“Steve at Triablogue continues to annoy me with his white guilt.”
BJ bandies the phrase “white guilt” the way a sodomite bandies the word “homophobia.” People who can’t articulate a reasoned defense of their position fall back on tendentious buzzwords.
“And his attempt to paint me as a racist.”
Gee, what did BJ ever do to leave me with the misimpression that he was a racist? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that he has a kinist site on his blogroll. In addition, when he got into a debate with me, he posted some comments at the kinist blog to draw them into the debate and elicit their support.
This suggests that BJ is either a kinist or a kinist sympathizer. Is kinism racist? Here are some gems from the kinist site:
By Dr. J. Rice Williams of Houston, Mississippi. An article that appeared in the November 9, 1950, issue of the Pontotoc Progress.
Segregation of animals, including man, is the law of God and the teaching of Christ. “Thou shalt not let thy cattle render (mate) with a diverse (different) kind. Lev. 19:19. Everything after its kind is the fiat of God and the practice of the jungle. Genesis I:21,25. Genesis VI:19,20. Genesis VII:14.
There is no amalgamation, or interbreeding, of man and beast, the eagle and the buzzard, the lion and the leopard, the eel and the snake, or of different species of eagles or different species of eels, with each other, or the birds of different kinds with each other. The American and the English eels breed in less than two miles of the same place. Throughout the thousands of years there has been no intermingling or amalgamation of the two.
When God directed the building of the Temple of King Solomon, at the time when He communicated direct with man, He directed that there should be separate courts, or apartments, for the Jew and the Gentile.
Intermarriage was forbidden between certain tribes of the children of Israel. “And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Numbers 36:5,6.
When Joseph made that noon-day meal for his brothers he set them by themselves, and the Egyptians by themselves, “Because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” Genesis 43:32. Then when Joseph’s family was located in Egypt, he colonized them, he placed them in the land of Goshen; “For every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” Genesis 46:34.
Christ obeyed the law. He practiced it Himself and taught it to His disciples. When He sent His disciples out on their first preaching mission, He commanded them to “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 16:5,6. Christ did all of His earthly work among the Jews [meaning Hebrews]. He preached to the Jews and to no other nationality or race.
This proves that the principle of segregation was the law of God and the teaching of Christ. This being true, segregation of the white man and the Negro has scriptural authority and may be carried out with a clear conscience.
God made the white man white and He made the Negro black. This was not an accident, it did not “just happen.” He did this according to His purpose just as surely as He raised Pharoah up “for a specific purpose.” Inscrutable though this may be, and is, it is true nevertheless. This was not an experiment of God nor a temporary expedient. It was intended by Him to last till “time shall be no more.”
It would charge God with folly to say that He created the white man white, and the Negro black, and then “purposed” that they should amalgamate, and thus destroy the work of His own hand by amalgamating the two races, and thus destroy the identity of both races. God says through Jeremiah 13:23, that the Ethiopian, the Negro, can not change his skin, and He implies thereby that he should not want to change his color, or in any way destroy the handiwork of God.
I am unable to understand how these “uplifting do-gooders” can think that they can improve on the work of the Almighty, the builder of Heaven and earth, by destroying all racial distinction. God did not say that He had made “all skin of one color,” nor does the scripture anywhere intimate that such would be desirable._Intermingling of the two races on terms of social and friendly equality inevitably leads to intermarriage. Intermarriage leads to amalgamation. Amalgamation leads to racial suicide for both races.
Some people seem to believe that you can have religious intermingling and stop at that. Religious intermingling in the churches would lead to intermingling at social gatherings, which would inevitably lead to intermarriage.
To say that the Negro shall not be permitted to worship in the white man’s church, but that he shall be permitted to worship God in his own church according to the dictates of his own conscience, does not deprive him of access to heaven or to church worship. As a matter of fact, he can worship God better in his own church with his own people in the environment that he himself provides. It is an unwarranted assumption on the part of the white man to take the position that salvation must come to the Negro through the white man’s tutelage.
Some people say that the Negro is the equal of the white, at least, religiously, and entitled to full equality in all things, and then in the next breath, so to speak, say that he is the white man’s responsibility. That is blowing both hot and cold at the same time. That is a contradictory statement. He simply can not be our equal and at the same time be our responsibility.
The only way to improve the lot of the Negro is to imbue him with racial pride. Teach him to be proud that he is a Negro. Help him to go to the height of his ambition and ability as a Negro. And above all, be fair and just with him in all your dealings with him. BUT “everything after its kind”—or chaos.
Segregation is scriptural and right in principle and in practice.
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if that’s racist or not. (For now I’ll pass on the Mickey Mouse exegesis).
“I love all races, just as God made them.”
God didn’t make “races.” God made Adam and Eve. Racial differentiation is a result of climatic adaptation and inbreeding.
“This is so odd to me, escpecially since I wasn’t referring to him. Although I did site one post he did only to point out his use of the term ‘Black’ as a designation for certain christians. Maybe he is talking about that. Hays must be a glutton for attention.”
Notice BJ’s dissimulation. He claims to be referring to Gene. When I point out that his claim is false since he is also referring to me, his response to my correction is to say I’m a glutton for attention.
That’s the best he can do when someone falsifies his claim using his own evidence.
“Yes, it is ironic. It’s ironc that Bridges would say I was UnChristian, yet, have no problem supporting a blog that classifies christians in racial terms. For instance this link on Triblogue. Why not send them an email stating they are unchristian for calling themselves Reformed Blacks?”
This is BJ’s bait-and-switch tactic. Did we ever claim that racial identity is never a form of individual or social identity? No. The point at issue, rather, is the relative importance of that identification. Is BJ just too dense to absorb this elementary distinction?
There are many forms of individual and/or social identity. I have unique fingerprints. Should I therefore inveigh against intermarriage between men and women with different fingerprints? Is digital miscegenation a sin? The iniquitous intermingling of different fingerprints?
What about left-handed and right-handed people? Should they intermarry, or would that violate chiral identity?
“Again, I was on talking about Bridges comment towards me.”
You used plural forms. You referenced a post by me. And you referenced a site on our blogroll (Gene isn’t responsible for the blogroll). So by your usage and examples, you were talking about more than Bridges. If your intention was to single out Bridges, then you’re too muddleheaded or illiterate to accurately express your intentions.
“Racial characteristics are not a right. I said racial identity, and all that implies.”
So, on BJ’s definition, racial characteristics are irrelevant to racial identity. I suspect that will make kinism difficult to implement.
“For instance, Mexicans should not be ashamed for wanting to eat “cow tounge”, or drive low riders. Blacks should revel in their track & field superiority in the Olympics, NBA, and NFL. And whites should be able to bask in the knowledge of having explored and settled an entire civilization, The West. If the other groups enjoy their accomplishments in culture, so will I. If that makes me rascist then so is everybody else.”
So he now limits racial identity to cultural identity? Let’s see, isn’t the modern dominance of Western civilization the partial result of its military might? Conquest and colonialism? And isn’t that largely due to the use of gunpowder? And didn’t the Chinese invent gunpowder?
Western civilization is also dependent on math and science. East Indian mathematicians made key contributions to math.
Or what about American Indians who taught the first white settlers how to survive in the New World?
BJ is big on Southern pride. Is the South racially homogenous? Did Southern blacks make no contribution to Southern culture?
Isn’t Western civilization a multicultural achievement, involving more than one race?
This is one of the practical problems with racism. There are no pure races and there are no pure cultures.
It’s sometimes convenient to distinguish a member of one race from a member of another race, but these are rough-and-ready categories. Racial boundaries are fuzzy boundaries. Overlapping boundaries.
Once you try to harden these climatic adaptations into a rigid classification scheme, then the ambiguities of racial differentiation immediately assert themselves.
“I hate that Steve sat in his Western Civilization college class and let some liberal ‘white’ historian pound him into his white guilt.”
I quoted from Thornwell and Dabney. Are those the white, guilt-ridden historians that BJ is referring to?
Because BJ isn’t a very bright white, he thinks that you have to choose between white pride or white guilt. But those are hardly the only alternatives.
If you reject white pride, that doesn’t mean you embrace white guilt. I have a unique set of fingerprints. Am I proud of my fingerprints? No. Am I ashamed of my fingerprints? No.
“Now Steve hates it that God ordained his skin color and legacy. Now Steve hates it that God ordained his skin color and legacy. He hates that others enjoy theirs, that being every race on earth!”
But BJ earlier said: “Racial characteristics are not a right. I said racial identity, and all that implies…If the other groups enjoy their accomplishments in culture, so will I.”
Is skin color a cultural achievement? Or is skin color a racial characteristic (especially for BJ)? So, for BJ, radial identity is not synonymous with cultural identity. What he really cares about is racial identity rather than cultural identity.
“Now Steve hates it that God ordained his skin color and legacy.”
God also ordained my fingerprints. Should I “bask” in my fingerprints?
And while we’re on the subject of providential events that God ordained, God ordained the War of Northern Aggression. Does B.J. “bask” in the War of Northern Aggression?
God also ordained Sherman’s March. Does B.J. “bask” in Sherman’s March?
God also ordained the Reconstruction Acts. Does B.J. “bask” in the Reconstruction Acts?
God also ordained a certain amount of miscegenation. Does B.J. “bask” in miscegenation?
If Obama is elected president, then God ordained that outcome as well. Will B.J. “bask” in the election of Obama?
“If you bubble in the ‘white’ circle on a job application under the ‘affirmative action section’ than you are white.”
Notice that BJ is ducking the question. If you’re going to argue for segregation, then you need to lay down some precise criteria to demarcate one race from another.