the crimes that they committed? How would you determine that and which methods would you use?
So, if he is qualified in saying what he said, would that mean that he is correct in saying what he said? Do you agree with what he said?
That’s somewhat confusing. Can you define “White Supremacist” for everyone, and explain what is the difference between “White supremacist” and “White non-supremacist”?
That’s why I said that some of the stereotypes you attempt to promote are implicit in your questions. Please read my response a bit more carefully.
Answering with “That’s something white people would say” is a stereotype. Saying that ALL “white people” function as “white people” (which you do contextualize what that means in rather generic terms) is the definition of what stereotype is.
Either way, I’m not sure that I’m interested in this kind of back and forth, since I don’t see it being productive. Let’s focus on goals and vision. Again, what would be your vision for America in which white racist supremacy system has been deleted. What would it look like? What would be different from present-day America?
That’s certainly one benefit of being white. Like I said before: You can probably go for the rest of your life and never have to say the word “racism” again, or even think about it. But ask your Nigerian clients if they are so assured.
You said:
In response:
The laws would support justice and correctness: Balance between people, and balance between things other than people.
If a person gets up every day at 5 am, that’s her culture.
If she rides a Honda motorcycle to work, that’s her culture.
If she speaks haltingly, that’s her culture.
If she analyzes chemical interactions all day, that’s her culture.
If she fantasizes about the new lab tech, that’s her culture.
If she plays jazz flute, that’s her culture.
If she also plays the saxophone, that’s her culture.
If she ceases playing the saxophone, that ceases to be her culture.
People talk about “culture” in all kinds of highfalutin’ ways. But, in short, culture is what a person does, and what a person does—all of it—is his, or her culture.
One would never say that part of a person’s culture is, say, knitting, if that had person never knitted. And if everybody else around that person knitted, but that person didn’t, people would say that he rejected his culture.
Why? Because it’s not something he does. What he does is his culture.
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
That’s why I don’t solely deal with these issues in terms of what white people think (i.e., “prefer”), but how white people function.
I said:
You said:
In response:
I’m not clear why this is significant.
You said:
In response:
So is the nuclear paradigm.
I said:
You said:
In response:
I do not.
You said:
In response:
I do not know.
That’s my response to both questions.
I said:
You said:
In response:
If what you’re asking me is, “Does this mean that what he said is true, by virtue of V.G.Q.?”, the answer is no.
You said:
In response:
Very roughly speaking, I agree with what I perceive as the intent of it. However, I do not agree with his conclusion; i.e., how to fix the problem.
