Southern Baptist Letters

Sadly, this is how Southern is run. Mohler grooms his successors, not taking careful inventory of their positions, and then puts them in places of leadership that they should have never been in, to begin with. As an alum (M.Div and Ph.D.), we all know this is the case but if you speak out about it, then you’re scrubbed just like the website.

Adam

Adam, I am not yet at the point where I am willing to say how it is happening. But I think we can all affirm that it is happening.

I’d like to offer an idea to help engage the “woke” movement more effectively. I notice that you repeatedly criticize the wokists for engaging in “identity politics.” With all due respect, I don’t think this is accurate. I think it would be better to call it “anti-white politics.” This is because the entire woke movement is aimed specifically at hurting white people. You don’t see blacks attacking Hispanics or Asians attacking blacks.

Furthermore, I think giving their views labels like “Critical Race Theory” is to over-intellectualize them. As I’ve stated in past comments, it’s highly doubtful these are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists or “Critical Theorists” who spend their time studying the works of the Frankfurt School or The Authoritarian Personality. They may employ some of their talking points, but ultimately they’re just anti-white.

That’s the word I think we should use from now on: Anti-white. By calling them this, we’re showing that we’re aware of their underlying motivations and that we’re willing to call them out on it. Furthermore, it shows that we have no intention of legitimizing their notions about critical theory, intersectionality, etc. by trying to have a “good faith” debate with them.

After all, why should we accept the terminology and moral framework of people who hate us?

Armin

Armin, the reason I don’t approach it that way is because it communicates ineffectively. And besides, your standard doesn’t meet its own criteria — there are plenty of people who would be willing to sign up for your terminology who hate Christ, and so why should I want to share terminology with them. On top of that, we all speak English, and so that means we have to share vocabulary to a certain extent. The sinfulness of man and the deceitfulness of the devil mean that we must constantly be defining our terms, and not allow the discussion to get hauled off in weird directions. Christ is my identity, and not the sandy foundation of being anti-anti-white people.

The Way back machine has Hall’s article archived.

The video link takes you to the original Youtube link, but the WBM didn’t record the video.

Fred

Fred, thank you.

There are many things I want to say about this article, but I will only say what is necessary: my daughter, who is going to attend a large secular university on a full-ride academic scholarship thanks to Bruce Etter and his cohorts at Wilson Hill Academy, has threatened me on many occasions with naming her (eventual) first-born child “Scipio Africanus” whether or not the young lad or young lady is destined to defeat the 21st century equivalent of Hannibal.

This is what comes of a classical education.

Frank

Frank, you’re welcome.

I’ll just bet that Matthew Hall even has a token black friend. However, everything I have heard for the last few years would indicate that ALL white men are racist always — simply because they are white men. Therefore, Matthew Hall can be as WOKE as he wants to be and he will still be racist.

Melody

Melody, I think he would actually agree.

“But at least we now have our baseline metric to indicate the capability of the SBC in responding to something.”

The SBC actually had this baseline metric long ago, and apparently no one was really brave enough nor man enough to address it then (in keeping with your spot-on effeminacy article a few days ago.) Seems to me an equally critical issue to address is why now and not then?

Guymon

Guymon, thanks.

Given that I am currently attending a bible college/seminary which is egalitarian and moderately liberal in nature, I am thoroughly grateful for the content put out by Canon Press. It is has helped reground myself in various things that I always knew to be true and has helped a few of us on campus band together with the knowledge that we are not alone.

I am attending a reformed-ish, soft-complementarian church deeply affiliated with 9marks, T4G, Gospel Coalition and the like. As far as I am concerned it is theologically sound, and the church life is generally healthy. I love the people of the church, and I respect each of the elders for various reasons. However, there are many views that are put forward that when applied to the family, I find problematic. Examples would include: An overly positive take on Ed Shaw’s rhetoric, destructive views on singleness, and a lack of understanding that children are very rarely not a product of how they were parented. This leads to my first question. 1). When should a someone leave their church over differences in views on the family.

The second predicament comes from a conversation with some elders recently. I discovered that the name Doug Wilson was apparently problematic because some of his “crazy” statements prevent people from hearing the good that he has to say. I immediately recognized that this criticism comes from a model of ministry which is concerned with party politics, image, and branding. I suppose these things are important, but the ideal ministry that I foresee for myself is Wilson or Peterson-esque. Not in terms of scale or influence, but in terms of being able to say what I think to be true without regard to how it impacts the brand that I am associated with. If I stay and attempt to pursue the path of ministry here, then I am going to have to accommodate myself to this ministry culture of protecting the brand. This leads to my second question. 2.) How should a young aspiring Pastor establish himself so as to not become entangled in associational politics? Or should he simply let the chips fall where they may?

God Bless.

Ben

Ben, with regard to your first question, I would have to ask what the alternatives are. You can always get out of the frying pan and into the fire. As regarding your second question, I would not recommend joining the staff of a church with an established culture, as a junior member of it, while retaining any hope of change.

Sir, you have managed to effectively call out and entire generation of silently effeminate men. Say a man repents of this spirit of silent effeminacy and finds himself in the eye of the storm or near the front lines. Where must he go and what must he do to get courage, heart, mojo to join the fight? The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

David

David, I would encourage you to start praying for courage in the current fight, and not so much praying for courage for a future fight. And pray that God make your path clear by launching you before you think you are ready.

Doug, I think you would like this guy.

John

John, yes, I most certainly do.

Well . . . looks like just maybe the SBC found their Tishbites . . . all the prophets are clamoring for their gods to show up and answer “by what standard.” This should be interesting.

Jordan

Jordan, yes. Interesting indeed.

Sir, appreciated your thoughts on recent Founders video trailer, and especially your observation that “if we can just get that level of resistance to egalitarianism and identity politics, everything should be swell.” Quite true.

That said, there is something wacky to me about the video and how it was released . . . especially given your recent thoughts on the silence of effeminacy:

Numerous comments criticized the video’s inclusion of Rachael Denhollander, which confused me as I could find no image of her in said video. So I searched and found two versions of the video online . . . Now unless I’m very much mistaken, the video as originally released included said footage of Rachael (around the same time as the audio of “principalities and powers” was overlaid). But it appears that the footage of Rachael was quietly removed, apparently without comment, for the current version on the founders website. Something troubles me here, related to the very masculinity and courage you were recently discussing:

On the one hand, if the producers of this trailer/documentary had in fact intended to imply that Rachael is one prime example of the very dangerous overall problem, then I would expect them to lay out their position unapologetically and deal with whatever blowback would result, defend their position however unpopular, and not cower or back down in the face of hostile reaction to their unpopular belief.

On the other hand, if they sincerely felt they had committed a genuine error . . . perhaps they felt they’d overstated or miscommunicated their case, or perhaps they reconsidered and didn’t feel the implication appropriate, or perhaps the inclusion of Rachael’s image was the unapproved action of a loose-cannon or overeager video editor, or whatever, then I would expect them to be be upfront and honest, and lay out a bold, fearless, and unapologetic apology.

But the quiet, unannounced edit of their video (if that was in fact what happened) to remove the offending section without comment seems indicative of the very silence and cowardice you have been rightly rebuking. If there was any acknowledged retraction, I certainly cannot find it. The approach of, “Maybe we can just quietly remove the footage that is hurting people’s feelings and no one will notice . . .” seems to be indicative of the very problem at hand. Am I missing something here?

Daniel

Daniel, very perceptive question. Yes, there is some missing context. After you wrote, Tom Ascol released a statement about the trailer which you can read here.

Regarding Dr. Mohler, no, he did not drop his signature from the Nashville Statement. Russell Moore did not so I would not expect him to either. Your question did make my stomach drop for a moment, as I assumed I got something wrong of significance.

However, Dr. Mohler did rescind his signature from the Manhattan Declaration. I do not know why. I have not done much searching, but to my knowledge, he has never discussed it. But I have a timeline which I think makes things clear to me. I will acknowledge upfront that the data excluded is as important as the data included, but I have tried to be comprehensive, brief, and fair.

Summer 1979 – The SBC Conservative Resurgence begins in earnest as an attempt to retake the convention back to conservative understanding of biblical inspiration

October through December, 1982 – The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy issued, and provides statements on biblical inerrancy, here, here, and here.

1993 – Al Mohler appointed President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as a fruit of the Conservative Resurgence. Dr. Mohler essentially cleans house of those unwilling to be biblical inerrantists.

November 20, 2009 – The Manhattan Declaration is released, drafted by Chuck Colson, Robert P. George, and Timothy George. Mohler is an original signatory.

November 23, 2009 – Mohler publishes an essay, “Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration”, on his website and other places, such as here. In several places he makes sure to note that he does so, not to excise any of his thinking on the Catholic or Orthodox churches, but to draw a line in the sand.

March, 2014 – Mohler is published in a book where he affirms and defends the Chicago Statement.

Septover, 2016 – Mr. Featherbottom, Esq., and Dr. Wormtongue, Ph.D., say Christians should be winsome Christians, explain nuance, and serve cookies to the angry mob while disagreeing in the least disagreeable manner.

June 12, 2018 – J.D. Greear elected President of SBC.

September 4, 2018 – The Dallas Statement is released (proper title: “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”). John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Phil Johnson (to name a few) sign. Mohler does not.

March, 2019 – The Shepherds’ Conference is held. During a Q&A, Phil Johnson asks the panel their various reasons for signing/not signing the Dallas Statement. Mohler responds at one point by saying they did not involve him in the drafting, and he is reluctant to sign public statements which he doesn’t help write. See this point in the session.

March 22, 2019 – Mohler silently rescinds his signature from the Manhattan Declaration and removes his justification from his website. See here. He took down his article here without comment. Still available here (for now).

If there was a theological reason to rescind it, let’s hear it. But we should also hear why his original statements no longer hold true. He signed it not without some reservation, but qualified it as much as he wanted to. You said similar things when you signed the Dallas Statement, yet your signature stands.

I was planning on perhaps couching one thing or possibly duveting another, but nah. Here it stands. I have changed my mind since the documentary trailer came out. “Shut up!” is not a really a rational defeater, even if it is efficacious for some.

We voted these guys in, so we do not really deserve better, but we need it.

William

William, thanks for all the links.

I am a PCA TE. I read your blog and it has been helpful particularly in the area of thinking through public policy matters. We probably have a 95% overlap on theology. This is all to say I’m not an opponent.

However, the effeminacy/silence, post prodded me in the same spot as a prior post. I didn’t bother to research the exact date of that post. In both cases it seems to me that you are broadly calling PCA TE’s who don’t respond to current matters in a certain way effeminate wusses.

My time is taken up preaching the Word, leading a Session, seeking to make disciples in small groups, leading a staff, etc. If a text legitimately confronts a specific cultural matter, then I preach it. My congregation is generally extremely politically conservative and insular. Why do I need to further poke that angry bear? I don’t blog, write about current events, or sit in front of abortion clinics. I have thought long about my responsibilities to confront denominational issues in accord with Matthew 18 and our BCO. This would involve a great deal of time and work between Presbyteries. Time I believe Jesus wants me to put into preaching and advancing the Kingdom through congregational evangelism.

Are you calling me an effeminate wuss? If the answer is yes, then I think the only solution is for you and I to have a fistfight. I think somewhere around Kansas City would be neutral ground. From your pictures you look much bigger, but I can promise you that I am scrappy and won’t quit easily. I think it would be much harder in the future for you to call me names. If the answer is no, then perhaps you will clarify or retract.

Chuck

Chuck, this is a simple one. The answer is no. Since I am not sure of which earlier post you are referring to, clarifying my point might be difficult, but the answer is no. Think of it this way. There are many who are silent because they are cowards, and I was only talking about them. Others are silent because they are busy, and I it would be crazy to think that someone is effeminate because they don’t have time for everything. But with all that said, keep in mind that all the things you are busy with right now are things you won’t be able to continue to do when they haul both you and me off their Sensitivity Camp.

Another good read as usual. With loads of amens and conviction. I do have a question as I have not been really good at sticking around and making a whole lot of noise. I have typically made a handful of comments, tried talking to the pastor ( at an SBC and a PCA church) and realized it wasn’t going to make any difference, collected my football and went home. Let me explain.

After coming to Christ I started going to a large SBC church in my town with my wife and our two boys. Although I never became a member on the books (didn’t think it was biblical) I was very active. I was in the band, part of a rehab outreach, men’s group, etc. Well, as I started to see liberal/woke/lgbtq affirming tendencies among the youth pastor, other leadership and some of their offspring I started asking questions, making comments, talked to the pastor to no avail. I started reading about church discipline and what not and ended up a Calvinist in the mean time. At this same time we went through some very painful times with my oldest son who was being encouraged by a few of the youth to give in to his struggle against homosexuality. Well after making a little more trouble ( including giving a copy of Future Men and Family Shepherd by Voddie Bauchum to the youth pastor) I decided to take my wife and other children and leave. Which lead us to what I thought was going to be a safe bet (this was before Revoice)

So we started traveling around 80-90 miles round trip and a few towns over to attend a PCA. At first everything was good. Good solid preaching/worship etc. After a while we started considering becoming members so we started attending the adult Sunday School class and almost immediately the music leader/RUF elder/teacher started quoting from the likes of Tony Evans in a positive light. And making comments like “just go to church somewhere, anywhere.” And when I pressed him on this he said he meant one of 3 Presbyterian churches in town. (One of which ordains women elders and deacons.) Almost simultaneously the pastor started quoting from the likes of Timothy Keller. And when I called him on it he said that he realized that Tim was problematic but helpful at times. Maybe I’m being too picky. So I couldn’t align myself or my family there either. How do you become a member of a church and make a bunch of noise going in knowing that there are these liberal tendencies?

I realize that this comment is really long and you may not be able to post it to your site. But could you please take a little time to give a little counsel to a father who is trying to be a Federal Husband? I would be very grateful. These are pretty much my options near by. What’s a man to do? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Or should I go back to one and handcuff myself to the door and go on a hunger strike until there is corporate repentance? Is staying home and worshiping with my family while we hunt for a church planter worse than going to “church” at one of these places?

Grace and peace,

Santos

Santos, I obviously don’t know all the details, but from what you described I would not give up on the PCA church yet, although you might want to hold off on membership. A couple of stray comments, even though they are from staff members, should not be enough to rip it. I would wait and see what the denomination does in response to the report of their study committee.

Good men who do nothing are not good men. There, fixed it.

Robert

Robert, why, look at that! You did fix it.

154
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
6 Comment threads
148 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
JonathanJohnMJaneMKT-BJ- Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Armin
Guest
Armin

Doug, You said: “Christ is my identity, and not the sandy foundation of being anti-anti-white people.” My identity is not found in being anti-anti-white people either. I was pointing out that our opponents’ identity is wrapped up in anti-whitism, not “Marxism,” “Gramscianism,” or something like that. My point in my letter was that I think you’re misdiagnosing the problem. You want to assign these grandiose ideological labels to people who don’t warrant it. I would love for this to be a merely ideological battle, where our opponents are basically good faith actors who just have bad ideas that need to… Read more »

gabe
Guest
gabe

Let me, if I may, chime in. I believe Doug is saying there actually is more to the discussion than simply identifying the opposition in the worst possible light and then responding in kind. That’s called a strawman. I have not encountered anyone in the church that is actually “anti-white”. However, I have encountered people on this “woke” journey, which you and I must be willing to admit is a term we use about them, but not that they use about themselves. Realizing the distinction with our word usage is important and part of the challenge. Your moniker may useful… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Armin, I have a few concerns. One is that you seem to want to do away with the word “racist” altogether. What word would you use for the person who, out of racial vainglory or malice, behaves cruelly or exploitatively to someone of another race? How would you characterize the behavior of someone who burns a cross on a black man’s lawn in order to frighten him out of the neighborhood? The second is that by seeing all criticism of some white conduct as an attack on all whites, you are (1) abandoning common sense–criticism of cops who are overeager… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

Armin, I would slightly disagree with you. Our opponents do hate white people, but not simple because they are white. In other words, I don’t think it is racial animosity. They simply know that it is Western culture, largely birthed and implemented by Europeans with a Protestant Christian heritage, that is the major bulwark against them taking power through the state. Our robust emphasis on families, economic responsibility, local community independence (driven primarily through churches) makes establishing state control nearly impossible. So, if they can weaken those foundations by playing guilt mongers, pitting our sense of wanting to help the… Read more »

Armin
Guest
Armin

BJ, If it were merely about their hatred of Western Civilization, then why wouldn’t they just criticize Western Civilization and leave race out of it? It’s because they correctly associate Western Civilization with white people. They understand, apparently better than many whites, that you can’t separate civilization from the people who created it, unless you’re a Cultural Marxist and believe in the blank slate. In their minds, oppression of non-Europeans is built into the very fabric of Western Civilization (this is an underlying assumption of Critical Theory), and since the West is an expression of white people, it is white… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

Armin, it is a strategic move. They are fully aware that most Christians and many ordinary Americans are sensitive about our racial history and will go to great lengths to avoid being seen as supporting that. So, that is where they attack. If it was merely about being white, then when minorities begin to get vocal about Christian principles or conservative ideas that extol Western culture, they would not have a problem with it. Yet, the Left does have a major problem with it. They hate black or Asian or Jewish or Hispanic traditionalists just as much as they hate… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“They hate black or Asian or Jewish or Hispanic traditionalists just as much as they hate white ones. Besides, most of the purveyors of this nonsense are themselves white. It is about power, not skin color. ”

Look at the white Antifa thugs who attacked Andy Ngo. Or the seething hatred (“Uncle Tom!” “Oreo!”) that black conservatives receive.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/07/28/antifa-attacked-journalist-andy-ngo-now-hes-opening-up-about-what-hes-learned-n2550737

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I’m just shaking my head that, on the week that Trump exposed his racial strategy yet again as well as having those presidential tapes drop, the only discussion of racism on this board is to discuss the nuances of how we are to hate on people who call it out. What Pastor Wilson constantly ignores is WHO actually started identity politics. Race-based slavery, the Confederacy, anti-Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, apartheid, colonialism, red-lining, the Southern Strategy, White Flight, they all existed long before the reaction to them existed. Leaders like Nixon, Reagan, and Trump (and far too many in power in… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

I’m just shaking my head that the same old trolls–brainwashed by a steady diet of gov’t schools, the MSM, left-leaning blogs, academia and progressive “Christianity”–are still posting the same ol’ tripe here.

I’ll happily call out Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Jemar Tisby, Anthony Bradley, Kyle J. Howard and legions of self-loathing whites as racists and for their race-based politics.

If it makes you feel better, you can happily show up for a white-free day at your favorite Stalinist indoctrination institution (BTW, it’s cultural Marxists, not “social Marxists.”)
https://nypost.com/2017/05/31/college-melts-down-over-plan-for-white-people-free-day-on-campus/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/student-protesters-campaigning-safe-spaces-block-white-students-from-attending-classes-racism-a7383676.html

Or maybe you can attend this:
https://www.facebook.com/WGBleedAlot/videos/2349320068622613/

Sleepy
Guest
Sleepy

@ MKT
Sport, take a chill pill. You’re going to stroke out if you don’t and that would be a real shame. Jesus needs you to help Him maga.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I suspect that you consider your racism synonymous with your faith mkt, but I’m fairly certain even the Babylon Bee doesn’t go there.

In fact, for you to be linking that article is quite ironic, though I guess if your set has been choosing culture over Christmas for generations then there was never anything for you to personally “abandon.”

JP Stewart
Member

Says a hypocrite who’s most counterculture stand is whining about GMOs (not even counterculture in the Left Coast). Practically every view of yours, from critical race theory to “social justice” to global warming to evolution to a virtual silence on the Democrats two sacraments (homosexuality and abortion)…is in lockstep with the culture around you. The irony is lost on you…once again.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I would think that my most counterculture stand would be leaving a promising career in research science to serve Christ instead, or my family’s choice to leave our home to live in the radical simplicity that Christ commands, or perhaps my commitment to the nonviolence that Christ teaches. But if you think that my distrust of technophiles and GMOs is more countercultural than those stances, I guess that’s your prerogative. No, I don’t believe that my positions on race or Basil-style social justice are in lockstep with the culture, otherwise there’d be more people doing what I do when hardly… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“I would think that my most counterculture stand would be leaving a promising career in research science to serve Christ instead, or my family’s choice to leave our home to live in the radical simplicity that Christ commands, or perhaps my commitment to the nonviolence that Christ teaches.” Well you don’t suffer from too much humility. I’ll give you that. I’m not going to get into pacifism here, but it’s a completely untenable position when looking at Scripture as a whole. The same goes for “Red Letter Christianity,” “radical simplicity” and the rest. You can live however you want, but… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You had just accused me of joining most of America in failing to live as Christ commands, while clearly implying that you are part of the minority that has it right, and then when I counter with actual examples you accuse me of Pharisaism….for declaring that I was trying to live as Christ commands.

I’ll also note that you also completely left the train of discussion to move the goalposts to a new target.

JP Stewart
Member

I love how you openly call people “racists” for simply pointing out double standards. Like most Leftists, your tolerance is very selective.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You lost the train MKT. I made a list of racist stances, you responded by claiming that I had left the Christian positions for cultural ones. Unless you were just making a random ad hominem attack unrelated to what I actually said, then you were implying that to oppose those racist stances was anti-Christian.

JP Stewart
Member

Now that’s a convenient but dishonest take. I was simply pointing out your obvious Left Coast slant on practically everything (not just racial issues). I didn’t say whether I agreed with anything on your list or not. And I thought you didn’t call anyone racist here…but you just did. ” I’ve rarely if ever called anyone racist and I’m certain I didn’t call anyone racist who Pastor Wilson wouldn’t have done so as well ” https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/letters-on-leggings-naturally.html#comment-224838#224838 To quote some guy named Jonathan: “I swear there’s gotta be some verse that deals with the idea of deflecting from our own issues… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

How is it “convenient but dishonest” for me to have responded in the EXACT context of the discussion? I made a list of racist stances I opposed, you replied claiming that I was leaving Christian stances for culture. Again, unless you’re admitting to a total ad hominem with no relation whatsoever to the list of stances I had just made, then you were suggesting that opposing those things was somehow unChristian. So I took you at your word. And there’s an obvious difference between “never” and “rarely”. If someone is going to accuse me of leaving the faith for opposing… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

Here’s your exact quote again. The “if ever” part = “never.” And you also said you’d only apply the term to the same people that Wilson would apply it:

“I’ve rarely if ever called anyone racist and I’m certain I didn’t call anyone racist who Pastor Wilson wouldn’t have done so as well”

It’s amazing you’d resort to such Clintonesque cop-outs then accuse others of moving goal posts. How about working on the 9th Commandment before boasting how well you keep man-made commands about commitments to pacifism and “radical simplicity”?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

“rarely if ever” does not mean “never”. It means “rarely”. This is basic English mkt. Look it up in the dictionary and then apologize:

RARELY/SELDOM IF EVER idiom

Definition of rarely/seldom if ever:

—used as a more forceful way to say “rarely” or “seldom”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rarely/seldom%20if%20ever

And again, I was applying it to the specific context where I rejected racist actions and you responded by claiming that I was rejecting Christ.

Mike M.
Guest
Mike M.

Jonathan, whatever you may wish to claim about the racial motivations of politicians on the right, they still at the very least publicly condemn explicit racism. Some of them may be secretly hypocritical in doing so, sure. But is it truly worse to support someone who is accused of racist motivations while publicly denouncing explicit racism, than to support someone who openly supports abortion and sodomy? Because while many white (and more than a few non-white) Christians will be doing the former, many black (and more than a few non-black) Christians will be doing the latter.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I swear there’s gotta be some verse that deals with the idea of deflecting from our own issues to point out the sins of others instead…. You do make a good point though – at the least racism is still generally considered a bad thing and that is good. I too prefer hypocrisy to flagrant sin. Unfortunately, what people seem most upset about currently is being called a racist, and not whether their thoughts or words or actions are wrong. So the main energy is spent trying to move the Overton Window to expand as much as possible the range… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

For example, the entire focus after Trump’s mean-spirited and lie-filled diatribe against four non-White congresswomen was “Was it racist?” and not that it was a despicable thing to do regardless of the word placed on it. When his crowds chanted “Send her back!” in reference to the only one of the four who actually immigrated, the focus was still so much on “Is this racist?” that few conservative commentators spent much energy on how incredibly unChristian it is to demand the expulsion of a neighbor (and former child refugee – i.e. “stranger”) solely because she chose to critique the policies… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“For example, the entire focus after Trump’s mean-spirited and lie-filled diatribe against four non-White congresswomen ”

This is how one talks when they spend waaaay too much time reading Huffington Post and Slate and not enough in gainful employment .Maybe next he’ll be praising the wonderful Ilhan Omar for her calls for taxpayer-funded abortions for illegals.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

It’s like you’ve gone full nihilist. You’re not even trying.

I don’t read either of those outlets unless someone happens to link me to something, and that would happen quite seldom. So once against you are wrong on the facts in addition to proving yourself blatently incapable of making a logical case for any point at all.

JP Stewart
Member

When caught up in your own contradictions, call someone a “nihilist” and/or accuse them of moving the goal posts. Cry about names others have called you, yet call someone a racist in your first interaction in a thread…something you claim you “rarely if ever” do. Use all the lingo and specious arguments of the left, but claim to be some free-thinking, nouveau Jesus people type, who just happens to agree with them on most everything. I don’t think I’ve ever interacted with someone as childish, arrogant and overconfident in their ken and arguments as you. Unfortunately, that’s as charitable as… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The sole content of your comment was to accuse me of spending way too much time reading the Huffington Post, of not being gainfully employed, and suggested I would praise taxpayer-funded abortions next. Literally none of those statements has anything to do with me or with the conversation. That’s why I called your argument nihilist. In your very first STATEMENT in the thread, before I had said a word to you, you claimed that I had left the positions of Christ for the positions of the world. In direct response to me listing explicitly racist stances that I opposed. Someone… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Jonathan, you are partially right. However to major in race-based identity politics while calling out race-based identity politics is simple hypocrisy. History provides no excuse for that.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Sort of like “racism”, to complain without context about “identity politics” risks falling to word play. I wholeheartedly agree that there are bad ways to use race in politics. From the Southern Strategy to The Nation of Islam to the Hindu identity groups that Tulsi Gabbard (and Steve Bannon!) have been courting, there’s a lot of ways to do it wrong. However, I quite often see “identity politics” used to describe things as tame as “acknowledging that race has an impact on our nation.” No one should denounce the Southern Strategy of courting anti-Black racists if they are purposely courting… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

For those who haven’t seen, here were some of the choice statements from the latest presidential tapes. “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” “That reaction on television was, it proves how they ought to be still hanging from the trees by their tails.” “these, uh, these cannibals on television last night,” They saw it on television and, he said, ‘These cannibals jumping up and down and all that.’ And apparently it was a pretty grotesque picture.” “I’m not saying that blacks cannot govern; I am saying they have a hell of… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Jonathan, I think those quotations came from President Reagan. A tape has apparently just been released after all these years. I am no fan of President Trump (and that’s wild understatement), but he can’t be blamed for these appalling remarks.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The comment nesting makes it difficult, but back in my own comment I was referring to I was trying to parse “Trump exposed his racial strategy yet again” (in reference to the “crime-ridden” and “rat-infested” attacks on Rep. Cummings and his district) and “as well as having the presidential tapes drop” (in reference to the racist conversations involving Reagan and Nixon) as two different events. I later explicitly said, “Trump, Reagan, and Nixon” in that comment, but I see how not noting Reagan and Nixon in the first comment makes it confusing. I’m not too worried that I misled anyone… Read more »

Armin
Guest
Armin

MKT, The difference is that the left’s dislike of non-white conservatives isn’t based on their race, but on the fact that they see them as not sufficiently anti-white. Prominent non-white conservatives rarely speak explicitly about white people in a positive way, but will repeat standard civic nationalist rhetoric such as calling for a a race-blind society or lecturing the democrats for their “soft bigotry of low expectations” or keeping blacks on the “democrat plantation.” Hardly a white supremacist approach if you ask me, but in the mind of the more rabid leftists and anti=whites, it’s enough to warrant the kind… Read more »

Mike M.
Guest
Mike M.

Armin, I see white leftists regularly on the top of the leftist food chain, and leftists treating non-white conservatives as badly or worse than white conservatives. The notion that “anti-white” is their driving passion (as opposed to a tactic) is thoroughly implausible. It also doesn’t explain or mesh with their celebration of abortion and sodomy. They target whites as a tactic because this country does have a shameful history with white supremacy. They target whites as a tactic because it’s easier for people to measure the errors of the past than to accurately suss out the appropriate boundaries of the… Read more »

Joash
Guest
Joash

Armin is right. The white leftists hate other white folks. They view white skin as original sin, and hating white people is part of how they atone. You can see it in the fact they “love” all poor except white poor, who they hate and call white trash. They assign all wickedness in society to the stain of unatoned-for whiteness, and it’s hangers on such as Western Christianity. They believe because they are sanctified through wokeness, and have played their part in the great browning of the US, that the folks they brought in to replace their white countrymen will… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

Mike’s analysis is good. The identity politics that grip our nation is partly an internecine conflict between urban and rural whites. There is also an element of a struggle between the sexes in play (as of 2018 millenial white men were +3 Republican and millenial white women were an incredible +44 Democrat). Other groups are often adopted to help form coalitions to defeat the enemy. White is used as a term of art in these political debates and it is often played as a negative due to historical freight surrounding white supremecy. When The Daily Beast, or Huffington Post use… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Thank you for clarifying Demo. I think industrial ag is much less responsible for current food production levels than it gives itself credit for. Sir Albert Howard over 100 years ago was showing that natural production levels could far outperform industrial techniques on the same scale, and even Sec Ag Earl Butz (one of the greatest cheerleaders of modern ag in history) admitted the same in the 1970s. Even the high meat production levels you laud come at a cost. Guatemala become one of the most malnourished nations in the Western Hemisphere, despite fantastic capacity for agriculture, because most substinance… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

I like how the new format suddenly lauches old comments back onto the board. It is like being in a haunted house. I’m sure it is some kind of bug, but please don’t fix it!

Jane
Member

Huh, that’s strange. As this thread is only four days old, this comment obviously originated on a totally different thread, and yet, here it is!

Shawn Paterson
Editor
Shawn Paterson

New format looks great!

kyriosity
Member

Agreed!

Jane
Member

Separate blocks of background for each post finally won me over. Maybe it’s just a dated early 2000s blog aesthetic that I’m fixed on, but for me, a blog has to represent its posts as distinct entities, not merely items on a list. The background blocks do that.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

CNN actually looks even worse than I thought. It turns out they weren’t random Republican women, they are all reps for the same pro-Trump group. And the same “reporter” had interviewed them before under almost the same circumstances. She knew exactly what their position was going to be – it was all political theater.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1151510556878225414

Along with having Richard Spencer on this week and picking Jeff Sessions’s spokeswoman to help coordinate their news coverage, they’ve been more embarrassing than usual recently.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

And here I thought Fox “News” was the WWE of “news” channels. Ha! “Fox News wishes”, says CNN.

They should both market a line of action figures.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yeah John, it’s pretty much destined to be that way with profit-driven TV news. I cannot remember a time when commercial cable news was worth watching. CNN is “Fox News lite”, MSNBC is “Fox News inverted”. They’re all using the same ugly tactics and just aiming for different demographics.

JP Stewart
Member

“CNN is “Fox News lite”

CNN leans left by any study that reasonably measures its headlines, language and story selection. Anyone saying otherwise has their own agenda.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Those “studies” are usually measuring against subjective rather than objective standards (like “how do they compare to the American politicians currently in power), so unless you’re primarily interested in the red vs. blue wars and consider the current American political divide to be the defining balance of truth, they’re minimally useful.

But the people who have referred to CNN as “Fox News lite” to me I believe were talking tactics more so than partisanship.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Random that an 11-day old comment is suddenly showing up here. But I thought it worth pointing out that after the CNN round of debates (especially the first night), the number of folks I saw referring to CNN as “Fox News lite” got VERY heavy.

JP Stewart
Member

So you have the ignorant, brainwashed hoi polloi on your side. Uh, congratulations?

JP Stewart
Member

Wait, did CNN report that MN attorney general Keith Ellison deleted the photo of himself proudly holding Antifa’s handbook?
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1153035447582355456

How about the racial hoax involving Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas (the “white racist” was actually a Cuban Trump-hating Democrat)? One of many, many racial hoaxes that gets little attention after the truth comes out. It looks like CNN’s news filter is every bit as biased as Jonathan’s.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

What do you think the most misleading or biased article CNN posted on the Erica Thomas story was?

AC
Guest
AC

Feel similar to David here. Startling (yet so gracious) to start seeing depths of cowardice in my heart. Towards my coworkers, wife, everywhere. Glad that Wilson’s ministry has helped awaken that awareness in myself. There’s a frustration of “this has always been here, hasn’t it?” and “why is this never talked about?” But I shouldn’t be surprised that years of idleness (gaming), pornography, and chuch abandonment left my spine rather squishy. Lord, strengthen me.

Jennifer
Guest
Jennifer

Two questions:
1. Regarding PCA Pastor Greg Johnson: If a believer is a pornography addict, past or present, can he credibly call himself a ‘virgin’?

2. Related to the first question, why is Revoice silent about pornography?

Thankful for you,
J

JP Stewart
Member

Johnson is the only Revoicer who has discussed porn as far as I know. He says he’s no longer addicted.

As for others being silent, I think it would show the contradictions if Revoice condemned porn. If some Revoicers tell people they should go to Pride parades (often full of immorality) to learn more about LGBTQ+, why can’t porn strugglers go to porn trade shows? And why can’t they have sessions about “Porn Treasures in the New Jerusalem”? The same goes for adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.

JP Stewart
Member

I also question what some of these “celibate” SSA couples do–especially since some think it’s okay to playfully wrestle and give each other holy kisses. If boy/girl teenage couples can do some pretty lewd things but still claim virginity, what about a couple where both have normal male sex drives?

Joash
Guest
Joash

The word virgin means a man or woman who has not copulated with another person. It still holds.

As a porn addict before I was saved, yet a virgin on my wedding night, I made sure my wife knew well before I proposed that although I was a virgin I was not sexually pure. Hard to boast of a virginity I would have willingly thrown away when I was unsaved but was graciously denied an opportunity. ..

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I feel for you deeply there.

I did not become a Christian until 19 and did not understand Christian stances on sexuality until some months later. As a result I too engaged in sexual sin that stopped short of “all the way” only by the grace of God (and the strange blessing of my own degree of shyness/lack of self-confidence in that regard). Having that conversation with my wife-to-be was a really difficult evening for both of us. But washed clean, washed clean, washed clean.

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

I can’t help but think that Armin is onto something. I may not see eye to eye with him about the nature of the conflict, but to treat the wokesters as honest arbiters or to operate on their premises is not helpful. These folks are using this whole movement as a tactic to gain power (or as their useful idiots), and too many Christians still think they are honestly, but ineptly, trying to help the downtrodden. When we highlight their open contradictions, it doesn’t move the needle, because they are not trying to think through an issue rationally. They are… Read more »

Katecho
Member

I agree with -BJ-. I don’t have an objection, in principle, to Armin’s proposal that we classify the woke movement as “anti-white politics”. I think that would be an accurate classification in many cases. I think it would even be rhetorically effective. It would at least require a woke disciple to take a minute to think and explain in what sense they are not being anti-white, and therefore guilty of the same racism, prejudice, phobia, partiality, and bigotry they project onto others. When a woke disciple is on the warpath and is suddenly made aware that we see their essential… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I still wonder where any of you encounter these supposed “anti-white” or “self-hating” Christians in any numbers outside of the worst fringe of the internet and certain college departments. I was never taught to hate myself or be anti -White even when I took several race-related courses in college and lived in southern California for a decade, nor do I know anyone else that was, so I have difficulty imagining y’all running into it much in your circles. It seems more likely that you’ve absorbed a view of your identity that takes any perceived criticism in the worst possible light.… Read more »

Jane
Member

If you haven’t ever seen white Bulverism prettily dressed up as “check your privilege” when a conservative white person attempts to enter the discussion, used BY white people, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I’ve literally never, ever heard someone say, “check your privilege” in person. The news tells me it’s a thing at certain colleges and on Twitter, but it wasn’t cool yet when I went to school and most people here are my age or older. But the funnier aspect is in a time where we’re constantly stretching credulity to claim that the most offensive statements aren’t racist, now something as innocuous as “check your privilege” is the big example of anti-white hate. As someone who regularly faces much, much worse language on this Christian board, I’ll just have to appropriate another… Read more »

Jane
Member

I haven’t seen it in person, either. I’m not sure why only interactions in person count in this cultural moment, though.

I didn’t say it was an example of hate, but it is an anti-white impulse to rule people out of a discussion because of their membership in specific race. It’s not the worst possible construction to put on something that could hardly mean anything else.

Please don’t try to persuade us that you only care about explicitly abusive language when examining the effect or gleaning the intent of people’s words. Please don’t insult our intelligence that way, yet again.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

BJ was claiming that “most Americans” hated white skin and their own history and culture. If most of us have literally never heard or seen it in person, then it leads me to suspect that it can’t be used as evidence of something exhibited by most Americans. But my impression of it is that it doesn’t even indicate anti-white hate. Like I said I haven’t seen it used personally, but the first page of google results suggests in means exactly what it sounds like it means – that you should be cognizant of your own biases and advantages when speaking… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“but the first page of google results suggests in means exactly what it sounds like it means” – because Google first-page results aren’t biased and always reflect what most Americans think…except when they don’t.

Classic Jonathan there.

Jonthan
Guest
Jonthan

Well, yes, first page Google results do tend to give a reasonable if imperfect proxy for what most Americans think

If you wanted to discuss with any sort of honesty, you would a provide a different source that you consider better to answer this particular question. What are you adding to the conversation here?

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

“It seems more likely that you’ve absorbed a view of your identity that takes any perceived criticism in the worst possible light.” This is rich coming from you. And for the record, when you run in upper class, highly educated Reformed church circles, it is everywhere. They rarely say the truly crazy stuff, but when I present it to them, they have a hard time saying they oppose it. Then, I usually get told about my position of privilege. I normally giggle and inform them I am about as unprivileged as it gets being from the trailer in redneck Ohio… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

So if I’m reading you right, you say that you run in upper class, highly educated circles, where you blend in and are assumed to be one of the “in” group.

In those circles you have a tendency to make statements that lead you to “have been called racist so many times I have lost count” and are often told to check your privilege as a result. In such scenarios you often smugly mock people who think your skin color might give you any sort of privilege.

Just checking.

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

“So if I’m reading you right…”

Lol. This is hilarious. You are almost always trying to twist people’s words and read them in the worst possible light. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Then clarify for me if I got anything wrong.

You said that you run in upper class highly educated circles, that you are assumed to be a similarly elite in-member in such circles until you choose to reveal otherwise, and that you have basically no privilege whatsoever.

That’s what you said, right?

And you also said that you quite often say things that the Reformed church circles you run in perceive as racist? Yet you still continue to run in these upper class highly educated circles?

But no privilege at all, right?

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

Lol. Keep trying kiddo.

Maybe you can get there one day.

Armin
Guest
Armin

Katecho,

You’re right that this approach has the effect of putting the woke individual on the defensive. One of the tactics of leftists and anti-whites (but I repeat myself) is to bombard us with a constant stream of lies and accusations to keep us stammering and sputtering about how we’re not racists, sexists, etc. They take advantage of our tendency to assume some level of fair play or good faith on the part of our opponents. The approach I’ve been suggesting takes their strategy into account and gives us a counter-attack that I believe normal whites can be morally comfortable with.

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

“I think it would even be rhetorically effective. It would at least require a woke disciple to take a minute to think and explain in what sense they are not being anti-white, and therefore guilty of the same racism, prejudice, phobia, partiality, and bigotry they project onto others.” My thoughts exactly. Plus, most people are fairly repelled to a self-hating person, and by pining that title on them, the self-hatred would become clearer and their tactics less effective. “We might even refer to it as plain old “anti-Christian politics” in many cases too.” This has been my primary way of… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

I find it bewildering that anyone who reads this blog even sporadically could think that Doug Wilson treats leftists as “honest arbiters” or believes they are acting in anything approaching good faith. He explicitly says the opposite very frequently. How far right are you when Doug Wilson is too moderate for your tastes?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

This reminds me of when Pastor Wilson said that he must be a moderate on race because he is critiqued from both the right and the left. When compared to his position, posters like Arwin are “the right” and the Southern Baptists are “the left”. In fact, I don’t know if Pastor Wilson has responded to Arwin directly, but at least in some cases the approach that other commenters use in relation to his stances, “I don’t agree entirely but you do have a point”, is quite a bit milder than the approach they use for even center-right groups like… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“When compared to his position, posters like Arwin are “the right” and the Southern Baptists are “the left”…even center-right groups like the SBC.”

The “woke”/CRT Southern Baptists that sparked these discussions are in the Thabiti/Dwight McKissic/Kyle “Fake Crip” Howard camp. They have nothing to do with what the denomination believed historically, nor are they “center-right” except using your shifting scales. Yet another dishonest comparison I’m sure you won’t retract…

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I was referring to the SBC in general and Al Mohler specifically, who is critiqued at the top of this very article and whose stand on racism Pastor Wilson has critiqued heavily. Not the three random people you name who weren’t mentioned anywhere in the letter, one of whom I’ve primarily seen Pastor Wilson speak of positively and the other two whose names I honestly don’t recognize at all. Pastor Wilson have criticized Mohler’s stance on race and well as the SBC in general in quite strong terms more than once, for example the following: A few weeks ago, I… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

If you don’t know about the CRT influence as SBTS, or about the Hall controversy (the context of this is the recent “Full Ascol” article), then you’re the one missing the context. Here’s a quote from the now missing Hall article: “Perhaps the best thing you can do to start is to take a humble posture, recognizing that you have a racialized worldview of which you are likely unaware. Your beliefs, attitudes, and values have been formed in ways deeply informed by whiteness.” And Wilson is spot on here: “and declare to them that their sins are entirely and completely… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You claimed this was about some assortment of “Thabiti/Dwight McKissic/Kyle “Fake Crip” Howard”, now you’ve jumped to agreeing it’s the SBC in general and blaming Hall instead of those three. But no matter where you move your goalposts, it doesn’t change the fact that I was referring to Pastor Wilson’s position on the SBC in general and Mohler specifically. I realize you lack the humility to retract anything. But Wilson never said his position was somewhere between Arwin and Mohler. That’s something you made up. In fact, my exact words were: When compared to his position, posters like Arwin are… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

Mohler does not reflect the ideas of most Southern Baptists.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I honestly don’t know what most Southern Baptists think, but Pastor Wilson has suggested in previous blogs that the SBC in general is going down the wrong path on racial issues, as I quoted above.

Sleepy
Guest
Sleepy

Son, you really are out of your depth. I realize that you are doing you damndest to help Jesus fight the evil, fake-christians ruining our beautiful country but that kind of holy work should be left to the nodded off professionals like Wilson and Ascol . It’s probably best that you sit this one out. Go in peace and be filled.

Mike M.
Guest
Mike M.

Jonathan, first of all, you don’t know if Wilson has responded to Armin directly? He did so in this very post (and has in a couple of other letters posts as well). But aside from that, there’s good reason to respond differently to the likes of Mohler than to Armin. The fact is, Mohler, whatever his blind spots and errors, still has every indication of trying first and foremost to be faithful to Christ. A charitable hearing of Mohler has him as someone who shares our fundamental goals, and might be open to correction (and who is worth giving a… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I agree with you Mike. That’s why I find it quite odd that a number of regular commenters here (three by my count) are showing far more affinity and grace to Armin’s statements in this conversation than I have ever seen expressed for Mohler’s statements on race (or Piper’s, Thabiti’s, Hall’s, my own, etc.) Not that it would necessarily be wrong to operate from a standing of grace and take every statement for its own value rather than having to couch it all in our views of that person. But it’s just striking to me to see it down for… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

This is a fairly stupid comment. Identifying a tactic of Doug’s with which I disagree says precisely nothing about my status on the political or cultural spectrum. At least in the realm of economics, I have large disagreements with Doug. Even with regard to immigration and the role of government, I would be well at odds with Doug’s position. Tactically speaking, I think Doug tries to overdo the intellectualism, instead of just cutting straight to it. This is why I think Armin is onto something even if I think Armin is wrong about the nature of the divide. Doug is… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

“Doug is always trying to be witty and find the humorous or cute metaphor or title.” I agree with you there… “He also tries to assume a deep intellectual response to the nonsense spewing forth from the Left…” Say what now? This blog is an unending stream of right wing culture war red meat. Practically everything Wilson says streams straight from his biases and resentments, most of which appear to have been inherited without examination from the latter 20th century right wing social consensus. I can’t recall a time when he has taken a leftist argument seriously, or treated a… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

When his main criticism of the Left is that it is a Gramscian march through the institutions (and I agree with that assessment, for the record), his posture is an intellectual stance. Ask the average church goer if he or she has any idea what cultural Marxism or Critical Race Theory or intersectionality is or who Gramsci or the Frankfurt School are and you are likely to get a blinkered, deer-in-the-headlights look. Doug is attempting to approach this discussion with an intellectual air. Instead of saying that calling for poor whites from families who never owned slave (or much else… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

BJ, I think you are right that references to Gramsci and the Frankfort school, etc. do at least add an intellectual veneer to Doug’s critiques of the left. And often that veneer is exactly in service of what Armin indicates, which is to abstract the problems away from the more concrete racial realities central to our discussions of left-right tensions in America. However, I’m with Matt that the jargon is used in service of a hackneyed old fusionist (social conservative, neo-liberal economics) denounciation of the American left. “Instead of saying that calling for poor whites from families who never owned… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

It’s called reparations, and no one is publicly saying it like I did, but that is the reality behind it. Even leftist John McWhorter says as much: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3POpubeoIc&feature=youtu.be In my family’s case, and likely yours to some degree as well, it was the corporate overlords oppressing and stealing wealth. I know unions aren’t popular in this neck of the woods, but if it wasn’t for collective bargaining, I’d likely still be in the holler. But this isn’t the Oppression Olympics. The fact of the matter is that I could replicate story after story of blacks oppressing whites, Asians oppressing other… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

Don’t forget the Moors and the Barbary Coast slave trade…as non-PC and inconvenient as they are.
https://news.osu.edu/when-europeans-were-slaves–research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/

demosthenes1d
Member

BJ, I’ve never heard of any sort of reparations that would take money from poor whites. Poor people pay negative federal taxes in the US. I am far from poor and (due to my huge family) if it weren’t for FICA I would have a negative tax rate. Also, where are all of these rich black folks hiding? The median household wealth of blacks is about $11,000 (about $135,000 for white households). Of course oppression happens all over the place, but when they happen in my polity with the approval of my government that changes things. You are right that… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

And that would continue the cycle of in forgiveness and injustice. Where would I then go to tell my story of injustice? How much money and from whom would I receive reparations? You are playing on guilt to perpetuate a hideous cycle.

demosthenes1d
Member

BJ, Restorative justice doesn’t perpetuate a cycle of inforgiveness and injustice. Lets take a hypothetical – in your community in Tenessee, or Kentucky or wherever you currently live, the people decide that they hate veteran Presbyterians. There have been a few times when city leaders have felt like presbyterians are being rude street preaching in public, and some of the local workers feel like veterans are taking their job and lowering their wages. You are a well know preabyterian and veteran so a mob shows up at your door. The people drag you out, and pull you behind a pickup… Read more »

Jane
Member

demo, it seems to me that’s why state-enforced reparations of money are different in kind of from people seeking to make amends. The one says, “You owe me and the state will aid in making sure I get what’s mine.” Since the state isn’t really about what people ought to do to make peace between one another, but about legally enforcing the fixed requirements of civic justice, it puts a very different color on things which at least carries a strong danger of perpetuating a cycle of demand. The second is peacemaking. That seems to be what happens within churches… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

Jane, I hope I have made it clear throughout this conversation that I am not in favor of any kind of reparations for emnity, or animosity. I actually don’t have a particular program that I support or that i am pushing for, but I do believe in reparative/restorative justice. And I believe that that reparation should come from the harming party for a defined harm – when a man is lynched and his community refuses to give his family justice, for instance. I don’t want the Federal government giving a big cash transfer to all black people waving a big… Read more »

Jane
Member

But the thing you say you don’t want is what everyone in the reparations conversation means by reparations. The things you say you want aren’t what people mean when they talk about reparations.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Buy why does that matter? Government reparations for Black people haven’t happened in the 155 years since slavery ended, haven’t come even CLOSE to happening at any point in the last 140 years, and aren’t going to happen at any point in the next 100 years. So why even talk about what they’re saying? Why not talk about what we should be doing instead?

Jane
Member

It only matters because it’s important to determine whether we’re talking about “reparations” as the word is generally used and understood, and if you say “reparations are good,” 99.9% of people are going to hear you say “a government-enforced extraction of wealth from people whose ancestors may or may not have committed certain injustices against the ancestors of people to whom the wealth will be transferred.” If you want to talk about engaging in some kind of biblical reconciliation between two groups, some of the deceased members of one which perpetrated certain injustices against some of the deceased members of… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Neither myself nor Demo were trying to call for reparations. We were talking about restorative justice. I thought Demo was going to great pains to distinguish restorative justice from government reparations. BJ was the one who kept insisting on talking about reparations, Demo kept trying to pivot back to restorative justice instead.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Why would the people of Ocoee need to make amends. The people of Ocoee didn’t kill anyone. Even the descendants of the perpetrators, for what it matters, may or may not be living in Ocoee. It is unlikely all the people living in Ocoee now are descended from the people living there at the time;why should the ones who are not have to apologize or make amends to anyone, even if we think descent somehow confers guilt ?

Anyway, I’m glad you’re not calling for categorical reparations.

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

“Restorative justice doesn’t perpetuate a cycle of inforgiveness and injustice.” We are no where close to talking about restorative justice. Not even close. “Would it really perpetuate a cycle of inforgiveness and injustice if, years later, that community found your children and apologized directly to them and did what they could to make amends? I’m asking honestly?” Do you honestly think this is what is happening in our political circumstances? It makes me wonder if you are really paying attention or if you are simply being played by guilt mongers into doing their work for them. Let’s change the scenario… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

demo, I have only been skimming over this thread.

With that acknowledgement – “Would it really perpetuate a cycle of inforgiveness and injustice if, years later, that community found your children and apologized directly to them and did what they could to make amends?”.

Is that really all reparations are all about? Amends for the living children of people who were abused and murdered recently enough to have still living children? I do not get the impression it is all about doing that.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I’m not sure if anyone can say “what reparations are all about” as it is still a fringe movement and I see little meaningful definition to it. But yes, there are large numbers of living children of people who faced terrible racial abuse, land-stealing and violence. Even many of those very people who were stolen from are still alive. I would say that we cannot dismiss the victimizations of the early 20th-century anti-Black riots as being in the distant past, as not only are children of the victims still alive but the repercussions clearly extend to the grandchildren and further… Read more »

-BJ-
Guest
-BJ-

It is not a fringe issue when viable candidates for President are calling for them.

The details of what it would look like is really what is being debated on the Left. That is driven, not by what is morally appropriate, but by what is politically viable at this point.

JP Stewart
Member

On the flip side, we’ve already has massive reparations in the form of federal and state handout programs that favor blacks disproportionately (food stamps, SSI and many others). We’re talking billions of dollars. And there are people like myself whose losses to affirmative action are into six figures. I’m talking about objectively outperforming others (mostly black females) while they get awards and promotions. And just try to bring up reverse discrimination…I know a guy who spent thousands on a lawyer and only got a guaranteed lifetime non-promotion as a reward. Then we have SE Asians who come to the U.S.… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Programs that only cover basic necessities are not “wealth transfer programs” as no wealth is transferred. Food stamps merely provide food, if any wealth is transferred at all it is going to the pockets of store owners and the like, not the food stamp recipients. As Demo pointed out, Black people in the United States up to a point even well above the median have close to zero wealth, and this is not due to the slavery, segregation, and race riots alone (some examples of which he gave quite well), but also due to the general inability of many Black… Read more »

Jane
Member

Okay, then it’s wealth conversion. One person’s wealth is converted into another person’s necessities. Wealth is still transferred away from the original possessor, even if it doesn’t wind up being wealth to the other person.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yes, a bit of money is moved. For a family of four making $100,000/year, about 0.14% of their income, 38 cents a day, goes to providing food to the poorest residents of this country. But as that money is immediately cycled back into the economy, much of it will end up back in the pockets of those same relatively wealthy people. On the other hand, a poor urban family that was screwed out of home ownership by redlining or contract mortgage or any number of other racist schemes will be forced to transfer $1000 or more every single month to… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“On the other hand, a poor urban family that was screwed out of home ownership by redlining or contract mortgage or any number of other racist schemes will be forced to transfer $1000 or more every single month to the wealthy person who owns their home.”

That may be your left-wing fantasy–not surprising, from the types of sources you quote. In reality, people who own rental properties in low-income and Section 8 areas tell a very different story. One of them I know has been continually screwed in court by people who trash his houses then make him pay.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You seriously just called the idea that people profit off of rental properties a “left-wing fantasy”.

If they didn’t profit off of owning those places, they wouldn’t have bought them or they would have sold them long ago. Profits off of those buildings are enormous – and I have the experience of living in them before, in Inglewood, so I know full well how little many of those landlords provide for the huge amounts of money they extract.

And the idea that poor people are continually screwing over wealthier people in court is laughable.

JP Stewart
Member

“And the idea that poor people are continually screwing over wealthier people in court is laughable.”

Except that it isn’t, and I know of countless examples. But they don’t make the front pages of your daily “woke” reading.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I have no doubt that there are “examples” of poor people winning cases over wealthier people. But it would deny reality to claim that poor Black people are continually winning cases they shouldn’t over wealthy people. Lawyers cost so much because they get their money’s worth, to suggest the courts don’t tilt in that direct denies reality.

JP Stewart
Member

Here’s a personal account from someone I know (with some details removed or redacted) of the “poor” taking it to the rich in court. Yes, there are other issues, such as a corrupt legal system, but the lawyers are simply taking advantage of the current political environment. It happens all the time, but you won’t find it in Google searches, the WaPo or HuffPo. There are many other forms of hidden “reparations.” One is government agencies being strong-armed into hiring exclusively from historically black colleges in the Southeast, even if many hirees aren’t the most qualified. The hirees then get… Read more »

Jane
Member

There may be different definitions of “profit” at work here. Jonathan might be using the word to mean a pile of money that landlords sit next to as they gleefully rub their hands and cackle, or use to buy luxury items. MKT may be using the word to mean the money they use to feed their families and educate their kids, and hopefully build enough to live on after their working years come to an end — no yachts or sports cars included. The range of meaning for the word profit includes both those things, plus quite a number of… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I thought there was pretty much one definition of profit – additional income made above and beyond costs. What you do with it is irrelevant.

The point being, the fact that Black people were largely frozen out of home ownership and thus are forced to pay rent instead means that those Black people cannot build wealth for themselves, and end up building wealth for someone else. So someone is profiting off the fact that they don’t have a home of their own.

Jane
Member

Of course they’re profiting. They literally could not provide that housing at that cost, or any cost, if they were not profiting, because they would have to spend their time and resources doing something else instead, in order to support themselves. Profiting off of something is not bad, unless doing the thing itself is inherently bad. If someone is abusing the poor, the fact that they’re “profiting” off of it doesn’t make it worse. It just makes it something that would actually happen in the real world. And yes, of course, that’s the single definition of the word profit. But… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Regardless of whether you think it is “inherently bad”, the truth is the that, due to systematic racism that prevented most Black people from owning homes and forced most urban Black folk into renting in the worst neighborhoods. So they are unable to build wealth today, they are losing $1,000 or more in rent every month that cannot be used to build wealth, explicitly due to the racism against them or their parents or grandparents. And the people who are making a living off of the fact that those Black people don’t have homes are certainly profiting off of their… Read more »

Jane
Member

Then you have to ask yourself whether people who offer a well-maintained property at market rent under fair terms are doing anything unjust, and whether the justice or injustice of their action is determined by the past or concurrent actions of people unrelated to them. IOW, the existence of structures that may unjustly place poor people of any race in a difficult position and make them less able to afford to own their own homes does not in any respect determine whether the action of a particular landlord who happens to make his living off of maintaining rental properties, falls… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Before we decided to start treating the market as God, theologians explicitly taught that deferring to the “market rate” was wrong and that poor people’s ability to pay DID have to factor into our actions. John Calvin himself said that it was wrong to default to the market rate when profiting off the poor and what you needed to consider was their needs. And in history that’s seen as a huge compromise, as Calvin admitted you could profit off of them a little bit but with with a large number of qualifications, while for 1500 years before that such profits… Read more »

Jane
Member

Defaulting to the market rate inconsideringly is wrong. *Charging* the market rate as a result of carefully considered choices that incorporate biblical concerns is not, necessarily. It may be that the market rate is the only way he CAN maintain his buildings, pay the mortgage and taxes on them, and feed his family — so the alternative is for him to leave the market and his tenants have no housing stock to rent at any price. My point is that if someone is charging the market rate and otherwise conducting himself responsibly and fairly, there is nothing in his external… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You keep ignoring the Biblical commands. Did Nehemiah have to mind-read in Nehemiah 5 in order to know that what the people were doing was wrong? Nothing in the passage suggests ill motives by the creditors at all – except for the obvious fact that they were making their profits at the expense of other people’s poverty. Your claims go the same direction all the status quo profit-defense always goes – claiming that it’s all a heart issue, therefore in practice anything goes. This was NOT what the Church Fathers taught or what the Bible teaches, for 1600 years there… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

“Love your neighbor as yourself” or “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” alone should be enough to kill any suggestion that it’s okay to profit off of the victims of racism when they are in need. I don’t know how you can read that Nehemiah 5 passage or the explicit commands not to profit off the poor and suggest their need doesn’t matter. Imagine there was a huge hurricane and your area was flooded with refugees. They are desperate for water. The market price for bottled water jumps to $50 as a result. You… Read more »

Jane
Member

So if it’s not okay to profit off of the poor, I am honestly wondering how you think that the poor are going to acquire any goods or services? Is 100% charity from the extremely wealthy supposed to take care of it all? The only way someone can afford to acquire and maintain rental properties, run a grocery store, or do anything else that people need, is to make a profit off it so they can feed their OWN families. Otherwise, I guess they just have to go get other jobs where only other well off people can purchase the… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Why can’t a Christian businessman just make a profit off of the vast bulk of his customers who are not stuck in poverty? Why not make a living selling to those with means and then providing at or below cost to those without means? Why do you suggest that you HAVE to profit from the poor, when the Bible says the opposite? You ignore the plain text of the Bible in order to justify the status quo. You can’t just claim the Bible is irrelevant because it doesn’t sound good to you. Over and over you keep ignoring the Biblical… Read more »

Jane
Member

If the money is being taken in an unjust manner or for an unjust purpose, the amount, much less the percentage it represents of the wealth of the one from whom it is taken, is completely irrelevant. The shop owner who has a pack of gum shoplifted has a valid moral complaint. The only relevant question here is whether it is just to do so. If we agreed on that, a conversation about amount would matter. Otherwise, talking about the amount is begging the question, because no amount of stealing is okay, but some amount of legitimate taking is or… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Are you suggesting that food stamps are unjust?

I didn’t even see “food stamps are unjust” or “food stamps are stealing” as anyone’s claim. The claim was that food stamps are a transfer of wealth. And to me that’s like claiming that the meals fed to prisoners are a transfer of wealth. The fact that it costs money to feed prisoners doesn’t mean that wealth is getting transferred to the prisoners, because they can’t actually turn those meals into wealth.

Jane
Member

I’m not suggesting any such thing. I am simply pointing out that the amount doesn’t matter IF it’s unjust, so bringing up the fact that it’s a tiny amount begs the question. Which is exactly what I said. You first have to determine that any situation involving taking is a just taking before it matters that it’s not much, and whether the various situations we’re talking about are cases of just taking is what we’re disagreeing on. The original conversation was about reparations, not food stamps.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I thought the original question was about restorative justice, but no one appears to want to talk about that.

I still don’t understand what argument you actually want to make regarding food stamps or whether you just are trying to play games. But whatever, I’m tiring of people who are just arguing to argue and clearly don’t want to even consider whether we have a Christian duty in this matter that hasn’t been fulfilled.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

And I am saddened that your reply completely ignored the Biblical insight on the issue of profiting off of the poor versus working to restore them. Whoever increases wealth by taking interest or profit from the poor amasses it for another, who will be kind to the poor. – Proverbs 28:8 If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Before we decided to start treating the market as God, theologians explicitly taught that deferring to the “market rate” was wrong and that poor people’s ability to pay DID have to factor into our actions.

John Calvin himself said that it was wrong to default to the market rate when profiting off the poor and what you needed to consider was their needs. And in history that’s seen as a huge compromise as Calvin admitted you could profit off of them so long as you prioritized their needs, while for 1500 years before that such profits had been explicitly decried.

JP Stewart
Member

Exactly. And as usual, Jonathan cherry picks his articles. Despite so many Vietnamese coming to the U.S. in the 1970s with no money, speaking little to no English and in some cases facing racism, poverty rates among Vietnamese are lower than they are for most Americans. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/chart/u-s-vietnamese-population-living-in-poverty/ Of course the whole idea of poverty levels in the U.S. is another can of worms. Quite a few people below the poverty line have a nicer phones and TVs than I own, and run their A/Cs full blast while leaving their front door open. (True story, from someone I know who grew… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You made a claim about Southeast Asians, I showed the claim was terribly wrong for most Southeast Asian groups and in fact the opposite was true, you claim now that it holds for just one of those groups. So which one of us is cherry-picking? I’m not sure why the Vietnamese did relatively fine while the Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong did so much more poorly, but my offhand guess is that as the American allies in Vietnam predominantly came from wealthier backgrounds, those who fled were likely from better-educated backgrounds and thus were better equipped to take advantage of their… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“They were not pushed into segregated neighborhoods, they did not have a history of being kept out of education and work attainment, they were able to assimilate to a much greater degree than Black folk had been allowed. So no, the situation is not remotely comparable. It’s just an attempt to use one minority group as a wedge to attack another.” More ID politics hogwash. By the time they came in 70s, one group knew English and had been here for generations. The other group by and large quietly worked hard in a completely unfamiliar culture. I’ve known Cambodian, Vietnamese… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

There are no Oppression Olympics mkt, their situations are not comparable. What happened with the Vietnamese (who ended up in less poverty than Black folk) or the Cambodians (who ended up in more) is completely irrelevant to the completely different situation that Black folk are in. I postulated some obvious reasons why more (though certainly not all) Vietnamese were able to succeed where Cambodians, Laotians, Hmong and African-Americans have not. That doesn’t mean they lose (or win?) the Oppression Olympics, it just defeats your attempt to use the model minority myth to victim-blame any group you don’t like. It was… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

All that isn’t some defense of food stamps or welfare or anything. I’m just pointing out that the massive injustices Demo pointed out did occur, and food stamps and the like do nothing to rectify them so they still exist. How do we respond? I see it as pointless to talk about political solutions as the political will to do anything meaningful isn’t there. So what can we do as churches, as communities, as followers of Christ? Personally, I grew up working class (zookeepers don’t make anything) but to parents who had both come from well-off families who owned their… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

Right. And contrary to Jonathan, reparations have been happening for decades, regardless of how he wants to define them. In fact, Jonathan could get together with Ta-Nehisi Coates , AOC and Bernie Sanders and design the most draconian wealth transfer possible. They could totally flip the wealth of the bottom 20% and upper 20%. Over time, Pareto’s Law would work itself out and the groups (multigenerational families) would largely swap places again–unless we’re in N. Korea or something. (As a side note all this talk about food stamps, SSI and welfare not being a “real wealth transfer” is a lot… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I already addressed that silliness earlier, but you have your narratives. Interesting that earlier you claimed there were all these Black women getting better jobs than you, but you also want to play the right-wing game of blaming the issues that plague the Black community on general welfare programs (and not, you know, the sins that actually targeted the Black community at that exact time). It’s obviously how the wave of violence and discrimination that was launched against Black people and Black communities as a reaction against would have a detrimental effect. How would health care, education, or food stamps… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“I wonder, those Black women you were complaining about getting better jobs than you, how would that lead to the moral breakdown of the Black family? You do realize the logic hole you’ve made there, right?” It’s not complaining when there were objective standards in place. Or when I literally did *their work* while they socialized for hours on end. But I know…that doesn’t fit the narrative you learned in college in those race huckster classes you took. And I never said it was all the black women I worked with–just a group that had senior managers watching their back.… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Jonathan, right or wrong, how is it not wealth transfer if the wealth of the taxpaying class is, for the food stamp recipient, converted to the goods wealth is used to obtain?

Why are black people unable to get *fair* wages, – what are *fair* mortgages (honestly not sure what you mean), and especially – what do you mean that black people are unable to get access to the G.I. Bill?

JP Stewart
Member

While not part of the narrative, a big part of the 2008 meltdown was due to the fact that banks were forced to give mortgages to completely unqualified people–the ones who often default and supposedly can’t get “fair” mortgages. Jessie Jackson even encouraged people to get these loans in one of his books. I know bank auditors who quietly talked about this and saw it coming several years earlier.

These got bundled into investments, then “greed Wall Street” got all the blame, but there was much more to it.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

That’s a constant part of the narrative, at least from the right. And it’s dead wrong. the release of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report, which documented how widespread failures in regulation and recklessness on Wall Street led to the recent financial crisis. Unfortunately, the movie’s success has spurred Wall Street allies to dust off their revisionist claims that the federal government’s affordable housing and community lending policies caused the crisis. These assertions have been thoroughly debunked in every serious analysis of the crisis. Nine of the 10 FCIC members, including five Democrats, three Republicans, and one independent, explicitly… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

Once again, not everything is true because you found it on first-page Google search. I happen to have a background in several overlapping, related areas and the official reports were shallow and didn’t fully explore areas that would’ve undermined their foregone conclusions. Besides, it would be career suicide for academics, Federal Reserve employees or others to point fingers in such non-PC directions.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

So you’re a personal expert in this and have studied the issue deeper than the official reports. Right. Anyway, here’s the actual background of the FCIC members, to kill your conspiracy theory: President of AKT Development Corp and former California State Treasurer Retired Congressman and fellow at American Enterprise Institute Former FCTC chair and partner at Arnold & Porter Partner at Coughlin Stoia and Robbins Geller Retired Senator Former economic adviser to GW Bush President of American Action Forum and former economic adviser to McCain Founder and former chair of Nevada Cancer Institute Chairman of the board and former CEO… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

It’s not wealth transfer because it never becomes wealth. You can’t build wealth with food stamps unless you’re running some sort of scam. And no one is losing wealth due to food stamps – as the money taxed for food stamps is cycled back into the system, and as money cycled back into the system gravitates towards the same well-off people who were taxed, there’s no net loss of wealth. Which is why food stamps and welfare do nothing to close the ever-growing wealth gap. I too didn’t know much at all about contract mortgages, discriminatory impact of the GI… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

It seems to me you’re defining “wealth” narrowly to support your your case. It is a wealth transfer simply because it involves transfer of one party’s money (wealth) to provide something of value to a second party, without compensating the first party by exchange of anything of value into their possession. That the money is cycled back into the system does not change the equation for the first party, unless we can show that it recycles back to them as fully, surely, and directly as it was taken. My point does not have to do with whether food stamps are… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“Ref. mortgages, GI Bill, etc. – just to be clear, we are talking about things that have happened, not things that are happening?”

Definitely. I was in the military 20 years ago and there was no racial bias with the G.I. Bill then….nor was there 20 years before that.

YAMxJ
Guest
YAMxJ

I am defining wealth to actually mean something. The discussion was whether or not there have been wealth transfers that have made up for the wealth that was stolen from the Black community. That clearly has not happened. You could hand out food stamps for the next 200 years and it would still fail to restore the wealth that the Black community lost, they wouldn’t be any closer to making it out of poverty. If you’re desire is simply to call it a “wealth transfer” to win the internet, then do what you will. And yes, predatory loans disproportionately targeting… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I am defining wealth to actually mean something. The discussion was whether or not there have been wealth transfers that have made up for the wealth that was stolen from the Black community. That clearly has not happened. You could hand out food stamps for the next 200 years and it would still fail to restore the wealth that the Black community lost, they wouldn’t be any closer to making it out of poverty. If you’re desire is simply to call it a “wealth transfer” to win the internet, then do what you will. And yes, predatory loans disproportionately targeting… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

” You could hand out food stamps for the next 200 years and it would still fail to restore the wealth that the Black community lost, they wouldn’t be any closer to making it out of poverty.” Let’s not stop there. We could give every black family $1 million dollars for the next 1,000 years and it wouldn’t make up for 6 months of slavery. And they church could confess sins they didn’t actually commit in their lives for the next 500 years and it still wouldn’t be enough. This is both an absurd and religious issue for Jonathan, and… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Yes, You’re defining wealth to mean something; you’re defining wealth to mean what you need it to mean to support your point of view. Whether or not there is a case for aid to make up for past injustice (which is not really the intent of food stamps anyway) has nothing to do with the definition of wealth.

I do agree that food stamps aren’t going to help anyone out of poverty.

Bringing up predatory loans is changing the subject from what I asked about, and you answered.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The definition of wealth isn’t necessary to support my point of view. People who want to say “wealth transfer!” just in order to be able to say the scary (although quite obviously Biblical) words “wealth transfer!” are the ones who are stuck on the definition of the word. My point, which you agree with, is that food stamps do nothing to lift people out of poverty. Thus if an injustice has been committed which forced Black folk into poverty, then no amount of food stamps can “pay back” that injustice. The claim was that even if Black people got screwed… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Then you have no reason to obstinately argue that food stamps do not represent a form of wealth transfer. You could easily say “Fine. Food stamps are wealth transfer, and good that they are!”, and it wouldn’t change what you say is your point.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You’re basically right. My central personality traits is that I’m obsessed with getting things “right”, and so often I can get hung up on details not necessary in the bigger picture.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I didn’t mention wages, but one way in which Black people historically had difficulty getting fair wages is that they were often shut out of unions, and when they did unionize on their own those unions were often put down especially violently. Even today it can be more difficult for Black persons in certain places to access unions. I read an article about the City of Oakland requiring union workers on all their construction projects, which was opposed by Black construction workers in the area as there had not been a union training center in Oakland in over 20 years… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I didn’t know much about mortgage discrimination either until just a few years ago. Here is a relevant story and a few quotes to introduce the subject: In 1961, Ross and his wife bought a house in North Lawndale, a bustling community on Chicago’s West Side. North Lawndale had long been a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, but a handful of middle-class African Americans had lived there starting in the ’40s. The community was anchored by the sprawling Sears, Roebuck headquarters. North Lawndale’s Jewish People’s Institute actively encouraged blacks to move into the neighborhood, seeking to make it a “pilot community for… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

And there were other ways Black people were kept out of access to mortgages. A common refrain here is that “welfare” somehow created the Black ghettos and really bad-off neighborhoods that built up in the 1950s and later. The truth is much more sinister and blatant: Whereas shortly before the New Deal, a typical mortgage required a large down payment and full repayment within about 10 years, the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in 1933 and then the Federal Housing Administration the following year allowed banks to offer loans requiring no more than 10 percent down, amortized over… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

With the G.I. Bill, the issues were threefold: Most Black veterans weren’t allowed into college (southern universities still barred black people, northern universities were discriminatory in entrance, and HBCUs couldn’t handle nearly the numbers necessary), so they couldn’t use the G.I. Bill’s education benefits. Segregation and redlining made it impossible for many Black folk to apply for real mortgages, so they couldn’t use the G.I. Bill’s home ownership benefits. Job training programs were still segregated or limited to White students completely in many cases, so they couldn’t use the G.I. Bill’s skilled job training benefits. As a result, while some… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I just ran into this striking quote in the Atlantic today.

Conservative Republicans began to echo some of the earlier Democratic warnings about Reconstruction, in less flagrantly racist terms. Whereas Democratic newspapers once warned that the “poor whites of the country are to be taxed—bled of all their little earnings—in order to fatten the vagabondish negroes,” Richardson writes that “some Northern Republicans were willing to accept Southern Democrats’ opposition to African-American rights so long as their complaints were framed in terms of a conflict over political economy rather than race.”

The more things change…

The article in general is quite daring.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/reagan-nixon-trump-white-nationalism/595465/

Daniel Fisher
Member

Ah, excellent. Thanks for the link to Ascol’s explanation of said video. Does put more into context. Hence I retract my previous criticism of their failure to offer a retraction.