Why is "white pride" an inherently racist term?

[Ebor]

While the majority of white Americans consider themselves part of a distinct cultural group that is worth preserving, the term "white pride" is never used without the connotation of racial hatred. Yet the world is in debt to our achievements in the arts, science, philosophy, government, technology, and business.

First, on what do you base your first premise, please?  Second, "our"?  There are contributions from myriads of individuals, it is not a monolithic bloc. For early American Science, the case of Benjamin Banneker, a free born black, shows that such achievements aren't all one colour either.

While we don't deserve to be worshiped as some absurd "super race," neither should we be viewed as nothing more than an oppressor.

Lumping people together and stereotyping or labeling them is wrong, not matter who is the target.

At certain times in history, whites have been the victims of racial hatred,

May I ask what historical example you are thinking of here, please?  Thank you in advance.

Why is my history invisible to you? Because I am white and all white people are the same.

To academia, Anglo-Saxons comprise the entirety of white people, and anyone born with white skin must feel ashamed for someone else's sins. It takes simple logic to see through the hypocrisy.

On what are you basing these assertions, please?    Academia only sees Anglo-Saxons?

Ebor

[GabrieltheCelt]

Just so OzG doesn't think I always disagree with him  , this has to be one of the most ridiculous topics ever started here...ever. It is beneath comment or opinion other than that.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think maybe the more the issue of 'race' is discussed then maybe (hopefully?) it might do some good.  


 Though I've come a looong way from where I was, I'm brave enough to admit that I still have racist tendencies at times.  I think if people are honest with themselves, they'd admit that, they too, might feel the same way.  I have friends in the Klan and friends who are not in the Klan but whom are still infatuated with their race; this so-called "White Pride".  I have distant relatives in the Klan, but even the majority who are not associated with the Klan (and even those who readily admit their disgust for such groups) are still a little racist at times.  But this transcends 'color', race, and ethnicity.  I'm sure many of us have heard the rediculous term 'reverse racism' which is used to describe blacks who hate whites.  In fact, just last semester, we were discussing terrorism in Pakistan.  I don't recall the specifics, but I do recall a black woman saying (about Pakistani's), "What's the difference; they all look the same."  That one really made me hoppin' mad but probably because I view Pakistani and Indian women as reeeally purty!    I hear that all the time from my friends.  If a black person is walking down the street, invariable someone will say, "What's Obama doing here?"

 In America, and I suspect just about everywhere else, race (whatever that means) will always be an issue.  My friends all lament about the fact that here in America, you can have 'African American Heritage Month', 'Latino Heritage Month', 'American Indian Heritage Month', and so on but not 'Caucasion Heritage Month'.  I agree that that would be kinda goofy, but the point's not lost on thinking people.  We have a Black Entertainment Television network that really irks every other race here.  We have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that, to my way of thinking is outdated and racist.  Why don't we remove the word 'Colored' (a word that's fallen out of favor anyway) and just leave it at that?  The National Association for the Advancement of....People?  All y'all know that all hell would break loose if a National Association for the Advancement of White People was looked upon as favorable as the NAACP is.  And how about the issue of Barack Obama as another example.  I hear from a great many black people that they're voting for him solely on the basis of his skin color.  If that weren't dumb enough, they're completely overlooking the fact that he's Black and White!

 But at the same time, I do believe that this notion of 'color blindness' is very unhealthy.  Everytime I hear someone say, "Oh, I don't see colors.  I'm sooo beyond that."  I just want to slap them and call BS because it is BS.  

 Being from the area that I'm from, the superiority of whites over everyone else (especially over blacks) is not just a way of life- it's a fact.  Now I no longer ascribe to goofy ideas like that, but, if that's all you hear from your everyone from your Grandaddy on down to your neighborhood grocer, it takes a lot of thinking and energy to "rise above your raisin'" as we say.  On the days that I begin to think that the sun rises and sets on my race, all I have to do is look at my icon of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.  Jewish and dark skinned?  Oh my, whatever will my Klan friends think!

 I apologize if my honesty scandalized or hurt any of you, that wasn't my intention.  

In Christ,

Gabriel      

[GabrieltheCelt]

Western civilization, for all practical purposes, was born in ancient Greece, and was baptized under Constantine.

I think that there would be some Anglo-Saxons and Norse and Irish who had some civilization of their own and would have disagreed with that, thanks.   

Ebor

Yes, we would.  Acolyte, you may find the book How The Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill interesting. 

[GabrieltheCelt]

At certain times in history, whites have been the victims of racial hatred,

May I ask what historical example you are thinking of here, please?  Thank you in advance.

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe comes to mind.  Many of his policies have been denounced as racist towards the white minority.  I'm thinking specifically of his policy of expropiating the white owned farmsteads.  But heck, even whites have been 'racist' towards one another at times.  Here I'm thinking specifically of the NINA (No Irish Need Apply) signs posted by English-Americans in the early part of last century.

[Myrrh23]

At certain times in history, whites have been the victims of racial hatred,

May I ask what historical example you are thinking of here, please?  Thank you in advance.

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe comes to mind.  Many of his policies have been denounced as racist towards the white minority.  I'm thinking specifically of his policy of expropiating the white owned farmsteads.  But heck, even whites have been 'racist' towards one another at times.  Here I'm thinking specifically of the NINA (No Irish Need Apply) signs posted by English-Americans in the early part of last century.

Oh, I'm crying in my beer for those poor widdle white farmsteaders, Gabriel. The land they're farming on was never theirs in the first place, but was taken from Africans by white Europeans who used their idiotic sense of superiority to trick and seize land and resources that didn't belong to them.
Look up the term "Scramble for Africa" and "The Berlin Conference".
I'm not giving a high-five to Mugabe, but I do applaud him for taking back land that had originally belonged to his people. Besides, these white farmers have recieved compensation for land their ancestors took for themselves.

While white farmers continue to shed crocodile tears, it is a matter of record that in a land of more than 11 million people, the whites who make up less than 2% of the population, control more than 60% of the arable land. It is also a matter of record that although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, those whose land has been taken over have all received compensation, and of the 500 who have agreed to leave peacefully some have also already been paid.

It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and
non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.

Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/10_zimbabwe.html

[GiC]

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe comes to mind.  Many of his policies have been denounced as racist towards the white minority.  I'm thinking specifically of his policy of expropiating the white owned farmsteads.  But heck, even whites have been 'racist' towards one another at times.  Here I'm thinking specifically of the NINA (No Irish Need Apply) signs posted by English-Americans in the early part of last century.

And let's just wait and see how the great zimbabwean economy fares under this policy of the redistribution of wealth. He will be either vindicated or condemned by the future economic success or failure of his country...as of now, things arn't looking so bright.

[Myrrh23]

My friends all lament about the fact that here in America, you can have 'African American Heritage Month', 'Latino Heritage Month', 'American Indian Heritage Month', and so on but not 'Caucasion Heritage Month'.  I agree that that would be kinda goofy, but the point's not lost on thinking people.  We have a Black Entertainment Television network that really irks every other race here.  We have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that, to my way of thinking is outdated and racist.   

That point isn't lost on thinking people, but it's sure lost on humble people. You don't need a "White Appreciation Month"; you guys have had the world at your feet for centuries, including this one. Blacks, Latinos, American Indians, gays and lesbians have had to bow to your narcissism for that long because the followers of the notion of the "white race" have believed their own superiority hype to the point that they can't look in the mirror and see that they were wrong to act like jerks towards other cultures. Cultures should not be graded in terms of how one is better than another, but of how they can better the human race, and the wisdom of how to live well that all cultures possess is not so apparent to people like you and GIC.
The only thing that irks me about the BET is that they're often cultivating the disintegration of moral values for the black community.

I do not feel that all those that have white skin should be made the donkeys of the other races, but your race needs to see that God never meant for you, or any race, to be a King of the Hill.

[GabrieltheCelt]

Oh, I'm crying in my beer for those poor widdle white farmsteaders, Gabriel. The land they're farming on was never theirs in the first place,

First, calm down just a little.  If I offended you, then I apologize.  However one chooses to see it, right or wrong, I was merely pointing out Zimbabwe's racist policies.  I don't believe that I alluded that the white folks are without blame, but I don't think getting into a 'who owned the land first' argument would be fruitful for any of us.    

[GiC]

Cultures should not be graded in terms of how one is better than another, but of how they can better the human race, and the wisdom of how to live well that all cultures possess is not so apparent to people like you and GIC.

I would think that the value of a culture and society could be objectively determined based on their scientific, academic, artistic, and technological contributations to the world. And indo-european societies are by no means the only ones to have made substantial contributions...China and Japan, for instance, have both made substantial contributions...but the indo-european contributions can hardly be overlooked.

[GabrieltheCelt]

You don't need a "White Appreciation Month"; you guys have had the world at your feet for centuries, including this one.

Was I advocating for a White Appreciation Month?   

Blacks, Latinos, American Indians, gays and lesbians have had to bow to your narcissism

My narcissim?  Forgive me if I'm reading something that isn't intended, but your posts are sounding a little misguided, if not, racists towards whites.  BTW, when were gays and lesbians made a race? 
   

..., but your race needs to see that God never meant for you....to be a King of the Hill.

As if we're all one big bloc. 

[88Devin12]

**Disclaimer: Sorry, this post is directed to a post that was on the first page, and isn't directed to the most recent discussion**

I have to say, that we have to be humble, and not proud. We cannot say that the world is indebited to whites, or that we have done so much for others compared to what has been done for us...

The Christian attitude rather, is asking what else can we do for others? We aren't to think about how much we've done for others, others come before ourselves... We must love others, because the more we love each other, the more we love God.

Also, to say that the whites have contributed technology to everyone else, which has improved so many cultures is SO wrong... Just because a civilization doesn't have more advanced technology doesn't make it any less of a culture than one that does... Are not we equal with even Adam and Eve? (who even when they walked with God in the garden had no technology at all) We are fallen as well, it doesn't matter how good our technologies are...

In fact, I am willing to say, that most of our "technology" may benefit our society and culture in economical ways, however, many of our technologies in fact are also (or can be) spiritually harmful... For example, the Internet... It is a useful tool for learning, doing research and communicating with others, but it also can be easily addictive, and easily eats up time that we could be using for productive things, not only for jobs, etc... But also spiritually, because the time we are currently spending debating about "white pride" could instead be spent on prayer, reading of scripture, learning about the Saints, etc... Our "technology" only benefits us so far as our capitalist economy and our society driven by consumerism and materialism.

However I will say, that I do not believe that technology is evil... I do think it can certainly be bad like many things if we allow ourselves to be controlled by them or allow ourselves to use them in a way that isn't good.

I will also admit, that I'm not chastizing anyone, or suggesting I'm doing the right thing... I'm certainly not, and I hope no one ever looks to me as an example for how to do things... I am a hypocrite and a sinner, no better than anyone else. I'm just afraid that if I don't say some of these things, that they may not be said at all. But forgive me if they should not be said...

[Myrrh23]

Oh, I'm crying in my beer for those poor widdle white farmsteaders, Gabriel. The land they're farming on was never theirs in the first place,

First, calm down just a little.  If I offended you, then I apologize.  However one chooses to see it, right or wrong, I was merely pointing out Zimbabwe's racist policies.  I don't believe that I alluded that the white folks are without blame, but I don't think getting into a 'who owned the land first' argument would be fruitful for any of us.    

I didn't mean to go all Rottweiler on you, Gabriel. I just get really into it when we're discussing something hot like this. I meant no offense to you, love.
However, I do think the argument of "whose land it was first" is important because I believe it does play a part in justice and fairness.

You don't need a "White Appreciation Month"; you guys have had the world at your feet for centuries, including this one.

Was I advocating for a White Appreciation Month?  

Blacks, Latinos, American Indians, gays and lesbians have had to bow to your narcissism

My narcissim?  Forgive me if I'm reading something that isn't intended, but your posts are sounding a little misguided, if not, racists towards whites.  BTW, when were gays and lesbians made a race? 
  

..., but your race needs to see that God never meant for you....to be a King of the Hill.

As if we're all one big bloc. 

I didn't mean YOUR narcissism, I meant the white elitist's narcissism. I don't see gays and lesbians as a race, but I put that in there because they, as a group, have suffered much under the white eltist model. Forgive me if I made it out to give white guilt to you and all whites. That wasn't what I was going for.

[Myrrh23]

88Devin12, from your posts, i think you and Deacon Lance are very wise and good people. You're certainly worth listening to!
Having said that, be sure to write me in your will......just kidding!

[Acolyte]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

[Acolyte]

What Irish and Italians share, or at least once shared, is a common civilization, based on Christianity and the Roman legal system.

The Irish had a legal system and code of laws that was not based on any thing Roman, the Brehon Law.
Here is a bit about it: http://www.alia.ie/tirnanog/sochis/iv.html

And I submit that there may have been some elements that over time were similar or related, but there are plenty of things that are particular to each culture.

Ebor

Western civilization is broader than the nationalities that comprise it.

[Fr. David]

Why is there "black pride," "Asian pride," "Indian pride," "Latin pride," etc.? If "white pride" is intolerable, can we please stop the double-standard, and end every kind of racial pride? No racial group is inherently better than another.

Acolyte, please re-read what I wrote about the differences in the prides. It is the context that is different. There is no double standard because most browns and blacks don't go think their race should be elevated above all others, as whites often do. What THEY want are equal rights and equal opportunities, without being separate.

I know anectodal evidence will only get one so far, so take this for what it's worth: I strongly disagree with you here, Myrrh23, and I do so based on my experience attending a predominantly black high school and teaching for seven years in an almost entirely black and hispanic high school.  Across-the-board notions of "Black power" and "Brown power" are very much alive -- the latter of which cracks me, a Spanish teacher, up, because it's about the only thing that will unite Mexicans with those whom they call "dirty Salvadorans/Nicaraguans/Guatemalans etc" -- and no bones are made about how anybody identifying themselves as white had better shut up about "double standards."  The folks talking about black and brown pride are not interested in equality; they are interested in payback for sins committed against their forbears at the expense of the descendants of the offenders.

This, of course, is not to say that all folks identifying themselves as black or latino feel this way -- far from it.  I'm simply saying that those who advance racial pride in the black and Hispanic communities feel very strongly that those identifying themselves as "white" would be wrong to do what they themselves do on the basis of race.  It is a double standard in that sense.

That having been said, the comment contrasting so-called "racial" pride with pride in one's specific ethnic land of origin and said land's corresponding culture was spot on.  I am scotch-irish, british, and welsh (far more than anything else, anyways), and I admire very much the great cultural figures within those various histories.  Likewise, my family has deep roots in Texas (six generations -- well, now seven with my daughters) and the South in general.  The music from those lands, the food, the languages, the advancements they've been known for...these are all things that are a part of who I am.  Celebrate those specific lands for the specific achievements that have come therefrom; doing so is much different than bequeathing honor on someone merely for the color of his skin, without regard to his individual character or place of origin.

Though I've come a looong way from where I was, I'm brave enough to admit that I still have racist tendencies at times.

I really appreciate the candor of this post, Gabriel.  My time teaching in my urban school has brought out some of mine, as well.  I've seen incredibly motivated, hard-working, polite, thoughtful, considerate, and compassionate black and latino students come through my class and come away with insightful appreciation for another language and other countries' cultures.  And I've seen the near-illiterate, "thug-life," gang- and drug-affiliated, chest-thumping, loud, obnoxious, selfish, willfully ignorant, and disrespectful stereotype that most racist "whites" probably think of when they envision "blacks" or "Hispanics."  The point is that, if a black young man comes into my classroom, I have absolutely no place to assume that he will fit the latter of the two descriptions unless or until he proves himself to be so.  However, I have to say -- stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.  Yes, they're wrong to impose on groups as a whole, but if there's enough of a problem within a community that people are no longer surprised when someone with those physical characteristics fits the latter set of personality characteristics...then something needs to be addressed within that community.  Bill Cosby's activism is a good example of this.  While I know that not all blacks come from broken homes, drug-addicted parents, poverty and gang-riddled ghettos (not by a long shot), when a kid comes in with the tall T that says "stop snitchin'" and addresses me as "Pat-nuh" while he swaggers by, leaving a sickeningly-sweet odor in his wake, I'm no longer scandalized by this.  When the handful of kids classified as "white" are all bored in the class because I have to spend so much time with the other students -- I say this honestly -- it's hard to fight back racist tendencies sometimes!  You have to do it, of course, but it's tough!  It helps to remember (and I'm sure Mr. Y could help back me up on this) that lots of whites are similarly "near-illiterate, Klan- and drug-affiliated, chest-thumping, loud, obnoxious, selfish, willfully ignorant, and disrespectful," and when you find out that one of these white kids lives in a trailer park with his uncle Cletus, well...you're not really that surprised.

So like I say...I appreciate your honesty.

I'm sure many of us have heard the rediculous term 'reverse racism' which is used to describe blacks who hate whites.

Actually...it's giving preferential treatment to people who do not classify themselves as whites simply on the basis of their not being "white."  Job quotas via affirmative action, for example, is state-sanctioned racism against whites, but since it is perceived that whites, in general, have more of a history of coming from educated backgrounds and, thus, have a naturally better handle on how to conduct themselves in the business world, thus giving them an upper hand from the start in procuring employment, a little leveling of the playing field by the government is in order and not out of line.

My friends all lament about the fact that here in America, you can have 'African American Heritage Month', 'Latino Heritage Month', 'American Indian Heritage Month', and so on but not 'Caucasion Heritage Month'.  I agree that that would be kinda goofy, but the point's not lost on thinking people.

I had to smirk when I read this.  Yes, I've heard that question posed.  One student asked that one time (she was white), and a latina classmate told her that every other month of the year is white heritage month.  The class roared.  But seriously, what passes for black and Hispanic heritage assemblies in my school is just a "talent" show of student acts which, based on its content, does little more than tell the young blacks and Hispanics that they can be any style of rapper or exotic dancer that they care to be when they grow up.  Honestly, I think I can live without something like that to "celebrate" being "white" (whatever that means).

We have a Black Entertainment Television network that really irks every other race here.  We have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that, to my way of thinking is outdated and racist...All y'all know that all hell would break loose if a National Association for the Advancement of White People was looked upon as favorable as the NAACP is.

Again, society has deemed that these things are "owed" to black people because of past hardships.  "White people" as a whole are not deemed as needing any such "support," as they, through oppression (whether very real or very imagined -- and both types are mentioned in our society) already have the upper hand in our country without it.

Whether you agree that it's justified or not, the double standard is there; admitting that it's there doesn't mean it's not needed (it may be to a degree), but denying that it's plainly there is nonsense.

[Acolyte]

First, on what do you base your first premise, please?  

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html

May I ask what historical example you are thinking of here, please?  Thank you in advance.

I've already gave you a historical example, what the Turks did to my people for hundreds of years. While Turks might be genetically caucasian, they are culturally Islamic, and do not share a common history with Western civilization, aside from being an oppressor.

[Acolyte]

I don't believe that whites deserve to be more prideful than anyone else. I just don't believe we need to drink the white guilt Kool-Aid either.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Who is to say that the Irish and Italians have any kind of shared history, just because of their geographic proximity and roughly similar physical characteristics?

What Irish and Italians share, or at least once shared, is a common civilization, based on Christianity and the Roman legal system.

No. The Irish and Italians have never been part of the same political entity.

[GiC]

No. The Irish and Italians have never been part of the same political entity.

Sure they have been...millenia ago in the southern caucuses.

[Acolyte]

Who is to say that the Irish and Italians have any kind of shared history, just because of their geographic proximity and roughly similar physical characteristics?

What Irish and Italians share, or at least once shared, is a common civilization, based on Christianity and the Roman legal system.

No. The Irish and Italians have never been part of the same political entity.

Does this mean that there is no political heritage that Irish and Italians can say they share in common?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

No. The Irish and Italians have never been part of the same political entity.

Sure they have been...millenia ago in the southern caucuses.

I believe I specified a political entity, and not isolated tribal settlements. There was no cohesive civilization in Europe until the Greeks in the second millennium B.C. Until that time, they had tribal and familial loyalties, but no sense of nationhood.

You'll probably bring up the Phoenicians, who settled among other places in what is now Spain, Italy, and Greece; but again you would be wrong, because they are an Asian culture hailing from what is now Lebanon and Palestine.

No. The Irish and Italians have never been part of the same political entity.

Does this mean that there is no political heritage that Irish and Italians can say they share in common?

Yes.

[Heorhij]

Pride is a sin. It's also a sinful passion.

Pride -
a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.

According to Aristotle, pride is the healthy middle between self-hatred and narcissism. If I reject ethnic pride, it's because one should only have pride in his own personal achievements, not someone else's.

But we are Orthodox Christians, not disciples of Aristotle. According to Church Fathers, pride is the worst kind of sinful passions. We shouldn't have any pride. The purpose of our entire life is to rid ourselves from pride (as well as from anger, greed, envy, lust, gluttony and other passions - but of these, pride is thought to be the worst).

[Heorhij]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

No, they are not. Not by themselves.

[Heorhij]

Just coming in to add this...

"The Seven Grievous Sins" (according to "A Pocket Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians")

1. Pride: The lack of humility befitting a creature of God.

Leaving the discussion now...

There is more than one definition of the term. Is self-esteem a sin?

I believe for us, Orthodox Christians, there is only one definition of pride: a sinful passion.

Self-esteem must be low. High self-esteem may be a dangerous sign of spiritual delusion, something that Slavic people call "prelest'" (unwarranted excitement about one's own accomplishments).

[Acolyte]

Pride is a sin. It's also a sinful passion.

Pride -
a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.

According to Aristotle, pride is the healthy middle between self-hatred and narcissism. If I reject ethnic pride, it's because one should only have pride in his own personal achievements, not someone else's.

But we are Orthodox Christians, not disciples of Aristotle. According to Church Fathers, pride is the worst kind of sinful passions. We shouldn't have any pride. The purpose of our entire life is to rid ourselves from pride (as well as from anger, greed, envy, lust, gluttony and other passions - but of these, pride is thought to be the worst).

Are you saying that being a Christian means having low self-esteem?

[Acolyte]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

No, they are not. Not by themselves.

Whether by divine sanction or not, Western civilization has been at the forefront of cultural advancement. I don't know whether that's an inherently good thing.

[Acolyte]

It seems to me that Irish and Italians do share many things in common politically. There's democracy, their legal systems, etc. They both belong to the EU for a reason.

[SolEX01]

I'll never forget the 20 minute homily I had the misfortune of sitting through at the GOA Cathedral in Phoenix.  The entire 'sermon' consisted of a monologue extolling the  virtues of being ethnically Greek and the superiority of Greek culture.  In the entire 20 minute litany of praise for all things Greek, Christ was not mentioned once except when the priest stated that if given the choice, Christ would doubtless have chosen to be born of Greek parents.  Afterwards, the friend interested in converting who attended with me shrugged, told me he wasn't Greek, and has never darkened the door of another Orthodox church.

I made the same mistake with my estranged wife (e.g. taking her to Church) who has no clue regarding the Greek heritage.  When she and I first visited a traditional GOA Church in 2003 (when our relationship was in its infancy), I couldn't think striaght and realize that the culture/language gaps could be an issue from her perspective.     She did witness an Ordination to the Holy Priesthood in June 2005 along with her one daughter, niece and nephew and practically her side of the family witnessed the 40 Day Blessing of our son in August 2005.   

[Amdetsion]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

No, they are not. Not by themselves.

Heorhij

When I read that post the first thought (answer) that rushed into my head was NO!...NOTHING!

[prodromas]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

No, they are not. Not by themselves.

Heorhij

When I read that post the first thought (answer) that rushed into my head was NO!...NOTHING!

Sorry brother im going to have to disagree I liked what Heorhij said that "humans can't accomplish things by themselves. With your post you imply a sort of Augustinian predestination idea. This is one extreme on the spectrum with the other extreme being Pelagianism which believes that man could in theory accomplish holiness without God. As Orthodoxy always seems to do it is the medium between these two extremes holding to the concept of synergy with God.

[Amdetsion]

To cry "white pride" to me is so weak and silly. Embarrassing!

The whole idea has no substance within an orthodox christian syntax.

If I may offer:

The cry "Black pride" is a mandate of a crushed people who are in the sway of his oppressor. This has orthodox affinity but carries more so on the pain of wounds of a people that are old and new and deep; even into the soul; grounded into the very being by four centuries of abuse, degradation and tyranny, desolation, isolation and utter contempt.

To live each day in 'black skin' in a land (a world) that is hostile and riotous toward the sight of you. How can a person hold up their head?

You must strive in a survival mode to stay alive....Maybe teach the 'black skinned' child to "be proud of who you are"...."have pride in your people". This is done to hope on hope that the destructive forces of an unmitigated and inconsolable enemy may not fully decimate the race, the people....their soul and will to live while yet "living" in the sway of the enemy.

My mother once caught me walking with my head down looking at the ground as I walked in a pair of very hard and very new pair of capped toe Balmorals. She stopped and slapped my face very hard and screamed with tears flying out of her intense and terrified eyes " Don,t you ever hold your head down in public ...EVER!!!...DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME!!! I was shaking like a leaf. After a moment she stopped crying and hugged me against the soft cashmere of her Spellman College sweater. I looked down once more while she was hugging me to make note of the tear drops that had dotted my new shoes. This was New York City 1969 ca America.

What happened?

She like most all black mothers and fathers...............she was fighting the enemy.

in 2008 this enemy is still very real and is still unmitigated and inconsolable. This abominable and merciless enemy prevails and is richer and stronger that ever. Even the rule of law that was designed to defend its victims (but not stop the enemy) have become a means of frontal attack; bruising and victimizing just as before but with great acceptance due to the 'logic' of how it presents its intent to the world using the very same 'laws of protection' intended for the its victims in a 'reverse action'.

It is not easy to see the enemy now with its ability to 'cloak' and 'shape shift' these days; even change color like a chameleon. He is everyone and everywhere. He is now 'black' and 'white' or any other color it chooses. The damage it continues to inflict is steady, sure and precise aimed at and inflicted on a race of men that must not stand up or achieve greatness in any place on earth. And wherever any greatness is found it is squashed, belittled, confused, lost, dismissed or passed over to some other people. This enemy only wants greatness for itself. It wants the world to call on it and knowone else.

The cry of "black pride" is not some bravos, nonsensical, arrogance, 'word of the moment mantra' spouted from the mouths of those who are rich with glory and worldly achievement (including the achievements of others) like the cry "white pride"; but the exact opposite. It is the soul of the persecuted reaching out to say "I am alive". It is a call to live and live as men. It is a mandate of a struggle to rise up out of the pain and loss and the destruction of our glorious past and the unspeakable horrors inflicted by the enemy on our race and to gain a place in the world by the work of our hands.

This is the essence of the cry "black pride".


Intelligent people understand this point. As such the cry of "black pride" is understood and respected even supported by all peoples albeit misused or used irresponsibly sometimes. On the other hand the cry "black pride" is a stumbling block for the enemy. As always the enemy wants to counter attack.

Most people who are living with a strong acceptance of the wrongs of humanity disapprove of the cry "white pride" or "power".

The phrase "white pride" is just utter nonsense and has no place along side or opposite to the cry of "black pride". It has no place at all in society. Most people; whites more so continue to label the phrase "white pride" as ignorant even racist.

I concur.

[Amdetsion]

The world is in debt to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, from whom every good gift, every perfect gift comes, alone. 

Humans are capable of accomplishing things. Are they not?

No, they are not. Not by themselves.

Heorhij

When I read that post the first thought (answer) that rushed into my head was NO!...NOTHING!

Sorry brother im going to have to disagree I liked what Heorhij said that "humans can't accomplish things by themselves. With your post you imply a sort of Augustinian predestination idea. This is one extreme on the spectrum with the other extreme being Pelagianism which believes that man could in theory accomplish holiness without God. As Orthodoxy always seems to do it is the medium between these two extremes holding to the concept of synergy with God.

Augustinian predestination, Pelagianism, synergy....

You are well versed.

I have no idea what any of this is you are talking about...Sorry!

I really do not want to know either. Thanks!

I intend to agree with Heorhij. If I said something that counters that than my mistake.

[Heorhij]

Are you saying that being a Christian means having low self-esteem?

Yes, absolutely. All saints had extremely low self-esteem, always weeping about their own sinfulness and unworthiness. Stop doing it, and you are satan's easy prey.

[Rosehip]

I agree, but still wonder about the paralyzing and crippling low self-esteem of the person who has been constantly abused as a child, for instance. Is this good? 

I've noticed in Orthodox thought Christians are seldom referred to as "children of God", and wondered why this is so? After all, aren't we His sons and daughters, and as such, very precious and of great worth?

[jnorm888]

Why is there "black pride," "Asian pride," "Indian pride," "Latin pride," etc.? If "white pride" is intolerable, can we please stop the double-standard, and end every kind of racial pride? No racial group is inherently better than another.

I could be wrong, but I think it started in the 1960's. It was an over-reaction in the other direction of the western European Racism in America.

However, with that said. It must be made known that "black pride" isn't really about a "race". It's more about Africa. Since most black Americans don't have a single "country" that we can call our "motherland". We use the word "black" this and "black" that to refer to Africa in the same way that someone would use the word "greek" to refer to greece, or Polish to refer to Poland, or Russian to refer to Russia.


I no longer use the words "black pride". Just for the fact that I think the term is outdated and it doesn't really express the true intent of what Marcus Garvey, and others some decades later in the 1960's wanted to do.


I use the term "African pride" the sameway someone would use the term "Irish pride". Now why am I using a whole continant instead of a single country? Because most black Americans came from different tribes and regions in Western, and Central Africa.

So we can't say "Nigerian pride" when the country of Nigeria wasn't formed yet, plus alot of us don't come from Nigeria, but if we say "African pride" then we include all the places(countries, ....and regions) of where we came from.

Plus if you really want to be honest ...... then I would say that most black Americans are mixed anyway. Our western European slave owners went into the Barn and slepted with our women and so alot of us our redbone, light skin, brown and even some of us who are real dark still have some western European Ancestry. Many of us also have Native American and hispanic mixed in us as well. So we are pretty much a mixed people. But the two common streams in all of us is that we came from Africa, but now live in America. And so we call ourselves African American.


So this is the true intent of that term. But like I said......I think it's outdated, and that's why I no longer use it.


Now if you think it's still wrong for me to use the terms "African American", and "African pride", then I will just have to disagree with you. For I don't think they are racist or hatefull in any way. All it is is "veneration". I venerate my motherland the sameway an Irish American would venerate their motherland.

I love all because we all come from Adam, Eve, Noah and his sons, and I venerate Christ's teachings above all, and Christ wants us to love all humanity.
 






JNORM888

[jnorm888]

There is a difference between selfishness and what Ayn Rand termed "rational self-interest," which is based on the philosophy of Aristotle. I've explained it previously on this forum. The world is in debt to Western civilization in how they've employed our inventions, our developments, to their benefit.

This is nothing more than Modern secular Scholasticism. Why should I care about what Ayn Rand says? Why should I care about a B.F. Skinner.....ect. If you are an Orthodox Christian then you should care about what the Orthodox tradition says.





JNORM888

[jnorm888]

Just so OzG doesn't think I always disagree with him  , this has to be one of the most ridiculous topics ever started here...ever. It is beneath comment or opinion other than that.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think maybe the more the issue of 'race' is discussed then maybe (hopefully?) it might do some good.  


 Though I've come a looong way from where I was, I'm brave enough to admit that I still have racist tendencies at times.  I think if people are honest with themselves, they'd admit that, they too, might feel the same way.  I have friends in the Klan and friends who are not in the Klan but whom are still infatuated with their race; this so-called "White Pride".  I have distant relatives in the Klan, but even the majority who are not associated with the Klan (and even those who readily admit their disgust for such groups) are still a little racist at times.  But this transcends 'color', race, and ethnicity.  I'm sure many of us have heard the rediculous term 'reverse racism' which is used to describe blacks who hate whites.  In fact, just last semester, we were discussing terrorism in Pakistan.  I don't recall the specifics, but I do recall a black woman saying (about Pakistani's), "What's the difference; they all look the same."  That one really made me hoppin' mad but probably because I view Pakistani and Indian women as reeeally purty!    I hear that all the time from my friends.  If a black person is walking down the street, invariable someone will say, "What's Obama doing here?"

 In America, and I suspect just about everywhere else, race (whatever that means) will always be an issue.  My friends all lament about the fact that here in America, you can have 'African American Heritage Month', 'Latino Heritage Month', 'American Indian Heritage Month', and so on but not 'Caucasion Heritage Month'.  I agree that that would be kinda goofy, but the point's not lost on thinking people.  We have a Black Entertainment Television network that really irks every other race here.  We have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that, to my way of thinking is outdated and racist.  Why don't we remove the word 'Colored' (a word that's fallen out of favor anyway) and just leave it at that?  The National Association for the Advancement of....People?  All y'all know that all hell would break loose if a National Association for the Advancement of White People was looked upon as favorable as the NAACP is.  And how about the issue of Barack Obama as another example.  I hear from a great many black people that they're voting for him solely on the basis of his skin color.  If that weren't dumb enough, they're completely overlooking the fact that he's Black and White!

 But at the same time, I do believe that this notion of 'color blindness' is very unhealthy.  Everytime I hear someone say, "Oh, I don't see colors.  I'm sooo beyond that."  I just want to slap them and call BS because it is BS.  

 Being from the area that I'm from, the superiority of whites over everyone else (especially over blacks) is not just a way of life- it's a fact.  Now I no longer ascribe to goofy ideas like that, but, if that's all you hear from your everyone from your Grandaddy on down to your neighborhood grocer, it takes a lot of thinking and energy to "rise above your raisin'" as we say.  On the days that I begin to think that the sun rises and sets on my race, all I have to do is look at my icon of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.  Jewish and dark skinned?  Oh my, whatever will my Klan friends think!

 I apologize if my honesty scandalized or hurt any of you, that wasn't my intention.  

In Christ,

Gabriel      

No need to apologize, I enjoyed your post. And thanks again for being honest. And I agree with you about a good number of black Americans only voting for Obama because of his skin color. And not because of his "policies". My own mother is voting for him just for that reason, but to put all of this in context, you have to understand that alot of black Americans still remember jim crow. My mother lived through it, so alot of the older black American population has an Axe to grind, and rightfully so.....for what they lived through. There is a reason for everything, and that is one of the reasons. I'm sure in time, a good number of the older population will look beyond skin color. I am a Republican and I am sticking with the red ticket. But it is hard when those around you are not.

But I agree with you that we have to outgrow the racist culture we were raised in. But that takes time. Time and understanding......not to mention alot of grace.





JNORM888

[Amdetsion]

Are you saying that being a Christian means having low self-esteem?

Yes, absolutely. All saints had extremely low self-esteem, always weeping about their own sinfulness and unworthiness. Stop doing it, and you are satan's easy prey.

I concur

[Heorhij]

There is a difference between selfishness and what Ayn Rand termed "rational self-interest," which is based on the philosophy of Aristotle. I've explained it previously on this forum. The world is in debt to Western civilization in how they've employed our inventions, our developments, to their benefit.

This is nothing more than Modern secular Scholasticism. Why should I care about what Ayn Rand says? Why should I care about a B.F. Skinner.....ect. If you are an Orthodox Christian then you should care about what the Orthodox tradition says.

JNORM888

Agree 100%. See also Colossians 2:8.

[Amdetsion]

There is a difference between selfishness and what Ayn Rand termed "rational self-interest," which is based on the philosophy of Aristotle. I've explained it previously on this forum. The world is in debt to Western civilization in how they've employed our inventions, our developments, to their benefit.

This is nothing more than Modern secular Scholasticism. Why should I care about what Ayn Rand says? Why should I care about a B.F. Skinner.....ect. If you are an Orthodox Christian then you should care about what the Orthodox tradition says.

JNORM888

Agree 100%. See also Colossians 2:8.

I agree 100% as well.

[Heorhij]

I agree, but still wonder about the paralyzing and crippling low self-esteem of the person who has been constantly abused as a child, for instance. Is this good? 

Perhaps not, if the low self-esteem is carried to its extreme. But still better than the opposite (high self-esteem).  

I've noticed in Orthodox thought Christians are seldom referred to as "children of God", and wondered why this is so? After all, aren't we His sons and daughters, and as such, very precious and of great worth?

Yes, I think you are right... However, in my Orthodox prayer book many prayers say about God that He is the "lover of the humankind" (in Ukrainian, "чоловіколюбeць" - probably a direct translation from the Greek "philanthropos"). And the first major evening prayer says, "Lord, have mercy on us... for You are our God, and we are Your people; we all are the work of Your hands."  

[Acolyte]

As I said previously, I really don't like the idea of "white pride," since one shouldn't have pride in accomplishments that are not his own. 

[Ebor]

First, on what do you base your first premise, please?  

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html

Thank you.  That's a brief bit in a popular magazine.  I wonder what the author based *it* on.     Are there any other articles that you could think of?

May I ask what historical example you are thinking of here, please?  Thank you in advance.

I've already gave you a historical example, what the Turks did to my people for hundreds of years. While Turks might be genetically caucasian, they are culturally Islamic, and do not share a common history with Western civilization, aside from being an oppressor.

To be blunt why would this not be a cultural conflict as opposed to a 'racial/racist' one? 

The definition of what you think "white" is would seem to be a bit unclear.  For some a "race" is genetically defined. (for me there is only one "race" and that is the Human one.) 

And would you please give some guidelines for what you consider to be "Western Civilization"?  Thank you in advance.

Ebor

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Why is "white pride" an inherently racist term?