Bikari Shavanu, a black atheist, humanist and co founder of the Black Humanists and non Believers of Sacramento, pens a strong criticism of Robert Blumner's editorial Secular Humanism and the color Blind Society in the August September twenty twenty four issue of Free Inquiry. Blumner argues that humanists should strive for a color blind society, claiming that focusing on rage
perpetuates dicision and reverse racism. However, Shavannu argues that this approach ignores the realities of systemic racism and the historical context of black empowerment movement. He contends that Blumber's dismissal of race as a crucial factor in addressing inequities undermines the ongoing struggles against racial injustice. The Stories from the Friendly Atheists by Bikari Shavanu and Hemet Metta, published on August thirteenth, twenty twenty four. And I'm coming to you, Phil.
I have a very serious question for you. What the fuck is black supremacy?
That is, if Cynthia, That's the same question I've been asking myself since I've read this article. What do they mean like black supremacy. I've heard of black power, where you are endport black people to be able to fight against and overcome systemic racism. But black supremacy this is a new term. Coin because even in searching for the definition, if there's such a definition online or in any dictionary,
I have performed none. So I am kind of puzzled what they mean by black supremacy, because supremacy will indicate someone having power over another group, and right now, as far as we know, black people don't have no power over another race group, which so I think it's more like a straw a straw man created to, you know, a straman created to say, oh, black people have the supremacy over white are trying to work for this supremacy over white people, But that is not the case. That's
a straman argument. You know, how systemic racism has marginalized people Black people within the American society and in the even the European society and other societies where they are minorities. So that's a very good question. I will I wish the person has stated what they meant by black supremacy. Apparently they didn't.
Well, maybe just maybe it's up there with the black job. So rob critiques from Blumner actually has this idea of race conscious policies as a form of reverse racism. How might such critiques undermine efforts to actually address systemic in.
Equation, Well, I think I calling it reverse racism, what you're doing is you're shifting the goalpost. I might be in the extreme minority here, and I think that there is some sentiment of reverse racism that I think people want to make sense because you are making a choice or doing a thing based on someone's race. But if you are doing reverse racism, then you're just doing racism. I don't know why it's reversed, it's just you're doing
the thing. But that's my petition, that's my position. So when you call things reverse racism, just it just ends up. What you're doing is you're creating a false psychotomy because it's like, it's not racism, it's reverse racism when we're actually trying to talk about the same thing, and you can have a much easier discussion when you're both actually
on the same page. So when you present it is reverse racism, what you're doing is you're creating a position that is oppositional to the person you're trying to even talk to in the first place about the very same topic, which is going to get in the way of trying to solve anything when you've already put yourself in the position of I am against what you're talking about, even though I'm talking about the thing you say, because it's different somehow it's a bistically problematic.
Persecution time. Plus you want to go ahead and talk a little bit more about that, phebe well.
The language being used in the original article, it makes me roll my eyes. It makes me roll my eyes, It makes me want to scream, It makes me want to throttle something because some of the language us is like one of the phrases in the original articles. But today's followers of the identitarian left now the handmaids of neo racism. It's like the guy decided they were going to cram in every nonsensical word and phrase and sound
bite that he could. But every time I hear anybody use that combination, I have to I reach for a dictionary to go what do you actually mean? Because we hear the term handmaidens of dot dot dot or rallied around, but it has many different meanings and a lot of people, Butcher, what the meaning is. The most common meaning that it's actually used is actually an illusion to the Margaret Atward novel,
and that's in the derogatory sense. But the overarching meaning is no longer the female attendant or made, which is the archaic meaning. And no, it does not refer to the moth. That's you know, something for you know, lepidoctory.
To go kind of like the math, especially the story hour that you actually have to tell within five minutes or less, list or with south slides, but please continue.
What they're actually meaning is that it's something that supports something else, or in Britain, something that's useful but subordinate, or in America something that's useful but in a subordinate capacity. So the British term it's for the subordinate purpose, whereas
in the American subbortinate capacity. And when you start rambling on about the use of InVogue phrasing in your articles, you create a sense that you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about, that you're just somebody that is screaming. I feel persecuted. I feel like I'm a victim. I want to be a victim.
I think that that's the issue that I got specifically from Blumbner, and just to give credence to a previous episode that we have done earlier this week, she is like the head of like the Richard Dawkin Society, et cetera, et cetera. Blah blah skippity bobo. So as my daddy used to say, when bigots blocked together. Regardless, Phil, yes
they big it to together. But you know, Phil, I know that like to I want to come back to this whole notion of colored barns and how she uses this phrase, in my opinion, in a very disingenuous way. How did you feel when you were reading her article compared to Bakari's reaction to it, especially when she is throwing out that particular phrase about we should be color blind. But the reason that we're not being color blind is
because the blacks one let us colorline. I maybe being a little bit hyperbolic, but that's how I.
Took Actually I took it in the same way because I think it was also right hearing using trying to use color blinding blindness. Yes, some people we realize, okay, everyone is a human being, but then you and in that case we talk about equal rights for all human beings that will come on the color blindness very look for human rights for a human beings, but to use it to dismiss the actual realities of marginalized groups like
the black community. Right, it is it is basically a slap in the face because we still have problems within the society, systemic racism, problems ongoing. What I realized they tried to do was to as support for their right Heron made claims about certain groups, were certain groups in the that were formed to empower black people, like the Black Panthers and and the Nation of Islam. And I made some faults claims about them and what they were really about. And this is where they pushed this thing
about black supremacy, this thing black supremacy. Yeah, and and so so the thing is is that a lot of what you saw there was this red heron. And the evidence is to the contrary, we have still have the problem of red lining occurring. You have the and the black community. It's hard difficult for them to get housing in certain areas, especially it's an area, let's say, where they want what we call the one percent result. Right.
There are also the parties in education, you and and then you look at the wealth of black families in comparison to white white te what we call white te families, by the income difference is so large.
Yeah it's big.
Yeah, it's so large.
It's over ninety percent in the United States.
Yeah. So it had me kind of taking back and how they are making these claims, Oh you if you, if you, if you are speaking out right, or we have gotten this far and so we don't need to look at it anymore. So we need to have this colored blindness. Yeah, ignorant, it's a bait. It's a whitey
supremacist talking point. This is the talking point we hear from white tea supremacist color blindness, Like the same black lives matter the whole day came all lives matter to minimize the the things that black people are going to, marginalized groups are going to in the United States. So I found it very dishonest, and I am very disappointed as far as a humanist supposed to a humanist that's supposed to champion because of marginalized groups making statements like this.
Yeah, you know, I'm rob I see itching, and I'm going to let you go ahead and speak. But I just have to say this really quick. I'm going to start saying instead of white supremacy, white tea supremacy because I just like it. But Rob, go ahead, what were you going to say.
Hi, resident white guy here. I've I've never thought of that actually as the colorblind society or I don't see color in the same line as oh, what did you say all lives matter? I've never thought of it that
and that is compelling. But what I was going to say is that Bloomer's original article, the way that it read to me as a person who just is very frustrated in that race is continuing to be talked about, and I legitimately thought of it in the same way as like companies try to push the responsibility of recycling onto the individual, where it's like, oh, we're not going to look at the systems and the things and the constructs of power such that are going to actually affect
how different people of different races interact with each other. It's actually your job to not see the color and just that's your problem. And on one hand, because philosophically this is my second point, I kind of get it, at least in the very naive sort of sense, in that it shouldn't matter because in the same way that I'm not responsible for eighty percent of pollution five companies, is like, it's not a thing that registers to me, and therefore I think it's not a thing that registers
to most people. So it's very easy. It's very easy, I think, to fall into color blind color blindness, which in some ways is fair, but it's not because then it's literally delusional, because you're just not recognizing the world
that you live in. So the thing that I wanted to bring up is called the original position or the veil of ignorance, where it is the It is the idea of imagine, no one lives on earth yet, and now you, as an unknown entity, gets to make all the rules of society for everyone that could ever possibly exist. Isn't it obvious that you should make rules of society such that no matter how anyone is born, everyone has a fairly equal chance. And that's an idea that came
up fairly recently. I think the people who said it, I could look it up. But the veil of ignorance is fantastic, and it's a wonderful idea of just like, as a truly literally it's called the original position in like an ethical idea.
Here's the structured itself.
The progressive tax system based itself on the veil of ignorance. It doesn't take into account worth the society or anything. It's just if you can pay.
More, you are graduated tax rate. That's where it.
Comes from, the rules.
But the problem, last last point, The problem is that that's great for a world that doesn't exist yet. Unfortunately, we live in a world that does exist in the way that it is now, so we should talk about the world that it is.
And and and and to your point on that part is my frustration with this. Yeah, because if we're especially like if we're talking about America, I mean, like I understand, like racism is an issue all over the world, but race specifically was invented here. Race. Race wasn't meant to here.
The ideas that actually came to racism came elsewhere. But the actual creating laws on how to govern people based on their skin color was invented right here in the good old US of A before it was the US of A. Yes, it's is as America as apple pie.
God I love.
Jeffrey Dalles Jeffrey Dawes was great at doing that.
Yeah, thank thank you, and you know, shout out to Nathaniel Bacon. But the issue is America's never been a color blind society ever, and I know that like as far as like you know, activists, activists have you know, come, especially like when you're talking about the abolition movement, abolitionist movement, to the civil rights movement, to even the black power black empowerment movement, these were all movements that were created in order for us to get to a place where
color does not matter. But the only time that color mattering or not mattering should matter, specifically in how we govern people. And that is what she's missing, because the standards on how government is set up and how it treats its constituency is going to differ depending on what race that person happens to be.
Long just look at the costal system the America has created. The cost seral system that America has created has disproportionate numbers of non white people locked up, So Hispanics, African Americans, and people from lower ethnic socioeconomic classes as well. They are disproportionally locked up in a country that locked up more people than anyone else.
On Earth, Yeah, exactly.
America kills more people from ethnic minorities than any other country on Earth. It doesn't quite kill as many people as other countries, But if you're a methan minority, you are more likely to get to death mienal than if you are a white man.
Yeah, and you're two to three times likely to have an adverse interaction with police if you happen to be black or Hispanic versus being Right now.
Two point two five million prison places the UK has eighty seven thousand. America over polices communities that each views as problematic, So lower socio economic communities, which are not usually going to be the ethnic minority, so higher socioeconomic communities are policed less. Crimes of poverty are prosecuted more so, white collar crime is prosecuted far less than blue collar
crime is. And this is the problem because it results in those individuals who generally go towards those jobs, who are usually of lower.
Ethnic minority areas.
And lower socioeconomic classes, to be locked up more because police go and view those individuals as problematic, so they go and police it more so. Therefore, look inspired the what was the original reasons behind the LA riots? It wasn't the Rodney King beating. That was a symptom of la being chronically over policed in the black community in Los Angeles. And when you went outside of the black community as a black person in Los Angeles, you were
targeted by the police. You were over police sing.
Fun faust fun fact. That's the reason why there was a Black Panther Party specifically started in Los Angeles. It was because of the over police scene in black and black communities, in black and brown communities and black the Black Panthers formed and decided to take up their Second Amendment rights in order for them to protect themselves. It was never about them going out and you know, like
offing police officers. No, it was always about them actually protecting community against police officers that would incarcerate them and kill them at a higher rate. But Rob, I see you itching again because you are our resident white guy who was talking. So I'm going to go ahead you another another.
Right, that's.
My name is Rob the resident. Yeah, exactly, go ahead.
It's just straight up stealing a TikTok joke from somewhere. It was just it was so funny. I don't know who was what they said that the greatest moment of white privilege they ever had was that while they were driving around in a neighborhood, they got pulled over and they said, oh good, now I can ask for directions. All the white people can have that kind of interaction with a cab because I mean, I doubt Bloomer would.
Think that way privilege exists.
But just like as a side note, if you acknowledge that white privileges is that can only exist due to racism.
Yeah, here's the thing to understand when it comes to affirmative action, which is in the sights in the article originally, So affirmative action is not actually the argument that people think it is that the reason that it works, it's not a The argument that goes off the rails is that it's correcting a history of inequality.
No, no, no, no no.
Affirmative action admits have a higher predisposition to contribute positively to society. And the way how you get communities which have been traditionally underserved to do that is to encourage
a predisposition to positive contribution to society moving forwards. And that's what affirmative action does, and that is why it is pushed back against because it allows the ethnic minorities that are benefiting from those programs to be in control of their own lives and to benefit not just themselves but the communities that they come from, and give opportunities
to others to see people in those positions. I will always and forever in a day, hold two women, two white women, one Jewish woman to be on my wall as people I look up to. One of them is Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the other one is Sandra Day O'Connor. First two women ever to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Indeed, and Phil, I'm going to give you our beijein brother, I'm going to go ahead and give you the last panel word disc go ahead and say what you feel.
Yeah. So AAA think that in terms of affirmative action, those as you correctly said, the pantry group, those groups were set up for that purpose. They know that systemic racism is still a fact. It's still happening. It is not And even when surveys were done among black group right the the black groups, black persons douce this still
they said that systemic racism is still a problem. So I, as I said, it's still have me baffled how this person is coming and claiming this is not a problem and trying to down play that and the for example, the person was saying that the people that were saying black people don't want affirmative action or they don't want to have race and ethnicity used for admission process process
for selective colleges. However, a Pew research twenty three phone that for seven percent Black Americans supported use of race and ethnicity and admission process for selective colleges, twenty nine percent opposed, and twenty four percent was not sure. But the Bloomers give some statistics which actually did not give a breakdown of this and made it look as if black people did not support race and ethnicity as being
should be used in our admissions to selective colleges. The thing to notice is that it's not just using race and ethnicity. There are other factors that are in place, Other factors like in terms of the college scores, the API scores scores better or not those persons have this score. So it's not just that factor that is used to put or to say they're being black people put in
just because they're black or because they below this ethnic group. No, there are other consideration, and we have persons in the black community who are just as intelligent or even more
intelligent than persons in the white the community. And they is because of the lack of opportunities that have been the lack of opportunities in the past that this statement, this clause is put into I think the laws where yes, you have to have a certain quarter of of of of minorities in your university outset into colleges, but they're not just acseting because they're black. They still have to meet certain other criteria.
Exactly there there there's other criteria that has been set up in order for you to actually admit a person. It's not just because they came in and said that I'm black or what have you. But I just I just want to tell everybody, and I do apologize guys, but I'm about to get on my soapbox. So here Govens editorial. I warned you, I warned you. But Lovener's editorial Second Humanism and the color wise Society is deeply flawed.
As a black atheist and humanists, I'm troubled by her promotion of a colorblind society because it ignores the persistent racial injustices that we face today. The idea of color blindness is problematic because it attempts to erase the unique experiences and systematics and systemic struggles of black people under the guise of equality. This perception dangerously overlooks the historical
and ongoing racism that continues to impact marginalized communities. Blunder criticizes what she calls black supremacy and the iditarian left without acknowledging the historical context of movements like the Black Panther Party. These groups sought justice and empowerment in response to severe racial oppression, not supremacy. Misrepresenting their aims only serves to perpetuate a myth of reverse racism and dismisses genuine struggles of equity. Her claim that racism is large
a relic of the past ignores current realities. Racism persists in institutions and policies affecting education, housing, and criminal justice. Addressing these systemic issues requires more than ignoring race. It demands active engagement with disparities that still exist. Blunder's dismissal of affirmative action and similar measures fails to recognize their
role in addressing historical disadvantages. Affirmative action is not reverse racism, honey, It only is a necessary step towards balancing the scales of justice. True humanism should embrace diversity and tackle systemic injustices head on. Instead of promotion cut of BINDNSS, we should acknowledge and address the ongoing impacts of racism. Humanism must amplify, marginalize voices, and advocate for real systemic changes to achieve genuine equality for all. And we can start with reparation s