Is the WTBTS racist?

by esther 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  Freddi:

  I do believe Bugeye was being a tad sarcastic/satirical here.

  He applied the same reasoning used to justify separation of Aboriginals to the situation of apartheid, thus showing that reasoning to be lacking.

  Sorry Prisca, but I think esther has a point here. For me, a relevant question would be "if an aboriginal did not wish to be in a separated congregation, could they freely join a white congregation." I suspect not.

  Certain individuals in an organisation being racist does not make the entire organisation racist. But here the organisation is using race as a tool for it's own agenda. That's wrong.

  Expatbrit
• 

  safe4kids

  I forgot to say....

  Dave and Esther both...very good points you make...
  Esther: esp. about the lack of opportunity to make friendships...how can they truly be part of the "brotherhood" if they're kept seperate? You know, that was part of the law in the south for awhile...it was called "equal but seperate"...which meant to the white "bosses" that blacks were equal, they just couldn't drink from the same water fountains...or ride the same buses...or go to the same schools...but, by god, they sure were equal!
  Dave: I love your sarcasm...and you make some great points, as well. What I am wondering about all of this is who made the decision to keep the Aboriginals seperate? Did they have any say in the matter? Is it what they want?

  I'm sorry folks...saying that they should be in their own congregations because they "relate" better to their own people just doesn't sit right with me...it sounds too much like double speak...and smacks of control...and various other nasties that have already been mentioned.

  Dana (in for a penny, in for a pound)

  "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
  Somebody else
• 

  Moxy

  Id been meaning to ask about something along these lines.

  ive heard that in some US communities that have widely spread social demographics that the congregations are sometimes deliberately split into rich and poor groups to make things go more smoothly and also because its difficult for someone to witness to a territory on the other side of the social fence. is this true or is it more just a result of territorial boundaries?

  mox
• 

  Free2Bme

  hi all
  Just like to say I never came across racism when I was a witness but thats easy for me to say as a white in a 98% white city.
  Some interesting stuff to muse over:
  http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/blacks.html

  Free
• 

  Jang

  For me, a relevant question would be "if an aboriginal did not wish to be in a separated congregation, could they freely join a white congregation." I suspect not.

  Actually they can, but in most places where they have aboriginal congregations they are because of the natural suspicion they have of whites and they are areas heavily inhabited by the aboriginals. We had some in our congregation, but they had been raised in the white community and blended in well. Also, the aboriginals have their own way of speaking ... wihch even my aboriginal foster daughter had trouble understanding after being out of their culture for 12 years ... now she speaks to her son in that lingo sometimes to get him used to it also ... so he will be bi-lingual and bi-cultural like she is.

  JanG
• 

  COMF

  So you said in your first letter that the WTBTS is racist

  
  Could you copy and paste that, AK? I'm missing it somehow in my reading.

  In the east Texas congregation I was in for my entire 12-year JW stint, the races numbered pretty much the same as the general population, which was about 3/5 white, 2/5 black, 1/5 latino (we called it "chicano" back then). There was great racial harmony among the congregation; it was one of the things that initially endeared the congregation to me.

  However, one Saturday I wound up working with a group of three black sisters (I'm a white male), and at lunchtime we went to a Dairy Queen to eat, where we all sat together; I didn't think anything about this, but after a while one of the sisters asked me if I noticed everyone staring at me (this was in about 1977). I said no, I wasn't paying any attention. This opener led to a discussion about racial tension in the history of the congregation. It turned out that the congregations had been segregated in the not-so-distant past. The sister explained to me that the excuse given for this was some kind of government legality, which I can't remember now, but it tied in with the civil rights changes and forced desegregation that came about in the sixties. The sister had a friend who was a member of a church, and the two of them were always at each other about which religion was more racially progressive. This church also was segregated, and also used the legality as its reason.

  So the legality was removed by the civil rights changes. Then the brothers expected to be told by the society immediately that they should combine the congregations into integrated ones by location rather than segregated by race. But the instruction didn't come. Months went by, and they were still segregated. The other church went on and announced that people were free to attend wherever, although in actuality nobody much tried attending anywhere else but where they were accustomed to going.

  The brothers wrote a letter, asking for advice. The society wrote back telling them that the matter was being reviewed, and that they would deal with it in their own time. And more months went by. Finally, after about a year, the instruction came to hold mixed meetings.

  This was a surprise to me, because the different races got along so well in that congregation. It truly had the feel of a brotherhood, at least from the racial aspect. We gathered at each other's houses, became personal friends and ran around together even when not in service. It was as close to racial harmony as I've ever been.

  COMF
• 

  TheApostleAK

  So you said in your first letter that the WTBTS is racist

  
  Could you copy and paste that, AK? I'm missing it somehow in my reading.

  Open your eye's.
• 

  outnfree

  I have never experienced racism in any congregation of JW's with which I was associated.

  In my most recent congregation, which is in Oakland County, MI (now one of the wealthiest counties in the US), our Hall was in a posh town, but our territory included an industrial-town as well as the City of Pontiac which is poor, with a lousy school system, and mostly Black with some whites and a new influx of Mexicans. For a time, we had the Spanish congregation meeting with us for bi-lingual Service and TMS meetings, but they would hold their own WT Studies, Talks and Book Studies in Spanish. At any rate, out in service and in the Hall, everyone mixed happily regardless of race or economic status.

  The only discrimination was spiritual discrimination -- weak or strong, "in" clique or not.

  outnfree
• 

  anglise

  The only racism I ever came across was in the head of a Sri Lankan sister who was convinced that if somebody (anybody in a cong of 100 plus) didnt talk to her at a meeting then that person was racist. Yuo try speaking to everyone at every meeting when there are that number and you are an elder trying to please everyone.
  She was often accusing people at the KH and her place of work of this supposed racism.
  I do remember a talk about some missionaries going to Africa and the brother brought out that they had to overcome any personal prejudices that thay might of had and embrace the African brothers and sisters, which did surprise me as I had not been brought up in the org and had never been taught to think any differantly of other races or nationalities.
• 

  BugEye

  JanG

  Two points to note here.

  First of all, in congregations you are "allowed" to go out of your territory and attend a different meeting, but that does not mean that you are free to attend the other because of the pressure applied. Similarly, the aboriginal congregation is "encouraged" to support itself and help each other. Whilst someone with your intestinal fortitude may indeed have no problem ignoring peer pressure, many people do not have the same ability.

  Secondly, even if aboriginal people want to be segregated, that does not mean that it is not racism. Indeed it is then racism from the other side.

  To discriminate means:

  be, set up, or act on the basis of, a difference between, on the grounds of race, colour, sex etc.

  (Little Oxford Dictionary]

  Whether there are benefits to anyone by a policy of discrimination is irrelevant, as it is still discrimination.

  If a white person only feels comfortable being with a white person and acts accordingly, it is racism. If a coloured person only feels comfortable being with a coloured person and acts accordingly then that too is racism. Being comfortable only with your own "kind" IS racism.

  To claim to have a racially united organisation is to claim integration and a "blindness" to colour. That is, from within, the members would tend to not notice colour or race. Separating into race does not allow that to occur.

  Also, you make out that Aboriginies have an "aboriginal" language. There is no common "aboriginal" language and the language you are talking about is simply a way of using english. That is like saying that because we have different phrases and word usage, Americans and Australians speak a "different" language. I can speak American, English and Australian and I can even understand Scotts, so in your definitions, that would make me multi-lingual.

  Whether someone has a culture and/or is in a minority, is not relevant to unification.

  Aborigines distrusting white Australians is no different to white Australians distrusting Aborigines.

  Dave