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

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?
I don't think politics have much to do with it.

Liberalism, or the Democratic Party in and of themselves was never really a friend to minorities. Before the Civil Rights Movement, America was promoting humanitarianism, and racial/ethnic tolerance at the same time segregation was going on. As far as I know, our society wasn't against segregation until after the CRM. Historically, we never really change until there's sufficient protest from the victim.

Now there are a number of African Americans who feel they've been duped by liberals/democrats, and are strong supporters of Trump. But in reality there is no pure white savior, group or individual. Once there's sufficient evidence of ulterior motive, who is/are the bad guy(s) may just continue to shift.

I think God judges us individually, and our responsibility is to make sure racism is not in our personal hearts.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think politics have much to do with it.

Liberalism, or the Democratic Party in and of themselves was never really a friend to minorities. Before the Civil Rights Movement, America was promoting humanitarianism, and racial/ethnic tolerance at the same time segregation was going on. As far as I know, our society wasn't against segregation until after the CRM. Historically, we never really change until there's sufficient protest from the victim.
The federal government had been making very strong anti-segregation moves from 1954 and especially during the Kennedy Administration in all areas the federal government had jurisdiction.

Some examples: The FTC had taken to court interstate businesses that practiced segregation, including bus companies and restaurants. I remember on a trip from Oklahoma to Florida in 1963, my father looked for Howard Johnson's restaurants specifically because Howard Johnsons (an interstate company) had been ordered by the FTC to desegregate.

The ordered desegregation of interstate bus lines was tested in 1963 by the Freedom Riders, which is an amazing story of very brave black and white youth.

The federal government also began to put teeth into the Supreme Court's 1954 school desegregation order during this time.

Also, the federal Aid To Families with Dependent Children Act, which had been closed to black mothers since its passage in 1939, was finally opened to them. Interestingly, it was only then that "Welfare" became a sudden controversial issue, with many states at that time imposing the infamous "no man in the house" rule.

However, these actions were only those permitted to the federal government without a law that would be operational against private companies that didn't fall under interstate jurisdiction.

Bottom line: The federal government had been pretty much doing all it could for five or six years prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Now there are a number of African Americans who feel they've been duped by liberals/democrats, and are strong supporters of Trump. But in reality there is no pure white savior, group or individual. Once there's sufficient evidence of ulterior motive, who is/are the bad guy(s) may just continue to shift.
That is true.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond7

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.
Nov 23, 2022
5,477
826
72
Akron
✟76,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Liberalism, or the Democratic Party in and of themselves was never really a friend to minorities.
It is sort of like the House Slave being in charge of the field slave. They are both in bondage even if one is a part of the family and lives in the fancy house.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is sort of like the House Slave being in charge of the field slave. They are both in bondage even if one is a part of the family and lives in the fancy house.
The house slave was not as exposed to the harshness of nature, but was more exposed to the cruelty of man.

For instance, the female house slave was subject to frequent rape (to the extent that most American blacks today are around 20% white). Because she attracted the sexual attention of the house master, she was also subject to the constant ire of the house mistress, suffering physical and psychological abuse.

The problem with liberals is that they believe "where you are is what you are." They seek to make you more comfortable in your problem rather than helping you solve your problem because they believe your problem is intrinsically you. If you are poor, they make you more comfortable in your poverty; if you are obese, they make you more comfortable in your obesity; if you are confused, they make you more comfortable in your confusion.

Two fictional examples: The Star Trek-like series The Orville presents a black female ship's doctor. She is a single mother by intention (a "proper" science fiction single mother is always a widow) with two obnoxious sons. She is oversexed and violent-natured. Even though this is supposed to be a series set in the distant future, she's a walking stereotype of a ghetto black woman. The series writers think they're being supportive and inclusive.

Then there is Star Trek: Discovery, which presented a disable Starfleet crewman in a manually powered wheelchair...even when another physically disabled crew member has a full bionic body. They also think they're being supportive and inclusive, but someone on a starship in a manual wheelchair is, to put it in Star Trek terms....illogical.

But that is liberal thinking: You can't be any different. There is no point instilling aspirations, there's no point encouraging or expecting growth because where you are is what you are.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is sort of like the House Slave being in charge of the field slave. They are both in bondage even if one is a part of the family and lives in the fancy house.
I think we see a lot of that in the media. The black exploitation movies. Indiscriminately using the "N" word, then countering with flattery as a cushion. Countering racist oriented humor with a white liberal voice in opposition. Using an uneducated black character in racist oriented humor against Asian and Hispanic culture.

In today's commercials where someone like Gronkowski is portrayed as someone who can't tell the difference between serving in the military, and serving a tennis ball; people like Snoop Dog and Larry Fishburne....that is Samuel L. Jackson are portrayed as intimidating, and sharp with the tongue. Usually alongside a white patsy who is eager to please.

And I would say 99% of the time most of the earnings from these projects go into a white person's pocket.
 
Upvote 0

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The house slave was not as exposed to the harshness of nature, but was more exposed to the cruelty of man.

For instance, the female house slave was subject to frequent rape (to the extent that most American blacks today are around 20% white). Because she attracted the sexual attention of the house master, she was also subject to the constant ire of the house mistress, suffering physical and psychological abuse.

The problem with liberals is that they believe "where you are is what you are." They seek to make you more comfortable in your problem rather than helping you solve your problem because they believe your problem is intrinsically you. If you are poor, they make you more comfortable in your poverty; if you are obese, they make you more comfortable in your obesity; if you are confused, they make you more comfortable in your confusion.

Two fictional examples: The Star Trek-like series The Orville presents a black female ship's doctor. She is a single mother by intention (a "proper" science fiction single mother is always a widow) with two obnoxious sons. She is oversexed and violent-natured. Even though this is supposed to be a series set in the distant future, she's a walking stereotype of a ghetto black woman. The series writers think they're being supportive and inclusive.

Then there is Star Trek: Discovery, which presented a disable Starfleet crewman in a manually powered wheelchair...even when another physically disabled crew member has a full bionic body. They also think they're being supportive and inclusive, but someone on a starship in a manual wheelchair is, to put it in Star Trek terms....illogical.

But that is liberal thinking: You can't be any different. There is no point instilling aspirations, there's no point encouraging or expecting growth because where you are is what you are.
The movie Independence Day used Will Smith as a means to broaden the audience base beyond the typical sci-fi nerd. There's the scene where he goes into (a term that's sometimes used) ghetto language, and knocks an alien unconscious, and drags him to a military facility. An alien that had no problem handling the character who had played Data in Star Trek NG.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think we see a lot of that in the media. The black exploitation movies. Indiscriminately using the "N" word, then countering with flattery as a cushion. Countering racist oriented humor with a white liberal voice in opposition. Using an uneducated black character in racist oriented humor against Asian and Hispanic culture.

In today's commercials where someone like Gronkowski is portrayed as someone who can't tell the difference between serving in the military, and serving a tennis ball; people like Snoop Dog and Larry Fishburne....that is Samuel L. Jackson are portrayed as intimidating, and sharp with the tongue. Usually alongside a white patsy who is eager to please.

And I would say 99% of the time most of the earnings from these projects go into a white person's pocket.
What's wrong with Laurence Fishburne?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The movie Independence Day used Will Smith as a means to broaden the audience base beyond the typical sci-fi nerd. There's the scene where he goes into (a term that's sometimes used) ghetto language, and knocks an alien unconscious, and drags him to a military facility. An alien that had no problem handling the character who had played Data in Star Trek NG.
Well the character the alien had no problem handling was a scientist, not a Marine.
 
Upvote 0

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well the character the alien had no problem handling was a scientist, not a Marine.
The ID movie was a conglomeration of serious alien invasion sci-fi, and Indiana Jones type swashbuckling. So it was understandable. But for the sake of argument, why not Will Smith as the scientist in that particular movie?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The ID movie was a conglomeration of serious alien invasion sci-fi, and Indiana Jones type swashbuckling. So it was understandable. But for the sake of argument, why not Will Smith as the scientist in that particular movie?
Will Smith's box office draw is not as a scientist. Now that I think about it, most science fiction with a scientist as protagonist manages to turn them into swashbucklers anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Will Smith's box office draw is not as a scientist.
Will Smith is versatile. He played numerous types of roles, and could easily have played a mild mannered scientist.

Now that I think about it, most science fiction with a scientist as protagonist manages to turn them into swashbucklers anyway.
Movies like Star Wars fit that bill, yes. Movies involving an alien invasion on Earth (War Of The Worlds, Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers, Signs, Plan 9 From Outer Space.....lol, etc.) tend to be serious, and realistic.

But to be honest, the swash buckling sci fi's I'm familiar with, the scientist is the middle-aged or old cerebral/humanitarian. Sometimes the father of the love interest for the young male hero who does all the fighting.

Was that scene in ID with Will Smith a stereo-type? I would say so. Maybe a very mild under the radar form of black exploitation. If black exploitation in movies never existed, we could easily write it off as coincidence. Neck and neck competition for the role with Will Ferrel, or Jim Carrey.

Black exploitation in movies is a reality. Thus, the existing term. Obviously more profound in the 70s when people realized black gangster movies, with a hero who often put the evil white business tycoon, or corrupt cop in their place was a means of appeasement. TCM is showcasing the artistic element of those movies, but they were still created to satisfy a sort of need to watch a form of racial justice played out on screen.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,384
20,347
US
✟1,486,916.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Will Smith is versatile. He played numerous types of roles, and could easily have played a mild mannered scientist.
That movie might be out there for him, but ID wasn't that kind of movie. Smith's career hadn't stretched that far by that time.
Movies like Star Wars fit that bill, yes. Movies involving an alien invasion on Earth (War Of The Worlds, Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers, Signs, Plan 9 From Outer Space.....lol, etc.) tend to be serious, and realistic.

But to be honest, the swash buckling sci fi's I'm familiar with, the scientist is the middle-aged or old cerebral/humanitarian. Sometimes the father of the love interest for the young male hero who does all the fighting.

Was that scene in ID with Will Smith a stereo-type? I would say so. Maybe a very mild under the radar form of black exploitation. If black exploitation in movies never existed, we could easily write it off as coincidence. Neck and neck competition for the role with Will Ferrel, or Jim Carrey.
Will Smith was just as much a stereotype of any action hero. If you want to point out a stereotype in that movie, it would have to be his love interest played by Vivica Fox.
Black exploitation in movies is a reality. Thus, the existing term. Obviously more profound in the 70s when people realized black gangster movies, with a hero who often put the evil white business tycoon, or corrupt cop in their place was a means of appeasement. TCM is showcasing the artistic element of those movies, but they were still created to satisfy a sort of need to watch a form of racial justice played out on screen.
I remember the 70s. I was in my twenties during the 70s. There was a line between black action movies and black exploitation movies. You have to take each movie and its message into account. Who wrote and produced the movie also counted.

Shaft was black action, Dolemite was black exploitation. The movie generally considered today by people who weren't there to be the first blaxploitation move was "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song," but in our opinion at the time, it was the first movie with the message black people wanted to hear and say.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Roderick Spode

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
364
74
64
Silicon Valley
✟24,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That movie might be out there for him, but ID wasn't that kind of movie. Smith's career hadn't stretched that far by that time.
Like most actors, he was typed cast. No argument there. And like you said, Will Smith's box office draw is not as a scientist. But that's part of my point.

Will Smith was just as much a stereotype of any action hero.
I'm not claiming that he's the only one stereotyped. Or that white actors are not stereotyped. Someone who doesn't look like a scientist, is less likely to get a role as a scientist. I'm not saying he should have been cast as the scientist.
If you want to point out a stereotype in that movie, it would have to be his love interest played by Vivica Fox.
I don't really remember her too well, but this sounds a bit subjective. You may very well be right, but she may have simply been more blatantly a stereotype.
I remember the 70s. I was in my twenties during the 70s. There was a line between black action movies and black exploitation movies. You have to take each movie and its message into account. Who wrote and produced the movie also counted.
Exploitation is not a movie category like action, science fiction, drama, etc. I don't think there was a distinct line between black action, and black exploitation. Some of the movies were better done, had better movie score, better cast, etc. Some of them may have been more profoundly exploitive than others.
Shaft was black action, Dolemite was black exploitation. The movie generally considered today by people who weren't there to be the first blaxploitation move was "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song," but in our opinion at the time, it was the first movie with the message black people wanted to hear and say.
Shaft and Superfly were 2 of the more respected movies. Some of these characters were similar to James Bond. A flattering role. Males who run off to Hollywood to get into the movies imagine themselves getting these type of roles. They don't aspire to getting embarrassing roles some fall into, like being turned into a piece of excrement (Weird Science), or getting beat up by Mel Gibson while he's acting like Moe from The 3 Stooges (Lethal Weapon), etc. Even in the Church, when us males give a testimony of a prior sinful lifestyle, we present it in a James Bond fashion. Sort of a What would James Bond do? sort of thing.

Are these flattering roles like Shaft and Superfly harmful? In and of themselves, probably not. But it might depend on which if any contribute to the negative gangsta image like some rap allegedly is said to do. Or, if an individual doesn't mind being used for a facade of liberal support. Norman Lear, in my opinion, was a good example of this. His MO was to contend with Christian conservatism. All In The Family was not an anti-racism sit-com. He was careful about using the "N" word, but had no problem using the "J" word for a Japanese, or the "C" word for a Chinese. It was an anti-Christian/conservative/WASP sitcom, employing a facade of supporting Black Americans. Thus the over-the-top White conservative bigot named Archie Bunker. Thus the liberal corrective voice of Michael Stivic and his daughter Gloria, and the child-like mind of his wife too innocent to hold prejudice named Edith. Thus the intrusive relative of Edith (or friend of her family?) named Maude, who portrayed his aggressive liberal female counterpart. The show pushed liberalism, not anti-racism.

Racism in comedy has always been a commodity. It never goes away, just repackaged to to fit current sensitivities. For years, Asian stereotypes were comfortably used in American media. Eventually mostly silent Asian activist groups protested against demeaning stereotypes, which is why we see a slight improvement on how they're portrayed. If they hadn't protested, we, liberals and all would feel completely comfortable with the stereotypes, because racial stereotypes sell in movies and TV. We're not going to just give them up that easy. If the protest becomes strong enough, we'll discard some Asian stereotypes, some Hispanic stereotypes, and even some gay stereotypes. In the case of the Civil Right Movement, a complete about face was made, removing the Stepin Fetchit character for the Shaft character.

To keep black stereotype humor alive in the past few decades required clever tactics like those of Mel Brooks, Lisa Lampanelli, and Norman Lear.

The black comedians of the past like Mantan Moreland, Tim Moore, and Spencer Williams, whether justified or not, have been demonized. Their white counterparts (Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, 3 Stooges) are now heroes.
 
Upvote 0

th1bill

A Believer/Follower
Jul 5, 2003
1,101
169
79
Texas
Visit site
✟71,357.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am going to throw a cog into the works of this mess that people refuse to deal with, white or black. The Slaves, not exclusively but, largely were captured, sold, purchased and, owned by Black Slave Owners.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,696
8,496
up there
✟310,960.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The Slaves, not exclusively but, largely were captured, sold, purchased and, owned by Black Slave Owners.
I presume you mean on the Continent where it was common with tribal warfare? Actually every race did the same as a result of wars, taking their own race or others, humans also being considered spoils of victory. We see it today quite often with the Boko Haram
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying
Aug 19, 2018
16,319
11,074
71
Bondi
✟260,264.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am going to throw a cog into the works of this mess that people refuse to deal with, white or black. The Slaves, not exclusively but, largely were captured, sold, purchased and, owned by Black Slave Owners.
Gosh. Why that means...

Well, I have no idea what you think that means. And who is the BSO anyway?
 
Upvote 0

th1bill

A Believer/Follower
Jul 5, 2003
1,101
169
79
Texas
Visit site
✟71,357.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Gosh. Why that means...

Well, I have no idea what you think that means. And who is the BSO anyway?
I never kept a list, I just bothered to inquire through Historical records. And then another commentator has pointed out the truth that Caucasions have also lived through Slavery,,, past and present/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,194
5,924
✟252,561.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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 don't quite understand the question, or why this question exists.
It has nothing to do with white privilege or systemic racism.

It's not about judging descendants based on the deeds of their ancestry.

The concept of white privilege and systemic racism is in recognition of the extra hurdles that are faced by minorities in trying to succeed in society.
It's about a person existing in a society where their culture is dominant (e.g. national holidays reflect their culture, national traditions reflect their traditions, government looks like them, and shares their cultural background and beliefs, supreme court looks like them and shares their cultural background and beliefs, hiring managers look like them and share their cultural background and beliefs. And given that they are intune with the system, leaders, hiring managers, they have an edge when it comes to getting jobs, and getting what they want. In fact society mostly reflects what they want but they can still lobby (just as anyone can) to sympathetic, intune ears to get even more of what they want.

Vs a person existing in a society where their culture is a vast minority, where they have adopted the language of the majority, adopted the beliefs of the majority and the culture of the majority, but still celebrate their own culture and beliefs in private, in the shadows. where the govt don't look like them, don't understand them, just see them as non conforming, where they are assumed to be guilty, or trouble makers, where they are at odds with the ruling class and don't gel quite as well, where they have to work harder to impress, to land that job, to overcome the hiring employer's intuition on a person that they don't immediately click with. Where they haven't been able to benefit from having well off parents or well off friends and connections, to get that first job, or to buy that house. Where they are constantly doubted and looked at with suspicion.


So I'd say it doesn't matter if your ancestors were slave owners or not. It doesn't have any reflection on you as a person. But it also has nothing to do with "white privilege" or "systemic racism"
 
Upvote 0