What Can the Church do to Promote Anti-racism in America?

[Calm]

 

16 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Well, if you don’t know, I’m not going to tel you; and the fact that you even asked that question just goes to show how oppressive you truly are.”

I don't see this as accurately representing what POC are generally doing.  Lots of specifics for changes that are not yet done are supplied in most conversations I have seen.

Quote

What action or policy *wouldn’t* suffer from that weakness?

Acting as if something is there when it isn't won't fix anything...."I am going to treat you as if you are happy and not depressed" would not be a valid medical approach for true depression.

Making changes in realistic ways, which may mean rather small especially to begin with, may mean it is going to take time to shift the mammoth that is racism, but it is likely the only way a relatively small proportion population is going to affect a larger community.  But church membership needs to mostly get on the same page to effectively influence the greater culture imo, so focusing a significant part of our efforts on ourselves where leaders have most impact first is imo wisest as then a more grass roots movement of members may be able to spread that influence in ways our leaders (who would be mostly ignored by the greater population as relevant in their lives) would not be.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds good. But frankly, there's more than literal monuments, correct? The artifacts are pervasive. 

I shared some actionable examples in my OP,  and also hearing Black members plead for action is a step. Here's a public Facebook post by Latter-day Saint, Randol Jimenez:

 

I find this sample letter/FB post interesting in that I do not think the Church’s official political involvements in the USA were prompted by such unspecific letters from offended parties, but were rather quite proactive, typically grounded in the rub between doctrine and the direction society was taking (mostly around marriage and family, religious freedom, carrying the gospel of peace, Church incorporation and franchise, etc.).

Political resolutions to the rub between the doctrine of “love thy neighbor” and personal and national systemic racism would involve a majority-acceptable political compromise such as the Church’s great example with Utah’s antidiscrimination legislation of 2015. What specific laws need to be made or changed to address racial discrimination – or is the problem more an individual inability or unwillingness to follow what is in place, fine-tune the bureaucratic regulations in place that are supposed to sustain the law, or simply love those who are different? I think the Church’s involvement is most appropriate and effective in foundational matters and not the relative administrivia.

The way the Church is handling women’s involvement in the ecclesiastical setting is another good example, but this falls within the confines of the Church community and not the broader society, and covers a much more a common dynamic among the local Church units. This is much more general in scope than addressing how racial diversity per se is handled among individual and Church units which differ in their makeup across the USA and world. I think the Church has general messages on this subject for local application.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Because non-minorities are repeatedly admonished that they do not—can not—fully understand what minorities are going through in this country.

Imagine this conversation between a married couple:

1:  ”Honey, you’re kind of a jerk, and you need to quit being hurtful to me.”

2:  ”Gosh, sweetheart, I’m so sorry.  I knew I was doing A, B, and C; and I’ve stopped doing those things.  I really had no idea I was still doing other things that hurt you.  What other things would you like me to do differently?”

1:  ”Well, if you don’t know, I’m not going to tel you; and the fact that you even asked that question just goes to show how oppressive you truly are.”

Any impartial observer is going to conclude that Party 1 is either a) not altogether rational; or b) engaging in a naked power play against Party 2.  Either way, the long-term prospects for such a marriage are looking pretty dismal unless there is an introspective process whereby Party 1 and Party 2 are both sincerely willing to change their own behaviors and thought processes.

The interaction is currently more like this:

"Stop the police from killing us for no reason."

"Look, we are sorry it happened and we wish it didn't but there is no way to prevent it so uhhhhh..........no."

[Storm Rider]

When discussions or topics are contextualized as - "You have a problem and we demand you fix it", I tend to roll my eyes. Do I think we need a discussion about racism in the US? Yes, but it needs to be honest and complete.  For example, do police officers just hate black people or is it something else?  Do police forces in the US teach their officers to focus on black people? Why does so much looting take place by predominately black people when social chaos occurs?  Why have black officers be party to the abuse in the same way almost any race has, but the discussion is almost solely framed in white men abusing black people?  

The topic is so multi-layered - it involves education, jobs, economic status and everything those entail. Why is the graduation rate consistently so low among different races in the US? What role does the family unit have in successful childhoods?  

Lastly, I would really like to see slavery put in the context of world history.   How many races have never been enslaved? What races remain enslaved today? Why has slavery remained such a fixture of ultimate importance for Black people and not others? Who benefits from keeping it a focus for different races? 

Why have so many different races entered to the US more recently, still faced racism and yet have found success? For that matter, what kind of success is so important to people:  educational, economic, etc?  

Equality enters the conversation also and equality in different contexts. How many people have demanded that Asians be represented on all athletic leagues; including professional?  Why are Asians punished for being smart when it comes to Ivy League schools?  

I reject having the discussion in a vacuum. It is broad and involves everyone from all sides. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

This doesn’t resonate with me.

In living the Second Commandment, I see more value in recognizing race, gender, and culture and embracing it, not “treat[ing] everyone as if everyone is in the same race, [gender and culture].”

Yes. 

Our racial diversity is not a weakness.  Solutions can only come when people work in and with the reality that we are all experiencing.  Pretending won't help anything.

[mgy401]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

[1]I don't see this as accurately representing what POC are generally doing.  Lots of specifics for changes that are not yet done are supplied in most conversations I have seen.

[2]Acting as if something is there when it isn't won't fix anything...."I am going to treat you as if you are happy and not depressed" would not be a valid medical approach for true depression.

1.  *Shrug* I was responding to a specific statement by Meadowchik (or their acquaintance).  I’m fine looking at solid policy proposals; just not a fan of the “hide the ball” game being played by some.

2.  I don’t think Ahab was suggesting that we should act as though nothing’s wrong.  I think Ahab was simply saying that the universal application of the principles we are already teaching would largely solve the problem; and that if people aren’t listening to the first solution we offer, then they probably won’t give much attention to the second or third or fourth solutions we come up with.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When discussions or topics are contextualized as - "You have a problem and we demand you fix it", I tend to roll my eyes. Do I think we need a discussion about racism in the US? Yes, but it needs to be honest and complete.  For example, do police officers just hate black people or is it something else?  Do police forces in the US teach their officers to focus on black people? Why does so much looting take place by predominately black people when social chaos occurs?  Why have black officers be party to the abuse in the same way almost any race has, but the discussion is almost solely framed in white men abusing black people?  

The topic is so multi-layered - it involves education, jobs, economic status and everything those entail. Why is the graduation rate consistently so low among different races in the US? What role does the family unit have in successful childhoods?  

Lastly, I would really like to see slavery put in the context of world history.   How many races have never been enslaved? What races remain enslaved today? Why has slavery remained such a fixture of ultimate importance for Black people and not others? Who benefits from keeping it a focus for different races? 

Why have so many different races entered to the US more recently, still faced racism and yet have found success? For that matter, what kind of success is so important to people:  educational, economic, etc?  

Equality enters the conversation also and equality in different contexts. How many people have demanded that Asians be represented on all athletic leagues; including professional?  Why are Asians punished for being smart when it comes to Ivy League schools?  

I reject having the discussion in a vacuum. It is broad and involves everyone from all sides. 

I'm only going to address the bolded point.  Historically, black people are the only race to have ever been enslaved because of their race.  Slavery has been a part of the history of the world, but we have no history of it being based on race until white Europeans/America.  Before that slavery was based on politics, debt, being born to a slave, child abandonment, and punishment for crimes.

Slavery remains such a fixture of ultimate importance to black people because 1) the type of slavery their race endured is both unique to the history of the earth and more pernicious than any other type of slavery and 2) the cultural baggage from slavery (and the belief system that supported it for more than 100 years) still exists and impacts black people today.

I agree that discussions in a vacuum are difficult.  So are discussions in ignorance.  A little education on the subject can go a long way towards explaining it.

[mgy401]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The interaction is currently more like this:

"Stop the police from killing us for no reason."

"Look, we are sorry it happened and we wish it didn't but there is no way to prevent it so uhhhhh..........no."

The thing is, that’s not what’s happening either.  What’s happening is 

“Stop the police from killing us for no reason!”

”OK, give us an example.”

”John Doe”.

”Hmm.  Looks here like he actually attacked the cop, and the cop fired in self defense, and here’s the forensic evidence to prove it.”

”Don’t try to fool me with your “forensics”, you tricky man.  Explain Tom Roe‘s death to me”.

”Ugh, that was horrific.  Looks like that cop was definitely, certifiably racist.  I also note he actually got convicted of first-degree murder.”

”But he didn’t get the death penalty!”

”You succeeded in having the death penalty abolished in our state, fifteen years ago.  You said it was inherently racist.”

”Well, what about Ed Jones?”

”Yep.  Cops were out of line, but I note that two of the six offending cops—and the police chief and the mayor—were black as well.  So it looks like the problem in that department may be use-of-force generally more than bona fide racism.”

“Hey, check your privilege, racist!  And you can’t deny the inherent racism in Andy Johnson’s beating!”

”That case was an absolute travesty.  It looks like the cop there also had a track record of inappropriate use of force against multiple victims of various races.  So yeah, I agree we have got to address the general problem of police brut—“

“What?  No!  The problem is racism, only racism, and nothing but racism; and unless you agree that the problem is only racism, I shall burn your house down!”

Edited June 1, 2020 by mgy401

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When discussions or topics are contextualized as - "You have a problem and we demand you fix it", I tend to roll my eyes.

Minorities: "Police officers are killing us without provocation or reason!"

Politician: "Well what do you want us to do about it? Give us a detailed program of exactly how to fix it."

Minorities lay out difficult program involving a lot of work, pain, firings, and requiring local politicians to stand up to very powerful police unions to the risk of their political future.

Politician: "That is ridiculously impractical. Fix it yourself. Sheesh."

Politician starts to walk away and is then surprised to find the city is now on fire.

Politician: "Woah! Woah! What are you doing? Surely we can discuss this rationally."

Minorities: "You were the only ones who could make the changes. You expressed sympathy but did nothing. We cannot change it. You refused to do so."

Politician: "But law and order!"

Minorities: "Your law and order kills us. The American Revolutionary War was fought over injustices less than what we endure. We will do the same actions you remember with heroism and dump your tea into the ocean until you listen."

Edited June 1, 2020 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

The thing is, that’s not what’s happening either.  What’s happening is 

Wrong.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The cure works for everyone who accepts it while those who reject it will still be bigots.  There is no way to force the cure on everyone and I suspect there will always be some people who choose to remain bigots.

I agree.  And I am fairly nervous at the prospect of people calling for the government to use its considerable power to coerce and punish what, in the end, is mostly "thought."  That is, though-crime.

The government is not, or should not be, in the business of telling people what they can and cannot think.  We live in a pluralistic society with robust First Amendment rights.  This pluralism and constitutional protection necessarily means that we will always have to put up with ideas and speech that we do not like.

My nervousness increases substantially when I hear people speaking about racism in absolute terms.  That is, that the government must do something until racism - in all its forms - ceases to exist.  That's a pipe dream, folks.  It'll never happen.  Worse, the call for the government to do "something" until racism is extinguished altogether will essentially give the government carte blanche.  Unlimited power.  Do we really want to cede that much personal autonomy to the state?  

Regarding the article linked to in the OP, the more I consider it, the less I like it.  I don't like the idea of society being stampeded/railroaded/panicked/cajoled into drastic actions while in the midst of riots, moral panics, etc.  Look at all the excesses we've seen with the Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of 9/11.  Do we really want to make the same mistake in unthinkingly giving even more power to the government for the quixotic objective of obliterating the thought-crime of "racism"? 

Also, many of these "suggestions" for what "white people can do for racial justice" seem like a grab-bag of hugely partisan, hugely expensive, quite controversial demands that have essentially no chance of getting through the legislative process, so they are being presented in the midst of a substantial panic about ongoing race riots.  

"Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, told CNBC on Monday the U.S. government should provide $14 trillion of reparations for slavery to help reduce racial inequality."

14.  Trillion.  Dollars.

Right now, I don't think anything should be done except a cessation of violence, rioting, looting, etc.  Once that stops, then we can have further discussions.  Not before.

I'm reminded of Out of the Half-Light, which was episode 11 of season 1 of Law & Order.  From IMDB:

Quote

This episode is based on the Tawana Brawley rape allegation case. In 1987, at age 15, in the small town of Wappingers Falls, New York. Tawana Brawley, a teenage African-American girl from upstate New York, was found beaten, her clothes tattered, and racial epithets written all over her body. She stated that she had been raped, though no DNA evidence was ever found. Her case received national media attention in the U.S., primarily due to Brawley's accusing six prominent white men from her town (including police officers) of gang rape. After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of the attack. It was eventually revealed that the whole thing had been a hoax. However, Brawley's family has maintained that the allegations were true.

See also here:

Quote

It has been said that life imitates art. But art has its own  mirror.   In 1990 Law and  Order  aired  a  parody  of  the  Tawana  Brawley  case  of  1987,  in  which  an  African American teenager claimed she was gang raped by three white police officers. The Law and  Order  episode  created  the  character  of  Congressman  Ronald  Eaton  –  a  parody composite  character  of  Rev.  Al  Sharpton,  and  attorneys  Alton  H.  Maddox  and  C. Vernon  Mason  –  who  used  the  Brawley  like  character to  stir  up  racial  animosity  full well knowing that the girl had not been raped, but faked the assault, to hide the fact that she  was  pregnant,  by  her  teenage  boyfriend,  out  of fear  of  her  abusive  father.  The episode  ends  with  a  confrontation  between  Assistant  District  Attorney  Paul  Robinette and  Congressman  Eaton.  Both  are  sitting  in  a  diner and  Robinette  tells  Eaton  that  the Brawley  character  and  her  family  have  admitted  that  there  was  no  rape  and  that  the deception  was over; the  perjury  of  the  family  will not  be  prosecuted,  the record of  the deceit will be sealed, the case will be closed, and there will be peace:

Quote

Ronald  Eaton:  Another  zombified  soul  casts  his  vote  for  order  rather than justice. Negative peace over positive peace.
Paul Robinette: Paraphrasing Martin Luther King’s thoughts won’t lend credence to yours. King walked with the angels...you’d slide in slime on your belly to get what you want. 

Eaton  protests  that  his  actions  were  not  about  his own  political  agenda  but  about bringing the fact of racist police officers and the injustices of the criminal justice system regarding  African  Americans  to  national  public  prominence.  The  confrontation  ends with this exchange: 

Quote

Ronald  Eaton:  You  look  me  in  the  eye  and  you  tell  me  this  system  is just. This system is equal.  
Paul Robinette: At times the system stinks, Eaton. I know that as well as you   do.   But   don’t   for   one   damn   minute   tell   me   that your   self-aggrandizing  polarization  is  going  to  solve  the  problem.    Don’t  tell  me that tearing down a 200-year old justice system, no matter how flawed, is going  to  alter  the  consciousness  of  a  society.  Now,  we’re  past  the separate drinking-fountain stage. We’re past legal discrimination. We’re at the hearts and minds stage. And believe me, there’s no quick fix.

 

Here's the clip on YouTube:

I think there are some small elements of our society who feign concern about racial injustice, when in fact they want it to continue.  They have livelihoods based on racial tensions, which occasionally must be stoked.  Racebaiters like Al Sharpton, and groups that trade on fomenting violence based on racial grievances (BLM and Antifa being the two most obvious examples) need racial discord in order to be relevant.  In order to have influence.  In order to have their ideologies tolerated/accepted.  In order to have their sociopolitical objectives coercively imposed.  And, of course, money is pretty much always a big factor.

Racism is deplorable.  I am very happy with the Church's current teachings about it.  I am grateful that we as a community have learned and improved and grown beyond the mistakes made in the past.

Robinette, I think, had it right: "We’re past legal discrimination. We’re at the hearts and minds stage. And believe me, there’s no quick fix."  Persuasion, not rioting and looting (and policies entered into in fear of rioting/looting), is where we need to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church made it a formal policy to defeat the ERA, mobilizing priesthood and relief society in key states to block it, and that effort was very successful.  I was a personal witness to that effectiveness, and so I think that the LDS Church could indeed mobilize against racism.  Will it do so?  No.  Why?  It would not be effective.  The problem is too diffuse throughout America, and other countries.  We already have national laws of equality.  Just not the will to enforce them, a responsibility which falls upon each individual police officer, on his supervisors, and on prosecutors, judges, mayors, governors, et al.  The battles against legal racism were fought and won generations ago by Dr King and his followers.  We got important legislation passed into law on civil rights, education, voting, etc.

What we need now are citizen review boards over each police dept in the country -- boards with real power.  Sometimes, however, things are better handled in-house.  I knew, for example, a fine LAPD Sgt who had a drinking problem.  He got drunk one night off duty in the Ports O'Call area of San Pedro.  Pulled out his pistol and fired a round.  Luckily, fellow LAPD officers were able to disarm him and take him into custody.  Nobody got injured.  He could have been fired.  Instead, the judge and the Dept insisted on diversion into therapy and Al Anon.  Saved a good man's career.  Cost a lot less than hiring a new guy and having to train him all those years.  A little redemption can go a long way.

We also need citizens who will attend every court session in local courthouses to see that no nonsense is taking place -- judges losing touch with reality -- because local judges must stand for acceptance or rejection in some states (such as Utah).  In Provo-Orem, we have a group of citizens who (before the pandemic) attended court sessions and held meetings and scanned court records to monitor the goings-on in our justice system.  Got to keep tabs on it.  We have a whole range of justice issues to contend with, not simply racism.  Judges and elected prosecutors need to know that they are being watched.

With the end of Scouting, youth are now expected to come up with their own projects and activities, so this is an opportunity to do some of those things.  Maybe some suggestions are in order.

I have a black step-son who is in high school now.  He is a star athlete in soccer, always has a smile, gets good grades, and is admired by his classmates.  Does he face future dangers depending on where he is and under which circumstances?  Yes.

The LDS Church is now growing fastest in Africa, among black people.  Many young black men have been serving missions in neighboring African countries.  A couple from my ward has spent 6 years on missions in Africa.  Things are moving faster than most members elsewhere realize.   The multi-ethnic and multi-racial face of the Church worldwide is rapidly changing and the impact is unstoppable.

Thanks for your recollections of the ERA involvement. I'll say one thing, but not intending to debate the proposed amendment, except to consider this: IF the ERA could help women, then it would inevitably help Black women, which would be part of potential progress.

I love the example of citizens' watch group for courthouses. There are grass roots efforts like this--I have a friend orchestrating campaigns for her community on several fronts in her city. When I first got to know her 13 years ago she was a young mom seeking help out of an abusive marriage with the ability to worry about little else. She's done so much since: organised a food pantry that is very productive, which has received grants to enable an independent building, just within the last several years, she's started a police department transparency page that is like a citizens' watch for the local police, and she runs a charity network where folk can seek help at critical times of need. And much more. She's a force. But more are needed.

Church growth in African countries may indeed be a source of major change with also powerful impact. Many African countries are also dealing with major racist strife which may also benefit from specific, careful participation of members there.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On a personal note I am, as I have said elsewhere, a disaster voyeur. I have been watching riot footage and news. I am watching and even done some curating of protest streams. I have been involved in doxxing people who are throwing out Nazi salutes, identifying with the KKK, and using vile slurs. I am not sure if that is what you mean by activism though.

Sounds like you're being a good keyboard warrior.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong.

Well put.  When people don't even understand the problem (either because they refuse to or don't have enough knowledge/understanding to) then they will never be able to provide any reasonable solutions to it.  You can't start out with a mis-copied or mistaken equation and ever expect to get the correct solution. 

That's a large part of our problem as a society, and one of the reasons that this issue continues to come up again and again and again.

Edited June 1, 2020 by bluebell

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  And I am fairly nervous at the prospect of people calling for the government to use its considerable power to coerce and punish what, in the end, is mostly "thought."  That is, thought-crime.

The government is not, or should not be, in the business of telling people what they can and cannot think.  We live in a pluralistic society with robust First Amendment rights.  This pluralism and constitutional protection necessarily means that we will always have to put up with ideas and speech that we do not like.

I think the bigger problem is when a thought results in some kind of immoral behavior... like killing someone by putting pressure on their neck with your knee for over 8 minutes.

They could have and should have put him in handcuffs and in the back seat of a police car if he was really causing some kind of a problem. But instead what he and 3 of his buddies did was wrong, immoral, and stupid.

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right now, I don't think anything should be done except a cessation of violence, rioting, looting, etc.  Once that stops, then we can have further discussions.  Not before.

In order to decrease police violence, we need to improve police accountability, which is historically a problem at multiple levels of the justice system. To me, this sounds like a valuable agenda, similar in import to other other moral agendas the church has pursued of late in the public sphere.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  And I am fairly nervous at the prospect of people calling for the government to use its considerable power to coerce and punish what, in the end, is mostly "thought."  That is, though-crime.

The government is not, or should not be, in the business of telling people what they can and cannot think.  We live in a pluralistic society with robust First Amendment rights.  This pluralism and constitutional protection necessarily means that we will always have to put up with ideas and speech that we do not like.

My nervousness increases substantially when I hear people speaking about racism in absolute terms.  That is, that the government must do something until racism - in all its forms - ceases to exist.  That's a pipe dream, folks.  It'll never happen.  Worse, the call for the government to do "something" until racism is extinguished altogether will essentially give the government carte blanche.  Unlimited power.  Do we really want to cede that much personal autonomy to the state?  

How about instead of abolishing racism we just agree as a start that not having the government's agents use their legalized monopoly on violence to kill people who did nothing to deserve being killed is intolerable? The reason this blew up on this particular case is that it is so incredibly unambiguous. The whole thing was videoed. There was no resistance. There was no cause to kill the man. Demands for justice were met with "Still investigating" which is stupid. If there was a video of me killing someone in broad daylight in front of lots of witnesses begging me to stop killing him I would be in jail as soon as they could catch me. Yeah, cases take time to put together but you can arrest beforehand so they naturally suspected it was going to go unpunished especially since the initial reports filed had made up garbage about the suspect resisting arrest.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right now, I don't think anything should be done except a cessation of violence, rioting, looting, etc.  Once that stops, then we can have further discussions.  Not before.

They did stop before. Nothing changed. They are not falling for it this time. If you can only get results to protect the lives of yourself and your family and your community with a gun to someone's head you put the gun to their head. Putting the gun up so you can meet in their boardroom means you will get either token ineffective action or nothing at all.

The irony is that the faction calling for decorum is, to a great extent, the same group that insists they need to be armed for their own defense in case the government overreaches. We are watching that philosophy in action without the firearms. The government should fear the people more than people should fear the government.

I don't know if it will work but calls for civility are barking up the wrong tree and are actually making things worse. Not as much as the firebrand idiots calling for turning the military on its own people but they are another matter. I just got done elsewhere pointing out that one of our nation's senators just called for something that in an actual war just ordering that action could get you indicted at the Hague as an actual war crime. Le sigh.

Edited June 2, 2020 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In order to decrease police violence, we need to improve police accountability, which is historically a problem at multiple levels of the justice system. To me, this sounds like a valuable agenda, similar in import to other other moral agendas the church has pursued of late in the public sphere.

We also need to change the way we train police officers in the United States.  They are military trained, which works well in war but not that well when the 'enemy' is also someone that you are supposed to be serving and protecting.  Good men and women mostly do fine with such training but it's not the good police officers that we really have to worry about.  The ones with character flaws don't seem to mix well with the kind of training they are often given.  

 

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm only going to address the bolded point.  Historically, black people are the only race to have ever been enslaved because of their race.  Slavery has been a part of the history of the world, but we have no history of it being based on race until white Europeans/America.  Before that slavery was based on politics, debt, being born to a slave, child abandonment, and punishment for crimes.

Slavery remains such a fixture of ultimate importance to black people because 1) the type of slavery their race endured is both unique to the history of the earth and more pernicious than any other type of slavery and 2) the cultural baggage from slavery (and the belief system that supported it for more than 100 years) still exists and impacts black people today.

I agree that discussions in a vacuum are difficult.  So are discussions in ignorance.  A little education on the subject can go a long way towards explaining it.

Bluebell, I have never heard that only blacks were enslaved because of their race alone. My understanding is that there were several groups involved with access to capturing Africans and they did so and sold those humans they captured - it did not matter what color they were. The Arab slave traders being the most prolific enslavers and trades of Africans. However, a host of Europeans also participated as well as other Africans themselves (Strangely, this fact seems to still be denied by those who would like to rewrite history and make sure that there is a hero in this torrid story). 

In my study of this topic, I have never heard of this proposal before. Do you have a reference for it. I would be curious to read more about it. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds like you're being a good keyboard warrior.

If I was younger and/or braver I would be going out in the streets tonight. To use the War in Heaven metaphors I used to hear in Youth Activities I am the logistical support guy passing the ammo up while hiding in the rear lines and not one of the valiant ones who fought bravely and would be reserved for the last days. They are the ones risking themselves. I offered to play nurse for a friend of mine that is going out as medical support in case there are injuries but he already has enough people.

Edited June 2, 2020 by The Nehor

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In order to decrease police violence, we need to improve police accountability, which is historically a problem at multiple levels of the justice system. To me, this sounds like a valuable agenda, similar in import to other other moral agendas the church has pursued of late in the public sphere.

Police violence will stop when violence in our society stops.  It is a reflection of the larger problem.

[Tacenda]

My son posted this meme on FB. I think it speaks volumes. I don't agree with the violence, but peaceful protests didn't do much.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How about instead of abolishing racism we just agree as a start that not having the government's agents use their legalized monopoly on violence to kill people who did nothing to deserve being killed?

No need.  This is already the state of the law.  

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The reason this blew up on this particular case is that it is so incredibly unambiguous. The whole thing was videoed. There was no resistance. There was no cause to kill the man. Demands for justice were met with "Still investigating" which is stupid. If there was a video of me killing someone in broad daylight in front of lots of witnesses begging me to stop killing him I would be in jail as soon as they could catch me. Yeah, cases take time to put together but you can arrest beforehand so they naturally suspected it was going to go unpunished especially since the initial reports filed had made up garbage about the suspect resisting arrest.

As I understand it, the police officers involved were fired immediately.

Also, my understanding is that the ME's preliminary finding was that Mr. Floyd's pre-existing health conditions were likely the primary cause, rather than use of excessive force by the police.

On the other hand, I just read earlier today that an independent autopsy "determined that Floyd died of asphyxiation from sustained pressure."

In other words, yes, there is still quite a bit of ambiguity as to what happened.

But ambiguity or no, I don't think riots and looting are justified.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Right now, I don't think anything should be done except a cessation of violence, rioting, looting, etc.  Once that stops, then we can have further discussions.  Not before.

They did stop before. Nothing changed. They are not falling for it this time. If you can only get results to protect the lives of yourself and your family and your community with a gun to someone's head you put the gun to their head. Putting the gun up so you can meet in their boardroom means you will get either token ineffective action or nothing at all.

I don't accept this.  Our society has made substantial improvements.

Also, I reject - in virtually all circumstances (including this one) - the use of mob violence and looting to affect political change.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The irony is that the faction calling for decorum is, to a great extent, the same group that insists they need to be armed for their own defense in case the government overreaches.

I don't see irony there. 

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are watching that philosophy in action without the firearms.

No, we are not.  Looting is not self-defense against government overreach.  Riots are not self-defense against government overreach.  Destruction of government and personal property of innocent persons (such as this black business owner, who lost his livelihood thanks to rioters/looters).

As Latter-day Saints, we should be particularly attuned to the ramifications of mob violence.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don't know if it will work but calls for civility are barking up the wrong tree and are actually making things worse.

Capitulating to mob violence would, I think, be substantially worse than re-establishing law and order on the streets, letting the justice system do its thing, and so on.

There is nothing new here.  Government actors sometimes engage in misconduct.  When that happens, they need to be held accountable.  Not by a mob, though.  Never by a mob.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Right now, I don't think anything should be done except a cessation of violence, rioting, looting, etc.  Once that stops, then we can have further discussions.  Not before.

In order to decrease police violence, we need to improve police accountability, which is historically a problem at multiple levels of the justice system. To me, this sounds like a valuable agenda, similar in import to other other moral agendas the church has pursued of late in the public sphere.

I'm all for discussing proposals to improve the system.  Before that, however, the rioting and the looting need to stop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

How about instead of abolishing racism we just agree as a start that not having the government's agents use their legalized monopoly on violence to kill people who did nothing to deserve being killed? The reason this blew up on this particular case is that it is so incredibly unambiguous. The whole thing was videoed. There was no resistance. There was no cause to kill the man. Demands for justice were met with "Still investigating" which is stupid. If there was a video of me killing someone in broad daylight in front of lots of witnesses begging me to stop killing him I would be in jail as soon as they could catch me. Yeah, cases take time to put together but you can arrest beforehand so they naturally suspected it was going to go unpunished especially since the initial reports filed had made up garbage about the suspect resisting arrest.

They did stop before. Nothing changed. They are not falling for it this time. If you can only get results to protect the lives of yourself and your family and your community with a gun to someone's head you put the gun to their head. Putting the gun up so you can meet in their boardroom means you will get either token ineffective action or nothing at all.

The irony is that the faction calling for decorum is, to a great extent, the same group that insists they need to be armed for their own defense. We are watching that philosophy in action without the firearms. The government should fear the people more than people should fear the government.

Yes, the unambiguity has in many cases flicked the last of scales of some eyes. The person who videoed the murder was a 17 year old girl. My daughter is 17. It strains disbelief the courage it took for her too stand there for ten minutes, and along with others, ask and ask and ask the police to stop hurting Mr. Floyd. As far as I know, it was the bystanders who called for an ambulance, but who can they call to stop the police?

Imagine that helplessness, and then just stretching that to ALL THE TIME. You cannot rely on the police to protect you, because calling for their aid could mean you or someone you love could be wrongly deemed a threat and endangered by police presence.  

My oldest son has some weird-looking but harmless ticks related to his autism. He isn't as aware of some social conventions. When he goes to martial arts class, he'll run down the street because he likes to run. We live in the UK where police do not carry guns and he is white. I don't worry, especially since he's very careful about where he steps. Yet, if he was black in America, running down a city street to karate class would be out of the question.