My husband and I are both white. He and his family are currently, and generally, less religious and more progressive than mine, but his (historically) is MUCH more Southern and slave-owning than mine. In fact, all his family has Southern and slave-owning past, whereas mine doesn't on either paternal or maternal side.
My dad's family are all WASPs and Irish/Scottish from the upper northeast (Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.) who never held or owned slaves. My mom's are all Germans/Norwegians/Hutterites from the upper midwest (Minnesota, South Dakota, etc.) who came to the US in the 1800s and also never had slaves.
In recent years, I've noticed a change from individualistic and historical focus of racism, toward more 'systemic' focus. The idea is, it doesn't really matter that my husband's family was historically slave-owning, whereas mine were in regions where slavery never occurred. The focus now is, both nonetheless benefited from 'white privilege,' so it doesn't matter if one's white families had slaves or not. What matters now is, if they are allies, or at least voting Democrat in greater numbers. In that case, my husband's family is generally more progressive now, even if they have purely Southern and slave-owning roots.
Do you agree with that perspective: is it better to have a family that "currently" is overall more progressive and voting Democrat, even if that family is purely slave-owning and Southern in its past, than it is to come from a family with no slavery, even if that family is currently slightly more third-party or Republican in its voting?
Curiously, I think that we can learn a lot from the law that God gave to Moses. It talks about "you shall not show partiality or favoritism" in applying God's law, to all who live in the land of Israel. (This is the quote, that James is alluding to in chapter 2.)
America, is a different situation. America is not a theocracy. Although most of the founding fathers associated some Christian group or another, the Constitution is not explicitly a christian morality document.
In American law, if a group is found to be guilty of some crime, then the guilt of individuals depends on the ability to prove their membership in this group. This is a very basic legal principle.
The more primal legal consideration, is what "groups" are relevant, when considering "crimes". And THIS, is the more relevant consideration.
At the final judgment, we will be judged according to our individual actions. In divine justice, it is the individual actions, upon which justice rests. This is a key, biblical view of justice.
Christians may want to think about MULTIPLE topics, related to justice. But, be very careful to identify assertions that are biblical, from assertions that are secular, but may be popular in current American culture.
-----------------------------
Some of the problems that the younger (especially) generations in America have, are;
1. Only a few categories/groups are thought to be relevant. Such as race (not a scientific category), sex and native culture.
2. Often, individuals are arbitrarily imputed to be a member of a popular/unpopular group.
3. Often, intentions are imputed to popular/unpopular groups, regardless of the intentions of the individual, to whom they are imputed. Note (as Bauerline has recognized), younger American generations do not read much, and so are not familiar with the MANY motivation/intentions that a human being may have. this ignorance feeds the myth that a person that does some action, MUST have some specific intention, that younger Americans associate with this action.
4. Blame groups, or virtue groups that are popular with younger Americans, are not particularly the biblical groups (if any) that are considered to be relevant, in the deciding of guilt.
5. Often, there are laws on the books in America, that are just, but are not enforced. This opens up the question of who is responsible for enforcing laws, in a pagan country like America? Law enforcement agents? Vigilantes/
6. In America, an individual is acknowledged to be able to "identify" with some group or another, if the group is popular. But in arbitrary situations, a person is not acknowledged as NOT identifying with some arbitrary group or another. This sort of identification (or not), has little to do with justice, or a fair rule of law.
7. younger Americans tend to exonerate those who engage in criminal activity, IF they are members of some popular group. This is a denial of objective justice.
8. The blame (or virtue) that younger Americans want to impute to a person, can arbitrarily be done by asserting that that person is a member of some (supposed) blame group, or virtuous group. In this way, popular imputing can arbitrarily make out the same person to be guilty, or innocent, or virtuous, any time they want. This is not a function of objective evidence or justice, but a function of the emotions of a crowd. (In the past, Americans would call these crowds lynch mobs, etc. Today, they often pass as assertions of social justice, etc.
9. The arbitrary imputing of guilt/virtue to a person, is a denial of basic logical causality (such as in, "If A, then B" or A ==> B). This arbitrary asserting of causality, is due to abandoning formal logic, and arbitrarily asserting causality.
10. the younger generations in America have poor language skills (this is where Malcolm X started out). They cannot precisely describe what they think, or what a fair rule of law is, or what justice is. They use slogans about justice, and fairness, and oppression, and guilt, but cannot coherently discuss basic foundational concepts of a fair rule of law.
This is a partial list of the problems with the current system of social justice/ political correctness. And these trends are incompatible with a fair rule of law, and incompatible with orthodox Christian morality.
I have no problem with creating a society based on justice.
But this is not what the younger American generations are trying to do.
(And this is not what older racists, are trying to do.)
