Racism among white Christians

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

I don't think anyone denies that structural racism did exist. Whether it exists now, however is debatable. Your side continues to use disparate results as evidence of structural racism, ignoring little details like you get a very different picture when you look at immigrants.

 

[Politesse]

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

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

I don't think anyone denies that structural racism did exist. Whether it exists now, however is debatable. Your side continues to use disparate results as evidence of structural racism, ignoring little details like you get a very different picture when you look at immigrants.

My "side"?

When the "disparate results" are just about any objective measure that can be devised, from labor statistics to incarceration rates to educational attainment, acknowledging the existence of those results isn't taking a "side". I can see disagreeing about how to best respond to facts, but not calling the facts themselves into question, unless one has a very clear and demonstrable reason to believe that those facts are in error.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I would have thought it was obvious what I was talking about, since I quoted it. I was talking about what you and Mr. Jones wrote. And no, what you and Mr. Jones wrote didn't sound especially mature or productive. You're engaging in childish name-calling.

The goal isn't to name-call.

No, of course not. The name-calling is merely a means to an end -- a means you and he chose to use, because you and he have immature and unproductive attitudes.

The goal is to address structural racism, and if possible, ameliorate it.

Yes, certainly; and if someone thinks he can do that more easily when nobody is publicly disagreeing with his analysis of the situation, and he therefore regards those who dispute his analysis as obstacles, so he prefers they shut up about it, and he finds engaging in character assassination against obstacles is an effective way to bully them into silence, well, having scruples that impede him from lying about his outgroup won't help him achieve his goal. The name-calling is perfectly comprehensible. It just isn't honorable.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think anyone denies that structural racism did exist. Whether it exists now, however is debatable. Your side continues to use disparate results as evidence of structural racism, ignoring little details like you get a very different picture when you look at immigrants.

My "side"?

When the "disparate results" are just about any objective measure that can be devised, from labor statistics to incarceration rates to educational attainment, acknowledging the existence of those results isn't taking a "side". I can see disagreeing about how to best respond to facts, but not calling the facts themselves into question, unless one has a very clear and demonstrable reason to believe that those facts are in error.

What I would say is that it is obviously a question of degree. Loren will, quite rightly, say that incarceration rates for example (and indeed the other measures you mentioned) can be explained in a number of ways that do not necessarily include structural (or any variety of) racism. However, Loren has consistently over an extended time engaged in what amounts to racism denial (mostly via the minimization route) and that is the underlying problem with Loren's posts and arguments. No amount of evidence has ever convinced him to accept obvious basic facts and imo it is not productive to debate with him for that reason.

By the way, what was your take on what the white Christian man in the tv discussion video said (to a black Christian man, as it so happens in this case)? It seemed dodgy to me. I'm guessing you might agree. But still, what was your take on it? Perhaps the white man simply didn't come across as he intended, or I have misunderstood him.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I pretty much agree.

 

[lpetrich]

From the article,

Not surprisingly, given their concentration in the South, white evangelical Protestants have the highest median score (0.78) on the Racism Index. But it is a mistake to see this as merely a Southern or an evangelical problem. The median scores of white Catholics (0.72) and white mainline Protestants (0.69) — groups that are more culturally dominant in the Northeast and the Midwest — are not far behind. Notably, the median score for each white Christian subgroup is significantly above the median scores of the general population (0.57), white religiously unaffiliated Americans (0.42) and Black Protestants (0.24).

A result that holds after untangling other demographic characteristics.

The results point to a stark conclusion: While most white Christians think of themselves as people who hold warm feelings toward African Americans, holding racist views is nonetheless positively and independently associated with white Christian identity. Again, this troubling relationship holds not just for white evangelical Protestants, but also for white mainline Protestants and white Catholics.

Moreover, these statistical models refute the assertion that attending church makes white Christians less racist. Among white evangelicals, in fact, the opposite is true: The relationship between holding racist views and white Christian identity is actually stronger among more frequent church attenders than among less frequent church attenders.

...
But when we allow ourselves to cast our gaze beyond the rosy stories we tell about ourselves as champions and representatives of all that is good in America, a terrifyingly troubled alternative history emerges.

Like believing that black people are subject to the Curse of Ham, one of Noah's three sons.

The practice had it that whites sat in the front while enslaved Blacks sat in the back or in specially constructed galleries above. In late 18th-century Maryland, one-fifth of those included in a Catholic census were enslaved people owned by white Catholics or white Catholic institutions. And as late as the 1940s, urban Catholic parishes in major cities such as New York still required Black members to sit in the back pews and approach the altar last to receive the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Moreover, the content of what was preached confirmed that white supremacy was part of the Christian worldview. Sermons, by necessity, tended to be light on the themes of freedom and liberation in Exodus, for example, and heavy on the mandates of obedience and being content in one's social station from the New Testament writings of Paul.

It's not surprising that American Blacks ended up having their own churches -- churches that became the main religious organizations to participate in the black civil-rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's. Most others didn't do nearly as much, or were opposed to that movement, even if they now try to associate themselves with that movement.

But those churches are fading also - the Black Lives Matter movement is mostly secular.

MLK: "it is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think anyone denies that structural racism did exist. Whether it exists now, however is debatable. Your side continues to use disparate results as evidence of structural racism, ignoring little details like you get a very different picture when you look at immigrants.

My "side"?

When the "disparate results" are just about any objective measure that can be devised, from labor statistics to incarceration rates to educational attainment, acknowledging the existence of those results isn't taking a "side". I can see disagreeing about how to best respond to facts, but not calling the facts themselves into question, unless one has a very clear and demonstrable reason to believe that those facts are in error.

The problem is the studies bend over backwards from considering whether the effect is due to race or due to socioeconomic status. Since race is a proxy for socioeconomic status this exclusion renders the data meaningless.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not again with this garbage, surely. Studies find racism too Loren, you just consistently try to deny it. The only thing that is meaningless are your posts about this.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think anyone denies that structural racism did exist. Whether it exists now, however is debatable. Your side continues to use disparate results as evidence of structural racism, ignoring little details like you get a very different picture when you look at immigrants.

My "side"?

When the "disparate results" are just about any objective measure that can be devised, from labor statistics to incarceration rates to educational attainment, acknowledging the existence of those results isn't taking a "side". I can see disagreeing about how to best respond to facts, but not calling the facts themselves into question, unless one has a very clear and demonstrable reason to believe that those facts are in error.

The problem is the studies bend over backwards from considering whether the effect is due to race or due to socioeconomic status. Since race is a proxy for socioeconomic status this exclusion renders the data meaningless.

How does that, in any sense, make those two qualities not interconnected? Why is race "a proxy for socioeconomic status" if they are not interlinked?

 

[Lion IRC]

Denying the existence of structural racism is not racism.

What the hell is it, then?

Denying the existence of atheism is not atheism.
Denying a conspiracy theory is not ...a conspiracy theory.
Stating that all lives matter does not mean ...black lives dont matter.

Read this carefully.
Structural racism is racist.
Apartheid is structural racism and therefore racist.
If there is no longer apartheid in South Africa it is neither racist nor racism to say the words....
"there is no apartheid in South Africa"

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

And that's precisely why so many leftists are trying to make up new definitions that incorporate into the term whichever thought-crimes they hope to suppress: they want to induce the public at large to equate ideas leftists hate with intent to unjustly harm another, even though those ideas do not involve intent to unjustly harm another. They are trying to get people convicted of crimes they didn't commit in the court of public opinion by tricking the public into falling for equivocation fallacies. Making up broadened definitions of "racism" is intent to deceive.

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

Let me help you out with that. The word you require is "heresy".

But no doubt you think you're being perfectly logical. All you're saying is that if you believe races exist you're a racist for the same reason that if you believe monarchs exist you're a monarchist and if you believe communes exist you're a communist; is that it?

And I would argue that it is pretty harmful whether or not you admit to seeing one race as superior or inferior to another.

And I would argue that it is pretty harmful for you to have not stopped beating your wife whether you admit it or not.

The way you phrased that is a dead giveaway. You didn't say the idea "is pretty harmful whether or not you see one race as superior or inferior". You said "whether or not you admit to seeing one race as superior or inferior". You are treating the assumption as already established, that the person holding the idea in fact sees one race as superior to another; the only question is whether he is open about his racism or concealing it. There is only one reason that makes a lick of sense for you to have done that: you meant your audience to also treat that assumption as already established. You want your targets convicted in the court of public opinion, and you want them convicted without a trial.

Of course, whether your targets actually regard some race as inferior would be logically irrelevant, going by your proposed broadened definition of "racism". They think races exist and that's enough all by itself according to your definition. So why, then, did you try to manipulate readers into taking for granted that your targets think another race is inferior? There is only one reason to do that that makes a lick of sense: because you know perfectly well your audience will be judging "racism" by its ordinary plain-English meaning. You are relying on the common definition even as you argue for replacing it. What's a little equivocation fallacy as long as it helps get your targets convicted?

(Of course, you said "constitutively" separate races. Whatever the bejesus that means. It's not anything normal people say when they talk about races. So I presume "constitutively" is a weasel word.)

 

[Politesse]

Let me help you out with that. The word you require is "heresy".

But no doubt you think you're being perfectly logical. All you're saying is that if you believe races exist you're a racist for the same reason that if you believe monarchs exist you're a monarchist and if you believe communes exist you're a communist; is that it?

If someone insisted against all scientific evidence that monarchs were inherently genetically different from common citizens and therefore more naturally inclined to the role? Yes, I'd consider them a monarchist.

I eat heresies for lunch, come off it. You want to argue reality, do it with fact, not whiny rhetoric about imagined persecutions. Don't be afraid, I have no power to burn you at the stake, the worst I can do is make you look like an idiot, if you are.

The rest of your rant is attacking a point I readily conceded at the head of the post you're quoting, so I don't see the point of it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If someone insisted against all scientific evidence that monarchs were inherently genetically different from common citizens and therefore more naturally inclined to the role? Yes, I'd consider them a monarchist.

So, would you not consider people who believe that races do exist, racists on account of having that belief?

If you wouldn't consider them racists, then you should say so to clarify your previous words.

If you would consider them racists, then of course your analogy is completely off.

 

[Politesse]

If someone insisted against all scientific evidence that monarchs were inherently genetically different from common citizens and therefore more naturally inclined to the role? Yes, I'd consider them a monarchist.

So, would you not consider people who believe that races do exist, racists on account of having that belief?

If you wouldn't consider them racists, then you should say so to clarify your previous words.

If you would consider them racists, then of course your analogy is completely off.

I believe that races exist. Obviously, they exist, the idea of race has a profound and clearly measurable impact. Racism is the version where race is supposedly tied to some inherent quality of the person, as opposed to just being a social institution. Biology for the pseudo-science type, ancient curses and so forth for the religious crowd.

Forget the word "racist" altogether, no one has ever had an intelligent conversation about it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I believe that races exist. Obviously, they exist, the idea of race has a profound and clearly measurable impact.

I asked about races, not about the idea of races. Races and the idea of races are very different things of course. The idea of Hell exists and has a profound and clearly measurable impact, but sure, that does not entail remotely that Hell exists. The same for God, infinite heavenly bliss, etc.

Racism is the version where race is supposedly tied to some inherent quality of the person, as opposed to just being a social institution.

While the word 'inherent' is on its own somewhat ambiguous, you clarify when you say "as opposed to" being "just" a social institution, because imply that there is an exhaustive classification of ideas of race: either it is a social institution, or else it is an inherent quality of a person, and racism is the latter. In particular, this has the following implication:

I1: Racism is the idea that race is not just a social institution.
​

That has two problems at least.

The first one is that that is not what 'racism' means. If it were, people who believe that race is not just a social institution would not mind being called 'a racist', for example. But we do, clearly (and 'racism' and 'racist' are related in the usual manner in English, of course)

The second one is that if that were that 'racism' means, then racism would be true, since race is not just a social institution (this was shown in many threads, but for example, Bomb#20 showed it conclusively in the context of a debate with you actually, in this thread )

Forget the word "racist" altogether, no one has ever had an intelligent conversation about it.

But it's difficult to forget it when the word has a meaning and you are accusing us of being racists. For example, you claimed

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

While, in isolation, that would be a statement about yourself and your lack of knowledge about what term we should use, in context you were clearly implying that those who believe that were racists. Now the use of 'constitutively' is ambiguous and makes the targets more difficult to discern, your more recent explanation (including "as opposed to just being a social institution", see above) leaves little room for doubt.

At any rate, even if one were to taboo the words 'racism' and 'racist' (and you refrained from using it

 

[Politesse]

I asked about races, not about the idea of races. Races and the idea of races are very different things of course. The idea of Hell exists and has a profound and clearly measurable impact, but sure, that does not entail remotely that Hell exists. The same for God, infinite heavenly bliss, etc.

An absurd claim, but in that case, if social constructs of all sorts are not real, even if they very much affect people's lives in measurable ways, then no: the belief many have in race as some kind of eternal or scientific truth is and always was a fantasy, and the basis at least if not the definition of racism.

The first one is that that is not what 'racism' means. If it were, people who believe that race is not just a social institution would not mind being called 'a racist', for example. But we do, clearly (and 'racism' and 'racist' are related in the usual manner in English, of course)

This argument doesn't follow in the slightest. The proper name of of an abstract concept is not dependent on the perceived social acceptibility of applying it to an individual. What an absurd dictionary that would make!

And I already conceded the point that many people don't define racism this way, so why do you two keep banging on about it anyway? You quoted my post, you must have read it at some point. If you continue to ignore it when people agree with you, yet harp on them for remaining points of disagreement as though it were all they wrote, you will soon acquire a reputation for arguing in bad faith, as consensus or compromise is not possible with such a person.

The second one is that if that were that 'racism' means, then racism would be true, since race is not just a social institution (this was shown in many threads, but for example, Bomb#20 showed it conclusively in the context of a debate with you actually, in this thread )

Your decision to link as evidence to a previous thread in which I offered facts, and Mr Bomb offered nothing but rhetoric, bluster, and insult in response, is baffling to me. Whose side are you on, here?

At any rate, even if one were to taboo the words 'racism' and 'racist' (and you refrained from using it

"Racist" is not a taboo word, just one that always starts pointless arguments. Words which are now taken as automatic insults have that effect. I also think racism is folly, but I'm hardly going to start the discussion by calling you or anyone else a fool. I'll say no more on the matter. I think we can define racism, without trying to decide who is in or out. Once we have defined the term clearly, it should no longer be necessary, since each party will be able to ponder the word for themselves, and decide whether it appies to them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I asked about races, not about the idea of races. Races and the idea of races are very different things of course. The idea of Hell exists and has a profound and clearly measurable impact, but sure, that does not entail remotely that Hell exists. The same for God, infinite heavenly bliss, etc.

An absurd claim, but in that case, if social constructs of all sorts are not real, even if they very much affect people's lives in measurable ways, then no: the belief many have in race as some kind of eternal or scientific truth is and always was a fantasy, and the basis at least if not the definition of racism.

First, the points I made above are not absurd, but obviously true.
Second, I never suggested that social constructs are not real. The concept is very ambiguous, but I did not even say 'social constructs'. I did talk about social institutions, and some do exist, clearly. And if by 'social construct' you mean 'social institution', sure, there are those too. But that is not my point. You were talking about the idea of race, not about race.

This argument doesn't follow in the slightest. The proper name of of an abstract concept is not dependent on the perceived social acceptibility of applying it to an individual. What an absurd dictionary that would make!

Evidence of the meaning of the words is provided by how people use it. If 'racism' only meant 'the belief that race is not just a social institution', then competent English speakers who believe that race is not a social institution would not mind being described as 'racists', as generally we do not mind being described as people who believe that race is not just a social institution. That would be an accurate description.

And I already conceded the point that many people don't define racism this way, so why do you two keep banging on about it anyway?

You said that many people believe that that should not be the definition, but you did not say they were correct. Rather, you argued they were mistaken. You said

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

Moreover, you claimed:

And I would argue that it is pretty harmful whether or not you admit to seeing one race as superior or inferior to another.

Bomb#20 already explained why this was an unwarranted attack. Many of us do not see one race as superior or inferior to another, though we do realize there are races, and they are not "just social institution"s.

Moreover, you said in your reply to B20:

If someone insisted against all scientific evidence that monarchs were inherently genetically different from common citizens and therefore more naturally inclined to the role? Yes, I'd consider them a monarchist.

You are implicitly accusing the people who are racists under your (mistaken) definition (namely, those of us who believe that race is not just a social institution) of rejecting scientific evidence and insisting that one race is superior or inferior to another - an accusation you already made even more clearly before.

You quoted my post, you must have read it at some point. If you continue to ignore it when people agree with you, yet harp on them for remaining points of disagreement as though it were all they wrote, you will soon acquire a reputation for arguing in bad faith, as consensus or compromise is not possible with such a person.

I would think that that is in bad faith, if I didn't think that you actually believe that that is what is happening. Take a look at the exchanges. It is not. You are accusing people who are only racists in your (mistaken) definition of 'racism' (namely, those of us who believe that race is not just a social institution) of being racists in the actual sense of the word, on account of allegedly rejecting scientific evidence and believing that one race is superior or inferior to another, even if perhaps failing to admit it.

Your decision to link as evidence to a previous thread in which I offered facts, and Mr Bomb offered nothing but rhetoric, bluster, and insult in response, is baffling to me.

It is baffling to you because you do not realize you lost that debate. He offered the facts, you got it wrong.

Whose side are you on, here?

That is an odd question. But in case it is not clear, on this particular issue, I am on the side of those being accused of racism (in the actual sense of the word) for believing that race is not just a social institution. That includes me, though I realize the accusation is not specifically against me but a general one.

"Racist" is not a taboo word, just one that always starts pointless arguments.

Sorry, that is a misunderstanding. I did not say it was a taboo word. I said "even if one were to taboo the words...". In this context, it means even if one were to ban such words from the arguments. Anyway...

I think we can define racism, without trying to decide who is in or out.

There is a difference between a definition that attempts to match the meaning in English, and one that does not. If you only mean to stipulate it, one mightt as well define 'racism: the belief that the Earth is not flat', or whatever. I am not concerned with such definitions - as long as there is no equivocation, and the person makes clear that they do not mean 'racism' in the actual sense of the word, and as long as there is no usage in contexts in which it is potentially going to be misinterpreted.

Once we have defined the term clearly, it should no longer be necessary, since each party will be able to ponder the word for themselves, and decide whether it appies to them.

But that does not make the actual meaning go away. Going by the definition in my example above, I am a racist, as I do have the belief that the Earth is not flat. But I would not want people to go around describing me as a racist, because people who read the word 'racist' do not understand 'a person who believes that the Earth is not flat', but rather, they understand that the person is, well, a racist.

 

[Politesse]

See? You care more about the supposed "implicit" insult to yourself than the much more important social issue at hand. Forget it. I never called you a "racist", and I'm not going to. It's really not the point. Whether you are or not is best left to your own conscience in any case. But the ideas are what they are, whatever you call them. I don't care if you call yourself a racist or not, or even whether you believe in your innermost heart that you are a racist or not. If you have something to confess, do it to God; I've got no interest whatsoever in accusing or absolving you on this account.

It is baffling to you because you do not realize you lost that debate. He offered the facts, you got it wrong.

Not a single piece of concrete evidence was offered, that I can see, he went off on an irrelevant tangent about Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins, accused me of elitism for testifying as to the current consensus of my own academic discipline, then got frustrated and quit in confusion. What would you describe as his most salient points exactly, if you see that conversation in some different lens?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not again with this garbage, surely. Studies find racism too Loren, you just consistently try to deny it. The only thing that is meaningless are your posts about this.

Sure they do--when they fail to consider whether they are really finding racism or a socioeconomic effect.

For example, blacks really do receive inferior care in the ER. Oops--people in the inner cities receive inferior care from overworked, underfunded ERs. The racial difference goes away if you look at hospitals individually.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is the studies bend over backwards from considering whether the effect is due to race or due to socioeconomic status. Since race is a proxy for socioeconomic status this exclusion renders the data meaningless.

How does that, in any sense, make those two qualities not interconnected? Why is race "a proxy for socioeconomic status" if they are not interlinked?

So ice cream sales cause rape?