Answering
Bishop Talbert Swan

Who is 'Bishop' Swan?

Random people who encounter 'Bishop' Talbert Swan on Twitter often assume he is self-ordained, but he is not. Nor is his sponsoring body a humble chain of store-front establishments. It is the mighty COGIC, Church of God in Christ, a major black Pentecostal-Holiness denomination. That this could possibly be so is a sad commentary on where we've come in race relations in this country.

White Supremacy

If you ask 'Bishop' Swan why he is so controversial, he will tell you it is because he takes a firm stand against racism and white supremacy. And who are the white supremacists? Why, those would be the white people, a.k.a. "wypipo." You had to ask?:

Is there such a thing as white supremacy? Yes, of course there. But in scanning for it, one should be on the alert for some warning sign in addition to white skin. Increasing levels of violence by white racists is one of the ominous signs of the times, mirroring 'Bishop' Swan's beloved Black Panthers. But many an unwary Twitter browser has been shocked to discover that he is Anders Behring Breivik's soul brother, merely on grounds that he shares a certain shade of skin pigmentation with him. With 'Bishop' Swan, notice how these categories blur into one another: 'wypipo' are white supremacists, and not only that, but they voted for Trump. Well, lots of them did, anyway. He can't seem to tell one of us apart from the others. He cannot distinguish the individual from the mass.

What is Racism?

Anthropologist Ruth Benedict defined 'racism,' back in 1940, as "an unproved assumption of the biological and perpetual superiority of one human group over another." The people she had in mind had not called themselves 'racists,' rather race 'scientists;' these are the people who developed the monstrous political philosophy of Social Darwinism. She and her mentor Franz Boas did not deny that human groups differ from one another, but they believed such differences were cultural in origin. Nowadays, scholars like Ibram X. Kendi claim it is racism even to suggest that one group might differ from another; divergent outcomes, he claims, can only be the result of discrimination. It might be reassuring to think that's why there are so few white players in the NBA or Gentile Nobel Prize laureates in the field of economics, but that seems doubtful. Generally, in the modern field of 'white studies' or 'anti-racism,' racism has been redefined in such a manner that no black person can be suspected to be guilty of it. Is it possible to redefine a word in common use in such a novel way? Sure:

“'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

“'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

“Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice 'what that means?'

“'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark."

(Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson), Through the Looking Glass, Chapter VI.)

Next question. Now that racism has been redefined so that no black person can even be suspected of it, then what do you call Malcolm X? No viler racist has ever walked the earth. See, here, where he alleges that white women have relations with dogs, and these unions are productive of offspring, thus modifying the white gene pool, but not in a good way:

“The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that the white man went down into the caves of Europe and lived there for two thousand years on his all fours. Within a thousand years after he had gotten up there he was on his all fours, couldn't stand upright. You watch an old cracker today. Crackers don't walk upright like black people do. Every time you look at them, they look like they're going right down on all fours. But those who have had some education, they straighten up a little bit because they're taught how to straighten up. But a black man can be the most dumb, illiterate thing you can find anywhere, and he still walks like a million dollars because by nature he's upright, by nature he stands up. But a white man got to be stood up. You have to put a white man on the square. But the black man is born on the square.

“Can we prove it? Yes. You notice in the East, dark people carry things on their heads, don't they? Just throw it up there and walk with it, showing you they have perfect poise, perfect balance. This comes natural to them. You and I lost our poise. We, you, can't even wear a hat on your head, hardly, today [chuckle]. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that within a thousand years after the white people were up in the caves they were on all fours. And they were living in the outdoors where it's cold, just as cold over there as it is outside right now. They didn't have clothes. So by being out there in the cold their hair got longer and longer. Hair grew out all over their bodies. By being on their all fours, the end of their spine begin to grow. They grew a little tail that came out from the end of their spine...Oh yes, this was the white man, Brother, up in the caves of Europe. He had a tail that long. You ever notice that anything that walks on all fours has a tail? That which straightens up doesn't have a tail, because when you get down, you see, you just make that spine come right on out. And just like a dog, he was crawling around up there. He was hairy as a dog. He had a tail like a dog. He had a smell like a dog. And couldn't nothing get along with him but another dog.

“The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that all the beasts up in Europe wanted to kill the white man. Oh yeah, they tried to kill the white man. They were after the white man. They hated the white man. So, he says, what the white man would do, he'd dig a hole in the hill, that was his cave. And his mother and his daughter and his wife would all be in there with the dog. The only thing that made friends with the white man was the dog. Everything else hated him. He'd sit outside the cave at night in a tree with rocks in his hand, and if any beast came up and tried to get in the cave at his family, he'd throw rocks at it, or he'd have a club that he'd swing down and try to drive him away with it. But the dog stayed in the cave with his family.

“It was then during that time that the dog and the white woman amalgamated. The white woman went with the dog while they were living in the caves of Europe. And right to this very day the white woman will tell you there is nothing she loves better than a dog. They tell you that a dog is a man's best friend. A dog isn't a black man's best friend. God is the black man's best friend. But a dog is the white man's best friend. They lived in that cave with those dogs and right now they got that dog smell. They got to be dog lovers. A dog can get in a white man's house and eat at his table, lick out of his plate. They'll kiss the dog right on the nose and think nothing of it. You're not a dog kisser. You don't see no black people kissing or rubbing noses with a dog. But little white children will hug dogs and kiss dogs and eat with dogs. Am i right or wrong? You-all have been inside their kitchens cooking their food, and making their beds, you know how they live in there. The dog will live right in the white man's house, better than you can; you try and break your way in there, they'll put a rope around your neck [chuckle], but the dog has got free run of the whole house. He's the white man's best friend.”

(Malcolm X, The Black Man's History, 1962).

If the word 'racism' is withdrawn from circulation, then an identical word, with the same meaning, must be reinvented, or else there is no category for the Malcolm X's and 'Bishop' Talbert Swans of the world. Notice all the boxes this excursion into biology for pin-heads checks. Malcolm is dehumanizing white people, representing them as less than fully human. Check. He has lowered their standing down to the level of the lower animals, in this case, dogs. Check. He has made their existence and their struggles seem ridiculous. Check. Can you imagine laughing at an elderly white man, straining to stand erect and move forward with the aid of a walker? How cruel to find in his struggles proof that he is less than a man. If this isn't racism, then what is? Genius, the anti-racists tell us. Enlightenment, they explain. They renamed racism, and called it anti-racism:

'Bishop' Swan has been a roving ill-will ambassador for the black community for some years now. For critics of 'wokeness,' he is the gift that keeps on giving; they love to quote him. And yet he really is not saying anything all that different from his peers. The idea that all 'wypipo' are racists is standard fare in the academic discipline of 'white studies.' Thus, if you demean 'wypipo,' you are standing up against racism, by definition. Accordingly, 'Bishop' Swan has a vocal cheering section of people who learned this material in school and really don't see the problem with it. To others, it is a problem that it is hateful. But whether that is even a problem depends on your understanding of what society is and how it should operate. If the murderous Black Panthers are "heroes," like he says, then what is the problem with cheering them on? For Christianity, it is a problem. Christian cannot talk to one another like that. His Christianity sits very lightly upon him, perhaps because it is fourth generation rather than direct.

Those who follow 'Bishop' Swan on Twitter never hear any gospel proclamation; there is no 'good news' this dark prophet of hatred wishes to share with the world. Does the Church of God in Christ have anything like a salvation plan, like other churches?. . .that involves anything more than the assertion that black people are superior to white people? So far as one can divine, the major component involves voting Democratic. If you vote Republican, you are doomed to hellfire for all eternity:

Sorry, Republicans.

There's not much left of the old Nation of Islam. Even Malcolm X, in the twilight of his brief life, discovered it would draw more money out of Prince Feisal's purse if he stopped mentioning that Wallace D. Fard, a small-time con artist who visited Detroit, was God. Lots of folks made that same discovery. But Louis Farrakhan still preaches the old time religion, just sotto voce. 'Bishop' Swan does not like being told to denounce Louis Farrakhan, because,

"The clear and concise message to Black people from the Jewish community, white liberals and gaslighting white supremacy supporting conservatives: Condemn Minister Louis Farrakhan or we will ruin you.

"While they have tolerated, supported or remained silent about anti-Black and non-white bigotry, systemic racism and the extra judicial murders of unarmed Black people for eons, they have the unmitigated gall to muster up outrage at Black people who refuse to capitulate to their mandates on who we are allowed to have as leaders and who we need to unequivocally repudiate to prove to them, the perpetrators, supporters, passive participants and apathetic onlookers of our oppression, that we're not the racists." (Repudiating Farrakhan, January 30, 2019, posted on 'Bishop' Swan's blog).

Oh, but he is the racist. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

Wypipo

Some people, hearing no more about the lengthy U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam, than that the soldiers called the local populace 'gooks,' feel they know all they need to know. But why? It is difficult to track down the origin, but some people say the word 'gook' entered the U.S. military vocabulary in Korea, where 'han gook' means Korean, 'way gook' means foreigner, 'mi gook' means American. It is a neutral way of pointing to nationality, not a slur. But in American English it sounds like baby-talk, and so it's a slur. Which brings us to 'wypipo.' Say it out loud, if you don't know what it means. Would 'Bishop' Swan appreciate being called 'The Bishop of Black Pee-Poh'?

'Wypipo,' you will discover if you hang around 'Bishop' Swan, are a racist lot, white supremacists all. Which is classic racism. Negative characteristics, which do inhere in some group members, are generalized and ascribed to all members of the hated group. It's like saying, 'Some blacks are criminals. [true; post pictures if need be.] Therefore, all blacks are criminals. [false.]' Because the target is white people, it's OK in some people's eyes. If racism is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases. It cannot just be a question of whose ox is being gored. 'Bishop' Swan has proposed deporting all of the white supremacists back to Europe, tongue-in-cheek I hope, which is unfortunate because in his vocabulary white supremacists equate to "wypipo."

The Bible talks about racial reconciliation, yet unaccountably fails to mention any cash payments as a mandatory condition:

"Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
"Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:11-22).

If that's a precedent, it's bad for business if you're peddling grievance. The blood of Christ is freely given. Where's the profit in that?

Genocide

'Bishop' Swan retweets, with approval, a tweet that suggests genocide is a white man's thing:

Here we see that certain negative characteristics, namely a tendency to commit genocide and other atrocities, are sequestered and assigned to the white race, as if they were its special property. This is classic racism. Is it realistic? Only if you never read the newspapers. Where did disease come from? The white man brought it. Where did genocide come from? The white man. . .really? Consider:

The Rwandan Genocide. In 1994 militia groups and government forces belonging to the Hutu ethnic minority systematically slaughtered the Tutsi minority in Rwanda, using guns, machetes, or whatever came to hand. Deaths are estimated at half a million to a million, though no one will ever know for sure.

The Biafran Famine. The Ibo tribe of Nigeria declared independence in 1967. The central government of Nigeria decided the simplest and most effective way to deal with the secessionists was to starve them. After one million deaths, the Biafrans threw in the towel, and Nigeria continues as a unified country, although some of its people can remember when their government did this to them:

There are so many of these horrific incidents that one trembles to recount them all. In recent memory similar events have happened in the Sudan. The Ethiopian famine that captured world attention was widely but erroneously reported in the West as a natural disaster; it was no more nor less natural than the famine that stalked the Ukraine while Josef Stalin sought to impose socialism on the countryside. In a rare triumph of justice, Mengistu Haili Mariam was found guilty of genocide by an Ethiopian court for the famine that ravaged Ethiopia during his reign of Red Terror. He found refuge with fellow Marxist Robert Mugabe, who himself brought cholera and famine to his own country, formerly the bread-basket of Africa.

Bantu-Speakers Displace Khoisan. The ancient Athenians used to wear a little cicada ornament, which was intended to communicate that, unlike other Greeks who were recent migrants, they were autochthonous, having always lived in their territory. Not that they always had, but compared to others they were not newcomers. The present inhabitants of Africa did not always live where they now live; they displaced the Khoisan, over the course of centuries. A small remnant population remains in South Africa. According to genetic analysis, these original Africans are the most closely related to Europeans and Asians. This displacement happened outside of the gaze of recorded history, even though it played out contemporaneously to recorded history. It took place during a time frame in which events in the Mediterranean world were recorded and minutely analyzed by historians. But the Roman historians did not know what was going on in sub-Saharan Africa. Given the lack of chronicles, there is some uncertainty about exactly what did happen. Some hopefully suggest the invading Bantu-speakers intermarried and absorbed these other groups rather than committed genocide against them. If so, this would have been comparable to American history, as mentioned in the tweet. If you add up all the American citizens who are 1/16th native American, or 1/64th, or have high cheek-bones like Elizabeth Warren, then the native population shows a natural increase, not destruction.

Thrill Killing. Samuel Little, who at the time of his murder trial complained he was suffering a "legal lynching," now claims to have murdered up to 93 people. If confirmed, this would make him the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history.

Great Kanto Earthquake. This case involves Koreans blamed, impossibly, for an earthquake, and Japanese who did not need to learn how to scape-goat from any white preceptors:

"The most appalling such postdisaster incident was after the Great Kanto Earthquake that struck central Japan at noon on September 1, 1923. More than 125,000 died in the catastrophe, many by fires caused by broken gas mains and overturned cookstoves in that land of wooden houses crowded together. Additionally, the massive quake made many wells go cloudy. Rumors that the fires were arson and the wells were poisoned by radicals or by Koreans led to hideous massacres. About six thousand Koreans and people mistaken for Koreans were killed by vigilante groups, along with some socialists. In some cases, these people were protected by the military and by police; in others these authorities colluded or led the murders and encouraged the rumors that devastated the unpopular groups." (A Paradise Built in Hell, Rebecca Solnit, p. 83).

Slavery. It is unbalanced to put 'slavery' without further qualification down to the account of "the white man," given the fortune the Kingdom of Whydah accumulated selling this brand of merchandise. Africa was an exporter of slaves long before a market opened up in the New World. 'Bishop' Swan attracted quite a bit of attention with his tweet in the aftermath of Amber Guyger's murder conviction, and her reconciling hug with Brandt Jean, the brother of the victim. He said it was "Post Traumatic SLAVERY Syndrome." One shudders to imagine how much of that there is going round in Africa, given its history as the place that sold its children into slavery. Christianity is all about forgiveness and reconciliation, but that is not a popular theme in some quarters. It's bad for business, if your line of business is drumming up expectations of reparations. It's not the expected thing for a Christian pastor to be unashamed to speak out publically against forgiveness, given that the Lord said, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14-15). 'Bishop' Swan however was not alone in his displeasure at this incident. Many African-American commentators seemed to believe that Mr. Jean was forgiving Ms. Guyger for slavery, rather than for the murder of his brother. They seem to be under the impression that white people eagerly desire to be forgiven by black people on that score, regardless of their own personal history and whether it involves plantation ownership or residence in any state where slavery was legal. It is on this perception that reparations fever takes hold. These leaders prefer a different mood for the community, though I strongly suspect the folks promising a big check if the masses will only follow them will never deliver on their promises.

Not to omit Asiatic folk from our catalog of atrocities. Leaving aside Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, the Rape of Nanking, and the killing fields of Cambodia, what about Genghis Khan? He makes Caucasians like Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler look lame, if you evaluate his body count as a percentage of the human beings then alive on the planet. The potential for violence is our inheritance from the old Adam; there is no branch of the human family which is immune to it. So why pretend there is some favored race which has committed no crimes? Here again, negative characteristics, which do belong to some members of the target group, are generalized to all members of the group, while they are air-brushed away from the favored group. They call that racism.

Black Messiah

In response to a tweet lamenting that he does not know the Jesus of the Scriptures, 'Bishop' Swan replies, "No, I don't know the white, republican Jesus of the white evangelical supremacist scripture." (Tweet, retrieved 1/30/20). What 'Jesus' does he know? One he has invented. 'Bishop' Swan believes that Jesus looked like this:

Is it possible that's a true-to-life portrait of the historical Jesus? It might seem so, if you ignore all the actual evidence for what people of that time and place really looked like:

White Privilege

The percentage of American blacks who live in poverty is higher than the percentage of whites, but given that the white population is much larger, most of the people who live in poverty in this country are white. In addition to their material deprivations, they are exposed to this kind of ignorant slap in the face:

How exactly women are supposed to benefit from "patriarchy" he doesn't say, it's not like any of this makes sense anyway. Did the poorest of the poor in America ever benefit from black slavery?

I don't suppose they did, but when you make a living peddling racial grievance, it must seem like a good idea to say so. To listen to the pro-reparations rhetoric, you would think all or most white Americans are the descendants of slave-owners, but neither in the depression era when these photos were taken nor today was that ever the case. Squeezing reparations out of this demographic seems a stretch.

AnsweringBishop Talbert Swan