My post was centered on a specific statement (‘had I been black’), made in the context of a specific debate. My post also focused on how the specific statement made me feel. Finally I questioned briefly if the use of the statement advanced the cause of those who relied upon it and offered an alternative.

My post was not concerned with whether those who use the ‘had I been black’ argument are racist. Nor was it concerned with whether they are reasonable or otherwise. I am fully aware of the fact that one’s use of racist language or relying on a racist assumption is not enough for me to conclude that he or she is racist. In fact the whole ‘are they/aren’t they racist’ issue does not affect how the ‘had I been black’ statement makes me feel.
You seem keen to pursue and defend a line of argument which was not part of my post. While I am willing to engage in healthy debate on the issues I raise; I see no reason to debate a point that I have not raised, especially if this debate is taking place in my blog

You also seem keen to continue the debate while constantly altering the wording of and/or offering alternative meanings to the initial specific statement that I had taken issue with. I refer you to paragraph 1 of this response. This is about a specific statement; anything else just draws further into another debate. My views on other debates are covered in the preceding paragraph.

Lastly I raised a question in relation to why the statement in question was worded in that particular style. You decided to attribute your own meaning to my question. I do not appreciate this at all. If in doubt about what I have said, please just ask. My question was simply that…a question; directed at one who seems to defend the statement I have issue with.

As I conclude my response to you. I leave you with this:

In my view, using Christians as an example: if we as Christians feel that we are being discriminated against it makes more sense for us to compare our position to other religious groups and how they are treated. In fact the only way we can succeed as Christians in our quest to show that we are being discriminated against is if we can prove that another religious group is being treated in a totally different manner.

I hope this clarifies my position

My understanding of your first post was that a Christian or other person could not use the argument (1-3 in my post) in good faith. The point of my previous post, as well as this one, is that using the argument in 1-3 below does not commit one, at least as far as I can see, to any racist proposition.

I’m defending the position that the argument itself is valid. So it can be used perfectly reasonably by someone who is not a racist. Therefore, you cannot tell, merely from the fact that someone is using it, that they are racist.

I am also not saying that it comes to a true conclusion – I have already pointed out one significant difference between being black and being Christian. I repeat, I am asserting that it is a reasonable argument that deserves to be listened to. It may be wrong but that does not establish that its user holds racist opinions.
To refer to the ‘had I been black argument’ as a Christian argument in my view alters the context and direction of my original post.

I take your point. In what follows, I’ll be referring to this explicitly Unchristian, more general form of the argument:
1. There is a form of discrimination (e.g. antiblack racism.) that is widely recognized as unjust.
2. But, discrimination against group X (not merely Christians) is similar to a widely recognized form of unjust discrimination (e.g. antiblack racism,).
3. So, discrimination against group X should be regarded as unacceptable
You further suggest that the discrimination that Christians face is the same as racism. .

I do no such thing. I assert that there is a reasonable argument that can be made in favour of that proposition. There is a clear distinction between affirming the validity of an argument and accepting the soundness of its conclusion.
In points 1-3 you imply that the ‘had I been black’ comment is used to draw a parallel between the discrimination Christians experience and racism as a form of discrimination. If this is the case why then is direct reference made to black people and only black people? .

I take it that you mean : The user of the argument in 1-3, cannot be using it in good faith, if he confines it to antiblack racism. (And perhaps by mentioning only antiblack racism, he intends to play down the importance of other kinds of racism, or even deny their existence altogether.)

I suggest that pointing out one example of a thing does not commit one to denying the existence of other examples of that thing. So, mentioning antiblack racism as an example of unjust racial discrimination does not strictly imply the denial of other kinds of racism. And there’s a plausible motive for just this reference – antiblack racism is perhaps the most familiar kind of unjust racial discrimination, so its use as an example is likely to be effective. I conclude that the reference to antiblack racism in the argument in 1-3 does not demonstrate that the speaker is racist.

Furthermore, I have often seen the same argument but with anti-Semitism used as the example. The import of the argument is not affected as far as I can tell. So, as a matter of fact, the use of this type argument is not in fact necessarily confined to antiblack racism.
“As for your statement regarding C not following B, you miss one crucial element of what I said. I stated that it rests on a racist assumption, assumption the key word.”

I am not sure I recognize your use of the term ‘assumption’ here. I understand, ‘assumption’ to mean some basic proposition one holds from which other propositions follow. You seem to be using it to mean something like ‘motive’ or perhaps ‘reason’. At any rate, you seem to have given up the idea of a logical relationship between assumption and a statement. I may, as usual, have failed to grasp something here. If I have, please try again.

If your use of the term is per the first definition, then the speaker of the argument in 1-3 is not committed to a racist assumption. If, on the other hand, you mean to use assumption in the sense of ‘motive’ or ‘reason’, then you still can’t conclude on the evidence of the argument that its user harbours racist motives. Why? Because it is a valid argument. And surely, anyone putting forth a reasonable argument deserves to have it judged on its merits.

The context in which a rational argument it is used may suggest good faith or otherwise. But clearly, this is separate from the merits or demerits of the argument.

As promised here is my response…

In your opening remarks you refer to the ‘Had I been black’ argument as a Christian argument. In my original post I referred to it as one aspect of many arguments put forward by a particular group of Christians. I further went on to say that the ‘had I been black argument’ is one that is expressed by many who are not Christians

My post is not, and was not intended to be as an attack on Christians. I used the example of a particular group of Christians to give my post context. To refer to the ‘had I been black argument’ as a Christian argument in my view alters the context and direction of my original post.

In points 1-3 you imply that the ‘had I been black’ comment is used to draw a parallel between the discrimination Christians experience and racism as a form of discrimination. If this is the case why then is direct reference made to black people and only black people? The assumption that racism and/or race based discrimination = black injustice is missing the point. Race based discrimination, as I said in my original post, is a form of discrimination that anyone can be subjected to on the basis of their race. It is not soley a black issue and it is this view that not only excludes so many other races but prevents us from really tackling race based discrimination.

You further suggest that the discrimination that Christians face is the same as racism. To me they are not. Race based discrimination, I have already discussed above and the discrimination that Christians’ face, as a result of being Christians is one element of religion based discrimination. I feel that this was also addressed in my original post when I talk of comparing like with like and I feel the two are neither similar nor comparable.

Then you go on to suggest that it is because racism is viewed as unacceptable so too should the discrimination that Christians face be deemed unacceptable. Taking the view that the two are not similar and therefore not comparable, I fail to see how the unacceptability or otherwise of one should be used as a basis to determine the unacceptability of the other. Further why should it only be limited to Christians? I am of the view that the discrimination that Christians face as result of being Christians is unacceptable purely because any form of religion based discrimination is unacceptable and this extends to include discrimination that Christians are subject to.

Unfortunately your next paragraph lost me somewhat. On the hand you talk of treating similar things in a similar way, and then you go on to mention that some might argue that there is a difference between Christianity and blackness. Which is it, similar or different?

In my view, which again I made very clear in my post; my Christianity and my blackness are intertwined. This is not to say that being a Christian is the same as being black – they are not. I simply meant that in terms of shaping me into the person that I am, it would be almost impossible to make me separate the two from my identity as a whole.

As for your statement regarding C not following B, you miss one crucial element of what I said. I stated that it rests on a racist assumption, assumption the key word. The very fact that I write this as black person and as Christian, and the very fact that I actually said this in my original post should have at least led you to conclude that I do believe that one can be a Christian and be black

Please feel free to debate this issue further either here or on your own blog.

And that it expanded like this:

1. There is a form of discrimination (racism) that is recognized by all as unacceptable.
2. Discrimination against Christians is similar to racism, which is agreed to be unacceptable.
3. So, discrimination against Christians should be regarded as unacceptable.

I see no problem with this. It’s a reasonable argument that depends on the principle that it is right to treat similar things in a similar way. Someone might say that there isa difference between Christianity and blackness, in that Christianity can be chosen whereas blackness cannot. Consequently, discrimination against blacks and Christians is not similar. Fair enough. But regarding the point about whether a christian can use the argument, there is certainly nothing inherently wrong or racist in using it.

Your further remarks:
B. “Look at me and my group suffering all this injustice, had I been a member of that group over there I wouldn’t be going through this, they have more rights than us�
C. “This, in my mind at least, automatically creates a THEM and US situation. It rests on a very racist assumption that THOSE black people over THERE can not be part of THIS particular group. “

C. certainly does not follow from B. As you say yourself, black people can be Christians, so black people can be a part of this group (Christians). And no reasonable christian can fail to be aware of this. So the Christian, if we assume(!) him to be reasonable, can’t have been relying on assumption in C for the success of the argument he put forward.

Kui Says: Thank you for your detailed response. As you have taken the time to respond in such a detailed manner I feel that I should respond in kind. I shall require a bit more time to re-read both my post and your response as well as time to put together my take on the issues you have raised. In the meantime thank you for passing by.

Kui Says: Success or perceived success?