Mississippi Baptists press for new state flag

[JonC]

My intention is to use "systemic" instead of "systematic". My table has gotten used to texting student about their assignments so it keeps using the word "systematic" and I just keep overlooking it.




But we don't define it as just explicitly inherent. The "remaining racism and complications that have carried over" is the actual systemic racism.

Those aren't just effects, they are devices. There's a difference between policy-based racism and systemic racism. Systemic racism is the background for how certain racist activity, like redlining, could still exist after the policy of it was banned.


Removing statues is the act of realizing some people's hearts are so wicked that racism will never leave it so we at least irk them by removing what they hold so dear...and at the same time promote a culture that doesn't glorify racism.


People can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can address "real" issues, and tear down monuments.

What do you see as "devices"?

I think that for the most part we agree about a lot but we view the relationship between systemic racism and racist acts in reverse of how the other sees it.

I do agree that certain racist activity could still exist after the policy of it is banned (if anything, Selma highlighted this fact). But where I disagree is that such racist activities are left over from such past policies. I do not believe that the policies advanced racism, but hold the opposite is true - that racism advanced those policies. The racism that exists today is not, in my view, related to systemic racism but is related to that evil from which systemic racism was derived.

If that is true, and I believe it is, then there is very little we can do about current racist activities except curtail people acting out on their beliefs. We could, I suppose, ban racist expressions but the problem there is the protections granted freedom of expression are there to protect offensive expression (non-offensive expression never needed protection).

As far as the statues go, it is just acting out for the most part (a type of temper tantrum). Those who want them removed are not offending racists as much as trying to erase a romanticized culture that other people value. It is like banning Gone with the Wind because of racism when the thing is a work of fiction to begin with. To turn it around, it would be removing any trace of "African heritage" from Black Americans because what is held is a romanticized view void of ugliness and evil. "Dixie" is to many southerners what "Africa" is to many Black Americans. That is why I say the whole issue is superficial nonsense. That said, I really do not care about monuments.

Take the monuments. Leave the cannoli.

 

[robustheologian]

I think that for the most part we agree about a lot but we view the relationship between systemic racism and racist acts in reverse of how the other sees it.

That's what it seems.

I do agree that certain racist activity could still exist after the policy of it is banned (if anything, Selma highlighted this fact).

That's the crux of the matter.

The racism that exists today is not, in my view, related to systemic racism but is related to that evil from which systemic racism was derived.

I'll explain it the way it was told to me—the heart, the boulder, and the hill.

The heart, being the source of wickedness in action, pushes the boulder down the hill. The more it rolls, the more momentum it gains...destroying everything in its path. You seem to be viewing the heart as racism...I call that personal prejudice. The act of pushing the boulder is racist policy...like redlining as we mentioned before, for example. Systemic racism is the rolling of the boulder. Long after the hearts of slaveholders and confederates have died, long after the pushing of the boulder that got it going, the boulder is still rolling.

If that is true, and I believe it is, then there is very little we can do about current racist activities except curtail people acting out on their beliefs.

I agree.

As far as the statues go, it is just acting out for the most part (a type of temper tantrum).

That is your opinion. To those who are the progeny of people tormented by the subject of those monuments, it's so much more.

Those who want them removed are not offending racists

Have you been paying attention? There's a lot of people offended here.

Those who want them removed are not offending racists as much as trying to erase a romanticized culture that other people value.

I and others are quite happy with that.

It is like banning Gone with the Wind because of racism when the thing is a work of fiction to begin with.

Except America's history isn't fiction.

To turn it around, it would be removing any trace of "African heritage" from Black Americans because what is held is a romanticized view void of ugliness and evil. "Dixie" is to many southerners what "Africa" is to many Black Americans.

Except the whole context of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow thing.

That is why I say the whole issue is superficial nonsense.

That is your opinion and calling it superficial nonsense is insensitive.

 

[JonC]

I'll explain it the way it was told to me—the heart, the boulder, and the hill.

The heart, being the source of wickedness in action, pushes the boulder down the hill. The more it rolls, the more momentum it gains...destroying everything in its path. You seem to be viewing the heart as racism...I call that personal prejudice. The act of pushing the boulder is racist policy...like redlining as we mentioned before, for example. Systemic racism is the rolling of the boulder. Long after the hearts of slaveholders and confederates have died, long after the pushing of the boulder that got it going, the boulder is still rolling.

Good illustration. This clarifies things (and should for others here...but probably wont).

I agree with you (given the illustration). Where we disagreed was a matter of definition. The boulder is still rolling. I have not, however, seen a viable plan to slow it down.

This is where the discussion needs to be - not with accusing people who had nothing to do with setting the boulder on its course or pretending not to see the thing or the damage that it has caused.

We see that on this thread with irrelevant comments like "but there are poor white people". The issue is not ones state but ones opportunities to change ones state.

In the end life is simply not fair. We work with what we are given and try to leave the world in a better place. Equality is not an obtainable goal (equality and liberty can never coexist, and neither can be fully realized in this world), but perhaps stopping the boulder and doing our best to help those caught in its path is, to a great extent, obtainable. But only if people are able to be honest enough to see the damage caused.

.That is your opinion. To those who are the progeny of people tormented by the subject of those monuments, it's so much more.

I agree. My point is these symbols mean different things to different people. It is wrong to insist a rebel flag indicates to any degree that the person displaying the flag is a racist. It is just as wrong to insist the person offended by the flag is wrongfully offended. Christian churches that had swastikas engraved on their buildings were not racist although swastikas symbolize the Nazi party. That said, because the swastika has come to represent racism those churches would be right to remove the symbol (one meaning does not negate the other.

The demand should not be "remove that racist symbol". It should be a conversation along the lines "I understand to you this symbolizes xyz, but to me it is offensive because xyz". Few are interested in conversation (I seriously doubt this would be an issue today except it causes hurt on both sides of the debate...and I believe the hatred is intentional...perhaps more damage from that rolling boulder towards all involved.

Except the whole context of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow thing.

I understand this. I am saying both sides cling to a romanticized "heritage" . One side pretends all that existed in "Dixie" was cornbread, sweet tea and the Dukes of Hazzard. The other side pretends Africa was a homeland and white people are still pushing that boulder.

That is your opinion and calling it superficial nonsense is insensitive.

When did we start being sensitive???

 

[robustheologian]

Good illustration. This clarifies things (and should for others here...but probably wont).

I agree with you (given the illustration). Where we disagreed was a matter of definition. The boulder is still rolling. I have not, however, seen a viable plan to slow it down.

This is where the discussion needs to be - not with accusing people who had nothing to do with setting the boulder on its course or pretending not to see the thing or the damage that it has caused.

We see that on this thread with irrelevant comments like "but there are poor white people". The issue is not ones state but ones opportunities to change ones state.

In the end life is simply not fair. We work with what we are given and try to leave the world in a better place. Equality is not an obtainable goal (equality and liberty can never coexist, and neither can be fully realized in this world), but perhaps stopping the boulder and doing our best to help those caught in its path is, to a great extent, obtainable. But only if people are able to be honest enough to see the damage caused.


I agree. My point is these symbols mean different things to different people. It is wrong to insist a rebel flag indicates to any degree that the person displaying the flag is a racist. It is just as wrong to insist the person offended by the flag is wrongfully offended. Christian churches that had swastikas engraved on their buildings were not racist although swastikas symbolize the Nazi party. That said, because the swastika has come to represent racism those churches would be right to remove the symbol (one meaning does not negate the other.

The demand should not be "remove that racist symbol". It should be a conversation along the lines "I understand to you this symbolizes xyz, but to me it is offensive because xyz". Few are interested in conversation (I seriously doubt this would be an issue today except it causes hurt on both sides of the debate...and I believe the hatred is intentional...perhaps more damage from that rolling boulder towards all involved.
I understand this. I am saying both sides cling to a romanticized "heritage" . One side pretends all that existed in "Dixie" was cornbread, sweet tea and the Dukes of Hazzard. The other side pretends Africa was a homeland and white people are still pushing that boulder.

I agree.

When did we start being sensitive???

When did we become so insensitive???

 

[JonC]

When did we become so insensitive???

I think for you when white folks started denying that the rebel flag and statues of Uncle Tom could possible be offensive. I was born this way.