Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paljor who wrote (61521)	10/8/1999 7:17:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>Well......it seems the same can be said of religion...the first thing that slave merchants did was suppress rituals and rites that were foreign to europeans...those slaves weren't Christians when they where brought here. The introduction to Christianity was instituted to control a population that had been relocated against their wishes.< This is simplistic. You see, the "New World" settlers, while coming here for the most part as part of business ventures, sought to export their brand of Christianity to what they considered the "heathens." Indeed in James I's 1606 Charter to the Virginia Company we find the same sentiment. This way of thinking was in full force at the time of the arrival of the first African slave/servants (1619) and continues until this day (albeit greatly influenced by multiculturalism). The whites at the time did not think "let us control the African heathen by converting their souls for heaven." They simply thought it their duty to expose them to Christianity, thereby rescuing them from what they considered a "heathen" state. They thought precisely the same way regarding the American Indian. Surely this sort of lingo sounds brutish to the modern ear, but it was the way of thought prior to the mid 20th century. >I find it curious that we would now use the same religion to "save" the family unit (which is also a european concept since africans live in tribal units similar to native americans).< The family unit is no European concept, as no group of humans exist fundamentally on the tribal level. Few human tribes accept the belief that it is generally acceptable for men and women within a tribe to procreate and exchange partners with the frequency we see in animals. The family unit is based on biology--the union of a male and female that produces children for the maintenance of the human race. >It seems to me that zealous religious leaders who blame the government for the spiritual impoverishness of our people are just looking for a scapegoat to enhance their own positions within the communities they serve.< I agree here with you regarding many cases. I think other religious leaders understand the harm caused to blacks by some government programs, and aim to draw attention to that harm. Religion is perhaps the motivating force, as many religious people are sincerely concerned for the welfare of the oppressed. >The real solutions may have more to do with becoming accountable as a people for the situations we now find ourselves, and coming together as brother and sister in lifting every member of our community out of poverty by our own hand.< Well this is part of the thing, but it certainly will not work without the white man. You see, your people think like my people now. It is too late for them to think otherwise. They even hate us in the same way we hate them. This is why Afrocentrism, going to Africa and other such hogwash will never work. You folk are like us, even if we both can't stand it. (I'm just telling you the truth, my friend.) >This has nothing to do with the government. It has nothing to do with Christianity, or any singular religious belief.< Well perhaps this is the case for you, but for me it has everything to do with Christianity. I tell you the truth. Were it not for Christianity and the truths it teaches, I would endeavor to make dang sure to oppress everyone I find unacceptable. This means that if I find I would rather not bother with a poor person, I would just let them die. It means if I would rather not be bothered with blacks, I would just let them suffer and die also. My Christianity compels me to look deeply into those who are oppressed, to discover where it is I might give comfort, if I can give it at all. You wanna go ahead and hate that, then do it, but it will neither get you nor your dang "people" nowhere. Now of course there have been many folk who, though Christians have harmed blacks. What of that? Folk ain't perfect. Most people just do not try to think philosophically. They are mere products of their times, and take their identities and ways of thinking as they come. >This has to do with caring enough about what's going on to take the risk to love somebody...even when they can't return it?< Riiight. This is really emptyheaded, my friend. How do you suppose folk, particularly those who are seriously engaged in a struggle to make their lives work, will ever care "enough about what's going on to take the risk to love somebody"? They won't. Most folk are not this philosophical and never will be. They will care only about themselves and be concerned only with the tyranny of their own circumstances. Religion compels them to rise above their circumstances to love a God who loves others. It is in this way that many of them have and will continue to find the philosophy that will bring about all this love you mention here.