Jump to content

Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:
Quote

“Have a nice day” can come across violent when said by someone thought to be violent. 

Oh come now.  Someone could say "Have a nice day" in an aggressive tone of voice but it wouldn't be violent unless there was some kind of physical assault. Violence involves actual physical force.. touching. Verbal abuse is not violence.

I took Calm's remark as meaning "can come across {as threatening violence} when said by someone thought to be violent."  But I'll let Calm address that herself.

I agree with you, though, that speech cannot be "violent."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Why It's a Bad Idea to Tell Students Words Are Violence
A claim increasingly heard on campus will make them more anxious and more willing to justify physical harm.
JONATHAN HAIDT / GREG LUKIANOFF | JULY 18, 2017

Of all the ideas percolating on college campuses these days, the most dangerous one might be that speech is sometimes violence. We’re not talking about verbal threats of violence, which are used to coerce and intimidate, and which are illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. We’re talking about speech that is deemed by members of an identity group to be critical of the group, or speech that is otherwise upsetting to members of the group. This is the kind of speech that many students today refer to as a form of violence.
...
Recently, the psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, a highly respected emotion researcher at Northeastern University, published an essay in The New York Times titled, “When is speech violence?” She offered support from neuroscience and health-psychology research for students who want to use the word “violence” in this expansive way. The essay made two points that we think are valid and important, but it drew two inferences from those points that we think are invalid.

First valid point: Chronic stress can cause physical damage. Feldman Barrett cited research on the ways that chronic (not short-term) stressors “can make you sick, alter your brain—even kill neurons—and shorten your life.” The research here is indeed clear.

First invalid inference: Feldman Barrett used these empirical findings to advance a syllogism: “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence.” It is logically true that if A can cause B and B can cause C, then A can cause C. But following this logic, the resulting inference should be merely that words can cause physical harm, not that words are violence. If you’re not convinced, just re-run the syllogism starting with “gossiping about a rival,” for example, or “giving one’s students a lot of homework.” Both practices can cause prolonged stress to others, but that doesn’t turn them into forms of violence.  

Pretty solid reasoning so far, methinks.

 

Quote

Feldman Barrett’s second valid point lies in her argument that young people are antifragile—they grow from facing and overcoming adversity:

Quote

Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture. Entertaining someone else’s distasteful perspective can be educational. ... When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.

Feldman Barrett could have gone a step further: This “good kind of stress” isn’t just “not harmful,” it also sometimes makes an individual stronger and more resilient. The next time that person faces a similar situation, she’ll experience a milder stress response because it is no longer novel, and because her coping repertoire has grown. This was the argument at the heart of our 2015 essay in The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind.” We worried that colleges were making students more fragile—more easily harmed—by trying to protect them from the sorts of small and brief offensive experiences that Feldman Barrett is talking about.

Feldman Barrett then contrasted brief experiences of offensiveness with chronic stressors:

Quote

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

We agree. But what, then, are the implications for college campuses?

In Feldman Barrett’s second invalid inference, she writes:

Quote

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

But wait, wasn’t Feldman Barrett’s key point the contrast between short- and long-term stressors? What would have happened had Yiannopoulos been allowed to speak at Berkeley? He would have faced a gigantic crowd of peaceful protesters, inside and outside the venue. The event would have been over in two hours. Any students who thought his words would cause them trauma could have avoided the talk and left the protesting to others. Anyone who joined the protests would have left with a strong sense of campus solidarity. And most importantly, all Berkeley students would have learned an essential lesson for life in 2017: How to encounter a troll without losing one’s cool. (The goal of a troll, after all, is to make people lose their cool.)

Feldman Barrett’s argument only makes sense if Yiannopoulos’s speech is interpreted as one brief episode in a long stretch of “simmering stress” on campus. The argument works only if Berkeley students experience their school as a “harsh environment,” a “culture of constant, casual brutality” in which they are chronically “worrying about [their] safety.” Maybe that is the perception of some students. But if so, is the solution to change the school or to change the perception?

I think the entire article is worth a read.

I affirmatively dislike provocateurs (provided they are not inciting violence, which Milo is clearly not), but I very much value their right to speak in public.

Broadly and generally speaking, speech ≠ violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

took Calm's remark as meaning "can come across {as threatening violence} when said by someone thought to be violent."  But I'll let Calm address that herself.

Yes. Thank you. 

I also believe that there can be verbal violence as well as physical.  For a clear example, a victim of rape can feel assaulted when in confrontations with their predator or others acting for the predator due to attempting to dominate/control/harm them emotionally. 
 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 What do you think?  Should a prohibition against "racist remarks and actions" be added to BYU's Honor Code?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you mean to suggest making "racist remarks and actions" is not a violation of BYU's Honor Code?  So someone who has a sip of beer or smokes pot, gets too intimate with another, or kisses someone of the same sex might get in trouble due to honor code violations, but someone who says blatantly racist things towards a person of another race might not violate the code at all?  Interesting. 

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Do you mean to suggest making "racist remarks and actions" is not a violation of BYU's Honor Code? 

No, I don't mean to suggest that.  I think the Honor Code already prohibits "racist remarks and action."  See here:

Quote

Church Educational System Honor Code

Brigham Young University and other Church Educational System institutions exist to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That atmosphere is created and preserved by a community of faculty, administration, staff, and students who voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing class enrollment, each member of the BYU community personally commits to observe these Honor Code standards approved by the Board of Trustees “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9):

  • Be honest.
  • Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman.
  • Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language.
  • Obey the law and follow campus policies.
  • Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, vaping, and substance abuse.
  • Participate regularly in Church services (required only of Church members).
  • Observe Brigham Young University’s Dress and Grooming Standards.
  • Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code.
     

Expressions of racism are, I think, a violation of the third bullet ("Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language").

Mr. Aidoo apparently disagrees with my position, as he is wanting BYU to "add a clause on racism to the honor code so that people of color can feel safer knowing that racist remarks and actions can be reported and punished."

Quote

So someone who has a sip of beer or smokes pot, gets too intimate with another, or kisses someone of the same sex might get in trouble due to honor code violations, but someone who says blatantly racist things towards a person of another race might not violate the code at all?  Interesting. 

Sigh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

With respect, this is a conflict between definitions. "Naive and juvenile" people aren't going to acclaim the definition you advocate just because they are called naive and juvenile. 

Ahab seems to hold "violence" as primarily a physical phenomenon. Why should he change his mind?

 

That is because there is an ignorance in recognizing that more than one type of violence that exists.

I didn't tell him to change his mind. I simply claimed that holding to one type of violence was highly illogical and myopic.

Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

White students not directly addressing a POC's skin color is bad because it limits their "ability to appreciate individualism" and "minimize{s} the struggles of {people of color}," or else can be unilaterally and subjectively and arbitrarily criticized as evidence of "unconscious bias."

On the other hand, a comment or question or look from a white student that does address a POC's skin color can also be unilaterally and subjectively and arbitrarily criticized as evidence of "unconscious bias" or "implicit bias" or "privilege" or "racism."

My experience is that people don’t take offense when we show genuine interest in the unique aspects of their journey.  A question like, “would you mind sharing with me your parent’s experiences as they investigated and joined the Church.  Did they feel like members looked at or treated them differently because of their race?  What aspects of your journey in the Church do you feel have been impacted by  being a black man in largely white congregations.”

When we’re invited to engage, making the attempt is even more compelling.   Viewing the invitation as a ticket for failure and failing to act only makes it more likely that bridges won’t be built.  My experience has been that sincere efforts to engage are reciprocated with sincerity, even when my attempts were awkwardly worded or performed.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

This is exactly correct. The current "conversation" on racism and racist behavior says that racism is in the eye of the beholder but ought to be punished as an offense against the wider society. Responsible rulemaking in such an environment is a minefield. 

I totally understand that and recall unease in my youth for this reason. But it helps me to remember the much worse minefield Black Americans have had to inhabit. To me, I think I need to push myself to do uncomfortable things to help improve the environment for them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

My experience is that people don’t take offense when we show genuine interest in the unique aspects of their journey.  

Sure.  

Quote

A question like, “would you mind sharing with me your parent’s experiences as they investigated and joined the Church.  Did they feel like members looked at or treated them differently because of their race?  What aspects of your journey in the Church do you feel have been impacted by  being a black man in largely white congregations.”

I had a conversation like this with a friend while in law school (he was black).  But it was after I had become friends with him, and during a discussion about his experiences as an undergrad at BYU.

I would have a harder time presuming to ask such potentially sensitive and invasive questions without a foundation of friendship, respect, tact, etc.

Quote

When we’re invited to engage, making the attempt is even more compelling. 

"When we're invited" by whom, though?  Black Person "A" may want to talk about racism, but Black Person "B" may prefer not to.  The former can't really speak for the latter.

Quote

Viewing the invitation as a ticket for failure and failing to act only makes it more likely that bridges won’t be built.  

That's not my position.  Not really.  And again, "the invitation" should come from the individual.  I'm not comfortable with assuming that all black people want to engage in discussions about race and racism.  Perhaps the individual has a Morgan Freeman-esque approach to such things:

DSeNSIZVAAA-MQx.jpg

Quote

My experience has been that sincere efforts to engage are reciprocated with sincerity, even when my attempts were awkwardly worded or performed.

I'm glad to hear that.

I can think of all sorts of problems that could arise from a white person approaching a black person and starting an unsolicited conversation about racial animus.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't mean to suggest that.  I think the Honor Code already prohibits "racist remarks and action."  See here:

I guess it's up to interpretation.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Expressions of racism are, I think, a violation of the third bullet ("Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language").

Mr. Aidoo apparently disagrees with my position, as he is wanting BYU to "add a clause on racism to the honor code so that people of color can feel safer knowing that racist remarks and actions can be reported and punished."

Sigh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Im imaging hes pushing it for a reason, perhaps experience wise.  I'd say it's a good idea as some might not take the ambiguous comment in the honor code as against all racist language and actions, as odd as that sounds.  Some people simply don't get it, and spelling it out might prove helpful to them.  

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't mean to suggest that.  I think the Honor Code already prohibits "racist remarks and action."  See here:

Expressions of racism are, I think, a violation of the third bullet ("Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language").

Mr. Aidoo apparently disagrees with my position, as he is wanting BYU to "add a clause on racism to the honor code so that people of color can feel safer knowing that racist remarks and actions can be reported and punished."

Sigh.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am no friend of yBu, don't care for the place at all, but I highly doubt these reports. It's an extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary evidence.

Edited by USU78
Link to post
7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I guess it's up to interpretation.

Im imaging hes pushing it for a reason, perhaps experience wise.  I'd say it's a good idea as some might not take the ambiguous comment in the honor code as against all racist language and actions, as odd as that sounds.  Some csn people simply don't get it, and spelling it out might prove helpful to them.  

And it hasn't been that long since "fence-sitters" was being taught in some very popular classes at BYU. In other words there can still be those who think racist labels are correct and therefore must be righteous. So clarity in the Honor Code could help.

Link to post
19 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

 

I sort of struggle with this.  This smacks of mindreading.  And imputing the worst of motives.

What does "You can't fix something you can't see" mean in this context?

How does ignoring/disregarding skin color have to do with one's "ability to appreciate individualism?"  How does it "minimize the struggles of {people of color}?"

What if it is an attempt by the individual to express agreement with the aspirations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?  "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

What if the individual agrees with this sentiment expressed by Morgan Freeman?

I’ll take a stab at this one. With people who’ve mentioned they don’t see color, it often leaves discussions on race issues, concerns, or biases they hold as difficult or impossible to have. Instead of talking about experiences i’ve had i often have to prove my experiences happened and then provide evidence for how those experiences connect to larger scale social/cultural problems around race. It often takes more than one discussion for them to even start getting where i’m coming from or understanding a problem i’ve had that’s tied to race in some way. They assume that my experiences are pretty much like theirs as a white person (generally speaking...i’ve never met a minority who’s proclaimed color-blindness...i’m sure they’re there, but They’re not the majority). And because of their assumption, they often don’t see me and are unaware that their stance is blocking off part of my existence.

plus, a number say that and then still make assumptions about my race and experiences that are inherently seeing color...but in a way that’s often incorrect and annoying. They may assume interests that I don’t have, connections I don’t enjoy, or even what my racial identity even is. And because they’re effectively cut off from racial experiences and dialogue, it’s sometimes harder to push back on these problems


MLK’s dream is often viewed as a promotion of color blundness. But I haven’t seen proclamations of color blindness actually get people to MLK’s dream, in part because it tends to ignore parts of people’s character inadvertently. In other parts, because it ignores social problems that maintain racial disparities. The closest i’ve seen to that dream in a church setting, was when i attended a very multicultural ward where people’s full experiences, inluding racial and cultural ones, were welcomed to be shared and learned from and often were. I knew that in that space ALL of me was welcome and there for ALL if me was seen. 
 

with luv, 

BD

  • Like 4
Link to post
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

It would have been nice if the article described the components of this "huge difference."

From the linked article about the June 13 march: "Cheers of 'No justice; no peace' and 'Black lives matter' erupted from the protesters as they marched along University Avenue from Smith’s to the Historic Utah County Courthouse."

I am concerned about the "No justice; no peace" thing.  That sounds like a threat of violence, which is not appropriate.

The "Project Blindspot" link is interesting.  It is quite critical of what it calls the "I don't see color mentality":

I sort of struggle with this.  This smacks of mindreading.  And imputing the worst of motives.

What does "You can't fix something you can't see" mean in this context?

How does ignoring/disregarding skin color have to do with one's "ability to appreciate individualism?"  How does it "minimize the struggles of {people of color}?"

What if it is an attempt by the individual to express agreement with the aspirations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?  "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

What if the individual agrees with this sentiment expressed by Morgan Freeman?

More succinctly:

DSeNSIZVAAA-MQx.jpg

The "Project Blindspot" proceeds with some kinda weird rhetoric:

The "nose" and "eyes" bits seem potentially quite problematic.

Also, "allies" has way too much of a hard leftist political vibe to it. 

Also, "allies" against whom?

Anyway, back to the first article:

Hmm.  I'm not sure how I feel about that.  Racism is incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  However, it's also a highly subjective, heavilty politicized, moving target.  Nevertheless, I'm open to discussing it.  What do you think?  Should a prohibition against "racist remarks and actions" be added to BYU's Honor Code?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe he means well, but this is not going to help. What's happening today, the efforts by groups like blm, are only making the racial tensions more pronounced and heightened.  I believe these groups don't have the answers, because real, life changing answers are in the gospel of Jesus Christ but they don't work to change us overnight. Having charity for others, not in singling others out for re education to 'fix' them would be helpful too. I think the natural reaction against this will be to push back. 

Maybe BYU will just have to close. Maybe going online only for these schools is the only way to protect against possible negative interactions on their campuses that cause offense.

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

I’ll take a stab at this one.

I appreciate you taking time to address this.

Quote

With people who’ve mentioned they don’t see color, it often leaves discussions on race issues, concerns, or biases they hold as difficult or impossible to have.

Could you elaborate on that?  Why does this posture it create difficulty or impossibility?

Also, what if the individual is expressing his heartfelt and sincere worldview?  That he really doesn't "see color?"  Is he supposed to censor that?  If so, why?

Quote

Instead of talking about experiences i’ve had i often have to prove my experiences happened and then provide evidence for how those experiences connect to larger scale social/cultural problems around race.

I don't understand.  Isn't explaining/substantiating your experiences going to be a normative part of a discussion about "race issues, concerns, or biases?"

Quote

It often takes more than one discussion for them to even start getting where i’m coming from or understanding a problem i’ve had that’s tied to race in some way.

Okay.  Why is "more than one discussion" a problem?

By way of analogy: I have recently completed a lawsuit that has taken over 3 1/2 years.  I have been lead counsel on it from its inception.  I have had dozens upon dozens of telephone, email, and in-person communications with my clients about various aspects of the suit.  I have found myself explaining, several times over, some key factual and legal elements of the case to my clients.  My clients are intelligent people, and have a vested interest in understanding the facts and the law about the legal dispute.  However, they are not trained in the law.  They lack the overarching framework to understand complexities and nuances.  So I have explained, and re-explained, things.  It's not particularly efficient, but it's necessary in order for them to be informed and up-to-speed.

Now, I suppose I could just skip to the end and tell them what I think they should do.  But that approach creates a different set of problems.  As noted above, my clients are pretty smart in their own right, and have often raised issues and made observations that I had overlooked.  So in communicating with each other, and having information and ideas flow both ways, we end up with a synergy ("the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects").  This has taken a lot of time and effort on all our parts, but it has very much been worth it.

Quote

They assume that my experiences are pretty much like theirs as a white person (generally speaking...i’ve never met a minority who’s proclaimed color-blindness...i’m sure they’re there, but They’re not the majority). And because of their assumption, they often don’t see me and are unaware that their stance is blocking off part of my existence.

I don't know you you mean by "they often don't see me."  What does that mean?

I also don't know what you mean by "their stance is blocking off part of my existence."  What does that mean?

Quote

plus, a number say that and then still make assumptions about my race and experiences that are inherently seeing color...but in a way that’s often incorrect and annoying. They may assume interests that I don’t have, connections I don’t enjoy, or even what my racial identity even is.

Are these assumptions derogatory?  Offensive?  Demeaning?  And if they are, won't patience, kindness, forgiveness, communciation, etc. help to correct those assumptions?

People make assumptions about me all the time.  Some of these assumptions are correct, some are not, and some are wildly wrong.  Some are wrong, but essentially benign.  Some are wrong and offensive, and hence should probably be corrected.  I correct the substantially incorrect and/or misleading assumptions, but otherwise I'm not particularly bothered by them.

Quote

And because they’re effectively cut off from racial experiences and dialogue, it’s sometimes harder to push back on these problems.

I don't understand.  How has a person who claims colorblindness cut himself off "from racial experiences and dialogue?"  How do you know that this has happened?

Quote

MLK’s dream is often viewed as a promotion of color blundness. But I haven’t seen proclamations of color blindness actually get people to MLK’s dream, in part because it tends to ignore parts of people’s character inadvertently.

I apologize for saying this again, but I don't understand.  What does "ignore parts of people's character inadvertently" mean?  

Is skin color a part of a person's "character?"  Dr. King seemed to juxtapose the two (skin color v. character).

Quote

In other parts, because it ignores social problems that maintain racial disparities. 

How do you know this?

Quote

The closest i’ve seen to that dream in a church setting, was when i attended a very multicultural ward where people’s full experiences, inluding racial and cultural ones, were welcomed to be shared and learned from and often were. I knew that in that space ALL of me was welcome and there for ALL if me was seen. 

I'm glad to hear that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I’ll take a stab at this one. With people who’ve mentioned they don’t see color, it often leaves discussions on race issues, concerns, or biases they hold as difficult or impossible to have. Instead of talking about experiences i’ve had i often have to prove my experiences happened and then provide evidence for how those experiences connect to larger scale social/cultural problems around race. It often takes more than one discussion for them to even start getting where i’m coming from or understanding a problem i’ve had that’s tied to race in some way. They assume that my experiences are pretty much like theirs as a white person (generally speaking...i’ve never met a minority who’s proclaimed color-blindness...i’m sure they’re there, but They’re not the majority). And because of their assumption, they often don’t see me and are unaware that their stance is blocking off part of my existence.

plus, a number say that and then still make assumptions about my race and experiences that are inherently seeing color...but in a way that’s often incorrect and annoying. They may assume interests that I don’t have, connections I don’t enjoy, or even what my racial identity even is. And because they’re effectively cut off from racial experiences and dialogue, it’s sometimes harder to push back on these problems


MLK’s dream is often viewed as a promotion of color blundness. But I haven’t seen proclamations of color blindness actually get people to MLK’s dream, in part because it tends to ignore parts of people’s character inadvertently. In other parts, because it ignores social problems that maintain racial disparities. The closest i’ve seen to that dream in a church setting, was when i attended a very multicultural ward where people’s full experiences, inluding racial and cultural ones, were welcomed to be shared and learned from and often were. I knew that in that space ALL of me was welcome and there for ALL if me was seen. 
 

with luv, 

BD

This reminds me of my experiences with post partum depression. I had it pretty bad after my second child 22 years ago.  I didn't feel comfortable talking about it because it was a subject still talked about in whispers often with much judgment against the depressed woman.

After I got past it I decided I would talk about my experiences so that I could help others understand.  I expanded my comfort zone about talking about it little by little.  It is interesting how when you personally know someone who has had it how their minds open when experiences are shared, but that doesn't always happen.

For example I shared some pretty deep feelings and experiences with an elderly loved one one day. This is someone who was always known to be tender.  After I got done sharing he told me, "well I don't believe exists because it didn't happen in my day."

How hurt I was by that! I had shared things that I had shared with few others and he completely denied my experiences.

Colorblind is not ignoring racism. Colorblind means that I won't treat you differently than I would treat my white friend all things being equal. It means that if walking down the sidewalk I will continue to walk on the right for the POC because that's what I would do with a white person. (I used to move to the left because I didn't want to be called racist - how ironic.)

But it also means that if a woman shares about her PPD experiences and I truly listen to her that I will truly listen as she shares her experiences with racism.

We don't have a colorblind relationship or society if we jump into defense mode when racism is talked about. In a colorblind relationship we will be in empathy or learning mode when racism is talked about.

 

Edited by Rain
  • Like 4
Link to post
14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  

I had a conversation like this with a friend while in law school (he was black).  But it was after I had become friends with him, and during a discussion about his experiences as an undergrad at BYU.

I would have a harder time presuming to ask such potentially sensitive and invasive questions without a foundation of friendship, respect, tact, etc.

"When we're invited" by whom, though?  Black Person "A" may want to talk about racism, but Black Person "B" may prefer not to.  The former can't really speak for the latter.

That's not my position.  Not really.  And again, "the invitation" should come from the individual.  I'm not comfortable with assuming that all black people want to engage in discussions about race and racism.  Perhaps the individual has a Morgan Freeman-esque approach to such things:

DSeNSIZVAAA-MQx.jpg

I'm glad to hear that.

I can think of all sorts of problems that could arise from a white person approaching a black person and starting an unsolicited conversation about racial animus.

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder if or when certain institutions like employers or ? will stop asking people what race they are.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

a couple thoughts

1. I didn’t read let’s roll’s comment to mean that he’d expect them to talk about it right on the spot. Just moreso kindly asking if they were willing/wanting to share. If they were hypothetically *past morgan freeman  in their stance then they can say basically “yeah, that’s just not what i want to talk about right now” and that’s the end of the discussion. Personally i’ve deeply appreciated the people who’ve come up and asked me how i’m doing with the events that have occurred in the last bit and  genuinely ask me about my experiences. 

Sounds good.

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

2) there’s an assumption of tension and sensitivity around talking about race issues in your post.

Not really.  I will own that I dislike "talking about race issues" when there are presumptions in place that I find problematic.

In your previous post you seemed to dislike people making assumptions about you based on your skin color.  I feel the same way about assumptions about me based on my skin color.

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

From what you describe it sounds like race could only be talked about with those you were close to and infrequently so.

Well, not really.  I don't know you, nor am I "close to" you, but I feel pretty comfortable in our discussion so far.

As for frequency of discussion of race issues, I'm not sure what that means.  

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And amongst my white family, that’s fairly normal. Race and racism is a specialty topic, in the sense that it rarely comes up except in certain circumstances. For my brown friends and circles, race is just part of the daily dialogue. So it doesn’t feel like a difficult or sensitive conversation.

I think a lot of white people feel pretty defensive when discussing matters of race, often because there are presumptions in place about them.

I'm not a fan of "collective guilt"-style approaches to discussing racial issues.  A lot of the rhetoric used seems to assume that.  

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It’s just what is. Sometimes it’s on harder more painful topics, sometimes it’s teasing, sometimes it’s just a mentioned fact in a story. But it is farrr less taboo than what’s being assumed here.

I'm not suggesting discussing race issues is "taboo."

I guess I'm suggesting that making race, race issues, racism, etc. a front-and-center issue of daily discussion may be exacerbating things, particularly when there are presumptions about the individual that can understandably make him uncomfortable or put him on the defensive.

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

*morgan freeman stated this in a single interview several years ago, but very recently opened up his social media platform for anyone and everyone to share their experiences with racism. So obviously his stance on not talking about race and evolved or changed overtime. Or at the very least has some major exceptions. (https://www.nme.com/news/film/morgan-freeman-share-peoples-experiences-racism-social-platforms-2682978?amp)

Discussions of racism are a healthy and necessary thing.  

It sure would help if we could get past the "collective guilt" concepts that seem to pervade such "discussions," though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
23 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I believe he means well, but this is not going to help.

To whom are you referring here?  To Mr. Aidoo, or to Morgan Freeman?

23 minutes ago, alter idem said:

What's happening today, the efforts by groups like blm, are only making the racial tensions more pronounced and heightened. 

Some people are doing that, yes.  But there are also some productive discussions starting up as well.

23 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I believe these groups don't have the answers, because real, life changing answers are in the gospel of Jesus Christ but they don't work to change us overnight. Having charity for others, not in singling others out for re education to 'fix' them would be helpful too. I think the natural reaction against this will be to push back. 

I agree broadly.  But I think there's some middle ground here.

23 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Maybe BYU will just have to close.

Nah.  BYU is situated to last a while.

23 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Maybe going online only for these schools is the only way to protect against possible negative interactions on their campuses that cause offense.

Segregation isn't the answer.  We need to figure out how to get along with each other.  Communication is an important part.  Candor.  Honesty.  Willingness to change.

On the other hand, violence is not helpful.  Ulterior politicized agendas are not helpful.  Nor is "collective guilt" rhetoric.  Nor is "payback" racism (see, e.g., here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To whom are you referring here?  To Mr. Aidoo, or to Morgan Freeman?

Some people are doing that, yes.  But there are also some productive discussions starting up as well.

I agree broadly.  But I think there's some middle ground here.

Nah.  BYU is situated to last a while.

Segregation isn't the answer.  We need to figure out how to get along with each other.  Communication is an important part.  Candor.  Honesty.  Willingness to change.

On the other hand, violence is not helpful.  Ulterior politicized agendas are not helpful.  Nor is "collective guilt" rhetoric.  Nor is "payback" racism (see, e.g., here).

Thanks,

-Smac

I was referring to Mr Aidoo.

I don't think segregation is the answer,  it certainly isn't the answer the gospel would encourage, but I'm afraid that's where our society is headed if something doesn't change this direction we're taking. I believe the racial tension being stirred up may unfortunately cause some to feel that is the safest choice. 

Link to post
59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if or when certain institutions like employers or ? will stop asking people what race they are.

I think many of them would like to, but they often are required by law to ask.  See here:

Quote

Can an employer ask about an applicant's race on an application form?

Employers may legitimately need information about their employees or applicants race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow. One way to obtain racial information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection is for employers to use separate forms or otherwise keep the information about an applicant's race separate from the application. In that way, the employer can capture the information it needs but ensure that it is not used in the selection decision.

Unless the information is for such a legitimate purpose, pre-employment questions about race can suggest that race will be used as a basis for making selection decisions. If the information is used in the selection decision and members of particular racial groups are excluded from employment, the inquiries can constitute evidence of discrimination.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

This reminds me of my experiences with post partum depression. I had it pretty bad after my second child 22 years ago.  I didn't feel comfortable talking about it because it was a subject still talked about in whispers often with much judgment against the depressed woman.

After I got past it I decided I would talk about my experiences so that I could help others understand.  I expanded my comfort zone about talking about it little by little.  It is interesting how when you personally know someone who has had it how their minds open when experiences are shared, but that doesn't always happen.

For example I shared some pretty deep feelings and experiences with an elderly loved one one day. This is someone who was always known to be tender.  After I got done sharing he told me, "well I don't believe exists because it didn't happen in my day."

How hurt I was by that! I had shared things that I had shared with few others and he completely denied my experiences.

This is a helpful illustration.  Thank you for sharing it.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Colorblind is not ignoring racism. Colorblind means that I won't treat you differently than I would treat my white friend all things being equal. It means that if walking down the sidewalk I will continue to walk on the right for the POC because that's what I would do with a white person. (I used to move to the left because I didn't want to be called racist - how ironic.)

But it also means that if a woman shares about her PPD experiences and I truly listen to her that I will truly listen as she shares her experiences with racism.

We don't have a colorblind relationship or society if we jump into defense mode when racism is talked about. In a colorblind relationship we will be in empathy or learning mode when racism is talked about.

I agree.  The defensiveness will continue, though, while notions of collective guilt are perpetuated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 hours ago, Rain said:

This reminds me of my experiences with post partum depression. I had it pretty bad after my second child 22 years ago.  I didn't feel comfortable talking about it because it was a subject still talked about in whispers often with much judgment against the depressed woman.

After I got past it I decided I would talk about my experiences so that I could help others understand.  I expanded my comfort zone about talking about it little by little.  It is interesting how when you personally know someone who has had it how their minds open when experiences are shared, but that doesn't always happen.

For example I shared some pretty deep feelings and experiences with an elderly loved one one day. This is someone who was always known to be tender.  After I got done sharing he told me, "well I don't believe exists because it didn't happen in my day."

How hurt I was by that! I had shared things that I had shared with few others and he completely denied my experiences.

Colorblind is not ignoring racism. Colorblind means that I won't treat you differently than I would treat my white friend all things being equal. It means that if walking down the sidewalk I will continue to walk on the right for the POC because that's what I would do with a white person. (I used to move to the left because I didn't want to be called racist - how ironic.)

But it also means that if a woman shares about her PPD experiences and I truly listen to her that I will truly listen as she shares her experiences with racism.

We don't have a colorblind relationship or society if we jump into defense mode when racism is talked about. In a colorblind relationship we will be in empathy or learning mode when racism is talked about.

 

This goofy kid’s movie keeps coming to mind on this. In trolls 2 the pop elves become aware of the fact that other music elves exist in the world. At one point the very peppy elf queen, Poppy, talks about have them all be the same and she was gently corrected to note that they weren’t all the same and that’s a good thing, something that adds a bit of spice to life. 
i’m okay with the concept of colorblind in the sense that you mentioned...that you give all people common courtesy and respect. My concern is when this treatment of everybody the same inadvertently ignores important differences, experiences, and challenges that color their experiences as people. Very similar to how the kind elder you mentioned did. Where his experiences didn’t have open stories of PPD, so it couldn’t be true. That’s where treating everyone the same can begin to run into problems. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 3
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...