Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Tacenda]

Wow, they just keep coming, things you don't learn in school.  I have American flags all over my house, in yard etc. But I'm not feeling America deserves the praise at this moment. It's systematic.. @Amulek @Kenngo1969 These articles, I've been posting with the police questioning the blacks etc. seems like it's been built in. If you read the below or listen, you'll see that. I didn't know these things happened to this extent until today.

In 1866, one year after the 13th Amendment was ratified (the amendment that ended slavery), Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina began to lease out convicts for labor (peonage). This made the business of arresting Blacks very lucrative, which is why hundreds of White men were hired by these states as police officers. Their primary responsibility was to search out and arrest Blacks who were in violation of Black Codes. Once arrested, these men, women and children would be leased to plantations where they would harvest cotton, tobacco, sugar cane. Or they would be leased to work at coal mines, or railroad companies. The owners of these businesses would pay the state for every prisoner who worked for them; prison labor.

It is believed that after the passing of the 13th Amendment, more than 800,000 Blacks were part of the system of peonage, or re-enslavement through the prison system. Peonage didn’t end until after World War II began, around 1940.

This is how it happened.

The 13th Amendment declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Ratified in 1865)

Did you catch that? It says, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude could occur except as a punishment for a crime". Lawmakers used this phrase to make petty offenses crimes. When Blacks were found guilty of committing these crimes, they were imprisoned and then leased out to the same businesses that lost slaves after the passing of the 13th Amendment. This system of convict labor is called peonage.

The majority of White Southern farmers and business owners hated the 13th Amendment because it took away slave labor. As a way to appease them, the federal government turned a blind eye when southern states used this clause in the 13th Amendment to establish laws called Black Codes. Here are some examples of Black Codes:

In Louisiana, it was illegal for a Black man to preach to Black congregations without special permission in writing from the president of the police. If caught, he could be arrested and fined. If he could not pay the fines, which were unbelievably high, he would be forced to work for an individual, or go to jail or prison where he would work until his debt was paid off.

If a Black person did not have a job, he or she could be arrested and imprisoned on the charge of vagrancy or loitering.

This next Black Code will make you cringe. In South Carolina, if the parent of a Black child was considered vagrant, the judicial system allowed the police and/or other government agencies to “apprentice” the child to an "employer". Males could be held until the age of 21, and females could be held until they were 18. Their owner had the legal right to inflict punishment on the child for disobedience, and to recapture them if they ran away.

This (peonage) is an example of systemic racism - Racism established and perpetuated by government systems. Slavery was made legal by the U.S. Government. Segregation, Black Codes, Jim Crow and peonage were all made legal by the government, and upheld by the judicial system. These acts of racism were built into the system, which is where the term “Systemic Racism” is derived.

This is the part of "Black History" that most of us were never told about.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Seems to me achievable goals actually achieved are preferable to perfection never approached.

If "not getting killed by the police" using unreasonable force is an unachievable perfection then I understand why people would rather just not have police.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, they just keep coming, things you don't learn in school.  I have American flags all over my house in yard etc. But I'm not feeling America deserves the praise at this moment.

The kind of flag-waving patriotism that considers having problems with your country or speaking out about them as a kind of informal lese-majeste is nationalism dressed up as patriotism. There is a reason that those who would most corrupt a nation try to give its flags and symbols a sacral air while undermining anything that is good.

I am still proud and happy about the American Experiment and the progress it has made but it started out small and its promises of liberty were circumscribed to only some people. Then they expanded slowly and fitfully and there was kicking and screaming a lot of the time. At the risk of a bit of a stretched Book of Mormon metaphor we are going through another phase to find out if the freemen or the kingmen are going to win the round.

Edited June 29, 2020 by The Nehor

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/27/2020 at 9:45 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

"It's only a ..." has gotten more than a few police officers killed, Tacenda.  And "racial profiling"?  Tell me again which one of the officers mentioned race, and when?  Listen to police officers?  Yep.  Do what they tell you to do, even if you think they're being unreasonable?  Yep.  Later on, you can complain to anyone who will listen about how racist, unreasonable, et cetera the cops were being.  The media eat that stuff up, so it's not as if you won't find anyone to listen to you. You can complain to the officer's department.  You can file a complaint with the agency responsible for certifying police officers in the jurisdiction.  And you can even file a lawsuit if you want to do that.  But then and there?  Yep.  Listen.  Do exactly what they tell you to do, exactly when they tell you to do it.

 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because otherwise you might get killed.

That is a problem. In fact that is the current problem.

Hmm.  Blood must be running in the streets, then.  (Oh.  Wait.  That's just some red paint that some protesters dumped in the street as a publicity stunt.  My bad.  But don't worry.  Protesters taxpayers will pay to have the street repainted.)

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

@Tacenda implicitly demonizing your interlocutors for their alleged historical ignorance (or, more accurately, imputing your own historical ignorance to them) is not "Step 1" in Good-Faith Dialogue, Tacenda.  Just sayin'!

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  Blood must be running in the streets, then.  (Oh.  Wait.  That's just some red paint that some protesters dumped in the street as a publicity stunt.  My bad.  But don't worry.  Protesters taxpayers will pay to have the street repainted.)

I find it hard to get worked up over a relatively trivial clean up fee when the main topic is extrajudicial murder by government actors. To run with the cliche it is like Mrs. Lincoln actually giving her take on the play she saw and complaining that one actor really botched the role and kept missing his lines and she feels the tickets should now be discounted.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it hard to get worked up over a relatively trivial clean up fee when the main topic is extrajudicial murder by government actors. To run with the cliche it is like Mrs. Lincoln actually giving her take on the play she saw and complaining that one actor really botched the role and kept missing his lines and she feels the tickets should now be discounted.

The sanctimony being engaged in here by you and others is a bit much for me.  I think I'll bow out.  Thanks.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The sanctimony being engaged in here by you and others is a bit much for me.  I think I'll bow out.  Thanks.

I am not sure how else to talk about human life and murder.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If "not getting killed by the police" using unreasonable force is an unachievable perfection then I understand why people would rather just not have police.

"Unreasonable" being defined as  ... ?  [please don't say, if someone gets shot or tazed it's per se unreasonable  ---  when, as my cop buddy says, a 6'8 350 lb guy covered with his own excrement and in a state of sexual excitement, brandishing two samurai swords, is advancing on you screaming, "Give me my jello!", it's reasonable]

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure how else to talk about human life and murder.

You can't resist being a sanctimonious twit?  Okay, gotcha.  I'll remember that going forward.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can't resist being a sanctimonious twit?  Okay, gotcha.  I'll remember that going forward.

If there is one thing everyone on this board can agree on it is that I give things undue reverential gravity and insist on seriousness and decorum at all times.

[Tacenda]

Sorry to stir up trouble, not my intention at all.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Hi Kevin, thanks for the link. I was not totally sure even though the time period seemed to match, but do you agree that the journal entry was likely written in Brigham Young's hand?

I am aware of a handful of statements by Brigham Young that get tossed around for current shock value.  I haven't explored that particular journal entry.  I would be more concerned if there were a number of public discourses in which that sort of thing was the main topic by Brigham Young, if he declared it as the theme of a conference, for instance, or if he led or caused incidents like Rosewood or Tulsa in Utah, rather than a handful of statements over a long and productive lifetime of leadership and public service.  The importance of the Stirling's review is that it provides deep background and important origins for everything objectonable any 19th or 20th century LDS said on the topic of Noah's curse and Cananites.  Such statements derived from a widespread Biblical reading now known to be wrong anthropologically as well as religiously. The books that Stirling reviews demonstrate just who invented the reading and why.  (It was not the original authors of Genesis.)  I pretty sure that Brigham Young no longer holds such opinions and I am also confident he would not want such statements to serve as his definining legacy.  And I've known about the unvalient spirit gossip that Brooks mentions, for shock value, as no more than ignorant speculation and that it has been refuted many times. Stating that the such gossip is circulated only by the uninformed and credulous members would not be as sensational, nor serve her desire to shock. That is why some things get mentioned in the press and other things, such as Nibley's powerful essay on "Brigham Young and the Enemy" which has not dated at all, and is powerfully relevant, gets ignored in the popular press.   Personally, I prefer not to be reduced to the sum of my worst moments, and am confident that those who might do so, cannot be said to really know me.  There are better ways to get to know Brigham Young and the LDS.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Unreasonable" being defined as  ... ?  [please don't say, if someone gets shot or tazed it's per se unreasonable  ---  when, as my cop buddy says, a 6'8 350 lb guy covered with his own excrement and in a state of sexual excitement, brandishing two samurai swords, is advancing on you screaming, "Give me my jello!", it's reasonable]

There are cases where deadly force is warranted and I am more liberal in that interpretation than most protesters. I have enough training in fighting to know that you act on impulse and not reason. I think a lot of the problem situations we face are due to improper impulse training.

Also, was your cop buddy David? If so these added details make that whole story come to life.

As an aside I think giving police tazers was a misstep. Their 'non-lethal' nature ends with them getting used too often. What stats have been collected seem to bear that out and they are used in situations where they are not just being used as a less lethal alternative to a firearm. I do (ironically) think police should get more training in combat. Most barely train with their sidearm. Most get a little hand to hand training but it is not a lot. Giving them the training bouncers get at a club would be an improvement. Those people know how to deescalate and/or  restrain someone without the need for the threat of deadly force. Of course deadly force is sometimes warranted.

[Kenngo1969]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If there is one thing everyone on this board can agree on it is that I give things undue reverential gravity and insist on seriousness and decorum at all times.

That's one side of you.  The other side of you is a condescending, sanctimonious, supercilious twit.

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I am aware of a handful of statements by Brigham Young that get tossed around for current shock value.  I haven't explored that particular journal entry.  I would be more concerned if there were a number of public discourses in which that sort of thing was the main topic by Brigham Young, if he declared it as the theme of a conference, for instance, or if he led or caused incidents like Rosewood or Tulsa in Utah, rather than a handful of statements over a long and productive lifetime of leadership and public service.  The importance of the Stirling's review is that it provides deep background and important origins for everything objectonable any 19th or 20th century LDS said on the topic of Noah's curse and Cananites.  Such statements derived from a widespread Biblical reading now known to be wrong anthropologically as well as religiously. The books that Stirling reviews demonstrate just who invented the reading and why.  (It was not the original authors of Genesis.)  I pretty sure that Brigham Young no longer holds such opinions and I am also confident he would not want such statements to serve as his definining legacy.  And I've known about the unvalient spirit gossip that Brooks mentions, for shock value, as no more than ignorant speculation and that it has been refuted many times. Stating that the such gossip is circulated only by the uninformed and credulous members would not be as sensational, nor serve her desire to shock. That is why some things get mentioned in the press and other things, such as Nibley's powerful essay on "Brigham Young and the Enemy" which has not dated at all, and is powerfully relevant, gets ignored in the popular press.   Personally, I prefer not to be reduced to the sum of my worst moments, and am confident that those who might do so, cannot be said to really know me.  There are better ways to get to know Brigham Young and the LDS.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Okay, thanks. So are you saying that it is a journal entry? Brooks calls it a "journal entry."

As to the rest of your commentary, my interest in Brigham Young in this thread is his role in advancing white supremacy in Utah and surrounding areas. Regarding any final judgement on his soul, I have no opinion.

I can personally say that ideas he advanced did manage to filter down to my lifetime and hurt me, through the church. I can only imagine then, that he has contributed to greater harm that others currently experience as racist attitudes in the church. If that is the case, then correcting those harms would be an excellent way to honour the good things Brigham Young did do. 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, they just keep coming, things you don't learn in school.  I have American flags all over my house, in yard etc. But I'm not feeling America deserves the praise at this moment. It's systematic.. @Amulek @Kenngo1969 These articles, I've been posting with the police questioning the blacks etc. seems like it's been built in. If you read the below or listen, you'll see that. I didn't know these things happened to this extent until today.

In 1866, one year after the 13th Amendment was ratified (the amendment that ended slavery), Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina began to lease out convicts for labor (peonage). This made the business of arresting Blacks very lucrative, which is why hundreds of White men were hired by these states as police officers. Their primary responsibility was to search out and arrest Blacks who were in violation of Black Codes. Once arrested, these men, women and children would be leased to plantations where they would harvest cotton, tobacco, sugar cane. Or they would be leased to work at coal mines, or railroad companies. The owners of these businesses would pay the state for every prisoner who worked for them; prison labor.

It is believed that after the passing of the 13th Amendment, more than 800,000 Blacks were part of the system of peonage, or re-enslavement through the prison system. Peonage didn’t end until after World War II began, around 1940.

This is how it happened.

The 13th Amendment declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Ratified in 1865)

Did you catch that? It says, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude could occur except as a punishment for a crime". Lawmakers used this phrase to make petty offenses crimes. When Blacks were found guilty of committing these crimes, they were imprisoned and then leased out to the same businesses that lost slaves after the passing of the 13th Amendment. This system of convict labor is called peonage.

The majority of White Southern farmers and business owners hated the 13th Amendment because it took away slave labor. As a way to appease them, the federal government turned a blind eye when southern states used this clause in the 13th Amendment to establish laws called Black Codes. Here are some examples of Black Codes:

In Louisiana, it was illegal for a Black man to preach to Black congregations without special permission in writing from the president of the police. If caught, he could be arrested and fined. If he could not pay the fines, which were unbelievably high, he would be forced to work for an individual, or go to jail or prison where he would work until his debt was paid off.

If a Black person did not have a job, he or she could be arrested and imprisoned on the charge of vagrancy or loitering.

This next Black Code will make you cringe. In South Carolina, if the parent of a Black child was considered vagrant, the judicial system allowed the police and/or other government agencies to “apprentice” the child to an "employer". Males could be held until the age of 21, and females could be held until they were 18. Their owner had the legal right to inflict punishment on the child for disobedience, and to recapture them if they ran away.

This (peonage) is an example of systemic racism - Racism established and perpetuated by government systems. Slavery was made legal by the U.S. Government. Segregation, Black Codes, Jim Crow and peonage were all made legal by the government, and upheld by the judicial system. These acts of racism were built into the system, which is where the term “Systemic Racism” is derived.

This is the part of "Black History" that most of us were never told about.

 

History has an unending amount to learn. This type of post makes me think of when should it be taught. Most of the history classes most people take until college are just barely scratching the surface rather an in-depth study of any specific era or historical period. 

It seems like today in most universities Western Civilization is tossed out the window - much too white folk-centric for the Elitists - and replaced by such pseudo-history such as Feminism and Black studies. These topics are not intellectual endeavors, but rather opportunities for twisting minds and programming them to not think, but be outraged due to their extremely narrow perspective. 

One thing that could be addressed more is historical perspective. For example, Western Civilization within the context world history. This just adds additional requirements for college students, but it would be worthwhile. I wished I had pursued a better understanding of Asian histories. 

Another would be an honest viewpoint of our founding fathers and other cultural heroes.  For example, teaching about historical figures in the full light of their humanity. Who owned slaves, who was a drunk, etc. This help to understand that they were each human rather than perfect individuals. I was surprised to learn tidbits of the foibles of these cultural heroes. In this time when so much focus is on ensuring that our Founding Fathers and anyone else is judged solely through the lens of the sin du jour, racism, we should also look the sins of others. The Rosa Parks story was premeditated rather than the action of an innocent black woman. Rosa's story lost much of its luster for me when I discovered this.  Martin Luther King's interest in Marxism and Marxism's role in guiding early black leaders, King's behavior as a married preacher and his countless extramarital affairs.  

If there is a demand for knowing the truth, then let us know the truth of all people rather than attempting to shield any one group or race. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

"Unreasonable" being defined as  ... ?  [please don't say, if someone gets shot or tazed it's per se unreasonable  ---  when, as my cop buddy says, a 6'8 350 lb guy covered with his own excrement and in a state of sexual excitement, brandishing two samurai swords, is advancing on you screaming, "Give me my jello!", it's reasonable]

And this happens in how many cases?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

History has an unending amount to learn. This type of post makes me think of when should it be taught. Most of the history classes most people take until college are just barely scratching the surface rather an in-depth study of any specific era or historical period. 

It seems like today in most universities Western Civilization is tossed out the window - much too white folk-centric for the Elitists - and replaced by such pseudo-history such as Feminism and Black studies. These topics are not intellectual endeavors, but rather opportunities for twisting minds and programming them to not think, but be outraged due to their extremely narrow perspective. 

One thing that could be addressed more is historical perspective. For example, Western Civilization within the context world history. This just adds additional requirements for college students, but it would be worthwhile. I wished I had pursued a better understanding of Asian histories. 

Another would be an honest viewpoint of our founding fathers and other cultural heroes.  For example, teaching about historical figures in the full light of their humanity. Who owned slaves, who was a drunk, etc. This help to understand that they were each human rather than perfect individuals. I was surprised to learn tidbits of the foibles of these cultural heroes. In this time when so much focus is on ensuring that our Founding Fathers and anyone else is judged solely through the lens of the sin du jour, racism, we should also look the sins of others. The Rosa Parks story was premeditated rather than the action of an innocent black woman. Rosa's story lost much of its luster for me when I discovered this.  Martin Luther King's interest in Marxism and Marxism's role in guiding early black leaders, King's behavior as a married preacher and his countless extramarital affairs.  

If there is a demand for knowing the truth, then let us know the truth of all people rather than attempting to shield any one group or race. 

 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

History has an unending amount to learn. This type of post makes me think of when should it be taught. Most of the history classes most people take until college are just barely scratching the surface rather an in-depth study of any specific era or historical period. 

It seems like today in most universities Western Civilization is tossed out the window - much too white folk-centric for the Elitists - and replaced by such pseudo-history such as Feminism and Black studies. These topics are not intellectual endeavors, but rather opportunities for twisting minds and programming them to not think, but be outraged due to their extremely narrow perspective. 

One thing that could be addressed more is historical perspective. For example, Western Civilization within the context world history. This just adds additional requirements for college students, but it would be worthwhile. I wished I had pursued a better understanding of Asian histories. 

Another would be an honest viewpoint of our founding fathers and other cultural heroes.  For example, teaching about historical figures in the full light of their humanity. Who owned slaves, who was a drunk, etc. This help to understand that they were each human rather than perfect individuals. I was surprised to learn tidbits of the foibles of these cultural heroes. In this time when so much focus is on ensuring that our Founding Fathers and anyone else is judged solely through the lens of the sin du jour, racism, we should also look the sins of others. The Rosa Parks story was premeditated rather than the action of an innocent black woman. Rosa's story lost much of its luster for me when I discovered this.  Martin Luther King's interest in Marxism and Marxism's role in guiding early black leaders, King's behavior as a married preacher and his countless extramarital affairs.  

If there is a demand for knowing the truth, then let us know the truth of all people rather than attempting to shield any one group or race. 

To the bold, I agree somewhat. Just like my analogy, or maybe I read it and adopted it...all houses matter, but when one is on fire, we worry about that one first.