We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community. Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the White Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts: 1. Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the White Community 3. Commitment to the White Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System. The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision: 1. A congregation committed to ADORATION. 2. A congregation preaching SALVATION. 3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION. 4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA. 5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION. 6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION. 7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. 8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION. 9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION. 10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY. Some excerpts from the "White Value System" via the Trinity Church’s website (pdf): WHITE VALUE SYSTEM Statement of Purpose We honor Dr. Manford Byrd, our brother in Christ, because of the exemplary manner in which he has thrice withstood the ravage of being denied his earned ascension to the number one position in the Chicago School System… The White Value System These White Ethics must be taught and exampled in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect the following concepts: Commitment of God “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activist, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind… Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons, if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self discipline coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of White Progress, and a model for White Youth.
If it's not the same, why not?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's not totally one to one. Missed a couple spots, but you get the idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If, historically, black people and white people had the same cultural experience, it would be equivalent.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Other than repeatedly&openly emphasizing that WhiteMembers must allow themselves to be ripped off by the Leaders of the WhiteCommnity, even to the extent that it means sacrificing their WhiteSelves and their WhiteFamilies, sounds like the constant "We can't win if we hafta compete with our inferiors." whinging ya hear in the debates forming the Republican local&national platforms, including "We WhitePeople hadda workour way out of slavery&discrimination..."
[ February 12, 2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Yuck.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful. Admittedly, kmbboots explanation is more ambiguous and tactful. _____
I agree with the bit about middleclassness from the web site. Truthfully, this campaign is going to be a real pain in the ass for white America, not so much because of Obama, but because his run is going to give cover for other black people to say what think. Nurses and cleaning people are going to start mouthing off to doctors and executives. Law suits will be filed. White people in authority are going to start mouthing off in retaliation, and more suits will be filed. Most importantly, basic foundations of freedom, loyalty, family are going to be looked at in hard detail because those three qualities are not necessarily consistent with color-blind life in a plural democracy. One hopes that all sides will be benefit from the discussion, but who knows.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it's distasteful when one racial group does it, it's distasteful when another racial group does it.
Unless, of course, one buys into certain premises.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful.
Hooray for unabashed racism!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, heck, Rakeesh. Could you be a little more ambiguous?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nurses and cleaning people are going to start mouthing off to doctors and executives.
Out of interest, Irami, which ones are you assuming are black?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful.
We just want to give hugs.
((((Irami))))
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tells ya somethin' when a single Party could come to dominate the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the SupremeCourt simultaneously by campaigning on such rhetoric.
[ February 12, 2007, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If, for example, someone bought into a premise that one race really was x,y,z negative or positive characteristics, then what is distasteful for one group to claim is not necessarily so for another group to claim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful. Admittedly, kmbboots explanation is more ambiguous and tactful. _____
I don't think you and I are in agreement. I'm not sure if you are trying to say that we are.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You could even make the claim that people are basically the same, and if it works for one group, it can work for another.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kmbboots, you are right. I agree with your statement, but I doubt you'd agree with my sentiment.
Different cultural experiences are a huge deal. It's not just food, but how we regard basic institutions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have a problem with any church that puts an emphasis on the White Family or the Black Family or the Asian Family-- instead of on the Family.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:sounds like the constant "We can't win if we hafta compete with our inferiors." whinging ya hear in the debates forming the Republican local&national platforms
Oh, geez, are you spouting this drivel again.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
KQ,
I think your problems are just beginning. Where does family stop? Cousins? Some friends are close as family. Some churches are as close as family.
At bottom, we are talking about privileged associations, where we stop treating people as equal and start treating some people better than others, and since we live in a free society, with the ability to make choices based on criteria of our own devising, this freedom stands in opposition to our sense of equality and opens an extraordinary number of thorny issues.
[ February 12, 2007, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Are you talking to me?
I have a problem with it because I don't see people as colors or races, we have several so-called "mixed race" marriages in my family (as defined by "people who are related to me by blood or marriage"), more in my "ward family" (people in my congregation at church), and I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, for better or worse, I have a strong suspicion that this is going to, if not kill, then really hurt Obama's presidential run.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
.
An interesting blog, Storm.
*
This, quoted from the church's site
quote:Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
struck me as odd, because if I remember correctly the phrase "Talented Tenth" comes directly from a paper by W. E. B. Du Bois.
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: .
An interesting website, Storm.
*
This, quoted from the church's site
quote:Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
struck me as odd, because if I remember correctly the phrase "Talented Tenth" comes directly from a paper by W. E. B. Du Bois.
--j_k
What did you find odd about that comment?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing.
I don't know if you can have both ways in theory, much less so in practice.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
BlackBlade,
The phrase "talented tenth" refers to Du Bois' claim that the most academically talented 10% of a given population can lift it out of poverty; specifically, he was referring to the black population near the turn of the last century. Very often black communities work hard to identify and encourage top 10% of students.
So when the church claims that "captors" are identify the 10% in order to subjugate and/or destroy them, it sounds strange to me. In short, these are generally not the same kids described in the next sentences as killing one another and filling the prisons.
--j_k, who edited for clarity and such
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Is it equivalent to what? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He's comparing the link to his pasted version of it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
When a minority culture does this, it implies taking pride in their heritage and standing united against possible detractors or assimilating influences that could harm what they find valuable about their communal identity.
When a majority culture does this, it is hard to assign the same meaning to it, because ... well, what detractors can be taken seriously? What assimilating influences could there be? What abotu their communal identity could be threatened? Taking a stance like this in the absence of a credible degree of resistance makes it seem needlessly aggressive.
Statements means different things coming out of different mouths in different contexts. It's an inescapable feature of language.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It seems to me that if a particular self-identified group feels that their group requires particular features of community, particular forms of support, particular focus on values or qualities that are necessary to raise their own quality of life, that in and of itself should not be described as racism. Indeed, it could as easily be seen as self-deprecation in as much as there is an implicit presumption of particular failings or weaknesses within the self-identified group that require address.
If some of this church's assumptions are somewhat contraversial, particularly those that imply an outside victimization of the black community, I suspect they remain arguable from the point of view of those within that church and are certainly no more contraversial than political issues I've seen addressed from other pulpits.
To my mind, racism in such a community wouldn't be recognized from how they addressed themselves, but how they addressed those outside that community. To want to help someone with whom you identify is one matter; to refuse to help someone with whom you do not identify is another. Without more particulars on how this church deals with groups outside itself, I wouldn't be willing to define their standards as objectionable.
I remember many years ago having an argument with my sister who said, on hearing of some sort of locally held men's symposium, something sneering about a dominant culture meeting to discuss issues. I objected that there were real issues that were of particular interest to men, real difficulties and hardships that were particular to men, and while it didn't make those difficulties and hardships particular to women any less real or worthy of address, that hardly warranted a dismissal of the worth of such a symposium.
However, if 80% of the population (the 2005 census estimate of the "white" population of the United States) congregated because they felt there were problems specific to them that could not easily be addressed, it would raise a real question as to why in the face of such an overwhelming majority those problems were not being addressed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: When a minority culture does this, it implies taking pride in their heritage and standing united against possible detractors or assimilating influences that could harm what they find valuable about their communal identity.
This assumes there is a majority culture, or a clearly definable majority culture. As a Mormon, it would seem like you should know better than to assume that just because someone is, in this case, white, they belong to some kind of 'Majority Culture'.
I would also question why racism practiced by 'minority culture' doesn't have the same baggage that racism practiced by 'majority culture' doesn't. You and Boots seem to want to argue that racism somehow magically changes into something positive when practiced by black people, but I think at the very least this ignores many aspects of racism on both a social and individual level. For instance, if someone from Wright's church assumes that just because someone is Wright that they are part of the culture that keeps black people down, is elitist, whatever, I would say that this kind of racism is just as bad as majority culture racism.
quote: When a majority culture does this, it is hard to assign the same meaning to it, because ... well, what detractors can be taken seriously? What assimilating influences could there be? What abotu their communal identity could be threatened? Taking a stance like this in the absence of a credible degree of resistance makes it seem needlessly aggressive.
Let's assume for a second, though, that there is such a thing as a 'majority culture'. You say that the detractors to their communal identity can't be threatened. Again, as a Mormon, I would guess you worry to some degree about the 'corrosive' influences of liberal media on people. So, doesn't this indicate that majority culture can be corroded?
As a point in case in which 'minority' culture can screw up 'majority culture', at just one example amongst many of 'assimilating influences', look at the whole dumb gang culture that has permeated many white communities such that many white kids look on schools and white culture as corrupt and weak and black culture as strong and, as such, emulate the worst aspects of 'black' gang culture.
Further, why does the fact of being a minority culture mean that the majority culture can't benefit from at least some of the same things they do? Why not, say, white pride, if it makes people feel good about being white?
Please understand, I am not arguing for white pride, but to say that anything like the equivalent of Wright's church exists anywhere in mainstream white community is, to me, wrong. To say that there is such a thing as a clearly identifiable thing as a 'majority culture', aka 'white people' is, to me, simplistic to the point of absurdity and ignores the simple fact that cultures blend and that skin color doesn't signify culture.
quote: Statements means different things coming out of different mouths in different contexts. It's an inescapable feature of language.
Yep, but that doesn't mean a context exists just because of skin color.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Storm- I'm guessing it's because Puppy is from a frequently discriminated against minority that he can see the difference and you can't.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O, my god. Just stop.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's not that within "white culture" there is broad consistency, but that between these two cultures (black and white), historically there has been a consistency (real or imagined I'm sure is argued) in the way relations have occurred.
Is it arguable? Sure, but that is a widespread perception, and not one without any evidence, I think.
-Bok
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: O, my god. Just stop.
Excuse me? This is the second time in less then a month you've been very rude to me. There are plenty of ways to say you disagree with me without being rude, I would request that in the future you use one of them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry for being rude, but ignoring whether or not Puppy is a member of a discriminated minority, etc, you're just making my point. There is no such thing as majority culture. edit: or at least very unclear what it is.
[ February 13, 2007, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
My point was that it's much easier to see and acknowledge discrimination against other groups when your own group is discriminated against.
I don't think there is a white culture, exactly, but I agree with Bokonon's assessment above.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Let's take an ethnic group that faced some pretty awful discrimination: ethnic Hutus in Rwanda in the 1970's. Being executed for being Hutu surely counts as being discriminated against, right?
20 years later, a lot of Hutus were committed to Hutu community, Hutu families, Hutu values. They were so committed, in fact, that they went out with machetes to chop to bits the children of those who'd discriminated against them in the past, to make sure Rwanda was for Hutus. This was the Rwanda genocide of the 1990's that killed 800,000 people.
Did they only go wrong when they got out the machetes? No. They went wrong when they became bigots. Having been victims of discrimination doesn't justify what they did -- although that's always the way of it when someone wants to commit an atrocity. The Germans told themselves they were only defending themselves from an evil Jewish cabal that controlled Moscow and Washington and New York and was determined to destroy Germany. White Americans said they were just slaughtering Indians because of Indian raids. There's always a justification, based on claiming to be harmed by the people you want to do bad things to.
I don't know if the church's statement is racist. But if it's not, it isn't because it doesn't count as racism as long as you can claim victim status.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If I'm getting Bok's point, he's saying that there has been a consistency to the way that white and black people approach each other. I'm not clear on how this bears on the thread.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Look, let's not lose sight of the fact that ol' Obama comes from privilege and probably will make more money in his life than all of us on this board put together. Let's not lose sight of the fact that he's being touted as a presidential hopeful and has legions of white fans.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does it matter?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One comment:
quote: the cradle of civilization.
Europe?
Huh?
The only civilization that Europe was the cradle for is, in fact, European Civilization.
It had little to do with, say, Chinese Civilization, Islamic Civilization, or Aztec Civilization--until it showed up with guns and began destroying those civilizations.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
They just needed a hug, really.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Does it matter?
I would say that it speaks to the assumptions that people make about what it means to be black or white, about what a 'majority culture' means.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think one thing being lost is that it's possible to answer the original question ("Is this equivalent?") "No" and still think that the church's statement is harmful, wrong, bigoted, etc.
I think they're not equivalent, if only because the characteristic being changed was at one time the basis for denying only one group basic civil rights. That may or may not be a significant enough difference to change one's moral evaluation of the content.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Is this equivalent? No, not in any way.
This white church you made up would never be acceptable, and it is in no way equal to the black church.
White people DO NOT NEED to be strengthened. They still have huge advantages over black people in many walks of life, even after the fight for civil rights.
If effect, every church that is not specifically a black church IS a white church.
quote: "Mommy, if there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, why isn't there a Kid's Day?"
"Because every other day of the year is Kid's Day."
It's the same principle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: You and Boots seem to want to argue that racism somehow magically changes into something positive when practiced by black people, but I think at the very least this ignores many aspects of racism on both a social and individual level.
No, actually, I don't. And I haven't. You asked if they were they same. I said that they weren't - or more precisely that they would be if the context was the same for both groups. I think that the context is important. Understanding that we are not starting with a blank slate in understanding motivation is important. I think that, taking that into account doesn't make the church's statement a necessarily positive thing, but it does make it not equivalent.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful.
Ok, let's try this my way...
"The difference is that STRAIGHT people are especially ruthless and powerful."
Hey! That DOES feel good! It transfers blame for all my problems to other people! And it's ok because I'm from an opressed minority!
Thanks Irami! I'm gonna hafta remember that I can say anything I want about straights because they're ruthless and powerful.
...
Really though, there is a difference between a black church that focuses on black family and a white church that focuses on white family is, in the past, the white focusers have crossed the line from focusing on white people to taking out their anger on blacks. That's it. Blame the Klan for messing stuff up for everyone.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Storm, I have family members that could be called, quite fairly, bigots.
Now is it their Irish side, the WASP side, or that 1/16th of Spanish in them? Maybe the smidgen of native-american heritage? And do bigots care of their targets are Haitian, Nigerian, or 10-generations american?
The point is, the historical context of relationships between these two cultures were defined by color solely, regardless of the particulars. So you trying to blow up the argument by saying a certain culture doesn't really exist, when taking a more comprehensive, perhaps anthropological, view is missing the point. Geoff and I can see the point quite well, I think. Though neither of us may concede it personally.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, when someone answers 'yes' to the question, "Is this equivalent?" they don't necessarily mean it's totally equivalent down to the finest detail.
They might, like me, simply mean that it's a racist series of statements, just like it would be if a white church did actually say it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, I prefer to make it a point to bring up the point, because it causes people to not automatically assume that you agree with their rationale as for why a given set of situations are equivalent, and therefore implicitly agree with their suggested solutions, or attitudes.
-Bok
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But it could mean that, Kate.
When I have to guess from one sentence what people are saying, errors can occur. It's one reason why I didn't bother responding to you to begin with and why I normally ignore people who just respond with little quips to topics. I should have kept doing it, rather than trying to guess. Pardon. For future reference, that's what's going to happen.
quote: No, actually, I don't. And I haven't. You asked if they were they same. I said that they weren't - or more precisely that they would be if the context was the same for both groups. I think that the context is important. Understanding that we are not starting with a blank slate in understanding motivation is important. I think that, taking that into account doesn't make the church's statement a necessarily positive thing, but it does make it not equivalent.
So, what is the context that you think should be taken into account that makes what Wright said not equivalent? Is it really safe, to go back to a point brought up when speaking of Muslims, to assume that tens of millions of people have the same cultural experience just because they're white or black? What about Chinese? Would a Chinese church be racist like, presumably, a white church would if it said those things? Is it only a white church that we can say would be racist if it said those things, and bad? What about all the other things that I wrote in the post from which you quote?
What's your argument? What facts do you have to support it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When I have to guess from one sentence what people are saying, errors can occur. It's one reason why I didn't bother responding to you to begin with and why I normally ignore people who just respond with little quips to topics. I should have kept doing it, rather than trying to guess. Pardon. For future reference, that's what's going to happen.
Perhaps you ought to make your questions a little more than a little quip, then.
You leaped from "they're not equivalent" to "the black version is something positive." At best, anyone answering your first post would have to guess that you would do that.
And, seriously, where do you get off making a comment like that when you said, "O, my god. Just stop" in this very thread?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I read that as "the black version OF something positive"
That'd be a cool webcomic to read.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm sorry, Bok, my post came off snarkier than I intended. I agree with what you're saying, and I think the point of dispute when you view the question concerning how the two races have related becomes smaller than just viewing one or the other out of context.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The point is, the historical context of relationships between these two cultures were defined by color solely, regardless of the particulars.
Not always, and not always negatively, and it doesn't necessarily speak to the present. Is the son automatically a copy of the father? His grandfather? His great-grandfather?
quote: So you trying to blow up the argument by saying a certain culture doesn't really exist, when taking a more comprehensive, perhaps anthropological, view is missing the point. Geoff and I can see the point quite well, I think. Though neither of us may concede it personally.
I don't see that your argument that just because some people did things one way in the past means that that is the way it exists, or must be, in the present is true.
I don't your argument speaks to what it means to be white, or black, either generally or individually in the present.
I don't think it speaks to the need, or goodness or badness, for white pride or black pride, what it means to be racist.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't have time to respond to you, Dagonee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm all heartbroken, Storm.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No doubt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Forgive me for trying to be concise. The question you asked was concise. I felt I was answering in kind.
In this country black people have been enslaved and discriminated against for centuries. This was imposed on them. Being a discriminated minority has become, sadly, part of the cultural identity for most (perhaps not all) black people in this country.
They have been defined by the majority as "less than" and "other". Celebrating African American or black pride has historically been a way to combat the feelings of inferiority that being defined that way can produce. It is a reaction.
I wish that the circumstance that cause such a reaction never happened; but they did. Ignoring them in a "why aren't we all just the same" kind of way is naive and unproductive. It hinders working toward a world where it truly is unnecessary.
Many white people have also been discriminated against. Not, though, for being white. Generally, touting one's whiteness is understood to mean, "thank God I'm not black!"
This is different from a church that, for example, is proud of its Mexican culture or its Polish culture.
There is a historical and cultural difference in a "Kiss Me I'm Irish" button and a "proud to be White" button. One is celebrating an ethnic heritage; one is celebrating being superior to non-white people. Rather than combatting an imposed sense of inferiority, it is trying to hang on to a sense that others are inferior.
Does this make more sense to you now?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Forgive me for trying to be concise. The question you asked was concise. I felt I was answering in kind.
The question I asked was concise because it could be, because it was, I hope, clear what I was asking. At least, it seems to me that it was.
Answering a simple question often means using more words than the original question. Kind of the nature of the beast, I think.
I'm not just trying to get you and others to respond a little more clearly to be mean. As you experienced with Porter, it's irritating to have someone respond kind of vaguely and not be clear on what they are saying.
For me, it was kind of irritating that it seemed like you were calling me out for trying to interpret your response wrongly. In general, it sometimes seems like people on this forum often do the whole brusque response thing to be passive-aggressive and make people chase after them for answers.
quote: In this country black people have been enslaved and discriminated against for centuries. This was imposed on them. Being a discriminated minority has become, sadly, part of the cultural identity for most (perhaps not all) black people in this country.
They have been defined by the majority as "less than" and "other". Celebrating African American or black pride has historically been a way to combat the feelings of inferiority that being defined that way can produce. It is a reaction.
I wish that the circumstance that cause such a reaction never happened; but they did. Ignoring them in a "why aren't we all just the same" kind of way is naive and unproductive. It hinders working toward a world where it truly is unnecessary.
Many white people have also been discriminated against. Not, though, for being white. Generally, touting one's whiteness is understood to mean, "thank God I'm not black!"
This is different from a church that, for example, is proud of its Mexican culture or its Polish culture.
There is a historical and cultural difference in a "Kiss Me I'm Irish" button and a "proud to be White" button. One is celebrating an ethnic heritage; one is celebrating being superior to non-white people. Rather than combatting an imposed sense of inferiority, it is trying to hang on to a sense that others are inferior.
Does this make more sense to you now?
Yes! Thanks so much for an awesome response!
I can't respond in depth right now, but sincerely, I do appreciate your considered response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why does a 'proud to be White' button have to be celebrating racial superiority, if a 'proud to be Black' button does not?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, I get it (and am obviously sympathetic to your point), but despite boisterous claims of colorblindness (and I've noticed especially those of a conservative bent like to shout this lately, when arguing against things like Affirmative Action) we actually AREN'T at a point yet where we can just say they are equivalent, and be done with it.
I wish we could get there sooner than later though. I also do think there can be a time where it is the case... I can see where from some segments of society that the goalposts appear to keep moving where the nature of fair and equitable race relations are concerned.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, in theory it doesn't; in practice it does. When white people celebrate a cultural heritage it tends to be more specific. Hence the "Proud to be Irish" or "Proud to be Italian". "Proud to be White" would be similar to a "Proud to Not be Italian" if Italians had a history of being considered inferior and less than human.
Storm, I am sorry I got irritated.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I"m very irritating. It's understandable.
Please accept my apologies for being less than polite. I should have phrased things better.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Storm, it isn't a matter of how it was is how it is, and how it must be henceforth. I was taking issue with your argument stating that because there is no "majority culture", when looking at the culture in and of itself, that therefore the other culture is wrong because it can't get inside (historically, and even by and large, currently) the majority culture to see that they are constructing a strawman of sorts.
Because the trust isn't built (and some people will never accept it regardless) and historically it didn't matter, if you were black, whether another person was Irish or Italian or Polish or WASP, the treatment you could expect was the same when dealing with any of them, why should they believe you? That was the way they related to whites, and the nuances and differences weren't relevant to their experiences.
Therefore they created their own culture as a bulwark against the other culture. It's a siege mentality that is ingrained, and will take a while to dilute (though this dilution isn't entirely the majority culture's responsibility). It's only been a couple generations since any semblance of equal treatment existed, lest anyone forget, and I think it only makes sense to expect that it will take time for these habits to lessen generally.
Or maybe to put it another way, is that your whole argument ignores the fact that perception, especially when reinforced out of a sense survival over generations of a society/culture, is often reality for those people that are vested in the situation. It's nice to say that their perception is wrong, but only time and little concrete examples of change will convince most of them.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I"m very irritating. It's understandable.
Please accept my apologies for being less than polite. I should have phrased things better.
My irritation is less at you than at the situation. I, too, wish it were different and I'm frustrated that it isn't. Realizing that I have to acknowledge the roots of the problem in order to help fix it (when it seems that focusing on the problem is part of the problem)does not make me happy. So I reacted badly to what seemed to be a simplistic question.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Since I was raised in a colour-blind environment, I view "proud to be black" and "proud to be white" as both being racist. That doesn't necessarily mean they are equivalent in morality (though they might be, depends on the individual).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If I hear someone yell out "The stars at night!", no matter where I am, or who said it (within reason, of course), I will automatically respond with "are big and bright! Deep in the heart of Texas!" and so will most of the people that I know.
I have the same lack of control over myself if I hear someone, anyone, anywhere, yell out "Say it loud!" I can not not yell back, or at least say to myself, "I'm black and I'm proud!" Does this make me racist? (I'm not black) Should I mentally edit it to "I'm white and I'm proud"?
(This is probably not relevant to the discussion, but the question just popped into my head.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Being a discriminated minority has become, sadly, part of the cultural identity for most (perhaps not all) black people in this country.
For good reason.
Being black in America has made me deeply wary of majority rule and utilitarianism. Majority rule and utilitarianism. Those aren't small little habits America has picked up. Those two principles pervade, in a mighty way, how quite a few white Americans go about thinking about public issues, even if they don't realize it. Those two principles put me on the other side of quite a few institutions, and that barely broaches the complicated and different ways black and white people understand the morality of the legal system.
This world is really something, and I'm not saying that black culture uniformily better than white culture, but yes there is a difference, and that difference is rooted in the fact that all of the great American virtues that made this country successful, were used to forcibly put down black people, so maybe, just maybe those virtues white people have been uttering and acting on from the nations founding aren't as profound as they think they are, so when I see that special brand conservative white person, self-satisfied in their traditions and political priorities, I see a hurtful jackass-- a blissfully unaware bull in the china shop-- and that's tied to race and the history of race in America.
[ February 13, 2007, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Am I the only one who didn't see anything inherently wrong with the hypothetical white church in the original post?
Before anyone immediately flames me for being racist, please note that I am NOT white - I am a native born Sri Lankan, now an American citizen. And I also married a white American woman.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a white organization that aims to support white people. Or a white group that requires members be white. Nor do I think there is anything inherently wrong with the equivalent black organizations. What would be wrong is if they did so at the expense of those outside their own race; for instance white organizations that viewed other races as inferior and encouraged members to treat other races as such, or a black organization that was unwelcoming to a white visitor.
Basically, I think it's perfectly fair for a person or organization to support their own race without being racist. Or to desire same-race fellowship. Or it's also fine to support an arbitrary race even if it's not your own - for instance, I generally prefer the company of white people to members of my own race that I have met in America. What makes it racism is putting down other races. So despite my preference, I do not immediately negatively judge someone because they are Sri Lankan.
Nowhere in the description of these two hypothetical churches did I see any evidence of real racism. To claim that they have those faults is to pass a judgment based on an implied correspondence with what you are familiar with, not with what the church is actually saying about itself.
Now I would make one criticism which is that the churches in question, being a church, seems to have their priorities a bit skewed, in that by the description race issues are as important or more so than their Christian faith. But that's a different issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Since I was raised in a colour-blind environment, I view "proud to be black" and "proud to be white" as both being racist. That doesn't necessarily mean they are equivalent in morality (though they might be, depends on the individual).
And here perhaps because I was raised in a colorblind environment I am of the opinion if Asians want to celebrate their culture or if Africans wish to do the same thing that I should encourage it.
Alot of people's response to, "proud to be white" comments sounds VERY akin to how China reacts when Japanese people express their national pride,
"You prideful Japanese have not apologized enough for your WW2 atrocities!"
I always found it ironic that there are yearly "Asian Games" but if there were yearly "European Games" people would probably complain.
I think all minority groups in the US are married to each other and as such it is perfectly ethical to allow any group to celebrate their culture with others of similar culture as long as mutual respect is shown to those of other races.
The snag is its VERY hard to get people to love others cultures as much as they love their own and thus people become elitist about their own culture and look down on others.
As I said before as long as people of all colors are held in equal esteem, that church can celebrate its blackness as much as they want. I should be welcomed if I visit their church.
If that is the case I am fine with it. The KKK was evil because it sought to harm other people based on religion and ethnicity not because it was proud of its white anglo saxon protestant heritage.
Kirk: Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Avin, I think everyone would generally be happier if races didn't exist at all. It creates differences between people that don't neecessarily have to be differences, and that always leads to trouble.
Even though that church isn't really racist, I feel (in spite of my earlier post) that it's headed in a bad direction. We should be working toward coming together, and in stead this black church is pushing themselves farther away.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing.
I don't know if you can have both ways in theory, much less so in practice.
I don't understand how you can think that. A family is a family.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Avin, I think everyone would generally be happier if races didn't exist at all. It creates differences between people that don't neecessarily have to be differences, and that always leads to trouble.
quote: In this country black people have been enslaved and discriminated against for centuries. This was imposed on them. Being a discriminated minority has become, sadly, part of the cultural identity for most (perhaps not all) black people in this country.
Thank you for pointing out that not all black people in this country are from slavery. This points out the problems with assuming something from skin color.
The question that I would ask is, is it necessary that slavery and prejudice be a part of the cultural identity of black people?
This is a lot of what troubles me about Wright's church. I don't really care about black pride. My problem comes with black pride being intertwined with what seems to me a very negative view of all white people.
For that matter, I think 'white pride' is perfectly fine, as long as you don't hate someone else for not being white.
quote: They have been defined by the majority as "less than" and "other". Celebrating African American or black pride has historically been a way to combat the feelings of inferiority that being defined that way can produce. It is a reaction.
Fine.
quote: I wish that the circumstance that cause such a reaction never happened; but they did. Ignoring them in a "why aren't we all just the same" kind of way is naive and unproductive. It hinders working toward a world where it truly is unnecessary.
I don't agree at all that the circumstances of the distant past necessitate the present, or that people must blindly be slaves to their past. At some point, people should stop and ask themselves if what they are doing is really necessary or healthy. We can create our own realities as individuals. We don't have to be products of the past.
quote:
Many white people have also been discriminated against. Not, though, for being white.
You should talk to Irami some time.
Really, I find this statement very suprising. If you have never been discriminated against because you are white, or seen it to know that it happens, then I don't know what to say.
quote:
Generally, touting one's whiteness is understood to mean, "thank God I'm not black!"
Inasmuch as many white people are ethnic mutts, and constantly defnined by many other ethnicities strictly on the basis of their skin color as being descendants of slave owners, bourgeoisie, privileged, lazy, what have you, I would think that it can have the same meaning as it does for black people, or hispanic people, or whatever.
Of course, I don't think white people should do so, but I understand the attraction when white people get so much hate dumped their way from other cultures. I don't look at it as any different than black pride, personally.
quote:
This is different from a church that, for example, is proud of its Mexican culture or its Polish culture.
See above. I would add that, these days, many people don't see you as Polish, or French, or what have you. Again, look to Irami. He doesn't qualify his statements according to nationality. They see you as white, black, brown....
quote:
There is a historical and cultural difference in a "Kiss Me I'm Irish" button and a "proud to be White" button. One is celebrating an ethnic heritage; one is celebrating being superior to non-white people. Rather than combatting an imposed sense of inferiority, it is trying to hang on to a sense that others are inferior.
I agree that many white people have and do do this with white pride.
I would argue that many black people do this with black pride, too, and that the past doesn't matter or excuse the racism, if in the present you see others not as individuals but as a skin color.
quote: Does this make more sense to you now?
Yes. Thanks so much for your reply.
Bokonon,
quote: Or maybe to put it another way, is that your whole argument ignores the fact that perception, especially when reinforced out of a sense survival over generations of a society/culture, is often reality for those people that are vested in the situation. It's nice to say that their perception is wrong, but only time and little concrete examples of change will convince most of them.
I think I answered your post with my post to Kate. Please let me know if you think I haven't.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you can have both ways in theory, much less so in practice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand how you can think that. A family is a family.
A while ago, Jeb Bush's youngest son was taken in for public drunkeness and resisting arrest. The governor replied by saying"
quote:“My son’s doing fine. It’s a private matter. We will support him. We’re sad for him."
Is that family values? Some people would say yes. I think it's a bit disrespectful to every sober person who doesn't resist arrest. I also think that such a sentiment undermines public trust. What about if the Governor called in a favor to get his son's record expunged? Is that still family values? Even though it's a mark against everyone with a record who does not have access to the judge's ear. Family values in a public sphere where people are supposed to be treated equally is a complicated mess.
If you want special favors for family or friends of family in public or private enterprise, you are undermining the tenet that we live in an equal society. There isn't a simple solution, and I do believe family values slides into corruption depending on your position in the world.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
[quote]If you want special favors for family or friends of family in public or private enterprise, you are undermining the tenet that we live in an equal society. There isn't a simple solution, and I do believe family values slides into corruption depending on your position in the world. [/auote]
Where, exactly, did I say I "want special favors for family or friends of family in public or private enterprise"? I said I'm in favor of CHURCHES focusing on STRENGTHENING THE FAMILY. If I didn't or was somehow unclear, I'm sorry. But that's what I believe in. Spending time with your family, marrying the parent of your children, participating in religious and community activities together and helping eachother become better people. That's what I'm in favor of. Emphasis on the family meaning helping people have stronger families and healthier relationships within them.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)