Has the church made progress with race since the revelation on the priesthood?

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think Jeanne is talking about general race conflict/racism that Mormons don't have the monopoly on and are also not excused from. I don't think she was being specific to Mormon on Mormon violence. But if you want an example of questionable police-related killings that entailed Mormons, look up Darrien Hunt.

 

with luv,

BD 

http://www.mormonstories.org/grieving-together-processing-the-recent-and-continual-loss-of-black-lives-in-america/

I listened to this the other night, one of the guests mentioned the hurt at seeing hardly any support at Darrien's funeral, she was quite disgusted with the lack of LDS members/leaders even going to the funeral.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormonstories.org/grieving-together-processing-the-recent-and-continual-loss-of-black-lives-in-america/

I listened to this the other night, one of the guests mentioned the hurt at seeing hardly any support at Darrien's funeral, she was quite disgusted with the lack of LDS members/leaders even going to the funeral.

I don't really blame the church for that, I blame Utah, the coverage, and the justifications that go around police killings. I also blame the capacity to have protest (the black population in Utah is tiny) and the political ideology and sentiment that is warmer and more defensive for police in UT. This one isn't really about religion for me, but race and politics. Racism within the church and racism outside of it don't really have tons of differences (though I would assume there are far less that run to extremes in racism and are more allergic to ideologies/figure-heads that foster overt hate, such as Trump, as seen in utah's voting). It's just difficult to see how some of their views may be inadvertently maintaining inequalities, prejudice, and discrimination. But, the again, that could be said by plenty of other people as well.

 

with lu, 

BD 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I remember discussing this with you before. The difference to me is that you were a foreigner in another country that is racially largely uniform. I had no problem being a novelty in China or Taiwan (though China was far more overt by their curiosity and I felt like part of the tourist spots...somewhat like the princesses in Disney. It was fun to flip it on them by asking them for a photo as well). 

It's different to get the exotic/foreign treatment in your country of origin. Where one is a unique experience, the other indicates a distinct problem with how whites relate to minorities in this country. One of de facto segregation and unnaturally reduced contact between ethnic groups. It make foreigners in their own land.

Most minorities I know are indeed very kind about the issues that happen in white areas (church, basic living, work, etc) and know that most are not malicious by their curiosity or boundary stepping behavior. But the problem is the level of weariness that comes with always clipping your words to make sure you don't step on toes. I was reading this article that went over why one can't point out someone's racism... the end I could highly relate to as it relates asking minorities about having honest constructive dialogue with whites about their racism. The answer was almost uniformly in the negative.  I very very rarely talk to white people about race, racism, microaggressions, moments of ignorance, minority irritations, etc. I can talk far more freely with my minority friends/family...and do. I'm concerned that kindness often means silence and externalizing. It is always some other white person's racist problem or the minority is overreacting or there's reasons to excuse them. Which means individual racism and ethnocentrism can't really be prodded. The silence also means that many whites can continue to believe that the problem is limited and fading at worst where minorities are aware that it may be fading but it isn't limited and is likely to affect us tille the very end. So when innocent men are killed by police for no good reason it's a shock for whites and a painful validation for blacks that there is still plenty wrong with race in America. 

I know this is going beyond your words. Part of that is probably because I've had to be kind and pick my words carefully a little more the last couple of weeks more than I usually do. Partially it could be the shootings and listening to my Facebook feed of friends (that includes a lot of minorities). But mostly it's because I, and most minorities I know, are already kind about addressing the moments of ignorance and boundary-breaking that happens regularly. At some point calls to kindness just feels like calls to silence. And I know you're not saying that I or any other minority should be silent. But the reality of our society is that there are no/few kind ways to talk about racism when there's a minority to a white. The tip-toeing gets frustrating. 

 

With luv, 

BD

(please excuse grammar errors. I was typing this on my phone)

I understand the idea of clipping your words.  Some time ago I learned about hints - that people are often hearing more than you are saying or meaning more than they are saying. In some ways that is great because I have started to see where communication often breaks down in a big way.  In other ways it has made me very frustrated that I can rarely speak without monitoring my words a lot, knowing the other person may hear numerous hints I have not given.  

My husband and I learned about this together and it had made things better between us, but there are still days where I have to be careful with what I am saying and tell him,  "What I said was not a judgment on you.  Just an observation. " And days where I have to ask him if he was really OK with something because I heard non existant hints in his tone. It runs both ways. 

So I can imagine what that does with conversations with participants of different races. Both sides may unknowingly give hints or hear hints of judgment about themselves personally even if it not even close to correct. So then you get in a defensive mode where you may not hear or understand things that actually do apply to you or monitor your words very carefully.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I remember discussing this with you before. The difference to me is that you were a foreigner in another country that is racially largely uniform. I had no problem being a novelty in China or Taiwan (though China was far more overt by their curiosity and I felt like part of the tourist spots...somewhat like the princesses in Disney. It was fun to flip it on them by asking them for a photo as well). 

I agree there are some differences.  Taiwan is a lot more ethnically homogeneous than the U.S.  Nevertheless, this seems to be a difference of degree and duration, not kind.  

Quote

It's different to get the exotic/foreign treatment in your country of origin. Where one is a unique experience, the other indicates a distinct problem with how whites relate to minorities in this country. One of de facto segregation and unnaturally reduced contact between ethnic groups. It make foreigners in their own land.

I think I understand what you are saying.  I have spoken at length several times about such things with my brother, who is ethnically Tahitian, and with my sister, who is Hawaiian.  Such discussions have been very helpful to me, largely because my brother and sister are honest and forgiving and pragmatic.  Most of all, such discussions are helpful because candor prevails.  And candor prevails because I feel "safe" in speaking with my brother and sister about such sensitive topics.  And I feel "safe" in such communications because they know me, and I know them, and there are no presumptions about me hating them because I am a white guy.

Quote

Most minorities I know are indeed very kind about the issues that happen in white areas (church, basic living, work, etc) and know that most are not malicious by their curiosity or boundary stepping behavior. But the problem is the level of weariness that comes with always clipping your words to make sure you don't step on toes.

I don't understand.  What "words" need to be "clipp{ed}" in order to not "step on toes?"

And is this word-clipping-so-as-to-not-step-on-toes something with which only racial minorities grapple?  

Quote

I was reading this article that went over why one can't point out someone's racism... the end I could highly relate to as it relates asking minorities about having honest constructive dialogue with whites about their racism. The answer was almost uniformly in the negative.  I very very rarely talk to white people about race, racism, microaggressions, moments of ignorance, minority irritations, etc.

I'm not sure what sort of discussions can be had "with whites about their racism" when said racism is not demonstrated, but rather presumed because the person is white.  That is highly problematic for me.  Also problematic is the notion that trivialities in cross-cultural or cross-racial interactions/communications constitute "racism."

When Chinese children stroked my arms and compared me to a gorilla, I took it in a benign way.  These kids were not expressing "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," nor were they expressing "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."  It was a bit weird for me (also, to be honest, rather humorous) to be treated differently/strangely because of my physical attributes, but I never attributed it to racism.  For me, that would be like going after a mosquito with a flamethrower.

When I was in the Army I went through some training with a platoon comprised of roughly 1/3 whites, 1/3 Puerto Ricans, and 1/3 blacks.  This was the first time I had ever been called things like "whitey" and "cracker."  At the time I understood "whitey" as being intentionally pejorative.  I didn't know what to make of "cracker," so I chalked it up to some sort of reference to saltine crackers being sort of off-white.  Nevertheless, the use of the adjective "f***ing" as modifyiing "cracker" clarified for me that the term was not one of affection.

I feel fortunate these days.  I have interactions with people of varying cultures on a regular basis.  I do not recall the last time such an interaction was tainted by notions - on either side - of racial superiority/inferiority, animus, etc.

Quote

I can talk far more freely with my minority friends/family...and do.

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  Do you refer to "talk{ing} more freely" as communications/talking in general about any given topic?  Or "talk{ing} more freely" about "whites" and "their racism?"

Quote

I'm concerned that kindness often means silence and externalizing.  It is always some other white person's racist problem or the minority is overreacting or there's reasons to excuse them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "kindness often means silence and externalizing."  As a general rule, I take an expression of kindness in good faith.

As far as "it is always some other white person's racist problem," I'm not sure what to make of that, either.

Quote

 

Which means individual racism and ethnocentrism can't really be prodded. The silence also means that many whites can continue to believe that the problem is limited and fading at worst where minorities are aware that it may be fading but it isn't limited and is likely to affect us tille the very end. So when innocent men are killed by police for no good reason it's a shock for whites and a painful validation for blacks that there is still plenty wrong with race in America. 

I know this is going beyond your words.

 

Well, yes.  Considerably.  

Quote

Part of that is probably because I've had to be kind and pick my words carefully a little more the last couple of weeks more than I usually do.

First, I am not persuaded that racial minorities are the only ones that feel obligated to be kind and cautious in communications.

Second, I think there are plenty of "People of Pallor" who may not always feel comfortable discussing racial issues because such discussions can involve a presumption that the white person is racist.  That the white person hates black people (and/or other minorities).  That the white person harbors such hatred but doesn't realize it.  That racism is a one way street (white people can be racist, whereas minorities cannot).  I find such presumptions, when expressed or used a predicate for discussions about race, to be quite problematic.  I do not hate people of any skin tone or nationality or ethnicity.  And I am not a moron, so I find it unlikely that I harbor racial hatreds that remain undetected by me and those who know me best, but which are nevertheless immediately detectable by people who hardly know me at all.

Third, I am not persuaded that prudence in speech is a bad thing.  James 3 speaks eloquently on the importance of such things.

Quote

Partially it could be the shootings and listening to my Facebook feed of friends (that includes a lot of minorities). But mostly it's because I, and most minorities I know, are already kind about addressing the moments of ignorance and boundary-breaking that happens regularly.

OK.

Quote

At some point calls to kindness just feels like calls to silence. And I know you're not saying that I or any other minority should be silent. But the reality of our society is that there are no/few kind ways to talk about racism when there's a minority to a white. The tip-toeing gets frustrating. 

You seem to be under the impression that the tip-toeing is a one-sided thing.  It ain't.  "Racist" is a label that ranks right up there with "Wifebeater" and "Chomo" in our society.  And yet I have been casually accused of racism by people I hardly know.  Such accusations also operate as "calls to silence."

Quote

 

With luv, 

BD

(please excuse grammar errors. I was typing this on my phone)

 

Thank you for your comments.

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2016 by smac97

[cinepro]

On 6/20/2016 at 1:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Two Mormon missionaries were walking on a path. As they approached the river, a beautiful young woman asked if they would please carry her across because she was afraid to go into the water. One of the elders picked her up, waded across the river carrying her in his arms, and set her down on the other side. She thanked him and went her way. The missionaries continued on their path. After a while, one said, "You violated the mission rule not to touch a woman!" His companion replied, "Elder, I put her down at the side of the river. It is you that is still carrying her."

Also, shouldn't be wading in rivers.

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Don't understand. When / where since 1978 were Mormons shooting at other Mormons? 

I am sorry,,,was just watching the news..not mormon news I guess.  Just the racial tension in general in the country.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I think there are plenty of "People of Pallor" who may not always feel comfortable discussing racial issues because such discussions can involve a presumption that the white person is racist.  That the white person hates black people (and/or other minorities).  That the white person harbors such hatred but doesn't realize it.

Racism does not have to imply hatred.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't really blame the church for that, I blame Utah, the coverage, and the justifications that go around police killings. I also blame the capacity to have protest (the black population in Utah is tiny) and the political ideology and sentiment that is warmer and more defensive for police in UT. This one isn't really about religion for me, but race and politics. Racism within the church and racism outside of it don't really have tons of differences (though I would assume there are far less that run to extremes in racism and are more allergic to ideologies/figure-heads that foster overt hate, such as Trump, as seen in utah's voting). It's just difficult to see how some of their views may be inadvertently maintaining inequalities, prejudice, and discrimination. But, the again, that could be said by plenty of other people as well.

I agree.  Which is why, during the majority of this board's and its predecessor board's history, politics was off-topic.  This board is significantly diminished by the rule change, IMNSHO.

USU "And I'm unsurprised that you blame and blame and blame and blame" 78

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am sorry,,,was just watching the news..not mormon news I guess.  Just the racial tension in general in the country.

It's off-topic unless you can find a Mormon "hook," IMNSHO.

[USU78]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It relates asking minorities about having honest constructive dialogue with whites about their racism.

Judge much?

Edited July 12, 2016 by USU78
Get rid of italics.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Racism does not have to imply hatred.

I suppose  ...  if you believe in microagressions and such things.

[Calm]

Racism is a huge spectrum of behaviour, from extremes such as lynchings and genocide to the mild mannered racism of my grandparents who referred to grown men in women as "girl" and "boy" and said nice, complimentary things as if having a good business ethic or other qualities (they expected from their friends and family) was an unusual accomplishment for a black.  No hate in them, they just looked on blacks as more or less unruly children for the most part.

[USU78]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Racism is a huge spectrum of behaviour, from extremes such as lynchings and genocide to the mild mannered racism of my grandparents who referred to grown men in women as "girl" and "boy" and said nice, complimentary things as if having a good business ethic or other qualities (they expected from their friends and family) was an unusual accomplishment for a black.  No hate in them, they just looked on blacks as more or less unruly children for the most part.

I'm sure, where they still here, they would be delighted to hear you find them so quaint

[Calm]

They were good people, a lot better than I am in many ways.

We should learn from the examples of our parents and grandparents, both the good and the bad, what to imitate and what to avoid...the foolish traditions of our fathers, so to speak.

It was not the least bit quaint.  It was their culture and they were a lot better than most, not saying anything negative, but they were also adults who didn't like to be spoken to as if they were anything less so they should have known better just by the Golden Rule.   And we kids (starting at about ten years old) tried to point out to them how it wasn't right to speak about blacks and other minorities in such patronizing terms.  And they blew us off.  All of us grandkids used to squirm in discomfort when we would hear things.  

I was proud and am proud I never heard anything similar from either of my parents and I learned from their examples even more.  I know I have picked up some racist attitudes that are hard to shake just from my culture.  I am hoping my kids managed to escape most, but with the little exposure they have had to some groups, they may have lacked the opportunity.  They have also been on the receiving end of prejudice in Russia where some hated Americans just for being American and in Canada where some Asian families looked on whites as lazy and not particularly intelligent, simply looking for the easiest way through life and willing to live off of others' efforts.  Thankfully we had a number of very good friends in Asian families so my kids figured out what was going on pretty eaily and didn't hold the entire group responsible.

Being unrealistic about racism guarantees one won't overcome it personally.  Some Canadians in my experience were very good at pointing out to Americans their history and current racist behaviour with blacks while being clueless about their own racism with First Nations/Native Americans.  Some of their kids went red in the face listening to their parent and came and apologized.  Seeing that taught me to never assume I was avoiding all pitfalls just because I wasn't aware of any. I want to be someone both my grandparents and grand kids can be proud of.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Racism does not have to imply hatred.

I agree. I think most racism is one race feeling superior to another, not hating the other. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Also, shouldn't be wading in rivers.

It is you that is still in the river.

[USU78]

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think Jeanne is talking about general race conflict/racism that Mormons don't have the monopoly on and are also not excused from. I don't think she was being specific to Mormon on Mormon violence. But if you want an example of questionable police-related killings that entailed Mormons, look up Darien Hunt.

How does your hyperpoliticized brand of Mormonism respond to the finding that blacks are 20% less likely to be shot by police?

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Racism does not have to imply hatred.

It does not "have" to, but it almost always does when A) it is used as an accusation by Person A against Person B, and B) Person A barely knows Person B, and C) Person A has no particular interest in helping Person B improve as a person, and instead D) Person A wants to silence Person B.

Let's take a look at the dictionary definition of "racism":

Quote

noun
1. 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.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

A casual accusation of racism by Person A against a person he hardly knows, Person B, will, I think, seldom involve the usage of definition #1.  Definition #3 seems to be the more likely usage.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Racism is a huge spectrum of behaviour, from extremes such as lynchings and genocide to the mild mannered racism of my grandparents who referred to grown men in women as "girl" and "boy" and said nice, complimentary things as if having a good business ethic or other qualities (they expected from their friends and family) was an unusual accomplishment for a black.  No hate in them, they just looked on blacks as more or less unruly children for the most part.

I concede your point.  But accusations of racism these days are generally not intended to characterize quaint-and-generally-harmless-but-nevertheless-socially-inappropriate-in-2016 behaviors.  An accusation of racism is, in context, almost always a very serious charge.  Akin to being accused of being a wifebeater, misogynist, chomo, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

How does your hyperpoliticized brand of Mormonism respond to the finding that blacks are 20% less likely to be shot by police?

CFR

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

CFR

Here you go.

From one article:

Quote

Facts are important. No matter how we feel about a particular issue, it is important to weigh all available facts as objectively as possible. A black economist from Harvard decided to do just that; spending more than 3,000 hours combing through police reports and statistics with his team. However, the results surprised him.

Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. began the study in anger over the deaths of Freddie Gray and Michael Brown. He expected to be able to demonstrably prove a racial bias in use of force by police. He and his team examined over 1,300 police shootings 2000-2015 in 10 major cities.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” Fryer said of their findings.

Blacks are 20% less likely to be shot in a tense confrontation with police. And, to be sure, Fryer’s team dug deep into each case study to ensure the comparisons were fair.

The New York Times breaks down how the study critically examined this cases:

Quote

They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, systematically coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to figure out whether police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.

Another surprising finding was that blacks and whites involved in police shootings were equally as likely to be carrying a gun.

However, Fryer did find that blacks were more likely to handled roughly in interactions with police. However, Fryer was unable to prove a racial bias when it came to use of lethal force.

It is important to hold police officers who abuse their authority accountable. It is also important to reject media-driven race-baiting narratives that only further inflame social tensions.

That last bit is apt, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here you go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not in Utah, imo.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not in Utah, imo.

Because of anti Police or anti Mormon bias, based upon precisely no facts? Or something else?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not in Utah, imo.

CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

How does your hyperpoliticized brand of Mormonism respond to the finding that blacks are 20% less likely to be shot by police?

Your data is incorrect. 

"According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police office.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times as great as the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

From yesterday's Washington Post article here .

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Your data is incorrect. 

"According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police office.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times as great as the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

From yesterday's Washington Post article here .

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the real story.