Conference Will Explore Issues Of Race In The Lds Church

[BlueDreams]

Some of the behaviors that BD mentions seem like an overcompensation so that the person tries too hard to not be racist and in doing so comes across as racist. Some are just thoughtless, sort of like asking an overweight woman when her baby is due.

 

 

True, and true. For the over-compensators, I don't usually see them as racist, more so racially ignorant or inexperienced with other races. This leaves them often stumbling over their words. And some are thoughtless. And though I can usually see where they're coming from, it doesn't take away from the fact that why it is happening is because of some racist constructs. I don't mean this in the common vernacular sense of the word where it shows some hostility. But in the sense of strains of ethnocentricism...where their cultural background is either considered the norm or that other groups have distinctive standardized traits.    

 

Recently Conan Obrien spent a week or so in Cuba, where the prevailing color is brown/black. Here was a very tall, very white, red headed guy surrounded by the locals. It was interesting to watch the reactions of the local population to the " odd duck " . I wonder how Conan would have felt had he been completely ignored.

 That happened to me in china this last summer. I went with a mixed group of students. All of us got attention, but the ones that really stood out got an exceptional amount (they were either super pale, super dark, or had some distinguishing feature that wasn't common in china). People would ask for our pictures or sneak pictures over their shoulder. It was funny for the most part and I imagined this must be what it's like to be famous. After a while a number of the students would get really short and feel a little accosted by the constant attention though. They were also the ones who were probably the least used to said attention.

 

And though some of my experiences mirrored those in China (ie. lack of exposure).....many more don't. That has far more to do with the history/cultural contexts unique to the U.S. And how that is manifest is far more complex.   

 

with luv,

BD

[Pahoran]

If it was wrong and they were not asking why didn't God intervene and tell them? After all plural marriage was allegedly so important God sent an angel with a flaming sword. This error seems at least as important if not more so.

You left out the two key words.

You do know what they are, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

True, and true. For the over-compensators, I don't usually see them as racist, more so racially ignorant or inexperienced with other races. This leaves them often stumbling over their words. And some are thoughtless. And though I can usually see where they're coming from, it doesn't take away from the fact that why it is happening is because of some racist constructs. I don't mean this in the common vernacular sense of the word where it shows some hostility. But in the sense of strains of ethnocentricism...where their cultural background is either considered the norm or that other groups have distinctive standardized traits.    

 

 That happened to me in china this last summer. I went with a mixed group of students. All of us got attention, but the ones that really stood out got an exceptional amount (they were either super pale, super dark, or had some distinguishing feature that wasn't common in china). People would ask for our pictures or sneak pictures over their shoulder. It was funny for the most part and I imagined this must be what it's like to be famous. After a while a number of the students would get really short and feel a little accosted by the constant attention though. They were also the ones who were probably the least used to said attention.

 

And though some of my experiences mirrored those in China (ie. lack of exposure).....many more don't. That has far more to do with the history/cultural contexts unique to the U.S. And how that is manifest is far more complex.   

 

with luv,

BD

I think that one of our challenges is with the word "racism." It conjures up images of people shouting out epithets. As a result, we tend to immediately recoil from even the mere suggestion of racism because we don't engage in that kind of behavior. Most of us have an aversion to saying the s-word, so we're certsinky not going to run around saying the n-word. Besides, as 13th Article of Faith people, we are much more apt to look upon the good qualities of our minority friends. We are generally not people of ill-will towards ANY group (except perhaps JWs, but I digress ...).

As a result, the most offensive things that I've ever heard from saints were sincere COMPLIMENTS. Of course, I don't get quite as many compliments about my good looks as BD (although I do get my share ... Hehe). Yet, I get tons of compliments about being "articulate" and "so well-spoken." And while that is obviously true (I don't get many compliments about modesty), it is also somewhat condescending. I've never heard that compliment bestowed on our bishop or SP or any white member for that matter. Most of the members of my ward are well-educated professionals and it is EXPECTED that they would be "well-spoken." Yet, the fact that I can put two words together with inserting an explicitive or a "you know, basically" is treated as a minor miracle on the level of lowering the missionary age.

And my all-time favorite comments were the two times I was called "a credit to my race." It took everything in me to keep from responding, "Well you must not think much about black people." Because that is the TRUTH. If ANYONE thinks that I am a good representative for black people, they don't think much of black people. I am one of the WORST examples of black Americans; at least, given the advantageous position I was born into (see, a good black person wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition). Seriously, most black people I know would have done so much better than I have done had they been born into my situation.

Let me be clear. The people who said these things to me were trying to be kind and so I do not take offense. Yet, I think that this form of "racism" might be more dangerous those fools at SAE. (Can't explain more ... Hopping on a plane)

[rodheadlee]

Yeah I'll stop being white just as soon as you stop being black.

[thesometimesaint]

There are few enough today that they're far less the rule, and far more the exception.

 

Agreed. But I'm old enough to remember when such was not the case. Something about that arc of the moral universe... .

Theodore Parker

[Kenngo1969]

Agreed. But I'm old enough to remember when such was not the case. Something about that arc of the moral universe... .

Theodore Parker

We may have a long way yet to go, but the fact that you can remember a far different reality simply shows how far we've come: it's a glass-at-least-half-full versus a glass-still-partly-empty kind of thing.  (I may not be the victim of racial prejudice or discrimination, so it might seem that I lack whatever authority I might need to have anything to say on the subject.  That said, I'm pretty sure I've been the target of prejudice or discrimination on occasion: the difference is that those who directed such things at me at least were smart enough to not leave behind, e.g.,  smoking-gun, "We-shouldn't-hire-him-because ..." e-mails. )

Edited March 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[williamsmith]

Frankly I see FAR more racism from blacks and otherwise today than from whites.

And most (but yes not all) of the so-called racism from whites today that does exist is not actual racism, but contempt for a large majority within some races that act immorally in various ways, such as the beat down at a McDonalds.

It's the usage of negative conotated words to describe negative behavior and persons.

 

Likewise, a black calling a white person a cracker that is acting of low character is completely understandable, and not "racist" from the black person.

 

As to Mormonism.  Mormonism has always taught tolerance, and as mormons tend to live their faith, there was far less bigotry in Mormonism than the greater body of America.

Some trying to find scriptural reasons for the ban, etc. doesn't change that none of it was official, none of it was doctrine, and that it didn't mean lots of Mormons were racist.

In fact, the opposite is true.  You have Navuoo etc. period Abolitionism, you have that most people who live West were not racist peoples, etc.

I remember the Church pre 1978, and I remember other religions and people having been in them before joining the Church, and at the time, racism within the Church and it's people was almost non-existant, despite some assumptions for why the ban.

 

JFK respected the Church.  The founder of the Black Panthers respected/joined the Church.  The creator of "Roots" was honored by the Church, etc. all pre-1978.

If the Church and it's people had been racist, it wouldn't have had this respect.

Anti-Mormons are re-writing history into their racist narrative, and Mormons are letting them do it, accepting it themselves instead of the actual truth.

 

Further, we are allowing them to define the ban, and we are accepting it.

The ban only applied to those of African Lineage (even whites).

Blacks (just as black as any black) of the Islands, some of Central/South America, India, and many more were given the Priesthood, because they were not considered of the banned lineage.

Most of this was determined by Patriarcal Blessing and Geneology, not skin color.

 

Racism by it's base definition is skin color, not lineage (save Jews, but that's more religion, not as much lineage, save in Hitlers time).

Racism otherwise, has been whether you are black.....  racists didn't care whether you were black and from the Islands or black from Africa.

Further, racists teach racism.  A religion that teaches tolerance, and is against racism is not a racist religion.  Having a different "opinion" (i.e. that such and such group is under a curse and thus shouldn't have the priesthood), does not make racism.

Likewise, Women not having the Priesthood doesn't make "Sexism", another form of bigotry.

This is also liberals and anti-mormons who are re-writing history and the definition of words, and we LDS are letting them do it.

Edited March 13, 2015 by williamsmith

[carbon dioxide]

I am not much into the issue of race but much of this will die when we see a more diverse group of general authorities.  It is bound to happen as more of the membership exists outside of the US.  Given the advanced age of many of them, there will be a large turnover in the next 10 years or so.  We could see our first black or Hispanic apostle. 

[why me]

I think that one of our challenges is with the word "racism." It conjures up images of people shouting out epithets. As a result, we tend to immediately recoil from even the mere suggestion of racism because we don't engage in that kind of behavior.

And yet, what exactly is racist behavior? Where is the border? For example, what happened in Flatbush brooklyn. Here we have  teenagers, who just happen to be black involved in a royal beatdown of another black teenager, with crowds of other black teenagers egging them on and enjoying the beatdown with cheers. No one called 911 in the crowd. And this happened in an McDonalds. What am I to think being a white person? Should I avoid that McDonalds when school gets out. Many people do. Should I avoid that area in the evening and if I do, am I racist? What message did those teenagers send to nonblacks about black youth? And where was Al Sharpton in all this? Silence. I do think that a community needs to look  inward to see just where the prejudice is and why. And of course the teens in McDonalds were using the n word to describe these teens doing the beatdown.

 

As I said to you before this is not a 'white' thing but also a black thing. It is about behavior. It is about family and community. And I can tell you like I told you before, these families in places like flatbush need the lds church in their lives because there is something inherently wrong in the families of these youth who were filming and not helping that teenager getting the beatdown.

 

And will people who are not black have fear when they see black youth walking down the street toward them and if they do, would it be understandable? Or would it be 'racist'? And where is the outrage in the black community about what happened in flatbush? And where are the marches protesting what happened in Brooklyn? And where is your sense of outrage?

Edited March 13, 2015 by why me

[Thinking]

All Churches had race issues back then.  The KKK was largely Protestant.  Catholics have had issues.  Much of it was how the Bible was interpreted.  I am not justifying it, I am saying that it is not surprising based on the times.

 

The main problem for the LDS Church is that it claims Divine Guidance in a manner not claimed by other Churches.  

 

Our leaders were wrong.  But, so was every other leader....religious and political.  

 

Perhaps our Prophets should have asked for guidance from God sooner.  They didn't, apparently.  But when they did, they received an Answer unprecedented in any other Church.

 

So...no other church ordained blacks to the priesthood before 1978?

[carbon dioxide]

So...no other church ordained blacks to the priesthood before 1978?

Actually no since the priesthood only exists in the LDS Church. 

[williamsmith]

So...no other church ordained blacks to the priesthood before 1978?

 

Yet, when did racism finally end as a "stain" on this country and worldwide?

70's.

 

That's not a coincidence.  People want to know why the ban existed, and why it finally ended when it did, it's right there in front of you.

God does nothing until man is ready for it.  That was the actual "curse".

Edited March 13, 2015 by williamsmith

[The Nehor]

I think we should just abolish racism or decide that everyone is one race (I am thinking Filipino). Sound good?

[Jeanne]

Ac

 

I think we should just abolish racism or decide that everyone is one race (I am thinking Filipino). Sound good?

We have to put an "ite" behind it. 

[BlueDreams]

Frankly I see FAR more racism from blacks and otherwise today than from whites.

And most (but yes not all) of the so-called racism from whites today that does exist is not actual racism, but contempt for a large majority within some races that act immorally in various ways, such as the beat down at a McDonalds.

It's the usage of negative conotated words to describe negative behavior and persons.

 

 

I find your first claim dubious. And the second is like calling a skunk another name will somehow make it less stinky. It's ridiculous to assume that one incident in brooklyn somehow should extrapolate to an entire racial group spanning the country.  And it's hypocritical to point to the immoral behavior in one group while ignoring similar problems in one's own....or while doing basically nothing to actually help the situation. They aren't a separate community, this is an American problem.....instead it's being painted as a black problem. But if the group was largely white (and it has been before)...it's would become a teen problem.

 

Likewise, a black calling a white person a cracker that is acting of low character is completely understandable, and not "racist" from the black person.

 

Nope....that's still racist....and tacky.

 

 

 

As to Mormonism.  Mormonism has always taught tolerance, and as mormons tend to live their faith, there was far less bigotry in Mormonism than the greater body of America.

Some trying to find scriptural reasons for the ban, etc. doesn't change that none of it was official, none of it was doctrine, and that it didn't mean lots of Mormons were racist.

In fact, the opposite is true.  You have Navuoo etc. period Abolitionism, you have that most people who live West were not racist peoples, etc.

I remember the Church pre 1978, and I remember other religions and people having been in them before joining the Church, and at the time, racism within the Church and it's people was almost non-existant, despite some assumptions for why the ban.

 

JFK respected the Church.  The founder of the Black Panthers respected/joined the Church.  The creator of "Roots" was honored by the Church, etc. all pre-1978.

If the Church and it's people had been racist, it wouldn't have had this respect.

Anti-Mormons are re-writing history into their racist narrative, and Mormons are letting them do it, accepting it themselves instead of the actual truth.

.......I believe this is called whitewashing (excuse the pun) history. This is not at all accurate. We were definitely racist and it wasn't a small group of us that were. It was the air they breathed (not just the mormons, but everybody). Racial hierarchy  and separation was a given, including for most abolitionists. And I've read a ton about race in the church and not from anti's. Nor am I even close to an anti. 

 

 

 

Further, we are allowing them to define the ban, and we are accepting it.

The ban only applied to those of African Lineage (even whites).

Blacks (just as black as any black) of the Islands, some of Central/South America, India, and many more were given the Priesthood, because they were not considered of the banned lineage.

Most of this was determined by Patriarcal Blessing and Geneology, not skin color.

 

Africa is not a lineage. It's a continent. 

 

Racism by it's base definition is skin color, not lineage (save Jews, but that's more religion, not as much lineage, save in Hitlers time).

Racism otherwise, has been whether you are black.....  racists didn't care whether you were black and from the Islands or black from Africa.

Further, racists teach racism.  A religion that teaches tolerance, and is against racism is not a racist religion.  Having a different "opinion" (i.e. that such and such group is under a curse and thus shouldn't have the priesthood), does not make racism.

Likewise, Women not having the Priesthood doesn't make "Sexism", another form of bigotry.

This is also liberals and anti-mormons who are re-writing history and the definition of words, and we LDS are letting them do it.

 

 

 

Racism is not based solely on skin color....colorism is. It's based on race. And race is not limited to a tone, but have lines to a specific category of people....which lineage can definitely fit. And the way it was set up followed the one-drop rule and disproportionately effected one specific racial group (that were presumed to have the same lineage....but didn't). And the "lineage" stuff was tied to common scriptural interpretations of the era to justify racial stratification and slavery. So yes, it was racist.

 

Yet, when did racism finally end as a "stain" on this country and worldwide?

70's.

huh???....someone forgot to give me the memo when I was born. 

 

 

This isn't actually helpful for members of color. It's off putting and invalidating and does not give any allowance for recognition of our continued struggles with race, ethnicity, and their expressions in the church.

 

Wtih luv,

BD

[pogi]

I think we should just abolish racism or decide that everyone is one race (I am thinking Filipino). Sound good?

 

Magandang idea iyan! (That's a good idea!)

 

Sino ang kasama namin?  (Who is with us?)

 

The sooner you learn Tagalog, the quicker we can get this started. 

[smac97]

I agree with everything....minus this part. I find the term microrape ridiculous but strongly believe in microaggressions and microinvalidations as a specific form of microaggressions.

First, let's review what is generally meant by "racism." Let's go with the dictionary definition: "A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." Or perhaps this one is better: "Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t).

Now, regarding "microaggressions," I suppose people who harbor racist sentiments can find subtle ways to express such things. Such subtleties allow for "plausible deniability" of racism, while still facilitating the expression of it. To that extent, I will readily concede that racist expressions, herein described using the term "microaggressions", exist.

However, I find the utility of the term very problematic. There's no objectivity to it. There's no way to differentiate subtleties based on "racism" ("hatred or intolerance of another race or other races") as compared to subtleties based on benign or harmless or well-intentioned motivations, or even no particular motivations at all. Put another way, this label seems spectacularly prone to misuse or abuse. "Microaggression" is such a subjective, squishy, catch-all term that it can be pressed into any form and applied to any comment or conduct, racist, benign or otherwise. The user of the term gets to tar anyone and everyone they feel like with the same broad brush. That's just not right.

 

They're not new fad terms.

Are you sure? It sure seems like a neologism.

 

They're real and they do have an effect because they have a way of unconsciously marginalizing, undervaluing, and at the very least they're off-putting.

Who is doing the "marginalizing" and "undervaluing" when a microaggression is used? I assume you are accusing the speaker, in which case you are imputing motives here. I think that's a real problem. We are using a spectacularly subjective term ("microaggression") to describe an enormous swath of behaviors, none of which are overtly racist (hence the "micro" in "microaggression"). So racism has to be presumed. Read into the situation. That's not a healthy recipe for interactions between people of different races. Sure, you may end up pegging a comment or action as "racist" because the person saying/doing it intended it as such. But you'll also get a lot of false positives. A lot of accusations of "racism" leveled against good, decent, non-racist folk who nevertheless said something which the listener heard, interpreted, and unilaterally labeled with one of the most repugnant and vile characterizations in our society.

 

No one's 100% immune to them, but it is a "form of racism" that needs to be addressed.

First, we don't even know what "microaggression" means. It's a neologism.  It's not in the dictionary, so online definitions are, to me, fairly suspect.

Second, the term "microaggression" glosses over any distinction between subtle-but-actual expressions of racism and benign or well-intentioned or not-very-well-thought-out expressions which, when the worst is assumed, can be construed as racist.

Third, the elasticity of the term, coupled with the fantastically horrendous accusation it carries, makes it a potent weapon.

Fourth, as a weapon, a blunt object, it has the potential to harm a lot of innocent folks.

 

Particularly in LDS communities that have large white majorities (such as, but definitely not limited to UT/ID) this is the form of racism I'm more likely to see living here. One more based on ignorance and informing their interactions off of stereotype. Which mean microaggressions are pretty common.

 

There are more funny ones: For example when I am working at the temple, if I do anything with my curly hair short of putting it in a severe bun I will expect several compliments on it. And not the sort of off hand stuff....I mean serious, I-think-this-person-just-had-a-spiritual-experience compliments on my hair. And it's not 1 or 2 compliments.

I have a hard time construing such a thing as a "microaggression." Psychologist and Columbia University professor Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership." Accepting, for the sake of argument, this definition, what, exactly, is "denigrating" about people complimenting your hair? Are you saying they are insincere? That they are lying? That compliments about your hair are code for "I hate you and your skin color?"  That your fellow Latter-day Saints make it a practice to express hatred of other races while attending the temple?

My overall experience with facing racism - overt and otherwise - is fairly limited. I served a mission in Taiwan. At 6'2", I was usually at least a head taller than everyone walking down the street. And I was often the only white guy in view. And I was a Mormon missionary, complete with the quasi-official uniform (slacks, short sleeve shirt, name tag, backpack). I spoke Chinese (very much the exception for Americans in Taiwan, as most go there to teach English and speak little or no Chinese). And as a person of Scottish extraction, I happen to have hairy arms (by Taiwanese standards, anyway ... in America my forearms would be be entirely un-noteworthy). All of this led to some interesting interactions. I had little kids come up and stroke my arms to see if the hair was real ("Wow, it's like fur!" was not an uncommon thing to hear). I would be asked if I knew their cousin, who lives in Los Angeles (they would ask this after I explained that I grew up two states away from LA). More than once I overheard mothers tell their small sons things like: "See that big American over there? You need to drink milk and eat bread so you that you can become big and tall and hairy like him!" I would be asked if I preferred Madonna's music over Michael Jackson's. I was often called "adogah", an old Taiwanese term generally translated as "tall nose" or "big nose," an affectionate/derogatory nickname for Westerners. I also recall a friend on my mission, a sister missionary who was quite tall (about 5'10"), with a pale and very freckled complexion, and - most of all - she had a head of the thickest, curliest, longest, most vibrantly red/auburn hair that ever walked the streets of Taipei. I went to church one day and found her in the chapel reading The Book of Mormon while surrounded by four young Chinese girls who were all stroking her hair and talking to each other about it. The sister, nonplussed, continued to read as if nothing was going on. I asked her how she could stand to have those girls touching her hair and she shrugged and said "I'm used to it, and they like it." Another time she talked about how she seldom took the buses in Taipei because she found that fellow passengers often could not resist giving her hair a good yank, apparently to see if it was real.

Some of these things were, I think, expressions of racism ("hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"), but many were not. The Chinese mothers who pointed out to her young child the hairy American as an exemplar of the benefits of drinking milk and eating bread were not expressing "hatred or intolerance" of me or my race. The Chinese girls who were fascinated over the exotic red tresses of the Amazonian sister missionary were not expressing "hatred or intolerance" of that sister or her race. Even the label "adogah", which was pretty clearly not intended to be complimentary, was often used as a familiar term of endearment (like one guy saying to his friend, "Hey, you bozo, come on over and watch the game").

I think I encountered real, genuine expressions of "hatred or intolerance" of me and my race, though not many overall. I also encountered such things when I was in the Army prior to my mission. In basic training I was in a platoon comprised of roughly 1/3 blacks, 1/3 Hispanics (Mexican-American and Puerto Ricans) and 1/3 whites. Within a few days I had the nickname "Utah Cracker" given me by a few of the black guys in the platoon, and it stuck with me until I graduated and moved to my next duty station. At the time I thought "cracker" was a reference to me being sort of an off-white color, kind of like a Saltine cracker. In other words, I thought it was an odd, but harmless, nickname. However, at my next duty station a friend heard about my nickname and explained to me that it was intended as a derogatory racial slur, that it was a reference to slave foremen in the pre-Civil war days who used ("cracked") bullwhips to punish African slaves, and that I should not use it to describe myself or anyone else. I had another experience where one of my drill sergeants saw a picture of my sister (who is Hawaiian, but who I suppose could pass for being black) and seemed amazed, and also appalled and upset, when he found out she was my sister. He asked me repeatedly "How did such a fine sister like that end up with someone like you for a brother?" He seemed genuinely bothered to find out that my parents had adopted her when she was a baby, and the bother seemed to be based on her having brown skin and being raised by a white family (mostly white, anyway, I also have a Tahitian brother).

To sum up, it seems like there will always be some measure of clumsiness/sloppiness/thoughtlessness when people from Group A interact with people from Group B. Sometimes those interactions can aptly characterized as malicious, as racist. But sometimes they can't. And the term and concept of "microaggression" does nothing to help the situation because it conflates racist things with non-racist things.  Also, I should note that racism has not figured prominently in my life, so my experiential wisdom on this issue is likely subordinate to yours.

 

Once I was directing traffic in the locker rooms and it happened 14 or so times in 30 minutes. I feel somewhat like a rare bird specimen.

Yeah, I felt the same way when little Chinese kids would come up and pet my arms. The redheaded sister described above could probably also relate.

 

Mostly it's funny, but it reminds me that I would easily be described (and have been described) as "exotic."

Are such descriptions intended to denigrate you and your race? I would be surprised if they were.

 

It bothers me after a while and becomes embarrassing, especially with the more flowery out there compliments, because it's a permanent reminder that I'm somehow extremely different, satisfy a mixed stereotype, and can become uncomfortable when you feel a little like you were just placed on a very high pedestal based solely on my outward appearance.

Okay. I can see how this type of attention can be uncomfortable. But again, is this type of attention intended to denigrate you and your race? It would seem not.

 

Other 'compliments' have entailed overt, star-struck staring, comments on how mixed people are always so beautiful, strangers touching me, etc. On the bright side, I generally don't feel ugly....I can't.

Again, I can see how this sort of attention and commentary could make you uncomfortable. I have on occasion embarrassed my wife my being a bit too florid in my description of her to others (my favorite descriptor, and her least, is "She's essentially a hybrid of Counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Princess Leia from Star Wars" (in fact, posting this description on a public message board will likely embarrass her ... if she finds out about it)). My wife is genuinely embarrassed when I describe her in such a way. Really, she is. But not for a second does she think I am denigrating her.

 

There are more uncomfortable ones. Like picking up the racial tabs for other groups in behavior. Or having your behavior stereotyped to a specific group (never white).

Alas, these sound like more overt expressions of racism (though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "racial tabs"). Race-based stereotypes, even ones intended to be complimentary, don't seem appropriate in our day and age. They come across as either hostile/racist (if they are intended as such) or condescending/backhanded (if they are intended as a compliment).

 

There are marginalizing ones, like the time I went to a cabin where all but one other girl was even partially brown. It entailed double glances of shock from the parents, awkward comments after asking for a drink about how they didn't have kool-aid, and one person saying I startled him because I "blended in the shadows" (I'm a light brown and it was a well lit kitchen). Or the awkward moment that taught me I wasn't "black enough" when my white fellow YW's decided for a skit it would make more sense for me to drum out a hip hop beat (it sounded awful).

Wow. I see your point.

 

There's the ones that one-drop me. I dance and sing....because I'm black (forget that I had no rhythm before 18 and I sing because my white mother does). My hair is curly...obviously from my black side....I have "black hair" (I don't, and treating it as such is a recipe for disaster). Talking to me in a more "black" accent...when I don't speak like that. Or having, after a time, these expectations fall apart so that many begin to just see me as "weird" or kinda out there. I become an exception to their obviously accurate depiction of black people or mixed people. Or the ones that cannot accept my racial identity.

You are giving me a lot to think about. I had a friend in law school (at BYU), a young black man from South Central L.A., with whom I had a few chats about race. I once asked him about how he had been treated at BYU, and he said "Like a prince." He went on to give some examples of what he called "benign" racism, such as people who, upon meeting him and finding out he was a student at BYU, asked him what sport he played. There were also presumptions about his prowess with basketball and singing/rhythm.

But then there are the stories my dad told me about his experience as a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir when it recorded American Heritage of Spirituals, a compilation of mostly African-American Spirituals. One of the guest conductors, Moses Hogan, loved working with the Choir, but his primary complaint was that its members lacked "rhythm." Seems like the stereotypes can go both ways.

 

The point is, microaggressions may not seem like a big deal....one insident in and of itself may be almost funny. But over time, they build up like sediment until they are definitely tiring, heavy, and obnoxious.

But is that perception overriding reality? Is there any way to differentiate between comments which are disparaging/hateful of another's race and comments which are annoying but intended as benign, complimentary, harmless, etc.? To me, the word and concept of "microaggression" makes no such distinction, and mashes all of these up into one repellant mass.  That's really my primary point: I don't like the term.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 13, 2015 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

And yet, what exactly is racist behavior? Where is the border? For example, what happened in Flatbush brooklyn. Here we have  teenagers, who just happen to be black involved in a royal beatdown of another black teenager, with crowds of other black teenagers egging them on and enjoying the beatdown with cheers. No one called 911 in the crowd. And this happened in an McDonalds. What am I to think being a white person? Should I avoid that McDonalds when school gets out. Many people do. Should I avoid that area in the evening and if I do, am I racist? What message did those teenagers send to nonblacks about black youth? And where was Al Sharpton in all this? Silence. I do think that a community needs to look  inward to see just where the prejudice is and why. And of course the teens in McDonalds were using the n word to describe these teens doing the beatdown.

 

As I said to you before this is not a 'white' thing but also a black thing. It is about behavior. It is about family and community. And I can tell you like I told you before, these families in places like flatbush need the lds church in their lives because there is something inherently wrong in the families of these youth who were filming and not helping that teenager getting the beatdown.

 

And will people who are not black have fear when they see black youth walking down the street toward them and if they do, would it be understandable? Or would it be 'racist'? And where is the outrage in the black community about what happened in flatbush? And where are the marches protesting what happened in Brooklyn? And where is your sense of outrage?

Wow! And wow! So one incident in one McDonald's informs your entire understanding of the situation for 36 MILLION black people in America? And therefore, the entire community is in desperate need of the saving grace of white Mormons? Where would anyone get the idea of racism within this Church?

The black community is not in favor of violent attacks in McDonalds anymore than the white community is in favor of rampant drunkenness and sexual excess as you might find among white young people on spring break. This is an isolated incident that is extremely disturbing, but how does it become representative of the moral state of an entire race of people? But the continued desire to judge all (or most) black people by the worst actions of a few is the reason why we still have work to do on the racism front.

Now, as for your constant refrain that black people would be better off if we were Mormon, I tend to agree with you. Yet that will not likely happen until the Church makes the first move to cure that divide that IT created. When you tell people that they are unworthy, cursed and undeserving of the full blessings from the Lord, you must do more than stop saying such things to make things right. Contrary to Elder Ballard's claim that apologies aren't "scriptural," a sense of decency would seem to engender an apology. That is what most of us do when we hurt others with our words. And when our words (their theories behind the ban), turn out to be wrong, we say, "I'm sorry for unfairly maligning your valiance in the pre-existence and teaching anyone who would listen that God has cursed you. Will you forgive me?"

And if you have experienced "godly-sorrow" for the pain you have caused, you might even say, "We'd like to make it up to you." Even if in only small ways, like, say, allowing black saints who are so inclined to express their devotion to diety through ... gasp ... hand-clapping. Or pick something even less "offensive" than hand-clapping. But to treat blacks as second class citizens for more than s century and then simply say, "OK, God is now fine with you," isn't going to cut it. Nor should it. If I spent the last 20 years calling my wife "fat, stupid and lazy," do you think I would dissolve all of her justified resentment by simply saying, "God says you're okay now. You good?"

And in no event does it help the situation by continuing the practice of vilifying an entire race by pointing to the conduct of two dozen idiot kids in a McDonald's.

[mormonnewb]

First, let's review what is generally meant by "racism." Let's go with the dictionary definition: "A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." Or perhaps this one is better: "Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t).

Now, regarding "microaggressions," I suppose people who harbor racist sentiments can find subtle ways to express such things. Such subtleties allow for "plausible deniability" of racism, while still facilitating the expression of it. To that extent, I will readily concede that racist expressions, herein described using the term "microaggressions", exist.

However, I find the utility of the term very problematic. There's no objectivity to it. There's no way to differentiate subtleties based on "racism" ("hatred or intolerance of another race or other races") as compared to subtleties based on benign or harmless or well-intentioned motivations, or even no particular motivations at all. Put another way, this label seems spectacularly prone to misuse or abuse. "Microaggression" is such a subjective, squishy, catch-all term that it can be pressed into any form and applied to any comment or conduct, racist, benign or otherwise. The user of the term gets to tar anyone and everyone they feel like with the same broad brush. That's just not right.

Are you sure? It sure seems like a neologism.

Who is doing the "marginalizing" and "undervaluing" when a microaggression is used? I assume you are accusing the speaker, in which case you are imputing motives here. I think that's a real problem. We are using a spectacularly subjective term ("microaggression") to describe an enormous swath of behaviors, none of which are overtly racist (hence the "micro" in "microaggression"). So racism has to be presumed. Read into the situation. That's not a healthy recipe for interactions between people of different races. Sure, you may end up pegging a comment or action as "racist" because the person saying/doing it intended it as such. But you'll also get a lot of false positives. A lot of accusations of "racism" leveled against good, decent, non-racist folk who nevertheless said something which the listener heard, interpreted, and unilaterally labeled with one of the most repugnant and vile characterizations in our society.

First, we don't even know what "microaggression" means. It's a neologism. It's not in the dictionary, so online definitions are, to me, fairly suspect.

Second, the term "microaggression" glosses over any distinction between subtle-but-actual expressions of racism and benign or well-intentioned or not-very-well-thought-out expressions which, when the worst is assumed, can be construed as racist.

Third, the elasticity of the term, coupled with the fantastically horrendous accusation it carries, makes it a potent weapon.

Fourth, as a weapon, a blunt object, it has the potential to harm a lot of innocent folks.

I have a hard time construing such a thing as a "microaggression." Psychologist and Columbia University professor Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership." Accepting, for the sake of argument, this definition, what, exactly, is "denigrating" about people complimenting your hair? Are you saying they are insincere? That they are lying? That compliments about your hair are code for "I hate you and your skin color?" That your fellow Latter-day Saints make it a practice to express hatred of other races while attending the temple?

My overall experience with facing racism - overt and otherwise - is fairly limited. I served a mission in Taiwan. At 6'2", I was usually at least a head taller than everyone walking down the street. And I was often the only white guy in view. And I was a Mormon missionary, complete with the quasi-official uniform (slacks, short sleeve shirt, name tag, backpack). I spoke Chinese (very much the exception for Americans in Taiwan, as most go there to teach English and speak little or no Chinese). And as a person of Scottish extraction, I happen to have hairy arms (by Taiwanese standards, anyway ... in America my forearms would be be entirely un-noteworthy). All of this led to some interesting interactions. I had little kids come up and stroke my arms to see if the hair was real ("Wow, it's like fur!" was not an uncommon thing to hear). I would be asked if I knew their cousin, who lives in Los Angeles (they would ask this after I explained that I grew up two states away from LA). More than once I overheard mothers tell their small sons things like: "See that big American over there? You need to drink milk and eat bread so you that you can become big and tall and hairy like him!" I would be asked if I preferred Madonna's music over Michael Jackson's. I was often called "adogah", an old Taiwanese term generally translated as "tall nose" or "big nose," an affectionate/derogatory nickname for Westerners. I also recall a friend on my mission, a sister missionary who was quite tall (about 5'10"), with a pale and very freckled complexion, and - most of all - she had a head of the thickest, curliest, longest, most vibrantly red/auburn hair that ever walked the streets of Taipei. I went to church one day and found her in the chapel reading The Book of Mormon while surrounded by four young Chinese girls who were all stroking her hair and talking to each other about it. The sister, nonplussed, continued to read as if nothing was going on. I asked her how she could stand to have those girls touching her hair and she shrugged and said "I'm used to it, and they like it." Another time she talked about how she seldom took the buses in Taipei because she found that fellow passengers often could not resist giving her hair a good yank, apparently to see if it was real.

Some of these things were, I think, expressions of racism ("hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"), but many were not. The Chinese mothers who pointed out to her young child the hairy American as an exemplar of the benefits of drinking milk and eating bread were not expressing "hatred or intolerance" of me or my race. The Chinese girls who were fascinated over the exotic red tresses of the Amazonian sister missionary were not expressing "hatred or intolerance" of that sister or her race. Even the label "adogah", which was pretty clearly not intended to be complimentary, was often used as a familiar term of endearment (like one guy saying to his friend, "Hey, you bozo, come on over and watch the game").

I think I encountered real, genuine expressions of "hatred or intolerance" of me and my race, though not many overall. I also encountered such things when I was in the Army prior to my mission. In basic training I was in a platoon comprised of roughly 1/3 blacks, 1/3 Hispanics (Mexican-American and Puerto Ricans) and 1/3 whites. Within a few days I had the nickname "Utah Cracker" given me by a few of the black guys in the platoon, and it stuck with me until I graduated and moved to my next duty station. At the time I thought "cracker" was a reference to me being sort of an off-white color, kind of like a Saltine cracker. In other words, I thought it was an odd, but harmless, nickname. However, at my next duty station a friend heard about my nickname and explained to me that it was intended as a derogatory racial slur, that it was a reference to slave foremen in the pre-Civil war days who used ("cracked") bullwhips to punish African slaves, and that I should not use it to describe myself or anyone else. I had another experience where one of my drill sergeants saw a picture of my sister (who is Hawaiian, but who I suppose could pass for being black) and seemed amazed, and also appalled and upset, when he found out she was my sister. He asked me repeatedly "How did such a fine sister like that end up with someone like you for a brother?" He seemed genuinely bothered to find out that my parents had adopted her when she was a baby, and the bother seemed to be based on her having brown skin and being raised by a white family (mostly white, anyway, I also have a Tahitian brother).

To sum up, it seems like there will always be some measure of clumsiness/sloppiness/thoughtlessness when people from Group A interact with people from Group B. Sometimes those interactions can aptly characterized as malicious, as racist. But sometimes they can't. And the term and concept of "microaggression" does nothing to help the situation because it conflates racist things with non-racist things. Also, I should note that racism has not figured prominently in my life, so my experiential wisdom on this issue is likely subordinate to yours.

Yeah, I felt the same way when little Chinese kids would come up and pet my arms. The redheaded sister described above could probably also relate.

Are such descriptions intended to denigrate you and your race? I would be surprised if they were.

Okay. I can see how this type of attention can be uncomfortable. But again, is this type of attention intended to denigrate you and your race? It would seem not.

Again, I can see how this sort of attention and commentary could make you uncomfortable. I have on occasion embarrassed my wife my being a bit too florid in my description of her to others (my favorite descriptor, and her least, is "She's essentially a hybrid of Counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Princess Leia from Star Wars" (in fact, posting this description on a public message board will likely embarrass her ... if she finds out about it)). My wife is genuinely embarrassed when I describe her in such a way. Really, she is. But not for a second does she think I am denigrating her.

Alas, these sound like more overt expressions of racism (though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "racial tabs"). Race-based stereotypes, even ones intended to be complimentary, don't seem appropriate in our day and age. They come across as either hostile/racist (if they are intended as such) or condescending/backhanded (if they are intended as a compliment).

Wow. I see your point.

You are giving me a lot to think about. I had a friend in law school (at BYU), a young black man from South Central L.A., with whom I had a few chats about race. I once asked him about how he had been treated at BYU, and he said "Like a prince." He went on to give some examples of what he called "benign" racism, such as people who, upon meeting him and finding out he was a student at BYU, asked him what sport he played. There were also presumptions about his prowess with basketball and singing/rhythm.

But then there are the stories my dad told me about his experience as a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir when it recorded American Heritage of Spirituals, a compilation of mostly African-American Spirituals. One of the guest conductors, Moses Hogan, loved working with the Choir, but his primary complaint was that its members lacked "rhythm." Seems like the stereotypes can go both ways.

But is that perception overriding reality? Is there any way to differentiate between comments which are disparaging/hateful of another's race and comments which are annoying but intended as benign, complimentary, harmless, etc.? To me, the word and concept of "microaggression" makes no such distinction, and mashes all of these up into one repellant mass. That's really my primary point: I don't like the term.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think part of your problem with terming microaggressions as racism is your belief that racism necessarily involves some hatred or animus. However, no ill-will need exist for racism to be prevalent (and have real effects). The feeling of racial superiority can be independent of any hatred or "aggression" to the inferior group.

Take, for example, the "human supremacy" that most of us feel towards animals. We don't hate our animals. You white people even allow your pets to kiss you in the mouth, but I digress. We simply don't see animals as our equals. As a result, we have no qualms with "fixing" them, eating them, or even dressing them in those ridiculous sweaters. Why? Because as humans, we believe that we are superior to animals and therefore, it is proper for us to use them in ways that meet our best interests.

This was the mindset behind slavery. Africans were considered "less human" than white people and therefore, it was proper to use them for the benefit of their betters. And while that idea had largely disappeared from our common consciousness, it isn't completely gone. We see it in the criminal justice system. Until the Furman case put executions in a "timeout" during the 1970s, every death row inmate had one thing in common -- they had killed a WHITE person. At that time, unless you killed a FULL human being (a white person), you hadn't done anything THAT bad. This idea of some people being more or less human is reflected today in sentencing disparities and the lack of indictments when police officers shoot unarmed black people (it wasn't THAT much of a mistake).

And don't get me wrong. Very little (if any) of this results from conscious "aggression" towards minorities. It is simply the result of unconscious racial superiority. Just as with human superiority, it is only logical to allow certain privileges for the "superior" being. That is why some of us think that we have to constantly push back against the notion of racial superiority; and its most common expressions in modern society -- through microaggressions. We're not fighting against being called "so pretty" or "well-spoken," but rather the underlying assumption that blacks in general are so much LESS attractive and articulate.

 

P.S.  I recently took Harvard's Implicit Assumption Test with regards to race and the conclusion was that I had a significant implicit preference for WHITES.  And believe me, I really tried to "black it up" when taking the test.  But the truth is that even have I unconsciously bought into the view of white supremacy ... and I've been black most of my entire life.  If you're interested, you can find the test here.  Like most well-intentioned folks, I suspect that you will find the results surprising.

 

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

Edited March 14, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

DUP. 

Edited March 14, 2015 by mormonnewb

[pogi]

I think part of your problem with terming microaggressions as racism is your belief that racism necessarily involves some hatred or animus. However, no ill-will need exist for racism to be prevalent (and have real effects). The feeling of racial superiority can be independent of any hatred or "aggression" to the inferior group.

Take, for example, the "human supremacy" that most of us feel towards animals. We don't hate our animals. You white people even allow your pets to kiss you in the mouth, but I digress. We simply don't see animals as our equals. As a result, we have no qualms with "fixing" them, eating them, or even dressing them in those ridiculous sweaters. Why? Because as humans, we believe that we are superior to animals and therefore, it is proper for us to use them in ways that meet our best interests.

This was the mindset behind slavery. Africans were considered "less human" than white people and therefore, it was proper to use them for the benefit of their betters. And while that idea had largely disappeared from our common consciousness, it isn't completely gone. We see it in the criminal justice system. Until the Furman case put executions in a "timeout" during the 1970s, every death row inmate had one thing in common -- they had killed a WHITE person. At that time, unless you killed a FULL human being (a white person), you hadn't done anything THAT bad. This idea of some people being more or less human is reflected today in sentencing disparities and the lack of indictments when police officers shoot unarmed black people (it wasn't THAT much of a mistake).

And don't get me wrong. Very little (if any) of this results from conscious "aggression" towards minorities. It is simply the result of unconscious racial superiority. Just as with human superiority, it is only logical to allow certain privileges for the "superior" being. That is why some of us think that we have to constantly push back against the notion of racial superiority; and its most common expressions in modern society -- through microaggressions. We're not fighting against being called "so pretty" or "well-spoken," but rather the underlying assumption that blacks in general are so much LESS attractive and articulate.

 

I don't deny that there is a history of racial supremecy in America.  I think that there is probably some truth that unconscious racial superiority exists in society, not in all, but enough for black people to feel it.  I wonder however, if that has led to an even more dangerous problem for some black people - the existence of unconscious racial inferiority.  I am a firm believer that if we want to progress in life, we need to stop blaming others for our misfortunes, stop trying to change others to make us happy, but instead we need to focus on changing and controlling the one and only thing that we can control, our own selves.   Unfortunately, many of us have self-limiting beliefs which keep us from progressing, and I have a suspicion that that is the greatest threat facing blacks today.  It is typical for those who have self-limiting beliefs to blame their misfortunes on others.  Sometimes they are right in that other people have plaid a role in their misfortunes, and it may not be a perfectly fair playing field, but I firmly believe that their energy would be better spent in addressing their self-limiting beliefs then in trying to change others.  I think Oprah Winfrey is a great example of what can be done when you focus your energy on yourself rather than on others.  She overcame the self-limiting beliefs which might exist very powerfully as a poverty stricken black woman in America.  I don't believe that there is one black person who is being held back from accomplishing great things because of unconscious racial supremacy. Maybe it is harder for them to get ahead because it is an uneven playing filed, I can't say, but that is no excuse to not get ahead.  Microagression, cop killing, and finger pointing are not going to get them anywhere, especially if the racial supremacy is "unconscious" as you say.   

[mormonnewb]

I don't deny that there is a history of racial supremecy in America.  I think that there is probably some truth that unconscious racial superiority exists in society, not in all, but enough for black people to feel it.  I wonder however, if that has led to an even more dangerous problem for some black people - the existence of unconscious racial inferiority.  I am a firm believer that if we want to progress in life, we need to stop blaming others for our misfortunes, stop trying to change others to make us happy, but instead we need to focus on changing and controlling the one and only thing that we can control, our own selves.   Unfortunately, many of us have self-limiting beliefs which keep us from progressing, and I have a suspicion that that is the greatest threat facing blacks today.  It is typical for those who have self-limiting beliefs to blame their misfortunes on others.  Sometimes they are right in that other people have plaid a role in their misfortunes, and it may not be a perfectly fair playing field, but I firmly believe that their energy would be better spent in addressing their self-limiting beliefs then in trying to change others.  I think Oprah Winfrey is a great example of what can be done when you focus your energy on yourself rather than on others.  She overcame the self-limiting beliefs which might exist very powerfully as a poverty stricken black woman in America.  I don't believe that there is one black person who is being held back from accomplishing great things because of unconscious racial supremacy. Maybe it is harder for them to get ahead because it is an uneven playing filed, I can't say, but that is no excuse to not get ahead.  Microagression, cop killing, and finger pointing are not going to get them anywhere, especially if the racial supremacy is "unconscious" as you say.   

 

You're going to find this shocking, but I largely agree with you; at least, in regards to black people buying into racial inferiority.  I know that I have.  As I mentioned to smac, I took Harvard's Implicit Assumption Test on race and it confirmed that I had a significant preference towards WHITES.  If you've been told (explicitly and implicitly) for 47 years that whites are superior, the message is going to get through.

 

The only thing that I would challenge is the assertion that just because SOME have overcome racism, then others shouldn't be affected by it.  During slavery, SOME blacks were able to thrive (e.g., Frederick Douglass).  Does that mean the other blacks were holding themselves back by their feeling of victimhood?  I would suggest that it was an isolated example of a rarely gifted person overcoming tremendous odds to succeed.  It shouldn't be the case that blacks must be exceptional just to achieve what average whites achieve.  And sadly, that is largely the case in America.  According to this 2014 Georgetown study, a black person with a Master's earns slightly LESS than a white person with a bachelor's degree.  And whites with bachelor's degrees outran every other similarly educated racial groups (e.g., Latinos, Asians, etc.).  That can't be just a coincidence.  There certainly seems to be SOME advantage to being white in America.

 

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/collegepayoff-complete.pdf

 

That being said, we agree that NO black person should use this data as an excuse not to give their best.  Even if a black person with a Master's won't earn as much as white person, he or she will still earn more with a Master's than without one.  Likewise, a black family consisting of two parents and a common set of children will do much better (financially and otherwise) than a family headed by a single mother and orbited by a collection of "baby daddies."

 

And believe it or not, this is PRECISELY what is being preached in EVERY home, school and church in black America.  In 47 years, I have NEVER heard a single teacher, preacher or parent tell young black children to drop out of school, get pregnant or not try at work.  The messages that blacks give to their kids are the very same messages that Mormons give to our kids.  Mormon kids are much better about heeding the advice given, but it isn't the case that black parents are teaching their kids to use racism as a crutch.

Edited March 14, 2015 by mormonnewb

[smac97]

My results: "Your data suggest little to no difference in implicit preference between Black People and White People."

I am not sure if there's much validity to that test but it was sort of interesting, I suppose. I grew up with a brown skinned sister and a brown skinned brother, along with several white-skinned siblings.I never attributed any particular significance to the difference in skin color until I went to basic training and all the black guys made a huge deal out of the fact that I had a brown skinned sister.

[mormonnewb]

My results: "Your data suggest little to no difference in implicit preference between Black People and White People."

I am not sure if there's much validity to that test but it was sort of interesting, I suppose. I grew up with a brown skinned sister and a brown skinned brother, along with several white-skinned siblings.I never attributed any particular significance to the difference in skin color until I went to basic training and all the black guys made a huge deal out of the fact that I had a brown skinned sister.

 

Wow!  Were you raised in AMERICA?  With a television set in the home?

 

How did you NOT get the message that whites are more honest, hard-working and attractive?  My 11-year-old has already picked that up; at least, judging from his question one night about when will he "get to be" white [i told him it would happen when he returned from his mission ... I wanted to give him something to shoot for ... hehe].

 

Seriously, I'm impressed.

[Calm]

For those of you waiting for the Sunstone conference, you may be interested in this fireside held on the subject of those who feel marginalized in the LDS community, focusing on race and LGBt issues:

 

http://www.mormonhistoryguy.com/episodes/MHG-OneHeartFireside.mp3

 

Lots of great music btw.