Racism, Neo-Nazism, and Catholic Teaching

Status
Not open for further replies.
Usagi said:
Yes, of course western civilization has brought us many good things, and in large part those things were accomplished by men. There is no shortage of history lessons that will reassure us of that.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that ‘no shortage of history lessons’. In Australia at the moment there is a donator of university funds who is trying to get a university to teach western civilisation in a positive light and even though they will receive millions of dollars he can’t find a university that will take the money. So entrenched is this anti western bias that not one university will take the money to teach the course.

Usagi said:
But the fact that those great things took so long to include people who weren’t white men is a stain on the history of western civilization. Yes, it was mostly fixed eventually, but focusing on “men got around to giving women the vote” is weird when it was the same men in power who were denying women the vote in the first place. Women organized and protested and endured terrible abuses to make men share the vote. It wasn’t something men were going to do anyway if women just shut up and waited long enough.
Click to expand...
First of all it all happened incredibly quickly in the fullness of history which is not a stain but something that should be applauded. For a short time western civilisation ruled the globe and everything from the stopping of slavery, the universalism of democracy, to western education and medicine to capitalism and international trade was rolled out all over the world. It was the making of the modern peaceful world and it happened very quickly over a few short centuries.

As mentioned above, saying men got around to giving women the vote is an incorrect viewpoint. Voting was originally developed in Europe based on amount of produce. When women entered the workforce en masse then the moral right to voting came with it. In my homeland of Ireland men were not given universal voting rights until after the middle of the 20th century. Well after women got the vote in places like New Zealand and Australia.

The general vote was confined to the occupier of a house and his wife. Occupiers’ children over 21 and any servants or subtenants in a house were excluded from voting. So the allocation of a public authority house was not just the allocation of a scarce resource: it was the allocation of two votes. Therefore, whoever controlled the allocation of public authority housing effectively controlled the voting in that area
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Usagi said:
“When it was possible and feasible,” you say. But was there any reason it wasn’t possible and feasible to grant the franchise (or private property ownership or whatever else) to everyone as soon as the idea developed to grant it to some people? Was there any real obstacle, or just a belief that those other people who were not white men were lesser and not capable of handling whatever it was?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the United States? You have introduced property rights here for coloured people whereas the discussion was based mostly on sex.

I live in the Philippines now. I am forbidden by law to own land and that doesn’t look like changing any time soon. I believe this is normal for Asia such as Thailand, Cambodia etc I would guess you got Buckly’s chance of owning property in China. Most men here who buy land do so through the name of their Philippino wife and they are at the mercy then of their wives and it is true some turn around, take their money and then dump them straight away. That is life. Is it practically discrimination against foreign men, well yes it is.

Western civilisation by comparison lacks this discrimination and has done so for a very long time. I urge you to study the Republican push for civil rights for blacks in the 1860’s. Did their fight take a long time to finally succeed? Well that depends on how you define a long time. But we must remember that groups like the Republican Party were very much part of western civilisation and their values did prevail whereas most other places on the planet are yet to follow with regards to property rights.

Perhaps we should praise that instead of criticising it?
 
Last edited:
Moral opposition to interracial marriage has never been a teaching of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, Catholics have married interracially with the Church’s blessing from time immemorial, valuing oneness in faith over simple ethnic commonality—and this despite the opposition of some Catholics misguided by the culture of their country, as, e.g., in the United States historically. This can be seen, for example, in the marriages between Irish immigrants and native Mexicans in the 19th century and also in the marriages between American Catholics of different heritages, e.g., in New Orleans.

Despite what some Christians have taught historically, moral opposition to interracial marriage contradicts Scripture. Jesus teaches his Church to make disciples of all nations in advancing the kingdom of God (Matt. 28:18-20), but never to keep the races separated with regard to marriage or otherwise (see Gal. 3:27-28).

In addition, in Old Testament times, God forbade or discouraged marriage with non-Israelites not over concern of inappropriate “race mixing,” but because of religious differences and the associated threat of an Israelite’s being drawn into paganism. In contrast, when religious disunity was not an issue, we see that Moses, an Israelite, married a Cushite woman, i.e., an African (Num. 12:1). This is a reference to his wife Zipporah, who was also of Midianite heritage (Ex. 2:21). God did not rebuke Moses for marrying Zipporah. Rather, he rebuked Miriam and Aaron for speaking against Moses because of his interracial marriage (Num. 12:1-16), with Marian’s skin ironically becoming white as snow with leprosy (Num. 12:10).

Also, David’s sin with Bathsheba was not that she was a Hittite woman, but because she was the wife of another man, Uriah, whom he also had murdered. And yet God “writes straight with crooked lines,” as Bathsheba became a direct ancestor of St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, through her son Solomon (Matt. 1:6), as did before her Ruth, a Moabite woman (Matt. 1:5), who interracially married Boaz, an Israelite (see Ruth 1—4).

When you also consider that Rahab the Canaanite (and also a repentant harlot) is also a direct descendant of St. Joseph (Mt. 1:5), we see that God did not consider morally problematic that the foster father of his eternal Son be the descendant of several interracial marriages.
 
Arkansan said:
There are many ways in which interracial marriage is harmful to society. For one thing, it’s often used to “marry up” as Jump4Joy said. This results in it being harder for certain groups (in the US, Asian men and black women) to find spouses, and in the long run it creates societies highly stratified along (de facto) color lines, which persist for centuries or even millennia after the original race mixing took place (e.g. Latin America, India). Moreover, children of interracial unions are much more likely to suffer from identity issues. And of course, the ultimate harm that comes from mass mixing is that it leads eventually to the extinction of the groups involved, since they cease to exist as separate groups.
Click to expand...
So, by that theory, you don’t want poor non-white women to marry well-off white men because you’re worried about black and Asian men and men of every other non-white racial group being being able to find wives who will marry them?
You’re also worried about getting to a society in which racial groups have gone extinct but for millenia before that there will be race stratification (which argues that races won’t ever die out).
Sounds as if convincing people that racial discrimination is not God’s plan is more straightforward.
 
Last edited:
I was in no way denying that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are racist; however, not all people who are racist, or who are perceived to be racist, or who inadvertantly do something which is or is perceived to be racist is a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.
 
Wrt women, in the time before artificial birth control or even a good understanding of NFP, the role of women in society was much different than it is now. In those days, biology was destiny.

Men could vote because, as a general rule, they were the head of the household. It was assumed that they would vote for the good of the family and the good of the community, in which they moved much more than did women.

In fact, much of the “oppression” of women was due to biology and the understanding of the importance of family to society.

In terms of white people sharing with those of other races, srsly? First, for 2000 years, missionaries went to all peoples and shared the gospel. As medical and other knowledge developed, this too was shared through the medium of missionaries.

I don’t recall China going out to other nations to share their technological developments, nor ancient Egypt.
 
Arkansan said:
And of course, the ultimate harm that comes from mass mixing is that it leads eventually to the extinction of the groups involved, since they cease to exist as separate groups.
Click to expand...
What does this mean? I assume you are in the US, so would you suggest that each group remain in its own enclave; Germans only with Germans, Scots only with Scots (because there would be no Scots-Irish), people from Nigeria only with other Nigerians, Hmong only with other Hmong, etc?

(Gee, that sounds like multiculturalism to me–i’m getting very confused!)

I thought the point of the US was to become American. And that all those who come here should learn English and become American, and work for the good of our nation?

What you suggest seems like Balkanization to me.
 
You’re going somewhere with this. I think you believe blacks are inherently inferior. You’re almost subtly suggesting by saying on average they have lower IQs. Some people find IQs inaccurate measurements of intelligence and it has been accused of being racially biased.
 
I don’t like using the r-word but he’s coming off that way with some of his opinions.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, racists nowadays won’t say that they’re racist. But that they are somehow smarter than the poor ‘leftists’.
 
Annie said:
I was in no way denying that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are racist; however, not all people who are racist, or who are perceived to be racist, or who inadvertantly do something which is or is perceived to be racist is a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.
Click to expand...
Oh–well of course that is right! It isn’t as if one color has cornered the market on racial discrimination.
The truth is that all of us are hardwired to have some wariness to people we perceive to be different.

There is a reason, however, that one of the four marks of Christ’s true Church is that it is catholic. That is how important it is that we can see all humans equally as brothers and sisters.
 
Lea101 said:
Like I said, racists nowadays won’t say that they’re racist. But that they are somehow smarter than the poor ‘leftists’.
Click to expand...
There are some people, however, who do not recognize that there are plenty of whites who are not born into privilege. Some people say, “oh, well, just being white is a privilege.” For whites who don’t talk or act as if they were born into privilege, though, they can be treated as the lowest of the low, because, “you’re white, you ought to have gotten ahead, what’s wrong with you?” Any time you’re judging someone based on a racial stereotype, that’s probably racism. (It isn’t racist, for instance, to hear some poor child has Tay-Sachs disease and asking if their parents are from a family of Ashkenazi Jews. The disorder also occurs in a few other ethnic groups, but it does have a connection to genes and is most famously connected to that gene pool.)
 
The literal Nazis at the Antipodean Resistance among others. Do you really think white supremacists don’t exist?
 
abucs said:
40.png
Jump4Joy:
It mostly discussed the discrimination on women throughout Western civilization. From witch hunts to modern-day music videos. We read books on rebellious women historically.
Click to expand...
Was there any praising of western civilisation regarding the history of women there?

Do you see this as an inherently biased course given the apparent ignoring of the pioneering and evangelising western culture friendly to women compared to non western civilisations.?
Click to expand...
“Non-western civilisations” is a very, very broad thing to try to contrast and compare. After all some non-Western civilisations were quite good compared to western civilisation depending on the time frame. And it’s almost like saving that western civilisation was good compared to others is a pointless argument that tries to say that it makes the injustices at all okay because they were relatively good.
 
I agree with this statement as the term “racist” can be thrown out anytime that someone doesn’t agree with another’s point of view - particularly when it has to do with a more negative aspect of a group of people. Let’s face it: we all have negative aspects to us. We’d like to think of ourselves as “practically perfect” in every way…but in reality, not.
 
abucs said:
40.png
Usagi:
Yes, of course western civilization has brought us many good things, and in large part those things were accomplished by men. There is no shortage of history lessons that will reassure us of that.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that ‘no shortage of history lessons’. In Australia at the moment there is a donator of university funds who is trying to get a university to teach western civilisation in a positive light and even though they will receive millions of dollars he can’t find a university that will take the money. So entrenched is this anti western bias that not one university will take the money to teach the course.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/a...usal-to-set-up-course-on-western-civilisation
Click to expand...
I studied history at a university in Australia. We had no lack of units that taught western civilisation topics, they were the majority. But when teaching history you need to learn about war, plagues, inequities as well as inventions. To teach a history course about any group that was somehow purely positive would be distorting history by it’s sheer lack of insight.
 
abucs said:
In Australia at the moment there is a donator of university funds who is trying to get a university to teach western civilisation in a positive light and even though they will receive millions of dollars he can’t find a university that will take the money.
Click to expand...
These professors refused the funding, rightly, in order to retain their academic freedom. I would never teach about Oliver Cromwells massacre at Drogheda, Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, or Andrew Jackson’s Trail of Tears “in a positive light.”
abucs said:
For a short time western civilisation ruled the globe and everything from the stopping of slavery, the universalism of democracy, to western education and medicine to capitalism and international trade was rolled out all over the world. It was the making of the modern peaceful world and it happened very quickly over a few short centuries.
Click to expand...
Western civilization is responsible for outstanding achievements in science, literature, and the arts, as well has horrific wars, genocides, and persecutions. You can’t deny either, and history isn’t black and white.

Honestly, the less preachy the professor, the higher quality of an education the students are receiving.
 
As far as I’m concerned, white privilege is an offhand way of saying ‘your life isn’t hard because of your race’ aka the crap a white person faces is obviously legitimate if it happens, but it didn’t happen because he was white. But I guess different people will have different interpretations of it.
PetraG said:
they can be treated as the lowest of the low
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this actually happens outside of social media, but thankfully I’m not in the US. I wonder how much of it is perceived victimhood though. People give flack for minorities for victimizing themselves (at times it’s justified) but I notice a general trend of everyone doing exactly that with the groups they identify with (e.g. Whites claiming they’re being attacked, Christians, straights etc).

Anyway I was referring to the racists that would put down black people (usually) in various ways but then rationalize it by saying that they are just stating ‘facts’. Or by saying they’re not racist because they acknowledge Asians are smarter/better in some aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top