We are reproducing below a portion from an article from the Watch Tower, April 1, 1914, that is often misrepresented as proof that Brother Russell was a racist.
This, however, was a public showing; it was not a meeting simply for the Bible Students. Please note that, as best as we can determine, it was not Brother Russell nor the Bible Students who were demanding not to be seated along with the blacks, it appears to be people from the public, many of whom certainly belonged to and/or attended various churches. Evidently, the situation was such that it appeared that these while people may have disrupted the showing of the Photo-Drama if the blacks were allowed to sit alongside them. Thus Brother Russell considered that he had to decide either to cancel the showing to avoid racial confrontation, or have blacks seated separately so that the Photo Drama could be shown. We do not believe that Brother Russell's decision to put God first makes him a "racist."
Nor should one judge Brother Russell according to later concepts related to racism. For instance, some have claimed that his usage of the term "colored" was itself racist. This would appear to be based on later concepts of offensive "racist" words some have created, which ideas did not exist when Russell was alive. Brother Russell certainly would not have been aware that anyone considered the word "colored" to be offensive to anyone, and as far we can determine none at that time objected to use of the word "colored." It would not be fair to think that Brother Russell should abide by later concepts that did not exist when he was alive.
Good sense makes one slow to anger,
and it is his glory to overlook an offense.
Proverbs 19:11, English Standard Version.
"Russell adopt the general custom of seating the blacks separately from the whites" ...or he just obey law or rules from "higher authority".
ReplyDeleteBut if he would be stronger in obeying God's law more than man's law ...? Moral issue, and we are just humans and making err. "Do not trust in noble man ..."
Obeying God does not mean to become involved in rebelling against the laws of the land. Paul did not rebel against the laws of the land regarding slaves. To get involved in an endeavor to correct injustices in this world would take time away from obeying the commission Jesus gave to us. We are not to be part of his world; that is God's command. We are not told to rebel in disobedience to the laws of the world, but rather to submit to them, even if they are unjust. The only exception would be in obedience to preach the good news or if we personally are commanded to do something we know God has commanded us not to do; when the good news is fulfilled in the age to come, all injustices of this age will be corrected.
DeleteIn the case of the showing of the Photo-Drama, in which is declared the glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people, Russell was confronted with either not presenting the glad tidings of the good news or separating the blacks from whites in order to show the Photo Drama. He really had no choice if he was have the Photo Drama shown, otherwise, the only other choice would have been to cancel the showing and NOT declare the good news as given in the Photo Drama.
None of this - not a single word - justifies Russell suggesting that the “colored man” is never happier than in a position as a servant. Try and sugar coat this any way you want to - he was blatantly racist. My contention wasn’t with the curse but the obviously overt racism.
ReplyDeleteFor every single mitigating article you find, there’s at least two or three to show he was a bigot.
It is also strange that the article you mentioned above, includes the line which suggests a belief in Aryan superiority
“While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other . . . ”. This line suffers, even in context.
Finally, while the Beatles refused to perform before a segregated audience, willing to lose out on the performance, Russell showed way less mettle and had his audiences segregated.
It was stated: Try and sugar coat this any way you want to - he was blatantly racist. -- end quote.
DeleteAnyone truly familiar with Russell's works would know that he was definitely not a racist.
It was stated: For every single mitigating article you find, there’s at least two or three to show he was a bigot.-- end quote.
Anyone who is truly familiar with the works of Russell would know that he was not a "bigot."
I suppose if one wished to do so, one could take the writings of any Christian at that time who sought to defend the black people against the many false teachings being spread about them, and find phrases and sentences that could be taken out of context so as to make it appear that the such were bigots.
It was stated: It is also strange that the article you mentioned above, includes the line which suggests a belief in Aryan superiority.
Delete“While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other . . . ”. This line suffers, even in context. -- end quote
Evidently this is referring the article "The Negro Not a Beast", which I did not mention until my last comment, which made after the above statement was posted.
At any rate, Russell did not say that the white race is superior over any other. He did make a general statement that in some things the white race has demonstrated a superiority. The same could said for many other races. A few lines later we find that Russell also describes the white peoples as being like God described the people of Israel, "a stiff-necked generation." He also describes the white peoples as being "the most quarrelsome, aggressive, selfish and dominating of humanity." Russell made a few general observations, which in context he shows does not demonstrate any inherent superiority of the white race. Russell stated: "We should remember that some of the qualities which have given this branch of the human family its preeminence in the world are not such as can be pointed to as in all respects admirable. Indeed we can not but wonder whether if the Gospel had been sent into Asia instead of into Europe it might not have found amongst the people of India a soil much more naturally adapted to the development of the peaceable fruits of righteousness." He goes on to suggest that any qualities of greater intelligence came from commingling with other races. I don't know if such is true or not, but I do know that one of my science professors in college made a similar statement, and suggested that if all races commingled, all races would thereby benefit. At any rate, in the context of the world achievements, the white peoples have shown superiority in "some" things, while in some other areas other races have demonstrated superiority in some other things. Indeed, this is similar to what was presented to me in college.
To get any idea that Russell was supporting the concept of "white supremacist" one would have ignore the context and exaggerate what Russell actually did say to make it mean something I am sure he never meant.
See my article: Russell's Refutation of "The Negro a Beast"
It was stated: Finally, while the Beatles refused to perform before a segregated audience, willing to lose out on the performance, Russell showed way less mettle and had his audiences segregated. -- End quote.
DeleteAs far as I can tell, the Beatles were not consecrated to Jesus and were never commissioned by Jesus to preach the good news of the Kingdom which is to bless all peoples of all races. If they were, they certainly fell short of such a consecration. Russell, however, accepted the commission given by Jesus, and sought to carry it out to the best of his ability.
The Beatles lived in era where racial segregation was being openly challenged. Russell lived in an a completely different era. Nevertheless, Russell knew he was not commissioned by Jesus to get involved in the world's political affairs. In most places in the US in Russell's day, there were laws against the colored and white people assembling together. Even in places where there were no laws, due to the emotionally charged mind-set of most of the white church goers of that day against the idea of blacks and whites assembling together, such segregation was, in effect, in force. Any such who were to challenge the status quo could have incited violence from such enraged white people, or otherwise certainly would invited trouble that would have distracted from the main commission from Jesus to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all people, to all races, etc.
I grew up in the southern part of Georgia, and can remember how many times the good church going people of that time would make horrible statements concerning the "colored" people. They actually believed that it was sin for black people and white people to be mixed. I can remember that some claimed that "negroes" didn't have a soul. I can remember that most places had separate rest rooms marked "colored" and "white". The same was true of drinking fountains: one would find two with one marked "colored" and another marked "white." It was against the law for "the colored" and whites to congregate together. Blacks had to set in one area of a theater, and whites in another.
My mom had taught me that the all races were people just the same as white people, that all should be respected a persons, and that there are good and people everywhere, not matter what color their skin may be. This is basically what Russell himself believed.
What I do find very appalling is the way people take Russell's rebuttal of what many of the whites were saying about the Negro in his time and twist what Russell around to make him appear to be worse than those who were claiming that the negro was a beast, without a soul, etc.
I do believe, as did Brother Russell, that all this will be cleared up in the world's day of judgment, when all peoples will be taught the ways of Jehovah. -- Isaiah 2:2-4.