Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

Hello David,

I agree with every word you wrote; but highlighted what you wrote above because it was the main thing that stunned me when I read Stan’s reply. I was literally dumbfounded at what I had just read. I don’t recall the last time I was that upset over something someone had written here.

But I also would like to know why @bigtomwoodcutter would give any of Stan’s comments a Like. And this from someone who has cried many a time at the mistreatment of his fellow LGBT community.


Yes I was also struck by that as well and your video clip I think illustrated it well.

When we read the Bible record of Jesus reaction to the level of thinking of the time we think that no one now would ever act or think in such a manner given what we know now. But we see that is not true over and over again in shocking statements of hubris.

People even now reject the Holy Spirit’s guidance and voice to demonstrate compassion. With astonishing indifference they look upon the suffering as lies and a ploy to evil ends. Such levels of thinking are what we read in the Word which causes many to eternal ruin. Without a change of heart and transformation of character we are told they will find themselves on outside of the walls of the New Jerusalem. It is truly heartbreaking that such attitudes exist amongst the brethren and that they so stubbornly and continuously reject the Holy Spirits call to repentance.


Reading the last two respondents leads me to the conclusion that the moral high horse they try ride is hobbled and toothless nag.

The previous respondent said none of those things which have been twisted beyond recognition.

This highlights the probable likelihood of ever reaching the needful and respectful analysis as an asymptote.

Will this actually come down to open support here for the ER protesters in Compton?

Folks we’ve lost the battle when the long knives of moral battle are unsheathed like this-on our brethren-and we retreat into our self-justifying duvets. If we are willing to act thus with our brethren, we will certainly do so at our enemy-and we’ve just made our brethren the enemy.

I suspect this ongoing scenario will usher in the final chapter of Godless humanity posing as moral, and finally being turned over to their delusion (that violence is moral-and required) will result in evil ending itself. No divine spark needed, no need for Gods flame-fanning, no heavenly accelerant poured out unmixed.

None have advocated or voiced support for violence as you say. Yet some like yourself repeatedly have made accusations which state the contrary without evidence in the recorded comments. It is an accusation without substance that is morally objectionable and dishonest. Read through the comments again.


My intent is not to engage in a conflicting discussion on the issue. I am just curious about your opinion on this:

  1. Do you think that whites have treated blacks fairly, allowing them equal rights and opportunities?
  2. Do you believe that, as any human beings, blacks have the right to function in society with the same rights and responsibilities as the whites do?
  3. If for #1 you said “yes,” then you can leave it here. If you said “no,” what would be your input on how to resolve the problem of inequality? And also,
  4. What should the blacks do to positively contribute to the process of equalization that the whites would engage in? It seems to me that BLM is a cry of despair because the whites have adamantly and fiercely refused (and still do) to treat blacks as 100% humans with equal rights. Therefore, if that movement is as unacceptable as you describe it, what would be a white movement that would make black lives actually matter as white lives do?

Thank you.


In my opinion, your post says it all very clearly and thoroughly. Good job! That is the description of a real problem that has not been resolved only due to the hardness of heart of white people. Not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation, but those who do have made a mess of our society.
Regarding your comment,

I believe those “Spectrum… professionals” indeed agree with you; well, I am just speaking for one of them… :wink:


You are so too funny! :laughing:

Have a great day with all of your “teaching”.

1 Like


Will do.

You, as well, have a great day with yours.


It’s hard to verify the truth of your statement, GeorgeTichy. I trust that @David1, and others, can see why.

That is, the 2nd part of it—“those who do [support the undeniable discrimination and segregation] have made a mess of our society”—is objectively true, and there are countless examples to prove this.

The first, and primary, example, perhaps, if one is just speaking about “America,” is that racism made the claims of the founding documents fraudulent; e.g., “all men are created equal,” etc.

It built a schism into the arguments which were rationally designed to propel the nation to greatness. It unbandaged a moral canker that has grown and metastasized over the centuries.

So, that part of your statement is true.

It’s the first part of your statement—“Not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation”—that is unverifiable.

The key reason it is unverifiable is that it depends on the concession that not all white people are racist. However, no one has yet proven this.

One way to think about this fact is as follows:

How would you answer the question, "Am I polluting the environment?"

A: You would, at the very least, have to perform a forensic, or quantitative, review of your activities.

That is, you’d need to ask, and accurately answer, questions, such as:

• “Do I use detergents whose chemicals kill sea life?”

• “Are my traveling activities impacting the air in a negative way; for example, through the release of petrochemicals?”

• “Do the foods I consume make particularly heavy draws on the resources of the ecosphere?"

And so on.

Indeed, such a review could even be extended to one’s revealed or unrevealed attitudes. (Christians are familiar with this level of resolution; certainly, SDAs are.)

For example, “Does my outlook move others to think that polluting the environment is not a big deal?”

Or, “Do I help, enable, or even influence others who do, or even may, pollute the environment, in ways that assist them doing so?”

Few are equipped, or even inclined, to do this level of review, even in they consider themselves “concerned about the planet and its future.”

In part, I suspect, this is why human beings are continually shocked and surprised by new discoveries that reveal the level of pollution in the environment, including that within their own anatomies; e.g., the problem of the chemical body burden.

However, it is only with a forensic review of this sort that any individual could objectively answer the question, "Am I polluting the environment?"

In my opinion, however, it is only with a forensic review of this sort—of one’s activities, of one’s impacts in the social realm, and one’s effects on the larger world—that one could objectively answer the question, as a white person, "Am I a racist?"

Now, the environmentalist has a distinct advantage, in the above scenario: For the most part, she is attempting to find the traces left by molecules. He is trying to determine where the matter that came from his exhaust pipe went. Also, he can be sure that, whatever that matter did, it did the same as other matter under similar circumstances.

As for the suspected racist, their task is nowhere as simple.

They’d be trying to track attitudes, sentiments, viewpoints, etc., and their effects on the attitudes, sentiments, viewpoints, etc. of other people, not just now, but across centuries, and even across landforms.

They’d be trying to derive the influences of benefits and detriments, on the material reality and well-being for those who derive those benefits and detriments, and how these rebound throughout, not just a culture, but the entire known universe.

Further, they’d be attempting to make statements about what the effects of their present actions, now, will have, not just now, but on human beings in the future, including ones who do not yet live.

How would one track all of this?

The impossibility of doing so is why I told @Kate that, when asked, “Are all white people racist?”, Black people can respond one of three ways:

a) Defensively (e.g., “Hell, YEAH!!”), because an overwhelming number of their interactions with white people have been hostile;

b) Sentimentally (e.g., “No,” or, “No, not all of them”), because they have a significant number of friendly, white acquaintances;


c) Objectively (e.g., “I don’t know”), which is my response; the only one I can truthfully give.

But, from reading your comments, GeorgeTichy, you seem to hold the view that white persons can self-analyze and self-declare whether they are racist, or not, via their own internal review. (I could be wrong, but this summary seems consistent with statements you’ve made over time.)

I think that this sounds, among other faults, convenient.

As the mental health professional you affirm you are, in your reply to @David1, you would never start with the self-diagnosis of a client, as a baseline for how you would treat their illness.

You would, instead, perform a forensic review.

As a non-white person, I think racism is too lethal an agent to be certified by those who may carry it.

That “not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation” is not yet certain. If you say it is, what is your evidence?

What is certain is that racism is white supremacy.

Racism is global, unbounded, long-lasting, and strong. Those who counter it must be, as well.


I gave Stan’s comments on BLM a like because what he said is the unvarnished truth.
BLM is a bunch of Marxist extremists who bring discredit to the cause for social justice. I have no use for that group any more than I did ACT UP in the gay rights movement.

1 Like


You may have departed this topic…but I just wanted to comment that the statement, “people who matter are not mistreated” is a very general one and applies to nearly every ethnic group and subsets of such. I believe that it was being referred to in a very general way to the Black community.

Of course, context here is most critical because even within the Black community there are subsets of individuals who are “mistreated” within their own community on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Basically…none should be throwing stones in this regard.

1 Like

From 1993 to 2008 the average per capita income of sub-Saharan African economies barely budged—it increased from $742 to $762 per year (measured in 2005 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars). If we exclude South Africa and the Seychelles, we see a decline from $608 to $556 over the period. Economist, Jan 21, 2014

Mean household income .

|Ethnic category|Mean household income|: Americans
| — | — |
|Asian alone. |$114,105|
|White alone. |$89,632|
|Hispanic or Latino. |$68,319|
|Black. |$58,985|


How is this responsive to the question of whether or not all white people are racist?


I want to talk about White Supremacy.

Harry has a point, but it is not only about racism. White culture has conquered the world. It is the primary culture. The world dresses as whites (westerners) do. They listen to western music, do western science, have taken advantage of the western green revolution, are ruled by western laws and so forth. White culture did conquer the world and continues to hold sway to a certain but slowly lessening extent. Why is that?

There are many factors. A book, Guns, Germs and Steel explains this fairly well. There were certain advantages of living in the fertile crescent and Europe. Agriculture began there, and the native plants were conducive to domestication. The animals there were also conducive to domestication, etc. There was nothing in South America like a cow, etc.

But this was not all. Western Europe in the 1400s began to develop a technology that other nations did not have, and to exploit that technology to gain control. That is the guns part of the title, and ships could be included there as well. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire is an example of this. They had horses and guns, and joining with tribes the Aztecs had subjugated, they made easy work of them.

it is interesting to note that the Chinese had a few great navigators, one even reaching the coast of E. Africa. The Islamist did as well. But they did not have the incentive as Europeans did to develop the skill. Europe wanted spices, and tried getting around Cape Horn to get them, and succeeded. this lead to ships sailing everywhere, and eventually to armies sailing everywhere to conquer the world.

The Chinese and Japanese were never completely conquered. In North America the indigenous populations were killed by war or by disease. In South America, the populations were absorbed into the present Indian/Spanish mix, while in Brazil, many Africans were brought as slaves. It now has a very diverse population

Aborigines were conquered as were the Maori people, though they remain as residents of the land. India was conquer by Britain but the people remained on their land. Africa was divided up by the Euopean powers, but is now full of independent states.

So the white culture has become dominant throughout the world. When I was in Africa, they listened to radios invented by whites, drove cars invented by whites, read books in English, wanted US dollars, and had a certain type of Government akin to the Brtish parliamentary system. Even Marxism is a white invention!

So Harry is right, there is White Supremacy, but it is a bit different than what he is thinking, that white supremacy is racism. White supremacy is a result of the technological and scientific advances that whites made over the last few centuries to dominate the world.

And the whites took advantage of this technology to dominate it. And it lead to looking down on those people that were not white. This idea of racism has been around for centuries.

But it is not the sole content of “White Supremacy”.

Whites have ruled the world, but they have given great gifts to the world as well. All kinds of inventions, medicines, ideas, ways of making things better etc.

And without these things the world would be a much worse place than it is already. And ignoring such is ridiculous.

That dominance began to wane during the First WW, and became even less after the Second. In essence Europeans destroyed themselves. China is now ascendant, with America still on top, but being challenged like never before.

Your fixation, Harry, White Supremacy is Racism, is both too narrow and too broad at the same time. White supremacy has lead to great blessings to the world (not just racism), and not all whites are racists.

1 Like

How can anyone claim that ALL whites are racists? It is beyond proof. Even if it were possible to canvass every white person and ask, it will not elicit the truth. We have to contend with how much are the true yeses and how much are the false noes. People lie. At best, it is delusional to believe that ALL whites are racists.


Average incomes from around the world:

UK: $42,300
France. 42,400
Germany. 48,500
Japan. 41,960
Poland. 15,000
China. 10,200
S. Africa. $6,040

Quite the advantage living in this white racist country…

Thanks, @ajshep.

This is a wonderful summary of recent world history, with which almost any reasonably educated person should be familiar.

It is also diversionary and unrelated to the concerns of my post.

The primary concern of my post is based on a statement GeorgeTichy has made, and grows out of it:

I say that this statement is unverifiable, because it depends on the concession that not all white people are racist. However, no one has yet proven this.

I then go on, first via analogy, then via a description of the problem and its complexity, to show why this is the case.

This sets the field for my secondary concern, when I, briefly, suggest how non-white people should respond to the question, “Are all white people racist?”

The answer that I suggest they give is, “I don’t know.” I say that this is the most objective answer, given the evidence, and, again, the difficulty of resolving the question.

Please respond to these concerns, directly. That is, please either falsify them, affirm them, or merely say that you do not know if what I am proposing is true or false. Otherwise, I will consider what you’ve written off-topic and disregard it.

And, now, because it’s fun, let me disassemble the rest of what you’ve written:

This is, in a certain sense, an argument in a circle.

Do you know what this is?

Albert Speer - Volkshalle

It’s a scale model of Volkshalle. Designed by Albert Speer, this 95-story-high pantheon was to be the architectural centerpiece of the Third Reich.

It was never built.

Clearly, Speer had considerable talent. Indeed, he had so much talent that he passed a fair amount on to his son, Albert Speer Jr.:

Speer Jr. was also an architect; a gifted one whose firm built many fine structures, one of which is the Oval, in Frankfurt:

As you might imagine, Speer Jr. spent a considerable amount of his life distancing himself from his dad’s corrosive patrimony. He died in 2017.

How much of the Nazi legacy should one excuse because, had they made it to the 1,000-year mark, as planned, they would have, no doubt, contributed scenic plazas?

(I realize I’m firmly in Godwin’s Law territory, here, but maybe not, since I am talking about white supremacy, and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was a white supremacist organization.)

IOW, there is nothing in your statement, above, that falsifies mine.

You say:

The only words with which I disagree are “is a result of.” I would replace them with the word utilizes, thus forming this new, true statement

White supremacy utilizes the technological and scientific advances that whites made over the last few centuries to dominate the world.

Your argument, in other words, is that white people have produced scenic plazas.

My argument is that, under white supremacy, I’ve never seen a scenic plaza white people produced that wasn’t, directly and/or indirectly, used to dominate non-white people.

The radios, cars, books, and governmental systems you mention, and that white people bequeathed to Africans under duress, in other words, weren’t for their good. It was to make them better colonial subjects; so that they would, so to speak, “stop fighting, lay back, and enjoy it.”

You’ve accused me of a) fixation, and b) it being “both too narrow and too broad at the same time.”

So, by this point, given my frequent repetition of it, you may be familiar with what I call The Maximum Maxim:

“Under racism, any criticism made of a victim of white supremacy is better, and more accurately, made of the system, itself.”

As a victim of race, obviously, white supremacy is far more fixated on me than I am on it. The proof of this is that it dominates me. The reverse is not true.

If a man, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, is hunting, but ceases to be fixated on the deer, this happens:

If the deer ceases to be fixated on the man, this happens:

Sadly, under racism, more non-white people end up looking like the latter, and far fewer, even momentarily, like the former.

As for me being “both too narrow and too broad at the same time,” white supremacy is fixated on everything from how many people there are who look like me on the planet, and how fast we are reproducing…to the texture of my hair and chromosomes. I couldn’t manifest a billionth that much range.

Since you agree that white supremacy has led to racism—again, they’re the same thing, but let’s go with your formulation, for now—I’d urge, for the reasons I’ve given, above, that this cancels its gifts.

It’s as if your wife said, “My dentist does an excellent cleaning, and a painless root canal, but, after you’re under the gas, he also rapes you.” Not only would you try to kill him, but you would also find another dentist.

This brings us back to do.

That’s what GeorgeTichy said, what you, as well as @elmer_cupino, below, have echoed.

What should be obvious is not only haven’t you proven this, you’ve not even addressed it. You’ve merely just asserted it.

See above.


Your final sentence contradicts the thrust of your statement. You should have quit while you were ahead. :smiley:

Here’s why:

If we accept the following:

…then, this statement…

…does not follow.

One could say that, for the reasons you give, and, even more, the ones I do, it is premature to believe that all whites are racists, or that it is impetuous to do so.

But “delusional”? How, when it may very well be true?

Put another way, there’s nothing logically contradictory about the idea that “all white people are racists.”

So, why would it be “delusional”?

Again, this doesn’t follow. Like @ajshep, you’ve not proven your idea. You’ve merely asserted it.


This is off-topic and irrelevant.

Further, I’ve never used the words “racist country.”

If that is something about which you want to write, knock thyself out.


I don’t know about now, but until not long ago, if you consulted with the WebEd you would learn that nobody here was saying that “all whites are racist.” I agree that it would be not only delusional but completely insane, a product of an unstable mind. But, again, I am glad that nobody is saying it, not even suggesting it. I only wonder what would actually happen IF someone said/suggested that “all whites are racist?”