Jump to content
Darren10

Ayla Stewart "Infuriated" by LDS Church's Condemnation of White Culture

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, it includes losing all of their wars unless they are bailed out but ther people. The only exception is the French Revolution. Either way, the French won that war all on its own. :)

Napoleon won a few.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

But cannot people of Africa heritage be described as people of a black culture? In other words, one typically uses race to classify subcultures, I ask why one cannot use race to classify a culture? 

Because race is too broad. There is no one culture that encompasses a whole race.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Gray said:

Without the French, there would be no United States. 

"Lafayette, we have come." We paid that back in the First World War. Can we kindly forget that embarrassing fact now? Plus they only get partial credit. They did not come as friends of the Revolutionaries. They came as enemies of the British.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The German / English backgrounds were white so far as race is concerned, correct? How is that not white culture for your white family? The "white culture" Ayla belongs to purports white superiority. She is in the wrong.

Yes the German/english side were white (and jewish a ways back) but I'm not. At least not full white, and depending where I live and when the ability to claim that part drastically shifts. Racial identity is not the same as culture. What you're describing as "white culture" isn't an actual culture, it's an experience within a specific context. For example I'm mixed and can resonate with several other peoples of mixed race background. There's a lot of overlap in experience. BUT that does not make mixed folks a shared culture. I may resonate with a Hapa experience, but I am in no way Hapa myself. Likewise racial identity as "white" is more tied with what it means to look or be received a certain way. It can often entail racial stereotypes to certain preferences, expectations based on race, and perspectives based off of being in a dominate position in the US. So for example, I've been called white a couple of times in my life. When I couldn't dance well, people (and I would joke a little) that it was my white side kicking in. When I learned to latin dance and could dance pretty well people would describe it as my black side coming out. (It wasn't....it was called practice and lots of it). People have stated I "act white" based on dress, accent, and most insultingly my education level. Being "white" wasn't at all about my culture but about the experiences that people attribute to being white tied to acceptance into the mainstream and opportunities disparities among different ethnic/racial groups.  Complicating it further, culture can have nothing to do with actual genetic heritage. So I tell people I'm mexican influenced, even though genetically there's nothing in me that would look like the average mexican mestizo heritage.   

 

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

But cannot people of Africa heritage be described as people of a black culture? In other words, one typically uses race to classify subcultures, I ask why one cannot use race to classify a culture? 

Black culture in the US is synonymous with African American culture. Google "black culture" and that becomes pretty clear. Anyone who is not African-american but has other black heritage living in the US can attest to that. Race is not an umbrella term to group specific cultures. Culture and race can often overlap.....so it's a safe bet that the majority of people with African heritage in america are AA in culture. BUT it's not a guarantee.  I do not have any meaningful ties to the AA community that would directly influence my culture even though I'm half black (nigerian). But all may experience similar things within the context of an American landscape to being black. My dad's nigerian culture does not innoculate him from being profile by police, for example. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

But cannot people of Africa heritage be described as people of a black culture? In other words, one typically uses race to classify subcultures, I ask why one cannot use race to classify a culture? 

No, look into how well the freed slaves sent back to Liberia integrated culturally. You could say there is an African American culture in the United States but it varies throughout the country as much as Caucasian culture does.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Napoleon won a few.

 I was exagerating but, even Napolean went down in flames. But so are we nowadays. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Gray said:

Because race is too broad. There is no one culture that encompasses a whole race.

But there are subcultures and subcultures collectively make up culture. That's my metric. And while not 100% 97% of one race is pretty close.

Is there such a thing as Mormon culture? 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes the German/english side were white (and jewish a ways back) but I'm not. At least not full white, and depending where I live and when the ability to claim that part drastically shifts. Racial identity is not the same as culture. What you're describing as "white culture" isn't an actual culture, it's an experience within a specific context. For example I'm mixed and can resonate with several other peoples of mixed race background. There's a lot of overlap in experience. BUT that does not make mixed folks a shared culture. I may resonate with a Hapa experience, but I am in no way Hapa myself. Likewise racial identity as "white" is more tied with what it means to look or be received a certain way. It can often entail racial stereotypes to certain preferences, expectations based on race, and perspectives based off of being in a dominate position in the US. So for example, I've been called white a couple of times in my life. When I couldn't dance well, people (and I would joke a little) that it was my white side kicking in. When I learned to latin dance and could dance pretty well people would describe it as my black side coming out. (It wasn't....it was called practice and lots of it). People have stated I "act white" based on dress, accent, and most insultingly my education level. Being "white" wasn't at all about my culture but about the experiences that people attribute to being white tied to acceptance into the mainstream and opportunities disparities among different ethnic/racial groups.  Complicating it further, culture can have nothing to do with actual genetic heritage. So I tell people I'm mexican influenced, even though genetically there's nothing in me that would look like the average mexican mestizo heritage.   

 

Black culture in the US is synonymous with African American culture. Google "black culture" and that becomes pretty clear. Anyone who is not African-american but has other black heritage living in the US can attest to that. Race is not an umbrella term to group specific cultures. Culture and race can often overlap.....so it's a safe bet that the majority of people with African heritage in america are AA in culture. BUT it's not a guarantee.  I do not have any meaningful ties to the AA community that would directly influence my culture even though I'm half black (nigerian). But all may experience similar things within the context of an American landscape to being black. My dad's nigerian culture does not innoculate him from being profile by police, for example. 

 

With luv,

BD

Stereo types can be used humorously and that's because they are based some truth. 

Great points. True enough that race and culture are separate but don't they influence outcomes of one another? 

In the end I think that there are specific expectations from races in part from their subcultural backgrounds. There is no reason to exclude any race from any part of culture and likewise there is no reason to exclude any culture from any race. My original question to you about tour white background for part of your ancestry was to point out that part of your family is white and do certain things because of their cultural and subcultural backgrounds. Perhaps from their subcultural background but in the end they are who they are in large part from their past. Same for you and your uniqueness as well. Race genetic anf race-based behavior I think sre very much defined by subcultures. 

So, again, great points. Perhaps I am overextending the term "culture" but I am still not convinced that race does not influence culture and vice versa. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, look into how well the freed slaves sent back to Liberia integrated culturally. You could say there is an African American culture in the United States but it varies throughout the country as much as Caucasian culture does.

I agree african American culture is way too broadly used so yes it does vary but there are there not overall cultural indentities among African Americans? Not that thry have to be defined as such but isn't thst reality? Why does that not form a culture? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

"Lafayette, we have come." We paid that back in the First World War. Can we kindly forget that embarrassing fact now? Plus they only get partial credit. They did not come as friends of the Revolutionaries. They came as enemies of the British.

Statue of Liberty and  creme brulee. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

But there are subcultures and subcultures collectively make up culture. That's my metric. And while not 100% 97% of one race is pretty close.

Is there such a thing as Mormon culture? 

What culture makes up 97% of one race? I can't think of anything.

And most cultures encompass multiple races - Mormon culture does for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

What culture makes up 97% of one race? I can't think of anything.

And most cultures encompass multiple races - Mormon culture does for sure.

Then why can culture be defined by religion since not allcultures have only one religion but not by race? 

Scottland culture. Here are whites in Scottland as oer the omniscient oracle Wikipedia:

Number.       %.             Number.       %
4,960,334 97.99% 5,084,407

96.02%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Then why can culture be defined by religion since not allcultures have only one religion but not by race? 

Scottland culture. Here are whites in Scottland as oer the omniscient oracle Wikipedia:

Number.       %.             Number.       %
4,960,334 97.99% 5,084,407

96.02%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland

Are 97% of white people Scottish?

I have Scottish ancestors, by the way - but that's not my culture.

 

Culture definitely can be defined by religion.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

Are 97% of white people Scottish?

I have Scottish ancestors, by the way - but that's not my culture.

 

Culture definitely can be defined by religion.

I do too and they are not my culture neither

"Culture definitely can be defined by religion."

Correct.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the argument here is that white" is genetic and "culture" is according to a common set of beliefs and practices. Why one does not influence the other confuses me. Subcultures can be e defined by race but not culture.

I appreciate all the responses. I just need to look into it more I guess.

Share this post


Link to post

How are you defining "race"?

add-on:  white is a skin colour...quite superficial, genetics may be showing something not usually connected with white skin colour.

I know "whites" that look like they are from the Middle East, European heritage who claim they are Native American. There was the case a few years ago of a European heritage woman claiming she was "black" and when discovered she was not, said it was her identity and she had a right to be black.

Skin colour, hair treatment, etc. is becoming more and more meaningless as determining "race".

add-on and on:  though technically skin is not white, black, red, or yellow unless something is wrong with it.  We are all shades of brown really.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Stereo types can be used humorously and that's because they are based some truth. 

Great points. True enough that race and culture are separate but don't they influence outcomes of one another? 

In the end I think that there are specific expectations from races in part from their subcultural backgrounds. There is no reason to exclude any race from any part of culture and likewise there is no reason to exclude any culture from any race. My original question to you about tour white background for part of your ancestry was to point out that part of your family is white and do certain things because of their cultural and subcultural backgrounds. Perhaps from their subcultural background but in the end they are who they are in large part from their past. Same for you and your uniqueness as well. Race genetic anf race-based behavior I think sre very much defined by subcultures. 

So, again, great points. Perhaps I am overextending the term "culture" but I am still not convinced that race does not influence culture and vice versa. 

I'm not sure what you mean by influence outcomes. How race and culture interact varies from region to region and country to country. Race isn't viewed the same or interacted in the same way. So for example in Brazil, being white is similar to being blonde here, in that it isn't a set group of people, but a distinction in color and looks that are attributed as "white." This can effect how they're treated in the society and access to certain privileges, but it doesn't mean there's a white culture in brazil...or that brazilians are part of "white culture". One can say the same thing about pretty people. There's studies that show that beautiful people get better treatment in social circumstances. This doesn't mean there's a beautiful people's culture. Just that specific cultures favor beauty and that cultural treatments may be more positive toward beautiful people. Likewise culture may and do favor whiteness or in-groups (whatever the in-group may be), but that doesn't make the in-group necessarily its own culture. 

Insisting race as culture is definitely and over-extension of the definition of culture.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not sure what you mean by influence outcomes. How race and culture interact varies from region to region and country to country. Race isn't viewed the same or interacted in the same way. So for example in Brazil, being white is similar to being blonde here, in that it isn't a set group of people, but a distinction in color and looks that are attributed as "white." This can effect how they're treated in the society and access to certain privileges, but it doesn't mean there's a white culture in brazil...or that brazilians are part of "white culture". One can say the same thing about pretty people. There's studies that show that beautiful people get better treatment in social circumstances. This doesn't mean there's a beautiful people's culture. Just that specific cultures favor beauty and that cultural treatments may be more positive toward beautiful people. Likewise culture may and do favor whiteness or in-groups (whatever the in-group may be), but that doesn't make the in-group necessarily its own culture. 

Insisting race as culture is definitely and over-extension of the definition of culture.

Interesting. The very first time I witnessed a person publically stand up and denounce blacks as demeaned and less than worthy people was in a bus either in Recife or Maceio, Brazil; and both areas are heavily populated by Afro Brazilians. I'd say there's a culture behind him saying that.

What you're telling me is that race and culture do influence each other so I fail to understand the non existence of white culture.

But, I think this dialogue has run  its course. I do appreciate your input as well as from others. I definitely think I do need to learn more on tis subject.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

How are you defining "race"?

add-on:  white is a skin colour, genetics may be showing something not usually connected with white skin colour.

I know "whites" that look like they are from the Middle East, European heritage who claim they are Native American. There was the case a few years ago of a European heritage woman claiming she was "black" and when discovered she was not, said it was her identity and she had a right to be black.

Skin colour, hair treatment, etc. is becoming more and more meaningless as determining "race".

"How are you defining "race"?" - When you run? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Interesting. The very first time I witnessed a person publically stand up and denounce blacks as demeaned and less than worthy people was in a bus either in Recife or Maceio, Brazil; and both areas are heavily populated by Afro Brazilians. I'd say there's a culture behind him saying that.

What you're telling me is that race and culture do influence each other so I fail to understand the non existence of white culture.

But, I think this dialogue has run  its course. I do appreciate your input as well as from others. I definitely think I do need to learn more on tis subject.

Yeah, probably. It makes no sense what you're saying. It's the same as saying there's blonde culture. There's simply not, even though being blonde can have cultural impact and does. That's basically what you're saying, that having a phenotype means having a culture. It doesn't.

 

but disagree as you wish..

with luv,

BD 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yeah, probably. It makes no sense what you're saying. It's the same as saying there's blonde culture. There's simply not, even though being blonde can have cultural impact and does. That's basically what you're saying, that having a phenotype means having a culture. It doesn't.

 

but disagree as you wish..

with luv,

BD 

My youngest daughter is, like totally in the blonde culturrrrree. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, one more thing unless I think of something else. I am not saying that just because you are of a race, you have a culture within that race. you don't all I am saying is that certain behaviors, practices, even beliefs are influenced by race and thus influence a culture and culture does influence race.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Ok, one more thing unless I think of something else. I am not saying that just because you are of a race, you have a culture within that race. you don't all I am saying is that certain behaviors, practices, even beliefs are influenced by race and thus influence a culture and culture does influence race.

I would say that culture defines what race even is. We didn't have the racial categories we do now a few centuries back. We don't have the same categories of "race" from country to country. I don't think race specifically influences our behaviors. Ethnic and cultural origins do. CultUre. In essence, is the overarching principle. Race is a sub-category in how cultures may differentiate people.

 

With luv,

BD 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 11:05 AM, Gray said:

So the French are historically white. Does that mean their culture also includes bagpipe playing, kilt wearing and stone throwing? It must, because that's "white culture", right? 

 

As to stone throwing and the French, I'm guessing you've never seen Asterix and his pals, including the stone-throwing Obelix.

So-called Celtic practices actually used to be much more widely spread.

Wiki: "...bagpipes have been played for a millennium or more throughout large parts of Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, including Turkey, the Caucasus, and around the Persian Gulf"

Edited by hagoth7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I would say that culture defines what race even is. We didn't have the racial categories we do now a few centuries back. We don't have the same categories of "race" from country to country. I don't think race specifically influences our behaviors. Ethnic and cultural origins do. CultUre. In essence, is the overarching principle. Race is a sub-category in how cultures may differentiate people.

 

With luv,

BD 

Makes sense. Thanks. I do need to study this more.

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      [In this new creation all distinctions vanish.] There is no room for and there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, [nor difference between nations whether alien] barbarians or Scythians [who are the most savage of all], nor slave or free man; but Christ is all and in all [everything and everywhere, to all men, without distinction of person].
      --Colossians 3:11, Amplified Bible
      I read the “Amplified” translation of the New Testament back when I was still LDS.  And the rendering of this passage has long stuck with me.  The words in []’s are the “amplifications” intended for greater context and understanding of the thought being communicated.  And they are sometimes quite beautifully composed, In this new creation all distinctions vanish.  I like to think about that. 
      Today is the day we honor Dr. King and his legacy.  It means as a practical matter, I’ll be spending the afternoon riding bikes with my kids, instead of them at school and me at work.  It also means they are sleeping in and I have a few minutes to enter my thoughts into the keyboard (while I fast walk on my treadmill).  But it’s also a moment for reflection.  If I want to see a direct result of King and his legacy, I find it in the attitude of my kids toward various persons of color.  Influenced as they are by so many things that were influenced by him, such as our public schools--and yes, even our churches.  And I will readily admit their attitudes are healthier than mine were at their age.
      I’m interested in folks' thoughts on Dr. King and his legacy here.  Once upon a time predominately LDS Utah held out against his holiday, and if memory serves was the very last state in our Union to recognize it.  Would that be a source of pride, embarrassment, or maybe just a shrug and a 'who cares'?  All thoughts welcome.   
      --Erik
      PS.  If you have Netflix, David Letterman’s recent interview with Barack Obama is well worth an hour (watched it with my wife after the kids were in bed last night).  And very much on the topic. 
    • By Bill "Papa" Lee
      I grew up hearing the beautiful song, "Amazing Grace", almost every Sunday. It would some times be interchanged with the song, "Just As I Am". Both songs we songs of pleading in an attempt pull at the heart strings of all in attendance and entice members, or visitors to answer the "Altar Call", which was done every Sunday, or for others to "recommit" again to Jesus Christ. It was, while I was growing up, and one room Church. In the early days, no indoor plumbing, only "out houses", and no A/C . It was also a segregated Church, Black people were not allowed to attend. The few times, where a Black man or woman, being new to the area would wonder in, two Deacons, would calmly go back to where they sitting, and politely give then the name of nearby Black congregations, always with a handshake calling them, "Brother and Sister". But such activities would anger my Mother (God bless her soul). She was angry that our Church would do this, and insisted we leave. Knowing my Mother as I do, it was all she could do than to go outside in the hopes of finding them to apologize. 
      Between the year my Father died, and when my Mother passed away, this tiny Church (after 125+), became two rooms. At the insistence of my Mother, I spoke at my Father's funeral. So when she passed away, she had already told me (the youngest of four children) to speak when she passed away. It was a very difficult burying my last parent. So, I went about praying and reading, and searching for inspiration. I arrived at Church very early, and noticed they had an indoor font for Baptism, (in this large new room) etched in store were the words of "Amazing Grave", written by John Norton, and knowing the story of how it came to be. At that moment I received the inspiration I was seeking.   
      So so after a few pleasant remarks, I told the Church that everywhere I go, these people and memories I take with me, my experiences and memories of them with me. I turned to the hymnal, find the song and read parts of the song. I then pointed out that John Norton, used to be a "slave trader". I also (since my Mother loves the song and story) spoke of it, and then spoke of his conversion. John Norton, found himself so weighted down with his horrible sins, that he had place else to look, so he "looked up". At look up he did, and received salvation, and that the weight that was crushing him, was being lifted away. I recently found a story about it, and shared (a video) it with every friend and family on FACEBOOK. I received no amens, no replays, not even a rebuke. Usually when I share "Christ like stories", I get many, many, many, Amen's or thank you's. 
      I am posting this here, because many years ago, while teaching Gospel Doctrine, the next week's lesson addressed the the 2nd Offical Declaration. So I asked two different members who lived in Utah, when the "Priesthood Ban" was lifted, so I wanted their imput. This was two guys who never miss Church, but both did no show. So, I asked and older Sister, what did she think? Her opening comments worried me, but thankfully she brought it home. Be it the song, "Amazing Grace", where so many in Church (as I still teach), often try to over explain what "salvation by Grace" means, out of fear that others don't understand the topic. As we are all saved by Grace, and were it not for God's Amazing Grace, nothing any of us would matter. We are "saved by Grace", we are rewarded and exalted, buy our deeds bs actions, but only because we have "Grace".
      Also, living here in the great Southeast, it would seem that few want to the source of the song. Also the life of the man, John Newton, who sold all that he had to build a Church, one in which he preached and wrote Amazing Grace, but also cared for the Church himself. He was also instrumental in help to stop the "slave trade", this was also due to the fact that, William Wilberforce, leader of the House of Commons, and his best friend, James Penn, England's Prime Minister. Both of who worship in John Newton's Church. The song itself was a sermon that Norton wrote. 
      Anyway, what will it take for us to be mindful and loving of have a more diverse membership? Also, who here on this board, how did you feel about the day the ban was lifted? If there are any, please share.  
    • By Five Solas
      The LDS Church has made some strong statements against racism generally--but here are a few things that might still be leaving folks with a reasonable doubt.  In no particular order--
      1. Insisting that God “established” the U.S. Constitution (complete with its Three Fifths Clause pertaining to African Americans).  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688778/Protection-of-God-given-moral-agency.html
      2. Refusing to condemn the Alt-Right movement, as the Southern Baptist Convention has done (in unflinching, unequivocal terms).  See discussion here. 
      3. Its foremost apologist defending Confederate General Robert E. Lee and pretending the American Civil War was about states rights instead of slavery.  (Perhaps we could all chip in & buy Dr. Peterson a ticket to visit the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture—which I’d highly recommend to anyone in or visiting the D.C. area.) 
      4. And on our own board (and seemingly inspired by President Trump’s deplorable remarks alleging moral equivalency at Charlottesville between avowed Nazis/white supremacists and those who protested them)—we have a writer for the Church-owned Deseret News wringing his hands over the tactics of Antifa, as though that were the real problem.
      On that last topic of moral equivalency—it’s interesting to recall the LDS Church’s position during the Second World War, when all of Europe (save Britain) was overrun by the Fascist governments of Germany & Italy and Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were no longer a secret.  Five months after Pear Harbor—we get this remarkable statement of position.  Against Communism!  And against the war generally—but nonetheless arguing citizens must do their duty to their government (and no exception here for the German ones, they have a duty to serve the Fascist regime).  
      5. One last thought on the topic.  I spent 5 years in Glenwood Utah, graduating from Richfield Junior High, class of 1984.  (Thereafter my parents moved us to unincorporated Salt Lake County.)  Richfield Junior High was the home of the Roadrunners! 
      But the school hadn’t always been Roadrunners.  Consistent with Southern Utah “Dixie” themes—originally it was home of the Rebels.  You want to know why they changed it in the 1970s?  Do you think it's because they didn’t want to be associated with traitors who fought to persist the institution of slavery?  Well, silly you if you thought that!  They changed it because they felt the term “rebel” had an association with 1960s counter-culture.  I’m not making this up.  Hippies are the real problem!
      As they might say, "Far out, man."
      ;0)
      --Erik
      No politics. No Nazis. No attacks on other posters. 
    • By Pahoran
      Gina Colvin, Ph.D. (in journalism, that is) has a blog on Patheos. She styles her blog "Kiwimormon," as if her views were typical of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand.

      I've tried to point out to her that they are not. However, like most (heh heh) "liberals," her tolerance for dissent is far less than what she demands of the Church.

      Therefore, given that I am no longer able to post comments on her blog, I will comment here.

      Please refer to this article: Kiwimormon

      Dr Colvin seems to think that Mr Angilau was shot for no other reason than being brown in charge of a pen. I have a number of questions about that; perhaps Dr Colvin might know the answers.
      Was Mr Angilau the only "Brown Brother" in the courtroom on that day, or were there others? If there were others, is it possible that some of them might likewise have had pens? If they did, is there any distinguising factor between Mr Angilau and the other brown (and white) pen-holders in the courtroom who were not shot? Is it within the realms of possiblity that Mr Angilau was shot, not for his skin colour and/or his possession of a pen, but the fact that he was trying to attack a witness in a courtroom? Some readers may be puzzled by the way Dr Colvin and her quoted source use the word "injustice." As a New Zealander, I believe I can explain it.

      When a certain group of people are entitled! to preferential treatment, it is unjust to expect them to submit to the rule of law, as long as those laws apply equally to everyone.

      Only laws that recognise -- and privilege -- their uniquely entitled! status are or could possibly be just.

      See how that works?

      Make no mistake: this event was a tragedy. I am not ridiculing Mr Angilau or his family; I am ridiculing the slipshod thinkers and polemical opportunists who are trying to make this into a racist shooting.

      What a pity the shooter was a US marshal! If only he'd been a Utah police officer, Dr Colvin would have had an opportunity to make it even more about Utah (and thus, get that much closer to her real target, the Church of Jesus Christ.)

      But we wonder: what if the marshal had failed to act to stop the attack? What if Mr Angilau, a large, strong man with a history of violence, had managed to seriously injure Mr Vaiola Tenifa, the man he was trying to attack, while the marshals dithered about how to restrain him? Wouldn't that, in Dr Colvin's book, simply have made Mr Tenifa the victim of white racism? Wouldn't it prove that they didn't care enough about a "Brown Brother" to do anything decisive to protect him?
       
      Given the circumstances, is there anything the marshals could have done that Dr Colvin would not have interpreted through her Brown Supremacist lens?

      The fact Dr Colvin cannot see is that Mr Angilau was not shot for being an innocent brown guy who just happened to pick up a pen. He was shot because he was a gang member trying to intimidate a witness in a criminal trial.

      Regards,
      Pahoran
       
      This isn't related to religion.
    • By awyatt
      In a recent comment on a different thread, Canard78 directed readers towards some conclusions that were on his blog. Another commenter thanked Canard78 for his summary of some disturbing historical quotes relative to blacks and the priesthood.
       
      These two comments, along with a recent blog post by Jana Riess about Brigham Young's racism, spurred me to write a rather long blog post about our too-human tendency to climb upon Rameumptoms of our own fashioning. (I see it ALL the time on this and other message boards, and we all are guilty of it, even myself.)
       
         http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/the-lure-and-peril-of-our-temporal-rameumptoms/
       
      Short story: We effortlessly and harshly judge others who have gone before by the standards of our day.
       
×