Another example of racism is the treatment of the Jewish people living in Germany by the Nazis. A German magazine called Ostara written at the beginning of this century said that throughout history there had been a struggle between two groups. These groups were the Heldings, the heroic men, and their enemies the Shrattlings. The Shrattlings were small ape-like animals. Ostara said that the blonde-haired blue-eyed Aryans were the master race and would fight and destroy the mixed ‘inferior’ races in a coming battle. From this a new, pure people would be born and the animal men would be sterilized and exterminated. The Aryans, claimed by Ostara to be the ‘sons of the gods’ would completely destroy the children of the Shrattlings and rule the new, beautiful world. These ideas were seen by many to be completely outrageous and offensive. However, the prophecies of Ostara made a lasting impression on a young German boy named Adolf Hitler. Hitler went on to create his own theories about race, and led to the brutal murders of over six million people. Hitler and the Nazis claimed that the Jewish men, women and children were the cause of all the problems in Germany. That they started the war, that they had caused the economic problems in Germany. Some people went along with Hitler’s regime because they believed that what he was saying was true. In Germany there had been massive numbers of unemployment and poverty between the wars and so the Jews were an easy target for the blame of the country’s problems because people did not want to think of themselves to be the ones to blame. This led to increasing anti-Semitic feeling because people found it easier to listen to these people telling them who was to blame for the trouble Germany was in and that the extermination of these people would be the cure than to not give in to the extreme racist views being held by the Nazis. The extermination of the Jews in firing ranges, concentration camps and gas chambers was the end product of racism.
ii) What Christian teachings might be used in a discussion about racism?
In Jesus’ time, racial prejudice was as prevalent as it is today as is shown by the Jews’ treatment of the Samaritans. Most Jews would have nothing to do with and looked down upon the Samaritans. They despised the Samaritan religion and disliked the Samaritans for being of mixed race. Jesus showed in his famous parables how wrong this attitude was. One of his most well known teachings is the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10). The story tells of a man travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem who is robbed, beaten and stripped by thieves. A man from the same town as the victim walked past him and did not help him. A priest then walked past him and did not help. Finally a man from Samaria (an enemy of the victim’s land) walked past and helped the victim. The Samaritan clothed, fed, and sheltered the victim. One of the lessons of this story is that we should all help each other even if the person you are helping is different to you.
We can find many instances in the bible where it is clearly stated that racism in all its forms is wrong and goes against the wishes of God. For example:
“Do not ill-treat foreigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you
would a fellow Israelite and love them as you love yourselves. Remember that you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” – Leviticus 19:33-34
This tells Christians that they should not treat people from different cultures and backgrounds differently to themselves because they will be foreigners in other countries and would not want to be mistreated. It is also saying that you should treat foreign people as you would your friends, people you know and indeed how you would want to be treated yourself.
“So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women, you are all one in union with Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28 This passage teaches Christians that there are no differences between them and that they are all equals. This means, therefore, that no one should be treated as different from anyone else, whether that means treating them better or worse than you would others.
“There is no longer any distinction between Gentiles and Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarians, savages, slaves, and free men.” – Colossians 3:11 These teachings from Paul, would seem to rule out racism altogether because if it is wrong to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, men and women, and slaves and free men; then it is wrong to distinguish between black and white also.
We find in Genesis 10, “The generations of Noah” that it was from Noah’s sons and their offspring that all the nations of the world were created after the flood. “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” This would imply that while there were divisions and separate countries and nations that in fact everyone on the earth is related and stems from one family. This would support the Christian view that we are all brothers and sisters of the same race. In chapter 11 of Genesis it states that, “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech” this supports the idea that despite biological and cultural differences, we are all essentially the same.
All denominations of the Christian Church strongly oppose all forms of racism and accept the example set by Jesus and his disciples in the bible. Pope John Paul II commissioned a report in 1988 called “The Church and Racism”. Some of the main points of this were: - “Everyone has the same nature and origin: we are created by God in his image.”, “God offers salvation to everyone, to all nations”. The Church encouraged Christians to welcome differences between people because of the enrichment this brings to our communities. The document also stated that respect for others is essential and discrimination must be eliminated because it is “alien to God’s design”. Christians were encouraged to live by the message “every person is my brother or sister”.
B. Explain how Christians might put their beliefs about racism into action
The Bible provides several bases for resistance to racism. Jesus said “Love one another, as I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13). In Genesis 1:27 it says that “God created human beings, making them to be like himself” – i.e. all humans are equal. Bible passages also include “Love them like you love yourself”; “Judge them upon their character, not what they look like” and “Even if they are your enemy, you should still treat them well”.
An example of a Christian who put his beliefs about racism into action is Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was a Baptist Minister in America and is famous for his work in opposing racism. Discrimination against black people was very common in the Southern States of the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. For example, black people earned only half that of white people, many did not have the vote, and certain public places were labelled ‘whites only’. White people had priority in many areas, such as seats on public transport; a white person could ask a black person to give up their seat if there were none left in the white areas. On 1st December 1965, a tired black woman refused to give up her seat to a young white man. This was classed as an offence and she was then arrested. Martin Luther King led a bus boycott where black people refused to use the buses in the area as a protest against the way they were treated by society. This gained him recognition as the leader of the Civil Rights movement campaigning for equal treatment of blacks and whites.
Martin Luther King believed very strongly in a non-violent policy and preached this view to blacks in America. King organised a series of peaceful marches and demonstrations to help promote civil rights. By making sure blacks remained non-violent he could show everyone how civilised blacks were and that it was wrong to treat them as second class citizens. King believed that violence gave the opposition an excuse not to grant justice. In 1963, during a huge march in Washington, King delivered his most well known speech, “I have a dream….”. He talked of “sons of slaves and sons of slave owners sitting down at the table of brotherhood”. King was so successful with his civil rights movement that he gained a huge number of white followers. While other Black Leaders in the civil rights movement held the view that all white people were evil, Martin Luther King maintained that this was not the case. He also stated that Christian love was the way forward and that love was the supreme morale norm. He said “Love is the only force capable of turning an enemy into a friend’. Even though he withstood attacks and death-threats for his beliefs, King maintained that he was not afraid because his own life was not important to him, but it was the cause that he wished to succeed. This meant that he stuck to his rule of non-violence from the black civil rights protesters, however much violence was shown to them. King was eventually to die in a violent way despite living his life by the teachings of the bible when he was assassinated in April 1968.
In South Africa the Christian community led part of the internal anti-apartheid movement. Examples of Christian leaders were Bishop Trevor Huddleston, Desmond Tutu and Alan Paton. Alan Paton was a Christian and a novelist, who protested against apartheid through his novels, such as “Cry, the Beloved Country” and “Ah, But Your Land is Beautiful”. Paton described the life of blacks in these novels, in some cases bringing their lives to the attention of the outside world for the first time. Although he was placed under house arrest because of the controversy of his writing for large periods of his life, his novels were printed outside of South Africa and “Cry, the Beloved Country” was made into a film. In his books he showed the blacks’ way of life - that they were a very civilised and humble people who tried to live ordinary and Christian lives but their conditions very often forced them into crime and other temptations. For example, in “Ah, But Your Land is Beautiful”, the main character, Prem Bodasingh, the brightest student in Durban, sat in the “no blacks” section of the public library to protest against a racist law.
Bishop Huddleston obtained first hand experience of life for the blacks in South Africa when he took charge of a church in Sophiatown, raising money to build schools and nurseries and successfully campaigning to provide black children with free school meals. Huddleston became known across the world when he opposed the destruction of Sophiatown.
Bishop Huddleston stated that Christianity was totally opposed to an apartheid system of government and attacked the pass laws used to control the movement of blacks. Huddleston campaigned peacefully, but was frustrated by the tentative approach of the church. For example, in 1943 Bishop Clayton wrote “The Church and the Nation”, but Huddleston criticised his phrase “the gradual removal of the colour-bar”. He argued that if the colour-bar was evil, why should the commission of the church ask for its gradual removal; it should go immediately (source: Towards the Mountain – Alan Paton). Clayton wrote to Huddleston, saying that “there were different kinds of persons”; Huddleston stated that “there is nothing more evil than apartheid”.
Huddleston had impressed Archbishop Desmond Tutu when Tutu was a child, as Huddleston showed respect and politeness to Tutu’s mother and other blacks. Tutu argued that Christians must test government policies against Christian teaching. Tutu related biblical episodes, such as God leading the Israelite slaves in Egypt to freedom, to the conditions of blacks in South Africa. Tutu’s Christian faith was the basis of his opposition to apartheid, and he used prayer, bible readings and worship in his campaign. He made a speech telling people, “I pray that our Lord would open our eyes so that we would see the real, the true identity of each one of us that this is not a so-called ‘coloured’ or white or black or Indian, but a brother, a sister – and treat each other as such”. Tutu’s faith was also the basis of his opposition to violent protest. As with Ghandi in India, Tutu insisted that his followers used peaceful means “… our cause is just and noble… you cannot use methods to attain the goal of liberation that our enemy will use against us”.
However, there are some examples of Christians supporting racism. In South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church tried to justify apartheid by giving it a religious link. They referred to Genesis 9, which told that after the flood, Noah’s sons and their descendants spread to different parts of the earth, and this was the origins of different races. The Dutch Reformed Church used this as a justification for keeping races separate. They compared the Dutch settlers to the Israelites in the Bible. When the Israelites came to the Promised Land they subdued the Canaanites who were already living there. This meant that the blacks in South Africa were the equivalent of the Canaanites and therefore the apartheid was God’s will. This Christian based racism was used by the South African National Party to legitimise their racist laws.
Other examples of Christians promulgating apparent racist views include the Reverend Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland and the Ku Klux Klan in America. Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, regularly refers to Catholics as “Papists” and re-enforces the differences between the two religions. The Ku Klux Klan in the United States of America, established to maintain “white supremacy”, also had close connections with the church in the southern states and stressed fundamentalism in religion. As with the Dutch Reform Church, the Ku Klux Klan believed that references in the bible justified their beliefs.
C. “Violence is an appropriate response to racism” Do you agree? Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view. You must refer to Christianity in your answer.
Some people would agree with this statement. These people believe that violence is an appropriate response to racism because it discourages people from being openly racist or making racist attacks.
Whilst the religious intolerance shown by both Protestants and Catholics to each other in Northern Ireland may not be seen by everyone as racism, the differences and tensions between them certainly add to racial tension and prejudice and lead to violence. Catholics in Northern Ireland used violence to oppose the perceived and actual prejudice of the Protestant majority. Catholics were organised politically through Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic Party. Whilst Catholic priests often preached against violent response and condemned it when it happened, the Catholic people felt that the ordinary protectors of civil and religious rights, such as the police and army, were also racist against them and therefore felt justified in organising their own movement. Violence was used against attackers and to cause disruption, fear, strength of feeling and to seek compromise on the key issues.
The people who agree that violence is justified would argue that the tactics of Catholics had seen some success. Political agreements have been drafted which recognise some of the concerns Catholics had on employment discrimination and on political representation.
Some people may disagree with the statement. Non-violent methods are supported by most of the Bible passages and used by Christian leaders because of their beliefs and their desire to set a higher moral example than the racists. Martin Luther King, Bishop Huddleston and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have all advocated non-violent opposition to racism. Martin Luther King led a broad resistance movement, which included people who felt that non-violent opposition slowed the process of change and left people vulnerable who are being prejudiced against. However, King said that non-violence would show people that blacks were civilised and that their cause should be taken seriously as they were not second class citizens. Despite being the victim of many attacks and death threats (eventually being assassinated) King did not resort to violence himself.
I think that while violence can be an appropriate response to racism under some circumstances, as with the ‘Just War’ criteria which states that violence needs to be justified and only used when absolutely necessary. I do not agree that this is always the case. For example, if someone was being verbally racist to another person I believe that violence is not an acceptable method of resolving the conflict. If violence was used by a third person trying to end the racist attack it could provoke violence from the person being racist and would not be justified. However, if someone was being racist to another person by physically attacking them then I think an onlooker could be justified in using restraining force as a last resort to stop the assault, provided that once the physical abuse from the person being racist was stopped the onlooker ceased to be violent towards them as well. If Christians use non-violence, people could not use their actions as reasons to continue to be racist.
A Christian who was a pacifist, however, would think that violence can never be justified and would strive to use all non-violent means to try and stop the racist attack. Pacifists would argue that to be violent towards someone in any circumstances would be going against the teaching “Love thy neighbour”. They might also use the example shown by Jesus at the Last Supper. When the disciples misunderstood Jesus and drew their swords to fight for him, Jesus ordered them to stop and healed the high priest’s slave, who had been injured by one of them. This shows that even though the disciples could have used violence against the other men to protect Jesus, he told them it was wrong for them to do so, even though this meant that he would be imprisoned and then executed.
Martin Luther King and the Christian leaders in South Africa showed that non-violent opposition can be very effective in opposing racism and creating change. I therefore believe that in general violence is not an appropriate response to racism, although there can be exceptional circumstances, for example self defence, where resistance can be justified.
Ordinary Christians should not practice racist views because the Bible is clear in its messages that all humans, created in God’s image, are equal in the eyes of God. Therefore Christians should denounce racism wherever they see it. However, this can be very difficult, as was the case in Nazi Germany and South Africa. In these countries the governments could set laws and had control of the police and army to enforce them. There were consequences for people who opposed the government’s views and therefore, although many Christians did speak out, both they and their families suffered because of this and many others stayed silent although this was against their beliefs.
Christians in this country today should follow the teachings in the bible and therefore not participate in matters such as racist jokes and other examples of racism that they come across on a day-to-day basis. Instead, they should strive to prevent such events occurring.
