I didnt write that second block quote you have me saying…that was someone else…you need to correct it Harry.
If I engage in an activity or rhetoric that places my skin colour or culture above another, then I have a supremacist attitude…black white or brindle, I feel your attitude is racist brother towards my skin colour.
I have current evidence of racism towards whites in our church but current evidence for racism towards blacks is either anecdotal or based on personal disgruntlement from college students. I would like to see hard evidence of the racism please.
I would say that is how it works bro. I have been told this by moderators…the more dislikes the more likely it will be removed. It seems that some cant handle the truth.
Thank you, Jeremy. I guess this is close enough. I wonder how the material you’ve cited would be interpreted by those who insist that a “straightforward reading of scripture” (and, by extension, EGW) should always be applied–without due consideration of culture.
In response, to you, @Timo, and to @blc and @Danny, too, since they liked your post:
There’s no such thing as “Black Supremacy” because there is such a thing as White Supremacy.
You can only have one “Supreme” at a time. At the Olympics, you can’t give a gold to the USA…then give one to the French, too, especially if the USA got their gold by decimating the French. You can’t have two “Number 1”'s at the same time.
You said:
In response:
Why?
You said:
In response:
Women, in many places, all the time, do things with each other as a response to male domination.
Have you noticed this? It happens all the time.
You said:
In response:
I’m not sure. This is your thought experiment. You would have to say why you are proposing it.
Because this is your thought experiment, you would have to tell me what it has to do with what I’ve written.
there’s pitfalls on both sides…no-one can realistically claim to be reading inspiration apart from culture…egw herself often comments on culture in the bible, and how that affects the understanding of a story…
I’ve removed your name, as you’ve requested, and so that there is no confusion as to whether I wrote the statement—which I did—and the response to it—which I did.
You said:
In response:
I am not discussing a “supremacist attitude.” A person may have any “attitude” they desire, or that they can manifest.
For example, I may have the “attitude” that I am the King of Siam, or that I am a porpoise. Neither attitude makes me either one. Once I have the attitude, I then have to take actions to make who I am, attitudinally, into something that actually exists.
Only the white supremacists have done this in all relations between people. Only the white supremacists have said, “I have a ‘white’ attitude. I have an attitude that being ‘white’ is the best thing that people can be, anywhere in the known universe. I have an attitude that, anywhere people are, they will make decisions, but only ‘white’ people will get the last word on those decisions. I have an attitude that ‘white’ people are the most attractive, the smartest, the most capable, the richest, the most powerful…the best of everything.”
Only the white supremacists have possessed these “attitudes,” and, through dedicated thought, speech, and action—deceit, secrecy, and violence—not only made them real, but made many non-white people have these attitudes, also. Hence:
You said:
In response:
See above.
I can’t have a “racist attitude” toward your skin color. Racism is white supremacy. It’s the only functional form of racism.
I am non-white. I can’t be a white supremacist if I am non-white.
You said:
In response:
As hard evidence of racism, I would offer Exhibit “A”: The History of Australia, from the Arrival of Captain James Cook on April 28, 1770, until the Present Moment, with a Specific Focus on the Landing of the First Convict Ships, January 1788.
“Racism, NOUN
1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior” - Oxford.
I didnt see anything in there about whites only…or are you re-inventing the definition?..thanks for clearing up your mistake…
I can’t have a “racist attitude” toward your skin color. Racism is white supremacy. It’s the only functional form of racism.
I am non-white. I can’t be a white supremacist if I am non-white.
You said:
In response:
Danny, I believe you.
You said:
In response:
Yes: I am “reinventing” this common definition by giving the true one.
I’m a non-white person. My experience with racism is, for me, tactile, lifelong, and definitive. So, when it comes to saying what it is, I give more credence to the nuances of my own experience than I do something probably tossed off by a white Cambridge intern.
Your definition appears to purport that any person can become “a racist,” just by holding a given belief.
That didn’t work for the original inhabitants of “Terra Nullis,” because, when the white people stepped on the beaches, they came with far harsher weapons and a nasty unwillingness to play fair. The same should be coupled to any cogent definition of race, as it is usually a fundamental part of its mathematics.
Here’s a better, truer definition of racism (aka race), that I highly suggest non-white people use:
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.
Nice edit, Harry, but notwithstanding, it is apparent here that you personally believe that
a) you have the Only
2)special right to redefine
iii)what can only be a white on black
FORE!) and forever unforgivable crime
I’ll not begrudge your mulligan, but I will retire my clubs.
This quicksandtrap attitude exhibited assures fair play is a fairy tale.
In closing I’ll quote your final lines (edit to clarify, these are the final lines of your earlier comment upon which I responded):
HA WRITES
"for my statement being racist, well, no: It’s promoting counter-racism.
I am a victim of racism (white supremacy). So, I would not promote racism; that which victimizes me.
I’m against white supremacy and want to see it replaced with justice. Hence my statement."
Please clarify how it is that "counter-racism"
which requires your redefinition of “racism” as ONLY WHITE SUPREMACY
is in any form “Justice”?
Additionally, please elaborate what exactly is the “Justice” you desire?
Well, I believe that white supremacy is real. If it’s real, then certain facts are also true. Some of these I’ve named in correspondence with you and others.
E.g.
• Racism is white supremacy.
• There is no “Black Supremacy.”
• All non-white people are victims of white supremacy.
• White supremacy is a global system.
• Racism dominates all areas of people activity; Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and/or War.
• As long as white supremacy exists, no non-white person can make any decision on anything that cannot be overruled by one or more white people.
• The chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the chief tool of deceit are words.
Etc.
Now, yes, these are crimes, or, at least, states that are the composites of crimes.
Are they forgivable?
Typically, for an act to be forgivable, the perpetrator must show remorse and make amends to his victims.
You said:
In response:
Not big on golf, or its associated metaphors.
Also, while we’re here:
I’ve had a rather traditional SDA upbringing. So, in movies, whenever they have scenes with people playing cards, and show close-ups of the players varied hands, the narrative thread completely drops out for me, because I’ve never learned, or played, any kinds of card games!
I never know what’s going on, and have to read the scene by the actors’ words and expressions. YIKES!
You said:
In response:
Most amateurs blame the course, as opposed to adapting. That’s one way certain greens retain their legendary statuses.
In like manner, I’ve found that, given the way I talk about race, what most white people do is duck the conversation, once they see it’s not going to go a certain way.
You said:
In response:
It’s justice in that, first, it restores the truth and gives it prominence.
Q: In the “Justice System,” what is the first thing that a person, who is going to speak, is asked?
A: “Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
So, the idea is that, in order for justice to be restored, truth must first be revealed.
An associated order of business, I think, in any discussion about race is to define one’s terms. That’s why I start out as I do: Racism is white supremacy. White supremacy is the only racism that functions. It’s the only kind with any “heft”; the only kind that “stops traffic.”
Most people talk about racism as though anyone can be a racist. But this is clearly not the case. A form of racism that Black people and white people could both practice would quickly become incoherent, and decohere. It would become “gray.”
Or, think of it this way:
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.” A Black woman would stand up, confess the racism in her heart, start crying, and the whole meeting would come to a halt, as white people rushed to hug her.
You’ve never seen this happen. But if racism were something anyone could practice, what I’ve described would happen as often as what actually happens does. Talking about racism at church potlucks would be as uncontroversial as talking about rising taxes, because everyone would face it.
You said:
In response:
Balance between people.
This would mean:
a) No one is mistreated, and
b) The people, who need help the most, get the most help.
Harry, you seriously claim you have never heard of “one drop”? Be real, man.
I am seriously skeptical-unless this is your “out” out of the conversation.
If you’re asking me have I ever heard of the racial “one drop rule,” the answer is YES.
This is a different question, however, than, “Harry, how much blood does one need in order to identify as Black?”
Your first question pertains to an individual’s own psychology. Activist Rachel Dolezal “identifies as Black,” and reportedly has zero drops of “Black blood.” Meanwhile, tennis player Madison Keys, presumably, has many such drops. However, she says, “I don’t really identify myself as white or African-American. I’m just me. I’m Madison.”
So, again, I don’t know how much blood one needs in order to identify as Black, even if one notes that this term, “drop,” is a metaphor for ancestry.
You said:
In response:
Real is all I ever am.
You said:
In response:
My ''out" would be to say words to the effect of, “I’m finished talking to you,” or “I don’t have anything more to say about this subject.”
In fact, I rarely do this. Indeed, I can’t think of ever having done so. What usually happens is that the white people, with whom I’m corresponding, stop speaking.
In other words, what I’d hope would be clear, by my responses to @Danny, @blc, @ajshep, you, and others is that my responses are structured and thoroughly considered. Few would say that my answers are “off the cuff,” even if they disagree with them, which, apparently, many do…though they typically do not say why.
This conversation should have ended ages ago…when you re-invent standard definitions and put your own spin on it by your own admission…thats a discussion ender.
Harry does have an odd logic-wonders why “white” people just stop talking to him.
An odd spin, and rather a distasteful one, on the definition of racism. Apparently intentional, to chase away all those racist white people. When they leave, he then affirms he was right and they were racist.
I desired to try “stop the spin”, see if he might listen a little. Apparently Harry would rather keep spinning, pushing away us bad white people, but he seems to desire no real dialog. One wonders if the conversation can ever coalesce.
I’m going to start identifying as black, (i’ve done the DNA, we are all one race), so I can be like Harry, and settle once and for all it is not possible for me to be racist.
If all it takes is “one drop” to be black, what then of the white blood in his veins?
Perhaps black blood is better, stronger, than white?
I am wondering about those white people that voted for Obama and then for Trump. They are the ones that put Trump over the top, you know. Many voted for Obama twice.
So, were they racists when they voted for Obama those 2 times or did they only become so when they voted for Trump. I am just confused on this.
And I am also wondering if I am supporting White Supremacy when I buy products produced or invented by white people, like cars and light bulbs and iPads etc.? Or if I buy stock on the NYSE, an institution invented by white folk, or vote here in America, seeing the Constitution was written by white people, and at the time excluded all black folk?
You mentioned that some of the worst racists were Missionary types that went to Africa to subjugate the races there. You seemed to suggest that I might be among that group, you know, serving in Africa for 8 years at a fraction of what MD’s made in the US (not like Rhodes, of Rhodes Scholar fame, who did make is money in Africa). Or is it that anyone going there is only taking advantage of black folk, and thus a rabid racist?
It’s not clear if you mean that the ideas I express about racism are odd, and, thus, I wonder why white people stop talking to me, or if you mean that I’m wondering why white people stop talking to me, and this, itself, expresses odd logic.
However, I don’t wonder why white people stop talking to me.
You said:
In response:
It’s just my opinion. I do believe that that definition is true, in other words, based on the evidence, some of which I’ve offered; e.g., my example about how white and non-white people talk about racism in each other’s company.
But this is a discussion forum. Your perfectly free to say, “That definition is incorrect, and here’s why….”
I assure you, what I would do, were you to do this, is either agree with you, or say, “That’s not correct, and here’s why.”
Because this is a discussion forum, what I wouldn’t do is claim victory by posting about you in the third person. That just seems a little timid.
You said:
In response:
Doing this is not a concern of mine, as I’ve stated. It’s just an observation of what happens.
Also, another observation: Usually, after I say what a correct definition of racism is, white people start calling themselves racists. It almost never fails.
I don’t do it. I’ve written thousands of words in these forums, and, were one to look, not once would they find me saying that any white person is a racist. They do this, themselves, to themselves.
