You use the term “progressives” as a recognized reference, and I think that’s problematic. There may be an orthodoxy that specifically wants certain group behavior to be protected, and some other to be rejected, but all of this focuses on social outcomes and sidesteps the basic definition of terms.
Your third point is a good starting place, I think. People of particular places of origin, and specific skin tones, can be identified by those markers, and doing so amounts to a non-pejorative racist perspective.
When differing groups adopt racist perspectives, and argue that certain groups are superior to or preferable to other groups, the negative implications of the term “racist” are activated. Most usages of the term are intended as negative.
It’s fine to assert that a desire to live among one’s own is natural, but making that assertion is a racist perspective, and I would argue that it’s a debatable point. Most of the people that I know prioritize their own needs and potentials before caring about being among their own. Most can keep their loved ones available by phone. The economic constraints on most people are much more predictive about where they live and where they go, than their roots. There’s nothing negative about the preference to live among your own, but it’s just as natural to not care. Of course, only certain people are free not to care. Others have to be vigilant, because It is a racist culture.
Wanting ti be among your own is a perspective, that I think most people would recognize as the language of a racist. When that preference becomes a political hot button, a lot of hate can rise to the surface.
I don’t know who casts others from other eras and worlds as evil, without supplying considerable evidence to their claims. What many racists do that reflects a simplistic worldview is refuse to acknowledge the systemic racism that permeates the culture. The systemic racial barriers were put in place by racists, and some of those persons probably were evil, but that point is a distraction from changing their historic injustices.
This set of deductions is a wonderful example of the elasticity of defined terms. I understand humanism to represent the centrality of the individual human in all viable political systems. The author describes humanism as a regrettable deviation from a creed where the human is the subordinate to the creed. This strikes me as putting the lore above the need. I think the commonly held perspective is that life can be seen as a gift and it can be viewed as a tug of war involving disparate creeds. Humanism is a pragmatic solution that places a fence around the political and makes no claims on any other belief systems to the extent that none violates the core political philosophy. Such a path is supported by self-identifying deists and atheists, among many differing creeds, religions and locations, and this underscores a widely held sentiment that humans have value as creatures empowered to act on behalf of their species.
So if expulsion from Eden represents the sentience that humans gained through choosing to live in the real world, and choice is viewed as a gift from a creator, then it follows that the human capacity to organize to promote peace among strongly held creeds is the evidence of humans honoring their creator, and facilitating the survival of their species.
How is racism the consequence of that, when racists reject the humanist philosophy? Most racists that think, and most of them appear not to, believe that their superiority has been pre-ordained in a spirit realm and is immutable. Racism then,is much closer to creeds than to any attempt to keep a wall between personal creed and social and political choice.
You use the term “progressives” as a recognized reference, and I think that’s problematic. There may be an orthodoxy that specifically wants certain group behavior to be protected, and some other to be rejected, but all of this focuses on social outcomes and sidesteps the basic definition of terms.
Your third point is a good starting place, I think. People of particular places of origin, and specific skin tones, can be identified by those markers, and doing so amounts to a non-pejorative racist perspective.
When differing groups adopt racist perspectives, and argue that certain groups are superior to or preferable to other groups, the negative implications of the term “racist” are activated. Most usages of the term are intended as negative.
It’s fine to assert that a desire to live among one’s own is natural, but making that assertion is a racist perspective, and I would argue that it’s a debatable point. Most of the people that I know prioritize their own needs and potentials before caring about being among their own. Most can keep their loved ones available by phone. The economic constraints on most people are much more predictive about where they live and where they go, than their roots. There’s nothing negative about the preference to live among your own, but it’s just as natural to not care. Of course, only certain people are free not to care. Others have to be vigilant, because It is a racist culture.
Wanting ti be among your own is a perspective, that I think most people would recognize as the language of a racist. When that preference becomes a political hot button, a lot of hate can rise to the surface.
I don’t know who casts others from other eras and worlds as evil, without supplying considerable evidence to their claims. What many racists do that reflects a simplistic worldview is refuse to acknowledge the systemic racism that permeates the culture. The systemic racial barriers were put in place by racists, and some of those persons probably were evil, but that point is a distraction from changing their historic injustices.
excellent
This set of deductions is a wonderful example of the elasticity of defined terms. I understand humanism to represent the centrality of the individual human in all viable political systems. The author describes humanism as a regrettable deviation from a creed where the human is the subordinate to the creed. This strikes me as putting the lore above the need. I think the commonly held perspective is that life can be seen as a gift and it can be viewed as a tug of war involving disparate creeds. Humanism is a pragmatic solution that places a fence around the political and makes no claims on any other belief systems to the extent that none violates the core political philosophy. Such a path is supported by self-identifying deists and atheists, among many differing creeds, religions and locations, and this underscores a widely held sentiment that humans have value as creatures empowered to act on behalf of their species.
So if expulsion from Eden represents the sentience that humans gained through choosing to live in the real world, and choice is viewed as a gift from a creator, then it follows that the human capacity to organize to promote peace among strongly held creeds is the evidence of humans honoring their creator, and facilitating the survival of their species.
How is racism the consequence of that, when racists reject the humanist philosophy? Most racists that think, and most of them appear not to, believe that their superiority has been pre-ordained in a spirit realm and is immutable. Racism then,is much closer to creeds than to any attempt to keep a wall between personal creed and social and political choice.