Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are defending a pseudo-religion Phet. The goals are noble and just, but taken to the extreme can cause more harm than good. We need to somehow eliminate the PTSD.
First of all, I don't care about your PTSD. Your PTSD is your problem, and I'm not going to play amateur psychologist with someone I've never met.
Second, I'll ask you a question: what extreme? You keep talking about the extreme, but never specifically define it.
I am not saying you have PTSD. I am talking about a large scale phenomenon that is typically seen after a tragic event.
There little chance that you will see the other side of the argument. Furthermore, my viewpoint may be seen as too negative or uncaring.
You keep avoiding the question. What extreme?
Let's see. I haven't burned down any buildings.
I haven't blocked traffic from flowing.
Unless you consider the NAACP and SOuthern Poverty Law Center extreme, I don't belong to anything approaching BLM or any other extreme organizations.
Let's see. I haven't burned down any buildings.
I have blocked traffic from flowing.
Unless you consider the NAACP and SOuthern Poverty Law Center extreme, I don't belong to anything approaching BLM or any other extreme organizations.
What extreme? Talking? Writing a post?
It is the method. They are still fighting slavery and Jim Crow. The battles of this era are different and require a new approach. The obstacles and barriers in the past were clearly visible and quite obvious. That battle has been won. Now comes the more difficult task of cleaning up the subtle stuff. Things that are not clearly delineated or visible. How about analyzing the obstacles of this era without endlessly doing a re-trial of the past. It is time for a new paradigm! There is no pointing in fighting a battle in 2020 with the weapons used in 1960.
It is the method. They are still fighting slavery and Jim Crow. The battles of this era are different and require a new approach. The obstacles and barriers in the past were clearly visible and quite obvious. That battle has been won. Now comes the more difficult task of cleaning up the subtle stuff. Things that are not clearly delineated or visible. How about analyzing the obstacles of this era without endlessly doing a re-trial of the past. It is time for a new paradigm! There is no pointing in fighting a battle in 2020 with the weapons used in 1960.
There does seem to be a cultural change going on with respect to racial sensitivities. I wouldn't locate the impetus in churches, however, but the interconnectedness of cultures due to technology. That makes sense: human culture started as roving bands, then villages, cities, countries, continents and finally planetary culture.
It really says a lot if churches have taken up this ethic since churches have always been the last bastion of conservatism.
I have not read the book, but I thought the title was too much. I found this:
DiAngelo addresses her book mostly to white people, and she reserves her harshest criticism for white liberals like herself (and like me), whom she sees as refusing to acknowledge their own participation in racist systems. “I believe,” she writes, “that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.” Not only do these people fail to see their complicity, but they take a self-serving approach to ongoing anti-racism efforts:
I do not disagree with the above. And I will add prestigious black leaders do the same. It looks a lot like a preacher in a Mega Church making a lot of money by preaching the same old gospel.
I have not read the book, but I thought the title was too much. I found this:
DiAngelo addresses her book mostly to white people, and she reserves her harshest criticism for white liberals like herself (and like me), whom she sees as refusing to acknowledge their own participation in racist systems. “I believe,” she writes, “that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.” Not only do these people fail to see their complicity, but they take a self-serving approach to ongoing anti-racism efforts:
I do not disagree with the above. And I will add prestigious black leaders do the same. It looks a lot like a preacher in a Mega Church making a lot of money by preaching the same old gospel.
Julian, I have to tell you that everything you're writing feels to me like you are the poster boy for my position.
Be that as it may, you keep grasping at straws...the straws being an individual here and there who you think proves your point.
I don't see the sense of continuing this particular discussion.
Hopefully we can get back on track to talking about the role churches should have in this area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
