I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
It wouldn't surprise me if that's true, since there have been many instances in which people have been exhorted to acknowledge their racism.