Jump to content
Darren10

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But that is not how culture is defined or you would be categorizing Scottish, English, and Irish culture as the same culture...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html

 

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like Calm said, that's not how culture is defined.  It's not defined by what the dominate race is of the people who practice it.   It doesn't matter what the dominate racial make up is of any culture, it doesn't mean that the culture can be described as that race's culture.

Isn't "culture" defined by a civilization? If a civilization like Scotland composed of 97% whites, is that not "white culture". And, within culture of a civilization there are subcultures? Do not the various subcultures collectively define a culture?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 

Isn't "culture" defined by a civilization? If a civilization like Scotland composed of 97% whites, is that not "white culture". And, within culture of a civilization there are subcultures? Do not the various subcultures collectively define a culture?

 

 

No, it's not white culture, it's Scottish culture.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, it's not white culture, it's Scottish culture.  

Well, I definite it as white culture when definite by race. Of course, all races are welcome to participate in bagpipe playing, kilt wearing, and stone throwing. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2017 at 0:03 PM, Darren10 said:

I think it's important to note that the Church's statement condemning those who promote white culture emphasized that descriptor with quotation marks. The Church did not condemn white culture but "white culture". If you here me speak what Ai wam typing you would hear a distinct shift in my tone to emphasize the differences between white culture and "white culture". Obviously you phonetically cannot shift in writing so the Church used quotations. 

I think this means that the LDS Church is not condemning the promotion of white culture insofar as that means honoring and promoting things white or caucasian culture has accopmlished, which is many. It is condemning the idea that white or caucasian (which I think is actually a Native American term describing a specific tribe) culture is superior to that of non-white culture, which it absolutely is not and which promotion has historically lead to devestating results. 

 

On 8/26/2017 at 3:04 PM, Darren10 said:

To me anyone can promote any culture so long as they do not declare that culture inherently superior to others and do not blame their problems on others not of their culture. Of course there may be varying degrees of applicability to this line of thinking but that's the fundamental rubric I follow. 

When I say promote white culture I refer to cultures which have been traditionally predominately white. I credit these cultures for developing many of today's great medicines, technonogies, and establishing and spreading modern-day democracies throughout the world. These are great are blessings. I explicitly oppose excluding non whites from recieving their credit. Even in white cultural areas, of course you may find many non whites contributing to the betterment of the world snd they are due their just credits as well. 

I think you did great assimilating into the middle eastern culture. I've no doubt that that has helped you learn good things. The number one thing I enjoy about Uber driving is the many different prople I get to meet and to learn a little but about them. 

I think where white supremecists, including Ayla Stewart, get the Church wrong in denouncing the Church's condemnation of promoting "white culture" is that the Church is not condemning white people to say they are proud to be white or that white cultures have achieved great things for the world and for their specific subcultures but that the Church condemns "white culture" in that people view whites as inherently superior to non whites and actively seek to create a whites only or white superiority in society. This is evil and the Church is right to  condemn such a point of view. It goes directly against all human beings being children of the same God and that He loves them all equally. They are all precious to Him. 

 

22 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Oh, I think there actually is a white culture. in face Danes, Scots, and Germans all make up a part of "white culture". Eating Havarti cheese, playing the bagpipes, listening to Mozart, etc. are parts of white culture. In fact, these are all culturing enriching. It's that these should not be excluded from others who are non whites from fully participating. Nor should they be viewed as inherently "superior" to other cultures.

Correct. and that is why I think the church placed white culture in quotations in their condemnation of those who promote it. It's the racist element which the Church condemns, not the cultural compliments whites have made in the world.

 

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You're correct and what you described is not only normal but good. "Cultures that exist among white people" is not condemned by the Church but I think Ayla Stewart and White Nationalists and Nazis portrays the Church's condemnation as such. "Cultures that exists among white people" is definitely different than "white culture" which the Church condemns in the sense that "white culture" proponents seek to establish a "whites only" or white superiority over non whites. 

Within England, not England collectively, is there "no shared white culture" or white cultures? Within Denmark, not Denmakr collectively, is here "no shared white culture" or white cultures? How could that be if these cultures are predominantly white? 

Note that I had previously qualified my distinction in this manner. That there is a difference between white culture and "white culture". 

My dumb I

Pad (more likely my ignorant self) won't highlight the "I think" comments I made so I can bold them. I quote myself to emphasize that I am creating a category based on race. A culture category. I've outlined the justifications for my doing so and my intent is not to challenge already defined parameters of "culture" but to reflect on the way white nationalists, like Ayla Stewart and others, think. Perhaps the Church placed white culture in quotation marked because it doesn't exist. I think they placed it there because they condemn the notation that whites are superior to non-whites. So, if you want engage my thinking, please do, please challenge them. I welcome it but understand wharere I am coming from. Unless my thinking cannot exist or cannot be a reality at all, I do not see the point in telling me that what I think doesn't exist. 

On this note, I have reflected upon the criticism of the Book of Mormon being "racists". Within the dialogue already given it became clear to me that the Nephites never defined their enemies' actions as from "the dark skinned people" but as "Lamanites". I see this as a strength to Kathrine the Great, BlueBell, and Calm. The Book of Mormon does not define culture by skin color but by people of a civilization. So I do appreciate our dialogue leading me or that point. Despite that, my thinking still stands. When a culture is defined by race, and I very much think it can be, there is white culture. What there is not is racial superiority. Such a belief does no good and only hinders one in his or spiritual progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Well, I definite it as white culture when definite by race. Of course, all races are welcome to participate in bagpipe playing, kilt wearing, and stone throwing. 

It just doesn't make sense to try to say that because Scotts are mostly white, Scottish culture is white culture.  That would be like saying that because potatoes are eaten mostly by Chinese people that potatoes are Chinese food.   

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You're correct and what you described is not only normal but good. "Cultures that exist among white people" is not condemned by the Church but I think Ayla Stewart and White Nationalists and Nazis portrays the Church's condemnation as such. "Cultures that exists among white people" is definitely different than "white culture" which the Church condemns in the sense that "white culture" proponents seek to establish a "whites only" or white superiority over non whites. 

Within England, not England collectively, is there "no shared white culture" or white cultures? Within Denmark, not Denmakr collectively, is here "no shared white culture" or white cultures? How could that be if these cultures are predominantly white? 

Note that I had previously qualified my distinction in this manner. That there is a difference between white culture and "white culture". 

White culture is more like white amnesia in the US or an ignorant sense of greater affiliation with other whites than other races. What I mean by white amnesia is the sense by many whites in the US that they either don't have a culture....or that it's from some other part of their identity they place more emphasis on...such as religion, class, or country. Though those can also effect our cultural expression or experience....it's not the same. I remember in a class I took that all of us had to make something called a "cultural genorgram" Which entailed pinpointing the varying ethnic groups that we hail from and learning our family "rules" or expectations. There was a book that then noted cultural trends based on different ethnic groups. Several of my white peers were surprised to realize the cultural influences that remained from the groups they hailed from. My white family holds some strong German/British roots and it distinctly showed in how they relate to each other, discuss, and what's expected in the family. 

What "white culture" does exist is more about in-grouping practices and being the majority race in these countries. That's not a culture, that's an experience. It's not the same. So for example the irish and italians all of a couple generations ago wouldn't have been considered white. The were outside the experience of being white while still maintaining distinct cultures. Now they are considered white, but they still maintain distinctive cultural attributes. I believe the white nationalist groups are an off-shoot from this sense of white amnesia that allows race to be confused with culture. 

 

As for Ayla: I keep snickering and thinking it's hard to kick against the pricks isn't it....and then feeling oddly happy that she is not. 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2017 at 4:07 PM, Calm said:

We refused to switch to meters in spite of it being the intelligent thing to do, I doubt we will be dropping Caucasian any time soon,

I think it was important to hold/keep the Old English measures for a sufficient period of time to make an important point.

After that point has fully passed, I wouldn't be surprised to see the U.S. switch to metric.

Edited by hagoth7

Share this post


Link to post

I guess that we are a long way from our being able to see or even try to see other people, races, cultures, etc. as God sees them.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I guess that we are a long way from our being able to see or even try to see other people, races, cultures, etc. as God sees them.

Degenerate fallen people rebelling against light and truth and rejecting the beauty of Zion while preferring the false traditions of their fathers? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I think it was important to hold/keep the Old English measures for a sufficient period of time to make an important point.

After that point has fully passed, I wouldn't be surprised to see the U.S. switch to metric.

You are one of those traitors to the monarchy aren't you? If the Imperial system is good enough for our divinely appointed sovereign it is good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You are one of those traitors to the monarchy aren't you?....

I gave my solemn promise to defend the principles of the Constitution.

But I was born and still remain a Canadian citizen.

Interpret that as you wish.  (Or simply ask a skousen.) :P

Edited by hagoth7

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, bluebell said:

It just doesn't make sense to try to say that because Scotts are mostly white, Scottish culture is white culture.  That would be like saying that because potatoes are eaten mostly by Chinese people that potatoes are Chinese food.   

If you *include* food as per who eats them, yes, that would actually be accurate. Linguistically-speaking, Chinese is the esiest language in the world to learn since there are more Chinese speakers in the world than any other language. Tht is not ot say it's easy to learn but when your rubric is people-based, that is the conclusion. So when 97% of people who do a particular thing are white how is that not a "white thing"? 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

White culture is more like white amnesia in the US or an ignorant sense of greater affiliation with other whites than other races. What I mean by white amnesia is the sense by many whites in the US that they either don't have a culture....or that it's from some other part of their identity they place more emphasis on...such as religion, class, or country. Though those can also effect our cultural expression or experience....it's not the same. I remember in a class I took that all of us had to make something called a "cultural genorgram" Which entailed pinpointing the varying ethnic groups that we hail from and learning our family "rules" or expectations. There was a book that then noted cultural trends based on different ethnic groups. Several of my white peers were surprised to realize the cultural influences that remained from the groups they hailed from. My white family holds some strong German/British roots and it distinctly showed in how they relate to each other, discuss, and what's expected in the family. 

What "white culture" does exist is more about in-grouping practices and being the majority race in these countries. That's not a culture, that's an experience. It's not the same. So for example the irish and italians all of a couple generations ago wouldn't have been considered white. The were outside the experience of being white while still maintaining distinct cultures. Now they are considered white, but they still maintain distinctive cultural attributes. I believe the white nationalist groups are an off-shoot from this sense of white amnesia that allows race to be confused with culture. 

 

As for Ayla: I keep snickering and thinking it's hard to kick against the pricks isn't it....and then feeling oddly happy that she is not. 

With luv,

BD

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.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Well, I definite it as white culture when definite by race. Of course, all races are welcome to participate in bagpipe playing, kilt wearing, and stone throwing. 

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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, 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? 

 

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes 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. :)

Great, so there is no such thing as white culture. :)

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, 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? 

 

 You conflated race with nationality. I am not talking about nationality when I talk about the existence of white culture, I am talking about race being the factor used to define aculture. For those of Scottish descent, kilts and bagpipes would be part of their heritage. I lnow of a fellow blogger who has no Scottish ancestery, at least none that I recall him declaring, who decided to stsrt wearing a kilt. He's white and while there is absolutely no reason to whites for wearing a kilt the chances of your seeing one in my case knowing of one is pretty slim I'd say. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Gray said:

Great, so there is no such thing as white culture. :)

No, there's no such thing as a French victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 You conflated race with nationality. I am not talking about nationality when I talk about the existence of white culture, I am talking about race being the factor used to define aculture. For those of Scottish descent, kilts and bagpipes would be part of their heritage. I lnow of a fellow blogger who has no Scottish ancestery, at least none that I recall him declaring, who decided to stsrt wearing a kilt. He's white and while there is absolutely no reason to whites for wearing a kilt the chances of your seeing one in my case knowing of one is pretty slim I'd say. 

There is no culture associate with white people. All rabbits are mammals, not all mammals are rabbits. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

No, there's no such thing as a French victory. 

Without the French, there would be no United States. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no culture associate with white people. All rabbits are mammals, not all mammals are rabbits. 

But all mammals are classified according to physical traits. Why can't culture be classified based on race. Is there no such thing as black culture?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Without the French, there would be no United States. 

Or the Polish. The victory of the United states is not a French victory though they did contribute to its victory, that's for sure.

Merci à tous les français.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

But all mammals are classified according to physical traits. Why can't culture be classified based on race. Is there no such thing as black culture?

There is no such a thing as black culture if you mean all people of African heritage. But there is such a thing as African American culture. There's a shared experience within a limited geographic area. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is no such a thing as black culture if you mean all people of African heritage. But there is such a thing as African American culture. There's a shared experience within a limited geographic area. 

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? 

Edited by Darren10

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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...