Jump to content

Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed


Recommended Posts

 

From this article https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5371962&itype=CMSID&fbclid=IwAR0xxrOz7u-Qo0SsmVSX_2t5E8PScrcMqRQ_0Ybt0Yqqc28ayObZXtBmngI , these two quotes and list of suggestions need to happen before we get real change among the members.


"Darron Smith, a black writer and author of "When Race, Religion and Sport Collide: Black Athletes at BYU and Beyond," is unequivocal about his prescription for healing: It won't happen without a formal and public apology for the priesthood ban over the pulpit by the Mormon prophet at LDS General Conference."

 

"There are black general authorities, but no black apostles, no blacks in the general presidency of the women's Relief Society, few in the famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir or as faculty at BYU. LDS art often features a Scandinavian-looking Jesus and the biblical Adam and Eve are most often depicted as white."

 

 

And these suggestions, how can we get this the top tier leaders to enact these suggestions?

"Here are some suggestions that have been raised, mostly by black Mormons, for how the LDS Church could improve race relations within the faith.

• Cast a black Adam and Eve (or an interracial couple) in the film shown to faithful members in LDS temples.

• Use more African-American faces in church art and manuals and display more artwork depicting Christ as he would appear: as a Middle Eastern Jewish man.

• Pick more blacks for highly visible leadership positions — if not an apostle, at least in the general authority Seventy or in the general auxiliary presidencies.

• Repudiate and apologize for the faith's past priesthood/temple ban on blacks, which the church lifted in 1978.

• Show the documentary film "Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons" to every all-male priesthood quorum, women's Relief Society class and Young Men and Young Women groups.

• Quote from the church's Gospel Topics essay "Race and the Priesthood" regularly at LDS General Conference and translate it into all the languages that the church uses to communicate with its global membership.

• Direct that the essay be read from the pulpit in every Mormon congregation and mission in the world.

• Have the Book of Mormon scripture found in 2 Nephi 26:33 — "All are alike unto God" — be a yearlong Young Women or Primary theme and make it part of the curriculum to talk about the sin of racism.

• Bring more blacks to LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University as students and faculty, while providing sensitivity training for all students about racial issues and interactions with people of color.

• Teach children about the heroic black Mormon lives, such as LDS pioneers Jane Manning James and Elijah Abel.

• Expand the LDS hymnbook to include more diverse songs and styles.

• Enlist more people of color in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

• Invite the choir from the Genesis Group — a longtime Utah-based support organization for black Mormons and their families — to sing at General Conference.

• Use the Genesis Group to assist in improving relationships with the African-American community.

• Give the Genesis Group greater authority to exist in all states and to visit wards and assist lay bishoprics in how to avoid and overcome racism in their congregations.

• Create a church-sponsored Mormon and black website akin to the one found at mormonandgay.org.

• Treat the members of the Genesis Group's presidency as an auxiliary, seating them on the stand with other high-ranking authorities during General Conference — and invite at least one of them to speak during the sessions.

• Provide training on racial issues for newly called mission presidents.

• Include a mandatory class at Missionary Training Centers that teach the "Race and the Priesthood" essay so missionaries are better prepared when they go out to preach."

 
 
 

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)

So far off topic now....

is this for real and if so, do they have functioning examples to model after or is this going to be more grand experiment?

https://theappeal.org/minneapolis-city-council-members-announce-intent-to-disband-the-police-department-invest-in-proven-community-led-public-safety/

Are protests continuing there today?  I worry how the police are going to respond if they think they are losing their jobs. 
 

Quote

even if police officers opposed the move, a vast majority of them live outside of Minneapolis and can’t vote on their elected leaders. 

Spokespeople for the Minneapolis mayor did not immediately respond to inquiries Sunday. The police department declined to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/07/minneapolis-city-council-defund-police-george-floyd

Edited by Calm
Link to post

So this has been raised here repeatedly, but I’m still not clear on why this thread has been allowed to continue in apparent disregard of the “seriously, no politics” mandate. 
 

Is it a matter of definitions? Is the rule limited strictly to partisan politics, i.e. Democrat vs Republican? Or does it also take in political ideology: liberal, conservative, leftist, communism, fascism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism (antifa), etc.? Does it allow taking potshots at public office holders? 
 

I think some explanations are in order. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)

Mods may not be reading this thread, so it is useless to ask it here most likely because it would be speculation by anyone not a mod.

Did you report this thread for politics or are you assuming it was reported?  The thread’s title does not really suggest what is going on in the thread and maybe moderators are depending on the title because no one has reported, understandable then why it’s not been shutdown. 
 

But maybe they are allowing this thread intentionally for other reasons. Yes 
 

Since I see issues mostly when people are taking it to a personal level and calling others immoral or similar accusations for political positions and this happens most often with partisan politics, I see it as possible to have a politically themed thread where political ideas are being more explored than attacked, but I don’t know if mods allow that.

Maybe post your question in the board guidelines thread and then “report” it to draw their attention 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mods may not be reading this thread, so it is useless to ask it here most likely because it would be speculation by anyone not a mod.

Did you report this thread for politics or are you assuming it was reported?  The thread’s title does not really suggest what is going on in the thread and maybe moderators are depending on the title because no one has reported, understandable then why it’s not been shutdown. 
 

But maybe they are allowing this thread intentionally for other reasons. Yes 
 

Since I see issues mostly when people are taking it to a personal level and calling others immoral or similar accusations for political positions and this happens most often with partisan politics, I see it as possible to have a politically themed thread where political ideas are being more explored than attacked, but I don’t know if mods allow that.

Maybe post your question in the board guidelines thread and then “report” it to draw their attention 

This is not the only thread that has raised questions in my mind. I saw it happening with impunity on the “What Can the Church Do to Promote Anti-racism in America?” thread. Ostensibly that thread was allowed to continue with no intervention until the OP herself (according to the moderator) asked that it be closed. 
 

I wouldn’t care so much, except that unless a rule like “no politics” is enforced consistently, it tends to inequitably favor the views of some posters over others. Ironically, it was earlier in this thread that I consciously curbed my own discourse so as not to run afoul of the “no politics” rule. Thereafter, a free-for-all seemed to ensue. 

 

And no, I haven’t reported it. I don’t report stuff very often. One reason is that I don’t want to be “that guy.” Another is that my past reportings, rare though they are, have generally been ignored. 
 

Incidentally, I can easily explain why this thread has gone so far off topic. Being on “limited” status, Tacenda is unable to start new threads on her own. So her strategy to introduce new topics is to piggyback them onto old-but-unclosed threads that she resurrects that may have relatively little to do with the topic she is introducing. It’s a rather clever strategy that explains what has happened in this instance. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And no, I haven’t reported it. I don’t report stuff very often. One reason is that I don’t want to be “that guy.” Another is that my past reportings, rare though they are, have generally been ignored. 

I can’t respond to when you reported since I have no clue when you did, but I can respond to when I reported and conclude perhaps you didn’t notice someone getting banned if it took a day or two for mods to check in as the offender could have posted a number of times over the day or two and then disappeared maybe even after finishing the conversation.  Depending on the poster this could have appeared to be just the usual...especially certain habitually banned posters (only reason I knew they were banned was because they whined about it, just thought they gotten bored with repeating their one note songs/sermons).

It isn’t fair to complain about moderation unless you actually report people. The board has been around 15 years or more and it has always run on that principle. Probably the main reason it still exists today given what I have seen in many boards and lists with moderator burnout. Sure, it isn’t perfect, but you must be mostly satisfied with the results or you wouldn’t be here still. No one is paying you to stick around and your time could be spent on undoubtedly worthwhile other activities...and yet you are here. 
 

If you don’t want to help moderators by reporting because it hurts your self image somehow, then at least stop complaining because it can make you look like you are a privileged jerk who believes that people should order their lives to make you happy, (in this case moderators should devote hours to the board each day reading all the posts just in case someone says something in a way that you think is inappropriate and having to read your mind because you don’t want to report offenders)....and that would be the wrong impression, right?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Rather than "skin pigmentation," it is more like lineage and perceived lineage. 

Yes, that would get into the various contexts where it can take on the more specific definitions that I referred to. Some people can be racist just by looking at you, others not until they find out where you came from. The system that supports/enables the belief that some are inherently better than others operates the same way for either (and other bases), and articulated regulations can refer to both. In the USA no one can regulate or punish a person's person's belief, but through proper governing processes can regulate and punish behaviors. At the same time time, it never hurts to promote brotherhood and charity, and while this often falls under the purview of family relations and religion, I think this would be a good thing to incorporate into the public system as well, beginning with schools.

Edited by CV75
Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that would get into the various contexts where it can take on the more specific definitions that I referred to. Some people can be racist just by looking at you, others not until they find out where you came from. The system that supports/enables the belief that some are inherently better than others operates the same way for either (and other bases), and articulated regulations can refer to both. In the USA no one can regulate or punish a person's person's belief, but through proper governing processes can regulate and punish behaviors. At the same time time, it never hurts to promote brotherhood and charity, and while this often falls under the purview of family relations and religion, I think this would be a good thing to incorporate into the public system as well, beginning with schools.

I really was just trying to say that being and/or looking Black is not the same as skin color.

Link to post

Our EQ and RS Presidents just sent this out to their respective organizations:

        https://medium.com/@Ch_JesusChrist/locking-arms-for-racial-harmony-in-america-2f62180abf37

 

Includes some good stuff, including the following:

Quote

Unitedly we declare that the answers to racism, prejudice, discrimination and hate will not come from government or law enforcement alone. Solutions will come as we open our hearts to those whose lives are different than our own, as we work to build bonds of genuine friendship, and as we see each other as the brothers and sisters we are — for we are all children of a loving God.

 

Quote

We agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s statement, that “hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.” It is this kind of love that inspires us to do the rigorous work of building bridges of cooperation rather than walls of segregation and alienation.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I really was just trying to say that being and/or looking Black is not the same as skin color.

I'm seeing that the Church has recently put out a stream of excellent material and messaging about racism in various contexts ranging from our personal beliefs to systemics, and covering the scale from individual and family to communities, American/national, global, etc. Some of it is reissued from several years ago and some of it seems brand new. All quite refreshing and worth reviewing! For Church members (at then least), these provide a great place to start / resume / continue / improve the effort given the powerful effects of current events.

In addition to the above post, https://medium.com/@Ch_JesusChrist/locking-arms-for-racial-harmony-in-america-2f62180abf37 :

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-shares-social-post-encouraging-understanding-and-civility?cid=email-IN_LoveBelonging_060520_RMNSocial

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2017-01-0003-we-dont-need-to-be-the-same-to-be-one?lang=eng&cid=email-IN_LoveBelonging_060520_video1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/healing-the-wounds-of-racism?cid=email-IN_LoveBelonging_060520_blog1a

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/11/saturday-afternoon-session/the-eternal-everyday?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/blacks-in-the-church?lang=eng&cid=rdb_v_beone

I'm sure there's more...

 

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not the only thread that has raised questions in my mind. I saw it happening with impunity on the “What Can the Church Do to Promote Anti-racism in America?” thread. Ostensibly that thread was allowed to continue with no intervention until the OP herself (according to the moderator) asked that it be closed. 
 

I wouldn’t care so much, except that unless a rule like “no politics” is enforced consistently, it tends to inequitably favor the views of some posters over others. Ironically, it was earlier in this thread that I consciously curbed my own discourse so as not to run afoul of the “no politics” rule. Thereafter, a free-for-all seemed to ensue. 

 

And no, I haven’t reported it. I don’t report stuff very often. One reason is that I don’t want to be “that guy.” Another is that my past reportings, rare though they are, have generally been ignored. 
 

Incidentally, I can easily explain why this thread has gone so far off topic. Being on “limited” status, Tacenda is unable to start new threads on her own. So her strategy to introduce new topics is to piggyback them onto old-but-unclosed threads that she resurrects that may have relatively little to do with the topic she is introducing. It’s a rather clever strategy that explains what has happened in this instance. 

I hope this thread be allowed to continue because we need an outlet where we can discuss this thing tearing our country apart.

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I hope this thread be allowed to continue because we need an outlet where we can discuss this thing tearing our country apart.

Not just our country - our world.

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not the only thread that has raised questions in my mind. I saw it happening with impunity on the “What Can the Church Do to Promote Anti-racism in America?” thread. Ostensibly that thread was allowed to continue with no intervention until the OP herself (according to the moderator) asked that it be closed. 
 

I wouldn’t care so much, except that unless a rule like “no politics” is enforced consistently, it tends to inequitably favor the views of some posters over others. Ironically, it was earlier in this thread that I consciously curbed my own discourse so as not to run afoul of the “no politics” rule. Thereafter, a free-for-all seemed to ensue. 

 

And no, I haven’t reported it. I don’t report stuff very often. One reason is that I don’t want to be “that guy.” Another is that my past reportings, rare though they are, have generally been ignored. 
 

Incidentally, I can easily explain why this thread has gone so far off topic. Being on “limited” status, Tacenda is unable to start new threads on her own. So her strategy to introduce new topics is to piggyback them onto old-but-unclosed threads that she resurrects that may have relatively little to do with the topic she is introducing. It’s a rather clever strategy that explains what has happened in this instance. 

Well, tell me where I got off topic with my last comment, haha! 😛

Link to post
20 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

 

 

I was only able to listen to the first few minutes of the presentation, but I think you might need to be very careful with presentations like this.

Instead of reducing racism, It may have the opposite effect.  He is basically saying that race inform all policy decisions. No one can honestly disagree with his political ideas without being racist.  

When you make race the thing that matters when it come to policy-making, you end up making racists out of everyone. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I was only able to listen to the first few minutes of the presentation, but I think you might need to be very careful with presentations like this.

Instead of reducing racism, It may have the opposite effect.  He is basically saying that race inform all policy decisions. No one can honestly disagree with his political ideas without being racist.  

When you make race the thing that matters when it come to policy-making, you end up making racists out of everyone. 

The point is precisely that racism is a systemic institutional issue from which white folks disproportionately benefit. The notion that racism is only or primarily an issue of personal prejudice is rhetorical prophylaxis for that system. We can't dismantle that system as long as we refuse to acknowledge that we participate in and benefit from it. That doesn't mean we're bad people, it just means we have a responsibility to understand it better and work to fix it. That's why he says we can't just be "not racist," we have to be actively anti-racist.

Edited by Dan McClellan
  • Like 4
Link to post
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

When you make race the thing that matters when it come to policy-making, you end up making racists out of everyone

Do you mean in terms of labeling or making actual decisions based on thinking some races are inferior, etc?

Link to post
41 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

The point is precisely that racism is a systemic institutional issue from which white folks disproportionately benefit. The notion that racism is only or primarily an issue of personal prejudice is rhetorical prophylaxis for that system. We can't dismantle that system as long as we refuse to acknowledge that we participate in and benefit from it. That doesn't mean we're bad people, it just means we have a responsibility to understand it better and work to fix it. That's why he says we can't just be "not racist," we have to be actively anti-racist.

What would you say to the person who suggests that such acknowledgment calls for going beyond understanding it to disavowing and condemning it, confessing and accounting for their disproportionate gains and benefits in good faith, and then forfeiting these to ensure the advancement of the oppressed? Given the impreciseness of the exercise, it seems like a lot of forgiveness would be sought by the privileged, and also given by the disadvantaged, both systemically (symbolically) and as a matter of individual conscience and interpersonal relationships.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The point is precisely that racism is a systemic institutional issue from which white folks disproportionately benefit. The notion that racism is only or primarily an issue of personal prejudice is rhetorical prophylaxis for that system. We can't dismantle that system as long as we refuse to acknowledge that we participate in and benefit from it. That doesn't mean we're bad people, it just means we have a responsibility to understand it better and work to fix it. That's why he says we can't just be "not racist," we have to be actively anti-racist.

On of the problems of this argument is by its very nature it defines and interprets benefit based "race".  The concept of "race" springs from the imagination of people based on the concept of "You look different from me".

Your very statement that "white folks" disproportional benefit from the system requires that "white folks" be seen as different from "people of Color".  Its these perceptions and paradigms that are the true root of racism.  If your goal  is to benefit someone based on perceived "race" you run the risk of taking away from someone of a different "race".  People who feel disadvantaged by whatever policy are going to feel they are being attacked, or taken advantage of because of "Race". Hence the very policies used to combat "racism"" fuel more racism.

 

One of the big mistakes that the gentleman in the video makes is viewing policies that he agrees on as "anti Racist" and policies he doesn't agree on as "Racist"  In fact he tends to view anything race neutral as "Racist". He seems to be in danger of the fallacy of false dichotomy.  By attaching a label of racist vs anti racists he turns policy disagreements into moral disagreements, labeling those who don't agree with his policy as racist, and those who support policies that he doesn't agree with as racists.  Whereas if there is a policy he thinks is good, it becomes noble and righteous.

The reality is that policies are extremely messy and can generate conflicting results.  Take for example The affordable Care act, which he thinks is anti-racist.  Regardless of  whether you think the idea is a good one or not, the implementation is extremely messy.  Many of the immigrants, people of color, and other disadvantaged  people I see and interact with on a had to pay thousands of dollars they really couldn't afford thanks to provisions of the affordable care act that somehow failed to generate the promised equity.  

My point isn't that The Affordable Care Act is good or bad, my point is that people can have honest differences of opinion on a policy, and on how it affects disadvantaged people without reducing the argument to racist vs anti racist. 

 

TREAD CAREFULLY. This thread can remain open if tightly related to current events that relate to the church's call for an end to racism. Not "Obamacare"

Edited to replace the offending word.  

 

Edited by Danzo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you mean in terms of labeling or making actual decisions based on thinking some races are inferior, etc?

labeling is the genesis of any actual decisions based on thinking some races are inferior (or superior, or weird, or whatever)

Without the labeling there can't be racism.

I think the only long term solutions is to not have any  Nephites, Lamanites, whites or any maner of "Ites"

Edited by Danzo
  • Like 1
Link to post
47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What would you say to the person who suggests that such acknowledgment calls for going beyond understanding it to disavowing and condemning it, confessing and accounting for their disproportionate gains and benefits in good faith, and then forfeiting these to ensure the advancement of the oppressed? Given the impreciseness of the exercise, it seems like a lot of forgiveness would be sought by the privileged, and also given by the disadvantaged, both systemically (symbolically) and as a matter of individual conscience and interpersonal relationships.

Well, you can't really forfeit privilege, and doing the calculus of figuring out who has benefited and how much isn't feasible. As long as we acknowledge and work to dismantle it, we're really not being asked to apologize for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

One interesting question is whether the concept of "white privilege" has found any purchase in the U.S. legal system.  That is, has a dispassionate court found that such a thing exists?  That it is or can be defined in any coherent, legally cognizable way?

Or is it, like the mysterious "wage gap," just a rhetorical gimmick that does not withstand any real scrutiny?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Rain said:

Not just our country - our world.

Not just our world but if people thought out loud, it could pull apart our church.  There are very very strong beliefs about race on both sides within our church.  
 

I think we should be able to discuss at least that, here. i believe p@/itics will be a major divider at church for a good number, and race issues are a part of that discussion. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

On of the problems of this argument is by its very nature it defines and interprets benefit based "race".  The concept of "race" springs from the imagination of people based on the concept of "You look different from me".

Your very statement that "white folks" disproportional benefit from the system requires that "white folks" be seen as different from "people of Color".  Its these perceptions and paradigms that are the true root of racism.  If your goal  is to benefit someone based on perceived "race" you run the risk of taking away from someone of a different "race".  People who feel disadvantaged by whatever policy are going to feel they are being attacked, or taken advantage of because of "Race". Hence the very policies used to combat "racism"" fuel more racism.

No, they don't. While it's absolutely true that distinctions of race and their boundaries have no genetic basis, the reality of the social reification of race indisputably influences how people are perceived and how they experience the world. To insist that we must ignore those realities in order for racism to go away is to facilitate and protect racism by ensuring nothing can ever be done to uproot it. It's rhetorical prophylaxis that literally insists the problem will go away if we just ignore it, and that's nonsense. 

Quote

One of the big mistakes that the gentleman in the video makes is viewing policies that he agrees on as "anti Racist" and policies he doesn't agree on as "Racist"  In fact he tends to view anything race neutral as "Racist". He seems to be in danger of the fallacy of false dichotomy.  By attaching a label of racist vs anti racists he turns policy disagreements into moral disagreements, labeling those who don't agree with his policy as racist, and those who support policies that he doesn't agree with as racists.  Whereas if there is a policy he thinks is good, it becomes noble and righteous.

No, that's not a mistake, you're just misrepresenting his position. He explicitly rejects the racist/anti-racist dichotomy in favor of a "racist," "not racist," and "anti-racist" framework. Race neutrality does not actually reduce or challenge racism, it just ignores it, which enables it. You're ignoring his exposition of what racism is and trying to reduce it to your own conceptual framework. This man is one of the country's foremost experts on racism (see here, for instance), so maybe don't so blithely dismiss his concerns. Also, you'd do well to do some research on what racism is. A good place to start is this paper:

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/courses/PSYC-309-clwilkins/week14/Unzueta2008.pdf

Quote

The reality is that policies are extremely messy and can generate conflicting results.  Take for example Obamacare, which he thinks is anti-racist.  Regardless of  whether you think the idea is a good one or not, the implementation is extremely messy.  Many of the immigrants, people of color, and other disadvantaged  people I see and interact with on a had to pay thousands of dollars they really couldn't afford thanks to provisions of the affordable care act that somehow failed to generate the promised equity.

It's not an incredible mystery why the ACA didn't deliver on promises. It was sabotaged from the beginning. For instance, while the plan originally called for $10 billion in federal grants, lobbyists and the GOP changed that to call for only $6 billion, and instead of grants, they turned them into loans. That significantly undermined the savings. 26 states also immediately sued on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and while they lost on that claim, they were able to torpedo the provision that would have withheld Medicaid funding from states that refused to expand it, which numerous states were then free to refuse to do. That left large Medicaid gaps in numerous states, which hobbled the markets and left millions of people without coverage. To this day, 15 states have still not expanded coverage. Public policies fall somewhere along a spectrum between dismantling systemic power asymmetries and not dismantling them, and given that racism is most saliently the system that facilitates and perpetuates those power asymmetries, there's nothing particularly difficult or controversial about plotting them along that spectrum. 

Quote

My point isn't that Obamacare is good or bad, my point is that people can have honest differences of opinion on a policy, and on how it affects disadvantaged people without reducing the argument to racist vs anti racist. 

Not only is that a misrepresentation of Dr. Kendi's concerns, but your criticism continues to reduce racism to simple personal prejudices, as well as this dichotomy you've imposed on his framework.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, Danzo said:

labeling is the genesis of any actual decisions based on thinking some races are inferior (or superior, or weird, or whatever)

Without the labeling there can't be racism.

I think the only long term solutions is to not have any  Nephites, Lamanites, whites or any maner of "Ites"

Our entire country was built on those labels and functions on them to this very day. Just pretending not to see race does absolutely nothing to dismantle their embeddedness throughout the foundations of this country's institutions, and therefore nothing to eliminate their effects. If you want to not have any manner of "ites," you first have to dismantle the systems that rely on and perpetuate them. Only then can people actually start mitigating their implicit biases. 

  • Like 3
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...