Paul Reeve: From Not White Enough To Too White

[jwhitlock]

If we apply our present perspectives to race relations in the 19th century, we will fail to understand what happened in the past.

 

Reeves does a great job at digging into those past perspectives so we can better understand why the priesthood ban took place and what the effects of polygamy were.

 

In the end, perspective matters more than reality. The cartoon on the cover of the his book was not just a satirical joke; it captured the essence of how American society viewed Mormonism at the time, and is borne out by many other caricatures of the time, some of which are printed in his book. Accuracy of those views wasn't important to them - just like the accuracy of many of our views today is not really important to us.

[busybee]

I don't doubt he does but the reality is I just see no reason Mormons would have to prove their "whiteness". The overwhelming majority of their population came from the United States Northeast, Northern Midwest, Britain, and Scandinavia. It would be hard to imagine a more white background. I see no reason they would have to prove anything. Polygamy might be associated with the "decadent east" but that has nothing to do with race.

Before the Priesthood ban was lifted all males in South Africa had to 'prove their whiteness' by providing a family history that showed their ancestors were immigrants into the country, ie, that they had no African blood in their lineage (just a little interesting factoid to show that some non-US Mormons did, indeed, have to prove their 'whiteness')

[halconero]

If we apply our present perspectives to race relations in the 19th century, we will fail to understand what happened in the past.

 

Reeves does a great job at digging into those past perspectives so we can better understand why the priesthood ban took place and what the effects of polygamy were.

 

In the end, perspective matters more than reality. The cartoon on the cover of the his book was not just a satirical joke; it captured the essence of how American society viewed Mormonism at the time, and is borne out by many other caricatures of the time, some of which are printed in his book. Accuracy of those views wasn't important to them - just like the accuracy of many of our views today is not really important to us.

 

I'd argue that the accuracy of those views was very important! It doesn't mean they were accurate though. There was a ton of attempts to justify the accuracy of their views via scientific racism. Take this illustration from a scientific textbook for instance:

[Stargazer]

I don't doubt he does but the reality is I just see no reason Mormons would have to prove their "whiteness". The overwhelming majority of their population came from the United States Northeast, Northern Midwest, Britain, and Scandinavia. It would be hard to imagine a more white background. I see no reason they would have to prove anything. Polygamy might be associated with the "decadent east" but that has nothing to do with race.

 

Oh, lordy, this reminds me of something.

 

When I lived in Toronto, Canada, 1967-71, Fred, one of my school chums (fraternity brother, actually) had a habit of using the term "white" to indicate something favorable.  The exact phraseology I remember revolved around two phrases: 

• "That's white of you!"  For example, sharing a soft drink with him.
• "Be a white guy, and...[do this thing]".  For example, he's asking me for a favor.

I had actually heard of this before, but never actually heard anyone using it until then.

 

Ironically, one of the other fraternity brothers in our chapter was Colored, from South Africa.  Oh, and by the way, for those of you not aware of it, in Apartheid-ridden South Africa at the time, "Colored" was a legal term indicating you were part White and part Black.  Coloreds had more privileges than Blacks, but less than Whites.  Lovely place it was.  Anyway, our frat brother's name was Dion Patience, and he was a very standup guy and class cutup.  On one occasion Fred used #1 on him when Dion had done something that Fred appreciated.  Dion responded with a puzzled expression and said, "I assume that means you approve.  OK, then, you're welcome."  Fred didn't seem to recognize the inherent racism.  I was embarrassed, personally, for him, but Dion just took it in stride. 

 

Fred didn't understand the "white" thing to be racial, I suppose.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Stargazer

[jwhitlock]

I'd argue that the accuracy of those views was very important! It doesn't mean they were accurate though. There was a ton of attempts to justify the accuracy of their views via scientific racism. Take this illustration from a scientific textbook for instance:

 

 

 

Whether the views back then were accurate or not is not what Reeves explores. He delves into their reasoning and perspective, so that we can understand why things such as the priesthood ban evolved the way they did.

 

Again, however, they shared at least one thing in common with us in our day. How things are perceived is more important in forming opinions than trying to understand how they really are. Hence the textbook illustrations and tabloid cartoons were, in many people's minds, they way things "really" were, false though that was.