From 1619 to 2019: 400 years of racial progress?

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? Jesus didn't have any in-group biases?

Does everyone go to heaven when they die or just those that believe in Jesus lord and savior?

This thread is about RACISM and RACISM as it is experienced in this nation alone. Please don't muddy the waters with metaphysical red-herrings, Ana!

 

[Ana the Ist]

This thread is about RACISM and RACISM as it is experienced in this nation alone. Please don't muddy the waters with metaphysical red-herrings, Ana!

Ummmm....

I apologize...you responded to a post about tribalism and in-group biases so I figured those were valid avenues of discussion. Particularly when discussing the messiah of a literal tribe that sees itself as
god's chosen people...and uses derogatory words to describe everyone else like "heathen".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ummmm....

I apologize...you responded to a post about tribalism and in-group biases so I figured those were valid avenues of discussion. Particularly when discussing the messiah of a literal tribe that sees itself as
god's chosen people...and uses derogatory words to describe everyone else like "heathen".

I could essentially say, "Fine, have at it, Ana!" and permit you to continue on for the sake of discussion since you do have an interesting point, but I'm afraid that if I were to do so, it would de-volve the thread into a form of Christian Apologetics, making this a whole other kind of discussion than the essentially social and political one I've attempted to focus upon. Besides, I could have sworn that the article in my OP had something to do with African-Americans being brought as slaves to already inhabited 'New World' shores 400 years ago ... so let's stick with that.

 

[usexpat97]

This thread is about RACISM and RACISM as it is experienced in this nation alone. Please don't muddy the waters with metaphysical red-herrings, Ana!

No matter.

Only those who accept Jesus into their heart as Savior and Lord will enter the Kingdom of God.

If someone wants to discuss the Gospel, then let's discuss the Gospel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No matter.

Only those who accept Jesus into their heart as Savior and Lord will enter the Kingdom of God.

If someone wants to discuss the Gospel, then let's discuss the Gospel.

This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.

 

[usexpat97]

This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.

I understand. But take an analogy from street basketball: you call your own fouls. But just because you are fouled, doesn't mean you have to call it.

If someone wants to discuss the Gospel, maybe it's better to discuss the Gospel than to call a foul.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand. But take an analogy from street basketball: you call your own fouls. But just because you are fouled, doesn't mean you have to call it.

If someone wants to discuss the Gospel, maybe it's better to discuss the Gospel than to call a foul.

I didn't call a foul. I merely quoted the rules for this forum (without citing them). Besides, it's not like @Ana the Ist hasn't heard the Gospel here on CF. I think he has and probably more than once ...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I could essentially say, "Fine, have at it, Ana!" and permit you to continue on for the sake of discussion since you do have an interesting point, but I'm afraid that if I were to do so, it would de-volve the thread into a form of Christian Apologetics, making this a whole other kind of discussion than the essentially social and political one I've attempted to focus upon. Besides, I could have sworn that the article in my OP had something to do with African-Americans being brought as slaves to already inhabited 'New World' shores 400 years ago ... so let's stick with that.

Lol that's fair...

Did you already define racism? That might be helpful so we aren't talking past each other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol that's fair...

Did you already define racism? That might be helpful so we aren't talking past each other.

And that's a fair question. Silly me just assumed that everyone would know that I meant the main denotation available in the latest Merriam-Webster Dictionary, but being that not everyone is as enlightened as you or me, I'll add the definition to my OP for the sake of clarity.

 

[FireDragon76]

Really? Jesus didn't have any in-group biases?

Does everyone go to heaven when they die or just those that believe in Jesus lord and savior?

Jesus probably had biases as every other human being does, the point is that he did not allow them to limit his responses to people he encountered.

 

[FireDragon76]

You can believe that racism today is just a primitive evolutionary holdover, but I'd like to see your sources for this. But even if this is the case, I think it's safe to say we've evolved enough that we can do better. Jesus did better ... Paul did better. Even Peter did better with a little bit of educational prodding...

Humans have the opportunity in this life to be more than thoughtless beasts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Humans have the opportunity in this life to be more than thoughtless beasts.

...yeah, and the Prophets and the writer of the book of Revelation would concur with you on that!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Jesus probably had biases as every other human being does, the point is that he did not allow them to limit his responses to people he encountered.

I'd respond....but @2PhiloVoid wants to drop this line of discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd respond....but @2PhiloVoid wants to drop this line of discussion.

No, by all means--if you have a comment to share that doesn't 'just' center on the metaphysical but rather on the temporal religious ideologies that have abounded in the heads of folks in the U.S. over the past 400 years, and you think there's something in the Bible regarding Jesus that ties into this, please share!

But I don't want this thread to devolve into a "...but God separates Sheeps from Goats! How is that any different?" .................. 1st: It's different ontologically. 2nd: Since it's different ontologically, it would be a red-herring to the actual racial issues and divisions, both felt and projected, that are still remaining and floating about today.

What I have in mind for this thread, if you want to bring 'bible' into it, would be to talk about how old immoral misinterpretations about the 'Curse of Ham' still play in some people's thinking, and so on and so forth; bring up some ideas that some people STILL bandy about with today that contribute to racist thinking.... that kind of thing.

So, going back to the OP, Ana. What ideologies, and not just those of the Bible, do you think continue to be relied upon and which tend to promulgate racist thinking between folks of different ethnicities in the U.S.?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, by all means--if you have a comment to share that doesn't 'just' center on the metaphysical but rather on the temporal religious ideologies that have abounded in the heads of folks in the U.S. over the past 400 years, and you think there's something in the Bible regarding Jesus that ties into this, please share!

Well this is a ridiculous request. @FireDragon76 didn't address any metaphysics...so why am I being held to a different standard?

Is this because I'm white or an atheist?

But I don't want this thread to devolve into a "...but God separates Sheeps from Goats! How is that any different?" .................. 1st: It's different ontologically.

But still tribalism.

2nd: Since it's different ontologically, it would be a red-herring to the actual racial issues and divisions, both felt and projected, that are still remaining and floating about today.

You asked about the causes of racism. Myself and others pointed out the inherent tribalism/in-group bias in mankind. Are we discussing racism or it's causes?

If we're discussing it's causes....the conversation is going to involve ideas other than racism. It would be weird to argue that racist ideas are caused by racist ideas. That's circular.

What I have in mind for this thread, if you want to bring 'bible' into it, would be to talk about how old immoral misinterpretations about the 'Curse of Ham' still play in some people's thinking, and so on and so forth; bring up some ideas that some people STILL bandy about with today that contribute to racist thinking.... that kind of thing.

So, going back to the OP, Ana. What ideologies, and not just those of the Bible, do you think continue to be relied upon and which tend to promulgate racist thinking between folks of different ethnicities in the U.S.?

You brought up Jesus....not me.

 

[jardiniere]

True enough. But what ideology do you think specifically drives the impetus to still refuse humanitarian, let alone equal, treatment to other folks who just happen to have different skin pigmentation or slightly different physical features?

It's not an ideology. It's a compound category error. But we aren't taught what logic is, so we can't recognize these sorts of errors or deal with them. It's not the skin color--that's a convenient (and wrong) stand-in for "different culture". And some people don't like to deal equally with people from cultures different from their own.

But when one mistakes the color of skin for sign of culture difference, that's a category error. When one presumes the color of skin means the person is significantly different from one's self to treat differently, then one compounds the error of identification. Hence the Peculiar Institution that arose in the South, and has repercussions to this day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well this is a ridiculous request. @FireDragon76 didn't address any metaphysics...so why am I being held to a different standard?

Is this because I'm white or an atheist?

I'm not holding you to a different standard. Maybe you've misunderstood what I've said: I don't want to see metaphysical constructs used in some parallel fashion here in this thread: essentially because we're not focusing upon God in His Eternal Glory and as He will then separate wheat from chaff. HOWEVER, if you think Jesus, as a human teacher said something that infers "racism," that in turn has been an influence in American racism over the past 400 years (and/or still today), then by all means, feel free to mention it if you think it produces what can be clearly discerned as an aspect of "racist ideology."

But still tribalism.

Ok. So, are you wanting to say that 'tribalism' is an aspect of today's "racist ideologies" that are still extant?

You asked about the causes of racism. Myself and others pointed out the inherent tribalism/in-group bias in mankind. Are we discussing racism or it's causes?

We're discussing the make up of "racist ideologies" that perpetuate a sense of racial US vs. THEM thinking, rather than just a US form of biological thinking.

If we're discussing it's causes....the conversation is going to involve ideas other than racism. It would be weird to argue that racist ideas are caused by racist ideas. That's circular.

Ok. If you know the 'racist' mind (and maybe you do with the hollywood-ized representation I've seen in Criminal Minds over the past few months), then go ahead and share what other elements you think contribute to the reasons that various people in the U.S. may continue to harbor fictional views about some notion called "race" that doesn't comport with reality.

You brought up Jesus....not me.

See above.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not holding you to a different standard. Maybe you've misunderstood what I've said: I don't want to see metaphysical constructs used in some parallel fashion here in this thread: essentially because we're not focusing upon God in His Eternal Glory and as He will then separate wheat from chaff. HOWEVER, if you think Jesus, as a human teacher said something that infers "racism," that in turn has been an influence in American racism over the past 400 years (and/or still today), then by all means, feel free to mention it if you think it produces what can be clearly discerned as an aspect of "racist ideology."

What did you mean by this statement?

"Jesus did better ... Paul did better. Even Peter did better with a little bit of educational prodding..."

Are you saying Jesus didn't engage in racism in the US? Or are you saying that Jesus didn't engage in tribalism of any kind?

I felt it was obvious you meant the latter...but perhaps you'd like to clarify.

Ok. So, are you wanting to say that 'tribalism' is an aspect of today's "racist ideologies" that are still extant?

What "racist ideologies"? There's racism but the overwhelming majority of it would not constitute an ideology.

The general racism that's extant today is a result of tribalism....not the other way around.

We're discussing the make up of "racist ideologies" that perpetuate a sense of racial US vs. THEM thinking, rather than just a US form of biological thinking.

What ideologies are you talking about? I've heard of some from groups like the Nation of Islam...but to be honest, I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.

Ok. If you know the 'racist' mind (and maybe you do with the hollywood-ized representation I've seen in Criminal Minds over the past few months), then go ahead and share what other elements you think contribute to the reasons that various people in the U.S. may continue to harbor fictional views about some notion called "race" that doesn't comport with reality.

Again, not sure what you mean by "racist mind"....

It's not as if someone who thinks their daughter shouldn't date black guys holds the same beliefs as a person who thinks asians are bad at driving...though we would rightly call both of these ideas racist.

Generally speaking, the human mind has a natural tendency towards pattern seeking....so we're inclined to believe we've found connections between things that aren't connected. Furthermore, confirmation bias is a persistent subconscious bias that is....apparently....very difficult to consciously avoid.

I'd say that together, these two tendencies cause people to believe that generalized assumptions about various races are "true".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What did you mean by this statement?

"Jesus did better ... Paul did better. Even Peter did better with a little bit of educational prodding..."

Are you saying Jesus didn't engage in racism in the US? Or are you saying that Jesus didn't engage in tribalism of any kind?

I felt it was obvious you meant the latter...but perhaps you'd like to clarify.

I'm only writing in the context of my OP, and I meant the former. Jesus and Paul were not racist, and neither was Peter.

What "racist ideologies"? There's racism but the overwhelming majority of it would not constitute an ideology.

Ok. I see I'm being to general here. Let's just talk "ideals" or "essential principles" that may be inherent to and help to strongly drive an ideology, such as racism....such as the idea that White folks are somehow 'better' than folks of any other ethnicity. Is that better?

[/quote]The general racism that's extant today is a result of tribalism....not the other way around.[/quote] You're forgetting something; we're talking about the history of various ideological (even religious) developments that have formerly shaped social patterns in the U.S. over the past 400 years.

What ideologies are you talking about? I've heard of some from groups like the Nation of Islam...but to be honest, I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.

It can be any and all of them; you don't think I'm just trying to hold the coals to the philosophical feat of primarily White Christians do you?

Again, not sure what you mean by "racist mind"....

Anyone who holds an idea or set of ideas in their little noggins that contributes to a pattern of false evaluation about other people of other ethnicities, or an idea that certain ethnicities are genetically superior or inferior.

It's not as if someone who thinks their daughter shouldn't date black guys holds the same beliefs as a person who thinks asians are bad at driving...though we would rightly call both of these ideas racist.

Why harbor any degree of this kind of thinking? It's not like it doesn't transfer since there are usually 'reasons' why some person may think another person's ethnicity contributes a genetic deficiency.

Generally speaking, the human mind has a natural tendency towards pattern seeking....so we're inclined to believe we've found connections between things that aren't connected. Furthermore, confirmation bias is a persistent subconscious bias that is....apparently....very difficult to consciously avoid.

Yes.

I'd say that together, these two tendencies cause people to believe that generalized assumptions about various races are "true".

So, what do you think could be done, or should be done, to disabuse people today of these false notions about genetic inequality between races that could contribute to a person of one ethnicity working against another person of another ethnicity?

 

[FireDragon76]

We're discussing the make up of "racist ideologies" that perpetuate a sense of racial US vs. THEM thinking, rather than just a US form of biological thinking.

In the American context, racism is quite distinct from merely the human tendency to favor the in-group.

Let's put it this way, in the Middle Ages, Europeans had no special antipathy towards black people, nor did they necessarily think they were all ignoramouses and moral degenerates only cut out for playing sports or making white people laugh. Indeed, some such as St. Maurice were considered paragons of chivalrous virtue. But once colonialism and nationalism got underway as the dominant mythologies, suddenly all kinds of rationalizations were discovered for forcibly hauling black people across the Atlantic in chains.