This makes me think of an "opinion" piece in the PCUSA's Unbound social justice magazine over the past twelve months. The leftist, Hispanic columnist claimed that her people too were affected by white supremacy because of look at all the white looking, high profile Hispanics in news anchor roles. Because she couldn't readily identify any darker-skinned ones, it was proof of white supremacy and systemic racism.
People choose their own ethnicity in the census. If most Hispanics actually view themselves as white, why then would they not check that box, thereby increasing the population identified as white and reducing the population identified as Hispanic?
The census and most other demographic surveys, adds either a race qualifying, subquestion or provides two Hispanic options framed as either white/non-white or white/black.
Checking Hispanic/white, rather than simply checking white, still indicates a distinction in a respondent's mind between his ethnicity and what is commonly considered white; contrary to that which was suggested in this post.
I am currently writing about critical theory as a false binary between oppressed and oppressors (Thanks to Freire, 1970). Current critical theorists (nouveau CT) ignore the massive swath of people who are middle and working class-- of all ethnic heritages. Humans don't fit neatly into categories (hence the "need" for intersectionality).
What's actually QUITE telling is the note I received from an education conference I have attended for the last six or seven year. Of course, the theme is wrapped around the CT concept of "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the email excitedly listed the seven keynote speakers as celebrating DEI. One problem. Every single one is Black. No Hispanic. No Asian (Eastern, Middle, or Southern). No Indigenous. Obviously, no white. Oh--and no disabled, no one with Downs, no one missing limbs, no one speaking on the invisible disabilities like anxiety or MS or chronic fatigue. Just seven prominent liberal Black celebrities and educators. Explain to me how that promotes DEI? What Nouveau Critical Theory actually does is place one group over all the others, in essence, turning the "oppressed" into the "oppressors." And the liberals cower in obeisance to ensure they are still part of the social and political elite class.
It amazes me how one Mainline Denomination in particular has cowered before the alter of CRT, partly because they crave the power that they blast the politicized Evangelical establishment under Trump for craving. Every topic is the result of white supremacy, and when expert people with whom they agree, says, "No.", they ignore the comment. The funny thing is said denomination is consider the most intellectual and highly educated of all Protestant denominations, yet Rom. 1:22 (?) constantly comes to mind in regards to the leaderships' rejection of science, reason, historic orthodoxy (which is the root problem), Christian charity, and Christian liberty - "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." And for us highly educated members who challenge their thinking with reason and logic, we are treated as idiots, despite having credentials demonstrating our capability to use critical thinking skills. Of course, that is something seemingly in short supply among the younger generation, yet its the ones in their 40s-50s who seem most aggregious. I have told my pastor and he has essentially acccepted that unofficially, I am no longer a member. I officially remain solely because of my wife and the support our local congregation has provided her.
I have always been intrigued/perplexed/dumbfounded at the emphasis on equity/equality/egalitarianism with very little focus, if any, on the defining characteristic of the human “experience” (to use a postmodern term) of freedom.
How we handle—or don’t handle!—human freedom might well be the root cause of human misery.
To wit, throughout my time as a philosophy undergrad and later as an ordination candidate and student at a prominent Presbyterian seminary, I never could reconcile Calvinistic theology with human freedom/human experience. And if pressed, I would likely say that is a major reason why I began walking toward Rome.
That’s not a pot shot at the esteemed author to whom we all have subscribed here, but I do consider many aspects of a reformed anthropology (in short, an explanation of why or study of what it means to be human) to align with many major issues of modern and post/hyper modern man.
Consider the view within Molinism. Like you, I struggle to reconcile the Calvin and Arminius binary. Both views can be argued successfully sola scriptural, but both cannot be 100% accurate because they cancel out key points of the other. Molina viewed free will through the lens of God's sovereignty. William Lane Craig has spoken on Molinism in depth; there are probably videos on YouTube and I know there are resources on his website.
As for the secular culture, it has made itself its own god and what we see in this post-modern, post-truth era is exactly what we should expect. People are doing as they see fit, sowing the wind.
More people are moving to the city. But I wonder - I just wonder if that could change. As we become less tied to an office in Midtown and more able to work from any place we happen to be, will the clean air, low cost housing, and quiet of the rural areas become more attractive? That migration has begun into some parts of the rural northwest. If it does, will those of is in rural areas be able to influence change in those moving to our areas? I know it can't happen through arguments and insults. But it might happen over shared meals if we accept them in our communities. The demographics are changing. Can we use them to make our country stronger?
In the summer of 2011, I found myself riding across the international airport in Cartagena, Colombia in the back of a beaten up pickup truck. Fun times. Being told not to expect the locals to be thrilled about my presence and wanting to respect the culture, I attempted to strike up a friendly conversation with my broken Spanish. When in Rome and all, you know.
The young man in the truck bed with me would only speak English. I explained that I was in his country, and I wanted to respect his culture. He expressed gratitude, but he would only speak English.
When I asked why, he said he wanted to practice, because he loves the U.S. and hoped to emigrate one day.
The rest of the world does not categorically hate us. More Hispanics will come, and I welcome them.
These folks may identify as “white” but do they identify as United States citizens willing to respect the constitution??
This makes me think of an "opinion" piece in the PCUSA's Unbound social justice magazine over the past twelve months. The leftist, Hispanic columnist claimed that her people too were affected by white supremacy because of look at all the white looking, high profile Hispanics in news anchor roles. Because she couldn't readily identify any darker-skinned ones, it was proof of white supremacy and systemic racism.
People choose their own ethnicity in the census. If most Hispanics actually view themselves as white, why then would they not check that box, thereby increasing the population identified as white and reducing the population identified as Hispanic?
The census and most other demographic surveys, adds either a race qualifying, subquestion or provides two Hispanic options framed as either white/non-white or white/black.
Checking Hispanic/white, rather than simply checking white, still indicates a distinction in a respondent's mind between his ethnicity and what is commonly considered white; contrary to that which was suggested in this post.
I am currently writing about critical theory as a false binary between oppressed and oppressors (Thanks to Freire, 1970). Current critical theorists (nouveau CT) ignore the massive swath of people who are middle and working class-- of all ethnic heritages. Humans don't fit neatly into categories (hence the "need" for intersectionality).
What's actually QUITE telling is the note I received from an education conference I have attended for the last six or seven year. Of course, the theme is wrapped around the CT concept of "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the email excitedly listed the seven keynote speakers as celebrating DEI. One problem. Every single one is Black. No Hispanic. No Asian (Eastern, Middle, or Southern). No Indigenous. Obviously, no white. Oh--and no disabled, no one with Downs, no one missing limbs, no one speaking on the invisible disabilities like anxiety or MS or chronic fatigue. Just seven prominent liberal Black celebrities and educators. Explain to me how that promotes DEI? What Nouveau Critical Theory actually does is place one group over all the others, in essence, turning the "oppressed" into the "oppressors." And the liberals cower in obeisance to ensure they are still part of the social and political elite class.
Still writing -- and fuming.
It amazes me how one Mainline Denomination in particular has cowered before the alter of CRT, partly because they crave the power that they blast the politicized Evangelical establishment under Trump for craving. Every topic is the result of white supremacy, and when expert people with whom they agree, says, "No.", they ignore the comment. The funny thing is said denomination is consider the most intellectual and highly educated of all Protestant denominations, yet Rom. 1:22 (?) constantly comes to mind in regards to the leaderships' rejection of science, reason, historic orthodoxy (which is the root problem), Christian charity, and Christian liberty - "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." And for us highly educated members who challenge their thinking with reason and logic, we are treated as idiots, despite having credentials demonstrating our capability to use critical thinking skills. Of course, that is something seemingly in short supply among the younger generation, yet its the ones in their 40s-50s who seem most aggregious. I have told my pastor and he has essentially acccepted that unofficially, I am no longer a member. I officially remain solely because of my wife and the support our local congregation has provided her.
It is too often about power when it should be about the gospel.
I have always been intrigued/perplexed/dumbfounded at the emphasis on equity/equality/egalitarianism with very little focus, if any, on the defining characteristic of the human “experience” (to use a postmodern term) of freedom.
How we handle—or don’t handle!—human freedom might well be the root cause of human misery.
To wit, throughout my time as a philosophy undergrad and later as an ordination candidate and student at a prominent Presbyterian seminary, I never could reconcile Calvinistic theology with human freedom/human experience. And if pressed, I would likely say that is a major reason why I began walking toward Rome.
That’s not a pot shot at the esteemed author to whom we all have subscribed here, but I do consider many aspects of a reformed anthropology (in short, an explanation of why or study of what it means to be human) to align with many major issues of modern and post/hyper modern man.
Consider the view within Molinism. Like you, I struggle to reconcile the Calvin and Arminius binary. Both views can be argued successfully sola scriptural, but both cannot be 100% accurate because they cancel out key points of the other. Molina viewed free will through the lens of God's sovereignty. William Lane Craig has spoken on Molinism in depth; there are probably videos on YouTube and I know there are resources on his website.
As for the secular culture, it has made itself its own god and what we see in this post-modern, post-truth era is exactly what we should expect. People are doing as they see fit, sowing the wind.
Thanks for the suggestion on Molina! I shall read more.
More people are moving to the city. But I wonder - I just wonder if that could change. As we become less tied to an office in Midtown and more able to work from any place we happen to be, will the clean air, low cost housing, and quiet of the rural areas become more attractive? That migration has begun into some parts of the rural northwest. If it does, will those of is in rural areas be able to influence change in those moving to our areas? I know it can't happen through arguments and insults. But it might happen over shared meals if we accept them in our communities. The demographics are changing. Can we use them to make our country stronger?
In the summer of 2011, I found myself riding across the international airport in Cartagena, Colombia in the back of a beaten up pickup truck. Fun times. Being told not to expect the locals to be thrilled about my presence and wanting to respect the culture, I attempted to strike up a friendly conversation with my broken Spanish. When in Rome and all, you know.
The young man in the truck bed with me would only speak English. I explained that I was in his country, and I wanted to respect his culture. He expressed gratitude, but he would only speak English.
When I asked why, he said he wanted to practice, because he loves the U.S. and hoped to emigrate one day.
The rest of the world does not categorically hate us. More Hispanics will come, and I welcome them.
A whole bunch of immigrants make better citizens than the native-born.