CV75 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: The USA would not exist if people waited for polite unanimity. "Polite unanimity" is a straw-man. We can and must do much better in 2020 than the American colonists in the 1770s, for many practical reasons. From your standpoint, weren't they all racist too? Slavery was abolished in England 30 years before the USA -- why is she still so far behind from where she should be given three additional decades of enlightenment? It seems the freedom of the minds of the whites were held back systemically just as thoroughly as the economic/political freedom of the blacks. Both were trapped by the system in their own versions of centuries of darkness and bondage (and many in England still celebrate royalty... is there a connection?). Then the light of the Restoration certainly shined through darkness, and just as the colonists expressed themselves against England the best they could, and something better came out of it, and not long after so did the latter-day prophets and something better is still coming out of that. For all the lip-service to abolish systemic racism, I think those who will fail in achieving dialogue and improvement are those who perseverate after scapegoats and effigies. They will be left behind as the rest bring about better harmony. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, CV75 said: "Polite unanimity" is a straw-man. We can and must do much better in 2020 than the American colonists in the 1770s, for many practical reasons. From your standpoint, weren't they all racist too? Slavery was abolished in England 30 years before the USA -- why is she still so far behind from where she should be given three additional decades of enlightenment? It seems the freedom of the minds of the whites were held back systemically just as thoroughly as the economic/political freedom of the blacks. Both were trapped by the system in their own versions of centuries of darkness and bondage (and many in England still celebrate royalty... is there a connection?). Then the light of the Restoration certainly shined through darkness, and just as the colonists expressed themselves against England the best they could, and something better came out of it, and not long after so did the latter-day prophets and something better is still coming out of that. For all the lip-service to abolish systemic racism, I think those who will fail in achieving dialogue and improvement are those who perseverate after scapegoats and effigies. They will be left behind as the rest bring about better harmony. As I've said already, I am not prioritizing statues. I think this dialogue is valuable: “We have been taught that ignorance and hate lead to racist ideas, lead to racist policies,” Kendi said. “If the fundamental problem is ignorance and hate, then your solutions are going to be focused on education, and love and persuasion. But of course [Stamped from the Beginning] shows that the actual foundation of racism is not ignorance and hate, but self-interest, particularly economic and political and cultural.” Self-interest drives racist policies that benefit that self-interest. When the policies are challenged because they produce inequalities, racist ideas spring up to justify those policies. Hate flows freely from there." -From scholar and author Ibram Kendi "Ibram Kendi is the new founding director of The Anti-Racist and Policy Center at American University. He is a leading thinker on race and his 2016 book, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America won the National Book Award." Edited June 21, 2020 by Meadowchik
Calm Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, CV75 said: Slavery was abolished in England 30 years before the USA The class system provided enough cheap labour with less responsibility. An interesting tidbit imo: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/11/lets-end-delusion-britain-abolished-slavery Edited June 21, 2020 by Calm
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 4 hours ago, Calm said: Which means what to you? That in those cases it was a natural, appropriate action or something else? Probably that it was a natural, appropriate reaction, but I'm not sure. In the case of statues in the United States, what statues ought to remain where they are and what statues ought, perhaps, to be displayed elsewhere (generally, I'm against destroying them outright: if the general public sentiment/consensus is that they ought not remain where they are, so be it) is a debate worth having. The problem with destroying them is that they are (or are on) someone's property. If someone thinks they should be removed, negotiate the terms of the removal in a civilized way. 1
CV75 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Calm said: The class system provided enough cheap labour with less responsibility. An interesting tidbit imo: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/11/lets-end-delusion-britain-abolished-slavery Yes, it is similar to how the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves (and whites from their attitudes for that matter). Did it really? Edited June 21, 2020 by CV75
CV75 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: the actual foundation of racism is not ignorance and hate, but self-interest, particularly economic and political and cultural. I've been saying the same thing, must have been on another thread! But when you think about it, self-interest can also very easily engender ignorance and hate to protect oneself from altruistic duty that comes from (and also engenders) knowledge and charity. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 Thought this is interesting, and, perhaps, provides a valuable contribution to the discussion: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/6/19/21296263/nascar-confederate-flag-monuments-james-bennet-jk-rowling-ellen-degeneres 1
Meadowchik Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I've been saying the same thing, must have been on another thread! But when you think about it, self-interest can also very easily engender ignorance and hate to protect oneself from altruistic duty that comes from (and also engenders) knowledge and charity. Glad you agree. Please don't misattribute the quote, though. Ibram Kendi said that, but in larger context.
Meadowchik Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Thought this is interesting, and, perhaps, provides a valuable contribution to the discussion: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/6/19/21296263/nascar-confederate-flag-monuments-james-bennet-jk-rowling-ellen-degeneres People build idols, but are then surprised when people reject them.
bluebell Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 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. I'm glad you can see the benefit of keeping history, but my point goes beyond history to some degree, in that I'm saying that it's o.k and even proper to celebrate the difficult and good things that flawed-but-moral-for-their-time people have done that benefit those who came after them. Even if those flawed people were racist. I think it's a much healthier attitude than the "this person from a hundred years ago, who's actions we are still currently benefiting from, must have completely agreed with our current social mores or must be expunged from all public edifices meant to celebrate the things we are still currently benefitting from" attitude that we are seeing right now. It's good to recognize Brigham Young for settling Utah and creating BYU, even though he was a racist. Millions of people have benefited from him doing those things, and he did them with some sacrifice on his part. His flaws (which are many) do not negate the good things he did that we are still benefiting from. It's also good to recognize BY's flaws. Let's be accountable for the damage he contributed too/in many ways began, and let's not glorify him or pretend he was someone different. I completely agree with you on that. But we can do both. We can say, "wow, I'm so thankful that BY recognized the importance of education and created this school that people are still benefiting from today. He was good and right to do that; he was progressive in his beliefs about education and women." and also say "I'm so sad that BY taught racist things and encouraged others to accept them as being from God. He was wrong to believe and do what he did. He has contributed to a lot of harm that we are still working through and dealing with" at the same time. It's the all or nothing (people were either all good or they must be considered all bad) mentality that a lot of people are currently embracing that I think is unhealthy. I understand where it comes from but I think it's a perspective distorted by anger and hurt (justifiably so) and also somewhat colored by mob "justice" (unjustifiably so). Edit to add: If the monument is irrelevant to society today--if it does not celebrate any benefits currently being enjoyed by society--then I have no problem with removing it from the public and putting it in a museum (or not even that if it's truly irrelevant). Edited June 21, 2020 by bluebell 3
bluebell Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 4 hours ago, Meadowchik 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. None of this is in dispute. BY wasn't accidentally racist and I don't see anyone arguing that he was. He thoroughly and sincerely believed racism was the moral way to be and condoned by God. He perpetuated it because he believed it was morally right. I believe he was incredibly wrong about it. 1
Calm Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Yes, it is similar to how the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves (and whites from their attitudes for that matter). Did it really? You heard of Juneteenth? I just did. I think that would make a good holiday to hold because we need to remember it isn’t over yet.
CV75 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Calm said: You heard of Juneteenth? I just did. I think that would make a good holiday to hold because we need to remember it isn’t over yet. Yes, and hopefully it will be come an official state holiday in more places, even a national holiday, as a gesture of solidarity between blacks and whites on the subject of everyone's emancipation, in their own way, from black slavery. Unfortunately the Emancipation (as the British laws) was only on paper, since for 157 years neither US blacks nor whites were truly free due to the traditions, etc. that were perpetuated in law, beliefs, and attitudes, etc. In a way it makes as much sense to denigrate Brigham Young for his policies as it is to criticize an 1870's sharecropper for not doing more with his freedom. I think people rarely if ever change when they are denigrated, but systems tend to change when people do. Inviting others to celebrate Juneteenth would be a wonderful gesture in my opinion and turn the hearts to brotherhood and unity of purpose to change our systems and their implementation. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: None of this is in dispute. BY wasn't accidentally racist and I don't see anyone arguing that he was. He thoroughly and sincerely believed racism was the moral way to be and condoned by God. He perpetuated it because he believed it was morally right. I believe he was incredibly wrong about it. Thanks for clarifying. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm glad you can see the benefit of keeping history, but my point goes beyond history to some degree, in that I'm saying that it's o.k and even proper to celebrate the difficult and good things that flawed-but-moral-for-their-time people have done that benefit those who came after them. Even if those flawed people were racist. I think it's a much healthier attitude than the "this person from a hundred years ago, who's actions we are still currently benefiting from, must have completely agreed with our current social mores or must be expunged from all public edifices meant to celebrate the things we are still currently benefitting from" attitude that we are seeing right now. It's good to recognize Brigham Young for settling Utah and creating BYU, even though he was a racist. Millions of people have benefited from him doing those things, and he did them with some sacrifice on his part. His flaws (which are many) do not negate the good things he did that we are still benefiting from. It's also good to recognize BY's flaws. Let's be accountable for the damage he contributed too/in many ways began, and let's not glorify him or pretend he was someone different. I completely agree with you on that. But we can do both. We can say, "wow, I'm so thankful that BY recognized the importance of education and created this school that people are still benefiting from today. He was good and right to do that; he was progressive in his beliefs about education and women." and also say "I'm so sad that BY taught racist things and encouraged others to accept them as being from God. He was wrong to believe and do what he did. He has contributed to a lot of harm that we are still working through and dealing with" at the same time. It's the all or nothing (people were either all good or they must be considered all bad) mentality that a lot of people are currently embracing that I think is unhealthy. I understand where it comes from but I think it's a perspective distorted by anger and hurt (justifiably so) and also somewhat colored by mob "justice" (unjustifiably so). Edit to add: If the monument is irrelevant to society today--if it does not celebrate any benefits currently being enjoyed by society--then I have no problem with removing it from the public and putting it in a museum (or not even that if it's truly irrelevant). Yet the institution has not made this clear. It has not unambiguously denounced these horrible things Brigham Young did. A relatively obscure though highly suggestive essay on the website is not enough. I would love it if we could hear frankness like in your post at General Conference and with an apology. But we have not. So the name and the statue create a permanent moral dissonance. These outer signs to me are secondary to that most essential sin of omission. My parents met at BYU and I met my husband at BYU. I don't think I'd exist if it hadn't been for BYU. Yet, I also would not have existed if Europeans hadn't brought a plague that wiped out millions of Native Americans. It's horrible history but we need to learn as much of it in as many facets as we can. Brigham Young presided over his Utah empire that benefits me today. But the work of millions of slaves also built a country that nested the birth of this American religion. And we mostly do not name universities after them or build monuments to remember them in any comparable way. And they don't even have their own names. Edited June 21, 2020 by Meadowchik
USU78 Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 4 hours ago, CV75 said: 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: Yet the institution has not made this clear. It has not unambiguously denounced these horrible things Brigham Young did. A relatively obscure though highly suggestive essay on the website is not enough. I would love it if we could hear as much frankness in your post at General Conference and with an apology. But we have not. So the name and the statue create a permanent moral dissonance. These outer signs to me are secondary to that most essential sin of omission. My parents met at BYU and I met my husband at BYU. I don't think I'd exist if it hadn't been for BYU. Yet, I also would not have existed if Europeans hadn't brought a plague that wiped out millions of Native Americans. It's horrible history but we need to learn as much of it in as many facets as we can. Brigham Young presided over his Utah empire that benefits me today. But the work of millions of slaves also built a country that nested the birth of this American religion. And we mostly do not name universities after them or build monuments to remember them in any comparable way. And they don't even have their own names. So much to disagree with here, but let that be. I wonder if you would be willing to consider that you are stuck looking at causes and effects from a single ideologically informed perspective. When the Black Death decimated Europe and especially Britain, a good case can be made that Chinese disregard for her people's welfare and Turkish military adventurism are the proximate causes of the radical depopulation. Yet there were effects not foreseeable. Depopulation meant that labor and laborers became rarer and more dear. Serfdom disappeared in Britain in a single generation, as the landowner granting the greatest concessions to labor attracted the best laborers, regardless that labor technically belonged to somebody else. Enforcement of preexisting social contracts became impossible. Thus the Commons gained extraordinary power. And this led to the British Construction and the American Revolution and the US Constitution and the abolition of slavery. All of those are wonderful effects from arguably nefarious causes immeasurably more malignant than the Priesthood Ban and BY selling winking at slavery and otherwise playing political games in public, with Southern Guns trained on his house and Temple Square by the occupying Southern soldiers and Southern officers on the hill. I see nobody on the Political Left blaming the Turks and Chinese for intentionally causing the Black Death. I see few people willing to contextualize XIXth Century geniuses and praise them for all they got so very right. Instead all we see is name-calling. T'aint right. 1
CV75 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, USU78 said: So much to disagree with here, but let that be. I wonder if you would be willing to consider that you are stuck looking at causes and effects from a single ideologically informed perspective. When the Black Death decimated Europe and especially Britain, a good case can be made that Chinese disregard for her people's welfare and Turkish military adventurism are the proximate causes of the radical depopulation. Yet there were effects not foreseeable. Depopulation meant that labor and laborers became rarer and more dear. Serfdom disappeared in Britain in a single generation, as the landowner granting the greatest concessions to labor attracted the best laborers, regardless that labor technically belonged to somebody else. Enforcement of preexisting social contracts became impossible. Thus the Commons gained extraordinary power. And this led to the British Construction and the American Revolution and the US Constitution and the abolition of slavery. All of those are wonderful effects from arguably nefarious causes immeasurably more malignant than the Priesthood Ban and BY selling winking at slavery and otherwise playing political games in public, with Southern Guns trained on his house and Temple Square by the occupying Southern soldiers and Southern officers on the hill. I see nobody on the Political Left blaming the Turks and Chinese for intentionally causing the Black Death. I see few people willing to contextualize XIXth Century geniuses and praise them for all they got so very right. Instead all we see is name-calling. T'aint right. I see that I am being replied to with Meadowchick, but I'm not sure which post of mine you are referring to. So I will assume it is our shared view that the roots of American (and British) slavery were economic, but that the idea that an inherent superiority/inferiority of race was used to justify/bolster the argument for its continuance, and these ideas were subsequently perpetuated after slavery was stopped. But yes, I am "willing to consider that [ I ] am stuck looking at causes and effects from a single ideologically informed perspective." What is another cause and effect that I might consider for the existence of racism in America? That understanding might impact some of the approaches I would endorse. When people have differing understandings of how racism came about, yet agree that it is destructive for all concerned, they might settle upon the most universally applicable solutions/compromises, both on personal and systemic levels. And continue to improve from there of course. Edited June 22, 2020 by CV75 1
USU78 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: I see that I am being replied to with Meadowchick, but I'm not sure which post of mine you are referring to. So I will assume it is our shared view that the roots of American (and British) slavery were economic, but that the idea that an inherent superiority/inferiority of race was used to justify/bolster the argument for its continuance, and these ideas were subsequently perpetuated after slavery was stopped. But yes, I am "willing to consider that [ I ] am stuck looking at causes and effects from a single ideologically informed perspective." What is another cause and effect that I might consider for the existence of racism in America? That understanding might impact some of the approaches I would endorse. When people have differing understandings of how racism came about, yet agree that it is destructive for all concerned, they might settle upon the most universally applicable solutions/compromises, both on personal and systemic levels. And continue to improve from there of course. You were included because I am a technopeasant. Sometimes the quote function creates weird effects. I am not interested in exploring so-called racism, for reasons set forth in my locked thread on the sister board. If you'd care to look at my thread there, then post any questions here, I'd be happy to respond to the extent possible without triggering a fight. Don't wanna fight.
Storm Rider Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 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? Hostility? No mam. That is in your mind and has not been expressed by me in any degree. You take that accusation and apply it when it is real. I don't think any nation, from the beginning of the world, has ever "addressed it's heritage" for slavery or for any damage it has done. If you define reparations as a levy on a defeated country to pay some of the war costs of the winning countries - the traditional definition - very, very few countries have paid their full amount. I know that Finland did after WWII to Russia. Has the US paid for slavery specifically? Yes, absolutely. What was the cost of the Civil War? What was the cost in lives? I cannot even find a figure of what has been spent to meet Civil Rights objectives - what is evident, is that we have spent billions, if not trillions, and have fallen far short of our goals. Not for lack of effort or desire and certainly not because the Federal Purse was not open. One race never fixes another race with money. Only a racial snob would think that any race could "repair the damage done". I have read that maybe 5% of today's white race has any degree of generational responsibility for slavery. Should we just tax those whites into penury - over and above everything the Nation has already paid - to satisfy those blacks that descended from slavery? Or, is it all whites that should pay? What about the American Indians that owned slaves - will they be taxed? How about the free blacks that owned slaves - will they also pay? Slavery has never been owned by whites. Every race has owned slaves from blacks, Indians, Spaniards, etc., and whites. 1
rodheadlee Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 11 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 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. No it does not represent a healthier understanding of history, it washes it of perceived evils. You do understand statues are how we know what people looked like before the invention of the camera. If we knocked down statues of all the sinners there won't be any statues left.
Calm Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 15 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: No it does not represent a healthier understanding of history, it washes it of perceived evils. You do understand statues are how we know what people looked like before the invention of the camera. If we knocked down statues of all the sinners there won't be any statues left. There are other options besides knocking them down. A museum would be most appropriate imo as one will have a better chance of learning the context of that person’s life and choices than they would just passing the statue on the street. People learn little by just seeing a statue. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 3 hours ago, rodheadlee said: No it does not represent a healthier understanding of history, it washes it of perceived evils. You do understand statues are how we know what people looked like before the invention of the camera. If we knocked down statues of all the sinners there won't be any statues left. It could represent a healthier way, if we're also committed to teaching more historical perspectives. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 7 hours ago, USU78 said: So much to disagree with here, but let that be. I wonder if you would be willing to consider that you are stuck looking at causes and effects from a single ideologically informed perspective. When the Black Death decimated Europe and especially Britain, a good case can be made that Chinese disregard for her people's welfare and Turkish military adventurism are the proximate causes of the radical depopulation. Yet there were effects not foreseeable. Depopulation meant that labor and laborers became rarer and more dear. Serfdom disappeared in Britain in a single generation, as the landowner granting the greatest concessions to labor attracted the best laborers, regardless that labor technically belonged to somebody else. Enforcement of preexisting social contracts became impossible. Thus the Commons gained extraordinary power. And this led to the British Construction and the American Revolution and the US Constitution and the abolition of slavery. All of those are wonderful effects from arguably nefarious causes immeasurably more malignant than the Priesthood Ban and BY selling winking at slavery and otherwise playing political games in public, with Southern Guns trained on his house and Temple Square by the occupying Southern soldiers and Southern officers on the hill. I see nobody on the Political Left blaming the Turks and Chinese for intentionally causing the Black Death. I see few people willing to contextualize XIXth Century geniuses and praise them for all they got so very right. Instead all we see is name-calling. T'aint right. I'm an American so calling out the US to be accountable for its institutional role in slavery and the continued oppression of Black people since, is one of my duties. I am a BYU alumnus and was a believing member of the LDS church for 40 years, so calling out the church for its institutional role in perpetuating white supremacy is a moral duty. We're all born in a rushing current of history, and we cannot change what has already happened. But... "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in." -Desmond Tutu
Meadowchik Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Hostility? No mam. That is in your mind and has not been expressed by me in any degree. You take that accusation and apply it when it is real. I don't think any nation, from the beginning of the world, has ever "addressed it's heritage" for slavery or for any damage it has done. If you define reparations as a levy on a defeated country to pay some of the war costs of the winning countries - the traditional definition - very, very few countries have paid their full amount. I know that Finland did after WWII to Russia. Has the US paid for slavery specifically? Yes, absolutely. What was the cost of the Civil War? What was the cost in lives? I cannot even find a figure of what has been spent to meet Civil Rights objectives - what is evident, is that we have spent billions, if not trillions, and have fallen far short of our goals. Not for lack of effort or desire and certainly not because the Federal Purse was not open. One race never fixes another race with money. Only a racial snob would think that any race could "repair the damage done". I have read that maybe 5% of today's white race has any degree of generational responsibility for slavery. Should we just tax those whites into penury - over and above everything the Nation has already paid - to satisfy those blacks that descended from slavery? Or, is it all whites that should pay? What about the American Indians that owned slaves - will they be taxed? How about the free blacks that owned slaves - will they also pay? Slavery has never been owned by whites. Every race has owned slaves from blacks, Indians, Spaniards, etc., and whites. Yes, we've fallen short of our goals! And many were actively subverted. So we can continue to try to do better. Areas of urgency include prevention of police brutality and reforming the criminal justice system. And the church could issue an unambiguous, authoritative apology.
CV75 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 12 hours ago, USU78 said: You were included because I am a technopeasant. Sometimes the quote function creates weird effects. I am not interested in exploring so-called racism, for reasons set forth in my locked thread on the sister board. If you'd care to look at my thread there, then post any questions here, I'd be happy to respond to the extent possible without triggering a fight. Don't wanna fight. I don't even know what the sister board is!
Recommended Posts