Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

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?”


Intense you say?

Harry, I read your twitter defense of Frances Cress Welsing. What Welsing peddles isn’t science - it’s ideology. There is a reason she is irrelevant to human genome departments. She is good at trolling white racism, but if you believe her views as “science” I have a bridge to sell you.


I don’t know George. If this isn’t a suggestion, I don’t know what is. :slight_smile:


First time here? Welcome A. Person. Hope you will enjoy the conversation. Great first comment!


And there are many other “suggestions” written prior by the same person. However, when not long ago I pointed out to it, I was strongly scorched by the WebEd; a true public reprimand. So I am very careful now… because it seems that the WebEd has not been (yet) able to read between the lines of those statements - and I don’t want to be scorches that badly again.

You are not suggesting that anyone here is saying that “all whites are racist,” are you? :innocent: :wink:


We missed your points of view and glad you’re back.


Until you prove your case, having an unshakable belief in something false and impossible, despite evidence to the contrary is known as a delusion. Now prove your case that “All whites are racists.” Go on…


Over the last few sessions I have learned to appreciate you two more and more. Thanks for your input. You’re pretty good for “fools”…


I just thought the comparisons of the yearly incomes were enlightening:

Black Americans: $58, 985

Germany: 48,500
UK: 42,300
Japanese: 41,960
China: 10,200
S. Africa: 6,040

Average subSaharan Africa: $556

Ir is an amazing privilege to live in this great country where even the descends of former slaves make more than some who enslaved them.


Allen, in fairness, you can call Elmer and me “fools par excellence”… :laughing:


Hey Allen Shepherd,
Hurry up, you have only two days left to figure out this racism thing before the topic closes. :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:
And I say that only because I want to make sure that I am mocking you for good, OK? :wink:


Watch out George. You could be accused of mocking. Remember? We do not want that to happen AGAIN.


1 Like


What do you mean, when you say, “isn’t science - it’s ideology”?

Surely, that: One reason is that the Cress hypothesis is not a genomic study, any more than string theory is a review of fibers.

The other reason is that she was a psychiatrist. She’s not irrelevant to psychiatry departments, particularly those whose focus is Black psychiatry, and its history. There, she is a very significant figure.

What is “trolling white racism”?

First of all, I hold “white racism” to be a superfluity.

Second, what do you mean by “trolling” it?

Put another way, I know what trolling is. But what do you mean by “trolling white racism”?

Thanks, @OldWhiteGuy. I appreciate you reading my Twitter thread on Welsing.

I also appreciate this critique. In the context of these fora, it’s novel.

Since you say you read my tweeted explication of Frances Cress-Welsing’s hypothesis on white supremacy, you’ll know that, at no point, do I claim that it is “science.”

It may be “science,” or it may not be “science.”

You haven’t, for example, in your response, said what you mean by your use of this word. Even more, you haven’t stated the implications for the hypothesis, if it is not “science.”

What most people mean, practically, by science is that an observation has been made, and then put through the rigors of the scientific method. If this is the way you are using the word “science,” then you are absolutely correct; the Cress hypothesis is not science.

And, I should add: So what?

That is, the two things you’ve not said are that:

a) The Cress hypothesis, or some aspect of it, is not true, and

b) This is the reason, or these are the reasons, why it is not true.

Further, our world is filled with ideas that are not science. Indeed, most ideas people hold to be true, and that are taught in our great universities, are not scientific.

Even further, there are ideas which aspire to scientific validity, but which have not yet achieved it, and maybe never will. I’ve already mentioned string theory, which is one. The multiverse is another.

However, in both cases, and in others, these hypotheses have sprung useful, novel ideas, and valid research.

The Cress hypothesis might do the same…were there an entity with sufficient funds and other resources, willing to investigate the hypothesis that racism (white supremacy) is a conglomeration of defense mechanisms that white people cobbled together to keep from being phenotypically overrun; i.e., that it is such a thing, or that it was such a thing.

When you, or someone else, can point to a white-run funding source that would back such a multi-year inquiry, the Cress hypothesis may possibly become “science.”

And, if not, that’s fine with me. Please keep your bridge. :grinning:


Hey, @Arkdrey …. your post was addressed as a response to me.

Unless GeorgeTichy is reading my mail, he’s never going to see it.

Oh, umm, never mind.



What case?

You’re a better reader than that.

Do you give clients medication? I hope you’re a better reader than that!

I wrote a 900-plus-word post to GeorgeTichy. It says that the statement, “Not all whites are racist” is unverifiable.

That’s my case.

Now, if you’re saying that you possess a way to verify whether or not all white people are racist, please say what it is.

I believe that the following statement:

"Not all white people are racist"

is unverifiable.

That belief is neither unshakable, nor has anyone here shown it to be either false or impossible, or provided evidence to its contrary.

It does not meet your own definition of a "delusion."

So, about what are you speaking?

See above.

And, better yet, why don’t you go on and find a better way to trip me up? You, @Arkdrey, GeorgeTichy, and your ragtag crew are Elmer Fudd-ing this, gloriously.



1 Like

Running a business during a pandemic downturn isn’t something I wish on anyone. All of the “me time” and some sleep had to be repurposed for a while to make sure everyone is employed and safe.

I had to find and read that post, I’ll have to jump to your defense and say that I don’t think @webEd treated you fairly. I appreciate all of the transparent efforts it takes to run and moderate the platform and content, however I don’t think below response comes across well, for a couple of reasons.

  1. The validity of the concern shouldn’t be lumped together with whatever sins of George’s past.

  2. In reference to “all whites are racist”, there’s more than one way to say the same thing. How much semantic difference between the following statements?

a. All black people are criminals
b. I’ve never met a black person who wasn’t a criminal
c. Based on these cherry-picked historical markers, there’s no reason to trust black people not to be a criminal

To any black person, these should rightfully be disparaging and inflammatory generalizations that are very personal. In light of this, consider something as recent as:

That’s vastly different from the Critical Race Theory concept of “only white people can be racist”, even if on is to assume it as viable.

  1. I understand that there’s contextual semantics that Harry frames in his arguments, in which he defines racism as global white supremacy. But that definition by itself doesn’t excuse any absolute generalizations.

One could say that all Spectrumites are antichrist heretics, and define “antichrist heretic” as someone who disagrees with classical Adventist dogma, LGT, shut door and all. That definition doesn’t really save me from the wreckage and irritation it frames for people discussing different aspects of this issue.

Racism as a term has a very limited traditional context that doesn’t work if it only applies to one group which is generally implied to be racist. The concept of racism loses any moral framework by which we can judge individuals. It merely becomes a de-facto token of a race.

I’m not in favor of ban on @Harry_Allen or even removal of his posts. I’ve enjoyed exploring his extremes, even though it can be tedious and unnecessarily floods the thread with repetitive rehashing.

All I can say that that defending his extreme position as “sociologically viable” isn’t a good look for Spectrum moderation response. Whatever George’s positions and behavior may be in the past in different scope… on this subject he’s been fairly consistent, and I think he’s a viable canary in the mine of certain things going too far.

I think it’s not as much a reflection on @Harry_Allen model, as it is on generic difficulty to semantically reconcile it with traditional concept of localized individual racism that has to exist in some shape or form.


Is this the same psychiatrist who caused controversy by claiming homosexuality among the African-Americans was a ploy by white males to decrease the black population? The same psychiatrist who asserts that white people were the genetically defective descendants of albino mutants that were forcibly expelled from Africa? The same psychiatrist who attributed AIDS, addiction to crack cocaine to chemical and biological warfare by white people?

Now I understand your “ragtag” thinking… Have you been drinking her Cool-Aid?