"I was going for a walk downtown the other day, and needed to get a bit to eat. I was looking for this great restaurant, which I finally found after getting directions from a black guy..."

"What are you, racist?"

By the way, I never go into the city except on Sunday morning for Mass, and we don't eat out -- so the anecdote above is completely fictional. But I read something like it on Facebook today, and it got me thinking.

In a situation like the above, where a man's race is merely ACKNOWLEDGED, as if it exists, is that racism?  If so, the idea of racism is stupid. It clearly exists; why pretend it doesn't?

It's obvious when a man is tall or short, skinny or fat. Those are legitimate adjectives to describe a person in an objective manner. Saying "a guy this" and "a guy that" is just TOO vague. We like a BIT more detail than that, no?

Since when is describing someone in an objective manner automatically hostile? If I describe a man as tall, am I a short-supremacist?

Just because some morons like to burn crosses on people's lawns, I can't acknowledge that a guy I talked to was black, rather than white or Asian? (BTW, I don't use any other "color" descriptions than white or black. I'm white, and I'm not offended by "white" even though I'm not albino. I would refer to Asian as "Asian", etc.)

When men had more common sense, this was done all the time. In books, etc. they would be described in detail, and I assure you their race/nationality was mentioned.

There are those who feel that the only reason one should point out race/ethnicity in this day and age is to provide a description to a police officer LOL. They wonder why it's necessary to state a person's race unless their race had something to do with what they did, as well.

The FACT is that there are SEPARATE races in the Bible, and they exist today. The Israelites were told NOT to take spouses from other nations; God had His reasons for saying so. I do not question those reasons.

That said, I am NOT a 'racist', as though one race or another is inferior or superior AS A RACE. There are, to be honest, characteristics of ALL of the races, including their physical makeup, their tendencies towards certain diseases or chronic health conditions, that make them different, and thus more or less suited to certain climates, lifestyles, jobs, etc. THIS IS NOT BIGOTRY; IT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.

We must acknowledge that there are differences in race because we are bound to admit that God dictated in Scripture that His people should have relationship with other races based on God's decrees, which divided one race/nation from another.

The wonderful thing is that since Christ, EVERYONE who belongs to His Church is the NEW Israel, a new, spiritual race of people that are FAMILY. There is, in the Church, no need for categorizations like 'Jєω, Greek, bondsman, freeman'; everyone comes under God's grace in Christ, receives of His fullness and is taken from glory to glory as they are made more and more like Christ.

It is just a shame that there seems to be no distinction in the liberals' minds between ACKNOWLEDGING the uniqueness and separate existence of races and the QUALIFICATION of races, which is to say the ordering of one or another race as inferior or superior.

Of course, the reason the liberal infidels cannot abide to admit the existence and necessity race in God's creation is because they don't want GOD'S CHURCH to be the ONLY place where race and economics and politics don't matter. Unfortunately, it's only under our Sovereign King, Jesus Christ, that true equality is found, and that's why apart from Him and His Church, these poor fools still go throwing around 'you're racist'.

St. Martin de Porres, pray for us.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, pray for us.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

In a situation like the above, where a man's race is merely ACKNOWLEDGED, as if it exists, is that racism?  If so, the idea of racism is stupid. It clearly exists; why pretend it doesn't?

Heh, in my men’s group last Saturday, Joseph, the token black guy, was absent. Somebody asked, “hey, where’s Joseph?” and the group leader had a memory lapse and couldn’t remember who Joseph was. So the guys were giving these ginger little descriptions – “you know, the guy with the oversized sweatshirts”, “the guy with the arrhythmia”, and so on. The group leader wasn’t getting it so I said “he’s the black guy”, which cleared it up straightaway. Everyone laughed nervously.

Then today at a business lunch I was joking about Samson’s “huge Jєωfro”, and people were laughing. You could see in their eyes they felt guilty about laughing, though. It’s all a little pathetic. People have become noticeably more timid even in the last 10 years.

Matthew,

In the example you give, is there any reason at all to mention the person's race.  Would you, in a similar situation, ever say, "I got directions from  a white guy"?  I expect not, if white is what is seen as normal.  The default setting for humans.  

Stephen Francis,

Israelites were forbidden to marry people of other races because they worshiped other gods.  People of other nations, like the wife of Moses, were welcome to marry Israelites if they converted.  It was about religion, not race.

 The terms for people of African ancestry have changed so much and so often in my lifetime that I gave up trying to figure out what the latest term du jour is.
.

Me and my Dad were just talking about that the other day. He called someone at work an Afro American which is what they were called back in the 70's and the dude told him "we're african American now." My Dad brought this ever changing name thing up to him and asked "are you ever going to stick with one?" HAHA.

I agree that it racial tension is being fostered  as a form a psychological warfare.

I also think that all the drama about using the correct words "african american" as opposed to "black" or "colored" or "negro" is is promoted by the very people who are seeking to eliminate black people from the face of the earth and actually works as a kind of cover.

There are three ways that they are eliminating black people.

1. Via abortion

2. Via AIDS in Africa primarily ( which was manufactured for that purpose)

3. By the promotion of of gangsta rap and other such cultural poison.


there was a very good movie done in 1966 by G edward Griffin about the civil rights movement.  There are a few black people interviewed who said they sent to russia and learned how to organize protest and insight racial violence and tension.

the film is called Anarchy USA, the last part is here with an interview with one of the black guys. The beginning of the film had some pretty graphic pics, they were black and white but still kinda disturbing. There is nothing graphic in this section, this is the last segment.

henry Makow has an article on Rosa Parks which claims she too was a member of the communist party.

http://www.rense.com/general68/rosa.htm

'Red' Rosa Parks:
Fabricating An
American Icon
By Henry Makow PhD
11-5-5
 

Rosa Parks was not a simple seamstress whose lonely act of defiance in 1955 sparked the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, she was a trained Communist Party (CPUSA) activist.
 
Her refusal to move to the back of the bus wasn't a spontaneous gesture, but a provocation organized by her longtime employer, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)....

Quote from: Sigismund

Matthew,

In the example you give, is there any reason at all to mention the person's race.  Would you, in a similar situation, ever say, "I got directions from  a white guy"?  I expect not, if white is what is seen as normal.  The default setting for humans.  

In a country of European descended people, white is considered normal.  No one would think it odd if you mentioned the guy was Italian, or Russian, etc. (they would if you said Jєωιѕн though)

Now I would never accuse someone from a non-white country of racism if they mentioned that someone was white.  It's just absurd that people can be so sensitized to "racism" and that whites are walking on eggshells for these people.

That is true if you are from a monochromatic country.  We certainly are not.

I did not mean to accuse anyone of racism here.  I was just wondering If Matthew would have described a white person in the scenario he noted as white.  I expect people who are black might tend to specify the race of a white person who gave them directions and leave the race of a black person unspoken.

Personally, even though my family is biracial, I would tend to assume that a person whose race was unspecified was white, because most of the people I interact with every day are white.