Jump to content

New Source/Analysis on Brigham Young and Racism


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Your comments here remind me exactly of the movie,"The Help". Their relations with the maid/nanny were very close but they couldn't ever show that in a white group setting. 

The problem with your statement is that it was mutual for the society. This is not an absolute rule, but one that was observed by most people. 

It is funny how difficult this is to describe - that it was complex - every time I say any thing it seems like it is immediately taken to the worst possible perspective. There is no complexity; but almost a need for people to make a caricature of reality. Strange how desperately individuals want to hang on to their own prejudices. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to post
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The problem with your statement is that it was mutual for the society. This is not an absolute rule, but one that was observed by most people. 

It is funny how difficult this is to describe - that it was complex - every time I say any thing it seems like it is immediately taken to the worst possible perspective. There is no complexity; but almost a need for people to make a caricature of reality. Strange how desperately individuals want to hang on to their own prejudices. 

No I was agreeing for the most part that these people in the south did have good relations as you described in one post, or I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

If you've seen the movie, I've seen it a few times, there were families that were good people that employed the nannies/maids. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
On 7/1/2020 at 5:17 PM, Storm Rider said:

The problem with your statement is that it was mutual for the society. This is not an absolute rule, but one that was observed by most people. 

It is funny how difficult this is to describe - that it was complex - every time I say any thing it seems like it is immediately taken to the worst possible perspective. There is no complexity; but almost a need for people to make a caricature of reality. Strange how desperately individuals want to hang on to their own prejudices. 

I think you're a little jumpy because of the initial reactions you've experienced in this thread.

When I lived in Toronto, Canada 1967-1969 I was friends with two young men from South Africa. One, Ian, was White and the other, Deon, was Coloured.  Note the capitalizations.  I was their mutual friend, but they didn't have a personal relationship, though they knew each other.  Once I asked Deon about his family's experience of Apartheid. He gave a casual throwaway gesture and averred that it hadn't bothered them much.  I mentioned this later to Ian, and he frowned and said, "Well, maybe it didn't bother them, but it sure bothered us." I gather that both families left because of Apartheid  I've thought about that occasionally for years.  Though Deon wasn't going to let it bog him down, it seemed, now that he was out of that box.  

My family drove from Southern California through Louisiana back in 1967 (on the way to Toronto). We stopped for fuel at a gas station along the bayou, and I went to go the toilets.  There were three doors: Men; Women; and Colored.  I guess I had read about this, but it stopped me in my tracks to see it.  It was nearly soul-crushing, and I couldn't get it out of my head everytime I heard mention of Louisiana, or even of the South.  It was just Wrong.  I think that the Colored door thing was on its way out by then, but... it makes me cringe to this day.

Katie, one of my great great grandmothers hid in an attic in Oroville, California, holding her baby son (one of my great granduncles), as she watched militiamen driving her parents and her two sisters, along with a few hundred of the rest of her tribe, out of town on the way to a totally inadequate reservation. Only 2/3rds of them made it alive, some running away, but others dying or being killed. That was back in the 1860s. Some call it racism, but it wasn't just racism, it was racism mixed with greed, because the land that was stolen was valuable for many things, including gold. Fortunately, all of my great great grandmother's children survived to prosper, including her fourth son, my great grandfather John. John grew up to become an extremely successful mineral prospector, and his name can be found on a lot of gold and silver claims. When Katie died, he was the informant for her death certificate and he had the term "White" put on the certificate in the space designating her race. My father told me he did this so as to spit in the face of all those who had denigrated her while she was alive, to say that she was just as good as the rest of them, if not better.

I hate racism.  Deeply.

Link to post
21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I hate racism.  Deeply.

Kind of the default position virtually all folks, I've found. It's deeply wounding to have this challenged by serial assertion, especially upon such sparse evidence. Hard to have any respect at all for the serial asserters.

  • Like 1
Link to post

It's called tribalism folks. If one group of blacks hate and try to kill off a different group of blacks can that be racism? If the Poles hate the Irish is that racism? No ! that is discrimination based on tribes or " the others " . Go to Japan and see if there is a subtle discrimination against Americans . In Cuba the people of Spanish descent discriminated against the Blacks and also the native born. Is it possible that Blacks discriminate against whites? You wouldn't think so from the coverage in the media but if you listen carefully to the audio, racial slurs abound in the protests. 

We are  hypocrites because deep down we all have some individual or group that we categorize without thinking much about it. How's that for an assertion? Even God has a " chosen people " Sometimes they are chosen by genetics but more often by behavior/obedience. 

We look at a car or house and make assumptions about wealth and status. We listen to an accent and judge intelligence. We  see a particular body type and assume athletic ability. It isn't a great big leap from that to judging based only on skin. We are to overcome the natural man so this " flaw " in our nature is one we can all work on I guess.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2020 at 11:06 AM, Tacenda said:

No I was agreeing for the most part that these people in the south did have good relations as you described in one post, or I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

If you've seen the movie, I've seen it a few times, there were families that were good people that employed the nannies/maids. 

The book was written by a white woman, the movie directed by a white man. Blacks in those relationships might have a different view or rather views as unlikely one size fits all. 
 

https://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)

Interesting article, you guys sure get some interesting stuff, big reason why I come back.  Someone mind educating me a bit here?  My understanding was most folks back in those days were quite racist.  The whole mark of cain thing?  Uh, I thought that wasn't just you guys, that was pretty much everyone.  We had the AME Zion branch of Christianity and the Prince Hall Branch of Freemasonry come about because of racism.  Why is it you guys always seem to get this stuff pinned on you when, far as I can tell it's a lot of the other folks who are far worse about it?  Always thought it was unfair how you guys got stuck with the racist label to this day when everyone back then had it then seemed to collectively shut up about it and act like it never existed/happened.  The one drop rule applied even to me because of mom and IRL I'm about as fair as they come, only thing is I tan a bit.  Funny, the same people who applied that same racism to me?  All high, mighty and hypocritical in the public light and yep, they loooooove Jesus on social media.  Far as I can tell, next to say, the Catholic Church and some high protestant churches mostly overseas, you guys are really the only ones doing anything civil rights wise as far as Christian based religions go.

Edited by poptart
Link to post
On 7/4/2020 at 5:43 AM, poptart said:

Interesting article, you guys sure get some interesting stuff, big reason why I come back.  Someone mind educating me a bit here?  My understanding was most folks back in those days were quite racist.  The whole mark of cain thing?  Uh, I thought that wasn't just you guys, that was pretty much everyone.  We had the AME Zion branch of Christianity and the Prince Hall Branch of Freemasonry come about because of racism.  Why is it you guys always seem to get this stuff pinned on you when, far as I can tell it's a lot of the other folks who are far worse about it?  Always thought it was unfair how you guys got stuck with the racist label to this day when everyone back then had it then seemed to collectively shut up about it and act like it never existed/happened.  The one drop rule applied even to me because of mom and IRL I'm about as fair as they come, only thing is I tan a bit.  Funny, the same people who applied that same racism to me?  All high, mighty and hypocritical in the public light and yep, they loooooove Jesus on social media.  Far as I can tell, next to say, the Catholic Church and some high protestant churches mostly overseas, you guys are really the only ones doing anything civil rights wise as far as Christian based religions go.

Because the Church claims to have a prophet of God and the racism in the Church came from God as a revelation.  Just my guess.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because the Church claims to have a prophet of God and the racism in the Church came from God as a revelation.  Just my guess.

So, that means if things get really bad here we can see how all that plays out if people lose it?  If they're right, then deity will intervene, if not, whelp.....

Either way, free entertainment ahoy!

Here's a rubric we can use, it's a classic.  Converted so many people back in the day, sorta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal

Edited by poptart
  • Like 1
Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 10:06 AM, Tacenda said:

 

If you've seen the movie, I've seen it a few times, there were families that were good people that employed the nannies/maids. 

My wife employs maids.  Thanks for not thinking we are racists.  And that we can qualify as "good people".  Whatever that means.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

My wife employs maids.  Thanks for not thinking we are racists.  And that we can qualify as "good people".  Whatever that means.:rolleyes:

This was in the movie "Help", that my statement was about. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/4/2020 at 7:43 AM, poptart said:

Interesting article, you guys sure get some interesting stuff, big reason why I come back.  Someone mind educating me a bit here?  My understanding was most folks back in those days were quite racist.  The whole mark of cain thing?  Uh, I thought that wasn't just you guys, that was pretty much everyone.  We had the AME Zion branch of Christianity and the Prince Hall Branch of Freemasonry come about because of racism.  Why is it you guys always seem to get this stuff pinned on you when, far as I can tell it's a lot of the other folks who are far worse about it?  Always thought it was unfair how you guys got stuck with the racist label to this day when everyone back then had it then seemed to collectively shut up about it and act like it never existed/happened.  The one drop rule applied even to me because of mom and IRL I'm about as fair as they come, only thing is I tan a bit.  Funny, the same people who applied that same racism to me?  All high, mighty and hypocritical in the public light and yep, they loooooove Jesus on social media.  Far as I can tell, next to say, the Catholic Church and some high protestant churches mostly overseas, you guys are really the only ones doing anything civil rights wise as far as Christian based religions go.

While the mark of Cain thing was not exclusive or original to our Church some did pick it up. There was an attempt to use a verse in the Book of Abraham to justify it:

Quote

 

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

Of course even if you could somehow tie Egypt to all the inhabitants of Africa you hit an obvious snag in those verses. They are blessed with wisdom and the blessings of the earth. Even if that did deny them Priesthood and took it to suggest that interracial marriage is unwise why would you segregate against them or consider them inferior. I would like people with those blessings to be around and in positions of secular power even if they could not hold religious power. A strange thing to come out of that verse with racism.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 6/29/2020 at 4:35 AM, Meadowchik said:

....................................

Also, the the author of the analysis in the OP uses Brigham Young's contradictory reported statements to question the scribe's accuracy, as if people cannot or do not contradict themselves in one breath. Yet, we have ample examples today of a prominent person speaking just like that. Unfortunately we know that there are people who speak out of both sides of their mouth, even within the span of minutes and before the same audience in the same speech. One memorable example to me was the speech of the POTUS (before he was elected) after the Pulse shooting in Florida. So leaders do speak like that and even still prevail politically, by the way, in case there is any question on that point.

LDS church member Joanna Brooks has a book coming out very soon, Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence, the Amazon description reads:

............................................

While it is certainly clear that Brigham Young was racist, and thus had rejected the teachings of Joseph Smith (and reemphasized for him by Orson Pratt), Joanna Brooks has her own set of flaws:  She exaggerates the racism among modern LDS members.  The claims she makes do reflect my own experience of over 50 years ago, but I have seen nothing like that today.  A sea change has taken place, and Brooks just doesn't seem to get that.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is certainly clear that Brigham Young was racist, and thus had rejected the teachings of Joseph Smith (and reemphasized for him by Orson Pratt), Joanna Brooks has her own set of flaws:  She exaggerates the racism among modern LDS members.  The claims she makes do reflect my own experience of over 50 years ago, but I have seen nothing like that today.  A sea change has taken place, and Brooks just doesn't seem to get that.

Would you like to be more specific? Like with quotes of hers?

Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Would you like to be more specific? Like with quotes of hers?

I was referring directly to the quote you gave:

Quote

LDS church member Joanna Brooks has a book coming out very soon, Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence, the Amazon description reads:

Quote

To this day, churchgoing Mormons report that they hear from their fellow congregants in Sunday meetings that African-Americans are the accursed descendants of Cain whose spirits―due to their lack of spiritual mettle in a premortal existence―were destined to come to earth with a "curse" of black skin. This claim can be made in many Mormon Sunday Schools without fear of contradiction. You are more likely to encounter opposition if you argue that the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism. Like most difficult subjects in Mormon history and practice, says Joanna Brooks, the priesthood and temple ban on Blacks has been managed carefully in LDS institutional settings with a combination of avoidance, denial, selective truth-telling, and determined silence.
As America begins to come to terms with the costs of white privilege to Black lives, this book urges a soul-searching examination of the role American Christianity has played in sustaining everyday white supremacy by assuring white people of their innocence. In Mormonism and White Supremacy, Joanna Brooks offers an unflinching look at her own people's history and culture and finds in them lessons that will hit home for every scholar of American religion and person of faith.

...........

She has done something similar in her other books and articles, and I have heard her speak in person at UVU.  In my experience the claims are false.

Moreover, most on this board know that I always argue that (as Brooks puts it) "the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism."  I have been saying that for over 40 years.  I also reject the woke notion that all "white folk" are guilty of "white privilege," or that innocence of racism is proof of racism.  That sort of nonsense, which pervades our modern universities, can only cause needless friction and problems when the righteous are falsely accused.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was referring directly to the quote you gave:

She has done something similar in her other books and articles, and I have heard her speak in person at UVU.  In my experience the claims are false.

Moreover, most on this board know that I always argue that (as Brooks puts it) "the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism."  I have been saying that for over 40 years.  I also reject the woke notion that all "white folk" are guilty of "white privilege," or that innocence of racism is proof of racism.  That sort of nonsense, which pervades our modern universities, can only cause needless friction and problems when the righteous are falsely accused.

Thanks for explaining. 

I disagree with you, her claims are verified, in my experience in different wards in several countries and US states.

It also sounds to me, going by the way you say it, that you have a basic misunderstanding of main arguments around white privilege.

Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for explaining. 

I disagree with you, her claims are verified, in my experience in different wards in several countries and US states.

It also sounds to me, going by the way you say it, that you have a basic misunderstanding of main arguments around white privilege.

Malcolm X believed all that nonsense, until he went to Mecca on Hajj.  It was there that he discovered the brotherhood of all men and came to understand the racist lie that he had been taught by Elijah Muhammad.  And that is why Elijah Muhammad had him killed.  Black Muslims have called me a "blue-eyed white devil" to my face.

In the real world, the racist BLM mob is throwing Frederick Douglass and Dr Martin Luther King Jr under the bus.  For those of us who have spent years advancing the cause of civil liberties, it is disheartening to see everything being destroyed by a younger generation of neo-Marxists -- whose reflex is to lie about anything and everything.  Not only is Brooks wrong, but the opposite is true.

Even a died in the wool racist like Bruce McConkie had to repent publicly and with tremendous frankness.  I do not question the sincerity of that repentance.  Indeed, that older generation is long gone now.  Brooks does not care that the younger generation of Latter-day Saints is (with few exceptions) not only not racist, but actively pursues racial and ethnic equality.  Much easier (for ideological reasons) to make false accusations.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Malcolm X believed all that nonsense, until he went to Mecca on Hajj.  It was there that he discovered the brotherhood of all men and came to understand the racist lie that he had been taught by Elijah Muhammad.  And that is why Elijah Muhammad had him killed.  Black Muslims have called me a "blue-eyed white devil" to my face.

In the real world, the racist BLM mob is throwing Frederick Douglass and Dr Martin Luther King Jr under the bus.  For those of us who have spent years advancing the cause of civil liberties, it is disheartening to see everything being destroyed by a younger generation of neo-Marxists -- whose reflex is to lie about anything and everything.  Not only is Brooks wrong, but the opposite is true.

Even a died in the wool racist like Bruce McConkie had to repent publicly and with tremendous frankness.  I do not question the sincerity of that repentance.  Indeed, that older generation is long gone now.  Brooks does not care that the younger generation of Latter-day Saints is (with few exceptions) not only not racist, but actively pursues racial and ethnic equality.  Much easier (for ideological reasons) to make false accusations.

Thanks for this. The kneejerk Mormonsbad contingent doesn't understand and doesn't care to understand, preferring judgy presentist fingers-in-ears fictions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Malcolm X believed all that nonsense, until he went to Mecca on Hajj.  It was there that he discovered the brotherhood of all men and came to understand the racist lie that he had been taught by Elijah Muhammad.  And that is why Elijah Muhammad had him killed.  Black Muslims have called me a "blue-eyed white devil" to my face.

In the real world, the racist BLM mob is throwing Frederick Douglass and Dr Martin Luther King Jr under the bus.  For those of us who have spent years advancing the cause of civil liberties, it is disheartening to see everything being destroyed by a younger generation of neo-Marxists -- whose reflex is to lie about anything and everything.  Not only is Brooks wrong, but the opposite is true.

Even a died in the wool racist like Bruce McConkie had to repent publicly and with tremendous frankness.  I do not question the sincerity of that repentance.  Indeed, that older generation is long gone now.  Brooks does not care that the younger generation of Latter-day Saints is (with few exceptions) not only not racist, but actively pursues racial and ethnic equality.  Much easier (for ideological reasons) to make false accusations.

Your own personal view of Malcolm X does not delegitimize an entire movement. To frame BLM as a "mob" is like framing all Mormons including offshoots and imitations as LDS.  I'd encourage you to listen to more people today, including the LDS youth and older generations who currently support the Black Lives Matter movement. Here's the official BLM statement of belief:

 

"What We Believe

Four years ago, what is now known as the Black Lives Matter Global Network began to organize. It started out as a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission was to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive.

Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Forever changed, we returned home and began building the infrastructure for the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which, even in its infancy, has become a political home for many.

Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness.

These are the results of our collective efforts.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is as powerful as it is because of our membership, our partners, our supporters, our staff, and you. Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

You're clearly able to support LDS beliefs while rejecting what you perceive as poor choices or statements by some LDS leaders. Why not apply the same charity to an agenda of anti-racism?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Your own personal view of Malcolm X does not delegitimize an entire movement. To frame BLM as a "mob" is like framing all Mormons including offshoots and imitations as LDS.  I'd encourage you to listen to more people today, including the LDS youth and older generations who currently support the Black Lives Matter movement. Here's the official BLM statement of belief:

................................

You're clearly able to support LDS beliefs while rejecting what you perceive as poor choices or statements by some LDS leaders. Why not apply the same charity to an agenda of anti-racism?

From the point of view of prominent Black men, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) is phony and illegitimate:

Thomas Maynard, “The fallacy of the Black Lives Matter movement,” American Thinker, Dec 12, 2018, online at https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/the_fallacy_of_the_black_lives_matter_movement_.html .

Terry Crews, appearing with Don Lemon, on CNN, July 6, 2020, online at

Lemon clearly did not understand Crews.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

From the point of view of prominent Black men, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) is phony and illegitimate:

Thomas Maynard, “The fallacy of the Black Lives Matter movement,” American Thinker, Dec 12, 2018, online at https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/the_fallacy_of_the_black_lives_matter_movement_.html .

Terry Crews, appearing with Don Lemon, on CNN, July 6, 2020, online at

Lemon clearly did not understand Crews.

And prominent black people support it, as well as lesser known black scholars, civil rights activists, including grass roots activists. 

I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate it stands for nothing good or does no good. 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to invalidate the entire movement. It's strange that you attempt it. 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And prominent black people support it, as well as lesser known black scholars, civil rights activists, including grass roots activists. 

I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate it stands for nothing good or does no good. 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to invalidate the entire movement. It's strange that you attempt it. 

BLM could do some good, but they don't. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/deadly-shootings-ignored

Some people do believe the propaganda.  Those of us who have been in the civil rights movement since forever know better.  Those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law do not accept the BLM nonsense, which is a violent, blame-game organization akin to the ANTIFA Nazis.  BLM riots, and shootings by BLM members accomplish no good.  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/update-one-protester-dead-shooting-louisville-black-lives-matter-camp-shooter-member-movement/ , and https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1278023724399116289?lang=en.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Tbf, while I’m aware there’s a BLM organization, I’ve generally been aware of them as being of secondary, if not tertiary importance with regards to the push for police reform. I would guess most people shouting BLM are doing so with zero-to-no affiliation with the organization.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

BLM could do some good, but they don't. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/deadly-shootings-ignored

Some people do believe the propaganda.  Those of us who have been in the civil rights movement since forever know better.  Those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law do not accept the BLM nonsense, which is a violent, blame-game organization akin to the ANTIFA Nazis.  BLM riots, and shootings by BLM members accomplish no good.  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/update-one-protester-dead-shooting-louisville-black-lives-matter-camp-shooter-member-movement/ , and https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1278023724399116289?lang=en.

 

Sorry, I don't buy into your dogma at all: you frame it as "us" versus them, you use very right-wing sources, you rely on anecdote, you use language that is over-generalising and you rely on foregone conclusions.

I've read Joanna Brook's article in Dialogue which carries compelling and historical arguments. Her position is accurate when looking at the data and lived experience of multiple sources. I look forward to reading her new book when it becomes available to me.

Systemic racism is a modern problem in America and it has been an ongoing problem in the church. It takes with it a heavy spiritual toll which should be dealt with righteously.

If you've contributed to advancements in civil rights, that's great, but it doesn't mean you're right about the current movement. And what I'm hearing from you sounds very slanted and peppered with fallacies. 

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...