How does one renounce one’s membership from the white club?
If there are no consequences for doing so, what’s the point?
By informing the Church that you’re not talking to them any more. You can get the proper form here.
I’ve asked the same question several times, and all I got was a repetition of some gobbledy-gook rhetoric and no concrete suggestions.
Is there any ‘there’ there? I suspect not.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not complicated at all. You just declare yourself “other”. Then when you tell someone you’re “other”, they think “OK, the guy’s white”.
One of my intentions is to engage in public and private discussions and debates to challenge existing misunderstanding and to try and educate people about the divisive political origin of the “white race”
I thank you all for being active participants.
You don’t even need a form. If you no longer believe in God, or in the teaching of the Church, you just walk away and stop going to Mass.
Voila! You’re not Catholic any more.
That’s a link to a page. To link to a post, the easiest way is to click on the post number up on the top right of an individual post, which should give you a link specifically to it.
Look, I’m already on record as saying that pale, Irish-American Astorian has nothing obvious or important in common with a random Spaniard, Swede, Dutchman, Russian or Jew.
If that amounts to race treachery, okay, fine- I’m a race traitor.
And yet, what does that mean in real terms? NOTHING! I can say "I do not belong to any ‘white race,’ whatever that means. But that costs me nothing at all. White people who ARE racists will still treat me better than they treat black men.
If you try that when you’re a Mormon, they’ll track you down and bring you back 
There must be dozens of ex-Catholics among SDMB regulars. As them how easy it is.
Just stop showing up! It’s easy. I’ll miss you, though.
Oh, I’m Baptized, Confessed, Communioned, and Confirmed. I’m sure they consider me still a member even though I’ve not been a believer in > 45 years. It’s like the Mafia, in a way. There’s only one way out!
Nirvana fallacy,. The original premises is not that this will solve the problem of racism.
There will always be explicit racism,. The goal is to reduce the power of one of the primary tools while also hopefully reduceing the frequency that those with implicit bias follow the true racist causes.
Theoretically, once you’re baptized you’re always a member.
It depends on the Church but some things like baptism are forever…seeing as you have no choice in the matter in most cases that is a bummer.
But you can write them a letter.
Actually the category exists due to the fact that humans have different levels of melanin in their skin.
While we are at setting the meaning of terms right, “Race” has been used for centuries if not millenia, before this apparent conspiracy by the “White Race”, to classify people according to their ethnic affiliation; the reason, I presume, that you associate that sort of… sorting as a white thing is because you seem to have a narrow view of history; rest assure that non-white “races” were (and are) quite able and willing to use melanin content and other superficial physiognomy markers as shorthand for identifying groups of people.
For instance Native Americans talking about how the White Man came and effed up everything; I don’t think they used that sort of language as part of a grand scheme to elevate the white race above others.
You mean that changing the content of your character doesn’t change the attitudes towards you from people that would rather judge you by the colour of your skin?
Well, knock me over with a feather… :eek:
Cite, Provide me any written source in the colonies calling all europeans “white” that is pre 1961.
More importantly provide a cite that these people with less melanin thought of themselves as being “white” and a cohesive group based on that trait alone as you claim.
This whole thread makes me want to go rewatch Bulworth.
Man I suck with dates in this thread for some reason 1681, or before Bacon’s Rebellion.
I think there is a general misconception that Africa was used as a source of slaves do to purely race.
The English actually wanted to enslave Native Americans and the Irish but there was a general push to outlaw the enslavement of Christians. Originally this effort was to prevent their sale to Non-Christians (read Muslims) but it grew to a general prohibition over time.
People of African decent were mostly targeted because they were not viewed as Christian and due to the Atlantic sailing routes Ships that took Rum/Cotten from America then Textiles and other goods to Africa had spare cargo space and there was a supply of non-Christian labor near their port of call.
Previous to 1681 non-land owning “whites” and others were equal under the law. And actually most of the participants in Bacon’s Rebellion were individuals with European ancestry as most of the labor force was European (Mostly English).
Claiming that there was bias before this and now has already been addressed and does not invalidate the premise. The fact that people self identify as members of the “white race” was new and novel and it was leveraged to break apart the various factions of lower classes.
I have provided cites for this in this thread so please come back with cites. I will not concede this point without evidence.
Plus if you find it you can become a famous person within the Historian community!!!
[QUOTE=rat avatar;19939706
My stance and the general scientific consensus is that there is no biological basis for the concept of race. There are very real negative effects of the fully manufactured sociological construct of race.
It seems that their point is to “disown” being labeled as “white” as that label helps perpetuate the costs of the entire concept of race.
Here is a segment of their stance.
[URL=“http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html”]
Would it be constructive as a person who is currently labeled “white” (although my Finnish ancestors were not considered white) to refuse the label in an attempt to make the concept worthless.
While the census and other government agencies and forms only care about what a person describes themselves as it does help perpetuate the costs to individuals whom are arbitrarily placed in other groups. And it does seem the right thing to do to deny the label in order to make those concepts meaningless.
I am tipping towards being a “race traitor” if it has a chance of helping abolish the label.
[/QUOTE]
I guess the first question I’d have is how you throw off the sociological construct. Those are some pretty deep roots. On top of that, I think many folks equate the concept with culture (perhaps mistake the concept for culture?) and I do believe that cultural identity can be important and useful. Seems to me those two things are somewhat entwined and you’d risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
To the bit that you quoted from your stance, what percentage of folks do you think operate from that extreme? Placing race above all other concerns or values? I would have to think that percentage is somewhat low.