Whoopi said the Holocaust was not about race; it was about people doing bad things to people. Maybe Whoopi was thinking, "Don't diminish white racism by adding in white discrimination against whites." I don't know. But to me we're back in the problem of words.
Biology recognizes three major races. Some stretch it out to four. Some up to seven or more. That's because "race" is hard to define. Essentially, it is not a scientific classification. That leaves you with one -- human. It is a social construct. In that, South Africa, for instance, recognizes 4 while Myanmar recognizes 8, for instance. But even the best known "race" -- whites -- aren't clearly defined. There are those that break them out into different racial groups. That's because "human race" is not satisfactory. Are the Jewish people a "race." Hitler thought so. But, seriously, do we want to go off of what Hitler believed to be true? Wikipedia calls them an "ethnoreligious group." They are a difficult group to categorize because of the vague religious aspect. A Jewish person can be Jewish in religious perspective or not. A person not of Jewish descent can convert to Judaism and be a Jew without any biological connection. And while the Jewish "clan" started out in the Middle East, a good number of them today are white, not "people of color."
The Jews have been the subject of hate for millennia, no doubt. Biblically, it's clear that if they hadn't been God's chosen race, they wouldn't exist today. Enslaved, embattled, overrun and dispersed, returned, dispersed again ... there is little rational explanation as to why "Jewish" is even a thing today ... except that God did it. But, biblically, there is a problem. Peter wrote, "You are a chosen race" (1 Peter 2:9). Who? All believers. Well, now, that puts a kink in all of this, doesn't it? And if there are those that hate Christians, aren't they actually being racist?
Postscript: Please note. I define "race" as "humans" over against "nonhumans," so I am not actually arguing that hating Christians is racism. I'm just pointing out the problem of words ... and God's truth.
5 comments:
In the "old days" the term "race" was used for ethnicity, e.g., the Irish race, the German race, the English race, etc. Essentially it was Darwin who led the way in making skin color or facial features (like orientals) the basis of race.
However, when it comes to Jews we must understand what Hitler meant: "The 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws codified the definition of Jews based on race and heritage, and provided the legal framework for the systematic persecution of Jews by Nazis."
So by law the Jews were consider a subhuman race.
Clearly Hitler saw it as a racial issue. His goal was to rid the world of "lesser races" in order to allow his "master race" to flourish.
My thought is that Anti-Semitism is, functionally, racism. Although some Jews might be "white" racially, the effect is to demean all Jews in the same way as racists demean all blacks.
I think that the problem is putting someone like Goldberg in a position where she's free to express her opinions as if they're facts for years without anyone correcting her. She's obviously not as smart as she thinks, and even after being corrected seems like she's doubling down on her idiocy.
The topic of discussion included the Holocaust, but centered on a "book banning" (which was not an apt description). The Holocaust was clearly anti-Semitism -- Jew-hating. The accusation that the book banning was the same seems to be nonsense to me. That Hitler considered them a subhuman race ought not be our definition of race. So there are too many aspects here to take it simply. Ultimately, I hate the whole question since it is designed to divide -- divide on ethnicity or nationality or all sorts of things that are not real divisions when we are actually the human race ... especially in Christ.
It seems like the entire discussion of race over the last 20 years is intended to divide.
In the case of Goldberg, she was simply wrong in her assertions, and unable to admit her mistake and move on. The fact the she got a 2 week suspension as opposed to being fired, just points out the hypocrisy of the left.
I do find it interesting how many leftists I see on social media posting about how bad it is to ban books, without realizing that most of the recent books "banned" are being "banned" by those on the left. Not to mention the left's urge to silence anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Can we really say the race discussion was ever NOT intended to divide? I mean, the moment one puts a group into a group, division has occurred. The sorry part is that once that is done, the benign motivation which might have prompted it loses importance and the negative effects of division take prominence. Hard to see how it could not compared to "we're all God's children".
I don't think anyone should be fired for merely being stupid or leftist, assuming being either doesn't cause serious, tangible harm (hurt feelings isn't harm). But Goldberg should have been fired because of her own attitudes toward those with whom she disagrees. That is, has she called for such action toward others? If so, she should suffer the same fate. Her trespasses, in other words, should be forgiven only as she has forgive those who trespassed against her. The same is true of all leftists.
The leftist attitude toward books is the same as their attitude toward shows or speech. It's their way or the highway. But conservatives generally are more concerned with who is exposed to materials to which they object, such as objecting to the porn lefties don't believe is a problem for small children to read or see. Conservatives treat such things as they treat booze. "You're too young". Even most lefties have no problem with that. They need to be as mature and caring of children when it comes to reading material.
Post a Comment