homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:25 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Definitions of racism Merriam Webster:

: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

Definition from Oxford:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

Definition from Encyclopedia Britannica:

racism, also called racialism , any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

There. Are we clear now?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 8:15 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Cyberknight wrote:
They just want to protect races and not have them mix, which is only slightly racist at best. Especially since minorities were the main ones that wanted it.


1. Above was your own statement. Regardless of your definitions of racism, this is still a wrong statement.

2. Superiority of races is the underlying idea behind not mixing races.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Forerunner wrote:
1. Above was your own statement. Regardless of your definitions of racism, this is still a wrong statement.

Umm, no. It wasn't incorrect. My "own statement" was that it wasn't racist. And I proved that with a bunch of common man definitions of racism.

Forerunner wrote:
2. Superiority of races is the underlying idea behind not mixing races.

NOT IN THIS CASE. That's my whole point. In this case, the idea is that God somehow "has a separate plan" for each race, which has nothing to do with superiority. This is reaffirmed by the fact that minorities themselves wanted this policy.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 9:19 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1378
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Interracial marriage bans were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, racially motivated and tools of white oppressors in the South. Don't believe me? Refer to the unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that invalidated interracial marriage bans (the decision is concise and to the point; shouldn't take long to read), and this book. The bans were in place because the authorities viewed minorities as inferior to whites, and didn't want a mixing of the races to produce children of mixed heritage. There are horrific evidences of this that I'd rather not share here.

Your continued insistence that interracial marriage bans were not inherently motivated by racism is disingenuous and ignorant of historical facts at best.

Having said that, I still don't get why I or other Stoa students should boycott Bob Jones University due to their history. They've repealed the bad policies, and while they have pretty strict rules and disturbing patriarchal tendencies, that should not be reason enough for anybody to cause a ruckus. If we applied the standards that many in this thread have to other Christian colleges, Stoa probably would be prohibited from hosting NITOC at about 75% of Christian college campuses, and that's absurdly unreasonable. I may disagree with Bob Jones University in their administrative structure and some of their theological beliefs, but the Lord has provided BJU as the campus for NITOC this year, and I'm very much looking forward to attending this year's NITOC. I choose to disagree with BJU agreeably and not lambast Stoa leadership for selecting a campus that they spent many man-hours and effort to find and coordinate with. Of course, I would draw the line if BJU CURRENTLY had an apparatus to promote and enshrine racism, but they don't.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Evan wrote:
Interracial marriage bans were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, racially motivated and tools of white oppressors in the South. Don't believe me? Refer to the unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that invalidated interracial marriage bans (the decision is concise and to the point; shouldn't take long to read), and this book. The bans were in place because the authorities viewed minorities as inferior to whites, and didn't want a mixing of the races to produce children of mixed heritage. There are horrific evidences of this that I'd rather not share here.

Your continued insistence that interracial marriage bans were not inherently motivated by racism is disingenuous and ignorant of historical facts at best.

That does make some sense, I'll admit, but the problem is, BJU might've had different reasons from normal for putting the ban on. It may be that interracial dating bans were GENERALLY racist, but that doesn't mean that BJU's had the same motivation.

I am only saying this because I actually read that whole Easter Sunday sermon and, while I disagree with it quite decisively, it does not seem to imply anywhere that any race is inferior and in fact says the exact opposite many, many times.

Could be wrong, but that's my impression, anyways.

EDIT: Also, I am not particularly "insistent" of position here. I don't really know if these bans were racially motivated or not, I'm just trying to find it out. If I seemed insistent, it's because I had to keep repeating myself because no one even understood what I was saying. You're the first person that has given me a shred of evidence that interracial dating bans were ever racially motivated.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 2:36 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1378
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Cyberknight wrote:
That does make some sense, I'll admit, but the problem is, BJU might've had different reasons from normal for putting the ban on. It may be that interracial dating bans were GENERALLY racist, but that doesn't mean that BJU's had the same motivation.

I am only saying this because I actually read that whole Easter Sunday sermon and, while I disagree with it quite decisively, it does not seem to imply anywhere that any race is inferior and in fact says the exact opposite many, many times.

Could be wrong, but that's my impression, anyways.

EDIT: Also, I am not particularly "insistent" of position here. I don't really know if these bans were racially motivated or not, I'm just trying to find it out. If I seemed insistent, it's because I had to keep repeating myself because no one even understood what I was saying. You're the first person that has given me a shred of evidence that interracial dating bans were ever racially motivated.

Oh ok, I see where you're coming from. You weren't saying that interracial bans themselves weren't racist, you were saying that BJU didn't put their ban in for racist reasons. Gotcha.

Sure, maybe BJU put in the interracial marriage bans for non-racist reasons. But I highly doubt it. I can't get into the minds of the BJU staff who instituted the ban, nor have I read the speech you refer to yet, nor have I researched this specific issue deeply. But being located in a state where interracial marriage was previously outlawed for racist reasons, along with having a university president that made comments calling for the killing of gays and upholding segregation, is strong circumstantial evidence that the BJU marriage policy was indeed racially motivated. To me, my impression is that if BJU apologists are arguing that the bans were put in place for non-racist reasons, not only is that logically tenuous, but it definitely seems like revisionist history on their part to try and whitewash (no pun intended) bad policies.

But let's take a step back and assume your argument is true. Even IF BJU put the policy in place for "non-racist reasons," wouldn't that still be an equally as bad policy? You'd hopefully agree that the interracial marriage ban was not a good idea, right? Really, I don't see how your position is going to help out BJU in any substantial way, other than prove that they weren't racist, in which case, good luck with that, since there's a mountain of evidence that contradicts that assertion.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
But let's take a step back and assume your argument is true. Even IF BJU put the policy in place for "non-racist reasons," wouldn't that still be an equally as bad policy? You'd hopefully agree that the interracial marriage ban was not a good idea, right? Really, I don't see how your position is going to help out BJU in any substantial way, other than prove that they weren't racist, in which case, good luck with that, since there's a mountain of evidence that contradicts that assertion.

Yeah, it's a bad policy, I was just saying that, assuming it's TRUE that they were not racist when they created this policy, it seems a little silly to boycott the school just because you think one of their policies is stupid. It would be the same as if they boycotted it for the "different paths for men and women" rule (dunno if that's still a thing :P). Just seems a bit silly.

But then, as you said before, it was kind of silly to boycott because of a ruel that used to exist in the first place, so...I guess it doesn't really matter. :mrgreen:

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2015 5:54 pm 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
I was going to respond to this whole "BJU's dating ban wasn't racist per se" but it looks like Evan handled it.


tl;dr, Dating/marriage bans are based on a racist paranoia about the special snowflake known as "the white race" being "corrupted." Any claim that in reality its a desire to "preserve diversity" is just white nationalist claptrap.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2015 11:40 am 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Forerunner wrote:
+X wrote:
Last I checked, they also had separate sidewalks for men and women


Not a fan of BJU but this really isn't true, I've been there.

Glad to hear it. I remember hearing about it from students waaay back in the day. The policy must have changed since.

I'm still surprised that there hasn't been more of a public reaction by Stoa students. The history of racism and extreme legalism at BJU would normally lead some to at least question. But I suppose times have changed. We never would have had students defending ibter racial marriage bans back in my day. XP


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited