Quakers support one of the most aggressive visions of assimilation and white supremacy of all contemporary religions. Certainly, Quakers took a bold stand against slavery (even if this was much ambivalent than we like to think) and Quakers believe that all people have the light of God in them, and do try to think and act to an admirable degree with this conviction, even if more attention could be paid to this issue. There seems to be nothing white supremacist about that vision. There is much to be proud of. I am glad and proud to be a Quaker. That said, I mean that Quakers are fundamentally unaware of how our fundamental ideals and assumptions are (in some ways) expressions of assimilationism and white supremacy.

I mean that the very fundamentals of Quaker (implicit) theology—the inward-turn, the mysticism and anti-sacramentalism, the liberal values--are deeply ambivalent toward people of color.

On the one hand, our Quaker testimonies do remind us to protect all people against the worst abuses of capitalism, white supremacy, and the forces of structural racism that prevent equality. On the other hand, the entire Quaker project (even the lack of dogma (in principle)) bears a profound resemblence to the spirit of capitalism, serving to sacralize capitalism in much the same way that the Catholic Church sacralized the divine rule of kings in the Middle Ages. Certainly the Catholic Church could be and was critical of the actual decisions of the monarchs, but it sacralized feudal rule in principle. In the same way, Quakerism, a deeply modern religion, is one of the religions that most radically sacralizes the basic principles and assumptions of capitalism, notwithstanding its frequent criticism of the way capitalism plays out in practice. Quakerism sacralizes a society and economic organization that is deeply hostile to people of color, even as we believe we oppose capitalism or at least its abuse.

In the same way as it sacralizes the spirit of capitalism (while criticizing it), Quakerism sacralizes and supports the attacks against people of color—or to put it more precisely, supports the ideology that undermines the ability of people of color to resist assimilation.

As a few examples of how Quakerism sacralizes capitalism: the capitalistic ideal of efficiency is obviously analogous to the Quaker ideal of simplicity; capitalism views the competition of all against all in the economy and society as the way to bring the best ideas to the top. The horizontal and anarchic practice of Quakers follows a similar logic of allowing the idea most blessed by God to win the day (within the free competition of ideas), allowing the prophetic voice to come from anywhere (in principle). The anti-traditional, "rethinking everything" attitude of capitalism is similarly found in the continuing revelation, mystical, non-dogmatic, "Spirit-led" project of Quakerism.

So perhaps Quakerism is radically complicit in the ideology of capitalism. But how are these attacks on people of color? Do they not resist slavery and racism and even structural racism? They do. But we must go one step deeper in our analysis.

SITUATION OF POC Because of their situation within America's slave and post-slave society, one of the most fundamental drives acting upon people of color (more or less depending on the individual circumstance) since the beginning has been a drive to preserve preservation black culture against assimilation. Almost all African linguistic, religion, cultural, and musical traits were beaten out of the slaves and their children. However, as a testament to their courage and ingenuity, an impressive amount of African cultural material was preserved through resistance. Black culture has later led global benefit, enrichment, and importance. The drive to preserve black culture against assimilation is thus an important drive acting upon people of color (and all oppressed people). This drive is fundamentally conservative in the sense of seeking to conserve culture in the face of rampant assimilation, before and after slavery. And this means that the structure of society encourages people of color to have a smarter attitude about the reality of our society and a more realistic understanding of how assmiliation works than most white people have.

Within the middle class, used to the Enlightenment ideal of the free competition of ideas, we believe that the way to fight for or against a culture is to defend or attack the rationality of its premises. We focus primarily on content. We affirm its truth and beauty and justice, we defend it against scornful criticism. But people whose culture is not implied in the Enlightenment (e.g. most non-whites) can hardly afford to be so naive. They know that content is important but that preserving a culture depends more than just content.

Genocide is a useful metaphor to understand how cultures can be attacked: genocide can happen by directly killing people. But there is also ecocide: killing people by poisoning their water or eliminating the plants they use to survive. In the same way, culture can be attacked by directly attacking its content. But it can also be attacked indirectly by removing access to the land, plants, or other material items linked to that culture, even if compensated by what might "rationally" seem to be an adequate replacement (e.g. through shifts in the economy that impoverish certain areas, forcing black people to move, or the relocation of land-oriented Native Americans). Or, for instance, a culture can be attacked undermining the "transmissive force" of a culture (e.g. undermining its appeal to the next generation). Or, for instance, all cultures have ways of ensuring compliance and the continuity of that culture. If an outside culture removes these "enforcement methods," even if in reaction to a case of shocking abuse, a culture can be easily fragmented and destroyed.

Although we are used to the Enlightenment optimism (and many would call it a faith) that freedom for the individual will result in societal harmony—the core assumption of capitalism—those attempting to preserve their culture do not tend to share that optimism. People within threatened cultures more often view the individualism and focus on individual rights of capitalism with deep suspicion. They view the enforcement methods of their culture as deeply important. They view the transmissive drive of their culture as very important. They cling “idolatrously” to particular land, customs, ways of speech, and so forth.

This explains some of the deep suspicion around policing corporal punishment within some black communities but I use that example so that my point is easy to understand from a middle-class white perspective. But generally, liberal attitudes that encourage people to "look inside" rather than "conform to your counter-culture because you were born into it" tend to be viewed with suspicion and ambivalence within any community resisting assimilation. It is an attack on the ability of that culture to sustain itself by attacking the necessary conformity.

In principle, capitalism is anti-traditional. In principle, seeking profit means finding the most adequate means to achieve an economic end, regardless of tradition. Whether selling to a white person or a black pers
on, the profit is the same. Racial traditions of only interacting with one race in principle are dropped under capitalism, because selling to all races increases profits. Capitalism is in theory against the existence of race. Capitalism as an ideology is not interested in racial hierarchies but in meritocracy (and profit); as MLK put it, not the color of your skin but the content of your character (or what's in your wallet). Quakerism, of which many prominent members have always been merchants and bankers, often most powerful in the metropolitan centers of power, more or less agrees with these principles.

In practice, of course, capitalism doesn't work that way. In practice, capitalism attacks people of color by allowing abusive, feudally inspired institutions and ideologies to attack people of color for profit, e.g. slavery and white supremacy (which is inspired by the feudal, aristocratic (and deeply uncapitalist) myth of blood superiority). In practice, capitalism is a game that people of color (and women etc.) lose, for instance, through institutional racism. In practice, the forces of capitalism from science to technology are used to further slavery and oppressive social control. But there is more than this. Capitalism (and Quakerism) even on the level of theory is also fundamentally hostile to people of color.

Capitalism seeks means to ends. Therefore, if race has no objective meaning (a.k.a. no genetic-neurological impact on rational capacity) then being born one race or another should have no impact on one's behavior, just as there is no reason that a black businessman should have a different practice than a white businessman, all other things being equal. Just because our parents are Presbyterian doesn't mean that Presbyterianism is right for us. Capitalism calls on us as autonomous rational units to make our own free decision within a competitive marketplace of ideas. It calls upon us to use “tolerance” about other people's decisions so long as they harm no one else. That is the logic of capitalism. The same applies to race: just because our parents are white, doesn't mean that we will prefer the thoughts, attitudes, traditions, and customs of white people. Capitalism is inherently trans-racial. We are called to tolerate the decisions of others, so long as they harm no one else, even if it goes against a precious tradition. This tolerance removes an important enforcement method for people trying to maintain a counter-culture against assmilation. But tolerance is at the heart of liberalism and liberal Quakerism.

Because one drive upon people of color is that of conserving their culture, and their culture is symbolized by their race, few can fully accept any post-racial or anti-racial ideal such as what is expressed in capitalism and Quakerism. Certainly, post-racial ideals have a certain truth and justice and so people of color can and do accept these ideals up to a point, but no further. Past a certain point, post-racial, anti-racial, trans-racial ideals undermine the ability of people of color to defend and enforce their own culture. These ideologies begin to assist assimilation by blurring the lines of cultural enforcement even if they defend against abuse. In a post-racial world of mystical bliss, black people have been assimilated, their tradition as a counter-culture is gone.

Quakerism is both radically anti-traditional and radically trans-racial. As such, Quakerism does defend people of color against the worst abuses of capitalism--that is to say, the neo-feudal institutions and ideologies such as slavery and white supremacy or neo-naziism, oriented around defending the bourgeoisie. We have much to be proud of. And to a certain degree, Quaker (implicit) theology holds that black traditions express the holy as everything under the sun does to some degree. The Quaker tradition of seeing the light in everyone defends against the dehumanization of white supremacy and against the worst abuses of capitalism (e.g. turning workers into mechanical cogs in a machine or into animals). Up to this point, Quakerism stands for racial justice, which certainly is what all races implicitly seek. But past this point, Quakerism stands for assimilation. 

With its theology of "leadings," liberal Quakerism supports an individualism that is an attack on the kind of conformity necessary to sustain a counter-culture within an aggressively assimilating culture such as our own. At its trans-racial point, Quakerism removes the vital importance of race by attacking the necessity of race, the duty of race—replacing it with individual “leadings” and a mystical, trans-racial love for all. There is truth to this vision to a point but Quakerism takes it too far. That duty to the race is vital to the "transmissive force" of black culture.

Perhaps worst of all is how profoundly unaware we are. We self-righteously view ourselves as vanguards of racial justice, as we piously confess our sinful racially superior throughts (which is a good thing) and piously analyze the institutions around us for structural racism (which is a good use of our time). We support the ideology of capitalism all while self-righteously critiquing the abuses capitalism. We call this justice but is it? Is that racial justice? I believe we do partially support racial justice—I know we are lending our support to BlackLivesMatter and many other wonderful causes. But if we want to question how Quakers participate in the attack on people of color that's all around us, it's time to take a long, hard look at our trans-racial mysticism—a vision both of justice and of assimilation.

If we are serious about our fight for justice, the road ahead for us unprogrammed Quakers is more challenging that for any other Western religion. I know I've said nothing about what steps can take today. But this has been long enough and I honestly believe that we are so profoundly unaware of the problem that concrete suggestions are far too premature. The first step is to sharpen our understanding of modern society, of the drives upon oppressed people, and of ourselves to see the ways that we sacralize capitalism—a capitalism that has been deeply hostile to most of the world's people through colonialism on all levels (even against many white people). We are far too complicit in supporting the basic, assimilating logic of capitalist society, a logic that removes self-defence and removes the transmissive force of other traditions. If we want to be a friend of the world's oppressed, most of whom cannot accept pure mysticism in their desperate attempt to preserve their culture, we have a fundamental reckoning before us.

Views: 294

Comment by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 10, 2016 at 6:46pm

The trouble with sarcasm is that it is that it can be extremely unclear:  either which position it's really aimed at, nor which position it really comes from. The caricatures of Quaker thought, American black culture, and African cultures embedded in this are all pretty far off.

Comment by Darrin S. on 7th mo. 10, 2016 at 8:42pm

All right--precisions please? :)

Comment by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 10, 2016 at 9:53pm

You want "details"? I simply don't get it, unless your piece is some kind of right-wing spoof on potential excesses of 'Political Correctness.'

Expressions of mysticism are cultural; what gives rise to them is beyond all that.

Native African cultures didn't usually give rise to big state religions like those of Europe or Asia; the geography of the area worked strongly against lasting monarchies of that type, except of course in the case of Egypt -- which did however influence people for a wide range thereabouts. In the Sudan, for example, they still play games which probably originated with similar games in Egypt (much as we still play variants of an ancient Indian game that's spread from Europe to the US and to Japan in the opposite direction.

Anyway, what I was taught about African religions indicated that they had considerable attunement to the spiritual order of the universe, but that most of them tended to  conceive of God as someone who ruled from afar via considerable authority delegated to lesser spirits. Conceptions-of are cultural -- but then, cultures change as ways of life change.

The Judaism that Israelites re-assembled in Babylon was much more xenocentric and defensive in orientation than what they'd practiced back home in Palestine... but it wasn't more 'Jewish' or less so, just a development of same.Agitated and emotional expressions of religious experience -- are no more 'black' than they are 'white'. The exaggerated  smug calm cultivated by many contemporary Quakers -- is certainly not going to appeal widely in any ethnic grouping; it isn't even what we started with in England, for that matter.So, to be plain: Could you please be a little plainer?

Comment by Kirby Urner on 7th mo. 13, 2016 at 8:49pm

I'm not clear on what "capitalism" means for sure, as different writers use the term rather differently.  

Certainly whatever "capitalism" may be, it is not the sole or exclusive property of any particular ethnic group or people of skin color Z (some mix of R, G and B on the radio dial).  

Asians have proved as adept at the practices of capitalism as any European clique, I think that's obvious, nor am I limiting the game to just Euro-Asians.

"Capitalism" is maybe what I'd call a "memeplex" or association of memes in something stable enough to form a "belief system".  I only say "maybe" because I'm not seeing as many coherent accounts of what "capitalism" really means as I used to, and so I wonder if it's in the waning stages.

Just to help clarify: the US military, divided into branches, and pyramiding through ranks up to Joint Chiefs, and funded by borrowing, some tax monies:  is that a capitalist enterprise?  

Who own's the battleships, General Dynamics?  The People?  President Obama?

It's not clear to me that the Russian Army, Chinese Army, and US Army operate by entirely different principles.  Male-dominated pyramid hierarchies stretch back through history.  But are they "capitalist" per se?  What makes us say that?

How many admirals or generals know much about banking?  Just asking?  

Seems to me a military hierarchy is closer to socialist, with plutocratic overtones.  Given the military absorbs the most sizeable slice of the US government pie chart, might we not say the Federal apparatus, based in the city-non-state of Washington DC, is a socialist empire?  Wouldn't Bernie be proud?

I know that sounds like crazy-talk, but I'm just askin'. A lot of people understand Americans through their bases overseas.  That's the model, what they see.  These people may call themselves a democracy, but here they are, running around in camo, driving jeeps, obeying orders, saluting left and right.  Is that what "democracy" means to them?  Looks awfully Roman, as in "centurion".  Was Rome "capitalist" then?  Whatever Rome was, I'd say the US is closer to that.

Comment by Chaplain Stogumber on 7th mo. 16, 2016 at 8:02am

Imho a "marketplace of ideas" does not imply that everyone has to market aggressively for everyone to buy just his own product.

Quakers could be completely at ease with selling a niche product to a minority of consumers.

The problem is not so much Quakerism itself as its modern liberal version: the liberal instinctive fear of things which are not "inclusive" and "equal", but separate and different. But that is a modern hysteria.

Comment by Darrin S. on 7th mo. 19, 2016 at 1:13am

Forrest--I'm not sure I follow the relevance of your points, but it's interesting.

Plain speech is possible with the power of God and without, we're all living after the Tower of Babylon. What I'm saying is plain but arises from a particular intellectual tradition. Like all cross-cultural dialog, there are no shortcuts. And for the record, my politics are socialist in the sense of working to express a working-class, NOT a middle-class, vision of the world. We Quakers, me included, are very middle-class so I don't expect this to resonate or be easy. The middle-class understand working class culture very badly.

Chaplain, I like what you said. Karen Armstrong in her book Battle For God calls Quakerism a modern religion, and I think that's true of every branch of Quakers. Not sure it's so easy distinguish modern hysterias from every form of Quakerism. The theology of quakerism and modernity (aka liberal democracy) are quite similar on nearly every point, and both quite millenarian.

Kirby, I would be wary of the simple-minded political discourse around capitalism, which identifies it as "free market" as opposed to a wholly bureaucratized command economy. This is a silly relic of cold war ideology and in any case, it is false. There has never been a "free market"--there have always been an interplay of market and government bureaucracy, sometimes alongside traditional structures (e.g. the European or Middle Eastern feudal economy before these traditional structures were overthrown by the bourgeoisie in various forms of colonialism and conquest). In the same way, even the Soviet command economy couldn't eliminate the market, even if the market became a black market. So there has never been a pure bureaucratic economy either. So let us not confuse the ideal of a free market (an ideal that, like all ideals, has never been fully realized) with the reality of capitalism, as a kind of coexistence. I hope that answers the question about "capitalism in the military" -- that is silly, it is a bureaucracy, not a market. The ownership structure works differently. But of course the bureaucracy exists within a capitalist "system." Who owns the battleships? In theory "the people," which has under capitalism always been a front for the bourgeoisie as checked by democratic structures. And of course within the reality of capitalism, certain "capitalist" (free market aka economically liberal) ideologues exist who push for lessening bureaucratic regulation and services etc. etc. etc.

So I agree, capitalism is a very ambiguous term and I should use it more carefully :)

Comment by Kirby Urner on 7th mo. 19, 2016 at 1:29am

I was thinking more along these lines:


Likewise the Apollo Project, taking humans to the Moon, seemed a great triumph for socialism (NASA being somewhat an extension of the military).

The capitalism we see in the US is what I've called "cowardly capitalism" because it fears competition from any government run hotel chain, rental car company or airline.  

Anything that looks potentially profitable has to be "privatized".  Amtrak only survives because it doesn't look that profitable.


Comment by Darrin S. on 7th mo. 19, 2016 at 1:39am

^^It seems to me that these articles use the same vapid cold-war usage of the word capitalism as I outlined above. In any case, these articles express a deeply middle-class political viewpoint. It is worth asking yourself, I think, why Marx and many others called the middle class the petty bourgeoisie.

Some have as much as said: the middle-class critique of capitalism is as profound as a goldfish's concept of water.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 7th mo. 19, 2016 at 2:13am

The whole "capitalism versus socialism" dialectic seems unimaginative, narrow and self-defeating, which is partly why I like disruptive memes such as "at least the military is socialist".  

I'm more into something called General Systems Theory (GST) as a competitor of Economics.  In economics we learn monopoly breeds complacency which is why Econ as a discipline deserves some real competition.  

I've done a lot of thinking and writing on these topics.  Kenneth Boulding (a Quaker) was influential.  We even corresponded a little.  Bucky Fuller another big influence.  I'm proud of my ethnic heritage and engage in media campaigns to promote the memeplexes I favor.  Or call it propaganda, fine with me.

Comment by Darrin S. on 7th mo. 19, 2016 at 2:25am

Of course, it is. It is cold war ideology. Which is why it's important to come to deeper understanding of these words rather than just cheaply throwing around their popular and distorted meanings. Please do not confuse socialism with bureaucracy or social democracy--communism is those things, but socialism really is not, no matter what Bernie Sanders says it is.


You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.

You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Keith Saylor posted a blog post

All Shadows, Types, and Figures

Let him to whom an Idol is nothing, to whom all shadows, Types and Figures, are come to an end, let…See More
5th month 16
Kirby Urner replied to Kirby Urner's discussion 'Quakerism and Religious Freedom'
"Thanks for joining the discussion.  Yeah, one line or word summaries of a complex conversation…"
5th month 8
jay replied to Kirby Urner's discussion 'Quakerism and Religious Freedom'
"Great message, thanks!  As you point out, it's not a simple question of good guys Vs bad…"
5th month 8
Kirby Urner commented on Kirby Urner's blog post 'On Recording One's Affiliation with Friends'
4th month 27
Kirby Urner posted a blog post
4th month 27
Kirby Urner commented on Kirby Urner's blog post 'A Campus Curriculum'
"http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2019/04/facebook-rant.htmlI have a followup query at the end of my…"
4th month 27
Kirby Urner posted a blog post

A Campus Curriculum

I'm reaching out to Friends in higher education with my recent Youtubes, which I'm free to…See More
4th month 13
Keith Saylor posted a blog post


Iconography: The process of guiding and informing human relationships and interactions through…See More
4th month 10

© 2019   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service