Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure how that doesn’t underline my point that we should be long past viewing blacks’ appearance as ‘novel’ or ‘different’.

And I'm not sure how "viewing blacks' appearance" is necessarily synonymous with A) hatred of blacks, B) feelings of superiority over blacks, or C) A and B.

"Viewing blacks' appearance as 'novel' or 'different'" can be the result of innocuousness.  Inexperience.  Naiveté.  Insufficient familiarity with social boundaries and expectations.  Reflexively and necessarily attributing such to "racism" seems a bitmuch.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is that some white people think they have a right to invade the personal space of blacks where they wouldn’t whites that is racist.

I really doubt most "white people think" that.  

My wife spent a few years in our stake's Relief Society presidency.  She frequently attended other wards, one of which is Spanish-speaking.  My wife had acclimate to being hugged and kissed on both cheeks, many times over, when she visited that ward.  Were these Hispanic sisters being presumptuous?  Were they thinking they "have a right to invate the personal space" of my wife?  Certainly not.  There was no racism there.  No hatred of my wife, or feelings of superiority over her.  To the contrary, those sisters were expressing affection toward her, even though it "invade{d}" her "personal space" in a sense.  

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is at best a paternal attitude treating blacks like they would a child and at worst a sense that blacks are not quite human enough to not be treated like one would a piece of furniture where one would reach out and touch to see how soft or smooth the grain out of curiosity. 

That is racism. 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  And if it's not, then excoriating a person for engaging in intended-to-be-innocuous-but-comes-across-as-weird-or-insensitive is not really going to help the situation.  It's going to make that person less comfortable around blacks, less likely to strike up conversations, less likely to seek out friendship with blacks, less likely to extend the hand of fellowship, and so on.

Racism is bad.  I think we get that.  The particulars of what that means should be presented with kindness and persuasion and patience, not with venemous accusations that may be substantially off the mark.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I'm not sure how "viewing blacks' appearance" is necessarily synonymous with A) hatred of blacks, B) feelings of superiority over blacks, or C) A and B.

A) no and I have never claimed it involved hatred, so there is no need to keep repeating it as if part of my argument.

It is not just the viewing of their appearance as different, exotic, whatever that is racist, what is offensive is believing one has a right to dictate treatment of their bodies by someone besides themselves when one wouldn’t do the same to a white. That is superiority.  Pregnant women at times experience something similar as if being pregnant somehow turns them into public property in some people’s attitudes, but at least pregnancy is a temporary situation. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 6/16/2020 at 2:32 PM, smac97 said:

My wife spent a few years in our stake's Relief Society presidency.  She frequently attended other wards, one of which is Spanish-speaking.  My wife had acclimate to being hugged and kissed on both cheeks, many times over, when she visited that ward.  Were these Hispanic sisters being presumptuous?  Were they thinking they "have a right to invate the personal space" of my wife?  Certainly not.  There was no racism there.  No hatred of my wife, or feelings of superiority over her.  To the contrary, those sisters were expressing affection toward her, even though it "invade{d}" her "personal space" in a sense.  

That is a cultural thing. You adapt.

On 6/16/2020 at 2:32 PM, smac97 said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  And if it's not, then excoriating a person for engaging in intended-to-be-innocuous-but-comes-across-as-weird-or-insensitive is not really going to help the situation.  It's going to make that person less comfortable around blacks, less likely to strike up conversations, less likely to seek out friendship with blacks, less likely to extend the hand of fellowship, and so on.

This is not innocuous. It is contempt for bodily autonomy restricted to one race. It is definitely racism.

If you want another example of this kind of obnoxiousness targeting a specific group talk to pregnant women in weird areas of the US. There are people (mostly women) who assume they have an inherent right to reach out and "feel" the baby. My brother's wife got so sick of this happening in the grocery store she started responding by groping the other person's breast and honking it loudly. The person always acted put upon and as if they had been violated but they also fled the scene so she counted it as a win.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My brother's wife got so sick of this happening in the grocery store she started responding by groping the other person's breast and honking it loudly. The person always acted put upon and as if they had been violated but they also fled the scene so she counted it as a win.

I like her. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a cultural thing. You adapt.

This is not innocuous. It is contempt for bodily autonomy restricted to one race. It is definitely racism.

If you want another example of this kind of obnoxiousness targeting a specific group talk to pregnant women in weird areas of the US. There are people (mostly women) who assume they have an inherent right to reach out and "feel" the baby. My brother's wife got so sick of this happening in the grocery store she started responding by groping the other person's breast and honking it loudly. The person always acted put upon and as if they had been violated but they also fled the scene so she counted it as a win.

I think touching pregnant lady's bellies is an awful breach of personal space.  But honking women's breast is nothing more than sexual assault in our society.   We've defined the women's breasts as part of their private parts.  It sounds akin to D Trump's boastful locker room talk, but is worse in that it's actually carrying out his locker room talk.  Can I safely call BS on your sister-in-laws story?

Edited by stemelbow
Link to comment
On 6/18/2020 at 11:53 AM, stemelbow said:

I think touching pregnant lady's bellies is an awful breach of personal space.  But honking women's breast is nothing more than sexual assault in our society.   We've defined the women's breasts as part of their private parts.  It sounds akin to D Trump's boastful locker room talk, but is worse in that it's actually carrying out his locker room talk.  Can I safely call BS on your sister-in-laws story?

Nope.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Racist as a word didn’t even exist until 1932. 

The concept of racism existed. Brigham Young articulated his racism very clearly in his teachings on white supremacy.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The concept of racism existed. Brigham Young articulated his racism very clearly in his teachings on white supremacy.

I’m sure Brigham Young was a racist in his personal and private life.  It’s unfortunate.  But he is not an important figure in secular or church history due to his sermons or expositions of doctrine...in much the same way Abraham Lincoln is not remembered for his personal views of blacks and slavery.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SteveO said:

I’m sure Brigham Young was a racist in his personal and private life.  It’s unfortunate.  But he is not an important figure in secular or church history due to his sermons or expositions of doctrine...in much the same way Abraham Lincoln is not remembered for his personal views of blacks and slavery.  

On the contrary, Young was a prophet and governor simultaneously for decades. His beliefs of white supremacy impacted society, public and religious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.3.0045#metadata_info_tab_contents

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary, Young was a prophet and governor simultaneously for decades. His beliefs of white supremacy impacted society, public and religious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.3.0045#metadata_info_tab_contents

Right.  
 

So then you think his statue at BYU, and the fact the school is named after him, is because of his views of white supremacy?  

Is that what you’re trying to say?

Because the founding fathers were politicians too, who’s beliefs and compromises impacted society, public and religious.

Last I checked, the apotheosis of George Washington was immortalized in the capital rotunda.  Was that because he owned slaves?  Or do we trust people have enough sense to realize that historical figures are multi dimensional?

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Right.  
 

So then you think his statue at BYU, and the fact the school is named after him, is because of his views of white supremacy?  

Is that what you’re trying to say?

Because the founding fathers were politicians too, who’s beliefs and compromises impacted society, public and religious.

Last I checked, the apotheosis of George Washington was immortalized in the capital rotunda.  Was that because he owned slaves?  Or do we trust people have enough sense to realize that historical figures are multi dimensional?

It sounds like you are switching gears. I am saying that Brigham Young was very clearly a racist, namely a white supremacist. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds like you are switching gears. I am saying that Brigham Young was very clearly a racist, namely a white supremacist. 

No, I am not switching gears.

It does sound like you’re playing dumb.  And it’s obnoxious.

Calm posted an article about the statue of BY being vandalized and tagged “racist”.

rodheadnee said that it was a form of presentism.

You said that it wasn’t because he was considered a racist in his day as well by his contemporaries’ standards—we don’t know what those are, just the present day standards you hold and have decided BY failed to abide, thus proving Rod’s point, but no matter.  I can’t argue with someone who thinks like that, and so I ignored it.

If that’s it, thank you for your astute observation.  I guess we COULD have just left it there.  Brigham Young was a racist.  I agree with you.

I made the point, a far meaningful one btw, that labeling historical figures “racist”, is a pretty shallow and incurious way of viewing history.  It would be like vandalizing and tagging the Martin Luther King memorial with “adulterer”.  It’s true, yes, but what would be the point of reducing the man to that label?  You’d only do it to try and get a “dig” in right?  Riiiiight? 😉  

And that’s why those vandel’s tagged the statue, and that’s why you made the comment that you did.  Just an irritating dig with no context, no insight, nothing more to add to the discussion.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary, Young was a prophet and governor simultaneously for decades. His beliefs of white supremacy impacted society, public and religious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.3.0045#metadata_info_tab_contents

Especially on the Native Americans and their children who were forced to leave their families and go to school to unlearn their cultures. I saw the other day a pair of child handcuffs used on these children when taken from their families. I can't imagine how horrible this would be. So it very well could have been because of BY's teachings, not sure. But the image and the story of it happening is so criminal it makes me want to throw up. The link mentions the school in Brigham City. Which may be still standing. As a child on our way to Bear Lake we'd pass this and I would often wonder what that would be like to have to live and go to that school, never sat well and I know why now. :( ETA: Talk about religion freedom, how about freedom from religion as well.

 https://books.google.com/books?id=_HVlL-gBmRQC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=who+in+utah+took+native+american+children+in+handcuffs+from+their+families&source=bl&ots=Gb4nbUshWw&sig=ACfU3U15VnqU1J01DNW4uSTn7zBl17JBkw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo1_iL65DqAhVaHc0KHZW4BUMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=who in utah took native american children in handcuffs from their families&f=false

 

These Are Actual Tiny Child Handcuffs Used by the US Government to ...

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I can't tell from the citation if the section was referencing the Brigham City School throughout or only in the comment about Thorazine (bad enough imo).   Do you have another source?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SteveO said:

No, I am not switching gears.

It does sound like you’re playing dumb.  And it’s obnoxious.

Calm posted an article about the statue of BY being vandalized and tagged “racist”.

rodheadnee said that it was a form of presentism.

You said that it wasn’t because he was considered a racist in his day as well by his contemporaries’ standards—we don’t know what those are, just the present day standards you hold and have decided BY failed to abide, thus proving Rod’s point, but no matter.  I can’t argue with someone who thinks like that, and so I ignored it.

If that’s it, thank you for your astute observation.  I guess we COULD have just left it there.  Brigham Young was a racist.  I agree with you.

I made the point, a far meaningful one btw, that labeling historical figures “racist”, is a pretty shallow and incurious way of viewing history.  It would be like vandalizing and tagging the Martin Luther King memorial with “adulterer”.  It’s true, yes, but what would be the point of reducing the man to that label?  You’d only do it to try and get a “dig” in right?  Riiiiight? 😉  

And that’s why those vandel’s tagged the statue, and that’s why you made the comment that you did.  Just an irritating dig with no context, no insight, nothing more to add to the discussion.

 

 

Huh...

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

I’m sure Brigham Young was a racist in his personal and private life.  It’s unfortunate.  But he is not an important figure in secular or church history due to his sermons or expositions of doctrine...in much the same way Abraham Lincoln is not remembered for his personal views of blacks and slavery.  

So it's unfortunate that he was racist but he was not important as a racist? Wrong. I then make this fundamental point countering yours and share a scholarly article describing  Brigham Young's racism's influence on the church institution and Utah. This isn't shallow at all:

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary, Young was a prophet and governor simultaneously for decades. His beliefs of white supremacy impacted society, public and religious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.3.0045#metadata_info_tab_contents

People may be talking about statues, which to me is the shallow, superficial part, although still valid. But I'm really less interested in the fate of the statue than the fact of Brigham Young's and the LDS church's institutional racism and how that is being handled by leaders and members. That is how I am participating in this thread and if you don't want to discuss it, scroll on by.

If you want to cultivate your historical curiosity, read the article, which describes theological dynamics which are still in play today and which impact the church's relationship with racism.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Huh...

So it's unfortunate that he was racist but he was not important as a racist? Wrong. I then make this fundamental point countering yours and share a scholarly article describing  Brigham Young's racism's influence on the church institution and Utah. This isn't shallow at all:

People may be talking about statues, which to me is the shallow, superficial part, although still valid. But I'm really less interested in the fate of the statue than the fact of Brigham Young's and the LDS church's institutional racism and how that is being handled by leaders and members. That is how I am participating in this thread and if you don't want to discuss it, scroll on by.

If you want to cultivate your historical curiosity, read the article, which describes theological dynamics which are still in play today and which impact the church's relationship with racism.

 

I acknowledged and agreed that Brigham Young was a racist.  So do the essays.  So do many of the posters here.  I agree with the link that you posted.  If it’s not enough to acknowledge BY’s racism, I’m not sure what your end game is.  

You keep ignoring my point about other historical figures, because...it’s kind of a good point.  And you know it.

He IS NOT revered or remembered BECAUSE of his racism.  What are you not getting about that?  The church and the state of Utah—DO NOT EXIST without the leadership of Brigham Young.  That is why the Lord chose him, as faulty an instrument as he was.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I acknowledged and agreed that Brigham Young was a racist.  So do the essays.  So do many of the posters here.  I agree with the link that you posted.  If it’s not enough to acknowledge BY’s racism, I’m not sure what your end game is.  

You keep ignoring my point about other historical figures, because...it’s kind of a good point.  And you know it.

He IS NOT revered or remembered BECAUSE of his racism.  What are you not getting about that?  The church and the state of Utah—DO NOT EXIST without the leadership of Brigham Young.  That is why the Lord chose him, as faulty an instrument as he was.

First: Please don't ever pretend to read my thoughts, especially during a disagreement. It is borderline abusive. 

I have plenty more thoughts and I am happy to discuss with others who adhere to basic rules of respect.

Second, third, etc...only if you can be respectful. TIA

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can't tell from the citation if the section was referencing the Brigham City School throughout or only in the comment about Thorazine (bad enough imo).   Do you have another source?

This mentions the handcuffs at the school in Brigham City. I'm physically ill after reading about this recently, hadn't known of this before. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=rXQ3TUnG7PoC&pg=PA1907&lpg=PA1907&dq=did+the+brigham+city+school+for+native+americans+use+handcuffs+on+children&source=bl&ots=1U3_LNzH2T&sig=ACfU3U1kaaCzqBiFxKW6Nyz_R_x_freoXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4kYqj-5DqAhXIB80KHTmXC_sQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=did the brigham city school for native americans use handcuffs on children&f=false

Here's a youtube, I guess it's a mystery. But I did reach out on his youtube for what info he discovered, hopefully he'll respond.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...