Racism among white Christians

[Coleman Smith]

"Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence."

"In public opinion polls, a clear pattern has emerged: White Christians are consistently more likely than whites who are religiously unaffiliated to deny the existence of structural racism."

 

[Patooka]

Just gonna leave this here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14_5PJMeos[/youtube]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence."

"In public opinion polls, a clear pattern has emerged: White Christians are consistently more likely than whites who are religiously unaffiliated to deny the existence of structural racism."

And water is wet.

 

[Lion IRC]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

 

[Trausti]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

Yeah. This article is gaslighting.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just gonna leave this here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14_5PJMeos[/youtube]

That confused me. I think he meant that white privilege does exist, but that he'd rather use the word blessing instead of privilege, to refer to it?

Also, several replies here confused me too. Does Loren saying 'water is wet' mean 'obviously, white christians tend to deny the existence of structural racism, unlike atheists such as me'? Does Lion saying 'denying the existence of structural racism is not racism' mean he denies the existence of structural racism? Does Trausti deny the existence of structural racism, or not?

Anyhows, it prompted me to start a poll.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21914-Structural-systemic-racism-poll

ETA: and another on white privilege.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21915-White-privilege-poll

 

[ruby sparks]

Just gonna leave this here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14_5PJMeos[/youtube]

I watched this again and I'm no less confused as to what he meant.

Here seems to be the response of the person he was talking to:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sR0yX1F5EU&feature=emb_rel_end[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

Yeah. This article is gaslighting.

Lion is correct, but why do you think the article is gaslighting?

 

[Politesse]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

It is to disagree with the assessment that there is structural racism. It does not imply that Black people are inferior to White people, or to some other people. It does not require hatred or fear of Black people. Nor does it require any similar views or attitudes towards any other race.

 

[Politesse]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

It is to disagree with the assessment that there is structural racism. It does not imply that Black people are inferior to White people, or to some other people. It does not require hatred or fear of Black people. Nor does it require any similar views or attitudes towards any other race.

If there is ample evidence of structural racism, denying that the problem exists is an act of violence, however passive. If you don't have a dog in the fight, why would you feel motivated to participate in denialist cults to begin with? Like denying genocides, denying climate change, denying nepotism in college admissions, denying the moon landing, denying the roundness of the planet, etc, such denialisms are always grounded in ancient social prejudices and emnities, there is no other logical reason for them to exist.

 

[ruby sparks]

If there is ample evidence of structural racism, denying that the problem exists is an act of violence, however passive.

I agree, obviously, at least that it's an act of unfair discrimination*. Not least because the term racism does not need to necessarily imply thinking that the other is inferior, though it often does. But since it doesn't necessarily, it's a straw man.

* Other option, to be fair, is just pure, unintentional blindness. And I do think that's a factor. Self-confirming biases are endemic to all humans.

 

[Politesse]

I agree, obviously. Not least because the term racism does not need to necessarily imply thinking that the other is inferior, though it often does. But since it doesn't necessarily, it's a straw man.

That one gets complicated, because a large subset of the population does think that should be the exclusive definition of the term, that conscious intent to unjustly harm another must be present.

But I don't know with what term we should refer to the idea of constitutively separate races, if not "racism". And I would argue that it is pretty harmful whether or not you admit to seeing one race as superior or inferior to another. I also see the denial of prejudicial racism as a frequent rhetorical ploy. And while there are plenty of people who genuinely and earnestly do not believe themselves to be racist, despite holding many seemingly racist views and biases, the effect of their words and actions is not altered much by their personal naivete. The liberal-minded, presumptively tolerant white woman who calls the police on a black man for chastising her in public can still get him unjustly arrested or shot, even if it has honestly and truly never occurred to her to question why she feels more threatened by black male strangers than white ones.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If there is ample evidence of structural racism, denying that the problem exists is an act of violence, however passive.

No, that is not remotely violence! I thought you were accusing them falsely of racism. But you're even accusing them of racist violence.

If you don't have a dog in the fight, why would you feel motivated to participate in denialist cults to begin with?

What I see are - as usual - false and unwarranted accusations.

Like denying genocides, denying climate change, denying nepotism in college admissions, denying the moon landing, denying the roundness of the planet, etc, such denialisms are always grounded in ancient social prejudices and emnities, there is no other logical reason for them to exist.

Again, a person who believes that there is no structural racism need not believe people of any race are inferior. Nor do they need to hate people of any race, or to fear them. Which means it is not racism. But even if it were racism, it would not be violence! - this is just getting absurd.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not least because the term racism does not need to necessarily imply thinking that the other is inferior, though it often does.

It is not remotely a straw man. Rather, I considered 3 different options:

1. Believing that people of race X are inferior.
2. Hating people of race X.
3. Irrationally fearing people of race X - and because of their race, not because of some other reason.

A person may deny that there is structural racism without 1., 2, and 3. How would that person be a racist?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

Anyone who denies you're a Nazi is clearly a Nazi.

 

[Politesse]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

Anyone who denies you're a Nazi is clearly a Nazi.

Nope. But someone who denies that Nazism exists is inherently suspect.

 

[WAB]

NM

 

[Bomb#20]

"Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence."

"In public opinion polls, a clear pattern has emerged: White Christians are consistently more likely than whites who are religiously unaffiliated to deny the existence of structural racism."

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

But I don't know with what term we should refer to the idea of constitutively separate races, if not "racism".

Let's just skip to the end, and define "racism" to include any and every opinion we disagree with. That means everyone who disagrees with us is racist. That means we win.

 

[Politesse]

What the hell is it, then?

But I don't know with what term we should refer to the idea of constitutively separate races, if not "racism".

Let's just skip to the end, and define "racism" to include any and every opinion we disagree with. That means everyone who disagrees with us is racist. That means we win.

Whatever you're talking about, it doesn't sound especially mature or productive. The goal isn't to name-call. The goal is to address structural racism, and if possible, ameliorate it.

Just because you deny that the forest fire is happening and refuse to evacuate, doesn't mean the fire fighters are out to get you for not believing them. Their primary goal is to put out the fire, you are only an obstacle to reaching that goal.