We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community. Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the White Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts: 1. Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the White Community 3. Commitment to the White Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System. The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision: 1. A congregation committed to ADORATION. 2. A congregation preaching SALVATION. 3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION. 4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA. 5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION. 6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION. 7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. 8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION. 9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION. 10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY. Some excerpts from the "White Value System" via the Trinity Church’s website (pdf): WHITE VALUE SYSTEM Statement of Purpose We honor Dr. Manford Byrd, our brother in Christ, because of the exemplary manner in which he has thrice withstood the ravage of being denied his earned ascension to the number one position in the Chicago School System… The White Value System These White Ethics must be taught and exampled in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect the following concepts: Commitment of God “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activist, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind… Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons, if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self discipline coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of White Progress, and a model for White Youth.
If it's not the same, why not?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If, historically, black people and white people had the same cultural experience, it would be equivalent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than repeatedly&openly emphasizing that WhiteMembers must allow themselves to be ripped off by the Leaders of the WhiteCommnity, even to the extent that it means sacrificing their WhiteSelves and their WhiteFamilies, sounds like the constant "We can't win if we hafta compete with our inferiors." whinging ya hear in the debates forming the Republican local&national platforms, including "We WhitePeople hadda workour way out of slavery&discrimination..."
posted
The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful. Admittedly, kmbboots explanation is more ambiguous and tactful. _____
I agree with the bit about middleclassness from the web site. Truthfully, this campaign is going to be a real pain in the ass for white America, not so much because of Obama, but because his run is going to give cover for other black people to say what think. Nurses and cleaning people are going to start mouthing off to doctors and executives. Law suits will be filed. White people in authority are going to start mouthing off in retaliation, and more suits will be filed. Most importantly, basic foundations of freedom, loyalty, family are going to be looked at in hard detail because those three qualities are not necessarily consistent with color-blind life in a plural democracy. One hopes that all sides will be benefit from the discussion, but who knows.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tells ya somethin' when a single Party could come to dominate the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the SupremeCourt simultaneously by campaigning on such rhetoric.
posted
If, for example, someone bought into a premise that one race really was x,y,z negative or positive characteristics, then what is distasteful for one group to claim is not necessarily so for another group to claim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful. Admittedly, kmbboots explanation is more ambiguous and tactful. _____
I don't think you and I are in agreement. I'm not sure if you are trying to say that we are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could even make the claim that people are basically the same, and if it works for one group, it can work for another.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, you are right. I agree with your statement, but I doubt you'd agree with my sentiment.
Different cultural experiences are a huge deal. It's not just food, but how we regard basic institutions.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a problem with any church that puts an emphasis on the White Family or the Black Family or the Asian Family-- instead of on the Family.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:sounds like the constant "We can't win if we hafta compete with our inferiors." whinging ya hear in the debates forming the Republican local&national platforms
Oh, geez, are you spouting this drivel again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think your problems are just beginning. Where does family stop? Cousins? Some friends are close as family. Some churches are as close as family.
At bottom, we are talking about privileged associations, where we stop treating people as equal and start treating some people better than others, and since we live in a free society, with the ability to make choices based on criteria of our own devising, this freedom stands in opposition to our sense of equality and opens an extraordinary number of thorny issues.
I have a problem with it because I don't see people as colors or races, we have several so-called "mixed race" marriages in my family (as defined by "people who are related to me by blood or marriage"), more in my "ward family" (people in my congregation at church), and I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, for better or worse, I have a strong suspicion that this is going to, if not kill, then really hurt Obama's presidential run.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
struck me as odd, because if I remember correctly the phrase "Talented Tenth" comes directly from a paper by W. E. B. Du Bois.
quote:Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
struck me as odd, because if I remember correctly the phrase "Talented Tenth" comes directly from a paper by W. E. B. Du Bois.
--j_k
What did you find odd about that comment?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't like to see them being descriminated against, although I see the emphasis on family (including "kinfolk" family, "church family", and family in the sense that I believe we are all Children of God) as a good thing.
I don't know if you can have both ways in theory, much less so in practice.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The phrase "talented tenth" refers to Du Bois' claim that the most academically talented 10% of a given population can lift it out of poverty; specifically, he was referring to the black population near the turn of the last century. Very often black communities work hard to identify and encourage top 10% of students.
So when the church claims that "captors" are identify the 10% in order to subjugate and/or destroy them, it sounds strange to me. In short, these are generally not the same kids described in the next sentences as killing one another and filling the prisons.
--j_k, who edited for clarity and such
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a minority culture does this, it implies taking pride in their heritage and standing united against possible detractors or assimilating influences that could harm what they find valuable about their communal identity.
When a majority culture does this, it is hard to assign the same meaning to it, because ... well, what detractors can be taken seriously? What assimilating influences could there be? What abotu their communal identity could be threatened? Taking a stance like this in the absence of a credible degree of resistance makes it seem needlessly aggressive.
Statements means different things coming out of different mouths in different contexts. It's an inescapable feature of language.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that if a particular self-identified group feels that their group requires particular features of community, particular forms of support, particular focus on values or qualities that are necessary to raise their own quality of life, that in and of itself should not be described as racism. Indeed, it could as easily be seen as self-deprecation in as much as there is an implicit presumption of particular failings or weaknesses within the self-identified group that require address.
If some of this church's assumptions are somewhat contraversial, particularly those that imply an outside victimization of the black community, I suspect they remain arguable from the point of view of those within that church and are certainly no more contraversial than political issues I've seen addressed from other pulpits.
To my mind, racism in such a community wouldn't be recognized from how they addressed themselves, but how they addressed those outside that community. To want to help someone with whom you identify is one matter; to refuse to help someone with whom you do not identify is another. Without more particulars on how this church deals with groups outside itself, I wouldn't be willing to define their standards as objectionable.
I remember many years ago having an argument with my sister who said, on hearing of some sort of locally held men's symposium, something sneering about a dominant culture meeting to discuss issues. I objected that there were real issues that were of particular interest to men, real difficulties and hardships that were particular to men, and while it didn't make those difficulties and hardships particular to women any less real or worthy of address, that hardly warranted a dismissal of the worth of such a symposium.
However, if 80% of the population (the 2005 census estimate of the "white" population of the United States) congregated because they felt there were problems specific to them that could not easily be addressed, it would raise a real question as to why in the face of such an overwhelming majority those problems were not being addressed.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When a minority culture does this, it implies taking pride in their heritage and standing united against possible detractors or assimilating influences that could harm what they find valuable about their communal identity.
This assumes there is a majority culture, or a clearly definable majority culture. As a Mormon, it would seem like you should know better than to assume that just because someone is, in this case, white, they belong to some kind of 'Majority Culture'.
I would also question why racism practiced by 'minority culture' doesn't have the same baggage that racism practiced by 'majority culture' doesn't. You and Boots seem to want to argue that racism somehow magically changes into something positive when practiced by black people, but I think at the very least this ignores many aspects of racism on both a social and individual level. For instance, if someone from Wright's church assumes that just because someone is Wright that they are part of the culture that keeps black people down, is elitist, whatever, I would say that this kind of racism is just as bad as majority culture racism.
quote: When a majority culture does this, it is hard to assign the same meaning to it, because ... well, what detractors can be taken seriously? What assimilating influences could there be? What abotu their communal identity could be threatened? Taking a stance like this in the absence of a credible degree of resistance makes it seem needlessly aggressive.
Let's assume for a second, though, that there is such a thing as a 'majority culture'. You say that the detractors to their communal identity can't be threatened. Again, as a Mormon, I would guess you worry to some degree about the 'corrosive' influences of liberal media on people. So, doesn't this indicate that majority culture can be corroded?
As a point in case in which 'minority' culture can screw up 'majority culture', at just one example amongst many of 'assimilating influences', look at the whole dumb gang culture that has permeated many white communities such that many white kids look on schools and white culture as corrupt and weak and black culture as strong and, as such, emulate the worst aspects of 'black' gang culture.
Further, why does the fact of being a minority culture mean that the majority culture can't benefit from at least some of the same things they do? Why not, say, white pride, if it makes people feel good about being white?
Please understand, I am not arguing for white pride, but to say that anything like the equivalent of Wright's church exists anywhere in mainstream white community is, to me, wrong. To say that there is such a thing as a clearly identifiable thing as a 'majority culture', aka 'white people' is, to me, simplistic to the point of absurdity and ignores the simple fact that cultures blend and that skin color doesn't signify culture.
quote: Statements means different things coming out of different mouths in different contexts. It's an inescapable feature of language.
Yep, but that doesn't mean a context exists just because of skin color.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm- I'm guessing it's because Puppy is from a frequently discriminated against minority that he can see the difference and you can't.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that within "white culture" there is broad consistency, but that between these two cultures (black and white), historically there has been a consistency (real or imagined I'm sure is argued) in the way relations have occurred.
Is it arguable? Sure, but that is a widespread perception, and not one without any evidence, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: O, my god. Just stop.
Excuse me? This is the second time in less then a month you've been very rude to me. There are plenty of ways to say you disagree with me without being rude, I would request that in the future you use one of them.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for being rude, but ignoring whether or not Puppy is a member of a discriminated minority, etc, you're just making my point. There is no such thing as majority culture. edit: or at least very unclear what it is.
posted
Let's take an ethnic group that faced some pretty awful discrimination: ethnic Hutus in Rwanda in the 1970's. Being executed for being Hutu surely counts as being discriminated against, right?
20 years later, a lot of Hutus were committed to Hutu community, Hutu families, Hutu values. They were so committed, in fact, that they went out with machetes to chop to bits the children of those who'd discriminated against them in the past, to make sure Rwanda was for Hutus. This was the Rwanda genocide of the 1990's that killed 800,000 people.
Did they only go wrong when they got out the machetes? No. They went wrong when they became bigots. Having been victims of discrimination doesn't justify what they did -- although that's always the way of it when someone wants to commit an atrocity. The Germans told themselves they were only defending themselves from an evil Jewish cabal that controlled Moscow and Washington and New York and was determined to destroy Germany. White Americans said they were just slaughtering Indians because of Indian raids. There's always a justification, based on claiming to be harmed by the people you want to do bad things to.
I don't know if the church's statement is racist. But if it's not, it isn't because it doesn't count as racism as long as you can claim victim status.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm getting Bok's point, he's saying that there has been a consistency to the way that white and black people approach each other. I'm not clear on how this bears on the thread.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, let's not lose sight of the fact that ol' Obama comes from privilege and probably will make more money in his life than all of us on this board put together. Let's not lose sight of the fact that he's being touted as a presidential hopeful and has legions of white fans.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The only civilization that Europe was the cradle for is, in fact, European Civilization.
It had little to do with, say, Chinese Civilization, Islamic Civilization, or Aztec Civilization--until it showed up with guns and began destroying those civilizations.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would say that it speaks to the assumptions that people make about what it means to be black or white, about what a 'majority culture' means.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one thing being lost is that it's possible to answer the original question ("Is this equivalent?") "No" and still think that the church's statement is harmful, wrong, bigoted, etc.
I think they're not equivalent, if only because the characteristic being changed was at one time the basis for denying only one group basic civil rights. That may or may not be a significant enough difference to change one's moral evaluation of the content.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
This white church you made up would never be acceptable, and it is in no way equal to the black church.
White people DO NOT NEED to be strengthened. They still have huge advantages over black people in many walks of life, even after the fight for civil rights.
If effect, every church that is not specifically a black church IS a white church.
quote: "Mommy, if there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, why isn't there a Kid's Day?"
"Because every other day of the year is Kid's Day."
It's the same principle.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: You and Boots seem to want to argue that racism somehow magically changes into something positive when practiced by black people, but I think at the very least this ignores many aspects of racism on both a social and individual level.
No, actually, I don't. And I haven't. You asked if they were they same. I said that they weren't - or more precisely that they would be if the context was the same for both groups. I think that the context is important. Understanding that we are not starting with a blank slate in understanding motivation is important. I think that, taking that into account doesn't make the church's statement a necessarily positive thing, but it does make it not equivalent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The difference is that white people are especially ruthless and powerful.
Ok, let's try this my way...
"The difference is that STRAIGHT people are especially ruthless and powerful."
Hey! That DOES feel good! It transfers blame for all my problems to other people! And it's ok because I'm from an opressed minority!
Thanks Irami! I'm gonna hafta remember that I can say anything I want about straights because they're ruthless and powerful.
...
Really though, there is a difference between a black church that focuses on black family and a white church that focuses on white family is, in the past, the white focusers have crossed the line from focusing on white people to taking out their anger on blacks. That's it. Blame the Klan for messing stuff up for everyone.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I have family members that could be called, quite fairly, bigots.
Now is it their Irish side, the WASP side, or that 1/16th of Spanish in them? Maybe the smidgen of native-american heritage? And do bigots care of their targets are Haitian, Nigerian, or 10-generations american?
The point is, the historical context of relationships between these two cultures were defined by color solely, regardless of the particulars. So you trying to blow up the argument by saying a certain culture doesn't really exist, when taking a more comprehensive, perhaps anthropological, view is missing the point. Geoff and I can see the point quite well, I think. Though neither of us may concede it personally.
posted
You know, when someone answers 'yes' to the question, "Is this equivalent?" they don't necessarily mean it's totally equivalent down to the finest detail.
They might, like me, simply mean that it's a racist series of statements, just like it would be if a white church did actually say it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I prefer to make it a point to bring up the point, because it causes people to not automatically assume that you agree with their rationale as for why a given set of situations are equivalent, and therefore implicitly agree with their suggested solutions, or attitudes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
