Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

  1. Do white people have power over you?

  2. So, when Tiger married a white woman, it increased whites power over you?

And if you think that this is so, and the society is favoring it, it seems that it is not my ideas that are becoming irrelevant, but yours.

Part of your problem is the idea that you are being over powered by whites. You’re not. I think you can do more or less anything you please, buy a house anywhere buy, a car, marry anyone you can persuade, get a job, write on Spectrum for hours, days… What is it that you think whites are preventing you from doing?

Of course if you think they are, as they say, perception is reality.

By definition: That’s what white supremacy means: White power over non-white people.

When Tiger Woods engaged in sexual intercourse and sexual play with a white woman, in increased the sum total power of white people over non-white people.

It did so because it increased the sum total power that this white woman, or those white women, had over him.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. :smiley: I mean, it really depends on the “idea” upon which you’re focusing.

Another way to look at it is that white supremacy is becoming more refined, refinement being the fourth stage of white supremacy.

I’ve been saying that this is happening, and would continue to, for, at this point, decades.

That you are observing it now, then, could be interpreted as meaning my ideas are becoming more futuristic than ever.

I’d say a huge part of my problem is I am a victim of white supremacy.


White supremacy means that 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, no non-white person has the last word on anything.

One of the implications of this is, for example, is that no non-white person can make a decision that can’t be overruled by one or more white people.

The reverse is not true.

So, answer your own question:

a) Name something that a non-white person can do, in any of these nine areas, that one or more white people would be unable to overrule,


b) Give the reason(s) that one or more white people would be unable to do so.


I asked you this question:

You did not answer it.

There were a bunch of white people that did not want Obama to be president, but they could not prevent it from happening. Hillary with her machine could not even prevent him from becoming the Dem’s choice. There are a bunch of black mayors that were not especially favored by whites. Chicago is one place this happened. So, just quit asserting an idea that is false.

They had power over him?? and that meant you were affected? Come on, Harry. Race does not determine all things.

So you are actually like Liberty University, no mixed dating? I think they got dinged for that.

I ask again, what are whites preventing you from doing?

1 Like

That’ll be the day. I find a lot I can disagree with you, but I’ll defend your right to say it, and say it, and say it, ad nauseaum, till you are left with an audience of only one–yourself.
This blog ends shortly, thank goodness, but I’m sure you will find another blog to hop on. Don’t ever go in the dairy business. Your cows will never come home, I assure you. LOL


Harry, again… you just keep going and going an going with this atrociously poor reasoning.

  1. Someone potential to do something against you doesn’t constitute a crime or oppression.

  2. If Shaq and I get stuck on a desert Island, there’s no decision I can make which Shaq couldn’t override. Your assertion only works if you approach “the world” as a concept that you parse in a way in which your imagination lacks realistic constraints. Americans were embarrassingly chased out of Vietnam. They couldn’t control Mujaheddin in Afganistan with all of the local culture we find oppressive, especially on women. There’s a vast scope of human existence and culture which is nearly impossible to override. White people are jailed in North Korea for stealing posters. No one was able to override that, because Korea has nukes and no one is going to war over individual dum dum to risk nuclear conflict.

You are really not thinking this through hard-enough.


You might want to slip an English theory class in there, too: Obviously, you do not know the meaning of the word “irony.” :smile:

Actually, that doesn’t follow.

I might have incorrect methods, yet, somehow, come up with correct conclusions.

Said another way, you can’t criticize my conclusions based on my methods. Doing so is to perpetrate the genetic fallacy.

This is probably not going to work.

I understand.

I understand.

This is unintelligible. You should give an example of what you mean, as in the previous problems.

Again, you should supply examples, as before, in order to make your point clear.

I understand.

I understand.

A protest:

I’m fairly sure that the above is my definition, and that I’ve written those quoted statements.

But I’ve never said that those statements are “justifications that [I] formulate for re-defining the existing term the way [I] do.”

So, before I go any further, I need to say:

Except for the already noted portions, this post is much better written than many, or most, of your previous ones, with attention to clarity and the comprehension of the reader.

I thank you for this.

Also, thank you for this really good question. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked this, this way, before. So, I will do my best to respond.

One answer to the question you’ve asked might be, “To make the word more precise, and thus, useful, to more people.”

Another could be, “To particularly draw attention to white supremacy as a unique phenomenon.”

That is, when a certain kind of thinking is applied to the common definition of the word, “racism,” one could say, "This includes a lot of things that are similar, because they are all forms of mistreatment.

“But at least one of them is particularly, uniquely noxious, potent, widespread, and detrimental. And, in fact, it has a unique relationship to all these other phenomena we are calling ‘racism.’”

In one way, this might be illustrated is by our recent discussion of “vehicles.”

Suppose the local town car wash said, “Bring your vehicle down, Friday at noon, and get a wash for a dollar!”

If Mr Belaz lived in town, and brought down his seven Belaz 75710’s, that car wash would soon have to put some kind of qualifier on the word “vehicles,” so as not to go bankrupt.

However, suppose the town magistrate said, “Nope: By the common definition of the word ‘vehicle’, the Belaz 75710 is a ‘vehicle.’ So, you either have to to wash it, or use a different word.”

The car wash might then say, “Bring your car down to the car wash.” In fact, what they might say is, “Cars, $1, other vehicles, $2500.” So, if Mr. Belaz brings his seven vehicles down, he knows he’s going to have to pay more, appropriately.

Another example: At one time, when people used the word “universe,” they meant the totality of stars, planets, galaxies, dust clouds, black holes, etc., etc.; what scientists call “baryonic matter.”

Today, however, scientists say the universe is only 4% baryonic matter. The rest, 96%, is a) dark matter, and b) dark energy.

In this case, they kept the word “universe.” But if you say, “The universe is stars, planets, black holes and galaxies,” a scientist, so inclined, might say, “No: It’s ‘dark supremacy.’”

Sometimes, the idea you want to convey is so radically different that one needs a new word. For example, “multiverse” vs. “universe.”

Sometimes, to use a new word would be of less use than to say, “It’s the same idea—mistreatment based on skin color. However, when you look at it, there’s only one kind that has any significant mass.”

Here’s what’s fascinating:

I stopped reading, after I got to your bolded question. I answered it, in total.

Then, I scrolled down and read the next paragraph, above.

Hilarious. :smiley:

I guess what you should do is say if what I’ve described, above, is “semantic fraud,” or, perhaps, maybe a disinterested 3rd party is required!

Yes; race.

No, it actually does, as I’ve said.

I think it’s what I said about the universe: When you inspect what you’re describing, you see it has more parts, in different quantities, than you thought.

That is, to answer your question:

White is the exclusive color of racism because white people started race. The first racism is white people mistreating on the basis of skin color. There was no other kind. Because white people had an enormous head start, too, it’s also the most massive part of it, today. Think NABISCO.

You might say, in other words, what I’ve recognized is, over time, the definition has been gummed up by people using it for everything.

I saw an episode of Wheeler Deelers the other day, where they bought a Mazda RX-7 to restore then sell. The car was in pretty good condition.

But one of the things they had to do to actually make the car salable was take off a lot of the aftermarket crap the seller had attached to the car—removable “sport” steering wheel, performance pedals, dash tachometer, one-push button starter, etc.

They made a lot about this part of the conversion, so derisively speaking about these add-ons that I actually wondered how the guy who’d sold the car would feel when seeing the episode. :grimacing:

That’s kind of what I’m doing. I’m pulling off all the aftermarket crap that people have attached to the word racism, over time, in order to restore it…and to do all of the other things I named, above.

I trust you’ll allow that what you are saying, here, is ahistorical.

To reference my earlier example, you’re talking like a person who only knows cars in the highly-modified, aftermarket form used for pro drifting.

To a person whose never seen a Nissan Silvia except in the heavily modified form, above, the white, top car might not only seem boring, but inauthentic; a “fraud.”

However, as they did on Wheeler Deelers, if you want the car to reach the maximum number of people in its true, most useful form, you’d have to take off all the crud that the car has accumulated over time, in order to restore it to its original power.

If you catch my, ahem, drift….

That was fun, @Arkdrey! I look forward to your next one!


This was needless, and you’re pretending. :upside_down_face:

You said:

I replied:

I don’t care about your critique of my posts’ length, because you’re not making any waves on Spectrum when it comes to race.

You’re merely sitting by the side, saying my arguments are circular.

But, reflect, momentarily:

If you complain about the length of my posts, then say they’re circular, then when challenged, complain about the length of my posts, isn’t that…


I apologize. I thought that when I said:

…that would answer your question.

So here’s the answer:

The White Supremacists are preventing ME from making any decision that can’t be overruled by one or more white people.


I will quit asserting an idea that is false…as soon as you give me an answer that is finished, and that makes sense.

You said:


So, here’s the first question:

In the cases of both:

a) Obama, and

b) “a bunch of black mayors”

what did both DO that you’re saying could not be overruled by one or more white people?

You can’t say, “Become president, and/or mayor,” because they didn’t do that.

Voters did that.

Are you saying that:

a) white people didn’t vote for Obama and “a bunch of black mayors”?

b) if one or more white voters didn’t vote for Obama and “a bunch of black mayors”, they could have still become president/mayor?

c) if Obama and “a bunch of black mayors” had said, “Screw you white people voting for me. I’ll become president/mayor on my own!” one or more white people couldn’t have overruled them?

d) if Obama and “a bunch of black mayors” had said to the white people in their political parties, behind the scenes, “When I become president/mayor, I’ve got my own plans! Forget the party!” one or more white people couldn’t have overruled them?

Please answer these questions.

Of course.

Besides procreation, why else do people have sexual intercourse?

They do it to change their feelings about each other.

You’re obviously reacting, disbelievingly, to an idea you’ve never heard expressed this way before. But it’s fairly obvious that what I’m saying is the case.

What would you do if you had a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, where you were suing a hospital for malpractice?

If you did not win, it would financially wipe out you and your family for the rest of your lives.

So, around 7 pm, the evening before the case starts, you get a package in the mail. You open it, and, inside, are credible materials showing that, for months, your female attorney has been having sexual intercourse with the hospital’s male lead attorney.

Do you:

a) Go to sleep that night, with a smile, thinking, “Well, at least she’ll be relaxed in the morning!”


b) Call her, confront her, fire her, and ask for a stay, due to a breach of ethics on the part of your attorney?

What is your answer?

If it’s b) why?

In other words, why not keep her?

Why should her sex life be any of your business?

What are you afraid of happening?

Please answer all of these questions

Were YOU, in the hypothetical, above?

Here’s what I said:

Asking me “if I was affected” is a question about perception.

I didn’t say anything about my perception.

I said, in so many words: By Tiger Woods having sex with that, or those, white females, that meant there was at least one more non-white person in the world that, quite literally, white people could tell what to do, and when.

A lot of the people at Liberty University, as I understand it, are trying to make white supremacy stronger. I’m trying to make it weaker.

See above.


I’m not going to go there. It’s becoming exhausting debate your own dictionary :slight_smile:

Actually… it does follow in context of safe to assume… in the same way that if you jump out of the airplane without the parachute is safe to assume that you are going to die. You may not die, but it’s so highly unlikely that it’s unsafe to assume that you will not.

I’m well aware that in very rare instances, the false premises and false methods may get you correct conclusions. But, it’s highly unlikely. Otherwise… no one would care.

You are not accomplishing it

  1. There’s already a term that draws the attention to white supremacy as a unique phenomenon. Do you know what it is? It’s White Supremacy :slight_smile:

  2. Even if that’s what you really intended to do. Why would that in any shape or form justify removing the original definition entirely? That’s like saying that let’s just call all of the cars lambos, because lambes are unique.

Yes, and that’s what semantic range is for :slight_smile: One of them is White Supremacy. Definition and conceptual context in which White Supremacy communicates certain history… would more than cover the egregious nature in certain context.

But you so far making no good reason as to why you wipe the original clean, and limit it to only white people. I hear a lot of waffling :slight_smile:

Your analogies make no analogous sense at all… once again. In case of a car wash, you are merely adjusting existing semantic range of meaning. You are not defining a car to mean white Ford only. In case of the Universe… you are being utterly ridiculous :slight_smile: No scientist would ever limit the meaning of the Universe to a single thing, when it’s a combination of all things. Calling Universe “Black matter supremacy” makes zero semantic sense in context of the original meaning. And you should stop relying on hypothetical, and provide actual viable example that would be analogous to what you are going.

You wouldn’t be able to re-conceptualize and reference the core concept of racism based on idea of race alone. Doesn’t work. Racism is a concept of selectively targeting race by anyone. It’s not a concept that’s relian on your knowledge of the suspected racist’s race before you can make a judgement.

Let’s say there’s a scenario in which a black person targets and kills black people exclusively because he believes that Asians are superior race, ad he must cleanse the Earth of every other race starting with black. He would be classified as racist by definition of what racism really is. In this particular case, Asians don’t even have to believe that they are superior.

Racism is any selective targeting of races and categorization of racial hierarchies… by any racial groups.

Do you think that Antiseminism should be limited exclusively to people who started it? You make no sense at all.

Again, you are using non-analogous concepts here. How about this… do me a favor and avoid analogies all together? Deal? You would save us both a lot of time as you would hit that wall of logical incoherence much quicker without me having to show why your “analogies” don’t work.

Again, your car analogies are not analogous, especially in a way you are using it. Just because you can remove parts from cars doesn’t mean that you can strip conceptual meaning from definitions of terms.

The former is your subjective preference that has no bearing on conceptual reality of what a car is. Neither it makes the concept of that car more “precise”. It merely shifts it to your subjective preference. Some people may actually prefer the other look.

I really hope you never repeat this nonsense again here :slight_smile:

Care to try again?

I don’t understand parts of what you wanted to say this time. Can you please explain this part:

Who said what parallel when?

The term “generalizing whole segments of persons”, that I wrote, can be attributed to racism, but doesn’t necessarily have to be. Generalizing, for example, all soccer players because of their common feature (= to be a soccer player) can hardly be called racism given the fact that people from all backgrounds and all skin color and with and without power and privilege are soccer players. I just don’t want to live as a generalizing person. More nuanced: more likely as a person, who takes probabilities into account and common sense, but also sees the individual person. Is it that what you meant?

Your Maximum Maxim sounds profound, but is very maximum. Do you mean any criticism (= of whatever content) of any non-white (= “racism’s victims”) by any white person shows white supremacy? Or is context key, and criticism in the face of a victim (like we had here on the forum after Blacks were murdered) shows white supremacy?

About the other parts:
Snake bite poison. Or one could say provoking until the ugly face of racism shows up.
In the video, two sentences of Dr Aldred sum up good next steps:

Mix [but] not from a position of weakness.
Look for the solution in strengthening of the weak.

There were many other great quotes, but I had to choose.

As always, our discussion is very mind challenging. :grinning:


I asked, "What is that you think whites are preventing you from doing.

Harry, this is not an answer. It’s a shackle. In the answer, you made no actual decision at all, you are theorizing.

Lets try this:

The army is preventing ME from making any decision that can’t be overruled by one or more soldiers.

Is that assertion true? Yes is is, for they could. Is it likely. No. They don’t give a whit what decisions I make. Could my thinking that it was going to happen keep me from making any decision? Yes, it could.

It is the same with white people. They don’t really care what you do. And to feel that this big group of “White Supremacists” is hovering over you, waiting to overrule your decisions really is a shackle. Move on!

They made a decision to run for president or mayor. It was not prevented by white people. Could they have been denied the office by Whites? Yes. But their decision to run was made in their own minds, and they carried it out successfully and gained office.

Lets try this.

Bankers are preventing ME from making any decision on getting a mortgage that can’t be overruled by bankers.

Is it true? Yes, in theory. But in actually it is a rather useless thought. It only keeps me from applying, for most would give me one.

As far as Obama and the mayors, they could have said, “White Supremacists” are preventing me from making a decision that can’t be overruled by one or more white people."

Instead they looked at their chances and ran, even winning. That is a different mindset than yours. A positive one.

If Tiger’s sex life changes how you look at the world, I’m sorry.

The problem here is that you are both supporting the same policy, a policy advocated by White Supremacists. Does that make you a White Supremacist?

I think it does! Welcome to the group Harry!


I bet Elmer @elmer_cupino has the same sentiment on this as I do. As anyone else’s, our time is very valuable, but due to our professions, time is always measured very strictly. Those appointments with patients must be well managed, timely executed. And we also invest our time only when there are results. For how long should we see a patient that is not making any progress, that is stubborn and won’t change, who refuses to ameliorate their emotional/mental condition, who don’t really want to improve their thinking process? I kick them out very quickly, Elmer probably does the same after prescribing something as a last shot trying to help them.

Time being the only point I am making here, this is why I quit these unending discussions on racism. They take us nowhere and are stuffed with arrogance and lack of respect. They become toxic very quickly, and most participants jump off the boat rapidly. Why should one spend precious time in shuch nonsensical echanges? It’s actually called “a waste of time,” because it leads nowhere. Actually, it appears that the topics on racism are a convenient, perfect platform for an unending rumination of some baseless concepts. It’s always the same, always with more added toxicity.

Time spent on Spectrum topics is well spent when there is substance in the conversation and we can actually learn from one another. Not a worthy experience when there is a continued regurgitation of the same angry, flawed, and sometimes even very disrespectful comments?

Let’s see what will be the next topic on the same issue, and how long it will take for the conversation to become toxic again…


(My apologies for the length of this comment. It’s one of the longest I’ve ever written here. Sorry. :wink: )


No, I am not “embarrassed” by this but I do believe our church should consider a more efficient administration structure. You have opined that it is “only” up to the black conferences and black college to decide if they wish to allow themselves to join with the rest of the church. I would suggest it is a two-way street. They wish to be a part of the GC and other traditional forms (Divisions, Unions, Conferences) of the church organization but they won’t eliminate the duplication of a segregated church organizational structure by merging with the conferences they duplicate geographically. This extra administration structure in today’s technology is really unnecessary. In fact, technology and travel today probably make many of today’s organizational administrative divisions unnecessary. The streamlining of administration structure could make it financially feasible to fund more pastors as unnecessary administration is eliminated thus giving more voice to giving the three angel’s messages, which is our task. This is what all of our church organization should be focused on as we present a unified last day message presentation to the world.


Maybe it’s necessary to change the way people are chosen for admin positions in the Church. Maybe the decisions should be made based only on people’s resumé. And resumés should be submitted without names, pictures, or addresses; totally anonymous. Just listing the candidate’s professional info. This will disarm those who keep making decisions and filling positions taking in consideration the candidates’ skin color.

I am saying this in total seriousness, and meaning exactly what I said. I know that some white people who make hiring decisions will not like the formula - for obvious reasons though!


Hurry Allen!
You got only about 10 hours now to ask all the questions you have. If time is too short, ask @Arkdrey to please not write comments too long; thus leaving some room for you too… :innocent: :roll_eyes: :joy:


In our present supercharged racial situation, asking them to give up power is only going to cause trouble. Why not just the white ones into the black ones? And to say it is to streamline organization, but only address black conferences could be thought of as racist.

That is why I thought it best to let them to decide. When they want to, then fine.

I was taught surgical methods, you know, how to do an appendectomy, etc. They did not let me use my own methods, and incorrect methods led to, er, ah death. You actually have to get real here, Harry.


It its truest definition, projection is a defense mechanism for an unconscious drive that seeks expression. If it were used consciously as a “diversion,” then it would be an attempt at manipulation.

So with your case, it you were using projection consciously, you are then manipulating words to fit your agenda. Even Frances Cress Welsing, your mentor, would have to agree with me.

@GeorgeTichy @Arkdrey


Go back and read all your posts. Have you heard of “beating a dead horse”?

1 Like

I have been thinking why some of us spend so much time and effort at trying to convince Harry. Why take the time? I think that,

  1. He is intelligent.
  2. He is insulting and it needs refutation?
  3. It would help him to see life as it is rather than how he sees it. We are trying to help him. (He does not see it this way at all)?
  4. The challenge of it?
  5. His assertions are just so off the wall they require rebuttal?

I used to go with 2., but have moved to 3.

But I am out of steam… Back to the roundhouse.