Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

Thanks, @StanLastings.

a) I’ve noted that you’ve not responded to the key premise of my statement, which is that things are better because of Black Lives Matter. They’re better, because they’re saying that Black people should not be mistreated.

So, I take it that you forfeit this. Thank you.

b) Now, I also take it that you’re a reasonable person. Are you?

If you are, you may agree that, while it’s desirable for us to talk, we can’t have a conversation about what I “grasp.”

The reason why is that “grasping” is cognitive, and not open to 2nd-party scrutiny.

To say what I “grasp” is to say what I think. Only I can talk about what I think. We can’t have a conversation about what I think. It’d be a one-sided conversation. What I think is not available for your verification.

Also, I’m not put off by your incredulity…which, for some reason, reads as though you are writing in all-caps; I don’t know why.

Why am I not put off? Because I don’t consider incredulity an argument. I don’t even consider it a premise.

Instead, what we could discuss, if you’d like, and what would be effective, is for you to simply say why my statement—“People who matter are not mistreated”—is false.

About this, we can speak.

If you’re able to do so, I’ll hear your argument.

If you’re not, that failure will fully contextualize your incredulity.


What do you mean, and why do you say so?


a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged

encourage someone to accept (something) as a fact or principle
• cause (someone) to learn or understand something by example or experience:

Teaching by conversation I have found to be an excellent way of learning, that worked best for me and I enjoyed teachers who took that approach. Maybe that was my ‘issue’ because I enjoyed the less ‘formal’ method. So I think the two go together quite well.

1 Like

Unwilling to acknowledge the sins of the past, the suffering of others or hear the voices of those who cry out for justice is the very reason we are in the situation we are.

It seems that the respondent you have been writing to has chosen to paint all those who agree that change is needed are riotous and traitors. The level of thinking that has brought them here has hardened their hearts and further reinforces their denial that deep and systemic issues exists.

I like yourself and others are sick of the excuses of hypocrites who step over the bodies of our fellow citizens and deny that others suffer from abuse. The absurdity of saying that anyone pointing to the problem are immoral and guilty of the crimes of those (BLM or otherwise) that advocate and use violence to solve the issue. The respondent does not believe or recognize the existence of injustice and views the root cause of recent events as myth at best and as a pretext for violence at worst. This is the most frightening thing of all as some of our Spectrum mental health professional will attest to.

In this case, as you pointed out, those in the BLM or otherwise who advocate or commit violence as a solution to injustice are as guilty of a crime as a those government representatives or citizens who perpetrate racial injustice. To say, as the respondent does, that recognition and advocacy for change are morally bankrupt and an advocate to violence is pretty twisted indeed.


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…