Race
I think that the issue of racism is important enough to justify continued discussion. Let me address some of the big questions:Is black skin a mark of God's curse on Cain for killing Abel? If so, should all generations be cursed for the actions of an ancestor?
Since it is such a sensitive issue, there isn't even complete agreement among scientists about the 'scientific cause' of differences in skin color. It seems reasonable to believe that people with dark skin are better equipeed to live in areas that receive more ultraviolet light. Some argue that sexual selection (differing concepts of beauty) is the most important factors when it comes to skin and hair color. However, whether natural or sexual selection be the cause, it does not appear that black skin arose seven thousand years ago as a result of a divine curse.
Still, the civilizations that eventually came to dominate and colonize the world mostly consisted of rather fair skinned people. A book I am reading argues (and quite convincingly) that the reason for this is mostly due to the fauna and flora available to those groups who were able to make the quickest and most successful transition from hunter-gathere to agricultural societies. In other words, location was more important than race.It seems as if there is no room for God in any of these theories. This is a particular instance of the general question of whether the creation (or history) requires an "intelligent design".
Does God participate in history, or are the religious accounts simply myths that serve some ancient cultural function?I will not attempt to answer this broader question except to say that science will always tend to eliminate the need to rely on miraculous explanations, but the diminishing need for explanatory myths does not prove the absence of anything divine. I maintain a personal faith in the existence of God for non-scientific reasons, but I also believe in the validity of science. The idea that God interracts with mankind is central to my belief, so I will take that as an assumption while making my points.
There is a long history of enmity between socieities (and individuals) that have different means of food production. A recent example is represented in the play Oklahoma, where farmers and ranchers can't get along. Cain and Able have often (and perhaps originally) been used as symbols of the conflict between settled agriculturalists and nomadic hunter-gatherers (or herders). It may not have been clear seven thousand years ago that those societies with the most highly developed agriculture would eventually dominate and in many cases enslave those societies that continued to rely on hunting, gathering, and inefficient agriculture, but by now this should be readily apparent.Therefore, using the terms "blessing" and "curse" in a purely secular way, it can be said that highly developed agriculture was a blessing, and being nomadic was a curse. These blessings and curses were not limited to one generation. In fact, to understand them we must look at the whole course of history.
If we suppose that this dichotomy was known by God previous to the creation of Earth, then it is not unreasonable to say that God blessed certain people with agriculture and cursed others with a nomadic lifestyle. Of course, in this case the curse is more the lack of a blessing, since every society as far as we know started out in hunter-gatherer mode. The transition was just being made by the time the story in Genesis is supposed to have happened.It also so appears that the societies that were blessed with agriculture also happen to have fairer skin than many of the societies that they eventually subjugated. But I think that the question of skin color is of little importance in determining which societies eventually came to dominate. Both skin color and agricultural development are correlated to a large degree with the location where the societies were located, but one had a more direct impact on the result when the different groups came into conflicts.
So let us suppose that God planned all of this. Why would he do so? Why would he bless some people and not others? This question is equivalent to asking why he would let some societies develop in equatorial regions and others in Mediterranean climates with plenty of domesticable plants and animals. But to state it like that almost obviates the question if you believe God acts within the bounds of natural law. He created it like that because differences in climate are inevitable when creating a planet suitable for human life, and differences in climate will inevitably lead to differences in food production, which in turn lead to different rates of technological and societal development. The "blessings" and "curses" that result are very real, as anyone who has ever been subjugated to a more advanced society will tell you. They are also, by their very nature, passed on from one generation to another.
So then our question becomes: are these physical differences due to moral or spiritual gradations that existed prior to creation, or that were manifested in such things as the murder of Abel? Or in other words, did God give the best spirits His best real estate and the ancestry with the most material advantage? I think it would be ridiculous to claim that every member of a powerful Western society was of higher moral caliber than every member of a less developed society. It is clearly not true. But is there a statistical difference?
I think that the question would be a bit humorous if it were not for the fact people have taken some very strong opinions and done some very terrible things based on those opinion. It is one of the key questions underlying racism. However, it is not the key question when considering the doctrine of foreordination. Trouble arises when people fail to see the difference. So what is the difference?
The question underlying foreordination is whether God chooses certain spirits and places them on Earth in a way that He sees fit in order to achieve His ends. In some cases this might involve placing them in societies which are, or are destined to become, the dominant soceities in the world.
Is it unreasonable to believe that God chose Abraham and Moses and placed them smack in the middle of the fertile crescent at a time when human culture was just beginning to develop because He knew which areas on Earth were going to be the first to develop agriculture and whose cultures would eventually come to dominate the whole world?
Is it unreasonable to believe that "unto whom much is given, much is required..." so that those who are born into powerful societies have special responsibilities to minister unto those who have been born into less fortunate circumstances?
If you believe in God, such things are not so unreasonable. So to be honest, I think it is largely true that the black races were cursed to be "servants of servants" for generation after generation. That is just a restatement of history. I also think it is entirely possible that there was an historical person named Cain who killed his brother and (perhaps for this reason) rejected the sedentary lifestyle, thereby bringing the curse of eventual subjugation upon all of his offspring. Of course I am not sure that the story is literally true in its entirety, or whether he was actually black, or whether his offspring became associated through intermarriage with another nomadic people, etc. An answer to such questions exists, but I am not sure it is critical to my understanding of Earth's history or God's Plan.
Since it is such a sensitive issue, there isn't even complete agreement among scientists about the 'scientific cause' of differences in skin color. It seems reasonable to believe that people with dark skin are better equipeed to live in areas that receive more ultraviolet light. Some argue that sexual selection (differing concepts of beauty) is the most important factors when it comes to skin and hair color. However, whether natural or sexual selection be the cause, it does not appear that black skin arose seven thousand years ago as a result of a divine curse.
Still, the civilizations that eventually came to dominate and colonize the world mostly consisted of rather fair skinned people. A book I am reading argues (and quite convincingly) that the reason for this is mostly due to the fauna and flora available to those groups who were able to make the quickest and most successful transition from hunter-gathere to agricultural societies. In other words, location was more important than race.It seems as if there is no room for God in any of these theories. This is a particular instance of the general question of whether the creation (or history) requires an "intelligent design".
Does God participate in history, or are the religious accounts simply myths that serve some ancient cultural function?I will not attempt to answer this broader question except to say that science will always tend to eliminate the need to rely on miraculous explanations, but the diminishing need for explanatory myths does not prove the absence of anything divine. I maintain a personal faith in the existence of God for non-scientific reasons, but I also believe in the validity of science. The idea that God interracts with mankind is central to my belief, so I will take that as an assumption while making my points.
There is a long history of enmity between socieities (and individuals) that have different means of food production. A recent example is represented in the play Oklahoma, where farmers and ranchers can't get along. Cain and Able have often (and perhaps originally) been used as symbols of the conflict between settled agriculturalists and nomadic hunter-gatherers (or herders). It may not have been clear seven thousand years ago that those societies with the most highly developed agriculture would eventually dominate and in many cases enslave those societies that continued to rely on hunting, gathering, and inefficient agriculture, but by now this should be readily apparent.Therefore, using the terms "blessing" and "curse" in a purely secular way, it can be said that highly developed agriculture was a blessing, and being nomadic was a curse. These blessings and curses were not limited to one generation. In fact, to understand them we must look at the whole course of history.
If we suppose that this dichotomy was known by God previous to the creation of Earth, then it is not unreasonable to say that God blessed certain people with agriculture and cursed others with a nomadic lifestyle. Of course, in this case the curse is more the lack of a blessing, since every society as far as we know started out in hunter-gatherer mode. The transition was just being made by the time the story in Genesis is supposed to have happened.It also so appears that the societies that were blessed with agriculture also happen to have fairer skin than many of the societies that they eventually subjugated. But I think that the question of skin color is of little importance in determining which societies eventually came to dominate. Both skin color and agricultural development are correlated to a large degree with the location where the societies were located, but one had a more direct impact on the result when the different groups came into conflicts.
So let us suppose that God planned all of this. Why would he do so? Why would he bless some people and not others? This question is equivalent to asking why he would let some societies develop in equatorial regions and others in Mediterranean climates with plenty of domesticable plants and animals. But to state it like that almost obviates the question if you believe God acts within the bounds of natural law. He created it like that because differences in climate are inevitable when creating a planet suitable for human life, and differences in climate will inevitably lead to differences in food production, which in turn lead to different rates of technological and societal development. The "blessings" and "curses" that result are very real, as anyone who has ever been subjugated to a more advanced society will tell you. They are also, by their very nature, passed on from one generation to another.
So then our question becomes: are these physical differences due to moral or spiritual gradations that existed prior to creation, or that were manifested in such things as the murder of Abel? Or in other words, did God give the best spirits His best real estate and the ancestry with the most material advantage? I think it would be ridiculous to claim that every member of a powerful Western society was of higher moral caliber than every member of a less developed society. It is clearly not true. But is there a statistical difference?
I think that the question would be a bit humorous if it were not for the fact people have taken some very strong opinions and done some very terrible things based on those opinion. It is one of the key questions underlying racism. However, it is not the key question when considering the doctrine of foreordination. Trouble arises when people fail to see the difference. So what is the difference?
The question underlying foreordination is whether God chooses certain spirits and places them on Earth in a way that He sees fit in order to achieve His ends. In some cases this might involve placing them in societies which are, or are destined to become, the dominant soceities in the world.
Is it unreasonable to believe that God chose Abraham and Moses and placed them smack in the middle of the fertile crescent at a time when human culture was just beginning to develop because He knew which areas on Earth were going to be the first to develop agriculture and whose cultures would eventually come to dominate the whole world?
Is it unreasonable to believe that "unto whom much is given, much is required..." so that those who are born into powerful societies have special responsibilities to minister unto those who have been born into less fortunate circumstances?
If you believe in God, such things are not so unreasonable. So to be honest, I think it is largely true that the black races were cursed to be "servants of servants" for generation after generation. That is just a restatement of history. I also think it is entirely possible that there was an historical person named Cain who killed his brother and (perhaps for this reason) rejected the sedentary lifestyle, thereby bringing the curse of eventual subjugation upon all of his offspring. Of course I am not sure that the story is literally true in its entirety, or whether he was actually black, or whether his offspring became associated through intermarriage with another nomadic people, etc. An answer to such questions exists, but I am not sure it is critical to my understanding of Earth's history or God's Plan.
posted by Redbeard at 11:57 AM
3 Comments:
I have a response, Mike, I promise! Give me a couple of days to get to it. I'm sure you're so excited.
I agree that God works through natural law (I see no other way that God has worked), and it is not unreasonable to believe that God places certain people on earth in ways to achieve his end (it is certainly within God's ability to do so).
It is natural that groups of people will chose and inherent different ways of living and that some ways will be more advantageous in conquering other people. But I question your assumption that to dominate is to be blessed while to be subjugated is a curse. There are material advantages and disadvantages in this world, to be sure, but life is composed of more things than material possessions and political power. It is better to eat than to not eat, but isn't it also better to be good and loving than to be bad and selfish? I think Paul was alluding to an important point with his comparison of Native American culture to Anglo-American culture. There are many good and enviable ways of life that are not of the dominant culture. America is obviously the dominant force in the world, yet a great portion of our country's success is based upon opportunistic and immoral actions. We rose to power in large part by slavery and now we maintain our dominance in part by subjugating smaller countries into dependent poverty through debt and targeted trading deals instead of aiding them achieve material wealth themselves. Just because we are rich does not mean that we are smiled upon by God. Additionally, other cultures may be behind materially not because they are not able to dominate (for example, they did not have the ability to adapt to changing environments), but because they choose not to employ devious means (such as enslaving or deceiving others) to secure their own comfort.
What is God's end? The Mormon perspective is that his end is the practice of the gospel. I stated earlier that the only way to justify Jews' status as the chosen people is by the fact that they were given the gospel. You have promoted the concept of Jews being chosen, and yet one of the ideas you proposed for determining who is blessed (dominance as well as how dominance has been achieved throughout history) works against this idea. Hebrews were nomadic herders. Abel's sacrifice of meat was more pleasing than Cain's sacrifice of plants. By your argument, their very living is a curse. They were conquered by several civilizations, subjugated by the great powers of the times. There is no significant portion of their early history where they were materially and politically dominant over others. In fact, it was the subjugation of the Jews by the Roman Empire that enabled Christianity to spread throughout the world. And that fact is a perfect example to demonstrate why I think your proposal of foreordination is reasonable. Of course God would place people in specific areas to ensure his work is fulfilled. The roles of dominance and subjugation of people directly affect how the gospel spreads. However, I want to stress against something that you did not state, nor did you imply, but a twist of logic I see people making. That is the justification of any means to further the spread of the gospel. For example, I heard people support the Iraq war not through analysis on the political situation but because it would take the gospel into the Middle East. (I feel compelled to say that I was a supporter of the U.N. resolutions; this is not some political diatribe! Well, maybe it is. Come on, people, give a better reason that that.) More important than spreading the gospel is practicing the gospel. To chose our means is not our privilege. We are to do it God's way and God explicitly commands us to be righteous and full of love. Going to war based on spreading the gospel reeks of historical atrocities like the Inquisition. It is worth killing people to compel them to believe in Christ?
As for the historical basis of Cain, I, too, think it is possible there was a person named Cain who killed his brother. If he existed, he wasn't black. It is interesting that he was given the mark, whatever it was, a scar? a disease? so people wouldn't harm him. But the mark of Cain was conveniently twisted to justify dominance over other people. But I agree with you that knowing the exact basis of Cain is not important for understanding God's plan. I find the wording of one of your questions very appropriate. "Is it reasonable to believe that 'unto whom much is given, much is required...' so that those who are born into powerful societies have special responsibilities to minister unto those who have been born into less fortunate circumstances?" The verb to minister has two meanings. The first is to perform religious duties, and the second is to give aid or service. My understanding of the gospel is that it is impossible to practice if one is not promoting aid and service, and so I would say yes.
wow. you are both so eloquent and interesting...please discuss this more!
I have such a hard time putting these ideas and feelings into words, you are both expressing my thoughts and feelings, because I am often so torn between two sides. although you are not in opposition.
thanks for taking the time to write all of this. I like you Mike and Kristin.
Post a Comment
<< Home