Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you are referencing here.

As Mr. Tatum so poignantly observed: 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still not seeing any causation.

How about other racial groups that have better maternal and infant mortality rates as compared to black US women?  Do they have "white privilege" too?

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you read the article?

Why does one man's individual experience stand for so much while you dismiss an entire article describing multiple research studies?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still not seeing any causation.

How about other racial groups that have better maternal and infant mortality rates as compared to black US women?  Do they have "white privilege" too?

So you would be okay with discussing this statistic as evidence for discrimination against blacks, but not white privilege because you don't see it as " whites get the good treatment" vs. "nonwhites get the not so good", but rather "American blacks get less effective medical care" or something similar? ( serious question, wanting to be sure I understand your concerns)

Edited January 24, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

So you would be okay with discussing this statistic as evidence for discrimination against blacks,

Maybe.  Correlation is not causation.

The 90% statistic pertaining to incarcerated males is not "evidence for discrimination against" men.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

but not white privilege because you don't see it as " whites get the good treatment" vs. "nonwhites get the not so good", but rather "American blacks get less effective medical care" or something similar? ( serious question, wanting to be sure I understand your concerns)

I'm not persuaded that causation has been established.

I am also surmising that there are many factors that likely play important roles in outcomes.

Unsubstantiated claims of systemic preferential treatment of white people is too conclusory, too pat, too devoid of clinical meaning and empirical data, too lacking on establishing causation, too politically convenient, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet whether you agree white privilege is legitimate or not, there are still the statistical advantages of being white, in particular factors beyond an individual's control.

The very term “statistical advantage” reflects an inherent assumption. It would have to be shown that a statistical preponderance, if there be one, amounts to advantage — or to “privilege.”

[bsjkki]

"When we talk about racial inequality, it is important to understand that we’re often talking about structural or society-wide averages, not the status of all individuals at all times. It is true, for instance, that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by poverty. That means a higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty as compared to whites. But the largest number of individuals in the United States who live in poverty are white. We can’t, and we shouldn’t, assume anything about any individual’s life solely based on his or her race, or based on larger facts about racial inequality." 

https://quillette.com/2019/05/23/what-does-teaching-white-privilege-actually-accomplish-not-what-you-might-think-or-hope/

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm willing to share experiences but I would like to say that I'm not up to debating them and whether they're evidence of white privilege.

I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your experiences with us here.  I personally really appreciate it.  I've been on an interesting journey over the years from a personal perspective.  I never considered that I had even a racist bone in my body, not growing up around very many minorities in Utah county, I really didn't have much exposure to thinking about differences.  However, reflecting back I can remember kids telling jokes and other things that I didn't stand up to in my younger years.  I felt poorly about some of those circumstances in my teenage years and I tried to stand up for anyone that I saw as being oppressed or bullied.  Overall, I felt like society was moving past the issue of race, and as I became an adult, but still didn't know much about the history around race issues in the USA, all of the things I saw through my sheltered and uninformed lens showed me that the issue of race was an issue mainly in the past, and that people today were more informed and equal treatment was the de facto position of most people, and that racism rarely raised its ugly head.  

Fast forward to my faith journey and I started to read and research many of my earlier paradigms from an entirely different lens, and the scales of ignorance are being shed from my eyes on this as well as many other topics.  I had no idea how much white privilege is baked into our cultural DNA.   Its the water we swim in.  I think people in this thread that deny that it exists are like the people in Plato's cave to some extent.  The only difference is that people today have a choice to open their eyes and educate themselves.  Systemic racism is a term that I've learned more about, and its is also baked into our cultural DNA.  We have a long ways to go to root out these problems.  Implicit bias education is one way of helping people to see privilege and racism, but unfortunately there are some partisans who criticize it.  

White privilege is a thing.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

"When we talk about racial inequality, it is important to understand that we’re often talking about structural or society-wide averages, not the status of all individuals at all times. It is true, for instance, that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by poverty. That means a higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty as compared to whites. But the largest number of individuals in the United States who live in poverty are white. We can’t, and we shouldn’t, assume anything about any individual’s life solely based on his or her race, or based on larger facts about racial inequality." 

https://quillette.com/2019/05/23/what-does-teaching-white-privilege-actually-accomplish-not-what-you-might-think-or-hope/

Such a good point.  I've heard people say things before like, "white privilege obviously doesn't exist because I'm white, poor, and have had few advantages in my life."  That's a misunderstanding of what white privilege is and isn't.

Edited January 24, 2020 by bluebell

[Calm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Such a good point.  I've heard people say things before like, "white privilege obviously doesn't exist because I'm while, poor, and have had few advantages in my life."  That's a misunderstanding of what white privilege is and isn't.

I agree with this though I am thinking it is the reverse of the other:  racial inequality can’t be determined/predicted by looking at one individual’s life nor can an individual’s life be determined/predicted by racial inequality stats.

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

I agree with this though I am thinking it is the reverse of the other:  racial inequality can’t be determined/predicted by looking at one individual’s life nor can an individual’s life be determined/predicted by racial inequality stats.

Exactly.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

"When we talk about racial inequality, it is important to understand that we’re often talking about structural or society-wide averages, not the status of all individuals at all times. It is true, for instance, that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by poverty. That means a higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty as compared to whites. But the largest number of individuals in the United States who live in poverty are white. We can’t, and we shouldn’t, assume anything about any individual’s life solely based on his or her race, or based on larger facts about racial inequality." 

https://quillette.com/2019/05/23/what-does-teaching-white-privilege-actually-accomplish-not-what-you-might-think-or-hope/

This rather eviscerates the notion of "white privilege."

There are all sorts of factors that play into "averages" pertaining to crime, education, housing, abortion, home ownership, and so on.  Unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism favoring whites and disfavoring blacks ("white privilege") comes nowhere near to providing a meaningful assessment of causality.  

It is, however, a pretty convenient, and politically partisan, and racially divisive, rhetorical gimmick.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm..  so I'm thinking our difference of opinion on the definition for racism, might be that you believe the intentions of the authors play a key role in defining the policy as racist.  Let me ask this question.  When you have a policy to exclude people of a certain background, and you identify those people based on skin color and other physical attributes, does it matter what the intentions of the originators of this policy were intending, when it comes to determining if the policy fits the definition of racism?  

In other words, you say that you don't believe the priesthood ban was about an aversion to skin color or culture.  If I grant that you are correct.  Does that make the policy to discriminate based on skin color and other attributes, not fit the definition of racism?  Do the intentions of the people instituting the policy, which clearly barred people of a certain dissent from the priesthood, determine whether or not the policy fits the definition of a racist policy?  

Again I would say that depends on the definition of racism that is being used.  If racism is defined as having something to do with a particular color of skin or a particular cultural background... but with no thought of one color or culture being inferior to some other... then it would still be considered racism even if there were no aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular cultural background.  But that isn't what some people think of when they think of racism.  Some people think racism involves thinking one is inferior to another, but then again, some other people don't think so.

So my question to you now becomes: What is your point in asking the question you're asking?  Do you want to know if priesthood leaders instituted the priesthood ban because of an aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture?  I'm sure they were aware that many people at that time (between 1820 and 1978) had an aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture, but did the priesthood leaders who instituted that priesthood ban have that aversion themselves?  Or did they institute the ban because they felt that those who had that aversion would not at that time accept the idea that all men should be treated equally regardless of skin color or cultural background?  What we know for certain is that there was a priesthood ban and that even before that ban there were many people, both in and out of the church,  who had an aversion to people with a particular color of skin or particular cultural background.  I just don't know if the priesthood leaders who instituted the ban had that aversion or instead were simply aware of it such that they felt that others would not have sustained and supported those with that skin color or that cultural background if they had been ordained to offices in the priesthood or given those blessings.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Ahab

[JamesBYoung]

bluebell said:

1)  Perhaps you weren't aware but segregation continued after it became illegal.  The last school in Mississippi was desegregated in 2016 after a federal order forced their hand.  

2)  And a lot doesn't.  After all, we are talking about 100s of years of racism verses 50 ish years where it's been illegal.   

3)  It seems absurd to attempt to argue that racism of whites against those of color exists but does not negatively affect people of color more than whites.  

Like Calm, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.  You are determined not to believe in white privilege and to ignore any data that supports it as 'not actually data.'  I'm not sure if it's the lawyer in you or what exactly is causing the disconnect, but you are entrenched in your position so further discussion wouldn't serve any purpose.  

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here it seems that not only are you scorning Smac’s profession, but you are disparaging Smac as a practitioner of it. More ad hominem, this time closer to home. If this is what the conversation has devolved to, then perhaps you are right in saying it would be best not to continue it. 
 

But for the reco,rd, I submit that, if anything, Smac’s background in the legal profession qualifies him to view the matter rationally and to argue it logically and effectively. 

Jake said:

bluebell ad hommed no one, imho.  She made points about conclusions and the reasons for Smac's conclusions.

Let's keep the argument on point as to racism, racist policies, and the latest controversy with the darned handbook and not personalities.

Racism does exist in the US.  It still exists among the Mormon people to a degree, but it is far less than when I was a young man,

Edited January 24, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Such a good point.  I've heard people say things before like, "white privilege obviously doesn't exist because I'm while, poor, and have had few advantages in my life."  That's a misunderstanding of what white privilege is and isn't.

What I got from it is that numbers do not necessarily indicate privilege. Consider this excerpt from the link:

“When activists and academics invoke the phrase “white privilege,” they typically are speaking of advantages that whites, on average, have over members of other ethnic minority groups in our society. And there is no doubt that racial inequality is both real and persistent in the United States, where I live, and elsewhere. There is a sizable racial wealth gap, a life expectancy gap, and an incarceration gap. Many of America’s most pressing social problems disproportionately harm people from minority groups.

“But there is a danger that, by talking about this inequality as an all-consuming phenomenon, we will end up creating a flattened and unfair image that portrays all whites in all situations and all contexts as benefiting from unearned advantages. Indeed, it’s possible that we will cause people to confuse a structural inequality that exists on the level of group average with the circumstances of every individual within a particular racial group.“

So this seems to be saying that structural inequality does not equate to racial privilege. Am I missing something here? 

Consider the matter of fatherlessness, which some consider society’s most pressing social problem because it drives all other social problems. It seems to impact black populations disproportionately, but is that due to white privilege? I would argue that it is the consequence of individual choices. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This rather eviscerates the notion of "white privilege."

There are all sorts of factors that play into "averages" pertaining to crime, education, housing, abortion, home ownership, and so on.  Unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism favoring whites and disfavoring blacks ("white privilege") comes nowhere near to providing a meaningful assessment of causality.  

It is, however, a pretty convenient, and politically partisan, and racially divisive, rhetorical gimmick.

Thanks,

-Smac

We zeroed in on the same quote, but you got there first. I promise I wasn’t copying you. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As Mr. Tatum so poignantly observed: 

Quote

For starters, what is “white privilege” anyway? Because you were born with white skin, you have all these advantages that I don’t have? 

Like what? 

Like, you can get a mortgage loan that I can’t get?

Hmm. I got a loan—at a great rate, by the way—and I got the house. Why would a banker not give a loan to someone who met the loan requirements? He doesn’t want to make money? I’ve never heard of such a banker. 
 

 

I don't really want to get into the greater argument, but I find the bolded argument laughable. There are MANY people who place their beliefs over gaining money. There are tons of examples of this when we study racism in the US.

Here is a current one that is about 1 1/2 hours from where I live. A convenience store put a sign saying "Obama and other muslims not welcome here." Doesn't the store owner want money? Of course he does, but his racist/anti-Islam views trump that. So yeah, I can totally conceive of a racist banker who would deny a loan to a black American even though it means that he makes less money.

And it extends beyond racism, too. Someone could say, "Why would a cake maker not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? He doesn't want to make money?"

Mr. Tatum makes a poor argument here.

Edited January 24, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Again I would say that depends on the definition of racism that is being used.  If racism is defined as having something to do with a particular color of skin or a particular cultural background... but with no thought of one color or culture being inferior to some other... then it would still be considered racism even if there were no aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular cultural background.  But that isn't what some people think of when they think of racism.  Some people think racism involves thinking one is inferior to another, but then again, some other people don't think so.

So my question to you now becomes: What is your point in asking the question you're asking?  Do you want to know if priesthood leaders instituted the priesthood ban because of an aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture?  I'm sure they were aware that many people at that time (between 1820 and 1978) had an aversion to a particular color of skin or a particular culture, but did the priesthood leaders who instituted that priesthood ban have that aversion themselves?  Or did they institute the ban because they felt that those who had that aversion would not at that time accept the idea that all men should be treated equally regardless of skin color or cultural background?  What we know for certain is that there was a priesthood ban and that even before that ban there were many people, both in and out of the church,  who had an aversion to people with a particular color of skin or particular cultural background.  I just don't know if the priesthood leaders who instituted the ban had that aversion or were simply aware of it, such that they felt that others would not have sustained and supported those with that skin color or that cultural background if they had been ordained to offices in the priesthood or given those blessings.

I would say that the definition of racism can include both aversion towards people of another race and discrimination towards people of another race, but it doesn’t have to include both to qualify as racism.  Disparate treatment via a policy, whether the people who institute that policy have any personal avarice or aversion towards individuals or not, if the policy discriminates, then the policy is racist.  

The intentions of the policy makers are irrelevant as to whether the policy itself is discriminatory.  And a discriminatory policy that discriminates on racial characteristics is, by definition, racist.  

I’m not sure that I understand your comment about the people who instituted the ban being worried that others would have not sustained and supported equality towards all races, as a justification for the ban.  Are you saying that other members would have not sustained them, or are you saying non-members would have persecuted the church had it implemented such an egalitarian policy?  

I would also like to ask how this justification that other people wouldn’t have supported an equal treatment policy, makes the policy itself not qualify as racism.  Again, are you placing the definition of racism directly on the intentions of the policy originators, rather than on the effects of the policy itself?  Just trying to get clarification.  Thanks
 

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say that the definition of racism can include both aversion towards people of another race and discrimination towards people of another race, but it doesn’t have to include both to qualify as racism.  Disparate treatment via a policy, whether the people who institute that policy have any personal avarice or aversion towards individuals or not, if the policy discriminates, then the policy is racist.  

The intentions of the policy makers are irrelevant as to whether the policy itself is discriminatory.  And a discriminatory policy that discriminates on racial characteristics is, by definition, racist.  

I’m not sure that I understand your comment about the people who instituted the ban being worried that others would have not sustained and supported equality towards all races, as a justification for the ban.  Are you saying that other members would have not sustained them, or are you saying non-members would have persecuted the church had it implemented such an egalitarian policy?  

I would also like to ask how this justification that other people wouldn’t have supported an equal treatment policy, makes the policy itself not qualify as racism.  Again, are you placing the definition of racism directly on the intentions of the policy originators, rather than on the effects of the policy itself?  Just trying to get clarification.  Thanks
 

I've tried to explain to you twice already how I don't see the term "racist" as something that is a bad thing, or at least not necessarily, depending on what a person has in mind when using the term racist.  One definition of the term that I am aware of is that it simply has to do with people, since all people are of the same race... the human race, or the race of men, or the race of God, or any other term to refer to the kind of being we are.  So basically, in other words, racism is simply about people... any group of people or all people, generally, since we, all people, are all the same race.

So are you getting a better understanding of what I am saying now?  There is no negative connotation to the term "racist" unless you choose to define that term that way while using some negative connotation.  We can refer to people who have black skin, for example, without thinking people with black skin are inferior to some other people, and while considering a comment directed at people with black skin to be a racist comment.  Simply because it has to do with people with black skin.  And we can also consider a comment directed at people with white skin to be a racist comment simply because we are directing that comment at that particular group of people.  Even if we don't use any negative connotations or think one group is inferior to another.  

So with that understanding, that the term racist can be applied to any group of people or any comment about any group of people, the next question is what is the point of making that comment or taking that action with regard to a particular group of people? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't really want to get into the greater argument, but I find the bolded argument laughable. There are MANY people who place their beliefs over gaining money. There are tons of examples of this when we study racism in the US.

Here is a current one that is about 1 1/2 hours from where I live. A convenience store put a sign saying "Obama and other muslims not welcome here." Doesn't the store owner want money? Of course he does, but his racist/anti-Islam views trump that. So yeah, I can totally conceive of a racist banker who would deny a loan to a black American even though it means that he makes less money.

And it extends beyond racism, too. Someone could say, "Why would a cake maker not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? He doesn't want to make money?"

Mr. Tatum makes a poor argument here.

I don’t think it’s a poor argument if one believes, as I do, that it would be rare indeed in this day and age for a bank to deny a mortgage loan to an individual on the basis of race. 
 

To revisit a point I made earlier, the fact that intelligent, industrious, young black Americans today such as Mr. Tatum and Candace Owens are angrily rejecting the “white privilege” myth speaks volumes. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Maybe.  Correlation is not causation.

The 90% statistic pertaining to incarcerated males is not "evidence for discrimination against" men.

Men are genetically much more prone to and more capable of hurting people physically. Are you saying you believe that black people are more genetically predisposed to crime? Or what is your thoughts here. Would love to here your ideas here. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded that causation has been established.

I am also surmising that there are many factors that likely play important roles in outcomes.

such as what?

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Maybe.  Correlation is not causation.

The 90% statistic pertaining to incarcerated males is not "evidence for discrimination against" men.

Men are genetically much more prone to and more capable of hurting people physically.

And, therefore, appear to actually commit more crimes (or at least more that are likely to result in jail time).  So I'm not sure the 90% figure is attributable to "discrimination."

Quote

Are you saying you believe that black people are more genetically predisposed to crime?

No.  Again: "The 90% statistic pertaining to incarcerated males is not 'evidence for discrimination against' men."

I think there are many factors that likely play important roles in outcomes.  "Genetically predisposed to crime" is not one of them.

I've seen no evidence of race as a causal factor in criminality.

Quote

Quote

I am also surmising that there are many factors that likely play important roles in outcomes.

such as what?

Familial circumstances/environment (absentee fathers are a huge factor).  Socioeconomic circumstances.  Education.  Substance abuse.  Culture.  Community environment.  Religious belief (or lack thereof).  Sexual ethics.  Governmental interventionism.

None of these is predetermined by race.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2020 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say that the definition of racism can include both aversion towards people of another race and discrimination towards people of another race, but it doesn’t have to include both to qualify as racism.  Disparate treatment via a policy, whether the people who institute that policy have any personal avarice or aversion towards individuals or not, if the policy discriminates, then the policy is racist.  

The intentions of the policy makers are irrelevant as to whether the policy itself is discriminatory.  And a discriminatory policy that discriminates on racial characteristics is, by definition, racist.  

I’m not sure that I understand your comment about the people who instituted the ban being worried that others would have not sustained and supported equality towards all races, as a justification for the ban.  Are you saying that other members would have not sustained them, or are you saying non-members would have persecuted the church had it implemented such an egalitarian policy?  

I would also like to ask how this justification that other people wouldn’t have supported an equal treatment policy, makes the policy itself not qualify as racism.  Again, are you placing the definition of racism directly on the intentions of the policy originators, rather than on the effects of the policy itself?  Just trying to get clarification.  Thanks
 

I've tried to explain to you twice already how I don't see the term "racist" as something that is a bad thing, or at least not necessarily, depending on what a person has in mind when using the term racist.  One definition of the term that I am aware of is that it simply has to do with people, since all people are of the same race... the human race, or the race of men, or the race of God, or any other term to refer to the kind of being we are.  So basically, in other words, racism is simply about people... any group of people or all people, generally, since we, all people, are all the same race.

So are you getting a better understanding of what I am saying now?  There is no negative connotation to the term "racist" unless you choose to define that term that way while using some negative connotation.  We can refer to people who have black skin, for example, without thinking people with black skin are inferior to some other people, and while considering a comment directed at people with black skin to be a racist comment.  Simply because it has to do with people with black skin.  And we can also consider a comment directed at people with white skin to be a racist comment simply because we are directing that comment at that particular group of people.  Even if we don't use any negative connotations or think one group is inferior to another.  

So with that understanding, that the term racist can be applied to any group of people or any comment about any group of people, the next question is what is the point of making that comment or taking that action with regard to a particular group of people? 

Ok, I understand that you don't attribute anything negative to the term racist.  Thats fine.  It doesn't seem to address any of the points and questions that we were discussing as far as I can tell.  

•    Do you think the intentions of the policy makers is relevant to the question about whether a policy discriminates on the basis of race?  

•    Are you saying that the perspective of “others” whether members or non-members was a key factor in the implementation of the policy?  And if so, does the opinion of other parties justify the policy from a moral perspective?  

As for your final question to me, I don't believe the term racist can be applied to any group of people about any comment about that group, that is not how I understand the term racism.  See below link for a broader understanding of how I look at race and racism.  The point of me explaining how the priesthood ban falls under a generally accepted definition for racism, is that it helps elucidate how powerful the current position of the church is with respect to a condemnation of past racism.  Considering the history of the church and its leaders, its really quite the fascinating and encouraging turn of events.  

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

 

[BlueDreams]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think it’s a poor argument if one believes, as I do, that it would be rare indeed in this day and age for a bank to deny a mortgage loan to an individual on the basis of race. 
 

To revisit a point I made earlier, the fact that intelligent, young black Americans today such as Mr. Tatum and Candace Owens are angrily rejecting the “white privilege” myth speaks volumes. 

Why does Tatem and Owens speak “volumes” when their opinion is not held by the majority of minorities, including young black americans. (See here)? Half of Owen’s pragerU thing was just an individual saying “I haven’t felt this therefore it doesn’t exist”. How does his individual experience trump my own and so many other people of color in a majority white society? 
 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I understand that you don't attribute anything negative to the term racist.  Thats fine.  It doesn't seem to address any of the points and questions that we were discussing as far as I can tell.  

•    Do you think the intentions of the policy makers is relevant to the question about whether a policy discriminates on the basis of race?  

Yes, of course.  What they intended to do is very relevant to what they actually did.  Whether an act "discriminates on the basis of race" is determined by whether that act affects a particular group of people.  And yes it did have an affect on the people it was intended to affect.

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

•    Are you saying that the perspective of “others” whether members or non-members was a key factor in the implementation of the policy?  And if so, does the opinion of other parties justify the policy from a moral perspective?  

Yes, of course.  And yes, their intent could justify their policy from a moral perspective?  It may not have been good to give a group of people something that others would not want them to receive, that others would persecute them for if they had received it.  You are aware of the struggle and persecution some people had to go through before getting equal rights in America, I presume.  Imagine if what happened in the Civil Rights movement had happened not in the 1950's but in the 1850's instead but that it did not work out as well as it did after the 1950's.  We can't know because we can't go back and test but I think maybe things needed to happen as they did before we could get the results we eventually got. 

The "I wish there had never been any racial inequities, ever" mindset is just a pipe dream mentality.  Complaining, complaining and more complaining that things weren't better when at least we did get to a point where things are pretty good now and still getting better.

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for your final question to me, I don't believe the term racist can be applied to any group of people about any comment about that group, that is not how I understand the term racism.  See below link for a broader understanding of how I look at race and racism.  The point of me explaining how the priesthood ban falls under a generally accepted definition for racism, is that it helps elucidate how powerful the current position of the church is with respect to a condemnation of past racism.  Considering the history of the church and its leaders, its really quite the fascinating and encouraging turn of events.  

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

 

Haaaahhh.  Heeeehhh.  Haaaahhh.  I find your lack of faith disturbing, on several levels.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It is, however, a pretty convenient, and politically partisan, and racially divisive, rhetorical gimmick.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's a very shallow description of white privilege and a binary view of how the term is used. I see people of wide political views speaking about white privilege independent of partisan rhetoric. I see them collaborating on how to be more empathetic and kind.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Why does Tatem and Owens speak “volumes” when their opinion is not held by the majority of minorities, including young black americans. (See here)? Half of Owen’s pragerU thing was just an individual saying “I haven’t felt this therefore it doesn’t exist”. How does his individual experience trump my own and so many other people of color in a majority white society? 

With luv,

BD

I don't think anecdotal perceptions and opinions are sufficient to establish and validate the concept of "white privilege."  Tatum and Owens are rejecting the concept.  Those who are advocating it have the burden of proof to establish it in the first instance.  Tatum and Owens (and Shapiro, and others) are arguing that they (advocates of "white privilege") haven't met that burden.  And at present I find those arguments pretty persuasive.

To be sure, I don't dispute that racism exists.  But "white privilege," a claim of systemic preferential treatment of white people at the expense of black people (that is, somehow, "baked into our cultural DNA"), is a pretty serious thing.  It should be substantiated before being taken seriously.  I don't think it has been.  

Again, if "white privilege" is a thing, then why isn't it being used as a litigation tool in courts throughout the land?  There are huge incentives to do so.  Huge amounts of money to be made by lawyers who would drool at the prospect of fleecing government and private entities.  Employment discrimination.  Housing discrimination.  Statutory penalties.  Attorney's fees galore.  

If "white privilege" is a thing, why isn't it defined in dictionaries?

If "white privilege" is a thing, why is it that it is only (or overwhelmingly) used in hyper-partisan and politicized contexts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2020 by smac97