Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

You ignored my point when I touched on it again and again for 3 posts.  That tells me you aren’t interested in addressing it.  It’s the main thrust of my argument, and one that pretty much counters everything you’ve been saying.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You ignored my point when I touched on it again and again for 3 posts.  That tells me you aren’t interested in addressing it.  It’s the main thrust of my argument, and one that pretty much counters everything you’ve been saying.

 

 

I ignored your point because it seemed like you were avoiding mine. I was not ready to dismiss it like you appeared to be doing. Was Brigham Young a racist in his time? Of course. Was his racism important in his leadership roles? Yes, I think so. 

If I'm talking to another poster who doesn't seem to agree that Young's racism was more than just passive in his time, obviously not everyone agrees on his role. So your "Right," did not really signify agreement to me. 

It looked like avoidance. Instead of assuring me that it was not, you launched into personal attacks.

From my point of view, there's no point in talking about the complexities of how to deal with historical figures now if we cannot even agree that those who perpetuated it on an institutional level were not just wrong by today's standards, but wrong then, too.

And the church has indeed released many statements repudiating past racism, but they are imo inadequate.  I think that the fact that people are still trying to cast the condemnation of 19th century racism as "presentism" evinces this inadequacy.

To your question, American history lessons in schools need complete overhaul. Mercatur maps are a simple but compelling sign. The West must reshift it's white-centric narratives and it's small change to eliminate ostentatious regard for any leaders who helped perpetuate white supremacy. All the frickin statues can go for all I care. Teach more historical perspectives. Amplify Black voices.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

It did exist. Brigham Young was not a white supremacist though. That term generally refers to those seeking a pure people of a certain ethnic descent. Brigham Young believed the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans were a chosen people and that other nations contained pieces of the tribes of Israel. He was not a white supremacist which almost always includes a contempt for or at least a desire to stay away from people of other races.

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, he was a racist by the standards of his day as well. 

Worse then average? Maybe. Probably. Amongst the worst? Not even close. 

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I ignored your point because it seemed like you were avoiding mine. I was not ready to dismiss it like you appeared to be doing. Was Brigham Young a racist in his time? Of course. Was his racism important in his leadership roles? Yes, I think so. 

If I'm talking to another poster who doesn't seem to agree that Young's racism was more than just passive in his time, obviously not everyone agrees on his role. So your "Right," did not really signify agreement to me. 

It looked like avoidance. Instead of assuring me that it was not, you launched into personal attacks.

From my point of view, there's no point in talking about the complexities of how to deal with historical figures now if we cannot even agree that those who perpetuated it on an institutional level were not just wrong by today's standards, but wrong then, too.

And the church has indeed released many statements repudiating past racism, but they are imo inadequate.  I think that the fact that people are still trying to cast the condemnation of 19th century racism as "presentism" evinces this inadequacy.

To your question, American history lessons in schools need complete overhaul. Mercatur maps are a simple but compelling sign. The West must reshift it's white-centric narratives and it's small change to eliminate ostentatious regard for any leaders who helped perpetuate white supremacy. All the frickin statues can go for all I care. Teach more historical perspectives. Amplify Black voices.

Brigham Young was living during a time when some areas of medical science believed blacks had different blood, skin suited to extreme sun exposure, flatter feet, and different skulls that suited them to slavery.  
 

Was racism in the 19th century wrong?  Yes.  But it is absolutely absurd to judge BY by the same standards as a person today.  It’s a gospel tenant that we are judged by the light and knowledge we posses at the time of our life on earth.  Were mistakes made?  Yes.  Far reaching?  Yes.  Still echoed today?  Yes.  But again, Brigham Young is not remembered or revered for those things.  BYU is not named after him because he was a prominent racist.  We don’t have “Teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young” in Sunday school because he had notable ideas on race.  
 

You cannot lump Brigham Young in with confederate monuments.  False equivalency all day long.   

We believe in life after death.  And the atonement still applies even then.  I have every confidence he does not continue to believe the same way.  If we can’t start acknowledging the past, and forgive at the same time, we aren’t going to make it as a country or society.  

Edited June 20, 2020 by SteveO

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It did exist. Brigham Young was not a white supremacist though. That term generally refers to those seeking a pure people of a certain ethnic descent. Brigham Young believed the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans were a chosen people and that other nations contained pieces of the tribes of Israel. He was not a white supremacist which almost always includes a contempt for or at least a desire to stay away from people of other races.

Worse then average? Maybe. Probably. Amongst the worst? Not even close. 

Did you read the link I posted for you a while back? It's the same as the one just above.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Brigham Young was living during a time when some areas of medical science believed blacks had a different blood, skin suited to extreme sun exposure, flatter feet, and different skulls that suited them to slavery.  
 

Was racism in the 19th century wrong?  Yes.  But it is absolutely absurd to judge BY by the same standards as a person today.  It’s a gospel tenant that we are judged by the light and knowledge we posses at the time of our life on earth.  Were mistakes made?  Yes.  Far reaching?  Yes.  Still echoed today?  Yes.  But again, Brigham Young is not remembered or revered for those things.  BYU is not named after him because he was a prominent racist.  We don’t have “Teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young” in Sunday school because he had notable ideas on race.  
 

You cannot lump Brigham Young in with confederate monuments.  False equivalency all day long.   

We believe in life after death.  And the atonement still applies even then.  I have every confidence he does not continue to believe the same way.  If we can’t start acknowledging the past, and forgive at the same time, we aren’t going to make it as a country or society.  

We can forgive AND also replace monuments. However those concerns are inferior to proper institutional repentance in the first place, by our church and country, which hasn't happened yet.

[bluebell]

Trying to find a white person in the 1800s in America who wasn't racist in some way would be really difficult.  The culture was steeped in racist teachings and beliefs, right down to the (then "scientifically" backed) idea that black people had different blood than white people.  They certainly existed, but they were the minority.  

Most (if not practically all) of the people we celebrate for their contributions to our society from the past were racists by today's definition.  The idea that they contributed nothing of worth during their lifetimes and should be expunged from our history because they were (sometimes deeply) flawed on some topics is a feel good idea that's going to bite us in the butt.  It sets up an impossible standard that no one will ever be free of or able to live up. 

Because it's very very likely that all of us (including the most 'woke' among us) currently hold beliefs or ideas that people or society will view as condemnable and contemptible in 150-200 years.  That's how history works.  

 

 

[rodheadlee]

Just now, bluebell said:

Trying to find a white person in the 1800s in America who wasn't racist in some way would be really difficult.  The culture was steeped in racist teachings and beliefs, right down to the (then "scientifically" backed) idea that black people had different blood than white people.  They certainly existed, but they were the minority.  

Most (if not practically all) of the people we celebrate for their contributions to our society from the past were racists by today's definition.  The idea that they contributed nothing of worth during their lifetimes and should be expunged from our history because they were (sometimes deeply) flawed on some topics is a feel good idea that's going to bite us in the butt.  It sets up an impossible standard that no one will ever be free of or able to live up. 

Because it's very very likely that all of us (including the most 'woke' among us) currently hold beliefs or ideas that people or society will view as condemnable and contemptible in 150-200 years.  That's how history works.  

 

 

Thank you. That's why I called it presentism. I've been up since 2am moving dirt so I can't play anymore.

[bluebell]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

Thank you. That's why I called it presentism. I've been up since 2am moving dirt so I can't play anymore.

Yes.  It is presentism, and it's a flawed way to address the past.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you read the link I posted for you a while back? It's the same as the one just above.

The one about slavery in Utah? Yeah. It was legal but also rare. 400 Native Americans in a kind of long-term indenture and about 100 Africans whose owners dragged them off to the South early to avoid a Union victory. It is horrible but it wasn't southern plantations either.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Trying to find a white person in the 1800s in America who wasn't racist in some way would be really difficult.  The culture was steeped in racist teachings and beliefs, right down to the (then "scientifically" backed) idea that black people had different blood than white people.  They certainly existed, but they were the minority.  

Most (if not practically all) of the people we celebrate for their contributions to our society from the past were racists by today's definition.  The idea that they contributed nothing of worth during their lifetimes and should be expunged from our history because they were (sometimes deeply) flawed on some topics is a feel good idea that's going to bite us in the butt.  It sets up an impossible standard that no one will ever be free of or able to live up. 

Because it's very very likely that all of us (including the most 'woke' among us) currently hold beliefs or ideas that people or society will view as condemnable and contemptible in 150-200 years.  That's how history works.  

 

 

Sure, Brigham Young was not remarkable for his racism alone. He just went above and beyond the passive cultural norms to actively and explicitly perpetuate white supremacy as prophet and governor of Utah.

So imo it is entirely fair to single him out for his brand of racism.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The one about slavery in Utah? Yeah. It was legal but also rare. 400 Native Americans in a kind of long-term indenture and about 100 Africans whose owners dragged them off to the South early to avoid a Union victory. It is horrible but it wasn't southern plantations either.

It was more than that.

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It was more than that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/native-american-slavery-mormon-utah
 

Yes, good intentions paving a road to hell.  Per the article, if I saw a trader bash a child’s brains out to get me to buy a slave...I’d probably make as many purchases as I could too.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, Brigham Young was not remarkable for his racism alone. He just went above and beyond the passive cultural norms to actively and explicitly perpetuate white supremacy as prophet and governor of Utah.

So imo it is entirely fair to single him out for his brand of racism.

I agree. In the same way Thomas Jefferson is remembered for his views on slavery. I do not put either in the same ranks as Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis who are primarily lauded for their support for slavery and treason.

Incidentally I would add that Jefferson Davis would rank amongst the worst Presidents if we put him in the list. The guy was not just a racist. He was also an idiot as a President and his attempts to run the entire war himself and defend the entire Confederacy equally crippled the Confederate military effort. The Confederate generals and congress largely hated him. He did not give Lee full command of the war effort until 1865 when it was largely over. He filled generalships with close friends instead of competent people. He refused to mediate or fire generals who were compromised by rivalries. He ordered the ill-fated Confederate invasion of the North. He gave speeches to general and the wealthy and ignored the common people who quickly grew to despise him killing any real hope of strong Confederate nationalism. He was eventually captured at the end of the war, posted bail, and fled the country.

I am not lamenting his shortcomings. I am glad his incompetence shortened the war. I wish Lee would have been more incompetent.

In the end Brigham Young is a fair target for reproof but not on the level of those who are the primary targets of the BLM movement which largely targets Confederate memorials. It is weird how many Confederate war memorials went up in the North and kind of proves that they went up not due to "heritage" but as a subtle threat to African Americans that many are not 'on their side'.

Looking at the memorials some are downright embarrassing. Look at this one of Nathan Bedford Forrest made by a dedicated racist with no talent. It look like a parody:

I almost want to leave that one up as a mockery of the Confederacy.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It was more than that.

Are you referring to the coerced purchases designed to prevent murder?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, Brigham Young was not remarkable for his racism alone. He just went above and beyond the passive cultural norms to actively and explicitly perpetuate white supremacy as prophet and governor of Utah.

So imo it is entirely fair to single him out for his brand of racism.

Except he really didn't.  He wasn't a remarkable racist for the time.  Sadly, he was fairly run of the mill in his ideas about blacks being inferior, and most of his teachings on race mirrored typical white protestantism teachings on race at the time.  As a religious leader or teacher, he went no more above and beyond the cultural norms for racism than most of the white leaders and teachers of his day.

[Calm]

Tacenda, I have heard of reports of history of abuse before and see no reason to doubt it.  However, I wonder if improvements were made and therefore we shouldn't assume all bad given when it was proposed to close it, it was fought by a number of Native American groups.

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1984/04/11/05410008.h03.html

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[cacheman]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Look at this one of Nathan Bedford Forrest made by a dedicated racist with no talent. It look like a parody:

I almost want to leave that one up as a mockery of the Confederacy.

Lol.  I'm familiar with this 'monument'!  It's even less impressive in person. FYI - his horse's name is Lightning.  He is the mascot for our university.  My campus building is on 'Lightning Way'. ...just around the corner from Forrest hall.

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Except he really didn't.  He wasn't a remarkable racist for the time.  Sadly, he was fairly run of the mill in his ideas about blacks being inferior, and most of his teachings on race mirrored typical white protestantism teachings on race at the time.  As a religious leader or teacher, he went no more above and beyond the cultural norms for racism than most of the white leaders and teachers of his day.

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.

 

[Anijen]

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.

 

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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.

What I find so repugnant is the idea of thought police combined with that disgusting self-righteous indignation that any human would dare to think differently than what the "superior" group thinks is so important. 

I happen to love statuary - it is my favorite type of art. When I see a statue of a horse and a man riding it I don't think of the Civil War, a military victory, or anything else. If the statue is well done, I like because it is beautiful. I wish cities had more beautiful statues rather than some of the modern art that is limited to just shapes or forms.

It was abhorrent to me when the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhist statues in 2001.  It made me angry and sad. It is the kind of thing that pushes my buttons and the offenders lose part of the their humanity for me. 

The more a group attempts to force others to only see their perspective and demand everyone else accept only their standard, the more I resist them. 

[Calm]

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

[Meadowchik]

1 hour 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.

 

 

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

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What I find so repugnant is the idea of thought police combined with that disgusting self-righteous indignation that any human would dare to think differently than what the "superior" group thinks is so important. 

I happen to love statuary - it is my favorite type of art. When I see a statue of a horse and a man riding it I don't think of the Civil War, a military victory, or anything else. If the statue is well done, I like because it is beautiful. I wish cities had more beautiful statues rather than some of the modern art that is limited to just shapes or forms.

It was abhorrent to me when the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhist statues in 2001.  It made me angry and sad. It is the kind of thing that pushes my buttons and the offenders lose part of the their humanity for me. 

The more a group attempts to force others to only see their perspective and demand everyone else accept only their standard, the more I resist them. 

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? 

[CV75]

7 minutes 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? 

The righteousness depends on how insistence is expressed, and how the dismantling is done. It is best to do it in a way that facilitates everyone drawing a common conclusion and that draws everyone together.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

The righteousness depends on how insistence is expressed, and how the dismantling is done. It is best to do it in a way that facilitates everyone drawing a common conclusion and that draws everyone together.

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.