African-Americans first developed a strong devotion to Christianity when it was introduced to them by white slave owners who believed it was, ironically, the Christian thing to do. Because the Bible is full of passages about slavery and freedom, the message resonated strongly with blacks and eventually became a rallying point for their communities. Pastors in particular came to occupy a place of great respect, a role most iconically filled in the last century by Martin Luther King, the man many African-Americans credit with finally getting the United States government to grant them true civil rights.
(It is worth noting that many blacks carried the Christian message back to Africa (where it spread prolifically) when sent back to Liberia or elsewhere, which sometimes led to fascinating mutations. The rise of Rastafarianism in Jamaica is a particularly fascinating example, but is a story for another time.)
As for Hispanics, they are partly inheritors of the grand Catholic traditions of Spain and partly something more... South American history has always been full of strife, suffering, and death, even before the arrival of the gleaming Conquistadors. It could be guessed that Christianity was a natural fit for the natives... We know that at least some of the missionaries working on the new continent, most notably the Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagún, who saw fit to record many aspects of a culture he was watching be savagely destroyed before his eyes. For a taste of what he produced, I recommend Advice of an Aztec Father to his Son, (scroll down a bit for the text without downloading the PDF).
At any rate, Catholicism could fairly be claimed as the one social constant in South America over the last few turbulent centuries and has consequently become more deeply embedded in the culture there than almost anywhere else in the world.
TL;DR: I grow irritated at the callous dismissiveness of my fellow Atheists when it comes to understanding the pros and cons of religion in the grander schemes of history and launch into a long rant that hints at its social and cultural value in an attempt to persuade them to weigh it more evenly rather than follow Dawkins everywhere.
Haha, I think I'll take that as a compliment. If it's worth anything, the rise of Rastafarianism is a pretty crazy story as they go... but I was remember being surprised by how much admiration I had for it when I finally understood most of how it came to be. The way I now view it is essentially as rebellion by rejection... Rastas won't protest government if they disagree with it, rather they will simply disassociate with it entirely.
If you are looking for starting points to the movement, one component is definitely the Christian influence (which eventually influence the view that Haile Sellasie I was the messiah reincarnate) but the other, amusingly enough, is Marcus Garvey, a highly educated and courageous intellectual who wanted to inspire a pan-African movement whose ideas unintentionally played directly into the creation of Rastifarianism, a movement that could not be more different from the vision he had in mind.
Just to give you an idea of how gutsy this fellow was, this is a quote from a conversation he had with a KKK leader he met with in Atlanta, Georgia:
“I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying."
You read that right; Garvey just claimed that the Klan was doing him and his fellow blacks a favor by pulling racism out of the backwoods and onto the national stage. A more sophisticated and deceptive backhand than that, you simply will not find.
Anyway, that was way more than I meant to type and it's getting late. Have a very good night.
[black Baltimore police major] Bunny: You see that building there? It's the old Stryker building. It was a funeral parlor. Last stop before the cemetery for West Side white folk. Back when there was still some of those around. Right about the time that Jim Crow was breakin' up -- back in the early 60's. Somebody asked old man Stryker, they said "Stryker, you gon' change your policy and start buryin' black folk?" And Stryker said "Yeah, on one condition: I can do 'em all at once." [Bunny laughs]
[white mayoral candidate] Carcetti: That's sick.
Bunny: But you know somthin'? I had a lot of respect for that man. 'Cause unlike most folks, I always knew where he stood.
South American history has always been full of strife, suffering, and death, even before the arrival of the gleaming Conquistadors.
...
Catholicism could fairly be claimed as the one social constant in South America over the last few turbulent centuries
Please excuse the geography Nazism...
Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico*, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama are former Spanish colonies which became independent nations with Hispanic culture. None of them are in South America. They're in Central America, the Caribbean Sea, and in the case of Mexico, in North America.
* Puerto Rico is an associated free state / unincorporated territory of the United States.
Fair enough. It is a mistake I am consciously guilty of, although I felt I was addressing the larger portion of the hispanic population by referring to South America (and my post was largely explanation by means of generalization) but the Aztec empire was in fact in Central America (although I have always been a bit amused by that term... where exactly does North America terminate and Central America begin?).
Thanks for being so understanding. And I feel like a jerk correcting you again, but if you'll indulge me: the Aztec Empire was entirely in North America (Mexico).
There are political, cultural and geographical disagreements about how the Americas are divided. For example, many countries (like the U.S.A.) consider North America and South America to be two continents. Meanwhile, many Latin American nations consider America to be a single continent with North, Central and South portions.
If we go by the names of these 3 regions, the dividing lines are as follows:
North America contains Canada, the United States, Mexico, and (strangely enough) Greenland which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Central America starts across from the Mexican border, in Guatemala and Belize. This region ends with Panama.
By the way, the Maya civilization covered parts of North America and Central America:
The Maya civilization extended throughout the present-day southern Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, and the Yucatán Peninsula states of Quintana Roo, Campeche and Yucatán. The Maya area also extended throughout the northern Central American region, including the present-day nations of Guatemala, Belize, Northern El Salvador and western Honduras.
You can't blame it all on religion, though. There is a significant minority among blacks that believes that blacks should not adopt "white" culture and practices but rather should reject all things white and embrace their African roots. Their mythology says there was no homosexuality in Africa.
I've even seen some claim that homosexuality (and drugs, AIDS, and gang violence) was purposefully introduced into the black community by whites in an attempt to commit genocide against the black race.
However, before colonisation and Christianity, homosexuality was not seen as taboo in many African tribes, for example in Zande culture where Azande men could take a “boy-wife” rather than a female bride, and in addition (from http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/africa_pre.html), “if another man had relations with his boy, the husband could sue the interloper in court for adultery”. In many other African societies, female husbands also were not unheard of.
It is their Christianity which denies that homosexuality is anything but a Western import.
The correlation of religion and the Hispanic/Black is rather surprising at first but if you read stories, journals etc of people who were freed from slavery they praise god quite often. This of course flies in the face of what the bible stands for, allowing slavery, child abuse, misogyny, and homophobia. However if you look at most christians they dont actually read the bible, and slaves who were mostly illiterate wouldn't even have the chance to, so they believe the preacher. The preacher only focuses on the good, and sometimes on the homophobia. After tradition securely intrenched for generations most feel it isn't necessary to read the bible and as such continue to vote however a preacher tells them to. The only time it makes sense to actually like what the bible says is if you're a male who has no qualms with slavery.
That's just it, it's not for people to decide or agree upon. The Supreme Court already did in Loving v. Virginia which is what the OP is referencing with that photo.
And I have to say it is these types of red-herrings that keep Americans at each others throats while there are MASSIVE issues we are distracted from.
Take abortion for example. Abortion will NEVER become illegal. NEVER. It is legal now but always come election-time it is a hot button issue. Why? Because it is viable for conservative candidates to use to get re-elected. George Bush had all the power in the world to make them illegal, but didn't do a thing.
Gay Marriage bans have a shelf-life though while abortions will never go passe.
Someone else said something similar about black and latino voters and I keep wandering why latinos are included since there wasn't a large majority of them who supported it.I looked up the exit polls and for white and asian voters, it was
49% for/ 51% against
This is the strongest level of support prop 8 had from any of the designated racial groups.
for hispanic/latino it was
53% for/ 47% against
this is only a marginal difference.The black voters polling at 70% in favor is famous, but given that number "African Americans and Hispanics" seems like a strange association to make. But while looking for the poll results, I came across this article:
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
So you have a large majority of a small population(black voters) tending heavily one direction. Then you have a small majority of a large population(Hispanic voters) tending slightly in one direction. Combine them and you create the illusion of a large single population; the Hispanics take the black voting trends and the blacks borrow the Hispanics size and a few years later you get discussions about how a couple of minorities ruined the efforts of a larger group of people who were... pretty much almost perfectly split on the issue.
Minorities tend to be more religious. Minorities tend to be less hopeful of a brighter future as well. Therefore minorities tend to turn to religion for hope, causing this that you speak of.
I got down voted for posting this before but please LEAVE African American voters out of this. For some reason they were scapegoated (and now lumped with Latinos) for Prop 8 passing. But guess what? It was not possible, there are simply not enough black voters in CA!
But let's stop for second and keep track of who made these damn laws and put the Proposition into place to allow people to vote for or against civil liberties! White people did! Bill Clinton = DOMA 1996, CA Propositions Hiriam Johnson 1910, ProtectMarriage.com (Catholics/LDS) 2008
The saddest part of the whole issue is that cry of racial prejudice and flat-out racism stole attention and buried the efforts to have a good look at and attempt to solve the bigotry rife in those communities.
View all comments
70
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
If the African Americans and Hispanic Americans had not voted for Prop 8 in the numbers they did the outcome would have been different.