Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

[Estrid]

Yep, they forget, or never admitted, never knew, they took everyone's boots whenever they can/could/do....

So you must agree with the sins of
ancestors being visited on every generation.

Ever since Adam n eve.

 

[Estrid]

That's a curious argument.

You do know that "white" is not a scientific term?
In Africa, North Africans are often called "white".
In European cultures, often Southern European groups were not considered to be "white".

In the Islamic conquests during the years 700 and on, Muslims systematically destroyed
Christian culture and structures in Asia and North Africa. None of the groups involved,
would fit the modern American description of what "white" is.

In Christianity, an individual will be judged on what they themselves chose to do
in their life. Guilt, in the Christian worldview, is heavily individual.

When reasoning about guilt and people groups, you need to very precisely
define the people groups. Then you need to very carefully define what you think
is the individual guilt, of those who fit into this people group.

In American law, if you wish to demonstrate that an individual is guilty of some
evil that a group has done, then you need to demonstrate
1 Their membership in that group
2 That the group, as a whole, is guilty of something.

If I have an ancestor who was a murderer, do I share in that guilt?
If I had an ancestor who was a thief, am I guilty of that sin?

If you impute to me guilt over "micro aggressions" for example, that I
cannot even detect, how is this different than arbitrarily imputing guilt
to me?

In the Christian worldview, every human being is morally-ethically responsible
to keep God's ME law. This is not a basic assumption of the American social
justice groups. Nor do the American social justice groups make distinctions between
Christians who struggle to keep God's ME laws, and secular people who do not.
This leads to all sorts of "racial" or "sexual" group guilt imputing, that bypasses
God's ME law.

Many Christians understand the injustice in this crude group generalization.
Many American social justice groups, do not.

Heavens, such a treatise!
The "nah" covered all but the spelling.

 

[Pommer]

That's a curious argument.

You do know that "white" is not a scientific term?
In Africa, North Africans are often called "white".
In European cultures, often Southern European groups were not considered to be "white".

In the Islamic conquests during the years 700 and on, Muslims systematically destroyed
Christian culture and structures in Asia and North Africa. None of the groups involved,
would fit the modern American description of what "white" is.

In Christianity, an individual will be judged on what they themselves chose to do
in their life. Guilt, in the Christian worldview, is heavily individual.

When reasoning about guilt and people groups, you need to very precisely
define the people groups. Then you need to very carefully define what you think
is the individual guilt, of those who fit into this people group.

In American law, if you wish to demonstrate that an individual is guilty of some
evil that a group has done, then you need to demonstrate
1 Their membership in that group
2 That the group, as a whole, is guilty of something.

If I have an ancestor who was a murderer, do I share in that guilt?
If I had an ancestor who was a thief, am I guilty of that sin?

If you impute to me guilt over "micro aggressions" for example, that I
cannot even detect, how is this different than arbitrarily imputing guilt
to me?

In the Christian worldview, every human being is morally-ethically responsible
to keep God's ME law. This is not a basic assumption of the American social
justice groups. Nor do the American social justice groups make distinctions between
Christians who struggle to keep God's ME laws, and secular people who do not.
This leads to all sorts of "racial" or "sexual" group guilt imputing, that bypasses
God's ME law.

Many Christians understand the injustice in this crude group generalization.
Many American social justice groups, do not.

There are no “black people” in Nigeria.

 

[Stephen3141]

I don't think that the topic of this thread, is clear.

When you use the word "better", are you talking about morality?
Are you talking about popular "blame groups" currently, in America?
Are you talking about Christian morality?

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[rjs330]

Therefore?

All are guilty or none are.

 

[rjs330]

You don't seem to understand "no true scotsman".

I categorically deny the no true scotsman.

 

[RDKirk]

You don't seem to understand "no true scotsman".

That's only a fallacy when it happens to be a fallacy.

MacAngus may claim to be a Scotsman, but if I can demonstrate that he is not, in fact, a Scotsman...then it's not a fallacy.

 

[rjs330]

That's only a fallacy when it happens to be a fallacy.

MacAngus may claim to be a Scotsman, but if I can demonstrate that he is not, in fact, a Scotsman...then it's not a fallacy.

It's really funny how people desperately want to use this as if its an undeniable reality. But as you put it, it can be put to the test. And there are plenty of examples of it.

If I claim to the a citizen of Germany then apparently I am because of the no true scotsman. Yet it can be can be demonstrated that I'm not therefore no true scotsman is a fallacy it self.

and this can be demonstrated in many ways, so I do not accept the no true scotsman. It's a bogus statement or argument.

 

[rjs330]

There are no “black people” in Nigeria.

That's all you got out of that? Was that supposed to make his points invalid or make them seem less valid? Why don't you address the points instead of just tossing in a trite comment.

 

[Bradskii]

It's really funny how people desperately want to use this as if its an undeniable reality. But as you put it, it can be put to the test. And there are plenty of examples of it.

If I claim to the a citizen of Germany then apparently I am because of the no true scotsman. Yet it can be can be demonstrated that I'm not therefore no true scotsman is a fallacy it self.

and this can be demonstrated in many ways, so I do not accept the no true scotsman. It's a bogus statement or argument.

No, you have this backwards. It's nothing whatsoever with being what you claim. It's assumed that you are what you claim - in this case 'a Scotsman'. But if you don't exhibit the characteristics that someone personally considers to be a Scotsman (you hate whisky and don't wear a kilt) then someone may say, fallaciously, 'Well, he's not a true Scotsman.'

Proving that you are born of Scottish parents in Glasgow doesn't mean the fallacy is not a fallacy.

 

[rjs330]

No, you have this backwards. It's nothing whatsoever with being what you claim. It's assumed that you are what you claim - in this case 'a Scotsman'. But if you don't exhibit the characteristics that someone personally considers to be a Scotsman (you hate whisky and don't wear a kilt) then someone may say, fallaciously, 'Well, he's not a true Scotsman.'

Proving that you are born of Scottish parents in Glasgow doesn't mean the fallacy is not a fallacy.

That's precisely why it's a bogus claim. Because it's often been proven wrong. And easily so. If I claim to be German but don't like sour kraut is not even close to the same thing as claiming to be a Muslim and not having any of the traits of being a Muslim. Just cause someone claim to be something doesn't mean they are and it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they are especially if they act the opposite of what they claim.

 

[timothyu]

Just cause someone claim to be something doesn't mean they are and it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they are especially if they act the opposite of what they claim.

Like when people calling themselves Christians abandoned the Kingdom to rejoin the opposing forces of mankind?

 

[Bradskii]

That's precisely why it's a bogus claim. Because it's often been proven wrong.

We'll...yes. That's the point. It's what makes it a fallacy. You are not defined by what someone else claims should be characteristics that you should hold. So saying 'you can't be a true Scot if you don't like whisky' is a fallacy if you are indeed a Scot.

It's not the Scotsman who is making the fallacious claim. It's the person suggesting that he is not a true Scotsman.

 

[rjs330]

We'll...yes. That's the point. It's what makes it a fallacy. You are not defined by what someone else claims should be characteristics that you should hold. So saying 'you can't be a true Scot if you don't like whisky' is a fallacy if you are indeed a Scot.

It's not the Scotsman who is making the fallacious claim. It's the person suggesting that he is not a true Scotsman.

Except maybe the person making the claim actually isn't a Scott but just says they are. How do you know if someone is a Scot? Just cause they claim they are?

 

[RDKirk]

Except maybe the person making the claim actually isn't a Scott but just says they are. How do you know if someone is a Scot? Just cause they claim they are?

You would have to apply generally agreed tests to make that determination...one of which might validly be the assertion of what a true Scotsman would or would not do.

 

[Bradskii]

Except maybe the person making the claim actually isn't a Scott but just says they are. How do you know if someone is a Scot? Just cause they claim they are?

I give up...

 

[rturner76]

The whites got them hooked on crack created by the CIA.

The CIA didn't create crack, they just facilitated the distrobution of it.

"For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found."

"This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the "crack" capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America . . . and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.'s gangs to buy automatic weapons."

CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't think that politics matters all that much in regard to racism. A Republican can be just as anti-racist as a Democrat. That said, we have to consider more than just racism when we vote. Things like abortion, same-sex "marriage", and the death penalty are extremely important to consider when deciding who to vote for.

As for my family, I have no idea if any of my family owned slaves in the past. However, I am a staunch Republican because the Democrats almost always take the wrong position on abortion and same-sex "marriage". Thankfully, they trend in the right direction concerning the death penalty. I'm very much anti-racism. My husband is mixed Mexican, Native American, and Jewish heritage, whereas I only have Caucasian ancestry.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think that politics matters all that much in regard to racism. A Republican can be just as anti-racist as a Democrat. That said, we have to consider more than just racism when we vote. Things like abortion, same-sex "marriage", and the death penalty are extremely important to consider when deciding who to vote for.

As for my family, I have no idea if any of my family owned slaves in the past. However, I am a staunch Republican because the Democrats almost always take the wrong position on abortion and same-sex "marriage". Thankfully, they trend in the right direction concerning the death penalty. I'm very much anti-racism. My husband is mixed Mexican, Native American, and Jewish heritage, whereas I only have Caucasian ancestry.

I know for a fact a man named "Kirk" in my lineage was a slave owner because I've seen the census, and I know I'm not 20% Scottish by freak accident.

 

[FredVB]

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?

I do think there is an obligation from any of us doing much better to provide some benefit to others who are at more disadvantage however far back it may stem from, and biblically we are not even supposed to know how they are, to act on that obligation.