Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

13468911

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    However, over time what changed was not our beliefs on race, but rather our beliefs on morality; we decided that slavery of any people was wrong and so much so that we would go to great lengths to end it/prevent it. White Christian Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and America decided that slavery sucked. So, WE FREED THE SLAVES, BECAUSE WE ROCK!"

    1. Have you consider that our views on race and slavery were intrinsically linked. That the "morality" change you are talking about is linked to recognition of humanity regardless of skin tone?

    2. Why refer to Europe etc as "white christian"? As if they are the same "white christians" who thought that slavery was acceptable in the first place and that there was anything else in Europe etc other that a "white christian" society? Why bring race and religion into that equation at all?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man of Kent and Jim V,

    So many questions; I shall endeavor to answer a few.

    Morality in Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and America is based on Christianity.

    Europeans have enslaved other Europeans for centuries; Africans are not unique. Europeans abolished slavery long before Muslims and Africans did or have not yet done. Furthermore, Europeans have often been enslaved by others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boulanger_Gustave_Clarence_Rudolphe_The_Slave_Market.jpg

    http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/639.jpg

    The abolitionists movement was greater in the Southern states than in the Northern states; the South would have abolished slavery on its' own. Only it would have taken longer, but it would have saved the lives of over six hundred thousand soldiers. Slavery was already on its' way out. However, like all wars, the truth is the first casualty.

    "The history of slavery covers many different forms of human exploitation across many cultures and throughout human history. Slavery, generally defined, refers to the systematic exploitation of labor for work and services without consent and/or the possession of other persons as property. There is no clear timeline for the formation of slavery in any formalized sense. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, which refers to slavery as an already established institution.[1]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

    Abolitionism is a European movement. The English had abolished slavery in 1102. However, it persisted in the colonies. This was abolished in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, non-Europeans waited until the 20th century to abolish it (Saudi Arabia waited until the 1960s, China 1910, Tibet 1959) and some still haven't. This is not surprising though, as Europeans leads the world and they've done a heck of a good job. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Morality in Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and America is based on Christianity.
    Of course it is. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Finally, Apartheid or Segregation does not = Slavery.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Furthermore, your reference to the Maori is odd. Thinking that one has been fooled does not give one the right to murder the object of their rage, anymore than the greedy have a right to kill those who possess what they covet or the lustful to force themselves on the ones they desire.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Finally, Apartheid or Segregation does not = Slavery.

    So? This is a debate about race not slavery
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Furthermore, your reference to the Maori is odd. Thinking that one has been fooled does not give one the right to murder the object of their rage, anymore than the greedy have a right to kill those who possess what they covet or the lustful to force themselves on the ones they desire.

    And yet so many white christians behaved that way towards their slaves.

    I don't recall the Maori killing 20,000 in 40 years, unlike the measures introduced by those you seem to defend so quickly

    By the way why do you seem to see western christian countries as only those that speak English?

    Oh and I seem to remember America being founded on the principals of secularism and freedom of religion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    So? This is a debate about race not slavery

    Consequences are often part of any debate. Your error was in equating segregation and South African apartheid to slavery. I hope you aren't too conceited to admit your errors.

    In regards to your second post, why are you so suspicious?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Consequences are often part of any debate. Your error was in equating segregation and South African apartheid to slavery. I hope you aren't too conceited to admit your errors.

    In regards to your second post, why are you so suspicious?

    Okay now you make no sense and just sound like a troll, and a pretty familiar one as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Okay now you make no sense and just sound like a troll, and a pretty familiar one as well.

    I've never had any other identities here and I've been responding to your comments. Answering your questions/comments does not = trolling. So, why are you so accusatory, Jim?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If your going to ignore the points other people make and then claim your answering questions it naturally brings up questions about your reasons for posting here.

    If you don't want to respond to other people that's fine, but ignoring the points people have made and then claiming you've answered them just makes you look questionable.

    Slavery came up as an example of treating people negatively based upon race. You claimed slavery shows how civilised English speaking western chrisitians are - so it seems entirely valid to show other examples that show further discrimination based entirely on race by other english speaking western chrisitians. That doesn't seem something that needs apologising for.

    And as MoK pointed out, why be in such a rush to define a society as white christian, as a positive, but ignore the fact that white chrisitan society, as you define it, was responsible also for the creation of a massive industry of slavery, on a scale never imagined previously.

    And then the other point, why when defining your idea of a white chrisitian society do you only mention countries that speak English and not countries that are western, chrisitian and don't speak English.

    After all there are countries based much more on chrisitianity than the examples you've given (such as Italy)

    I guess that's what I mean by the questions people brought up that you haven't addressed. Which is fine, but claiming you've answered those points is somewhat dubious when you clearly haven't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Man of Kent and Jim V,

    So many questions; I shall endeavor to answer a few.

    Morality in Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and America is based on Christianity.
    No it isn't. Morality is not based on Christianity (or any other religion at all).

    Indeed, some would even say that morality is incompatible with not an inconsiderable amount of teachings in the Bible.

    I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins where all it's explained in detail.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim,

    #1 You have been ignoring most of my points. So, why should I respond to all of yours?

    #2 I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to respond to any of your "points."

    #3 If you expect people to respond to you, then try making some sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins where all it's explained in detail.

    To be fair it isn't really gonna happen - that's like the other side of the arguement saying - just read this book by Jesus :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Jim,

    #1 You have been ignoring most of my points. So, why should I respond to all of yours?

    #2 I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to respond to any of your "points."

    #3 If you expect people to respond to you, then try making some sense.

    And as I said, you don't have to respond to anyones points - but you can't then claim, as you did earlier, that you have responded to everyone's questions (which based on this reply you accept you haven't responded to people's points)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    To be fair it isn't really gonna happen - that's like the other side of the arguement saying - just read this book by Jesus :)
    Shame though. I have read parts of the Bible and a lot more material on the Good Book. It'd be good if others returned the gesture ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "You claimed slavery shows how civilised English speaking western Christians are..." -Jim

    No I did not; I said that abolishing slavery did. You see, this kind of response from you makes me afraid of you or mistrustful of you. Do you understand that? -Barkmoss

    "why be in such a rush to define a society as white Christian, as a positive, but ignore the fact that white Christian society, as you define it, was responsible also for the creation of a massive industry of slavery, on a scale never imagined previously." -Jim

    Again, this kind of response from you, makes me not trust you.
    I already addressed important aspects of this question, in post #153. You should know that. However, to address one point that seems tediously obvious, you have to look at the size of the economy in European countries and colonies. The Arab and Islamic slave trade was just as numerous as that in the Americas, which incidentally, 90% of it was what we'd call today: "south of the border." So, only a very small percentage of world slavery occurred in British colonies. However, they do seem to be accepting most of the guilt. -Barkmoss

    "why when defining your idea of a white Christian society do you only mention countries that speak English..." -Jim

    #1.) I said Europe; Europe includes non-English speaking countries.

    #2.) The issue that was raised was slavery in British colonies, particularly in America.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey guys, sorry for a bit of spam, but:

    :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No it isn't. Morality is not based on Christianity (or any other religion at all).

    Indeed, some would even say that morality is incompatible with not an inconsiderable amount of teachings in the Bible.

    I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins where all it's explained in detail.

    I have no idea what basis you have for your first sentence.

    The second sentence, I am going to ignore for now.

    In regards to the third sentence, I know who Mr. Dawkins is; he is a secular humanist. Personally, I think Pantheism is more poetic than atheism and so did Carl Sagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Steven Hawking.
    http://www.pantheism.net/

    In any event, my nickel critique of Mr. Dawkins is as follows.

    He supposes that knowledge = virtue. Like some Classic Greek philosophers he believes that if you know what the right thing to do is and you know how to do it, then you will do it, because it is rational. This is a common fallacy. As we all know, people do bad things even though they know better; people do things that aren't good for them, on purpose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    I have no idea what basis you have for your first sentence.
    What basis do you have to claim the contrary?

    What makes you think religion has exclusive rights on morality?

    Indeed, what makes you think religion has any claim to morality at all?

    Shall we go through the acts that:

    a) the Christian holy book (as well as the other holy books) demands we should do

    b) have been commited in the name of religion

    to assert what claim to moral values Christianity and the other religions really have?

    Thought not...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin,

    Would it be possible for you to reply to the question I did answer?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What question would that be?

    And why don't you answer mine?

    Classic trolling behaviour, that... not that I'm suggesting you are a troll of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin,

    Look, I commented on the author that you recommended. I took the time and made the effort to do that and you completely ignored it. That is scary and makes me afraid to respond to your posts. Is that what you want?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss - what point are you trying to make on this thread?

    Can you summarise?

    Ta. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta,

    Well for one thing, I'd like you to answer the question already posed to you in post #138.

    "Meanings are not "just there". Meaning is something that is contingent on cultural, historical, social and economic context." ~Originally Posted by Blagsta

    "How do you know that?" ~Barkmoss
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Aladdin,

    Look, I commented on the author that you recommended. I took the time and made the effort to do that and you completely ignored it.
    You didn't ask me a question about it, as you claimed in your previous post.

    Not much to comment about it, other than to say it sounds like bollocks. Nor that if it didn't I would be saying much more about it, because for intentionally or not you seem to be causing this:

    derail.jpg

    Which might well be your intention all along.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Which might well be your intention all along.

    That sounds paranoid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    "Meanings are not "just there". Meaning is something that is contingent on cultural, historical, social and economic context."
    "How do you know that?" ~Barkmoss
    Just for the record, how does this not make sense? It's almost like I'm reading the discussion I had on the social construction of gender in ShyBoy's thread a while ago....
Sign In or Register to comment.