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

[cinepro]

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Racism is a reasonable answer (doesn't mean it's the right one, but it is reasonable).

The statistics also show that almost every person killed by a policeman (or woman) is a man (1086:53 for 2015).  But there are actually slightly more women in the population than men. 

Based on those numbers, would you suggest that there is a massive, almost total epidemic of sexism against men by police all over the country in their preferences for killing?  Is that a reasonable and/or logical assumption, and if not, why not?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Racism is a reasonable answer (doesn't mean it's the right one, but it is reasonable).

I think it's a facile answer.  I think the issue is far more complex than "racism."

I also think such facile answers, particularly given the current sociopolitical climate, feed into and foment racial discord, and do very little to advance the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I think the church is substantially better than they were pre 1978.  That's pretty obvious.  I think the Race and the Priesthood essays were a step in the right direction.  I believe the final step would be for the church to specifically stay which of it's past policies were not revelation and were racist policies of men.  

I think there are still some pockets of soft racism in the church.  Leadership is still very very white and from historically prominent LDS families. Another example is how BYU applies the honor code between white and non-white students.  One study by Darron Smith showed that a black athlete at BYU is 16 times more likely to be suspended, dismissed, put on probation, or forced to withdraw from the school than a white athlete.  

Phaedrus 

Assuming Darron Smith's numbers are accurate (and I have no reason not to that I am aware of), it does appear that being nonLDS feeds into the higher numbers, though that does not clear BYU of responsibility if they are covering up for LDS students and downplaying the ramifications of the HC during recruitment.  And given what  I have heard through other avenues now that I am thinking about it, it would not surprise me much if true unfortunately.

http://deadspin.com/5791461/the-truth-about-race-religion-and-the-honor-code-at-byu

Edited July 12, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assuming Darron Smith's numbers are accurate (and I have no reason not to that I am aware of), it does appear that being nonLDS feeds into the higher numbers, though that does not clear BYU of responsibility if they are covering up for LDS students and downplaying the ramifications of the HC during recruitment.  And given what  I have heard through other avenues now that I am thinking about it, it would not surprise me much if true unfortunately.

From the horse's mouth.....

http://www.mormonstories.org/?s=darron+smith

 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's a facile answer.  I think the issue is far more complex than "racism."

I also think such facile answers, particularly given the current sociopolitical climate, feed into and foment racial discord, and do very little to advance the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

It definitely could be.  It would be interesting to actually find out.

I don't think though that the automatic defense of the status quo (and other likewise similar "All is well" lines of argument) that some people are prone to stick to when this discussion happens does anything to advance the discussion either.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

The statistics also show that almost every person killed by a policeman (or woman) is a man (1086:53 for 2015).  But there are actually slightly more women in the population than men. 

Based on those numbers, would you suggest that there is a massive, almost total epidemic of sexism against men by police all over the country in their preferences for killing?  Is that a reasonable and/or logical assumption, and if not, why not?

I'm sure that sexism is part of the problem.  It seems very logical to assume that it is.  But, from what i've read (which is not very much at all) it seems to stem more from fundamental differences between men and women and aggressive tendencies and risk behaviors.  Take this for what it's worth because it's a summary from wikipedia, but here are the basics-

"Many professionals have offered explanations for this sex difference in crimes. Some differing explanations include men's evolutionary tendency toward risk and violent behavior, sex differences in activity, social support, and gender inequality. Rowe, Vazsonyi, and Flannery (1995) demonstrated that ratios of self reported delinquent acts are higher for men than women across many different actions thus supporting the fact that men commit more criminal acts than women.[1] Burton, et al. (1998) found that low levels of self control are associated with criminal activity.[2]"

David Rowe, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Daniel Flannery, authors of Sex Differences in Crime: Do Means and Within-Sex Variation Have Similar Causes?,[1] focus on the widely acknowledged fact that there is a large sex difference in crime: more men than women commit crimes. This fact has been true over time and across cultures. Also, there are a more equal number of men that commit serious crimes resulting in injury or death than women.[5] In a study that looked at self-reports of delinquent acts, researchers identified several sex differences by looking at sex ratios. For every woman, 1.28 men drink alcohol, which is a large influencer in deviant behavior. For every woman, 2.7 men committed the crime of stealing up to $50. Lastly, for every woman, 3.7 men steal more than $50. Also, more males are involved in homicides, as both the perpetrators and victims, than females. Furthermore, one male is more delinquent than another for mainly the same reasons that men typically engage in criminal acts more than women.[5]

Have there been studies that have show that black people are biologically more prone to criminal activity or are more aggressive and prone to risky behavior than white people?  If racism isn't a large part of the answer then what have the studies shown is?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It definitely could be.  It would be interesting to actually find out.

I don't think though that the automatic defense of the status quo (and other likewise similar "All is well" lines of argument) that some people are prone to stick to when this discussion happens does anything to advance the discussion either.

My thoughts presented here are not an "automatic defense of the status quo," nor do I subscribe to "'all is well' lines of argument."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My thoughts presented here are not an "automatic defense of the status quo," nor do I subscribe to "'all is well' lines of argument."

Thanks,

-Smac

I wasn't referring to you.  Just like i'm sure you're not referring to everyone who disagrees with some of your premises when you called certain responses 'facile'.

Edited July 13, 2016 by bluebell

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Have there been studies that have show that black people are biologically more prone to criminal activity or are more aggressive and prone to risky behavior than white people?  If racism isn't a large part of the answer then what have the studies shown is?

It doesn't need to be biologically based for it not to be overt racism.  Even if it was the culture or environment, you would need to isolate that as a factor before trying to determine the degree of racism involved on the part of the police.

But look at the numbers.  Blacks are about 13% of the population, but that includes men, women and children.  So what percentage of the population are black teenagers or men?  I can't find the numbers, but let's say 7% on the high side.

 

Now let's look at the crime stats:

According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.

I'm sorry, but when I look at those stats, I don't think "Hmmm, the biggest problem facing the black community right now is violence at the hands of the police..."  Yes, any unjustified police violence is terrible, and a crime against the principles that law enforcement is meant to uphold, but if you have 7% of the population committing 53% of the homicides, then there is a serious problem among that 7% that isn't being addressed by focusing on police violence.

 

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It doesn't need to be biologically based for it not to be overt racism.  Even if it was the culture or environment, you would need to isolate that as a factor before trying to determine the degree of racism involved on the part of the police.

But look at the numbers.  Blacks are about 13% of the population, but that includes men, women and children.  So what percentage of the population are black teenagers or men?  I can't find the numbers, but let's say 7% on the high side.

 

Now let's look at the crime stats:

 

 

I'm sorry, but when I look at those stats, I don't think "Hmmm, the biggest problem facing the black community right now is violence at the hands of the police..."  Yes, any unjustified police violence is terrible, and a crime against the principles that law enforcement is meant to uphold, but if you have 7% of the population committing 53% of the homicides, then there is a serious problem among that 7% that isn't being addressed by focusing on police violence.

 

 

There are probably a few people out there, but i think that most people understand that racism isn't the biggest problem.  

But it does seem to be a problem.  Along with your stats we also have to add that blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested.  They are more likely to be convicted of the crimes they are charged with than whites are to be convicted of the crimes they are charged with.  They are more likely to serve time in prison (which creates criminals rather than reforms them) than whites are convicted of similar crimes.  They are 38% more likely to receive the death penalty than whites who were convicted of similar crimes.  And probably one of the worst, black men are more likely than white men to be falsely convicted of a crime (especially rape and murder).  (This is true for minorities in general, who are more likely to be falsely convicted than whites).

Black Crime Rates  How Often Do Wrongful Convictions Involve Black Defendants

Racism may not be the biggest problem but that doesn't mean it's not a very serious problem.  

 

[BlueDreams]

On 7/11/2016 at 11:33 AM, smac97 said:

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.  

I haven't had a lot of time to respond. And this may still be incomplete due to my time restrictions. 

No, I don't think it's just about Degree or duration. When people mention the hair thing, they're giving a symbol to an endemic problem that they face that goes well beyond hair. It's a mix of newness, obliviousness, boundary problems, etc. But it's also tinged with other concerns or problems that are not found in the same way as in Taiwan. In therapy we have a saying that is a couple comes in talking about the Dishes....There problems aren't really the dishes. That here applies. 

 

Quote

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.

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? 

Not exactly. I'm talking about the very distinct differences of talking about race between my two very different families....different groups of friends etc. With my white family, race is brushed on infrequently. If it is brought up it's a novelty topic that doesn't last long. The lens is one of an outsider observing a phenomenon they don't get. They can make off-hand comments that are extremely uncomfortable, though they would largely be mortified at being described as racist or even ignorant. My grandmother still has racist notions and was bothered when my aunt was dating a black man. My mother (and I'm sure she's not the only one) still believes in the curse of cain/ham, among other things. This is a woman who's children only came from brown men. Not all of my family is like this, obviously. My cousin(s), most of my brothers, the other minorities in the bunch, uncle, etc aren't and what discomfort does come is transient. I clip a lot less with my closest cousin (white) and brothers (many of who look and ID as mostly white).  

  My black family, it's a consistent discourse. They joke about racial things, talk about race frankly, it's part of their stories about coming to America, etc. My Minority friends, no matter the background, it's similar. It is fairly common and accepted that minorities talk about race differently alone than when white people are in the room. I can think of such a case with my master's cohort in our gender/ethnicity class. There was me, my Taiwanese friend, and a guy who was 1/4 hispanic married to a latina. The rest were white. If I were with them, conversation about race, culture, etc were simple and frank. By "more freely" I mean we could talk about these openly. Sometimes it was about white-minority relations, sometime it was about our own racial concerns, sometimes it was silly jokes about whatever was on our minds. In the class it was more "clipped." They didn't mean to. But the power differential meant that dialogue was difficult and best left at times to the white teacher who would likely "get it." I knew this group well. I'd spent a year with them almost daily in studies. They were/are good and earnest people and they've grown from that class a lot. But at that point, this topic was still not "safe." Or it was on their terms. 

The word-clipping isn't something minorities grapple with when talking to other minorities for the most part, whatever the race. Though it can happen. It's more common with white-minority dialogues. I know whites are cautious and anxious (among other things) around topics of race. That's the point.      

Quote

 

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." 

.....

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."

 

And there in lies a problem. Brown people aren't lying in wait to call people racists and racism isn't a on the same level of spousal abuse or child molester (I had no clue what Chomo wasm BTW). It's a fact of life. Racism exists. Ethnocentrism exists. Racial ignorance is everywhere. You don't have to don a white hood or shout out white power. It exists for most, not as a conscious choice but as a residual effect of a very racist past and a limited circle. Though it's not a positive term, it's still used and it's accepted, not as a complete denouncement of a person's character but to note that their ideology and thoughts have some inherent flaws. But at times we have trouble labeling people in the past who were obviously racist to a degree (such as Calm's Grandparents) because it's somehow disrespectful or unfair. I've had people bothered by calling BY racist because it was uncharitable or not fair or whatever else. They were racist! They believe white people were a little better, that white  ideals should be preferenced, and that to live like them was the best way the pennacle of civility.  Likewise things that preference or make one experience "the norm" while all other areas are specialties are racist. I don't think most people who have racist ideas hate minorities. My grandmother has racist thoughts but she loves me and all her brown grandchildren. She gives me hugs and chats with me and made me a nice b-day gift like any grandma would.It's not an either or concept. 

Quote

 

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.

 

I've never assumed that most white people hate minorities whether, conscious or not. And as someone else said, racism doesn't have to assume hatred. And intelligence is not a factor as to holding racist beliefs or expectations. 

Quote

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

Prudence isn't a bad thing. But the way that (white) society in America (and within LDS populations as well) has set up dialogue around race means that there is almost no nice way to talk about race. I can talk bluntly, passionately, enthusiastically, and imperfectly about soooo many other topics. But the problems of race isn't one of them. The parameters of kindness around race related topics are so tight that very little fits into it. And that's what I mean by kindness as silencing. 

Quote

 

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.

 

I find it interesting that almost all of your stories about racial issues happened after the age of 18 (minus your siblings, I assume). My first experience that dealt with race happened around conception and birth. I half-jokingly say my cute baby face defeated racism....but in honesty my mothers decision effected where I was born, where I was raised, and what happened to my those first couple months of life. My first one of memory is at 4 or 5. And it became a common theme by my early teens. My major racial ID-crisis happened around 17 with college admissions. Though I had smaller ones of having to reassert who I was and what I was in varying official documents, school admins, professors, peers, strangers, friends, and family. I've had several racial shocks from my early tweens and on where someone will say something that takes me aback. As much as I think I'm prepped for it, I'm not. It's always an unwelcome surprise. My friend group has almost always been diverse...whether that means racial, ethnic, religious, or other differences. Freshman year my roommate jokingly asked if I have white friends (I do). I feel fortunate, not because it's a novelty to me, but I see my white counter-parts (particularly in UT) and realize this isn't a common thing to have. My experiences have given me a very strong ability to perspective take (according to my Chair) 

But so much of what I experience cannot be brought up in white circles...at least not easily. I remember giving you a list of racially tinged experiences a while back and having them nit-picked to pieces except for a few that your expert opinion decided were the ones that are not ok. They became isolated events of poorly informed people instead of a common thread that runs throughout my life. Ironically I was getting disqualified by a white man about my brown experiences about microagressions that I experienced. It's painful to watch some of this discussion now around the legitimacy of police shootings. I still remember the fear I felt when Darrien Hunt was shot and killed for basically being a "threatening" teen only a few blocks from where my black brothers lived. I still feel it. I've watched the differences that black children and adults face compared to whites like a side-by-side comparison as an adult because I have both as family. And what it teaches me is that there is a difference. That there is a pervasive problem still in America. That LDS people aren't exceptions. And it is a form of racism. 

When I say silence, I mean that there is a world of experience that I know many of my white peers don't get. It goes into emotion, history, families, privilege, and so much more. Yet bringing this up is often caustic or viewed as attacking or heavy judgments or whatever else because it runs counter to another worldview....one that has more acceptance and viewed as "normal" by a white-majority US Society. 

 

Off to work again...

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure that sexism is part of the problem.  It seems very logical to assume that it is.  But, from what i've read (which is not very much at all) it seems to stem more from fundamental differences between men and women and aggressive tendencies and risk behaviors.  Take this for what it's worth because it's a summary from wikipedia, but here are the basics-

"Many professionals have offered explanations for this sex difference in crimes. Some differing explanations include men's evolutionary tendency toward risk and violent behavior, sex differences in activity, social support, and gender inequality. Rowe, Vazsonyi, and Flannery (1995) demonstrated that ratios of self reported delinquent acts are higher for men than women across many different actions thus supporting the fact that men commit more criminal acts than women.[1] Burton, et al. (1998) found that low levels of self control are associated with criminal activity.[2]"

David Rowe, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Daniel Flannery, authors of Sex Differences in Crime: Do Means and Within-Sex Variation Have Similar Causes?,[1] focus on the widely acknowledged fact that there is a large sex difference in crime: more men than women commit crimes. This fact has been true over time and across cultures. Also, there are a more equal number of men that commit serious crimes resulting in injury or death than women.[5] In a study that looked at self-reports of delinquent acts, researchers identified several sex differences by looking at sex ratios. For every woman, 1.28 men drink alcohol, which is a large influencer in deviant behavior. For every woman, 2.7 men committed the crime of stealing up to $50. Lastly, for every woman, 3.7 men steal more than $50. Also, more males are involved in homicides, as both the perpetrators and victims, than females. Furthermore, one male is more delinquent than another for mainly the same reasons that men typically engage in criminal acts more than women.[5]

Have there been studies that have show that black people are biologically more prone to criminal activity or are more aggressive and prone to risky behavior than white people?  If racism isn't a large part of the answer then what have the studies shown is?

The latest studies indicate that blacks and whites are statistically virtually equal when it comes to committing crime. The disparity is in law enforcement, and punishment given. With blacks given more policing and harsher punishment than whites.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The latest studies indicate that blacks and whites are statistically virtually equal when it comes to committing crime. The disparity is in law enforcement, and punishment given. With blacks given more policing and harsher punishment than whites.

That's seems reasonable.

One good example of equal criminality (I might have made up that word) is from the article I linked to earlier where it says-

"It has been found that while black and white Americans smoke marijuana at similar rates, blacks are arrested 3.7 times as frequently for marijuana possession."

 

 

[Calm]

TSS, it would be helpful to CFR those studies.

[Storm Rider]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't had a lot of time to respond. And this may still be incomplete due to my time restrictions. 

No, I don't think it's just about Degree or duration. When people mention the hair thing, they're giving a symbol to an endemic problem that they face that goes well beyond hair. It's a mix of newness, obliviousness, boundary problems, etc. But it's also tinged with other concerns or problems that are not found in the same way as in Taiwan. In therapy we have a saying that is a couple comes in talking about the Dishes....There problems aren't really the dishes. That here applies. 

Not exactly. I'm talking about the very distinct differences of talking about race between my two very different families....different groups of friends etc. With my white family, race is brushed on infrequently. If it is brought up it's a novelty topic that doesn't last long. The lens is one of an outsider observing a phenomenon they don't get. They can make off-hand comments that are extremely uncomfortable, though they would largely be mortified at being described as racist or even ignorant. My grandmother still has racist notions and was bothered when my aunt was dating a black man. My mother (and I'm sure she's not the only one) still believes in the curse of cain/ham, among other things. This is a woman who's children only came from brown men. Not all of my family is like this, obviously. My cousin(s), most of my brothers, the other minorities in the bunch, uncle, etc aren't and what discomfort does come is transient. I clip a lot less with my closest cousin (white) and brothers (many of who look and ID as mostly white).  

 My black family, it's a consistent discourse. They joke about racial things, talk about race frankly, it's part of their stories about coming to America, etc. My Minority friends, no matter the background, it's similar. It is fairly common and accepted that minorities talk about race differently alone than when white people are in the room. I can think of such a case with my master's cohort in our gender/ethnicity class. There was me, my Taiwanese friend, and a guy who was 1/4 hispanic married to a latina. The rest were white. If I were with them, conversation about race, culture, etc were simple and frank. By "more freely" I mean we could talk about these openly. Sometimes it was about white-minority relations, sometime it was about our own racial concerns, sometimes it was silly jokes about whatever was on our minds. In the class it was more "clipped." They didn't mean to. But the power differential meant that dialogue was difficult and best left at times to the white teacher who would likely "get it." I knew this group well. I'd spent a year with them almost daily in studies. They were/are good and earnest people and they've grown from that class a lot. But at that point, this topic was still not "safe." Or it was on their terms. 

The word-clipping isn't something minorities grapple with when talking to other minorities for the most part, whatever the race. Though it can happen. It's more common with white-minority dialogues. I know whites are cautious and anxious (among other things) around topics of race. That's the point.      

And there in lies a problem. Brown people aren't lying in wait to call people racists and racism isn't a on the same level of spousal abuse or child molester (I had no clue what Chomo wasm BTW). It's a fact of life. Racism exists. Ethnocentrism exists. Racial ignorance is everywhere. You don't have to don a white hood or shout out white power. It exists for most, not as a conscious choice but as a residual effect of a very racist past and a limited circle. Though it's not a positive term, it's still used and it's accepted, not as a complete denouncement of a person's character but to note that their ideology and thoughts have some inherent flaws. But at times we have trouble labeling people in the past who were obviously racist to a degree (such as Calm's Grandparents) because it's somehow disrespectful or unfair. I've had people bothered by calling BY racist because it was uncharitable or not fair or whatever else. They were racist! They believe white people were a little better, that white  ideals should be preferenced, and that to live like them was the best way the pennacle of civility.  Likewise things that preference or make one experience "the norm" while all other areas are specialties are racist. I don't think most people who have racist ideas hate minorities. My grandmother has racist thoughts but she loves me and all her brown grandchildren. She gives me hugs and chats with me and made me a nice b-day gift like any grandma would.It's not an either or concept. 

I've never assumed that most white people hate minorities whether, conscious or not. And as someone else said, racism doesn't have to assume hatred. And intelligence is not a factor as to holding racist beliefs or expectations. 

Prudence isn't a bad thing. But the way that (white) society in America (and within LDS populations as well) has set up dialogue around race means that there is almost no nice way to talk about race. I can talk bluntly, passionately, enthusiastically, and imperfectly about soooo many other topics. But the problems of race isn't one of them. The parameters of kindness around race related topics are so tight that very little fits into it. And that's what I mean by kindness as silencing. 

I find it interesting that almost all of your stories about racial issues happened after the age of 18 (minus your siblings, I assume). My first experience that dealt with race happened around conception and birth. I half-jokingly say my cute baby face defeated racism....but in honesty my mothers decision effected where I was born, where I was raised, and what happened to my those first couple months of life. My first one of memory is at 4 or 5. And it became a common theme by my early teens. My major racial ID-crisis happened around 17 with college admissions. Though I had smaller ones of having to reassert who I was and what I was in varying official documents, school admins, professors, peers, strangers, friends, and family. I've had several racial shocks from my early tweens and on where someone will say something that takes me aback. As much as I think I'm prepped for it, I'm not. It's always an unwelcome surprise. My friend group has almost always been diverse...whether that means racial, ethnic, religious, or other differences. Freshman year my roommate jokingly asked if I have white friends (I do). I feel fortunate, not because it's a novelty to me, but I see my white counter-parts (particularly in UT) and realize this isn't a common thing to have. My experiences have given me a very strong ability to perspective take (according to my Chair) 

But so much of what I experience cannot be brought up in white circles...at least not easily. I remember giving you a list of racially tinged experiences a while back and having them nit-picked to pieces except for a few that your expert opinion decided were the ones that are not ok. They became isolated events of poorly informed people instead of a common thread that runs throughout my life. Ironically I was getting disqualified by a white man about my brown experiences about microagressions that I experienced. It's painful to watch some of this discussion now around the legitimacy of police shootings. I still remember the fear I felt when Darrien Hunt was shot and killed for basically being a "threatening" teen only a few blocks from where my black brothers lived. I still feel it. I've watched the differences that black children and adults face compared to whites like a side-by-side comparison as an adult because I have both as family. And what it teaches me is that there is a difference. That there is a pervasive problem still in America. That LDS people aren't exceptions. And it is a form of racism. 

When I say silence, I mean that there is a world of experience that I know many of my white peers don't get. It goes into emotion, history, families, privilege, and so much more. Yet bringing this up is often caustic or viewed as attacking or heavy judgments or whatever else because it runs counter to another worldview....one that has more acceptance and viewed as "normal" by a white-majority US Society. 

Off to work again...

With luv,

BD

Race discussion are so power-packed with such a diverse range of influences.  I appreciate you sharing your experience and perspective.  

When I try to understand how I as an individual interact to the comments I read from you or what I hear from black commentators in the media I hear a pretty consistent message that white people just don't get it - we are ignorant of the real issues that black people encounter consistently in the United States.  Yet, I never hear a corresponding response to the allegation that a white person does not "get" the black experience nor do black people get the white experience.  Issues of class, heritage, or apparently dismissed or forgotten as not important.  It makes me feel like no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to me.  More important, I would prefer they just stop talking about white people as if we are all the same.  

When I hear the well-trained refrain "white privilege" I have a knee jerk response to stop listening.  I know that person talking does not know my life, the experiences I grew up with or those of my family.  It is as if only black people know or understand the feelings of "can't get a job there" or "you are not wanted here".  No one else is allowed to tread that sacred ground except black people because only black people know hardship.  When did black people become the only victims in the world?  Why?

I find this whole caliber of discussion distasteful and ignorant of the lives of everyone else.  Individuals are quickly forced to talk as if they are victims and then a contest to identify who is the bigger victim or who has had the hardest life.  These conversations are approached from the macro level - entire races.  Then, just when we get a handle on that conversation, some black commentator with verbally slap the stupid white person up side the head with the comment - "I am not all black people; don't ask me any questions!"  

I would like to hear police officers explain why they feel the need to be so hyper-vigilant around black males.  I would like to know why black people think that police officers should not be hyper-vigilant around black males.  Why are black communities so often identified as violent?  I want to hear black leaders stop talking about white people and start talking about black people and how black people can best create communities that are safe for children to grow up, with families that are supportive of children - directly assisting them succeed in each educational level , - and how they can have urban communities that are free of crime, school drop-outs, drugs, single-mothers bearing children, and poverty.  

Lastly, I would like to hear blacks and whites talk honestly and acknowledge the reality that neither one is committed to living side-by-side with the other.  The most segregated groups in the US are in college cafeterias and student union halls.  Blacks congregate together and whites do the same thing.  In fact, you will find all social groups enjoy congregating together.  This is not racism, but the natural desire of humans to associate with like people.  

Color, culture, religion all exert powerful influences on individuals that direct and guide with whom we associate.  French people like to be with French people just as much as Mormons like to be with Mormons and Blacks like to be with Blacks.  Racial groupings - the influence to stick to our own race - can be overcome when there is an alternative overriding influence that is recognized as more important than racial influences.  

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When I hear the well-trained refrain "white privilege" I have a knee jerk response to stop listening.  I know that person talking does not know my life, the experiences I grew up with or those of my family.  It is as if only black people know or understand the feelings of "can't get a job there" or "you are not wanted here".  No one else is allowed to tread that sacred ground except black people because only black people know hardship.  When did black people become the only victims in the world?  Why?

Just to be clear, is this a generalized statement or are you stating that Bluedreams is talking in these sorts of extremes as well?

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, is this a generalized statement or are you stating that Bluedreams is talking in these sorts of extremes as well?

Thank you for the requesting a clarification - this is most assuredly a generalized statement and is not focused on Blue's comment.  However, I think our academic communities have grown extremely lazy and have propagated this term.  I dislike it use because I find it used too broadly and a catch-all accusation.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

What would help race relations is a minority member of the 12. I don't know why God hasn't called one.

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What would help race relations is a minority member of the 12. I don't know why God hasn't called one.

And I wonder why no "minority" person has so distinguished him/herself that G-d necessarily must have called him/her to a general leadership position with the Church  ...

Oh, wait a minute  ...

Yoon Choi, Edward Dube, Larry Echohawk, Enrique Falabella, Eduardo Gavarret, Carlos Godoy, Walter Gonzalez, Hugo Martinez, Jairo Mazzagardi, Hugo Montoya, Adrian Ochoa, Rafael Pino, Joseph Sitati, Michael Teh, Jose Texeira, Juan Uceda, Arnulfo Valenzuela, Francisco Vinas, Chi Wong, Kazuhiko Yamashita, Claudio Zivic  ...

21 of 78 70s are "minority" persons.  That's 27%.  Accordingly, your point is rather obscure.

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And I wonder why no "minority" person has so distinguished him/herself that G-d necessarily must have called him/her to a general leadership position with the Church  ...

Oh, wait a minute  ...

Yoon Choi, Edward Dube, Larry Echohawk, Enrique Falabella, Eduardo Gavarret, Carlos Godoy, Walter Gonzalez, Hugo Martinez, Jairo Mazzagardi, Hugo Montoya, Adrian Ochoa, Rafael Pino, Joseph Sitati, Michael Teh, Jose Texeira, Juan Uceda, Arnulfo Valenzuela, Francisco Vinas, Chi Wong, Kazuhiko Yamashita, Claudio Zivic  ...

21 of 78 70s are "minority" persons.  That's 27%.  Accordingly, your point is rather obscure.

I also touched on this issue a few weeks ago:

Quote

 Here's a list of the General Authorities of the Church.  Even a five-minute skim shows that a sizable number of them do not fit within the white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. stereotype:

• Dieter F. Uchtdorf
• Ulisses Soares
• Gerrit W. Gong
• Marcos A. Aidukaitis
• Jose L. Alonso
• Ian S. Ardern
• Yoon Hwan Choi
• Valeri V. Cordón
• Claudio R. M. Costa
• Joaquin E. Costa
• Massimo De Feo
• Benjamin De Hoyos
• Edward Dube
• Larry J. Echo Hawk
• Enrique R. Falabella
• Eduardo Gavarret
• Carlos A. Godoy
• Christoffel Golden
• Walter F. González
• Patrick Kearon
• Jörg Klebingat
• Erich W. Kopischke
• Peter F. Meurs
• Hugo Montoya
• Rafael E. Pino
• Joseph W. Sitati
• Michael John U. Teh
• José A. Teixeira
• Juan A. Uceda
• Arnulfo Valenzuela
• Francisco J. Viñas
• Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
• Kazuhiko Yamashita
• Jorge F. Zeballos
• Claudio D. Zivic
• J. Devn Cornish
• Per G. Malm
• Hugo E. Martinez
• Jairo Mazzagardi
• Adrián Ochoa
• Gérald Caussé

And then we can take a look at the 3rd Quorum (Area Seventy):

• Detlef H. Adler
• Frederick O. Akinbo
• Vladimir N. Astashov
• Matthieu Bennasar
• Hans T. Boom
• Christopher Charles
• Walter Chatora
• Alessandro Dini Ciacci
• M. T. Ben Davis
• Robert A. Dryden
• Mervyn C. Giddey
• Yuriy A. Guschin
• Clifford T. Herbertson
• Tom-Atle Herland
• Aniefiok Udo Inyon
• Christophe Kawaya
• John A. Koranteng
• Serhii A. Kovalov
• Axel H. Leimer
• W. Jean-Pierre Lono
• L. Jean Claude Mabaya
• Declan O. Madu
• Tasara Makasi
• Khumbulani Mdletshe
• Joaquim J. Moreira
• Adeyinka A. Ojediran
• Alan T. Phillips
• Gennady N. Podvodov
• Gary S. Price
• Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
• Alexey V. Samaykin
• Jacques A. Van Reenan
• Daniel Yirenya-Tawiah

And the Fourth:

• Julio C. Acosta
• Quilmer A. Agüero
• Angel H. Alarcon
• Omar A. Alvarez
• Carlos F. Arredondo
• Winsor Balderrama
• Hubermann Bien-Aimé
• Fernando E. Calderón
• Wilson B. Calderón
• Hernando Camargo
• Luis J. Camey
• Nicolás Castañeda
• Luis C. Chaverri
• Ulises Chávez
• Marion B. De Antuñano
• Ángel A. Duarte
• E. Xavier Espinoza
• Jose A. Fernández
• Candido Fortuna
• Sam M. Galvez
• Claude R. Gamiette
• Taylor G. Godoy
• Mathias Held
• Jose L. Isaguirre
• Pedro X. Larreal
• Alejandro Lopez
• José E. Maravilla
• Felix A. Martinez
• Alexander T. Mestre
• Alfredo Miron
• Adonay S. Obando
• Jared R. Ocampo
• Jesus A. Ortiz
• A. Moroni Pérez
• José C. Pineda
• Abraham E. Quero
• Miguel A. Reyes
• Rene Romay
• Luis G. Ruiz
• Netzahualcoyotl Salinas
• Jorge A. Saldívar
• Ernesto R. Toris
• C. Walter Treviño
• Ricardo Valladares
• Jesús Velez
• Alan R. Walker

And the Fifth:

• Ruben Acosta
• Blake R. Alder
• Aley K. Auna
• Steven R. Bangerter
• Alan C. Batt
• Jorge T. Becerra
• Michael H. Bourne
• Robert M. Call
• Gene R. Chidester
• Brent J. Christensen
• Douglas L. Dance
• Marc C. Davis
• Ralph L. Dewsnup
• J. Scott Dorius
• Gary B. Doxey
• M. Dirk Driscoll
• J. Kevin Ence
• Jeffrey D. Erekson
• Peter F. Evans
• Bruce E. Ghent
• Richard K. Hansen
• Michael R. Jensen
• Steven O. Laing
• Bryan R. Larsen
• Kevin K. Miskin
• Dale H. Munk
• Mark L. Pace
• Steven K. Randall
• Blake M. Roney
• R. Scott Runia
• Eric J. Schmutz
• Edwin A. Sexton
• Paul H. Watkins
• William B. Woahn
• Kevin J Worthen

And the Sixth:

• René R. Alba
• Alain L. Allard
• Dong Michael V. Beheshti
• Grant C. Bennett
• R. Randall Bluth
• Kevin E. Calderwood
• Matthew L. Carpenter
• Douglas B. Carter
• Donald D. Deshler
• Daniel F. Dunnigan
• K. Mark Frost
• Michael A. Gillenwater
• Leonard D. Greer
• Todd B. Hansen
• Raymond S. Heyman
• Brent J. Hillier
• David P. Homer
• Daniel W. Jones
• Milan F. Kunz
• Todd S. Larkin
• Alvin F. Meredith III
• J. Vaun McArthur
• Fred A. Parker
• Thomas T. Priday
• Brian L. Rawson
• Robert C. Rhien
• Gordon H. Smith
• Michael L. Southward
• G. Lawrence Spackman
• William H. Stoddard
• Stephen E. Thompson
• Maxsimo C. Torres
• Carlos Villarreal
• C. Dale Willis Jr.

And the Seventh:

• P. David Agazzani
• Benedito S. Antunes
• Rómulo V. Cabrera
• José C. F. Campos
• H. Marcelo Cardus
• Aroldo B. Cavalcante
• Antonio F. Faúndez
• Matias D. Fernandez
• Ricardo P. Giminéz
• Maurício G. Gonzaga
• João Roberto Grahl
• Francisco D. N. Granja
• Sergio L. Krasnoselsky
• Luiz M. Leal
• Juan J. Levrino
• Geraldo Lima
• Eduardo A. Norambuena
• Raimundo Pacheco De Pinho
• Carlos E. Perrotti
• Marco A. Rais
• Jorge Luis Romeu
• Alfredo Luis Salas
• Pedro A. Sanhueza
• Ciro Schmeil
• Alin Spannaus
• Raúl H. Spitale
• Daniel Texeira
• Moroni B. Torgan
• Juan A. Urra
• Luis G. Zapata

And the eighth:

• Benedito S. Antunes
• Pedro U. Adduru
• Taiichi Aoba
• Dong Chol Beh
• Victorino A. Babida
• Richard Baquiran
• Yoke Sang Freddie Chan
• Zeno Chow
• Paul R. Coward
• Robert J. Dudfield
• Meliula M. Fata
• Daniel G. Hamilton
• Johan Johansson
• Tae Gul Jung
• Wisit Khanakham
• Yutaka Onda
• Andrew M. O'Riordan
• Katsuyuki Otahara
• Ryan V. Pagaduan
• Abenir V. Pajaro
• Mark P. Peteru
• Siu Hong Pon
• Maximo A. Saavedra Jr.
• Benjamin Ming Tze Tai
• David J. Thomson
• George J. Tobias
• Steven L. Toronto
• Aisake K. Tukuafu
• Raul E. Vicencio
• Raul S. Villanueva
• Keith P. Walker
• Hoi Seng Leonard Woo

I am not familiar with all these men.  But quite a large number of them do not seem to fit the received-a-calling-due-to-preferential-and-unmerited-treatment-arising-from-being-a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S.  And then there are the numerous temple presidents, mission presidents, and thousands upon thousands of stake presidents, district presidents, bishops and branch presidents who are also in their callings despite not being a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S.

I do not discount the influence of human foibles in the administration of the Church.  But "group think and the associated social and psychological effects of upbringing and heritage" do not seem to account for the significant numbers of something-other-than-a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S.-type men in leadership positions all throughout the Church.  In fact, the above lists, to me, suggests that the Church (and, I think, the Lord) is quite a bit more, how should I put it, egalitarian than some of us tend to think

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Race discussion are so power-packed with such a diverse range of influences.  I appreciate you sharing your experience and perspective.  

When I try to understand how I as an individual interact to the comments I read from you or what I hear from black commentators in the media I hear a pretty consistent message that white people just don't get it - we are ignorant of the real issues that black people encounter consistently in the United States.  Yet, I never hear a corresponding response to the allegation that a white person does not "get" the black experience nor do black people get the white experience.  Issues of class, heritage, or apparently dismissed or forgotten as not important.  It makes me feel like no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to me.  More important, I would prefer they just stop talking about white people as if we are all the same.  

When I hear the well-trained refrain "white privilege" I have a knee jerk response to stop listening.  I know that person talking does not know my life, the experiences I grew up with or those of my family.  It is as if only black people know or understand the feelings of "can't get a job there" or "you are not wanted here".  No one else is allowed to tread that sacred ground except black people because only black people know hardship.  When did black people become the only victims in the world?  Why?

I find this whole caliber of discussion distasteful and ignorant of the lives of everyone else.  Individuals are quickly forced to talk as if they are victims and then a contest to identify who is the bigger victim or who has had the hardest life.  These conversations are approached from the macro level - entire races.  Then, just when we get a handle on that conversation, some black commentator with verbally slap the stupid white person up side the head with the comment - "I am not all black people; don't ask me any questions!"  

I would like to hear police officers explain why they feel the need to be so hyper-vigilant around black males.  I would like to know why black people think that police officers should not be hyper-vigilant around black males.  Why are black communities so often identified as violent?  I want to hear black leaders stop talking about white people and start talking about black people and how black people can best create communities that are safe for children to grow up, with families that are supportive of children - directly assisting them succeed in each educational level , - and how they can have urban communities that are free of crime, school drop-outs, drugs, single-mothers bearing children, and poverty.  

Lastly, I would like to hear blacks and whites talk honestly and acknowledge the reality that neither one is committed to living side-by-side with the other.  The most segregated groups in the US are in college cafeterias and student union halls.  Blacks congregate together and whites do the same thing.  In fact, you will find all social groups enjoy congregating together.  This is not racism, but the natural desire of humans to associate with like people.  

Color, culture, religion all exert powerful influences on individuals that direct and guide with whom we associate.  French people like to be with French people just as much as Mormons like to be with Mormons and Blacks like to be with Blacks.  Racial groupings - the influence to stick to our own race - can be overcome when there is an alternative overriding influence that is recognized as more important than racial influences.  

With the clarification on privilege in mind, I've heard others having said knee-jerk reaction. But privilege isn't usually refrained to just white privilege nowadays. And needing to check one's privilege is also not necessarily a bad thing. I know that I'm fairly privileged in a lot of ways. My family is financially stable (starting in my teens) and have been able to help me out when I really needed it in school. I'm half white. In terms of both colorism, cultural ties, etc that gives me privilege. I'm straight and cisgendered. I don't have a mental illness or severe disabilities. I have a college education. etc. Privilege just means that you have things that give you benefits that you may not have "earned." And yes, I'm aware that I earned my college degrees. But the pathway to getting those were opened with doors that may not have opened without my living circumstance, connections, etc. It doesn't have to be a shut down of my experiences. It's just a recognition that there may be unseen factors that make it easier for opportunities and quality of life to be high. One can used said privilege to better society.

I'm not following you on the 4th paragraph. I mentions that I only rep myself, because stereotypes or expectations of minorities are often set by one or 2 individuals. Which isn't fair.

On the 5th paragraph. Black communities already do what you mention. A lot. It doesn't get as much air time. It's also difficult because the without infrastructure and general social support, these programs have to fight an upwards battle to meet community needs at times. I watched a clip about a school district the other day (majority black and a small town near ferguson) that had done a lot to change the school district's scores. It took a lot of community resources that in other areas often get politicized as "hand outs" or "coddling." It's easier said than done.

2nd to last paragraph I disagree with. I don't think blacks or many minorities fit your descriptor. But that circumstances, social chances for extended contact, etc make it so. I've never purposely chosen my friend group to be so diverse. It was based of mutual interest, a sense of connection, and open sharing I couldn't have as easily in solely white circles. Plus some white circles were really, really, uncomfortable. I still want to have more intermingling and connection. I don't think it's a natural desire because that would mean my natural desire is definitely flagging. My "natural desire" has always been more diverse friends of varying background. Our desire is based off of what we're exposed to and experience in said exposure. Not some genetic kink that follows race groupings.

 

WIth luv,

BD

 

 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

53 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And I wonder why no "minority" person has so distinguished him/herself that G-d necessarily must have called him/her to a general leadership position with the Church  ...

Oh, wait a minute  ...

Yoon Choi, Edward Dube, Larry Echohawk, Enrique Falabella, Eduardo Gavarret, Carlos Godoy, Walter Gonzalez, Hugo Martinez, Jairo Mazzagardi, Hugo Montoya, Adrian Ochoa, Rafael Pino, Joseph Sitati, Michael Teh, Jose Texeira, Juan Uceda, Arnulfo Valenzuela, Francisco Vinas, Chi Wong, Kazuhiko Yamashita, Claudio Zivic  ...

21 of 78 70s are "minority" persons.  That's 27%.  Accordingly, your point is rather obscure.

 

No one knows who the 70s are and I'm talking about the Q15. Only minority has been Dieter F Uchtdorf and he's still white. When will we see a real minority is the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency?

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

No one knows who the 70s are and I'm talking about the Q15. Only minority has been Dieter F Uchtdorf and he's still white. When will we see a real minority is the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency?

Your point remains obscure.  A world-wide church with folks of all ethnicities one can imagine, and you focus solely on 15 people who happen to have offices at 50 E North Temple, but you ignore all of the people all over the world who count as "leadership."  And if you're using this as a weapon, you do poorly.

[BlueDreams]

On July 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM, USU78 said:

Judge much?

No. It's called lived experience. 

But I do judge....like how someone could pick up one line from a post and assume judgmental posturing that is almost never in my posts in the first place.

Rocks/glass houses comes to mind. 

With luv, 

BD

Edited July 13, 2016 by BlueDreams

[VideoGameJunkie]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Your point remains obscure.  A world-wide church with folks of all ethnicities one can imagine, and you focus solely on 15 people who happen to have offices at 50 E North Temple, but you ignore all of the people all over the world who count as "leadership."  And if you're using this as a weapon, you do poorly.

Not a weapon. I just think there should be diversity at the top. 14 of the Q15 are old white guys from Utah. You call that diversity at the top?