Originally posted by jsobecky
Take the mission statement of the church, substitute "white" for " black", and tell me honestly: would there be any different reaction to the
Context is key, which is what you seemed to have missed in my question. I ask again, are whites to be prevented from organizing separately so that
they won't make blacks look bad?
The reason it's acceptable for blacks and not for whites is because of the association which is commonly drawn, not to white groups which make black
groups look pathetic by comparison, but to white groups which spend their time doing bad things to people who aren't like them.
In a vacuum, it is FINE to have a white organization. How many blacks belong to the Knights of Lithuania? That's just an organization dedicated to a
culture that happens to be distinctly European, just as the black church is dedicated to a culture that is distinctly African.
The problem is that you seldom hear a white organization throwing around the word white in the same context as this church is using it, and that's
because they don't have the same historical needs as blacks. Whites have the community structure, they have a longer history of Christianity, etc-
they don't have to mark out the scope of a white organization that provides these things in the same way that black churches do since this isn't
something lacking for them.
The context in which you hear whites mark out an organizations territory normally is a matter of selecting membership for an organizationt that means
harm to people not like its members.
In so many words, groups like the KKK and countless other white supremecist organizations have sort of spoiled things for most white organizations as
far as the social acceptibility of using race in that context is concerned. But when you move beyond the words and into the substance, nobody stops
white groups from sharing culture and providing benefits that are lacking in society at large.
And let's be honest here. Why was Team A able to be in the position to knee-cap Team B? Why hadn't Team B claimed America for their own
We cannot deny evolution.
That's just disgusting. We couldn't have enslaved them if we weren't better than them? There are a host of flaws with this reasoning:
Number 1. It conveniently ignores history. European civilization is a Johnny-come-lately that owes its dominance to the fact that earlier
civilizations didn't think we were worth conquering. If the Chinese had showed up in Europe before the 15th Century and acted the way Europeans tend
to act when they go somewhere new, it would have been over. Lucky for Europe, the Chinese took one look around the world and said, "these people have
nothing to offer us".
That's not the only instance in history it selectively forgets either. America has been sent packing militarily by Arabs, Somalis, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Canadians, etc. Does that make them all better than us?
Number 2. It excuses the inexcusable. The Jews had it coming because they allowed the Germans to catch them. The Americans who died on the Bataan
Death March had it coming too. That's what you're really saying, isn't it?
Number 3. It attempts to compare unlike virtues. You suggest that blacks were less evolved because they didn't bring to bear enough force to prevent
themselves from being enslaved. In so doing you make the ability to project force the paramount human virtue. What about culture? Their weapons were
no match for ours, but our music was no match for theirs. So who exactly decided that weapons were what it was all about? Are weapons the measure of
human life? Is a bayonette going to give you joy and meaning, and make you feel good about yourself when you're on your deathbed?
It's like my grandpa wrote to me when he thought he wasn't gonna make it out of the hospital: "Remember, only a few men can build a barn, but any
old jackass can kick the door in".
Being able to hurt someone doesn't make you better than them, and if you think it does then I look forward to the day that some nothin' little dog
bites your ankle and makes you question your worth.
Socialism is not a political code-word, and I did not use it as such.
Nonsense. Socialism is a four letter word in American politics, mostly among people who don't know the first thing about it. There mere charge of
socialism is an argument unto itself, requiring no sound logical support, at least in the eyes of certain conservatives. Socialism is a handy way of
saying "UnAmerican crap that doesn't work" for the undereducated, sound-byte fed base of the Republican Party. That is exactly how you used it- as
a cudgel with which to smack down the very concept of fairness of any kind without having to bother with things like reason or moral consistency.
Good grief, you really don't get it do you? Did you miss a day in school? "We hold these truths to be self evident..." remember anything about
that? Maybe you saw it in a textbook somewhere once? Look it up and fill in the blank. It'll knock your socks off.