Thank you, @Jaray, for your response.
Of what, about it, do you approve so highly?
Thank you, @Jaray, for your response.
Of what, about it, do you approve so highly?
Thankfully you’re good, then, and sin free-although, unless God adroitly hid this nugget of truth in scripture or White shed further light on it but the white handlers hid it, i suspect you are making it up to support your idea. Saved, ostensibly because you happen to have black skin. Nope, can’t imagine a white-or a black god- suggesting that skin color is salvific.
Although-it’s famously opined that “one drop” of black blood makes a Superior Black Person, I have a question for you. Given that it is unlikely that I do not have at least a drop of black blood (which means I too am partly black), and given that it is quite likely that you have at least one drop of white blood-why does that not function like black blood does and by virtue of that one drop of white blood also make you a white person?
See, there undoubtedly is a space to communicate beyond this banal skin-deep superficiality being fomented by rabid identity politics-but I’ve not met any here in this corner of my faith community. I do however have friends, colleagues, peers, acquaintances (who happen to be more black than I)-and more open to that deeper conversation.
We’ve been deluded into a meaningless fight-.in effect fighting racism with racism.
I’ll continue to pray for you, that you get that promised eye salve -for it is clear you cannot see
(or perhaps, will not).
I’ll add one note in passing-what sort of god do you worship that would create the possibility that a large part of the world will sin the chief sin automatically, even trivially?
You’ve got to, not only, write more carefully, @Timo, but read and respond more carefully.
A better way to handle this would be to simply ask, “Are you good, then, and sin-free?” This would mean that not only do I have to make my original claim, but now I have to respond to your inquiry.
Instead, you’ve posed an easily deflected charge. Here’s the rebound: I said chief form, not only form.
Much as I stated, back on June 22, 2019, at 12:59 am ET, when my first assertion of this point, below, similarly lit up your pen:
… the Bible doesn’t say that all sin involves money, or that all sin is about loving money. It says that all evil has the love of money at its root.
My belief is that white supremacy is the predominant basis for most of the sin that happens in this world; that, at least 51% of it can be traced back, in some way, to the white race system.
It’s a conjecture. A suspicion.
I believe it to be true, but can’t prove it, yet.
It’s a hypothesis.
My skin is a beautiful shade of chocolate brown.
You’re tripping if you think the import of my statement is “suggesting that skin color is salvific.”
I’m saying that white supremacy is widely and wildly underestimated in its effects on corrupting human behavior.
Some people say this of sex. Some say it of liquor. Some say it of gambling.
I say it of racism.
You’ve asked versions of this question before.
The answer is that there is a race system that white people dominate. It is the most effective system of domination yet conceived.
To keep it this way, it is important that white people be able to tell which people are white, and which are not. Otherwise, racism would decohere and collapse.
As a result of this, there is no such thing as a “partly Black” person. Any person who is generally deemed “partly Black” is typically classified, under white supremacy, as non-white.
In a similar way, while I have white ancestry, and many Black people do, “having white ancestry” is not the definition of being white. Whiteness is defined negatively; i.e., “not Black.”
Tell me if I’ve answered your question and, if not, what question you now possess.
What are “rabid identity politics”? I mean this.
Whenever the subject of race is brought up, I keep hearing white people respond by talking about “identity politics.” However, they never define this term.
It reminds me of how, in 2014, @CervvantesEsq said here, on Spectrum:
The race card is a convenient crutch and is much in evidence in the current Administration a la Holder. Each person must be considered on the basis of his work and its results not on ethnicity. Nor should anyone be given a pass because of ethnicity.
In The Grip of Truth
I asked, “What is ‘the race card’”?
@Jude24 replied, “A trump card meant to confer special privilege or deflect guilt.”
So, I said:
Thanks, Jude 24.
I have a standard maxim: Charges made against victims of race are typically better, more accurately, made against the race system, itself.
It’s operative, here, clearly, because, based on the definition you just gave, the system of white supremacy, itself—which creates the Black responses decried here—is The Ultimate Race Card.
I say this, because racism—the sole functional form of which is white supremacy—confers special privilege and deflects guilt, for those white people who practice it, better than any other method in the known universe. It certainly does this better than any “race card” which non-white people use.
Jude24’s response was humble, even pithy. I’d like to think mine was, also:
I can’t wait for the world to come when we will all coexist in peace, equality, and love. Maranatha.
Thanks, Jude 24.
I think your statement neatly summarizes how Black people feel, while mine, which precedes it, says why.
Since that time, I’ve taken to calling that maxim The Maximum Maxim: Any charge made against one or more non-white persons is typically more accurately made against the system of white supremacy (aka racism).
So, just based on the words you’ve used, per Oxford—
rabid = having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something
identity = the fact of being who or what a person or thing is
politics = the assumptions or principles relating to or inherent in a sphere, theory, or thing, especially when concerned with power and status in a society
—it sounds like you’re talking about white supremacy.
To my knowledge, there’s no more rabid a system of identity politics yet built. Racism is more rabid than anything I’d muster on my best day. If you doubt me, just look at Brazil’s skin color code.
It’s like I always told my female friends who wanted to marry a rich guy: The best way to get a millionaire is to be one.
With your facile questions about blood drops, what you write, to me, sounds like “banal skin-deep superficiality being fomented by rabid identity politics.” Maybe the reason that you haven’t been able to get beyond it, with anyone in your faith community, is that you haven’t got beyond it, yourself.
In my experience, Black conversations of which white people approve, especially “deeper” ones, are typically those which do not assess racism/white supremacy as the dominant, provocative issue.
In other words, these conversations are usually ones that are conducted by espousing the techno-babble of economic theory, or the question of whether the state vs. private interests should have sway, or IRL nuances of hard sci-fi. Someone smokes a nice cigar. Someone else brings a bottle of port. There’s cool music, and tasty finger foods.
Often, the non-white people who have these conversations also have white sexual “partners.” This tends to make truthful conversations about racism more difficult for those non-white people, as well. That’s because non-white people, so engaged, will tend to meter their conclusions in terms of the comfort of those with whom they are having sexual relations.
In my opinion, you don’t have a right to the deeper conversations you seek, because you’re not going deep, yourself, if the topics you raise and how you conduct them are any example.
The minute your friends, colleagues, peers, and acquaintances (who happen to be more Black than you) get a more resilient, cogent race analysis than they currently possess, my guess is that you are going to need new friends.
“Racism with racism.” You don’t even have the basic concepts correct, yet you seek “a deeper conversation.” You’ve not earned it.
Thank you. I’ll accept any prayer, on my behalf, that you offer, for any reason, whatsoever.
My prayer is that the non-white people of the world—especially in the Christian church—will begin to honor both their white brothers and sisters and themselves by having pointed conversations about racism (white supremacy), and the burden that, by it, white people have created for the majority of the human species.
However: I hope these non-white people will do this only after they, themselves, have become more clear about this matter themselves, and that they make it their business to do so.
One of my mentors says, of non-white people, “If you don’t understand white supremacy—what it is, and how it works—everything else that you try to understand will only confuse you.”
I want non-white people to have those conversations with white people after they grok that.
A great God.
If you properly could read my point, you might discover I did not say that at all.
I did say, and mean “with anyone in this corner of my faith community”.
I have my own surmisings why that might be true.
In some places people seek ways to walk together.
In other places they seek to divide, exclude, cancel, burn, shut down, dismiss, denigrate.
The way you walk is clear.
I invite you to differ with me, although i may not agree with your opinion.
Likewise if you disrespect and disabuse my right to differing opinion
through attempted impugning via hate, shame, guilt, or feigned victimhood
or other some such manipulations, constructs and machinations,
you have shown yourself failing intellectually honest intercourse.
Your thoughtful approach to a subject, being able to take arguments apart piece by piece, exposing many of ‘white privilege’ misconceptions and ideas. Although it seems your background is different from mine, I have to agree with your thoughts/posting.
@Timo, you’re correct: You said “this corner of my faith community.” I did not quote you correctly.
I recalled what I thought was the import of your statement—and kinda still do—and wrote that. I should have checked, then copied-and-pasted it.
I apologize for the error.
What I meant to say was:
With your facile questions about blood drops, what you write, to me, sounds like “banal skin-deep superficiality being fomented by rabid identity politics.” Maybe the reason that you haven’t been able to get beyond it, with anyone in this corner of your faith community, is that you haven’t got beyond it, yourself.
Maybe. Again, you’ve lead with allusion, and not a direct statement.
So, I don’t know which walkway, you’re saying, is clearly mine, though my guess is that you’re implying it’s the latter.
If so, instead of asking you to provide examples of where, exactly, I “divide, exclude, cancel, burn, shut down, dismiss, denigrate,” I’ll just quote one of my favorite writers, the prophet Amos; the third verse of his third chapter:
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
People who walk together must, first, be agreed. That’s what the Bible says.
The Bible doesn’t say, “Can two be agreed, except they walk together?” The agreement comes first.
So, the way I walk is clear, much as you say. The way I walk is with those who agree, for example, that racism has a sole functional form: White supremacy.
People who don’t agree with that—who think that that is the most offensive, outrageous, Satanic thing anyone has ever said—will not walk with me, per Amos. Our paths may not even cross. I’m not compelled to agree with them, just so I can walk with them, however.
In other words, there are people who believe that “Black people can be just as racist as white people.” They believe this to be true, and would bet their dead mother’s cherry pie recipe on it.
I think that that statement is easily falsified, because, not only do I believe racism is white supremacy, but that belief is surrounded by a logic system, which I possess, as well.
So, when people say such things, I respond in a way that falsifies it, much as I’ve done, repeatedly, here, on Spectrum.
For example, I’ll say that, if racism wasn’t white supremacy, what would happen, sometimes, is that white people would raise racism, as a topic of discussion, at inconvenient times, and Black people would go mute, staring into their coffees in silence.
White people would loudly describe historical atrocities, slights, and indignities they’d suffered at the hands of Black people, and Black people would, after much of this, quietly say, “I feel your pain,” or, “I feel guilty for what my ancestors did to yours.”
A Black woman would stand up, confess the racism in her heart, begin loudly weeping, and the whole meeting would come to a halt, as white people rushed to hug her.
Now, neither you, @Timo; nor any of the white people who write about racism, here, on Spectrum — @ajshep, @Arkdrey, @GeorgeTichy, @Sirje, etc.; nor those who don’t, but say, “Black people can be just as racist as white people”; nor your your friends, colleagues, peers, and acquaintances (who happen to be more Black than you) have never seen any of this happen, in any of your entire lives.
But if racism were something anyone could practice, what I’ve just described would happen just as often as the opposite; i.e., as often as what actually does happen.
Black and white people, talking about racism at church potlucks, would be as uncontroversial and un-fraught with tension as talking about taxes or the weather, because everyone would be dealing with the pressures of racism.
Put another way: If Black people could be as racist as white people, they would be.
Thank you for your kind words, @Jaray.
I look forward to reading what you write.
Here, rather than trying to walk together
and there it ends.
Curious, didn’t get anywhere.
@Timo: Remember how, when Jesus confronted the Pharisees, He always got the last word, and they always went away angry?
You, and they, need better arguments.
You got the last word, Harry. Well done, just like that other fella.
Just don’t project hate-or racism on me.
@Timo: Why would I project anything on you, when I have your testimony?
We can “what if” our way into all kinds of questions and situations but after everything is said and done, will there be more done than said?
Truth is, talk without action rarely accomplishes anything worthwhile. USA congress for example.
Actually, I could care less if Jesus was any certain color or ethnicity. What He did, what He accomplished for all, is what matters to me.
As an aside, the phrase should be, “What if Jesus were Black?” Subjunctive, you know,
But Jesus was not black, or asian, or aborigine. He came as a Jew into the Roman Empire where Jews were looked down upon, but were also admired for their virtuous lives. The Hebrew scriptures revealed true godliness, something the pagan writers did not so clearly reveal. And some Jews lived it.
But, why did Jesus come as a Jew and not some other race? He did it for a reason.
Although the Jews were looked down upon, they were part of the Roman Empire, and had a long and eventful history. And they had access to the Empire. It was a platform on which the gospel could be taken to the whole Roman world and then to the whole world.
It was a shrewd choice.
To have come as a black in Africa would not have allowed for such a happening. Black Africa was a real backwater at the time, and the gospel would have died unknown. God chose a jewish body for his Son, for the good of the whole world.
I might add that Jews of that era were short and dark skinned. Brown, you might say, so He did share some characteristics of the black race.
I will not get into this conversation, Harry, for they go nowhere. But a black lady told me of a recent women’s meeting she attended where several white women confessed their racism. She did not run to embrace them, but thought they were being silly, for they had not done anything.
But I would hug you if you confessed your racism, I would. At least figuratively, as we are on line. ‘hug’ ‘hug’…
Jesus came as a Jew because that was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, “Through you and your seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” This was the gospel going to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles.” This was the fulfillment and climax of the scriptural story of Israel.
That Israel was at a geographic crossroads of the Roman Empire was an additional facet of the equation, so to speak.
What do you mean by, “They go nowhere,” Allen?
In other words, where, are you saying, should they “go”?
a) Then, why were they confessing?
b) Why was she telling you this?
c) What you’ve said, here, supports my point. In other words, though you’ve lived a long life, you haven’t had any white ladies come to you and tell you about the women’s meeting they attended where several Black women confessed their racism.
I wouldn’t hug you, if you confessed your racism, any more than I would hug you if you confessed to any other crime.
However, I would appreciate it, and after your confession, I might thank you for it, or, at least, speak highly of your act.
As for me, I can’t confess to racism, because racism is white supremacy; white supremacy is the only functional form of racism. That’s the point of the illustration, above; the one that we are currently discussing.
Like I said, I an not getting into this conversation. You think only whites can be racist. That is not true. But I will not answer a rejoinder.
Good point, and I agree.
BINGO. Correct. Absolutely correct.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
Not only is it true. It’s logically unavoidable.
In fact, that’s the reason you’re “not getting into this conversation”: Up until, and including, this moment, any counter-argument you’ve raised against mine has been soundly defeated.
When this happens in SDA colporteur narratives, usually, the failed debater gets on his knees and asks God what to do. Shortly thereafter, he’s taking Bible studies, and more quickly than that, he’s a deacon.
Sadly, at least in this area, white people tend neither to be so spiritual, nor so humble.
I think we both know why.
I suspect Black Jesus would not be espousing a black superiority,
claiming people that look like Him are immune to The Chief Sin,
and people who don’t look like him and harry can just go, well, anywhere but here.
Well, but we must assure that there is a historical axle : Egypt, Palestine, Rome (and the borders of the Roman Empire : Please compare with maps showing the prevalence of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Anglicanism)- They preserved our writing, our grammar, our speech, our thinking - - -)
And the seafaring nations in this area developed the technology and sent out the boats wwith their explorers - and missionaries.
Their selfesteem in supremacy we have to overcome ! - -And in the SDA community also the assumption of US supremacy in the hymnal, the dresscode, the patterns of thinking, the principles of US right and law and proceeding guidelines in the Church Manual, the exegesis in fundamentalistic approach to ancient times texts - -
Humbly we shouls accept that a Jew - just for instance - is far more competent for explaining OT texts than we - and our theologians - - - - - (well, not the renegate Cliff !)
Humbly we should accept a lot from mankind here and there, we in the trdaition of Rome or Cluny, of Koenigsberg and St. Paul/Lavanttal, in - dare I to say it ? - the New England states - - - -