This
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anti-Racism, Privilege and Non-Racism
- Thread starter sealchan
- Start date
This
That's a good question and I think it would depend on how the person is defining the term "racist". Are they referring to the KKK or Black Panther hateful type, or one who thinks that certain races tend to excel at certain things?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
New Zealand., what could be more deplorable?
Audie
Veteran Member
"Racist" is the pefect all purpose perjorative.
Nobody is safe nobody can defend against it,
nobody knows what it means.
Since I brought it up, I will volunteer to
go first.
Grand Inquisitor-
"Audie, are you a racist?"
Audie-
"Yes".
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I think you may be mistaking opportunites for empathy as attempts at manipulation. I think that you are projecting onto the speaker that she was apologizing for anything. She isn't apologizing, she is just identifying a relevant context for understanding why her daughter is dead.
As many people seem to like to do, you seem to want to ignore the long, historical context of how race has been a means to differentiate individuals by identity and to empower those who are white over those who are not. To ignore this enormously relevant context is, in my view, a sort of willful ignorance commonly used as a defense mechanism against empathy for someone deeply embedded in naive white culture.
You got that right as You, Columbus and myself encountered in another discussion.
Ok, In what way?
What is with New Zealand? On my bucket list to visit there someday. Absolutely beautiful.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I think bias is going to be the new term that we hear in favor of racism as it doesn't work so well for sexual orientation or religious bigotry. It is making the rounds in corporate trainings now.
Whataboutism is just as tired a defense of course.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Objectively false. Don't be fooled by Peter Jackson's CGI. If New Zealand got a chance, it would kill you, and everyone you care about!
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Whether one is a member of a culture or a religion or a gardening club, if your group acts to systemically and from a human moral perspective disenfranchise people from another group and you, as an individual, become aware of that systemic or individually deliberate effort then you become morally responsible for that injustice. You, as a member of that group or culture, are responsible for taking some action in an effort to correct that imbalance. You do not have to sacrifice your life, or even sacrifice your reputation...if you can just act personally to correct the issue within your own sphere of influence AND become more educated regarding the issue, then you will have already done a decent amount of work.
The golden rule will prevail as a stronger and stronger influence the more you understand what the "other" is experiencing and how you are truly "empowered" to do something about it even if it is not public or risky.
The golden rule will prevail as a stronger and stronger influence the more you understand what the "other" is experiencing and how you are truly "empowered" to do something about it even if it is not public or risky.
Really? Please do tell.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I don't know where this whole line of thinking comes from but it isn't a liberal line of thinking.
The fact that you even cast this whole discussion as a "condescension" is telling.
If you accidentally step on someone's toes, is it a condescension to admit it? When you realize your naivete do you not feel humility?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I can.
And I can prove it. I will get just as insulting to a 'person of color' as I will a 'white' person.
As well, while I am certainly melanin challenged, my husband certainly wasn't, and neither are my kids, and trust me on this; I don't attribute any possible flaws in their character to their skin color.
I won't give a 'person of color' any breaks I wouldn't give a 'white' person, in work or anywhere else...or vice versa. To me, skin color only matters when purchasing cosmetics and hair care products.
In fact, I'm kinda confused as to what 'white' actually MEANS, to 'people of color,' and I'm not sure what that means, either, if one looks at the matter from 'outside.' I'll have to ask the next red-headed blue eyed Jew I meet how s/he feels about being a 'person of color."
The problem is that the 'human race' is probably the most homogeneous species on the planet, thanks to that long ago 'bottle neck' that winnowed humans down to a small group from which we have all descended. Every other species, from chimpanzees to whales, have more variation in DNA among themselves than we humans have from one another.
The whole thing is asinine.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Start with that I think Han Chinese
are special.
Now, if I heard that the new hire
on the physics faculty was am Australian
aborinonie, or Yananmo Indian, I
would be astonished.
Would you? Is that racist?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
'deeply embedded?"
Hardly.
I'm 'deeply embedded" in a 'culture' that honestly doesn't see that skin color means anything. I acknowledge that to many, it DOES mean something. This woman is one of those who thinks it does, and I do, actually, believe that she is racist.
If she weren't, she would not be talking about the RACE of the shooter or the victims, but the mindset and motivations. She wouldn't be bragging about how she is using her 'special' status of being 'white' to promote her agenda.
That others are racist is obvious. The insidious thing is that those who are most screaming ABOUT racism are continuing that racism themselves, by so doing. Don't talk about 'people of color." Talk about 'gangs,' or 'cultures.." because it's the group one identifies with that makes the 'person' who s/he is when others look.
(shrug)
MY culture is...my religion, the town I live in, the people I'm comfortable 'hanging' with. Those would be...quilters, knitters, people who do community theater, paint and go to museums, deal with specific issues that most other people don't have to deal with....and those cultures all have different memberships. None of these 'cultures' have skin color as a qualification to join.
If I go back far enough in my genealogy, I'm descended from Eric the Red...and later, from a Mayflower couple and John Adams. Oh, and I'm descended from a great many famous people's relatives; except for Adams and Eric, I don't ever seem to hit the mark. I'm descended, for instance, from William the Conqueror's ******* cousin, and a few other 'wrong side of the blanket' folks. Lots of fooling around in my family tree.
That makes me pretty darned 'white,' I suppose, but so what? Doesn't make me smarter, richer, more moral, or 'special.' I do not need to handicap myself in order to allow a 'person of color' to be equal to me. Doing so is an incredible insult, I firmly believe. Brains, ability and morality have nothing to do with melanin content. They do not need me to 'hold back' in order for them to keep up, and I wouldn't put up with any situation in which I WERE given different treatment because of my skin color.
Unless someone is offering free sunscreen samples.
And this woman? She claims that she IS better/more 'special than people of color, simply by referring to her 'white privilege platform' , and she's actually bragging about it. Had she simply stated her case, rather than letting everybody know that she was deliberately stepping in less exalted company....well, I don't actually know whether I would have listened. I couldn't get past the bragging apology.
Shad
Veteran Member
Loads of babble with a few facts to cover for the ideological rhetoric.
She was given a platform because she is the mother of a person killed in a national if not global news story not because she is white. It was the whole event around the death that made the news not the death itself. Hence why a lot of normal people have no so-called voice as other murders are often mundane in comparison. She could easily of given her seat up but didn't. She is advocating speech control and invasion of privacy. She is a useful idiot, nothing more.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Football? (Soccer)