Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Just for the record, (I haven't followed your convo with Stem here so pardon if this is redundant) systemic racism is more than just how individuals feel about Black people. It's about structural problems that tend to target them.

A good historical description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGUwcs9qJXY&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0UALa1G6p9FXDj-bDuyKFm_ccfQYIEjrHuaDCU0F7HIfSwSx00D5RUIdY

 

 

Our discussion was really limited to those being racist rather than systemic racism, which I understand to be something different.

[smac97]

For those who would like to take a small break from the accusations of blanket racism in America, I offer this: 

If You’re Tired Of All The Recent Negative News, These 46 Wholesome Pics Will Restore Your Faith In America

It's quite lovely.  Some of my favorites:

Quote

#1 A Couple Of Months Ago, An Elderly Lady Asked Me To Walk Her Home Because She Was Scared She Was Going To Slip On The Ice. We've Become Friends And Now I Walk Her Home Almost Everyday

...

#3 Officer Talks Man Out Of Committing Suicide. Eight Years Later, The Now-Father-Of-Two Gives The Officer An Award At The American Foundation Of Suicide

...
#5 She Took Me In 15 Years Ago And No One Makes Me As Happy. We Had The Best Xmas. I Love My Grandma So Much

...
#17 Dons The Don

...
#24 Charlotte Officer Talks To A Potentially Suicidal Teen With Autism

#28 This Boy Offering A Bottle Of Water To A Policeman During A Hot Day In Baltimore

#31 This Man Reads Everyday At Lunch To A Man Who Cannot

...
#45 This Is America

Have a good day!  And may God bless America!

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Our discussion was really limited to those being racist rather than systemic racism, which I understand to be something different.

Okay. The over-arching topic in society is about systemic racism, so I highly recommend the video!

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For those who would like to take a small break from the accusations of blanket racism in America, I offer this: 

If You’re Tired Of All The Recent Negative News, These 46 Wholesome Pics Will Restore Your Faith In America

It's quite lovely.  Some of my favorites:

Have a good day!  And may God bless America!

-Smac

The love we feel for our fellow man would I think compel us to be wary of suffering and how it is structurally perpetuated. I posted a video about systemic racism above. I hope you watch it!

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would use typical or average behaviour to demonstrate that it is based on statistics rather that assumptions. 

But isn't that precisely what a stereotype is? Behaviors, characteristics, etc. which, while not necessarily universal, are fairly typical within a particular group. Stereotypical, in fact?

It seems to me that stereotypes are stereotypes, regardless of what kind of stereotype they are: positive or negative, based on statistics or based on prejudices.

It's all just part of our brain trying to break the world down and organize it into smaller, more meaningful / identifiable pieces. 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The love we feel for our fellow man would I think compel us to be wary of suffering and how it is structurally perpetuated.

And also be wary of racebaiters and opportunists who make a living off of racial discord, or who would appropriate racial discord to foist onto us social/political objectives that have no chance of being accepted through normative legal means.

Quote

I posted a video about systemic racism above. I hope you watch it!

I did.  Virtually all of it pertains to past government policies, rather than current day-to-day attitudes of everyday Americans.  

Meanwhile, here's another, which I hope you watch:

Funny how these videos cover much of the same ground, but still come to radically different conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2020 by smac97

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is from Joanna Brook's essay, The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement. I find it very helpful especially because it features a list of possible changes compiled by Black LDS church members:

 

Imo, Tasi Young is a coward, because it's not brave to go after a little western school belonging to a small church that is an easy target for anyone to go after, and they have....many times.

Imo, If Tasi Young was brave and really serious about racism, instead of just pandering (as I perceive it), he'd have named the Ivy league schools too. He should have demanded that Yale University change their name, as they carry the name of a white slave trader. Georgetown is named after a white slave owner. Princeton should have to publicly disavow militant racist Woodrow Wilson(their most famous school president) and remove any links between him and the school. Brigham Young was racist, but no different from the majority of people in his day.  Targeting him and not the many others who held his same views is evidence that these activists are either woefully ignorant on their subject or not truly sincere, but instead have agendas. They deserve skepticism and suspicion. 

If people like Tasi Young really are sincere,  they're going to have to make themselves very unpopular with the Ivy league; the wealthy, connected and powerful in the country, who won't appreciate his pulling out their long closeted skeletons. 

 As a skeptic, I am not impressed that Tasi Young and others are actually sincere, but instead, I perceive their efforts as doing their part in  just another attempt to destabilize and transform the country, as history repeats itself (different  countries, changed names but the same idealogy) but with the same playbook. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying Brigham claimed it was not by revelation?  Before Brigham is said to have announced the policy:  

Quote

What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth or ever will see.  Now I tell you what I know: when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel’s children were in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ [that] spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are; I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael’s seed. Then Cain’s seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off. 

Brigham Young, February 5 1852 (Janurary 5, 1852)

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Imo, Tasi Young is a coward, because it's not brave to go after a little western school belonging to a small church that is an easy target for anyone to go after, and they have....many times.

Imo, If Tasi Young was brave and really serious about racism, instead of just pandering (as I perceive it), he'd have named the Ivy league schools too. He should have demanded that Yale University change their name, as they carry the name of a white slave trader. Georgetown is named after a white slave owner. Princeton should have to publicly disavow militant racist Woodrow Wilson(their most famous school president) and remove any links between him and the school. Brigham Young was racist, but no different from the majority of people in his day.  Targeting him and not the many others who held his same views is evidence that these activists are either woefully ignorant on their subject or not truly sincere, but instead have agendas. They deserve skepticism and suspicion. 

If people like Tasi Young really are sincere,  they're going to have to make themselves very unpopular with the Ivy league; the wealthy, connected and powerful in the country, who won't appreciate his pulling out their long closeted skeletons. 

 As a skeptic, I am not impressed that Tasi Young and others are actually sincere, but instead, I perceive their efforts as doing their part in  just another attempt to destabilize and transform the country, as history repeats itself (different  countries, changed names but the same idealogy) but with the same playbook. 

On the contrary, I think the moral person will seek to change in their community. The link you quoted has an essay with suggestions from many Black LDS church members.

[Storm Rider]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Okay. The over-arching topic in society is about systemic racism, so I highly recommend the video!

I watched the video. I think he had some good points, but I thought some of his logic was off. We live in a time of gross division of wealth; attempting to use a ratio of black wealth versus white wealth is meaningless. Wealth is tied up in the hands of a very few people at this time. Had he accounted for this by using accurate numbers the ratio would have had meaning. 

It is also sloppy to use statements such as, "Much of" housing is tied up in, by deed, to be owned by whites. What is "much of" is that 10% or 50%?  Also, where is it? Is it nation wide or is it in specific regions.  The south is not the USA and vice-versa. 

Regardless, I think the point was valid, but the logic was poor. 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Quote

I'd agree with you if it weren't true that BY claimed it was all by revelation. 

CFR, please.  I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

Are you saying Brigham claimed it was not by revelation? 

I'm saying that I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Before Brigham is said to have announced the policy:  

Quote

What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth or ever will see.  Now I tell you what I know: when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel’s children were in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ [that] spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are; I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael’s seed. Then Cain’s seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off. 

Brigham Young, February 5 1852 (Janurary 5, 1852)

Is this what you were referencing when you said "BY claimed it was all by revelation?"  Anything else?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And also be wary of racebaiters and opportunists who make a living off of racial discord, or who would appropriate racial discord to foist onto us social/political objectives that have no chance of being accepted through normative legal means.

I did.  Virtually all of it pertains to past government policies, rather than current day-to-day attitudes of everyday Americans.  

Meanwhile, here's another, which I hope you watch:

Funny how these videos cover much of the same ground, but still come to radically different conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Kind of like how it's funny that people have used the bible both to support slavery and to condemn it.  It's normal for us to gravitate towards interpretations of data that already supports our worldview, especially if they show that everything if fine and we personally don't need to change anything.

And data is often interesting in that it can sometimes be made to say contradictory things depending on someone's focus (especially if the person presenting the data is o.k. with leaving out anything that doesn't support their conclusions, which, for example, we see a lot on editorial news programs).

That's what makes these kinds of conversations so difficult.  People can almost always find support for any worldview they want, and sound pretty smart while doing it.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

Is this what you were referencing when you said "BY claimed it was all by revelation?"  Anything else?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is an example of one point wherein he claimed it divinely mandated.  There are, I think you are aware, many times wherein Brigham claimed it was God's will.  We can use this as an example, though.  Here Brigham suggests without equivocation, it seems to me, that this restriction is God's will.  Thus is revelation.  

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I'm saying that I'd like to read what it is you are attributing to Brigham Young.

Is this what you were referencing when you said "BY claimed it was all by revelation?"  Anything else?

This is an example of one point wherein he claimed it divinely mandated.  There are, I think you are aware, many times wherein Brigham claimed it was God's will. 

Okay.  CFR on those, please.  Whichever ones of which you are aware.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But it's illustrative of why I reject the concept overall.

I object to what it describes.

Imputing fault onto innocent persons is gaslighting and false.  That's not good.

That is not gaslighting. Gaslighting requires you to knowingly tell someone something you know to be false to make them question themselves.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wouldn't.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2)

Adam's transgression was a specific event done by a specific person (actually two people). It is a stretch to make that a statement that there is no such thing as group culpability.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That sounds an awful lot like special pleading.  "The Jewish example" demonstrates the ugliness of the concept.  I don't think you can sidestep that ugliness by saying "Yes, I believe in 'collective sin,' but not that sort."

I can and I did. It is not special pleading. Suggesting that people in a society are to some extent responsible for that society and its flaws is not anything like claiming that a millenia later the descendants of someone who did a bad thing are also responsible for it.

As to its ugliness I don't really like it. A lot of things about sin are ugly and unpleasant. Sin in general is ugly. How about we just throw the whole concept out to avoid any aesthetic problems?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Like tolerating elective abortion?  Is that a "collective sin?"

I think this stretches "sin" into unfamiliar territory.  It makes "sin" infinitely malleable.

Yes, elective abortion would be a blatant example but it depends what you mean by toleration. I honestly don't think you are interested enough to have me write out a multi-paragraph explanation on that point so I won't waste my time.

It is very malleable. King Benjamin made it clear he could not elucidate all possible sins. I assume God can but God can do a lot of things we cannot.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems to materially undercut your argument.  Let's see what the good Clive Staples has to say.  But first, let's take a look at this article about "False Apology Syndrome":

That seems to fit what you are describing.  A bit more:

"Self-congratulatory humility."

"{A} fashion these days for ... public apologies by politicians for the crimes and misdemeanours of their ancestors."

"False Apology Syndrome is a way of judging others to avoid judging ourselves—of shrugging moral responsibility."

Yep.

I find it strongly ironic that the imposition of "collective guilt" can - and usually does - function as a way to evade personal responsbility, rather than accept it.

Now on to what Mr. Staples had to say:

"It gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing--but, first, of denouncing--the conduct of others."

Yep.

As an amateur Lewis scholar I think I know the piece I used very well and it does not undercut my argument. Instead I shared it to show the potential abuse of the concept. I was being honest. It is the drunk man on the horse. If he falls off one way he leans the other way to make sure he does not do it again and falls off the other way. C.S. Lewis was giving a very good example of the wrong way to use what I am talking about.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  I reject the concepts of collective guilt and collective sin.

I am under no delusions that I am going to convince you of anything.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.  But even assuming "defend{ing} someone {else's} sinfulness" is wrong, then I am culpable for that wrongful act by me, not for the wrongful acts of others.

I am not going to explain further as it is a slip'n'slide into politics and I think you know that. Father Lehi did not agree when he gave the children of his first two sons their patriarchal blessings. Jacob later talked about ridding himself of the blood of other people's sins by speaking out against them:

"And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day."

Jacob seemed to believe that he had to get rid of the blood of other people's sins. You can argue it is a poetic method of saying you have to teach the gospel but that is a big stretch.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Covering up wrongful conduct is itself a separate and additional wrongful act, for which culpability lies.

I guess I sort of see your point about "accessory after the fact"-style wrongful conduct.  But boy, this seems like a huge stretch.  And one prone to much abuse.

It is accessory before, during, and the after the fact that I am talking about when we allow injustice/sin. Saying something can be abused is not an argument against it. Disciplining a child can literally be abusive but I think we can all agree that not providing any discipline would be insane.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  Let's not inculpate all Muslims for the actions of a few.  Let's not inculpate all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.  Let's not inculpate all Japanese for the Rape of Nanking, nor all Germans for the Holocaust, nor all white people for antebellum slavery.

Who is calling for us to do so? This is just hyperbole (the abuse) being used to disqualify any use.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Just so.  So it would be silly to impute "collective guilt" or "collective sin" onto them.  

Odd, since I have heard you ascribe sinful intent to collective groups before, primarily political groups. So we should always assume it is just a few people. There is no such thing as a corrupt organization? It is always a few bad individual actors. I don't buy it, either on a police department level or a societal one. Take Greece as an example of the kinds of social sin I am talking about. In Greece dodging taxes by illicit means is almost a national sport. It is endemic corruption. Few want to fix it and attempts to do so fail because the people you use to fix it cannot get any change done. Tax fraud is a relatively petty example. It is this kind of social hardening in collective sin that led to Jim Crow laws, the Holocaust, our blindness to child abuse, excusing police misconduct, and various ways we collectively grind the faces of the poor and oppressed. It is not a direct thing. Most are not involved directly but we tacitly give permission for it to happen. That kind of appeal to moral mediocrity is enticing. It lets us say we wish we could change it but we do not know how, we would be happy to look into it later, etc. This is just one form of it. There are others tied to different sins.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conspiracies and "secret combinations" and the like call for some actual measure of intent.  If I join a gang, if I willfully participate in its nefarious activitivies, then I am culpable for that conduct.  Both mens rea and actus reus are present.

By way of illustration:

1. Let's look at this story about Karen Merrick:

2. Now let's look at this story about Cecil J. McWatters and William Wayne Whaley:

Karen, Cecil and William all helped wrongdoers flee the scene of the crime.  So do you think Cecil and William are as culpable for helping Lee Harvey Oswald as Karen was for helping Phillip White?

Which does not illustrate anything I am describing.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And also be wary of racebaiters and opportunists who make a living off of racial discord, or who would appropriate racial discord to foist onto us social/political objectives that have no chance of being accepted through normative legal means.

I did.  Virtually all of it pertains to past government policies, rather than current day-to-day attitudes of everyday Americans.  

Meanwhile, here's another, which I hope you watch:

Funny how these videos cover much of the same ground, but still come to radically different conclusions.

Kind of like how it's funny that people have used the bible both to support slavery and to condemn it.  It's normal for us to gravitate towards interpretations of data that already supports our worldview, especially if they show that everything if fine and we personally don't need to change anything.

Except that nobody here seems to be seeking to excuse or justify racism (akin to efforts to "support slavery").  I'm not.  Ben Shapiro is not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And also be wary of racebaiters and opportunists who make a living off of racial discord, or who would appropriate racial discord to foist onto us social/political objectives that have no chance of being accepted through normative legal means.

I did.  Virtually all of it pertains to past government policies, rather than current day-to-day attitudes of everyday Americans.  

Meanwhile, here's another, which I hope you watch:

Funny how these videos cover much of the same ground, but still come to radically different conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Three minutes in and he argues that there are other variables which disproves the whole. 'Hey! Did you guys hear there were economic policies that contributed to the Civil War? Bet you feel dumb thinking it was all about slavery now!'

It is a lazy dismissal.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except that nobody here seems to be seeking to excuse or justify racism (akin to efforts to "support slavery").  I'm not.  Ben Shapiro is not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  CFR on those, please.  Whichever ones of which you are aware.

Thanks,

-Smac

Before I go find more, do you acknowledge this fulfills your previous request?  Is this not an example wherein Brigham claimed the ban was divinely mandated?  

 

oh..okay, just to appease you here's another:

Quote

Now, then, in the Kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it? Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off; but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes that says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.

Brigham Young: Slavery Because of the Curse of Cain (5 January 1852)

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except that nobody here seems to be seeking to excuse or justify racism (akin to efforts to "support slavery").  I'm not.  Ben Shapiro is not.

Thanks,

-Smac

I used slavery as an example since it's relevant to the discussion.  You could substitute almost any other issue.  Wearing masks vs. not wearing them.  Vaccinate or don't.  The Holocaust actually happened or it didn't. Etc, etc.

In the video you shared, the topic is systematic racism.  For people who believe that systematic racism doesn't still exist today, they will naturally gravitate towards (and accept) anyone who says "you are right, look at this data I have that shows you are right."  The same thing is true for those who do believe it exists.  They will dismiss data that doesn't support their conclusions and go find the data that does.

That's why these kinds of videos rarely change anyone's minds.  People will watch them, disagree with what is being said or how the data is being interpreted, and go out and find a different video that they do agree with to counter it (it seems like that's what you did, for example, and those who disagree with this video that you've provided could or will do the same). 

These types of videos are the new echo chamber--an easy way to surround ourselves with our own point of view.  They probably exist for every topic and counter argument since they are such an easy way to spin data.   

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

point was not about the tolerance of the sister, but rather the inappropriate - but not necessarily racist - behavior towards her.

In our American society where blacks have lived for hundreds of years along side whites and other races and we have seen them on TV and in films since it existed, such behaviour these days...to view such as still novel, is in most cases for adults racist imo. 
 

There may be some adults who reach out and touch and fiddle with others’ clothing and hair all the time, if one only does that with other races, if only they are “novel” still to someone not of their race, that is a racist issue imo. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

My point was not about the tolerance of the sister, but rather the inappropriate - but not necessarily racist - behavior towards her.

In our American society where blacks have lived for hundreds of years along side whites and other races and we have seen them on TV and in films since it existed, such behaviour these days...to view such as still novel, is in most cases for adults racist imo. 

I dunno.  We have been inculcated with denunciations of racism for quite a while now.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

There may be some adults who reach out and touch and fiddle with others’ clothing and hair all the time, if one only does that with other races, if only they are “novel” still to someone not of their race, that is a racist issue imo. 

Again, I dunno.  For me, "racism" carries primary connotations of A) hatred of people of another race, and B) feelings of superiority over people of another race.  I guess I'm not willing to attribute such repugnant sentiments to behaviors that are, broadly speaking, innocuous or ambiguous.  As I said a few days ago:

Quote

"Racism" is a highly charged word, yet is often being used to described relatively harmless, even wholly benign, behaviors. "Racism" seems to be infinitely malleable, such that can be attributed to whatever anybody (except, I guess, for a white person) unilterally and subjectively feels like. This has the effect of erasing qualitative and quantitative differences in words and behavior, differences which should be preserved. Innocuous words/actions may come across as insensitive or weird, but the better way would be to either shrug off such trivialities, or else use kindness and persuasion to help the individual understand how he can improve. Throwing reflexive - and often highly arguable - accusations of "Racist!" at such minor transgressions just ratchets up tensions, puts people on the defensive, and makes them less inclined to interact with other racial groups.

Thanks,

-Smac

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

This is an example of one point wherein he claimed it divinely mandated.  There are, I think you are aware, many times wherein Brigham claimed it was God's will.  We can use this as an example, though.  Here Brigham suggests without equivocation, it seems to me, that this restriction is God's will.  Thus is revelation.  

I thought Brigham Young once admitted that there was no revelation he could point to, that forbid priesthood to blacks, but said instead that it was just a given; that everyone knew they were cursed and therefore should not hold it (he was, imo, falling back into his old protestant roots).  And the fact is, there is not and never was a Revelation that he could cite. We know that. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I thought Brigham Young once admitted that there was no revelation he could point to, that forbid priesthood to blacks, but said instead that it was just a given; that everyone knew they were cursed and therefore should not hold it (he was, imo, falling back into his old protestant roots).  And the fact is, there is not and never was a Revelation that he could cite. We know that. 

Are you suggesting Brigham went back on his claim that it was God's will?  I'm happy to review the pertinent information showing this, if you don't mind showing it.  If you do mind, then I guess I'm on my own to find it.  Thanks for the comments.   

I decided to add, if Brigham did say he decided it wasn't God's will, the Church would have been wise to include that in the Race and the Priesthood essay.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by stemelbow

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I dunno.  We have been inculcated with denunciations of racism for quite a while now.

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

Quote

For me, "racism" carries primary connotations of A) hatred of people of another race, and B) feelings of superiority over people of another race

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. 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.  Those are variations of superiority in that whites have stronger ownership of their own bodies than blacks do in that person’s view even if they never articulate it that way. 
 

That is racism. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Calm