Typically, it was the wealthy plantation owners who could afford to buy slaves. I don’t know if they aligned themselves with one party or the other, but the political parties in the U.S. have changed quite a bit since slavery was an issue.
Lunacy from the Left!
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Street racism is something else. I don't think you can rid it like that, it takes time.
Look at at how it was 50 years ago, 200 years ago, there has been steady progression.
The more people interact with others the more tolerant they become.
According to a History Channel article I posted somewhere (don't remember which thread), most abolitionists were white religious people (meaning Christians). This sounds like mostly conservatives opposed slavery.
Here's the portion of the article that I quoted:
An abolitionist, as the name implies, is a person who sought to abolish slavery during the 19th century. More specifically, these individuals sought the immediate and full emancipation of all slaves.
Most early abolitionists were white, religious Americans, but some of the most prominent leaders of the movement were also black men and women who had escaped from bondage.
Source: https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement
Source: https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement
Last edited:
You were arguing that it couldn't be systemic racism unless it was national policy. I pointed out that by your argument, segregation wasn't systemic racism. And that seems pretty irrational to me.
Are you now suggesting that because it happened decades ago, it can't be systemic racism? How so?
But you did argue that if it wasn't national policy, it couldn't be systemic racism. And as you now realize that argument denies that segregation was systemic racism.
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Im seeing black and white Americans say that institutionalized racism exists and others are saying it doesn't
So i dunno. In order to fix something one must identify the problem, it seems hard to identify
So i dunno. In order to fix something one must identify the problem, it seems hard to identify
John Brown was a conservative? Abolitionists were a pretty radical group at the time. And many of them were black Americans:
https://www.biography.com/people/groups/abolitionists
I just showed you several cases of systemic racism. Would you like to see some more?
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Id like u to give me a definition so we are on the same page
And @Prayer Warrior as well give your definition of systemic racism pls
No, I'm saying that segregation is no longer a nationwide policy and hasn't been for many years; therefore, it's not a good example of nationwide systemic racism today.
I kind of defined it when I said that systemic means part of the system, but here's a formal definition.
systemic
adjective
sys·tem·ic | \ si-ˈste-mik \
Definition of systemic
formal : of or relating to an entire system
d: fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice
So, systemic racism would mean racism that exists as part of a system, such as government. But I would think it could also mean as part of the systems of companies (such as hiring practices) or even social organizations.
.
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Was John Brown the only abolitionist??
Hey, I was just quoting the History Channel, which seems to be left-leaning in some respects. From my reading of history, many abolitionists were white Christians. I must say that if black slavery were legal today, I would join other Christians in fighting it. This goes for any kind of slavery. I have supported Christians ministries that are on the forefront of fighting human trafficking.
This is from a Britannica Encyclopedia article:
Probably the best-known abolitionist was the aggressive agitator William Lloyd Garrison, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society (1833–70). Others, drawn from the ranks of the clergy, included Theodore Dwight Weld and Theodore Parker....
This is from Wikipedia:
Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]
In particular, the effects of the Second Great Awakening resulted in many evangelicals working to see the theoretical Christian view, that all people are essentially equal, made more of a practical reality. Freedom of expression within the Western world also helped in enabling opportunity to express their position. Prominent among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."[3] With others he labored, despite determined opposition, to finally abolish the British slave trade. English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood".[4] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies", and detailed its abuses.[5] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery. Many evangelical leaders in the United States such as Presbyterian Charles Finney and Theodore Weld, and women such as Harriet Beecher Stowe (daughter of abolitionist Lyman Beecher) and Sojourner Truth motivated hearers to support abolition. Finney preached that slavery was a moral sin, and so supported its elimination. "I had made up my mind on the question of slavery, and was exceedingly anxious to arouse public attention to the subject. In my prayers and preaching, I so often alluded to slavery, and denounced it.[6] Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once enlightened of the subject, while continued support of the system incurred "the greatest guilt" upon them.[7]
Quakers in particular were early leaders in abolitionism. In 1688 Dutch Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, sent an antislavery petition to the Monthly Meeting of Quakers. By 1727 British Quakers had expressed their official disapproval of the slave trade.[8] Three Quaker abolitionists, Benjamin Lay, John Woolman, and Anthony Benezet, devoted their lives to the abolitionist effort from the 1730s to the 1760s, with Lay founding the Negro School in 1770, which would serve more than 250 pupils.[9] In June 1783, a petition from the London Yearly Meeting and signed by over 300 Quakers was presented to Parliament protesting the slave trade.[10]
Source: Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia
And this from liberal-leaning Christianity Today:Source: Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia
One reason abolitionists are forgotten is that they were inescapably Christian in their motives, means, and vocabulary. Not that all abolitionists were orthodox Christians, though a large proportion were. But even those who had left the church drew on unmistakably Christian premises, especially on one crucial point: slavery was sin. Sin could not be solved by political compromise or sociological reform, abolitionists maintained. It required repentance; otherwise America would be punished by God. This unpopular message rankled an America that was pushing west, full of self-important virtue as God’s darling.
Source: The Abolitionists
Source: The Abolitionists
There's more below....
Last edited:
I keep forgetting that you guys are opposite to us in terms of day and night. Sleep well!
Continued from my post #408
This is an excerpt from an article written by professor of history Jeffrey B. Russell:
This is an excerpt from an article written by professor of history Jeffrey B. Russell:
Christianity was always at the front of the struggle against the slave trade and then against slavery itself. In 1754, the Quaker John Woolman launched a crusade against slave trading in America, and by 1771 Massachusetts outlawed the importation of slaves. In 1791 North Carolina declared that the killing of a slave was murder, and Georgia did the same in 1816. In Britain, William Wilberforce (1759–1833) founded the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787, which John Wesley (1703–1791), the founder of Methodism, supported.
The movement against slavery had two phases: first, the abolition of the trade; and second—when that had been achieved—the abolition of the institution and the freeing of the slaves. Under Christian moral pressure, Protestant countries outlawed the trade: Denmark in 1803, the United Kingdom in 1807, the United States in 1808, and the Netherlands in 1848. On the Catholic side, Pius VII demanded abolition of the trade in 1815, and in 1839 Gregory XVI sent a pastoral letter to American Catholics condemning all slavery. France abolished the slave trade in 1831.
The reformers now turned to the abolition of slavery itself. The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 (the majority of its members being Protestant clergy) and the Free Soil Party in 1848. In 1833 the United Kingdom abolished slavery entirely, as did France in 1848. In the Spanish-American republics, slavery was abolished first in Argentina in 1813 and last in Venezuela in 1854. Notoriously, the United States did not abolish slavery until 1865, but abolitionist writers such as Lyman Beecher, Lucy Stone, Charles Finney, and William Lloyd Garrison stirred Protestant consciences in the North. One of the great blows against slavery was Lyman Beecher’s daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852). Whatever the various causes of the Civil War, it was first and foremost a war against slavery. Spain did not abolish slavery in Cuba until 1886, and Brazil was the last Christian nation to abolish it (in 1888).
Secular historians, usually for ideological purposes, grossly understate the importance of Christianity in abolition: it is important to note that slavery was immensely profitable in the Caribbean area as well as in the southern United States, and that it cost governments immense amounts of money to recompense slave-owners for the confiscation of their “property.” The economic and political interests followed the money, so there was little or no political impetus to abolition: it was almost exclusively Christian moral leaderswho achieved the freedom of the slaves, just as it was Christian moral leaders who began and fostered the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Now, since slavery in many forms continues, more remains to be done.
Jeffrey B. Russell is a professor of history and has published nineteen books; the latest is Exposing Myths about Christianity (InterVarsity Press, 2012).
Source: Christianity and Black Slavery - Christian Research Institute
Source: Christianity and Black Slavery - Christian Research Institute
I just showed you an entire group of them. Notice pretty progressive for their times. Radically so. Yes, almost all of them were Christians. Liberal Christians were anti-slavery. There were lots of conservative Christians who supported slavery as well. They invoked the Bible to "prove" that God ordained blacks to be slaves.
As late as the 1990s, some creationist Christians were still preaching that blacks were inferior intellectually and spiritually to white people, used faith arguments to support the denial of equal rights to blacks.
It is, however, an example of systemic racism. As you learned, there are other forms of systemic racism today. To claim that segregation was not systemic racism, because it never was a national policy, is obviously wrong.
And attempts to deny systemic racism by claiming it's not nationwide, is a very transparent dodge.
The phrase "systemic racism" is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others. "Systemic" distinguishes what's happening here from individual racism or overt discrimination, and refers to the way this operates in major parts of US society: the economy, politics, education, and more.
https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8482799/systemic-racism-explained-examples
Lol! Which ones?? It doesn't make sense that creationists would believe that blacks are inferior, especially since creationists obviously believe the biblical account of creation, which shows that all "races" came from one man and one woman. It's the evolutionists who believe that blacks are less evolved than lighter-skinned people. In fact, some of Darwin's ideas were used by Hitler (either directly or indirectly) to justify his white supremacist nonsense.
Edit: I realize that my statement about Darwinism and Hitler is controversial, so I'm posting an article below that shows a connection using Darwin's and Hitler's own words.
Last edited:
Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words
The connection is too obvious to deny.
BENJAMIN WIKER
MAY 5, 2008
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
PUBLISHED IN HUMAN EVENTS
As David Berlinski recently noted, “the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation.” But striking an indignant pose — feathers in full ruffle — is not an answer to such a serious charge, especially when the words of both Darwin and Hitler speak otherwise.
Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings — a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.
Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory, and warned his readers against imminent evolutionary backsliding. “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Insert a few terms like “Aryan” or “Jew” and that could be in any Nazi screed.
“If – various checks – do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.” While Darwin tried to soften the hard implications (by suggesting that we not kill the rogues; rather, we should just keep them from breeding), the eugenic edifice was his.
And the racial thing? Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.
That is not a moral complaint; it is a detached scientific description uttered by Darwin entirely without angst. As the engine of evolution is never idle, it is also a prophecy. Again, his own words:
Get it? Ranking the human races, we find the Caucasian at top, and down at the bottom, dangling at the edge of humanity, “the negro or Australian” who is just an evolutionary hairsbreadth away from the anthropomorphous gorilla. In pushing upwards to the über-Caucasian, evolution also exterminates all the “intermediate species,” so that natural selection will do away with the Negro, the aboriginal Australian, and the gorilla.
Like it or not, Darwin’s eugenic and racial ideas spread from him, and infected both Europe and America.
Now for Adolf. I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven’t read Darwin’s execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
It is inaccurate to blame the entire of Hitler’s evil on anti-Semitism precisely because his anti-Semitism was part of a larger biological vision. “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess.
As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, “the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race.” This aim accords with Hitler’s larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the “fundamental law of necessity” reigning “throughout the realm of Nature” is that “existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife…where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Survival of the fittest.
Hence Hitler’s creation of a kind of “folk” religion, that is, a religion of the racially defined Volk. Worship was directed to the Germanic race as the only one capable of eliminating the weak and bringing the übermensch — “superman” — into existence in accordance with the cruelties of Nature. Hitler’s words all too clearly portend the atrocities to come when the Nazis gained power:
Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature’s will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.
According to Hitler, the Jews threatened the superior race with degradation, but so did the
mongrels and negroids,” the Slavs, the Gypsies, the handicapped, the retarded, and all the other inferior biological misfits.
All this doesn’t mean that Darwinism was the sole cause of Hitler’s barbarism. But it does make clear that Darwinism must shoulder its share of the moral burden, because the connection is undeniable.
Source: Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words
The connection is too obvious to deny.
BENJAMIN WIKER
MAY 5, 2008
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
PUBLISHED IN HUMAN EVENTS
As David Berlinski recently noted, “the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation.” But striking an indignant pose — feathers in full ruffle — is not an answer to such a serious charge, especially when the words of both Darwin and Hitler speak otherwise.
Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings — a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.
Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory, and warned his readers against imminent evolutionary backsliding. “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Insert a few terms like “Aryan” or “Jew” and that could be in any Nazi screed.
“If – various checks – do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.” While Darwin tried to soften the hard implications (by suggesting that we not kill the rogues; rather, we should just keep them from breeding), the eugenic edifice was his.
And the racial thing? Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.
That is not a moral complaint; it is a detached scientific description uttered by Darwin entirely without angst. As the engine of evolution is never idle, it is also a prophecy. Again, his own words:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [i.e., most human-looking] apes — will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Get it? Ranking the human races, we find the Caucasian at top, and down at the bottom, dangling at the edge of humanity, “the negro or Australian” who is just an evolutionary hairsbreadth away from the anthropomorphous gorilla. In pushing upwards to the über-Caucasian, evolution also exterminates all the “intermediate species,” so that natural selection will do away with the Negro, the aboriginal Australian, and the gorilla.
Like it or not, Darwin’s eugenic and racial ideas spread from him, and infected both Europe and America.
Now for Adolf. I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven’t read Darwin’s execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
It is inaccurate to blame the entire of Hitler’s evil on anti-Semitism precisely because his anti-Semitism was part of a larger biological vision. “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess.
As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, “the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race.” This aim accords with Hitler’s larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the “fundamental law of necessity” reigning “throughout the realm of Nature” is that “existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife…where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Survival of the fittest.
Hence Hitler’s creation of a kind of “folk” religion, that is, a religion of the racially defined Volk. Worship was directed to the Germanic race as the only one capable of eliminating the weak and bringing the übermensch — “superman” — into existence in accordance with the cruelties of Nature. Hitler’s words all too clearly portend the atrocities to come when the Nazis gained power:
“T]he völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound, in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker… For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost for ever.”
Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature’s will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.
According to Hitler, the Jews threatened the superior race with degradation, but so did the
mongrels and negroids,” the Slavs, the Gypsies, the handicapped, the retarded, and all the other inferior biological misfits.
All this doesn’t mean that Darwinism was the sole cause of Hitler’s barbarism. But it does make clear that Darwinism must shoulder its share of the moral burden, because the connection is undeniable.
Source: Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
I gotta say, the examples given so far for systemic racism aren't exactly eye opening
White people here in Australia are systemically more oppressed
White people here in Australia are systemically more oppressed
Similar threads
