The Color Line.... In The Church?, how are we divided? Options

[Denny]

Now that we have established the color line in the church, can we honestly admit that it is racism that is keeping Christianity as a failure, not Christ nor God, but those who call themselves Christians, and what will ever be done to separate the false from the real, since we are admonished to never separate the wheat from the tares?

Thoughts anyone!

Perhaps this is one of the reasons Jesus does not returned His children who claim to know and follow Him cannot live lovingly with their siblings as mortals so have no chance of doing so as immortals....

[HUGGINS130]

Lastly is it just me or has anyone else observed that Conservative, Christian, White Males don't particularly appreciate assertive black people and women? I am thinking those like Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh.....

Thoughts?

There was a refusal to second a motion to have Coretta Scott King's portrait on display in the Georgia State Captial next to her husbands portrait...clay you're on to something...this is just ridiculous... one of the Caucausian men who refused would not give a reason why the panel refused to display it...then someone came back and said usually those photos on the wall are for those who are in government...but ML King is up there, and they will say that's good enough...She did a lot, but rules are rules! I wonder if those people that didn't second the motion, if they are Christians...all were Caucasian men with the exception of the one Caucasian lady on the panel of voters...

This post has been edited by HUGGINS130: Apr 11 2007, 10:23 AM

[SoulEspresso]

Apparently African-Americans and Whites are not talking to each other about the perceptions of racism in the church. Both groups are viewing the situation from their own experiences, and there is a need to open dialogue on the subject.

Well, here we are. But there's something else worth noting.

Our white guilt shows up as we defer to people of color. We don’t criticize, disagree, challenge or question them the way we would white people. And if we do disagree, we don’t do it with the same conviction or passion that we would display with a white person. Our racism plays out as a different standard for people of color than for white people. If this is our pattern, we can never have a genuine relationship with a person of color. Our sincerity, commitment, and courage will be rightly questioned. We cannot grow to a deeper level of trust and intimacy with people of color we treat in this way.

If this discussion is to bear fruit, then no holds can be barred.

SE, it's all good... sacred cows and taboos make up the bulk of the menu here

Speaking of which... last week I had the well done end of a prime rib at the rooftop restaurant at the Kennedy Center that was to die for... with blanched green beans and mashed red potatoes with au jus gravy...yeah; as a matter of fact, I haven't had lunch yet... but i digress...

This quote is a few days old, but it still makes me hungry ...

no prob SE.... we discuss alot of stuff here, as Kevin said, nothing is off limits... and thats one thing I have always liked... we don't hide behind "godtalk" but actually get into an issue....

I've been wanting to post on this for several days but there were several good articles PB and Mr. J and others put up, and I wanted to make sure to absorb it. I've a lot to comment on, but as I've got a CHIP meeting (I won't tell them about the beef jerky I ate) and a church board meeting tonight, I don't know how far I'll get.

I think a lot of whites are afraid to talk about race because they simply don't know how to address it politely. Most of them probably aren't aware of their racism, or they think they might be racist and really, really don't want to be.

There's also the major problem of not wanting to face our own sin:

In regard to racism in the SDA denomination, there is a strong sense of denial. This is because the church has never ... admitted to the existence of racism within its confines.... Before there can be a change in behavior, there first must be an acknowledgement that there is a problem. This process has been missing within Adventism … one reason is that there is pain involved in this process, the pain of admitting that the “true” church has been “untrue” with the gospel of Jesus Christ. To avoid this pain, the SDA denomination has engaged in a form of self-deception in the field of race relations. Leaders and administrators throughout the church have avoided addressing this issue effectively, thus weakening the witness of this denomination.

So this has to begin on an individual level. I'm a male member of the majority culture--a white racist. I don't want to be, I've tried to consciously make decisions based on the truth that "all men and women are created equal," but I can't escape my genes and my locale of birth.

For the black brothers and sisters reading this, please don't take this as "blaming the victim" because that's not the intent. But I do want to ask this question: are there any other people reading this who will admit to being racist--on either side of the color line?

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Apr 11 2007, 06:19 PM

[Clay]

Well, here we are. But there's something else worth noting.
If this discussion is to bear fruit, then no holds can be barred.
This quote is a few days old, but it still makes me hungry ...
I've been wanting to post on this for several days but there were several good articles PB and Mr. J and others put up, and I wanted to make sure to absorb it. I've a lot to comment on, but as I've got a CHIP meeting (I won't tell them about the beef jerky I ate) and a church board meeting tonight, I don't know how far I'll get.

I think a lot of whites are afraid to talk about race because they simply don't know how to address it politely. Most of them probably aren't aware of their racism, or they think they might be racist and really, really don't want to be.

There's also the major problem of not wanting to face our own sin:
So this has to begin on an individual level. I'm a male member of the majority culture--a white racist. I don't want to be, I've tried to consciously make decisions based on the truth that "all men and women are created equal," but I can't escape my genes and my locale of birth.

For the black brothers and sisters reading this, please don't take this as "blaming the victim" because that's not the intent. But I do want to ask this question: are there any other people reading this who will admit to being racist--on either side of the color line?

let's come up with a working definition of "racist" first.... I agree it starts individually, and it is a process that cannot be forced... so lets start there, and then look at what that means to the church....

[princessdi]

Well, in actuality SE blacks can be prejudice, but we cannot be reacist. Racism comes from a position of power, as noted in the definition below:

racism:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That being said, yes, I have had prejudice tendancies in the past and present. If we are going to be honest we will admit that each "side" carries their own set of stereo types, preconceived notions, terms of not so much endearment, etc. if any of us desire a closer relationship with God, we cannot harbor these feelings for another one of His children, IOW our brothers and sisters. I dont' have a problem socializing with anyone, I am a people person, I fit in anywhere and have no trouble starting conversations with strangers, etc. I don't really care about the nationality of the person, I just talk. But, I also will get with my black friends and family an damke "those statements when referring to white, and others for the matter. There is a serious problem, not matter what the reasons for the problem, it needs to be solved and both sides are going to have to work at it.

[västergötland]

Di, the definition of racism you quoted doesnt require a position of power, merely the idea that ones own group *ougth* to be in a position of power. A white, black or yellow person who thinks that his/her own group is supperior to the others for reasons connected with "race". As an example, imperial china closed its borders because the chinese where supperior to all the barbarian nations of the world. Not even repeated defeats and humiliations in contact with european and american nations changed this view. They where racist, claiming racial supperiority and the right to rule others despite of the fact that they where clearly unable to do so. Or todays Nazi racism. The fact that nazism cannot rule the world doesnt change the fact that its self image saying that it ought to rule the world is racist.

Over to more important questions. Where does the line between pride and racism go?
As SE has pointed out, being racist isnt something rational with most people. When even those who make a concious decision against racism find with some honesty and horror that racism is still present, what can be done about it? Or is this like AIDS, once you have it, you can at best slow it down but you cant escape it and sooner or later it will cause an early death for you. (In the case of racism, maybe its closer to a death of the soul rather than a physical death). Is there any light in the end of the tunnel?

[Clay]

we probably need to throw a couple of other terms in the mix for defining... what is a bigot for example? I think Thomas' examples are ones of people who are bigots... and bigots can be black or white....

[SoulEspresso]

I think a truncated version of Di's definition works for me.

Racism is the belief that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I don't think this is necessarily right, but here's a start on "bigot":

A bigot is one who believes certain races, groups, classes, or types of individual are inferior to his own.

The example of China is an excellent one.

It is certainly true that whites hold the position of power at this time in history. But any given "race" is polymorphous. "White" Mediteranneans--Romans--oppressed much of "White" Europeans 2000+ years ago; I saw TV program recently about how horribly the Goths were treated, as they were considered "barbarian." When they came to America, the Irish were treated better than black slaves at the time, obviously, but the discrimination against them in many places was at the level of Jim Crow in the first half of the twentieth century.

It's human nature to create a category for one's self and then declare that category superior to others of the same type; sometimes it's benign--snowboarders versus skiers. Sometimes it's quite a bit worse--educated versus not. Race versus race is the most visible kind of categorization, and the one with the most horrible consequences for human rights.

But all of these is a tendency of human pride--I think it was C.S. Lewis who wrote, "There is no one who does not secretly think himself better than the others." We all have it in one form or another. (Adventist versus not, anyone?)

So our goal, I think, by working out these definitions, is to work in our own way on this little forum, to dismantle racism in our church. And for me, in my own heart. Neither the church nor I want to be racist, but a long slog for both, I think.

The point I was trying to make earlier, in a rush, was that it's easier to blame people on the other side of the color line. I know for a fact white people do this--"They don't want to better themselves," I heard one church deacon say awhile back. I suspect some blacks do this too, if for no other reason than it's human nature. All of us need to do serious self-examination before we leap to conclusions.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Apr 12 2007, 12:38 PM

[Clay]

I think a truncated version of Di's definition works for me.
I don't think this is necessarily right, but here's a start on "bigot":
The example of China is an excellent one.

It is certainly true that whites hold the position of power at this time in history. But any given "race" is polymorphous. "White" Mediteranneans--Romans--oppressed much of "White" Europeans 2000+ years ago; I saw TV program recently about how horribly the Goths were treated, as they were considered "barbarian." When they came to America, the Irish were treated better than black slaves at the time, obviously, but the discrimination against them in many places was at the level of Jim Crow in the first half of the twentieth century.

It's human nature to create a category for one's self and then declare that category superior to others of the same type; sometimes it's benign--snowboarders versus skiers. Sometimes it's quite a bit worse--educated versus not. Race versus race is the most visible kind of categorization, and the one with the most horrible consequences for human rights.

But all of these is a tendency of human pride--I think it was C.S. Lewis who wrote, "There is no one who does not secretly think himself better than the others." We all have it in one form or another. (Adventist versus not, anyone?)

So our goal, I think, by working out these definitions, is to work in our own way on this little forum, to dismantle racism in our church. And for me, in my own heart. Neither the church nor I want to be racist, but a long slog for both, I think.

I wanted to work out the definitions so that we are all on the same page when we use the term.....

Having said that, I can say that the church is structural racist (because there is power to act on a prejudiced belief) though there are bigots within black adventism.... and lets be honest, while white adventists tend to leave if there are too many black adventist members in their church, some black adventists have vowed never to worship with a white adventist member...

[watchbird]

I wanted to work out the definitions so that we are all on the same page when we use the term.....

Having said that, I can say that the church is structural racist (because there is power to act on a prejudiced belief) though there are bigots within black adventism.... and lets be honest, while white adventists tend to leave if there are too many black adventist members in their church, some black adventists have vowed never to worship with a white adventist member...

I think it is a very good idea to define our terms before we try to apply them. But I don't agree with the limitations that have been put on racism so far. Let's look at what Di quoted previously again.....but analyze it a bit more closely......

racism:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

In #1 please notice the "usually" that I've bolded above. That would to me indicate that the part following is not ALWAYS the case....

It is #2 which is involved whenever governments... or churches... or private clubs.... use definition #1 as a basis for their laws.... resulting in the forced domination, subjugation, discrimination... that has been mentioned here before as being an intrinsic part of racism.

BUT.... notice #3 is strictly personal. Here comes the "one starfish" principle. And it is on this basis that I oppose the concept that only the white race can be considered "racist". As Thomas has shown... whites can be "racist" even against other whites. Races of "color" can also be "racist" against those that are different from themselves.

But I think the most important point for our discussion here is that racism is an individual attitude.... not merely a govenmental activity. And while it will be useful to examine the evidences of racism in society as a whole or our church in particular.... I very much suspect that most of us have little power to effect much change in either of those arenas. And further, that whatever power we do have still has to spring from our own understanding and personal attitudes. And that in order to "fix" our own attitudes we have to acknowledge them for what they are.

It is all fine and good to show that racism may be a particular form of pride... or a specific type of bigotry..... unless by doing so it allows us to escape admitting our own racism. Now it is may be true that I am more "racist" than I think I am. It is most likely true that because of my ignorance I use terms or view situations in ways that from others' viewpoints appear racist. But I don't think that just because I am "white", I should be labeled racist while someone who is "black" claims to not be racist... but "only" a black bigot.....

Now bigotry is not limited to any one race... nor does one's bigotry show itself only in racially colored manifestations. That is to say that not all who are bigots are bigots over racial issues. So I would suggest that racism is a particular form of bigotry which on an individual basis meets one or more of the criteria given in Di's definitions.... whether or not that individual has any power base from which to act upon his racist attitudes, tendencies, and desires for control of others.

I think that if we "leveled the playing field" in this way, then we could more objectively analyse the extent to which racist individuals cause the church to be structurallly racist.... and to what extent this varies on different levels of church governance.... right down to the local church... be it white or black or some rainbow of colors.

My position is that if a white person vows to never attend a church which is predominately black... or if that person refuses to sit next to a black person in the pew.... that person is a racist. But I also think that if a black person makes the same vow... as you mention above... then I think that person is also a racist.... IOW... I don't think the definitions should change on different sides of the color line.

I've frankly fairly consistently avoided this topic.... having gotten myself in too many scrapes in the past over some term that I used unwisely....... Two examples.. one which mostly happened in private and connected to another list.... in which I had used the term "colored".... and got flamed both on the list and off. The off-list "catfight" lasted long enough for us to work our way through it and become very close friends.... unfortunately the other main antagonist did not, so far as I know, ever forgive me. The second one, which some of you oldtimers may recall.... in the early days of BSDA... back when it was sent out in emails.... I got my knuckles soundly rapped.... clear up to my neck.... for merely using "if'n" in a sentence. Needless to say it was a few weeks after I came on board this time before I started using venacular spellings when the mood struck. I'm sure glad you all lightened up since those early days....

But I do think it is a valuable topic... and the very fact that we can approach it seems to me to indicate that there has been some improvement in both the black and white sectors of our church... even though we are far from where it would seem that we should be.

[princessdi]

Ok WB, but racism takes on a whole new dimension when the ruling class is "majority" racist and/or bigots. This is what happened in the church. It mirrorred society in that whites were majority ruling class, and majority racist, bigoted. Therefore procedures, laws, policies, social environment also mirrored society, which in this church led to the establishment the regional conferences. They were willing to evangelize the blacks, as is preaching doctrine, but made no life changes, but didn't realize it meant that they were supposed give up their racist ways.

I think it is a very good idea to define our terms before we try to apply them. But I don't agree with the limitations that have been put on racism so far. Let's look at what Di quoted previously again.....but analyze it a bit more closely......

racism:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

In #1 please notice the "usually" that I've bolded above. That would to me indicate that the part following is not ALWAYS the case....

It is #2 which is involved whenever governments... or churches... or private clubs.... use definition #1 as a basis for their laws.... resulting in the forced domination, subjugation, discrimination... that has been mentioned here before as being an intrinsic part of racism.

BUT.... notice #3 is strictly personal. Here comes the "one starfish" principle. And it is on this basis that I oppose the concept that only the white race can be considered "racist". As Thomas has shown... whites can be "racist" even against other whites. Races of "color" can also be "racist" against those that are different from themselves.

But I think the most important point for our discussion here is that racism is an individual attitude.... not merely a govenmental activity. And while it will be useful to examine the evidences of racism in society as a whole or our church in particular.... I very much suspect that most of us have little power to effect much change in either of those arenas. And further, that whatever power we do have still has to spring from our own understanding and personal attitudes. And that in order to "fix" our own attitudes we have to acknowledge them for what they are.

It is all fine and good to show that racism may be a particular form of pride... or a specific type of bigotry..... unless by doing so it allows us to escape admitting our own racism. Now it is may be true that I am more "racist" than I think I am. It is most likely true that because of my ignorance I use terms or view situations in ways that from others' viewpoints appear racist. But I don't think that just because I am "white", I should be labeled racist while someone who is "black" claims to not be racist... but "only" a black bigot.....

Now bigotry is not limited to any one race... nor does one's bigotry show itself only in racially colored manifestations. That is to say that not all who are bigots are bigots over racial issues. So I would suggest that racism is a particular form of bigotry which on an individual basis meets one or more of the criteria given in Di's definitions.... whether or not that individual has any power base from which to act upon his racist attitudes, tendencies, and desires for control of others.

I think that if we "leveled the playing field" in this way, then we could more objectively analyse the extent to which racist individuals cause the church to be structurallly racist.... and to what extent this varies on different levels of church governance.... right down to the local church... be it white or black or some rainbow of colors.

My position is that if a white person vows to never attend a church which is predominately black... or if that person refuses to sit next to a black person in the pew.... that person is a racist. But I also think that if a black person makes the same vow... as you mention above... then I think that person is also a racist.... IOW... I don't think the definitions should change on different sides of the color line.

I've frankly fairly consistently avoided this topic.... having gotten myself in too many scrapes in the past over some term that I used unwisely....... Two examples.. one which mostly happened in private and connected to another list.... in which I had used the term "colored".... and got flamed both on the list and off. The off-list "catfight" lasted long enough for us to work our way through it and become very close friends.... unfortunately the other main antagonist did not, so far as I know, ever forgive me. The second one, which some of you oldtimers may recall.... in the early days of BSDA... back when it was sent out in emails.... I got my knuckles soundly rapped.... clear up to my neck.... for merely using "if'n" in a sentence. Needless to say it was a few weeks after I came on board this time before I started using venacular spellings when the mood struck. I'm sure glad you all lightened up since those early days....

But I do think it is a valuable topic... and the very fact that we can approach it seems to me to indicate that there has been some improvement in both the black and white sectors of our church... even though we are far from where it would seem that we should be.

[watchbird]

Ok WB, but racism takes on a whole new dimension when the ruling class is "majority" racist and/or bigots. This is what happened in the church. It mirrorred society in that whites were majority ruling class, and majority racist, bigoted. Therefore procedures, laws, policies, social environment also mirrored society, which in this church led to the establishment the regional conferences. They were willing to evangelize the blacks, as is preaching doctrine, but made no life changes, but didn't realize it meant that they were supposed give up their racist ways.

I understand that.... and doubtless a clearer understanding of this is one thing that is needed. But the facts are that we are not, as a church, even moving as fast as our society is moving.... nor are we addressing the issues as they are raised in different forms in other countries.... nor as the issues are taking on new forms within our own church.

If our goal is to bring about change... as contrasted with merely learning the facts of history.... then I still maintain that we have to personally and individually own the problem... and that includes both black and white.... and is true, I think, even though the particular part of the "problem" that needs to be "owned" may be different in form for each "side".

The larger lessons from history point out that when one power creates a ruler/ruled two or more class system.... whether that has to do with one color over another or merely ruler over ruled.... that creates a mentality in BOTH groups of rule or be ruled such that if there is a change in the balance of power that the formerly ruled become the rulers... they bring the same mindset to their position of rulership as did their former rulers. What this means is that whenever they have the power they will abuse it (as far as their ability goes) in the same way that the former rulers abused it.

This shows up in a general attitude towards authority.... which has deeper implications for our church administration than what most of us have ever thought of. It came through to me in a dramatic rush of insight while attending a Panel presentation back in 1995.... just before the Utrecht GC session. And was largely from a paper presented by a woman who had been on the Commision studying church organization.... which had been commissioned with recommending changes in governance. But it was sealed by a statement by Robert Folkenberg, who unexpectedly walked into the meeting, though he had not been expected. The statement went something like this.... I wrote it down, but don't have it where I could immediately lay my hands on it right now.....

"The problem that persons in first world countries (US, Europe, Australia) have with authority is that they do not know how to submit."

The thing that made this more significant was the paper that had just been presented, which pointed out that in countries with a Dictatorial government.... and especially when the dominent religion in those countries was RC.... in other words where both civil and religious authority was of the dictatorial model.... that the Adventist church ALSO tended to be more authoritarian with administrators expecting to dictate and members expected to be submissive.

The thrust of this paper was not on race... nor did it mention African or Asian nations other than in passing. For the thrust of it was to show what the church in South and Central America was.... where the church is growing so fast.... and to point out that Folkenberg.... who was GC President at that time and was driving all of the scholarly world out of their mind with his totalitarian demands when it came to conformity of thought and practice.... was in fact, a product of South and Central American culture.... having spent nearly all of his formative years in that environment. And the conclusion of the paper asked the question.... so WHY were we surprised to find him taking such an authoritarian attitude towards church governance as what he was doing? The irony of this, of course, being that there had been general consensus that he came to power largely as a result of a paper he has written AGAINST the abuses of power and how things should be changed at top levels.

What the presenter showed... and showed very well.... was that this was a pattern to be expected.... when someone who was powerless, who recognized the abuses of power, but had been raised with the binary attittude of authority and submission.... was actually given the power to dictate... would almost inevitably keep that same attitude, and only move to the authority side from the submissive side.... but would expect all others to be submissive.

Now admittedly, I didn't get all of my philosophy from this one paper. I was already somewhat "prepared" for it from a couple history courses... one in black history and the other in the history and philosophy of Revolutions as one way of effecting "social change".

What we were mainly studying in the class on Revolutions was the Colonial systems which had undergone Revolution and dramatic reversals in power. But with the previous background of the black history class with its discussions of master/slave systems, the connection was clear that the one was of the same quality as the other... even though with varying degrees of intensity.

Thus my point that there is no way out of the racist trap until BOTH races see their own racist attitudes and admit to them. As long as we see racism as a power struggle, it will continue to be just that.... whether whites retain power or blacks attain power. Business has come to the place where they recognize that the old binary win/lose mentality is NOT the way to have a successful businesses... whether one is thinking of owner/worker or of supplier/client relationships. A new model has been introduced, called the win/win scenario... that holds as its basic presupposition that if the solution to a problem is not good for BOTH sides.... then it is not good for either.

I freely admit that I have not had enough one-on-one or group interaction with blacks to have a wide experience base from which to speak. However, I HAVE had some.... and some of what I have seen in those interactions have been attitudes and actions on the part of some specific black individuals that I can only describe as being racist...and part of these actions were directed toward their fellow blacks.... not to me or to other whites. But I saw young black men being treated and spoken about in ways that would certainly have been considered racist had one of my race acted towards them as what I saw.

This was not an exhibition of bigotry. It was pure and simple racism.... a rather distressing (to me) variant of definition #1.... that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.... and capability... in this case the assumed incapability.... of accepting responsibility comparable to what would be expected of a senior college major.... I'll not mention the place nor even the discipline... for I really do not want to give clues as to the individuals' identities.

OK... I'll get off my soapbox now.... carry on.....

[västergötland]

So I guess we can come down to this question to be answered before we move on. Does this thread intend to discuss racism or does it intend to discuss *white* racism only? I hope not the second, although im not at this point sure that there is not where some would want it to go.

[Clay]

So I guess we can come down to this question to be answered before we move on. Does this thread intend to discuss racism or does it intend to discuss *white* racism only? I hope not the second, although im not at this point sure that there is not where some would want it to go.

I indicated earlier that we would go wherever the discussion went... the big picture is the color issue in the church..... there are many facets to that problem... we can discuss as many as we identify and possible solutions....

[SoulEspresso]

This was such a good post it blew my mind ... a couple of highlights ...

If our goal is to bring about change... as contrasted with merely learning the facts of history.... then I still maintain that we have to personally and individually own the problem... and that includes both black and white.... and is true, I think, even though the particular part of the "problem" that needs to be "owned" may be different in form for each "side".

Well, it's definitely different for either side here in the West of the globe. The power imbalance between black and white, in and out of the church, is very real. But blaming one side without self-examination is no good at all ...

The larger lessons from history point out that when one power creates a ruler/ruled two or more class system.... whether that has to do with one color over another or merely ruler over ruled.... that creates a mentality in BOTH groups of rule or be ruled such that if there is a change in the balance of power that the formerly ruled become the rulers... they bring the same mindset to their position of rulership as did their former rulers. What this means is that whenever they have the power they will abuse it (as far as their ability goes) in the same way that the former rulers abused it.

...

Thus my point that there is no way out of the racist trap until BOTH races see their own racist attitudes and admit to them. As long as we see racism as a power struggle, it will continue to be just that.... whether whites retain power or blacks attain power. Business has come to the place where they recognize that the old binary win/lose mentality is NOT the way to have a successful businesses... whether one is thinking of owner/worker or of supplier/client relationships. A new model has been introduced, called the win/win scenario... that holds as its basic presupposition that if the solution to a problem is not good for BOTH sides.... then it is not good for either.

Indeed ... what would happen if all the roles were suddenly reversed--blacks were in power at all levels and were the majority of the population? Some unconverted souls would see (and perhaps use?) it as payback time. I don't say this to justify the current situation, obviously. Do black people see themselves as having racial views of a completely different type than whites--one unaffected by such a swap?

Two examples. Some friends of mine back when I was in school--white/Jewish family with three boys--had adopted a black baby girl, their youngest, some years before I knew them. Not (at least consciously) racist. But the youngest son came home from his job as a waiter spewing some pretty unkind things about some of his black customers. His mom started chewing him out ... "(Name), your sister!! Is!! Black!!" But apparently tables with black customers were running their white waiter far beyond what he experienced at other tables.

And the other example is almost petty--I only mention it because I've seen it so many times, even by friends, that I'm pretty sure it isn't my imagination. Say your at a church gathering. And it's big--not a lot of parking, or you have to drive to parking. If you have pedestrians in the road this is what I've seen happen. If the pedestrians are white, they'll get out of the way. Black pedestrians will look and see what the color of the driver is, and if the driver is not black, they'll move as slow as they can.

I know I'm being petty beyond limit, and I understand why black pedestrians take their time getting out of the way of a white driver. It may not be racism, but it is discourtesy on a racial basis. And it reveals a certain attitude.

Folkenberg.... who was GC President at that time and was driving all of the scholarly world out of their mind with his totalitarian demands when it came to conformity of thought and practice....

Okay, this is but when he came to present his stuff on ShareHim in our area, I raised my hand and asked him what demographics the presentations were aimed at. He replied, "Um, the West!" End of discussion. Never should have been an officer at any level with a mind like that.

This is the problem with a "shotgun" approach to evangelism. I never even heard about the Walter Pearson Net series--it would have been way more fun than watching Baldy *cough* I mean Batchelor again. I might have wanted to be there.

But back to the topic.

... and some of what I have seen in those interactions have been attitudes and actions on the part of some specific black individuals that I can only describe as being racist...and part of these actions were directed toward their fellow blacks.... not to me or to other whites. But I saw young black men being treated and spoken about in ways that would certainly have been considered racist had one of my race acted towards them as what I saw.

This was not an exhibition of bigotry. It was pure and simple racism.... a rather distressing (to me) variant of definition #1.... that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.... and capability...

This is something I find particularly distressing. And the blame probably lies with white racists. In large swaths of Africa to this day, Christians believe that they're black because of the curse of Ham--gotta love those missionaries. And of course, how can one rise above God's curse?

Part of it, in the US at least, may have something to do with Lyndon Johnson telling blacks in the 1960s that they were victims of racism, and establishing programs to "help." No doubt they were, in fact, victims of racism--but considering the conditions they had to work with, a lot of blacks were doing better before than after the "Great Society."

Call it weakness, but perhaps one reason whites are reluctant to talk about race is that they don't have the same guarantee of forgiveness from blacks that they do from God ... even most racist whites know it's wrong, but it's hard to be penitent if you think the other person will dislike you regardless of what you say. I admit it's asking a lot.

One sure cure for racism: get as many people to marry those of other races, as much as possible... This is happening more and more anyway, but I wish it would happen faster.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Apr 12 2007, 09:26 PM