Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I'm neither for or against the taking down of confederate flags or confederate generals. What I find annoying, as a History major in undergrad and grad school I hate the destroying of statutes, flags, or works of art because the artist or the subject was a racist or sided with the wrong army.

I think that history needs to be studied rather than destroyed. When ISIS destroyed a 7th century church because it was an Assyrian church or ancient artifacts I find just very sad.

I know some publishers have rewritten some of Mark Twain's works because of presentism. The destruction of one's cultural heritage to me is simply another way of trying to change history. I do not agree with a lot of people in the past, but destroying art, culture, just because we don't like it and find it appalling we should learn from that not delete it. No matter how ugly the past is, we can learn from it..

Presentism is uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

 

 

Do I laud flawed historical figures to the same extent as those who erected statues to them?  Not in the least.  In some cases, those plaudits are, at best, misguided.  However, as Jorge Santayana put it so well, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."  Leaving a statue in place can spark thought and discussion about whether such a plaudit is deserved, and why or why not.  But "thought and discussion" are the last things the vandal is interested in.

And when it comes right down to it, if we were to back a statue vandal against the wall and demand that he tell the absolute truth about why he's doing what he's doing, we would discover that, no, he's not destroying the statue because the person it represents is racist [or fill-in-the-blank-with-prejudice here] on the one hand, while the statue vandal, on the other hand, is not.  No, no.  More than likely, we would find that the statue vandal is just as prejudiced (if not moreso) as the person whose statue he's destroying; it's simply that the statue vandal believes that his prejudice is justified.

Or, even more likely, maybe the statue destroyer is simply a below-average, garden-variety idiot who has no idea who the statue he's destroying represents, since, not only have statues of slave owners been destroyed, statues of abolitionists have been destroyed, as well.    There's a reason why, often, the first order of business of revolutionaries and revolutions is to destroy any hint of the past.  Rewrite the past, control the narrative.  Control the narrative, indoctrinate one's countrymen.  Indoctrinate one's countrymen, control the future.

Make no mistake, whether those sowing division, dissension, and discord in the streets know it or not, whether they admit it or not, that's what's going on here.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Unanimously then? Then it will never happen. 

But there's a fundamental flaw in your statement. Dismantling systemic racism is either righteous or not, regardless of how it is requested.  It shouldn't need to be requested. We should have already done it, and without being asked.

There will always be fringes on the extreme ends of the spectrum, so "everyone" in a practical sense means those who can cooperate with each other while properly addressing the needs of the unhappy fringes in a way that preserves for them the aims stated in their constitution (e.g. the US Constitution and a democratic republic).

There is no fundamental flaw in my statement -- to request (or discuss, as on this thread) something good/righteous, badly/unrighteously, sabotages its realization.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

More than likely, we would find that the statue vandal is just as prejudiced (if not moreso) as the person whose statue he's destroying; it's simply that the statue vandal believes that his prejudice is justified.

Do you see those destroying statues in former USSR in the same view?  

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you see those destroying statues in former USSR in the same view?  

You mean, of Stalin, et al?  I would be out of my depth to comment in great detail, because I'm certainly not anything close to any kind of an authority, either on Tsarist Russia or on Soviet history, but, no, not necessarily. In that case, mentally or ideologically and on an individual level, the counter-revolution against the revolution that brought the Stalinists and others of like or similar mind to power had been going on mentally or intellectually for decades, possibly since just after the one that brought the Stalinists to power. 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Make no mistake, whether those sowing division, dissension, and discord in the streets know it or not, whether they admit it or not, that's what's going on here.

Or not, maybe they are fighting against the indoctrination that has prevailed for centuries in the West and perpetuated in schools and churches including ours.  What do your do to ensure you know more than the narratives you were raised to believe?

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

There will always be fringes on the extreme ends of the spectrum, so "everyone" in a practical sense means those who can cooperate with each other while properly addressing the needs of the unhappy fringes in a way that preserves for them the aims stated in their constitution (e.g. the US Constitution and a democratic republic).

There is no fundamental flaw in my statement -- to request (or discuss, as on this thread) something good/righteous, badly/unrighteously, sabotages its realization.

The USA would not exist if people waited for polite unanimity.

[longview]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

More than likely, we would find that the statue vandal is just as prejudiced (if not moreso) as the person whose statue he's destroying; it's simply that the statue vandal believes that his prejudice is justified.

Do you see those destroying statues in former USSR in the same view?

Why worry about communist statues in the East Bloc?  Worry about the statue of Lenin in Seattle Washington (and elsewhere in the Land of the Free).

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, longview said:

Why worry about communist statues in the East Bloc?  Worry about the statue of Lenin in Seattle Washington (and elsewhere in the Land of the Free).

It's an example.

[longview]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

1 hour ago, longview said:

Why worry about communist statues in the East Bloc?  Worry about the statue of Lenin in Seattle Washington (and elsewhere in the Land of the Free).

It's an example.

In what way?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Why worry about communist statues in the East Bloc?  Worry about the statue of Lenin in Seattle Washington (and elsewhere in the Land of the Free).

I am not worried about the statues in either case. I was curious about how Ken perceived those who destroyed the ones in the former USSR, who were often portrayed as freedom fighters, etc here in the West. The destructions were celebrated by many. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You mean, of Stalin, et al?  I would be out of my depth to comment in great detail, because I'm certainly not anything close to any kind of an authority, either on Tsarist Russia or on Soviet history, but, no, not necessarily. In that case, mentally or ideologically and on an individual level, the counter-revolution against the revolution that brought the Stalinists and others of like or similar mind to power had been going on mentally or intellectually for decades, possibly since just after the one that brought the Stalinists to power. 

Which means what to you?  That in those cases it was a natural, appropriate action or something else?

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Brigham Young was more than passively supportive of white supremacy, whether other leaders were similar does not change this. Imo if there were any good impacts of his leadership, his memory has been celebrated for them more than adequately and the harm not nearly repudiated enough.

Time to repair and progress.

 

He definitely was more than passively racist, but no one is arguing that he wasn't. What is being argued is that he didn't go 'above and beyond' the normal racism for his time, especially for a religious leader.  He was run of the mill and typical in his racism, not outstanding in any way.  Basically, he believed what society at large believed about race.

I'm questioning the idea that pretending that Brigham Young didn't create BYU, or that he didn't settle Utah, will repair or progress anything.  Him having been a racist doesn't change those historical facts and pretending they aren't true repairs nothing that I can think of.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do I laud flawed historical figures to the same extent as those who erected statues to them?  Not in the least.  In some cases, those plaudits are, at best, misguided.  However, as Jorge Santayana put it so well, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."  Leaving a statue in place can spark thought and discussion about whether such a plaudit is deserved, and why or why not.  But "thought and discussion" are the last things the vandal is interested in.

And when it comes right down to it, if we were to back a statue vandal against the wall and demand that he tell the absolute truth about why he's doing what he's doing, we would discover that, no, he's not destroying the statue because the person it represents is racist [or fill-in-the-blank-with-prejudice here] on the one hand, while the statue vandal, on the other hand, is not.  No, no.  More than likely, we would find that the statue vandal is just as prejudiced (if not moreso) as the person whose statue he's destroying; it's simply that the statue vandal believes that his prejudice is justified.

Or, even more likely, maybe the statue destroyer is simply a below-average, garden-variety idiot who has no idea who the statue he's destroying represents, since, not only have statues of slave owners been destroyed, statues of abolitionists have been destroyed, as well.    There's a reason why, often, the first order of business of revolutionaries and revolutions is to destroy any hint of the past.  Rewrite the past, control the narrative.  Control the narrative, indoctrinate one's countrymen.  Indoctrinate one's countrymen, control the future.

Make no mistake, whether those sowing division, dissension, and discord in the streets know it or not, whether they admit it or not, that's what's going on here.

I agree to this mostly, not sure about some other statues. There is the statue of Brigham Young near the SL Temple that has a list of names on it. I saw a photo the other day of some of the names at the bottom and they were listed as colored slaves put by their names. So right there is proof that BY was a slave owner and a discussion can be had. So you're right about if the statue was taken down that little tidbit would be basically erased from being a proof positive. ETA: Just saw this article on reddit: I guess Southern Virginia University took a name off a building. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/6/19/21297326/racism-southern-virginia-university-white-supremacists-name-juneteenth-latter-day-saints-mormon

I wonder if the church will one day apologize for it's previous leaders. Aren't we taught to apologize? Maybe the apologizing could have happened and would have been better in 1978 too. 

A letter posted by an active believing LDS, so even they would like one.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tacenda

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He definitely was more than passively racist, but no one is arguing that he wasn't. What is being argued is that he didn't go 'above and beyond' the normal racism for his time, especially for a religious leader.  He was run of the mill and typical in his racism, not outstanding in any way.  Basically, he believed what society at large believed about race.

I'm questioning the idea that pretending that Brigham Young didn't create BYU, or that he didn't settle Utah, will repair or progress anything.  Him having been a racist doesn't change those historical facts and pretending they aren't true repairs nothing that I can think of.

I'm not advocating erasure of history. Removing monuments (when they can then be placed in museums) and changing names, but most of all being accountable for the damage can represent a healthier understanding of history.

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Removing monuments and changing names need not destroy history. In fact, we've already been destroying history with white-centric narratives. 

It's incredibly polarised and political, but once in a while one side can insist upon a more righteous position while the other is stuck.

So is it righteous to insist upon dismantling systemic racism? 

Meadowchik, we are going to disagree on things. I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and you appear to have swallowed it whole. 

I don't have a problem if a town decides, as a community, to move a piece of public art. However, when a small group decides they will do it unilaterally, I have a problem. 

Who gets to decide on what is more righteous?  All you have done is changed the group. You condemn the evil white society for choosing the righteous path while accepting the righteous path set up for you by a group of blacks and others. I have a novel idea; how about choosing as a city where art will and will not go?  How about rejecting violence regardless of who wields the hammer?  

How about getting off that high horse and actually understanding that there are no perfect people, no perfect society, and no perfect culture?  

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

What would you have preferred be done with all the Lenin and Stalin statues in the former USSR?  Serious question.

I don't equate an equestrian statue with some of the artwork produced by communist countries. I find most of the socialist realism to be beautiful artwork. 

Question:  when you see a piece of art of Lenin and/Stalin do you recognize them?  Can you name the individuals and easily distinguish each piece of Civil war ear artwork?  I cannot. I can get a few of them when I see them - Lee, for example - but not the rest. I see a huge difference between Lenin/Stalin and Francis Scott Key, Lee, and the other artwork.

What would I do with Lenin and Stalin artwork? Given that these two subjects became ubiquitous throughout Russia, I would keep some of them and put them in a park or a museum and the rest I would either melt down or use for other purposes simply because there was just so much of it. It moved beyond artwork and became strictly a political tool. 

[CA Steve]

I wonder if we were talking about a statue or painting of Lilburn Boggs whether the sentiment would be any different?

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Meadowchik, we are going to disagree on things. I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and you appear to have swallowed it whole. 

I don't have a problem if a town decides, as a community, to move a piece of public art. However, when a small group decides they will do it unilaterally, I have a problem. 

Who gets to decide on what is more righteous?  All you have done is changed the group. You condemn the evil white society for choosing the righteous path while accepting the righteous path set up for you by a group of blacks and others. I have a novel idea; how about choosing as a city where art will and will not go?  How about rejecting violence regardless of who wields the hammer?  

How about getting off that high horse and actually understanding that there are no perfect people, no perfect society, and no perfect culture?  

This is a personal attack. So first I disagree with that. Type that nonsense if you want, but please don't send it to me.

As far as propaganda, the mainstream narrative is the worst propaganda of all. We all "drank" it, in the church pews and the school desks. It's no high horse to say we must get to the work that we should have been doing a century and more ago. 

I'm not sure why you're going on about statues and rioting when the worst offenses have never been answered for.  

When I was twelve years old, I broke my arm in gym class. The instructor found me on the field writhing in pain, and he reprimanded me for "whining." Within an hour I was at the hospital where the doctor then repaired my arm which was broken in two places. To me you sound like the gym teacher paying more attention to the whining kid in pain when he should have been more concerned about an obvious injury.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is a personal attack. So first I disagree with that. Type that nonsense if you want, but please don't send it to me.

As far as propaganda, the mainstream narrative is the worst propaganda of all. We all "drank" it, in the church pews and the school desks. It's no high horse to say we must get to the work that we should have been doing a century and more ago. 

I'm not sure why you're going on about statues and rioting when the worst offenses have never been answered for.  

When I was twelve years old, I broke my arm in gym class. The instructor found me on the field writhing in pain, and he reprimanded me for "whining." Within an hour I was at the hospital where the doctor then repaired my arm which was broken in two places. To me you sound like the gym teacher paying more attention to the whining kid in pain when he should have been more concerned about an obvious injury.

Touche!

[Tacenda]

 

[Tacenda]

Found it, something I neglected to see for years as I walked by it while working at the corner bank, Zion's. 

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I hope another generation doesn't go by before things change, and another generation after that.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Thank you for this video. 

Bluebell, please watch this. Joanna Brooks describes church leaders who were behind the times, not just products of their time, but men upholding white supremacist ideals formalized largely by Brigham Young during his theocratic tenure over Utah. She describes how Utah and Mormonism was "white on purpose." It's not an accident, not coincidence. It was by Young's design. The video is short but you can find more of the information and sources in the most recent link from me, upthread, and also of course just by looking up her nd others' work.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

This is a personal attack. So first I disagree with that. Type that nonsense if you want, but please don't send it to me.

As far as propaganda, the mainstream narrative is the worst propaganda of all. We all "drank" it, in the church pews and the school desks. It's no high horse to say we must get to the work that we should have been doing a century and more ago. 

I'm not sure why you're going on about statues and rioting when the worst offenses have never been answered for.  

When I was twelve years old, I broke my arm in gym class. The instructor found me on the field writhing in pain, and he reprimanded me for "whining." Within an hour I was at the hospital where the doctor then repaired my arm which was broken in two places. To me you sound like the gym teacher paying more attention to the whining kid in pain when he should have been more concerned about an obvious injury.

You still don't see it. You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing those terrible white people of doing. You just want it to change the color of the skin rather than what is wrong with individual actions. 

I was always told that when you point your finger at someone to accuse them of something there are always at least three fingers pointing back at you in condemnation.  People never learn; everyone thinks they are so much more righteous than everyone else. Gosh, it is so fun to tell others how wrong they are.  
As a student of history, I have seen this over and over again just like very other student of history. You cannot take smug self-righteousness out of people and you cannot make a blink person see.  It is never really about what is right, but it is about power. That group wants and and they will do whatever it takes to get. Not because they want justice or righteousness, but because they want power. It will change nothing; faces will change, but the same societal problems will still exist. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You still don't see it. You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing those terrible white people of doing. You just want it to change the color of the skin rather than what is wrong with individual actions. 

I was always told that when you point your finger at someone to accuse them of something there are always at least three fingers pointing back at you in condemnation.  People never learn; everyone thinks they are so much more righteous than everyone else. Gosh, it is so fun to tell others how wrong they are.  
As a student of history, I have seen this over and over again just like very other student of history. You cannot take smug self-righteousness out of people and you cannot make a blink person see.  It is never really about what is right, but it is about power. That group wants and and they will do whatever it takes to get. Not because they want justice or righteousness, but because they want power. It will change nothing; faces will change, but the same societal problems will still exist. 

No, I think you are just using me as an object of your hostility. No thanks. 

If you want to have a serious discussion, a student of history, do you think that the United States has ever properly addressed it's heritage of slavery and repaired the damage done?