Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

@Arkdrey, I don’t know how educated you are, but this is a bad argument.

The evidence that you’re not a murderer is the lack of evidence that you are one.

You say this, yourself, in your second paragraph.

You claim that there is a lack of evidence that you are a racist. But that is a conclusion you’re foisting on me, and that I’m unwilling to accept.

I have set a very high bar for true claims of this sort. They appear in my response to GeorgeTichy’s claim that

Unless you can show that the bar I’ve set is malformed, self-contradictory, or possesses other self-defeating flaws, it’s as reasonable a standard as the one that set the ground work for it; i.e., the preceding one, determining whether or not one pollutes the environment.

Hence, the core support for your assumption folds on this particular point.


Let me turn your question on you. What academic accomplishments have you earned Harry? HS? College? MA? PhD? And in what specialty do you consider yourself in?

Just curious since you are asking others @Arkdrey

1 Like

You must not have read the entire post, @elmer_cupino. I haven’t asked anyone such a question.

@Arkdrey wrote a response to my GeorgeTichy post, saying:

I read his post, wrote back, and, before refuting his statement, I said:


Thank you, Harry!

Is this your metaphor?:
Mr and Mrs KKK sit in the racism car. Also in the racism car are Mr and Mrs White Privilege. Both couples are not the same. Mr an Mrs KKK have gotten in the racism car by themselves. Mr and Mrs White Privilege were born in the same car. Both couples may sit very far away from each other, but, nevertheless, both are in the same car.

From your point of view, to say they are different without simultaneously acknowledging they are still both part of racism (= in the racism car) is minimizing the danger of racism.

From a contrary point of view, to say they belong together despite their differences is not nuanced enough. Isn’t it something different to have actively chosen an evil ideology vs. to be passively born with privilege? Isn’t US thinking all about freedom of choice? Freedom of choosing different in one’s own sphere of influence?

For me personally, nuances don’t necessarily have to mean compromising. Nuances are part of life.

1 Like

I’m not foisting anything on you. Quite the opposite. This is the bedrock of our legal system. Without this concepts our legal system doesn’t work. Everything would be reduced to chaos of subjective claims and self-ascribed standards.

Whether you do or not is quite irrelevant when it comes to the reality behind the judgement mechanism that you suggest.

I can make a high bar for a murder concept, and scope that against all sorts of webbed entanglements that may play six degrees of freedom between you and someone in China forced into a suicide. That’s a very broad philosophical argument that has no viable context by which we typically judge what a murder is and responsibility for it.

I’m not really sure what use such super-philosophy would be in a pragmatic scope of reality that we actually live in, and which has certain constraints on what we can know and verify.

Again, see the above.

I can understand a subjective level of distrust towards a certain race that inverts typical provisional relationships “until proven otherwise”, but there’s another side of it that @elmer_cupino would explain better than I could when it comes to the root causes of irrational anxiety and paranoia in individuals who think they are are always in some danger, or who end up catastrophizing based on exaggerated frequency and severity of certain traumatic encounters.

The bottom line, I understand and empathize with your provisional distrust as a psychological phenomenon. But it’s not something you can rationally argue as an accurate model of human reality you seem to glue together with isolated experiences and lots and lots of frequency bias.


Thanks, @Kate.

It’s not analogy with which I’m familiar.

I agree with the idea that this is “minimizing the danger of racism.”

However, as may be derived by my activities here, I hold that the first danger is to truth.

To imagine that the Klansman is doing one thing, and the suburban family in an all-white neighborhood is doing something different, is an injury to truth, first. After truth is sufficiently wounded, injuries of all other sorts become possible.

The short answer is that nuance, at critical moments, can be a luxury. Further, there are moments when nuance does not give one the information that they are seeking. It really depends on what one is trying to understand.

I don’t read “openly white supremacist” literature. It is just useless, to me. It’s so far out there, I don’t know where to land it.

The only piece of openly white supremacist literature that I ever recall reading, and that made a big impression on me was, years ago, I saw a KKK ten-point statement.

It was passionate, and expressive, in terms of its wants.

However, while reading, it hit me that every item on the list was probably something to which a white suburban mom would agree as desirable.

I don’t remember anything on the list, and I don’t recall seeing one since. However, I recall, in than moment, understanding that, if you toned down the language and the ardor, a soccer mom might agree with these demands.

This was the beginning of me seeing racism as a continuum, and not as something segmented, or siloed.

I think nuance, and recognizing it, is important, of course.

However, nuance is, ultimately, a tool, and tools are applicable or not depending on what one is trying to get done.


No, you are: You’re foisting on me the conclusion that you are not a racist. Why should I believe you?

I’ve already addressed this: I told GeorgeTichy he seemed to hold the view that white persons can self-analyze and self-declare whether they are racist, or not, via their own internal review. This is false.

I strongly suggest no non-white person go along with such an approach, and, in my impression, many, if not most, already do not. The part that’s been missing, and that I’m developing, is the logic of why not.

I am not making a legal recommendation. This approach has legal parallels, at points. But I’m not seeking to adjoin it to the “bedrock” to which you refer. I’m working to create something that’s never existed before, against racism, deriving it from logic.

That’s why I can make such a cold, efficient claim from GeorgeTichy’s nine words, putting a case for race on top of one that anyone can understand, via analogy; i.e., a case for the environment.

They fit like a glove. That’s why you’re not attacking the argument directly, but going at it from an entirely different direction. But it won’t work.

According the Maximum Maxim, a “chaos of subjective claims and self-ascribed standards” is exactly how I’d define the system of white supremacy. Scare me some other way.

It’s not irrelevant to the reality of persons for whom this is designed, and who needs such a mechanism.

This, below, is the definition of “racist” that I encourage non-white people to adopt and utilize, when asked, "What is a racist?"

Racist =

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

(2) A White Supremacist.

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

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

What’s immediately clear is that, by such a definition, any white person who seeks to demonstrate that they are not a racist is going to have a real challenge doing so.

However, the definition is not designed for white comfort. It’s the designed to be of use to the victim of racism; the non-white person.

You might say my 900-word response to GeorgeTichy is just the exploded-view version of that definition.

So, a high bar is definitively not “irrelevant,” to use your word. A high bar gives the victim “room to breathe.” That’s particularly the case, and necessary, given racist history, and that the racists are deceitful, secretive, and violent.

It can when it does. Killing people can be an international affair “across six continents.” However, typically, “murders” do not work that way. Typically, people murder people that they know, and with whom they have intimate history.

White supremacy is far more diffused and impersonal. Arguably, I’m being oppressed, tomorrow, by people who were dead when my grandfather was born, and who never set foot in the U.S.

However, I’m not scared of being stabbed tomorrow by people who were dead when my grandfather was born, and who never set foot in the U.S.

The Maximum Maxim, again: A “reality that we actually live in, and which has certain constraints on what we can know and verify” describes white supremacy to a T.

What you call a “super-philosophy” is merely what a system of such dubiety demands on the person who is actually paying attention…and who will pay for it when she doesn’t.


Such person should get help for their anxieties and trauma. One needs a clear mind and a calm constitution to work in the way I am suggesting.

Also, this is not subjective, as I stated, and it’s not “distrust.” This is objectivity.

@Arkdrey, I want you to read the following, and get the meaning of every word, because I doubt we’re going to go around like this again, unless I’m lecturing the Black guys on your sports team. :slightly_smiling_face:

I’ve lived, and I believe in the reality of my experience. I also believe the reality of the experiences of people like me. The only thing which I believe is more real than these is the Creator, Himself.

I don’t believe you. I especially don’t believe you, compared to:

a) The Creator

b) My own experiences

c) The experiences of other Black people

Yesterday, I listened to my Harvard Fellow, the lovely Candacy A. Taylor, reading from her book, Overground Railroad. It’s a document of the now mostly vanished establishments that catered to Black motorists during segregation.

As it opens, her stepfather, Ron, is a child, sitting in the back seat of the family car. A Tennessee cop has stopped Ron’s father on the open highway. The cracker wants to know why this Black man is driving a fancy, new, shiny, 1953 Chevy sedan, packed to the gills with all the options.

As every Black man, who will be stopped tomorrow, and in the year 2453, knows, this is an event fraught with peril. The timelines can go in an almost unlimited number of vectors.

As in unfolds, it’s only the coolness of Ron’s dad that enables Ron to live, and become Candacy’s stepfather.

When Miss Taylor read this account, every humiliation Black people have lived through, and through which I have, washed over me; every story with bad endings.

However, that story also gave me strength to continue to be frank; to tell the truth; to work on these difficult problems; and to do the work that Black people need.

It energized me, in other words.

I don’t possess a “provisional distrust as a psychological phenomenon.” I possess a knife-like gift for analysis that I expect will grow into a counter-racist system of thought, speech, and action. It’s a wholly different exercise.

I’m not trying to make something that I can “rationally argue as an accurate model of human reality [I] seem to glue together with isolated experiences and lots and lots of frequency bias.” I’m building something with soul. The objective is to end white supremacy.

Again, it’s a wholly different exercise.


I’m not sure your equivocation is entirely honest. And I don’t know how you work objective truth into that statement.

Much of the Critical Race Theory is about defining novel terms and concepts… in many cases narrowing broader meaning and equivocating it with what used to be merely a subcategory.

That’s essentially what you are doing above.
Saying that racism is white dupremacy is intuitive, but you won’t be able to objectively justify such equivocation if you imply that’s the only possible semsntic range of racism as a concept. Neither you nor Frances Cress Welsing came up with the term to mold it as you see fit without underlying justification while claiming that it’s objective truth. I’m not sure what you even mean by objective truth when you subjectively narrowing meaning of a term.

So, all you are doing with that equivocation is stripping broader meaning of racism and shifting it to mean solely white supremacy. Nothing else. It’s like saying Vehicles are SUVs, but then shifting the meaning to exclusively SUVs. There’s no objective truth in that statement in a way you narrowing context, and given the term had a prior semantic range.


I just was scrolling down when I noticed my name mentioned in this paragraph in one post above (#143):
[… I’ve already addressed this: I told GeorgeTichy he seemed to hold the view that white persons can self-analyze and self-declare whether they are racist, or not, via their own internal review. This is false.]

Be known that his is not true, it is misleading! The writer is putting words in my mouth, of course very carefully saying “he seemed to hold” - and then making a statement that makes it appear that I said such a think or that I believe it.

Premeditated dishonesty? Continued poking? What is the obsession ???


We’ve been over this before. As I said before, no white person can escape from your definition. So, though you deny saying all whites are racists, you believe it.

But I have a question. On the sex part. If a black marries a white, like Tiger, was he the racist or was she, or were they both racists? Or is a black man marrying a white woman not racist, but a black woman marrying a white man racist. What do you think?

Or is it that the white is always the racist no matter?


@Arkdrey: I want you to work with an editor.

I want you to write these responses, then hand them to someone else, who’s not in your family, to see if they understand what you mean.

If they don’t, re-write it until they do.

Then publish it, here, or elsewhere.

I’d like to respond to what you say, but it’s too difficult. It’s not your counter-arguments that are too hard. It’s even reading your sentences.

I’m going to try and respond by picking out that of which I can make sense.

My equivocation is entirely honest. :neutral_face:

I don’t know what “Critical Race Theory” is, and do not care about it.

It’s the only meaning of the term that’s obvious.

See my previous examples: The NABISCO analogy; the two-sentence “mugging” analogy; “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa)”; and, perhaps most recently and repeatedly, the “racism discussion + potluck” analogy.

Don’t know what this means, not trying to figure it out.

By objective, I mean that the conventional use of the term is inexact and/or incorrect, and the use I’m offering is more precise and true.

I’m saying that my use of the term more accurately describes the extant phenomenon. Anyone saying, “Black people can be racist, too” is not speaking from analysis, but from emotion and frustration.

They may be racist, or not. But they have probably not thought enough about racism to make coherent, meticulous arguments about it; people like you, for example, or the other white people who yell most loudly, here, on Spectrum. This is to be expected. Many of you probably only think about racism when the news is on, or here.

Further, I’m saying something else, very particular: I’m saying that the uses most white people make of these words do not fit the needs of non-white people. Which makes sense, when one thinks about it, because Black people and white people exist in different “social realities.”

One example of what I mean:

Black people in the U.S. are often called a “minority.”

However, I argue that the only useful way to talk about race is globally, because it is a global system.

As I say, there is no workable meaning for the term, “racism in America.” It’s like saying, “the American internet,” or “the American atmosphere.”

However, within the global field, white people are the minority. So, why would anyone refer to any non-white person as a minority? To do so reinforces the falsehood that racism is not a global system, and it reinforces the idea that white people are not a minority. It can even cause one to think that the planetary majority are white people.

Reframing the issue, by looking at the language, reframes the problem.

I’m saying, first, that this is what I mean when I say racism, and this is how I suggest all non-white people use the term.

Next, I’m saying that the “broader meaning” is derelict; like barnacles on a ship. It’s something that’s been there a long time, but it’s actually not functional.

Further, I’m saying any other definition of racism—such as what the Hutu did to the Tutsi—immediately runs into problems of coherence. See the NABISCO analogy.

Again, this is incorrect.

I’m saying two things:

I’m saying that, when I say the word racism, I don’t mean what you mean.

I don’t give any prior, or legacy, validity to people, especially white people, saying, for example, that racism is “the belief that you are superior to another race.” That’s utter nonsense.

I’m also saying what you mean is inconsistent. (See “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa).”)

Finally, to your vehicle analogy:

I’m saying “Vehicles” may mean a Honda Fit:

“SUVs” may mean a Chevy Suburban:

But what do you call a Belaz 75710? (That’s it, on the right, below.)

Here are the tires, next to an adult woman:

Is the Belaz 75710 a vehicle, or an SUV?

Well, it’s a vehicle, but it’s big like an SUV, except it’s far bigger than any SUV. Indeed, the truck to its left is much bigger that any SUV.

Well, what’s the chance that if I ask for a “vehicle,” I’m going to get one?

I’d say I’m more likely to get either a Fit or a Suburban than I am to get a Belaz 75710, even though all are vehicles, and a Fit and Suburban are only alike in that they both have doors, wheels, and steering wheels.

Or, put another way, you might say that the Hutu are a Chevy Suburban, the Tutsi are a Honda Fit, and white supremacy is the Belaz 75710.


I believe what I’ve written. I don’t believe what you’ve written.

I think white and non-white people should avoid sexual relations with each other—sexual intercourse, sexual play—until white supremacy is eliminated.

Racism is white supremacy. If it wasn’t, no one would be talking about it.


Thanks, GeorgeTichy.

This will be quick, easy, and twice.

Once) You said, “Not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation.”

Q: Says who?

A: Those white people. They say it about themselves.

That is, unless you mean someone else says it.

Are you saying someone else says it, besides those white people?

If so, who?

Twice) You said, re: white supremacy:

You said, "I am not part of it."

You didn’t offer any evidence, or expert testimony, that you are “not part of it.”

You just said it. In other words, you offered a self-analysis, then self-declared the same.

Should I go on?

Keep up the good work.


I’m not foisting on you a conclusion that I’m not a racist anymore than you are foisting on me a conclusion that you are not a pedophile. There’s immense number of possibilities that would all fall into that “I’ll remain ignorant unless you prove me otherwise” hole. That’s why provisional trust is a necessary precondition for civilized society societies on top of certain rational constraints that make such provisional trust more likely as a starting point.

You are are declaring your assumption as some claim of truth before you worked up justification for it?

It sounds to me like you are making up quixotic fiction you are planning to use as a tool to take down your assumed and imaginary windmills. I’d read “Brave New World” by Huxley, and Strugatsky’s “Inhabited Island” before you venture out on your quest for human liberation. There are valuable lessons there you may want to consider.

These are not analogous in any way, shape or form. One is a system of human faction-driven dominance, and the other is a process of disrupting ecosystem one relies on for life.

Analogy only works with analogous concepts. Analogous… meaning similar-enough to justify shifting arguments and premises to claim that conclusion is equally valid.

It doesn’t work in your case.

Again, why would I, or anyone care about your subjective definitions that are not rooted in viable facts, and merely made up to constrain concepts? Why would you eve think of that as a legitimate approach to this subject?

Great. You’ve made up a definition that becomes a tautological constrain for your ideological assumptions. Your definition doesn’t reflect the reality of the subject matter. There’s no viable justification to narrow semantic range of Racism as a concept to “white supremacy”. It’s not something that you’ve even attempted to justify. You merely define that and assume people will just go with it. :slight_smile:

Harry, again, why would I care about stuff you make up to make people jump through your semantic hoops? You think people will just say… yeah, we’ve had this reality-driven definition for over a century, but you know what… let’s just go with yours now? You can’t be that naive.

Harry… again. You making stuff up and calling it objective truth :slight_smile: Not all racists are violent. And not all racists are secretive. Not all racists are deceitful. That what you decide to structure as your own subjective benchmarks. Why should anyone care about your fiction?

You’ve missed my point entirely. I was pointing to the fact that how I define murder has no viable effect for you personal framework or worldview. Me saying that you are murderer somehow via that definition is likewise rather inconsequential when it comes to the truth of the matter.

I think that becomes the crux of this discussion which results i a rather unproductive dialog.

I do the best I can, but if you think I would work with an editor for a discussion forum… your bar is way too high.

No, I don’t think it is. I have my reasons largely because you’ve already admitted to present assumption with “logic pending”, and given your generic process of goal-oriented creative writing that you attempt to pass as reality without any attempt to justify your equivocations.

It’s the idea that one could approach racial subject and philosophy with sole purpose of development of “conceptual tools” for liberating marginalized racial groups. Pretty much what you are doing. It’s derived from Communist Frankfurt Critical Theory, which is more generic towards liberating all of humanity via development of “proper philosophical systems”.

So, you know what it is, and you care about it very much.

No, it’s not the only meaning of the term that’s “obvious” since it’s a term that’s much broader in its semantic range… and you are engaging in definition fudging to constrain meaning to your desired limits for that term. It’s manipulative and dishonest.

So far I’ve tried to stay away from emotion and frustration, and merely demanded that you make consistent and valid arguments, and abstain passing your own made up concepts as objective.

Yes… and Coo-coo for Coco Puffs means all of the black people are crazy, and black beans in a can was invented as a subliminal message that black people need to be locked up :slight_smile: Come on, man. Come back to reality.

Yes, saying that it’s not functional and derelict really makes it so? You keep trying to pull Jedi Mind tricks. I know that’s the de facto mode of Critical Theory as it attempts to structure liberation through re-conceptualization, but you can’t arbitrarily declare a term to be unfit because “it’s obvious” or because you simply say so.

Your NABISCO analogy is not analogous. You are using a misconception to drive justification to narrowing racism to white racists and everyone else. :slight_smile: It’s dishonest, and there’s no viable justification for structuring such definition.

You are ruining to your tribalism fallacy, and you ignore that that there are Asians and Black people, for example, and in each of these groups there are individuals who may think they are superior on basis of their racial identity. Your re-defining of that concept into “the only one that makes sense to you” is inconsequential to other viable and demonstrable examples that exist for that particular semantic meaning of that term.

What you mean by it is absolutely irrelevant if your meaning is merely designed to manipulate semantic context to your personal advantage to implicate people with a shade of skin in moral delinquency without proper justification. That’s what I define as racism.

It depends how you parse the very “majority power structure” that you chunk up as you see fit for any given narrative. Just a moment ago you complained about concept of black people being a minority, and now you are painting white people as a giant truck and black people as a tiny honda.

Pick a lane :wink:


Hi Arkdrey,

I’m glad someone else is talking about Critical Theory - race, feminism etc. I’ve come across it in the past, but forgot about it till recently when I noticed some Christians bringing it up saying, that the philosophy found in the Theory is entering the church, devoid from the Marxist language, and instead uses Biblical terms and language.

I’m not sure if you remember back in 2018 the “grievance studies affair.” (a little humor, but at the some time not funny at all) - from Wikipedia under, Grievance studies affair:

The grievance studies affair , also referred to as the " Sokal Squared " scandal, was the project of a team of three authors—James A. Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they regarded as poor scholarship in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus academic papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine if they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.

It later goes on to say:

By the time of the reveal, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language. One of the published papers in particular had won special recognition from the journal that published it.



The project drew both praise and criticism. Science writer Tom Chivers suggested that the result was a “predictable furore” whereby those already sceptical of gender studies hailed it as evidence for “how the whole field is riddled with nonsense” while those sympathetic to gender studies thought it was “dishonestly undermining good scholarship.”[18]

Yascha Mounk, author and associate professor of the practice of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, dubbed it ‘Sokal squared’ in reference to the Sokal affair hoax accomplished by Alan Sokal, and said that the “result is hilarious and delightful. It also showcases a serious problem with big parts of academia.” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker said the project posed the question, “is there any idea so outlandish that it won’t be published in a Critical/PoMo/Identity/‘Theory’ journal?”[19] In contrast, Joel P. Christensen and Matthew A. Sears, both associate professors of Classics, referred to it as “the academic equivalent of the fraudulent hit pieces on Planned Parenthood” produced in 2015, more interested in publicity than valid argumentation.[20]

What I posted above is only a fraction from the Wikipedia article. It’s an eye opening read.

Here is a short 6 minute clip of them discussing the whole thing, in the middle of it taking place.

Now as I said above while this particular hoax is humorous, it’s also not funny at all, because genuine ills in society may be over looked as nothing more than Critical Theory babble, but also, so much of the bad aspects of this Theory have permeated all sectors of society: business, government, education, sports etc etc; even Christianity. Most people are clueless because of the language used, on the surface, sounds right.

Good to see you back.

1 Like

Sadly there has been racial problems from ancient times… Moses wife was apparently not OK with the Hebrews. Ethnic classification and division has been witnessed in America with each new wave of immigrants. A recent article by Mike Gonzales in the Morning Bell, The Daily Signal of the Heritage Foundation tells how BLM & CPA are partnering to further the turmoil and chaos being fomented in our nation.
What bothers me is the division that exists in our own church today. Allow me to share a little of my story. Two men were instrumental in my true conversion in 1994, after leaving the church 15 years earlier, while living in Chicago… Pastor Mark Finley and Dr. Norman Miles. A TV program “Rest for a Workaholic” and subsequently a sermon “Saved by a Shipwreck” and a “call” to commit to following Jesus at the Hyde Park SDA Church, a black congregation. I and my wife to be (both white) were baptized in Hyde Park and warmly accepted by the members. By the way Dr. Miles married us later in a private ceremony. I was soon teaching a SS Class at Hyde Park. I left Hyde Park to become the Rwanda ADRA Director in 1995 following the 1994 Genocide between Hutu’s and Tutsi’s, two African tribes. Having personally been involved in these and other race related experiences it troubles me that there is still division today in our church.
Why haven’t we integrated all aspects of our church? We still have an emphasis on separation with an all black college and all black conferences. Why don’t we practice what we preach? When will there be no differentiation between the races in our church? God has various differences in everything He has created. Among flowers, trees, animals and yes, even among human beings.
It is time to end ALL segregation and have only one organization world wide where we accept one another equally! Must we wait until the Lord comes to become one?

1 Like

It’s nothing new, and I don’t think the core origin is in Frankfurt either. Take the modern concept of white privilege. It’s a lift from Third Estate by Sieyes, who used similar linguistic ploys to provide philosophical and moral re-conceptualization for French Revolution movement. And he in turn likely lifted it from somewhere else.

Consider the following, and you will understand where Marx lifts his ideas from:

The pretended utility of a privileged order for the public service is nothing more than a chimera… All that which is burdensome in this service is performed by the Third Estate…

Who then shall dare to say that the Third Estate has not within itself all that is necessary for the formation of a complete nation? It is the strong and robust man who has one arm still shackled.

If the privileged order should be abolished, the nation would be nothing less, but something more. Therefore, what is the Third Estate? Everything; but an everything shackled and oppressed. What would it be without the privileged order? Everything, but an everything free and flourishing. Nothing can succeed without it, everything would be infinitely better without the others…

But, it shouldn’t really be surprising in the broader sense, since Politics has always been a game of conflation of semantic meaning.

1 Like

Touché. :smirk:

Though, seriously: We would benefit, but so would you.

I have a good friend who says, “The way you do anything is the way you do everything.” If you became a better, more expressive, more clear writer, it would just be “for a discussion forum.” It would be for everything upon which you put your pen to paper.

Think about it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…

a) See above.

b) I don’t know how to respond to incredulity. Incredulity is not an argument.


So, if what you’ve written is true, a) I now have heard what it is, and b) no, I still don’t care about it, despite your kind insistence.

No, it’s the only meaning of the term, racism, that’s obvious.

• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—that those white people who practice racism dominate all non-white people.

• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person has the last word on anything.

• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person can make a decision that cannot be overruled by one or more white people. The reverse is not true.

• It’s as obvious as the “racism discussion + potluck” analogy. Every time I bring this up, no one says, “Actually, that happens at our church every week.”

It doesn’t, because white supremacy is obvious. It’s only not obvious to “rainbow trout,” and/or people who are either misinterpreting what they see, or lying about it.

Racism is white supremacy. If it wasn’t, no one would be talking about it, because everyone would have supremacy.

Everything is made up, @Arkdrey. The entirety of Ukrainian culture is made-up. What: Do you think “Ukraine” is one of the nature’s four fundamental forces?

Here’s a chart, listing the seventeen known particles of the standard model. Point to the one marked “Ukraine.”

The fact that what I say is “made-up” is merely an observation. If it’s not eternal in the past, it’s made-up. In fact, that also includes the fundamental forces and their force carriers…except what I say is they were made-up by God.

To your credit, you have stayed away from emotion and frustration. Your flaw, though, is evidenced above, and below: You haven’t made coherent, meticulous arguments against my ideas.

Your counter-arguments are brobdingnagian, convoluted, tortured, and/or incomplete.

I said, “Get an editor.” You said, “Not for a discussion forum.”

OK. Suit yourself.

Do you remember this brief moment, from 1999’s The Matrix?:

I keep thinking of it as I read what you write!

I drafted and published 900 words about GeorgeTichy’s racial make-believe. I’m sure, to most people here, his nine words were innocuous. However, when I thought about them, just briefly, I immediately saw their problem, and why what they propose, in essence, is untenable.

In my response, I said that GeorgeTichy’s statement, and its implications, were false. I then argued that, much the way one must decide who is a polluter, based on a review of their activities and those activities’ effects, one must determine who a racist is in the same manner. In philosophy, this is called a “burden of proof.”

My position is that, because racism is widespread, diffused, and relatively unchallenged, it creates a high burden of proof for anyone [white] accused of it. (Three days after the 9/11 collapse, the stench of burning plastic reached Harlem, where I lived, near the other end of Manhattan. That’s because the smoke from the pit was widespread, diffused, and relatively unchallenged.)

COME ON!! HIT ME!! Give me a break and give me a fracture!!

You haven’t hit these arguments. You just keep teasing out these side issues; e.g., trying to charge me with practicing “Critical Race Theory,” because that’s despised by the right, these days.

Maybe your idea is that, if you attack one, presumably weak area of my concept, when it collapses, the whole thing will.

If so, I wish you luck. We’ve been doing this two years, now. It’s taking kinda long, and as you’ll see below, your arguments are getting slaughtered.


This is what I meant, above: “Come on, man. Come back to reality” is not an argument, @Arkdrey. :frowning_face:

Great question! Finally: A direct response!

It really makes it so to me, because of a) what I observe, and b) the differentiations I’m making between what I see. The extant terms, and how they are used, don’t describe what I am seeing, or describing. So, I either use the term differently, or use another term.

Q: Which of these is sand?

A: They’re all sand. However, they’re all different types of sand, with different names.

The green one in the bottom right corner is olivine sand, and it’s found in Papakolea, HI.

The fine, orange-colored one above it is coral pink sand from the dunes of Utah.

Above that is quartz sand, but a kind containing green glauconite. It’s found in Estonia.

However, it’s all sand. But, if I said, “Give me some sand,” which one are you going to hand me?

Ideally, you’re going to hand me the one I mean.

However, suppose you hand me gravel? In a way, gravel is a kind of sand, in that it’s the same stuff, made the same way. However, it’s not sand, because sand is only erosive particles of a certain size.

You might say that sand is ultra-tiny gravel, in other words.

In a similar sense, racism is what we call mistreatment based on skin color differences when they become systemic. That’s why the suffix “ism” is on the word racism. That’s also why the term systemic racism is a superfluity; i.e., like saying “white racism.”

Put another way, “Hutu vs Tutsi” and white supremacy are both forms of mistreatment. But the former is sand, while the latter is boulders; not even gravel.

Not every cookie is NABISCO. Some cookies just don’t meet the NABISCO standard. One of the standards is a system. So, you can’t call them all “NABISCO,” even if you do make a delicious toll house.

If you feel I’m exercising the Force…well, I take that as a compliment. :relaxed:

Not in France, but, sure you can, anywhere else. There’s even a word for it: Idiolect.

I particularly like the way Wikipedia explains this concept:

Idiolect is an individual’s distinctive and unique use of language, including speech. This unique usage encompasses vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.

An idiolect is the variety of language unique to an individual. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among some group of people.

So, as I said to @Danny a couple of years ago, I’m building an idiolect that I’m working to turn into a dialect.

Well, that’s a grammatical sentence, so, bravo, but the next part should be your explanation why.

Otherwise, all we’ve got is you saying, “No it’s not!”, and me saying, “Yes, it is!”, in a loop. Remember: Coherent, meticulous arguments.

I am.

However, the misconception is that there is something continuous between white racial mistreatment and those of other people. This is why some white people say, “Black, white, it doesn’t make a difference: It’s all racism.”

I understand why someone might say that, but it’s stupid. It shows that that person has not thought through the fact that what makes dominative systems significant is not the face they show, but the power behind them.

Some mistreatment is sand, and some is boulders. In fact, some is silt, and some is sheer granite cliff faces. (See the NABISCO analogy.)

It’s not dishonest, because it’s true, and the justification is the systematic nature of the mistreatment

As I said in “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa)”, a common characteristic of so-called “ethnic conflicts” is that they are typically of limited scope.


I think I am lemon-yellow winged racehorse.


Now, the next step is for me to prove it, by some effective action.

The difference between the system of white supremacy and the infantile Asian and Black people in your example is that when white people think they are superior on basis of their racial identity, they eventually convince everybody else they are, too.

That’s why Asian women whiten their skin, but white women don’t “yellow” theirs. That’s why Black women straighten their hair, and narrow their noses, but white women don’t widen their noses, or kink they’re hair.

That’s why non-white women of “African” descent catch flak for “unprofessional hairstyles,” but white women do not.

I could go on with this until Andromeda kisses the Milky Way. Anybody can imagine that they are anything. But, as a colleague once said, if white people decide, today, that sand is money, tomorrow, everybody will be at the beach…and, based on what I said before, a few will be at the gravel pit.

Wow: You’re just giving me more and more opportunities to demonstrate the coherence of my model.

It’s not merely a semantic re-assignment. I’m making the semantic change because it’s saying something truer about the world.

Saying white supremacy explains why in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person can make a decision that cannot be overruled by one or more white people, but the reverse is not true.

If the reverse was true, I’d just be changing words around.

That is allowed. I could call racism “speckled blue woodchuck meat” and police “mashed potato broken gears.”

These mashed potato broken gears killings are nothing but speckled blue woodchuck meat.

The above statement is rational. It’s hard to understand. But it’s coherent.

However, it doesn’t say anything truer about the world…unless it’s never occurred to you that police killings can be racist.

By saying that racism is white supremacy, I’m not just “renaming” racism. I’m saying something about its internal structure, and, given that, something about what the world should look like IF what I’m saying is true; for example, the NABISCO analogy; the two-sentence “mugging” analogy; “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa)”; and, perhaps most recently and repeatedly, the “racism discussion + potluck”analogy.

I agree with that. I agree with what you’ve just said.

That’s why my proper justification is the fact that white high school dropouts are wealthier than black and Hispanic college graduates; that 1 in 7 white families are now millionaires. For black families, it’s 1 in 50.; that African-Americans’ wealth is fraction of whites’ due to systematic inequality; that Black families have struggled for decades to gain wealth, and a long history of government policies that facilitated wealth for white Americans have not done so for Black people; or that the black-white wealth gap is unchanged after half a century.

My proper justification is the Asiento de negros ; Thomas Thistlewood’s diaries; the Kahn slave trade interactive; Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia; the Brookes schematic; Stephen R. Platt’s history of the Opium Wars; The Cyclopedia of India, documenting Britain’s 90-year rule of the nation; Spain’s 300-year domination of the Philippines; the white history of dominating the Inuit; Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race ; Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost; Gerda Lerner’s documentary text, Black Women in White America ; broken Maori, Sioux, Iroquois, Chippewa, and other indigenous treaties; the annexation of Hawaii; D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation ; the Australian Constitution; runaway slave posters; the Sarr-Savoy report for the restitution of African art; South Africa’s 1949 Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act; Susan Sontag’s Winter 1967 Partisan Review essay; studies on white flight; Federal findings on corruption in Ferguson MO’s police department; the findings of the Plain View Project re: police Facebook posts; the eight photos and videos on which I drilled you two years ago; nuclear superiority; white fragility; the historical narrative satirized in Aamer Rahman’s joke; and the racial mistreatment of Africans in the Ukraine

But, most of all, my justification is

White Supremacy =

(1) The direct or indirect subjugation of all “non-white” people by white people, for the basic purpose of “pleasing” and/or serving any or all “white” persons, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War.

(2) The only functional Racism, in existence, among the people of the known universe, that is based on “color” and/or “anti-color” in the physical make-up or physical appearance of persons.

(3) Racism “for the sake of” Racism.

What you define as “racism” does not rank, in size, or scope, when compared to even one of the above links.

Yet, all of them, in toto, merely scratch the surface of what I mean by white supremacy.

This isn’t sand compared to gravel. This is talc compared to an asteroid.

The first illustration was to convey a population difference.

The other was to illustrate a power difference.

Think of apartheid-era South Africa: White people were the population minority, but the power majority.

This is the same idea.



1 Like

I have no doubt you can go on for another 4.5 billion years until when Andromeda collides with Milky Way. Where do you get your energy? Good luck…


1 Like