Christians and Racism.

christ_canaanite_woman

How shall we justify ourselves if we permit even a little of the truth to be laid aside? Is that ours to do? When peace is injurious to truth, peace must give way, for peace with God is of greater value than peace with men.

Dr Abraham Kuyper

Can a Christian be a racist? When most people see that question they immediately laugh, or say, “of course not”. They may even say that those two things are antithetical to each other. Also, what many people are hearing is, “Can a Christian be EVIL”, for they believe that racism is one of the worst beliefs a person can have, but this is unjustly biased. First let’s define racism, Webster says:

Racism

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

(I would clarify this definition by saying race is just another word for a specific set of genetics, and that superiority is a subjective word. Dogs are superior to men at running, does that mean that dogs are superior to men?)

What most people think of when they think of a racist is a guy burning stuff, and killing people just for the color of their skin. They think of murder, and men treating other men in terrible ways. They think of prideful men who do awful things to others for his own personal profit. They think of overly haughty men who persecute others who are in fact better than him, just because they are different from him. In fact, all of those things do not come from the definition of racism. In retort, many will say that those things are a definite result of racism, and cannot be avoided by racists, but they are mistaken. Let’s look at another definition.

Speciesism

discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.

I know what you are thinking, “but humans and animals are truly different, everybody knows this”, and I completely agree. My point is that one can be a speciesist and not treat animals cruelly. I am most certainly a speciesist, but I believe it immoral to mistreat animals. A great many people are speciesist, and treat their animals better than they treat their neighbors. Now that doesn’t mean speciesist treat animals and people the same, but it doesn’t automatically result in cruelty to animals either. The same is true of racism.

Let’s look at another category that really doesn’t have a word for what we are talking about ( Ableism and Geneticism are close but don’t really cut it) so I will invent one:

brainism

a belief that the brain function is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that brain function differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular brain function.

Almost everybody I know is a brainist. Almost everyone I know will acknowledge that they are smarter than some, and not as smart as others. Does this result in cruelty to others? Sometimes, but it does not explicitly follow that a brainist will be cruel to others based on their brain function. In fact we have a good case study, down syndrome people. Everybody agrees that down syndrome peoples brains do not function like the rest of us. The honest person will easily confess that down syndrome people are not as capable as the rest of us, that they are inferior in brain function, that they shouldn’t be flying airplanes, or designing bridges.

What we need to do is be honest, and decouple the idea of racism with evil. To be racist, or speciesist, or brainist is one thing, and to be evil is something else. If you acknowledge down syndrome people are not as smart as the rest of us, you are just being honest, if you say we should murder all down syndrome people, you are being evil. If you say that blacks are not as smart as whites, you are just being honest, if you say we should murder all blacks, you are being evil. What we should not be doing is attacking the wrong target. If a man uses a fact of nature as an excuse for evil, let us not attack the fact, but let us attack the evil.

The truth is that genetics are real, that race is real. That different races have different genetics. That the average IQ of the races is different. That the average time preference for the races is different. That an average white person is very much different from the average black person genetically, and that those differences cause them to behave differently. This is the truth, it is the duty of all Christians to speak the truth. So to answer my initial question, can Christians be racist, I say that they can, but what I really believe is this: Christians can, and should, acknowledge that there are indeed races, and that the differences among those races are not insignificant.

Advertisements

This is Fine

20170220_rinkeby2

France (or Sweden, or America) in 2017, if taken as a whole, is still a nice country. (We all know that nice is a subjective term, so let’s say it’s a first world country, which is a little less subjective term.) But an issue immediately arises when you stop taking France as a whole, and start looking at certain parts independently. Before I go further let me show you something visual.

mixture

When you mix the colors blue and yellow you get green. If you look at these two boxes as a whole, they both have the same amount of blue and yellow, but they are clearly not equal. This is why we say, “The devil is in the details”. So now back to France. France is obviously much more complicated than a box, but what you have in 2017 France is similar to what you have in box B. When you start getting down to street level, it very much matters what street you are on. You will get a different answer when asking the average guy on a Paris street how his city is doing, than you will if you ask a guy in Nantes. Even within Paris you will get different answers based on what part of the city you are in. So you really aren’t saying much when you say, “France as a whole is nice”. The fact is that parts of France are very nice, and other parts of France are very, not nice. (So now we are back to the definition of nice. That subject I will leave for another time.) By simply saying France as a whole is nice, you are overlooking a great many issues that will not solve themselves.

There is another factor in addition to location that must be addressed, and that is time. Another visual below.

mixture2

Looking at any one of these circles alone is very different than looking at them in series. It is clear from looking at any two of them, that changes are taking place; you can in no way gather that from looking at just one. When looking at France at any one moment in time, you are not seeing what is really going on. This is why we say, “You have your head in the sand” or, “You’re a f*^king idiot”. One more visual.

this-is-fine

The Parable of the Spring

spring

There was once a beautiful and peaceful country, full of happy and healthy people. The source of their joy was a great spring. It gushed forth from the earth, giving clean and clear water to drink, and to water their crops. One day a wandering merchant came to their country. He was a nomad, traveling here and there. The merchant brought with him a sickness from foreign lands that the people had never known. This sickness spread across their fair country, the suffering and death was almost more than they could bear. As the people began to search for the cause of this sickness, the merchant convinced them that the source of their great suffering, was their spring. In truth, the spring was as clear and clean as it had ever been. The people believing the spring to be the cause of their demise, built a great wall around it, and made laws against drinking from it. They taught their children that it was wicked, and as time passed, all who had known the spring to be good, and drinking from it wise, passed away. In so separating themselves from the life giving water, the people of the country perished.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Great Literature of our People. 9

plato

Plato’s famous and eternal “Allegory of the Cave”.

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: –Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.  And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.  Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?  And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.  And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.  And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.  To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.  And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it’ the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.  And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he now  And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he’s forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.  He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.  Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.  He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?  Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.  And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.  And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,  Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.  And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.  This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

 

Muh Constitution

img_0491

A country is not a land mass, it is a people mass. A country’s character, customs, laws, architecture, crime rate are all based on the people, not the other way around. This confusion causes some to falsely believe that it is our constitution that makes America great, but they are terribly mistaken. My first question to them would be, what made the guys who wrote it great? Our forefathers who wrote the constitution were not living under it, were not living under “freedom”, they were living under what we now consider to be tyranny, they were living under a King, so how is it that they were able to write such a document?

Assuming that the constitution is what makes America great is very dangerous, it may cause you to make really stupid decisions (1965 immigration act). Did you know that the constitution of Liberia is modeled on the United States Constitution? They have a very similar form of government to us, and have since 1847.  Actually, many of the countries in Africa are democracies with constitutions. So why is it that they have the same constitution, but drastically different living conditions?

I have another question for these people. What does it mean to be French? What does it mean to be Nigerian? What does it mean to be Chinese? Is Chinese a word we use when we are talking about any human being who is currently living in China? If a Mexican man moves to China, becomes a citizen, and lives there for 20 years, is he then Chinese? If a Chinese couple move to Nigeria and have their child there, is that child Chinese or Nigerian? What would Australia be if we moved all Australians out, and moved all Russians in? Could we still call it Australia? Imagine a Cherokee reservation, now imagine moving all the Cherokees out, and moving all Japanese people in, would we still call it Cherokee land?

If all people in America were to be replaced with all the people in Africa, but all our buildings, all of our roads, all of our laws, even our precious constitution were to remain the same, what do you think America would look like? It is the people that make a country, not the land, not the constitution. As America brought in more and more European immigrants in the early 1900s, America more and more looked like Europe (we even built whole theme parks trying to mimic Europe, e.g. Disneyland). As parts of America bring in more and more Mexican, or Arab immigrants, it is going to look more and more like Mexico and Arabia. Some piece of paper is not going to change those peoples genetics, it isn’t going to change their culture, their religion. What is going to happen is someday those people are going to change the constitution.

European peoples made America great, not a piece of paper. Get rid of European peoples, and you get rid of America. Get rid of European peoples, and no amount of “muh constitution” will help you.