From a “racist perspective,” yes, everything should be fine…“Let them protest, it will not move the needle…” And the systemic racism will continue assaulting people’s rights.
It’s all so strange because I would expect more action from a POTUS who declares so adamantly that he is not a racist, "I am the least racist in this room. … Well, at least he said, “Those children are being treated marvelously,” didn’t he? What a relief, isn’t it? 
As long as there is only protest in church, without any rioting, everything will be fine…
Thanks, @tekcajwolley, for the question.
My name is actually Harry, not “Henry.”
And I don’t know the answer to your question.
However, on their Grammarphobia web site, authors Patricia T. O’Conner and Stewart Kellerman give what appears to be a rather competent answer to it.
Part of their response even appears to falsify one of my contentions, by citing historical applications of the term “race” to fauna, and even flora; e.g., “the wolfish race," or “the several Races of Plants.”
However, I’d say that a) these uses appear to be poetic, not scientific; b) they seem to be few in number; and, most of all, c) they are old; from the 17th through 19th centuries.
In other words, my point was that nobody, today, speaking scientifically, would talk of “the tardigrade race,” or even “the ape race.”
The latter is true, despite the fact most scientists hold that members of the superfamily Hominoidea are our species’ nearest living relatives.
HA
Thanks, and please accept my apologies for the misnomer.
I certainly don’t know. But I understand that DNA is shared among us, differences account for things like height, hair color, etc. Is it right then in this sense race and species are now synonyms? Is it correct to say there is but one species?
The phrase “human race” is very current, meaning all humanity. I would surmise that it is convention. That is, its use has been handed down to us and has become imbedded in our language as correct usage, though not necessarily scientifically accurate.
Another is “according to Hoyle” meaning according to the rules. It is from a Brit living in the 1600s who wrote about the rules of card games! Yet still used occasionally today. English is a wonderful language!
I understand that separate ministries along racial lines each with a VP in charge is probably of the least concern to those who fellowship with institutional congregations such as at LSU and LLU. The SECC, we were told, is probably one of, if not the most diverse SDA conferences in the world. Interestingly enough, alongside the VPs for Black, Hispanic and Asia/Pacific ministries, there’s no VP for White. Why not? Reason is, again we were told, in the SECC there’s only a Romanian congregation that could possibly be counted as purely white.
The issue here is what racism means. If the definition is a Harry avers, then all whites are racists, and it is because they are white, that is members of the oppressor class. The new definition by Merriam-Webster also supports that idea.
Is the church now adopting that view? Are all white members thus racists?
Taking such a position is accepting the thinking of Critical Race Theorists. I read a small article in the religion section of Realclearpolitics on this topic. I will quote the pertinent sections. Sorry for the length:
THE CRITICAL CHURCH? AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY AND THE SOCIAL JUSTICE TEMPTATION.
Nathan Berkley and Phil Rexroth, October 5, 2020
American Christians have taken to the debate with vigor, with some indicting various Christian denominations for being insufficiently responsive to racial inequality or injustice, while others emphasize the vital role Christians played in the abolitionist and civil rights movements. These claims are not mutually exclusive. Despite their shared commitment to love their neighbor and seek justice for the oppressed, American Christians may be rooting these commitments in very different understandings of what “justice” entails. But justice is a central theme of the biblical narrative, and its meaning for Christians must therefore be defined by those textual boundaries.
Social Justice Ideology vs. Christian Orthodoxy
In their recent book, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay usefully contrast social justice (a broad sensibility about achieving general fairness in society and righting societal wrongs) with “Social Justice” (a specific body of theory). Traditionally, Christianity has framed the idea of social justice in terms of specific instances of oppression or inequality brought about by unjust, and therefore sinful, actions. Those actions could occur at the purely individual level or be channeled through a range of institutions. They could ultimately be traced to identifiable oppressors who should and would be held responsible for their actions, whether in this life or the next. The role of individual Christians, and the Church corporately, was to identify injustice, to speak and work against it in their own lives and in the ministry of their churches, and, when applicable, in their broader political community. This understanding asserted a common humanity, with each person created in the image and likeness of God and recognized as a moral agent who will be judged by God on that individual basis because “all have sinned.”
Social Justice, by contrast, rejects the notion that justice occurs when exercises of moral agency, by individuals and the spectrum of human institutions, align with God’s intent for His creation. Rather, Social Justice utilizes various Critical Theories to engage in what Pluckrose and Lindsay refer to as applied postmodernism, which focuses on hidden structures of systemic power as the root cause of all societal injustice or inequality. Social Justice adherents thus concern themselves primarily with identifying and criticizing discourses, which are frames of language or knowledge that reinforce the structures used to oppress or marginalize those who are not members of the dominant identity group. Accordingly, the idea of a common humanity populated by individuals who derive their primary identity from their created-ness (“I am a person with these attributes”) is rejected in favor of a definition of identity as membership in a group or groups based on one’s attributes (“I am this/these attribute(s)”).
This distinction between possessing one’s attributes and being one’s attributes has profound consequences for the manner in which modern American Christianity engages with the society it inhabits. Where orthodox Christianity asserts, “All humans, though infinitely variable in attributes, are equally valued by God as such,” Social Justice responds, “Humans have no intrinsic identity beyond the intersection of their attributes, and by their membership in larger groups of people who share those attributes.” When orthodox Christianity stipulates that “All humans are individual moral agents and will be held responsible for their own thoughts and actions,” Social Justice counters that “No individual has true agency; all human experiences and actions are subject to differential power structures that limit true freedom of thought and action.”(end article)
Thus, since Whites are an identifiable group, and are the top of the worlds groups, they are all racists.
This is a subtile action. And makes it impossible to really speak to each other coherently. If all whites are racists and there is nothing they can do about it, the discussion is really over.
Of course.
I think the term is used interchangeably, often, as it pertains to human beings. I think I did say this, or at least suggest it.
But my point was that this is something, I think, people should avoid, especially people who are against racism.
Yes, I’d say, if we are speaking about human beings, aka Homo sapiens.
HA
The scientific use is the one to which I was speaking, compelled by what you call “convention.”
White supremacy is also a convention. My point was, and is, that it is better to use the word race as a synonym for racism, or for white supremacy, than as a synonym for species.
It is more truthful, more accurate, and far less incoherent.
HA
The definition of racism that I offer, @ajshep, is as follows:
Racism =
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as “non-white,” by persons classified as “white,” on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors “associated with” color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
[Note: It is incorrect to use the term “White Racism.” To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy].
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.
Are you saying, based on these definitions, above, that all white people are racists?
HA
Hey Allen, expect turbulence in this discussion. I was about to comment on the issue, but on a second thought, I better abstain because I agree with you.I believe that any person can decide to be or not to be racist. After all, the idea that only whites are racists is malarkey - and racist in itself.
Good look in defending your points! But don’t be a “fool”…, just behave… 
I know what your definition of this term is. My understanding of Critical Race Theory is that the theory states all whites are racist. You are unwilling to say it, but do believe it. However, I don’t want to argue this with you. I want input from others and their views.
It seems that Ella Simmons, a VP for the GC hews to that theory. She goes to Dred Scott and Plessy Fergusson to make her point. That is ridiculous for those decisions are irrelevant to today. But she mentions imbedded racism.
Pastor @ajshep, respectfully, a “Yes,” or “No,” will suffice as an answer to my question.
I’ll ask it, again: Are you saying, based on these definitions, above, that all white people are racists?
HA
I don’t think that one by fiat can claim that his definition on a matter is pivotal. You have a definition that you adhere to. OK. I don’t need to adhere to it, but may go by another.
My understanding of Critical Race Theory is that all whites are racists. Perhaps you can find a quote of a member of that group that contradicts that view. But your personal view is really not that important. If the folk who adhere to Critical Race Theory believe that all whites are racists, then they have made their position clear. I think that you actually believe that as well, despite your denial of such a view. But that is just my opinion, and it is not that important either.
Perhaps a discussion of that Critical Race Theory teaches would be educational. I think (opinion, mind your) that CRT is prejudicial and racist itself. But again, my view.
Hmm.
I don’t understand this response, @ajshep. It sounds like gobbledygook.
Let me explain why, this way:
You said:
The relevant part, of course, is where you said: “If the definition is [as] Harry avers, then all whites are racists.”
So, I didn’t challenge this. I printed the definition(s) that I’ve used, both here and for decades:
Racism =
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as “non-white,” by persons classified as “white,” on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors “associated with” color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
[Note: It is incorrect to use the term “White Racism.” To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy].
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.
And I asked you: Are you saying, based on these definitions, above, that all white people are racists?
In other words, you said, “If the definition is [as] Harry avers, then all whites are racists.”
I printed out the definition that I aver.
Then I asked you, Are you saying, based on these definitions, above, that all white people are racists?
In other words, are you saying, with the evidence of what I aver, that these definitions compel one to conclude what you’ve stated: That all white people are racist?
This seemed a simple question; one that you could address unambiguously, expeditiously.
Yet, in fact, I’ve now had to ask you this question twice, emphasizing the second time that all I need is a “Yes” or “No.”
• You’ve not answered this question in the way that I requested, or even in a way I can understand. This seems ungenerous. It feels particularly so in a forum whose motto is “Community Through Conversation.” Even more, though, in a field where racism is mostly manifested through deceit, secrecy and violence, it seems racist.
• You’ve charged “the theory [that] all whites are racist” is one that I, Harry Allen, am “unwilling to say,” but adding that I “do believe it.”
I won’t exert much of a response to this, save the evidence of what I’ve already said about this odd claim.
To put it another way, all I am to you is text on a computer screen. So, if I’ve not written it, how could you state what I believe? Where do these “believes” exist, and how do you have access to them?
This is not the first time I’ve asked this ostensibly reasonable question, though, were you to give a meaningful response to it, that would be novel.
• You keep mentioning “Critical Race Theory,” You did so four times in the responses, above.
This is a term I’ve never used, to which I’ve never referred, and to which I have no discernible relationship. Yet, you keep speaking about it.
You do that, but you do not answer the inevitable question one should easily answer if anything that you’ve said about me is true. Odd.
Now, in fact, you don’t really have to answer the question, not because I can’t compel you, but because you already have.
That is, you’ve said that the definition I hold, of what racism is, affirms that all white people are racist.
If your statement is not a mistake, or a lie, that means when I present that definition, it will do what you say. That is, unless you are mistaken, or unless you are lying.
HA
I’M ADDING THIS TEXT, BELOW, AFTER THE CLOSING OF THIS SPECIFIC FORUM. It’s a response to @ajshep’s statement, below.
Your responses, @ajshep, are, as usual, incoherent.
The issue, or question, isn’t whether or not you accept my definitions of racism. You didn’t say, “If the definition is [as] Harry avers, then I don’t accept them.”
The issue is, do the definitions that I aver do what you say: Do they affirm that all whites are racists?
You said they did.
I printed them here, then asked, “Do they?”
Your response was 250 words about other stuff.
This is weird. I just want to know why you can’t back up your statements.
Again, it’s odd that you’re excellent at tossing out false claims, but no good at responding to direct challenges.
Is this a pastor thing? You know: Not usually debated at the pulpit, so they say all kinds of crap, but no good in direct confrontation with someone who knows what they’re talking about, and who disagrees with them?
This is off-topic.
The issue isn’t a debate about what I think. You’d lose that contest, since you’re not credible on my thoughts.
The issue is simply this: Are you saying, based on these definitions, above, that all white people are racists?
In other words, do my definitions affirm what you say they do?
Again, a YES or NO is all you need to answer this question.
You said definitions matter, and that by mine, all whites are racist.
I pulled them out and said, “Do you mean these?”
Well: Do you? YES? NO?
So:
a) I’ve already done what you’ve suggested: I said that “Critical Race Theory” is a term I’ve never used, to which I’ve never referred, and with which I have no discernible relationship.
Yet, you keep speaking to me about it. Why?
b) “Critical Race Theory,” whatever it is, is, certainly, by virtue of being a theory, a body of interlocking ideas composed of multiple parts.
If you can’t respond coherently, on a single issue that you’ve raised, how would you be able to take part in a discussion in a massive, modern theory of race?
“For – with footmen thou hast run, And they weary thee, And how dost thou fret thyself with horses!” — Jeremiah 12:5 (YLT)
HA
Allen,
This discussion is now, indeed, promising… I am excited…
Harry, you. make this harder than it is.
I do not accept your definitions of racism. Your little list, of 1), 2) etc. I just do not accept them. So, since I do not accept them, accept that I don’t and move on.
I think you do believe that all whites are racist. My opinion. So I have answered.
I do not think that all whites are racist.
Critical Race Theory teaches that all whites are. Now with 12 hours left, perhaps you can give us your opinion of CRT. We could discuss that. You definitions I am not willing to discuss.
George, that was one of the funniest post you have written! I lol!!
Sad, though, that the “fun” can’t last now more than 12 hours…
Thank God!!!
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
