Racism amidst the Remnant

Steve –
BLM seems to be Schizophrenic, or perhaps Multiple Personalitied.
It talks Peace and the importance of Human Lives,
It also talks with a lot of Anger, Hostility, and disruption of society.
It gives two messages. But the Anger, Violence talk and actions
seems to be the more Dominant Personality of the movement.

1 Like

Niteguy,
My question is, Does it make sense to Christian values to align with this kind of behavior from either race. And does this muddy the clarity of what Christians should represent. Thinking of how God wanted Israel to be a beacon to the world, but they comprised and mixed in Baal worship. Quickly the light to the world disappeared. Thanks for your candor.

1 Like

Add Antifa to that then there is a real problem like Charlottesville!

Thanks, @Arkdrey.

I said:

You said:

In response:

That’s certainly one benefit of being white: You don’t have to think about racism, because you have Black people to do that for you.

I said:

Justice is better than white supremacy. Justice means:

You said:

In response:

Tell it to Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

This, expressed above, is your core idea. You’ve put it forward many times. But there’s so much that is utterly absurd about your response. Most of it has been summarized in the politically Black radical magazines my friends and I commonly read. Politically Black radical magazines like The Washington Post, Forbes, MarketWatch, and The Economist:

White high school dropouts are wealthier than black and Hispanic college graduates

1 in 7 white families are now millionaires. For black families, it’s 1 in 50.

African-Americans’ Wealth A Fraction That Of Whites Due To Systematic Inequality

Here’s why black families have struggled for decades to gain wealth: Long history of government policies that facilitated wealth for white Americans but not for blacks

Melanin and money: The black-white wealth gap is unchanged after half a century

As well, your first paragraph is completely undermined by your second one. You don’t even see it, do you?

What you’re saying, in fact, is that, to acquire the racial status of a white homeless man, a Black male has to become a wealthy businessman. This, then, makes them comparable.

Q: For what must most white men get wealthy, in order to equal homeless white men?

A: Nothing. The comparison is absurd. Even if what you are saying is true, the fact that you even have to go to such an extreme to make your point is proof of how false your point remains. Race means white men don’t have to do what Black men must in your analysis.

Finally, about your idea, above: Is this something you’ve ever heard any of your Nigerian clients say, or did you just make it up? I’m going to guess it’s the latter.

Comedian Chris Rock once stated, “There isn’t a white man in America who would trade places with me. And I’m rich!” Why should I believe you, instead of him?

You said:

In response:

I do not know.

I said:

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

I suspect this is gobbledygook. It’s undone by a single question: If a person’s culture doesn’t reside in her own thought, speech, and/or actions—if it’s somewhere beyond these—where does it reside?

It isn’t in the thought, speech, and/or actions of other people, because you’ve said a person’s culture is somewhere outside and beyond them.

Obviously, it’s not borne by animals, or plants. Is it in the soil? The water? The air?

Are you saying culture is abstract, like a number? Is it a platonic solid?

You’re really not making sense.

You said:

In response:

Got it.

So, if I follow your logic down the toilet, what you’re saying is this:

One day, white people decided that non-white people were subhuman. So, they went into these non-white people’s countries, bought them from other non-white people, or captured them through acts of war. They then marched them in the heat for miles into to even more stifling holding pens, then put millions of them in the fetid cargo holds of ships, lying in the blood, vomit, and feces of themselves and others, or next to their own dead countrymen.

For months, white people would haul these non-white people chained together, in the dark, over roughly tossed oceans, feeding them little, rarely bathing them. If they died, they were tossed overboard, like rotted freight. Some of the non-white people went mad, and jumped overboard, themselves.

Then, after months of this, they were unloaded in unknown, foreign lands. There they were sold, like cattle, to the highest bidder. This buyer then owned that non-white person, in the way he did his own gun or his broom. Typically, he then brutally humiliated that non-white person. He whipped, raped, and/or mutilated him or her, all while working them, often, literally, to death, while they did the most difficult, backbreaking work.

They were underfed, underclothed, in the heat, in the cold, hungry, and uneducated. For approximately a quarter of a millennium, this was done, day in and day out, to millions of non-white people, while it made their nations wealthy from their labor. They, of course, got nothing from this wealth.

After this system was ended, those who had survived it continued to be worked and treated with hostility, as they were exploited, humiliated, lynched and otherwise mistreated; this for over another century-and-a-half

Now: After this extremely compressed and expurgated history that I’ve recounted, some of the descendants of those mistreated people decide not to believe what white people say about themselves, but to watch and see what they actually do.

And what you’re saying is this:

Doing this—taking this precautionary posture—is the equivalent of all that I have just barely described, above.

Is that what I am to believe? Because, if so, I want you to say it with your mouth.

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

“The racial context,” as you call it, is, itself, The Master Segregationist; the one to which any action by me is, merely, a feeble response.

That’s because, again, in “racial matters,” anything of which a non-white person is accused, especially by a suspected racist (a white person), is better and more correctly charged to the race system; aka white supremacy.

You said:

In response:

Let’s momentarily agree that, say, “Asians make the most money on average in the US,” despite the fact that I’m not talking about “Asians” or “the US,” or that the phenomenon you describe is not the side effects of a selective immigration process.

Do you note that you are not talking about white people getting to the level of “brown guys,” or “Asian guys,” but the reverse?

In other words, your point is that non-white people are “coming up” to a white level. It’s not that white people, globally, are going the reverse. White people are still the standard.

Such a comparison only makes sense in the context of a race system akin to the one I’ve been describing; the one presently operating. Every attempt you make to prove there is no such race system backflips on itself. You’ve repeatedly done this throughout or exchanges.

The reason this happens is that you’re trying to talk about racism…without talking about racism. But whenever you address it, or even if you don’t, either posture points at the very phenomenon you’re attempting to dismiss.

That’s what happens when you speak in the context of all-encompassing phenomena, like the system of white supremacy.

It’s kind of like if you tried to completely describe a year in your life without ever speaking of weather, or, perhaps, gravity. Hard as you might try, nothing you might say would make any sense. Even your attempts to not mention gravity would be framed in “gravitational logic.”

You said:

In response:

Of course they did.

Any book, essay, or consultant on getting a job—a job where one sells “skills and operational knowledge that’s of value to a wide range of people who now give them money to pay them for stuff they do and produce”—talks about how one should speak, or not speak, to do this.

No one in consideration for those positions just “talks”. Everyone contorts their natural language into a manner of speaking that, plausibly, has little meaning or usefulness outside of that context. There’s even a word for this: “Corporatespeak.”

The word system I’m attempting build—that which you so casually attempt to disparage, perhaps for reasons I suspect—could be called counter-racismspeak. You dismiss it, but maybe you should: It’s not for you. It’s, perhaps, against you.

You said:

In response:

"The-color-of-money-isn’t-Black-or-white-but-green" arguments are naive and easily dismissed, because non-white people only sell what the white supremacists will buy. As one colleague put it, “If, today, white people say sand is money, tomorrow, everybody is at the beach with buckets.”

I’m still waiting for you to tell me what your Nigerian friends say when you share the glorious future you keep describing. I keep asking you to do this, and tell me the results. Make sure you do so after sharing those Black radical economic links I gave you.

You said:

In response:

These are my words to you, exactly.

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

It’s neither tangential, nor irrelevant, since you’re making the argument that we should evaluate the potency of social constructs, not by how they are armed, but by their age.

Apparently, for reasons you don’t disclose, nothing more recent than four centuries in existence qualifies.

You said:

In response:

The flaw in your argument is glaring: Even if one accepts what you’ve said, you haven’t shown that “cultural mindsets” couldn’t make a world out “lines,” “differences,” and “abstractions,” especially if skin color makes a readily discernible form of these.

In fact, this is exactly what I’ve said the racists have done.

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

Yes, I do.

You said:

In response:

I do not know.

You said:

In response:

I do not know.

You said:

In response:

Were conditions such that the people who need help, the most, get the most help, that might be one specific.

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

It should be obvious: If the problem is race, then white supremacy (race) has to be eliminated.

This is what I perceive as the intent of Mr. Freeman’s statement. However, the way he put it, and the way, I perceive, many white people “take it,” particularly when they are speaking to non-white people, is that what we need to do is just not “recognize” race; we need to be “color-blind,” so to speak.

This is nonsensical. Not only does it fail to address white power, but it bakes that failure into the process by pretending that white and non-white people would be starting the experiment from a position of parity. This expresses, not justice, but, at best, the convenient and twisted logic of racism itself.

HA

Thanks, @Arkdrey.

I said:

You said:

In response:

:smile:

You said:

In response:

O.K.

I said:

You said:

In response:

I’ve defined both white people and white supremacy, in earlier exchanges. I’ve supplied definitions of those words, as I use them.

If you’re saying there’s something that’s incomprehensible, or unclear, about those responses, you should ask a question about the part that is unclear, or that you don’t comprehend.

You said:

In response:

Your statement is not true.

If you asked me, “Is corn a fruit?”, I wouldn’t say, “I don’t really care whether corn is a fruit, because my focus isn’t on corn, but on fruit.”

I would say, “What is corn?” I would ask you to explain the word in terms of the distinguishing qualities that make some objects “fruit.”

After you did this, I would then answer your original question.

This is, essentially, what I said to you.

You said, “Do YOU think that European colonizers where ‘white’?”

I said, the better question to ask me [is] this, because, when asked this way, my focus is up front and primary, is as follows:

Do YOU think that white colonizers were “European” people?

Had you done what I suggested, I would have then said, “What are ‘European people’?”

“European” was your “corn”: A word that you introduced into our dialogue. I’m willing to address it, if you’re willing to say what you mean when you use it.

You said:

I said:

You said:

In response:

I mean that if non-white people decide that, in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war, they desire a certain result, and one or more—in other words, “enough”—white people do not want that result, what will happen—and what will “stick”—is what the white people want to happen.

However, during the existence of white supremacy, the reverse is not true.

You said:

In response:

To the degree that “in place like Japan” consists of people who aren’t white, my previous response applies.

You said:

In response:

It’s difficult to say without more definition.

So, for example, I agree when white people equate racism with white supremacy, because I believe them to be demonstrably the same phenomenon.

On the other hand, I tend to dismiss the emphasis many white people put on “white privilege.” I do so, because I believe the extant issue to be white supremacy, and that white privilege is merely an aspect of racism. In such a framework, to me, discussing “white privilege” becomes a way “woke,” quote-quote-unquote-unquote, white people avoid designating themselves white supremacists.

HA

I wouldn’t say that racism was the reason for exploitation of slavery, since slavery didn’t begin with racism, but rather with classism.

People divided people into a hierarchy of classes (castes) and some bottom castes were indistinguishable from slaves in US in terms of their perceive place in society. It’s a complex subject. So it was a generational system that benefitted the top aristocratic castes, and that’s what we find in most settings of historic human development.

Hence saying that an African owning and exploiting slave labor is less insidious as European doing the same … is problematic if you are going to associate that concept with a skin color. Europeans were no less opportunistic than African slave owners who sold them slaves they owned.

And that’s why I’m having a trouble having a rational discussion with you, because you paint “Illuminati conspiracy” type of “white supremacy” in which “non-illuminati” people only seem to make their own decisions because Illuminati decided that they can. It’s very difficult to rationally debate such concept, since everything becomes Illuminati conspiracy.

So, a simple litmus test for your concept would be getting rid of “white people” and seeing if problems of humanity you are trying to address would be resolved. Do you think violence and dominance problems would cease and inequality would dissipate?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I will end it with this, since I don’t really find this discussion to be very productive.

I’ll go back to my business of “white supremacy global dominance”, I guess :grinning:

1 Like

This whole story and discussion has no place in God’s mission, as you can clearly see from this comment section no arguments are won, no love is exchanged. I am disappointed that this was not only allowed but encouraged by some of the church leadership. If someone is hateful and unkind, or even racist, don’t we as followers of Jesus have the duty to reach out with love to each other without judgment of individuals with different opinions or race. I am embarrassed to be caught up enough to even be here commenting, but was kinda thrown in simply by attending church. To Pastor Daniel, if you want to community organize a group separate from the World that exhibits unity under the banner of the cross and separate from all the world promotes, you will be shocked at the Love and Unity that will come pouring out of both your white and black brothers and sisters. Please accept my apology for hurting your feelings as that wasn’t intended. I could care less about any one’s color. I do care about Unity and Truth, We will never agree on the world of politics, so why bog the work of Jesus down with divisiveness and confusion. Have you truly accomplished Good from any of this? I am not educated like you, so if I am missing the positive of your mission, please pray for me that my eyes will be opened.
God bless. Love you all! Steve

1 Like

Well articulated and in depth but yes spoken to deaf ears.

1 Like

I had a vision and it was shown to me that this thread will not be shut until the final trump,
9 PROPHETIC days hence…but this too shall pass.

1 Like

Thanks, @Arkdrey.

I said:

You said:

In response:

So, a few thoughts, since it appears that you are just grabbing Wikipedia links, and it also appears you have no idea what you’re talking about:

  1. You’ve failed to respond to the overwhelming majority of my counter-arguments, above, and before. You’ve just glided past them.

  2. The flaw in your earlier argument is still glaring: You haven’t shown that “cultural mindsets” couldn’t make a world out “lines,” “differences,” and “abstractions,” especially when an Effective Majority decides skin color is going to be the “line,” “difference,” and/or “abstraction” of choice.

  3. This statement…

…is incorrect, because it’s ahistorical. Your argument—that the white transatlantic trade in non-white chattel slaves was not racist, because white people were exploiting conflicts between non-white people on the African continent—is a non-sequitur.

Except for the evidence of my response, this is, literally, the kind of statement that doesn’t demand a response, because it’s beneath one. On one level, it’s amazing that people find what you’ve written “well-articulated,” cogent reasoning. On another level, it’s not.

You said:

In response:

See above.

You said:

In response:

In other words, you’re having a trouble having a rational discussion with me, because I paint a white type of “supremacy” in which non-white people only seem to make their own decisions because white people decided that they can. You say it’s very difficult to rationally debate such concept, since everything becomes white supremacy.

This description is incredibly rough in texture, but closer to what I believe to be true that what is commonly said about race, especially by people who are white.

But I’d also add that it’s especially very difficult to rationally debate such a concept if you’re white. The reason why is because what quickly becomes clear is that you may be involved.

This, I suspect, is why, when race becomes the topic, I’ve seen so many white people blow a fuse.

It’s also what I meant when I said, here, that, if everything which defines “the modern world,” or “America as world power,” is directly, or indirectly, connected to slavery, that means every [white] immigrant who has set foot on “America’s shores,” and taken benefit of the social order, is also.

You said:

In response:

Obviously, getting rid of white people would get get rid of white supremacy. Hopefully, it would not come to that. I fear that it will.

However, were white supremacy to end, there is still a chance that some other form of systemized mistreatment might take root, and develop.

That is why I speak of replacing white supremacy with justice. Justice would be incompatible with any form of people “supremacy.”

You said:

In response:

Yes.

HA

There is a question about whether or not the church leadership should make comments and analyses about a broader context. Some critique such acts, saying that makes the church political. There is much research that says white Protestant churches in the South resisted critiquing Jim Crow laws, because they did not want to be political. Was that the right action?

In Rwanda, many people told me that the church (all denominations) did not engage in peacemaking prior to the genocide. The narrative that Rwandans told me about why church leaders did not engage topics of power and ethnicity was that such words and acts “would be political.” By that, I mean the church leaders did not critique what was happening in Rwandan society in the decades that led up to the genocide. By any measure, it seems to me, that one must say that was a missed opportunity and wrong.

As someone interested in religious liberty and the idea of a “non political” church, I wonder about these facts. I have not heard an articulate philosophy or metric stated as to when to speak to political/societal injustice and when not to speak on such issues. People point to the way Jesus conducted Himself on this topic, and rightly so. He was God on Earth. However, the notions of voting, representation, and lobbying were not available to people in the time of Jesus. Logically, I think, the way the church will conduct itself now must be different now in a different time.

The idea of racism is different than implicit bias. Implicit bias is coded in our minds based on stories, experiences, and (maybe?) genetic imprinting. Racism is possible, because of power inequities. Sadly, it has been the white race that has conquered and purged and bought and sold people with darker skins. Yes, it was long ago, and I was not involved. Neither were my grandparents. But we all reap the results of that sin. The results have to do with entrenched systems of inequity that will not be broken quickly. Actually, in order to address the problem, the first step is to admit the problem.

Daniel Xisto has done a nice service by writing this article. People do not want to admit there is truth in what he says. All of us, I think, can tell stories of how we and our ancestors contended with difficult and unfair situations. Few of us have lived lives of privilege and ease. Yet, just because we have struggled and attained a measure of stability does not remove the responsibility of noting structural injustice and the duty to make things “right” in ways that we can.

3 Likes

The reason I “failed” to respond to these counter-arguments is because I don’t see these countering my arguments, but largely going in circles of self-defined narrative of “white supremacy”. Hence, these are not arguments that address any of my questions in context of semantics that I define.

Small and quintessential example framed as a Socratic dialog between X and Y:

X: I define racism as projection of generalized prejudice on someone’s skin color. By that definition, what you are saying about “white people” fits that definition of racism. Because you imply that all white people are the same in context of some undesirable behavior.

Y: But I can’t be racist, because racism is about supremacy and power structure.

X: But you are switching the context for racism that I clearly defined for you and you avoid my point by changing the subject. I never defined racism in terms of power dynamics. I define it in terms of prejudice that’s attached to skin color and tell you that what you are saying is racist based on that definition of racism .

Y: But racism can’t be that because racism is about one’s ability to exercise prejudice in some dominant setting

X: But I’m not accusing you of that definition of racism. I’m accusing you of mine.

Y: But your definition isn’t a “true racism”.

and on and on and on.

So, I really don’t care much to address these kinds of circular semantics. It’s pointless, since you are refusing to address the questions I have in context of semantic meaning that I specifically outlined for you. So, if someone constantly tells me that I’m wrong because they don’t define something the same way I do… the conversation is pointless.

We can either agree that some concepts are detrimental no matter who does these, or we are going to paint some double-standards that go along the binary racial lines. So far you continually done the latter, hence I see no point to go on and keep addressing the semantic dissonance when it clearly doesn’t matter to you.

I’m not trying to make a point that cultural mindsets wouldn’t structure cultural semantics. I argue that these cultural mindsets don’t run along “white/black” binary worldview that you structure. That’s why I continually point out that people mistreating other people is a universal constant, and that splitting it into “bad white people” and “oppressed everyone else” is barking up the wrong tree of injustice. If you remove “dominant white people”, then you are left with “dominant Asians” next in line… and so on and so on.

That’s not my argument. My argument is that slavery ran along the lines of opportunist reasons for exploiting people, hence it’s secondary to the problem that existed on both sides - dehumanizing “lower subclasses of humans” in order to exploit them.

tt wasn’t anymore “racist” to buy slaves from African owners than it was “racist” to sell them by these owners. , and race is secondary to dehumanization perpetrated by both sides. Hence, I don’t think that “racism” is a viable context for describing these problems because if you merely draw the lines along the racial lines then you automatically justify actions of people of the same race who sell “lower class” of their own into slavery.

Or could it be because it’s dissonant with the narrative that you paint in which the distribution of wrong is colored “white”? I appreciate the backhanded compliment though :slight_smile:

I’ve seen the above, and it doesn’t address below:

Is the above a problem or not? Does it automatically worsen if the slave-owners are white? Why?

No, it’s difficult to debate it, because you are not clearly defining who is “white” that you are talking about. I’m not “white”. I’m a mix of a wide range of “white” and “non-white”, at which point your classifications fail. What I am would be quite paradoxical for the binary view of the world that you paint, especially if it casts individualism into some global “groupthink” and “groupdo”.

First and arguably, every world power was built on the back of oppressed people, with other descendants disproportionately benefiting from their labor. Russia and Ukraine was built using indentured slave labor, and those of political dissidents who joined their ranks in large numbers.

It’s not that unusual in any national history to see the history of people who are oppressed and exploited to structure large scale societies. But that’s history. We are detached from it in a context of now… and we live in a much more balanced world that allows access to opportunity to live a relatively comfortable life.

Secondly, YOU benefit from their labor too, and you didn’t do anything to benefit from it. But, in a social context of immigrant I’m actually at vast disadvantage than someone like yourself who was born into the system with certain privileges of being a citizen … which I had to work nigh-shifts to eventually earn. So, let’s not be naive and think that you don’t benefit from the past system of slavery, and I automatically benefit from it the moment I step foot on this continent.

In fact, I would argue that you’ve had structural upper-hand, because I was openly discriminated against by employees who are prohibited to hiring students. I couldn’t get education loans. My only employment options were on-campus maintenance work. When I finally got my H1B employment permit with sponsoring by employer, I basically was locked to that employer and my initial salary of $10/hr for 5 years. And I had to put up with whatever nonsense they would throw at me, because being fired would mean trying to go through hell of finding another employer who’d go through H1B process all over again.

With that, there are all sorts of structural impositions that I hardly think would give me advantage simply because my skin color was lighter than yours.

Hence, let’s not pretend that you didn’t benefit from those oppressed before you more than I did in that respect.

Yeah… you realize that Asians would be the next dominant group in line, if not as dominant. Would you shift your focus of “social justice context” on them? Keep in mind that they are already discriminated against when it comes to weighted score expectations (as per recent lawsuit filed against Harvard).

But beyond that, you seem to have a rather generic definition of justice, and you forget that justice is a contractual agreement in a national setting that enforces these standards. As such, in some subjective sense, there’s always someone screaming “unfair”.

So, how do you define the justice in a setting where there’s a wide array of disagreement on what’s a just road to take?

2 Likes

I would tend to think the opposite. Racism is possible because one identifies with certain ethno-cultural perspective as superior. I don’t think that failed attempts at dominance are less racist because these fail to gain some dominant setting.

In fact, “power” is a microcosm of compounding preferential treatments that run along the lines of “implicit bias”. For example, something as denying someone request to use a phone … is a use of one’s personal power, and in some isolated setting where certain racial prejudice is dominant it will have consequemces.

In this re-defining of racism narrative… the above behavior isn’t a form of racism, because the overarching group doesn’t have some superior power… BUT they do have power in the microcosm of the decisions that they make.

1 Like

Thanks, @Timo.

Sorry I didn’t respond to this earlier. I somehow missed it.

You said:

In response:

I don’t speak “a binary tongue.” I think that what I’ve said, in this forum, is fairly unitary: I am unitarily speaking against the system of white supremacy, aka racism.

You said:

In response:

I don’t understand what this means.

You said:

In response:

Most people are non-white females. Hence, by speaking against the system of white supremacy, I’m trying to bring about the justice I affirm, and that you apparently reference.

You said:

In response:

I’ve meant every word you’ve ever read me state.

HA

1 Like

My poetic, big-picture view, from the life boat:

In the new Gospel Religion of routing out Racism it has become too far easy to conjure, divine, and curiously paradoxically perhaps even create and foment MORE racism in the garrulous and clumsy attempts to beat it out. This new Gospel Religion forgets that the Subjugation of Woman by Male Supremacists far predates Classism and Racism, and as such, Womanhood needs more help, now. But instead of calling out ther own Male Supremacy, the proponents and evangelizers of the New Gospel Racism choose to dye the White Supremacists as blackest of all sinners, but, again, curiously covet their White Privilege.
The mundane minutiea of all things social, whether real as in the pews or puplits, or in the rarefied anonymity of this blogosphere, are flitered through myopic discriminatory monocles of hypermicroaggression. Neutral institutions, anti-racist individuals, personally inclusive members of society are now sentenced to the reality that, their Chief Sin being their Pervasive Whiteness, are forever “GUILTY” and iredeemable, both by the Old and Everlasting Gospel and by the New Gospel of Routing out Racism.
Since “classical” Racism is no longer overt here in the west (but appears to still be the Prevalent Core religion in the North/East African kitchen of racism), this New Gospel of Racism has resurrected it, reveresed it, and covertly applies it with widest of double-blind covetous White Washing brushes over the whole of the west. Social justice (as defined solely in the eyes of the NonWhite) has become the mission of the church of the New Gospel of Routing out Racism, never you mind that the West -including Europe- have thoroughly repudiated classical racism, ratified its destruction with blood and law and books and art and all the atomic particles of society.
The social justice guerilla that I am must ask, unlike the nations that birthed racism that get a pass on this-as well the silence on Male Supremacy and Male Privilege-where is justice, and why does she cry through eyes so blind?

That we were all created by the same God-who, making us all FISH, also put us all in the same water and made us all wet, and promised to come fish us out-unites us, even more than all the diverse and manifold ways some claim the White Supremacist can’t help it because we are are too inferior to even “get it”.

C’mon in, Job (er, @Harry_Allen ) the waters fine, you’re a fish, too, and thanks for your analogy. Hope you dont mind me sharing your creel.
And don’t fear the Leviathon, YOU don’t have to hook or gig him.
Havent you heard? God’s got him, the Chief Sinner, on the line. And i really could not care less whther he’s the Great White Shark or the Big Black Whale.
All I know is that he, that dweller of the Deep, claimed----wait for it-----
SUPREMACY.

Racism amidst the Remnant (stating that White People are lower than that on the Scale of SIn MAY be a fishy utterance)

Thanks, @Timo.

You said:

In response:

Timo, with all due and appropriate respect, you sometimes come across as the kind of person who is in love with the sound of his own voice.

The reason this is significant is because, if you are such a person, your objective may not be to communicate an abstract, or even concrete, idea, but to merely rhapsodize a piece of text from which you can, later, stand back, at which you may look, and over which you may marvel.

If this is so, you’ve done it, I suspect, because you’ve pressed “REPLY.”

If this is not so—if your objective is really to communicate ideas; it’s either the latter, or the former—I would strongly suggest that you work more at doing so. This is especially the case if English is not your first language. Again, I think I recall you saying this.

In short, I really have no idea of what you’re speaking. I mean this in a different way than I do when I say to @Arkdrey, “I don’t use terms like, ‘Japan,’ ‘Brazil,’ or ‘white on black US slavery and segregation’ when I’m talking about race.” In those instances, I generally understand what he means by these expressions. However, these terms have no useful place in the model of racism that is real and coherent to me.

In your case, however, I’m at a loss, not only due to your syntax, generally, but because of your terminology.

So, for example, I don’t know what “the new Gospel Religion of routing out Racism” might be. I really don’t. It sounds like a description of, perhaps, the fact that you, a white person, just recently became aware that other white people were stridently naming the race phenomenon in public speech, and applying the term racist to issues it never crossed your mind deserved such a label. I don’t know; I’m just guessing, as this is a common objection many white people make.

However, if this is the case, then, why not say that? Yours is probably not the language that you would use to ask for antidotes to simultaneous neck bites by a fer-de-lance and a black mamba; you would not be so self-indulgent.

I assure you, however, that when many non-white people see white people do what you are doing, over an issue as toxic and personal as racism, it strongly suggests that you don’t approach this with goodwill, but that you are carrying your own spotlight, and just need a place to plug it in. Said another way, words matter.

One thing that’s clear, however, is that you keep bringing up the issue of sexism, asking me what I am doing about it.

My response is essentially the same as ones I’ve given before: Most human beings are non-white, and most non-white people are female. So, what I am doing is working to eliminate the system of white supremacy.

I’m doing this, so that non-white females—who widely outnumber white ones—won’t have to be mistreated a) in ways that their white counterparts aren’t, and b) in ways that their white counterparts do.

HA

1 Like

Thanks, @Arkdrey.

You said:

In response:

Yet, somehow, here we are…. :thinking:

I said:

You said:

In response:

The problem with this reply is that you’re giving it now; retrospectively. Thus, it sounds self-serving.

If you felt my answers were "largely going in circles of self-defined narrative of “white supremacy,'” then why not say that? There’s nothing easier to point out in an argument than circularity.

Because of this, what you say now sounds like you’re just trying to cover for your previous failure to give meaningful responses.

The fact is, if I were so charged, I’d have addressed the accusation. When you said that describing @Sirje’s response as “typically white” was “stereotyping,” I ultimately said, “I may have misspoken,” and changed my statement.

But, as well, when I said that a person’s culture is what they do, and you gave a response that I then called gobbledygook, I didn’t leave it there. I supplemented that charge with this question: If a person’s culture doesn’t reside in their thought, speech, and/or action, then where does it reside? Where is it?

That’s a real question, to which you’ve not yet responded. If this were a formal debate, one would be right to understand that you’d ceded the point, based on your failure to give an answer.

The reason I’ve worked to respond to each statement, and, especially, each question, you’ve put forward, is, first, respect for the process. But even more, I do this because I believe that my worldview is coherent, and, in fact, more coherent than the one you are expressing, here. Thus, the proof of that is the ease with, and/or the degree to, which I can deflect or immobilize the logical thrust of your arguments.

You said:

In response:

So, first, regarding your statement, above: This is not the form of a Socratic dialogue and, thus, is not one.

Second, where you say the following:

I’m saying that:

a) You define racism as [the] projection of generalized prejudice on someone’s skin color. By that definition, per you, what I’m saying about white people fits that definition of racism.*

However, I don’t define racism that way, at all, for reasons I’ve already given, most of which could be generalized as scalar; e.g., “NABISCO-ism,” “Black and white mugging,” my recent counter-example re: non-white people pre-judging white people, etc.

That’s why I say what you’ve crudely and inaccurately reproduced in Y prime, above: Racism is white supremacy. It is not a system of equal white and Black parity, expressed through mutual distaste. It is lopsided, and it’s lopsided against people who aren’t white.

In other words, per me, that’s what exists, and is long in place. Your definition of “racism” may be true in some Platonic realm of abstract ideas. But, if so, that’s absolutely not what I mean when I say racism.

So, if you say that what you’ve written, above, defines “racism,” and I say that’s not what I mean when I say the word racism, it seems that what we’re bound to do, before going forward, is to either 1) reach an agreement on the word, 2) limitedly acknowledge our opponent’s counter-definition in some way, or 3) not use the word racism.

We’ve not negotiated this outcome. So, it’s disingenuous for you to say…

It’s disingenuous because I’ve made no agreement with you on this word—except, presumably, the implied one that I mean something else by it than you do, and you than me.

In other words, you can’t “clearly define the context for racism,” that I then discuss, without my agreement to do this.

Most of your non-Socratic dialogue represents this failure: One, to extract a common definition of the word, while, meanwhile, two, trying to force a discussion based on your definition. This is represented by the rest of the X-Y dialogue.

In essence, I’m saying, such a discussion is, at best, impossible, and at worst, useless. Terms like “Black racists” or “Black racism” do not make sense. These are non sequiturs; i.e., like saying upflowing waterfall, or Deep-sea diving to the top of Mt. Everest.

Do I have to say it, again?

Also, you state:

Well, of course, you did. You have to do so, because racism, by definition, is an exercise in power. This is even true in the way that you’ve defined it: A “projection of generalized prejudice on someone’s skin color.”

You have to have power to project. Now, many Black people do make generalized projections about white people on the basis of skin color. And, I’m sure that you’d agree that many white people do this, also.

However, it’s only the white projection that reorganizes what everyone else, everywhere, does, on Tuesday. Only the white projection has sufficient force, in all of the nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war—to make sure that everyone else has to think about it and respond to it. This is the scalar dimension of which I spoke; the difference in scale.

This is why Susan Sontag, a white person, was able to make her famous Partisan Review statement over fifty years ago:

The only reason it has lingered half a century is because people get it, and the only reason people get it is that they think it might be true.

You said:

In response:

This is not true. The conversation is only pointless if one is utterly unable to adjust or compensate.

One way that a person might adjust is to investigate apparent differences by querying the respondent on matters related to their definition. You’ve done this, during this exchange. So have I.

Another way might be to say, “Well, on what, related to this, do we agree, and can we have a discussion?” All of this requires goodwill, however, respect for your co-discussant, and humility.

You said:

In response:

I don’t know what either part of this compound sentence means.

You said:

In response:

See above.

You said:

In response:

This statement is in line with your previous closing statement, reprinted at the top of this post.

I’m not clear how, if your position is that we are essentially, semantically misaligned—“dissonant”—that you can continue to write to me.

Also, I’m not clear why you say this dissonance “clearly doesn’t matter to you.” To me, it looks like it clearly doesn’t matter to you.

I said:

You said:

In response:

Correct. This is what you say.

What I say is that this is irrelevant.

In the sea, or in the woodlands, there are lots of beasts that attack, or even eat other creatures. One would be wise to stay away from them.

But in every environment, there is usually an animal deemed an apex predator; e.g., a great white shark in the open oceans, or a grizzly bear in the Yukon, or an alligator in the swampy lowlands. This is an animal that will attack and eat the other attacking, eating animals, and that no other animals attack or eat.

What I’m saying is that the white supremacists are the “apex predator” in relations between people throughout the known universe.

People mistreating other people is a universal constant, as you say. I agree with this statement. My point is that, between people throughout the known universe, there is a hierarchy, and that the people who have the last word on mistreatment are white.

I said:

You said:

In response:

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

The reason why what white people there did was worse than what non-white people did is this: Not only were the levels of mistreatment completely out of scale with each other, but they were founded on divergent notions.

Captured “Africans” were POWs, and were sold as political losers, by victors. It could be one nation group one day, another another day.

Meanwhile, the white process was coupled to a notion of contempt; an idea that these now enslaved people were not people. They were things, like a boot, or a wagon, a bottle of rum, or a gun.

Enslavement between warring national groups had no such notions of depersonalization. Nor was slavery lifelong.

For the white supremacists, the vision was completely different, and it was total, because the project was racist. This is what they even said about it themselves: They predicated it on scientific notions of human inferiority that they documented, that were essential to the coherence of the program, and whose outgrowths have lasted centuries…while repeating and reinforcing the same ideas of inferiority, now half a millennium after the initial fact.

You are describing, above, some sort of alternate, mathematically rendered, inert analysis of the slave trade that absolutely never happened, that no historian would recognize, and that doesn’t fit the experiences of living—or dead—people.

Why are you doing this? See my opening sentence, seven paragraphs up.

I said:

You said:

In response:

If you’re asking, “Could the approval of other white people, for what I write, be on that basis?”—IOW, because it’s dissonant with the narrative that I paint, in which the distribution of supremacy is colored “white”—yes; I am almost certain that is exactly the reason.

You said:

In response:

I haven’t paid you one.

You said:

I said:

In other words, see my preceding comments on the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

You said:

In response:

It does, because I frame these issues in the context of global white supremacy.

You said:

In response:

In the way that I think you mean the word, I would say, yes, it is “a problem,” though I would not, myself, frame it this way.

I would say the above is incorrect and unjust; it is something that people should not be doing, and that conflicts between non-white people only make the system of white supremacy stronger.

You said:

In response:

Well, first I would say that, ultimately, the slave-owners are white, because the direct slave-owners, even if they are non-white, are under the domination of the indirect, Master Slave-Owners; the White Supremacists. They are in charge, and oversee the mistreatment non-white people visit on each other.

But I think the question you mean to ask is, if the direct slave-owners were white, would it automatically worsen?

I think the answer is “Yes.” I say this because of what art dealers call provenance.

If the direct slave-owners were white, the practice would be connected, by “pedigree,” to earlier white enslavement efforts, and their deep, varied resources.

So, if the direct slave owners were white, the size and scope of the slavery would almost certainly increase, bringing more and more people under its reign.

Take two squabbling groups of non-white people in, say, “the Congo.” After the white supremacists decide to back one, or another, group, the conflict typically grows in size and dimension: The guns get better, the geographic area of the conflict spreads, the massacres get bloodier, etc.

So, would it automatically worsen? I am not sure, but I suspect “Yes.”

I said:

You said:

In response:

Well, again, none of this is accurate.

a) I’ve seen white people blow a fuse, when the topic goes to race, in circumstances where I don’t even speak. Indeed, most of those circumstances are ones where I wasn’t even present; e.g., race discussions on TV. I’ve seen this all my life.

b) In debates on race, whether I’m directly involved or not, I rarely see anyone confused about what a “white person” is, especially at the outset.

Now: In debates in which I, or certain colleagues, are directly involved, once the term white supremacist is defined, some white people start getting oddly unclear as to what a white person is. I’ve seen this time and time again.

But there’s no need for such confusion, here. I’ve given the definition of white person. I’ll do it, again:

“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.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Seems pretty clear to you:

These, above, are the kinds of statements that white people make, but that non-white people do not.

In other words, the people who make these kinds of statements, and many, many others, are what I mean by white people.

I said:

You said:

In response:

So: You’re validating my statement.

You said:

In response:

Please explain what you mean, here, by the word “detached,” particularly given my use of the word connected.

Are you saying that the entities I named are “detached from slavery,” when I said that they were connected to it? (These words have opposing meanings.)

Or do you mean “detached” in some other way?

Please explain, and give some examples of this “detachment.”

You said:

In response:

I’m trying to see how this statement contradicts my central, oft-repeated point: Racism is white supremacy, and white supremacy dominates relations between all people.

Your line reads like a throwaway observation.

You said:

In response:

You’re correct. But I do so inside of a race system. You do not. This means that, whatever benefit I derive, I’m not going to get the benefits that I would get, were there no race system, or the benefits that a similarly equipped white person gets because he’s not in a race system, but operating one.

Put another way, it is only within such a race system that white high school drop-outs are as likely to land jobs as Black college students. It’s only in such a race system that that makes any sense; that that fact can be rolled out, without explanation, and, though a few may be a little surprised, nobody says, “I don’t get it. What does this mean, and how is this possible?”

When you left the USSR, your father told you that you had to think of yourself as “of lower status than blacks in US.”

No one told my father that. However, your father was white. I know that, because you are.

Your father’s statement would have made no sense in the Ukraine without a global race system. Without one, he would have never been able to extract a meaning from the word “Black,” or considered it important enough for a father to give his son as crucial, parting information. Neither would you.

You said:

In response:

What might bake your noodle is the fact that, in certain ways, this can be true, under a race system.

Again, you keep talking about “the U.S.” I am not. (I only originally raised it, in an earlier post, because you kept talking about “white on black US slavery and segregation.”) But the illustration can be useful.

Non-white people, read on.

You said:

In response:

Two questions. Please give a simple, detailed answer:

  1. How were non-white “Nigerian” immigrants, arriving here when you did, with similar skill sets and backgrounds to yours, generally and specifically treated?

  2. How are non-white Nigerians in the Ukraine, with similar skill sets and backgrounds to yours, generally and specifically treated?

I said:

You said:

In response:

Actually, no: I didn’t have that particular non-white group in mind when I wrote that.

Sometimes, I imagine “people of African descent” when I write it, because white people are often talking about “Black Supremacy.” I believe I was thinking of “Africans.”

But, besides that, no. Not any specific non-white group, and I don’t intend to mean this per any specific non-white group.

You said:

In response:

I’m not clear what you’re asking me.

You said:

In response:

It needs to be worked out in a just way.

HA

Mr. Allen please, you got way to much time on your hands. You can’t define, catorgerized, or place blame on a group of people because of their skin color. Racism is a state of mind, ( where it starts ) followed by a act. Slavery in America did not start when they first arrived after being sold by slave traders. If it did, we would have two groups, different skin colors, practicing racism. The sellers and the buyers.

3 Likes

Could you expound a bit more?

1 Like

Thanks, @2humBaby.

You said:

In response:

Actually, 2humBaby, I have exactly as much time on my hands as you do: Twenty-four hours a day.

You said:

In response:

You’re correct: I can’t.

Now, you should tell that to the people who, directly and/or indirectly, benefit from the system of white supremacy.

You said:

In response:

OK.

You said:

In response:

I don’t understand what you’re saying, above.

I also don’t know with what, I’ve said, that you disagree.

HA

1 Like