Jump to content

Pres. Oaks and "Black lives matter"


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Recent history” is, by definition, referring to the past, not the present. 
 

And “recent” is an ambiguous descriptor. Comparatively speaking, it could refer to the days before the civil rights movement of the 1960s. From a historian’s perspective, that is fairly recent. 
 

I haven’t yet read the talk in its entirety. Did President Oaks say there is systemic racism prevalent in America right now?

Give me a break.  This is desperate. 

He was talking about the recent media portrayals of "police brutality" and "systemic discrimination" that has triggered the protests. 

And this from President Nelson, calling for an end to "systemic racism", as reported by your own Deseret News:

Quote

“We likewise call on government, business and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all,” they added. “It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters.”

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/6/8/21282205/president-nelson-naacp-reverend-amos-brown-race-mormon-lds-baptist-george-floyd

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven’t yet read the talk in its entirety. Did President Oaks say there is systemic racism prevalent in America right now?

Yes, he actually did.  It is right in the qoute:

Quote

The examples most familiarly reported by the media today are those that victimize Black Americans. These include the police brutality and other systemic discrimination in employment and housing publicized recently. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:
18 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, there are mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances (and perhaps there are legitimate, viable ways to improve mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances), and no, rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, aggravated assault and battery, and murder cannot and should not be allowed, no matter how many legitimate grievances one who engages in one or more of such things has.

So Jefferson's list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence did not justify the revolution and no matter how many grievances they had it would never be enough?

It is quite disturbing that Nehor would appear to justify violence done by members of Antifa and marxist bLM (which was aided and abetted by mayors and governors in certain cities and states with the police being ordered to stand down).  Ken seems to support Elder Oaks assertions, from October conference address:

  • "This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election."
  • 'At one extreme, some seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is the authorized way to raise public awareness and to focus on injustices in the content or administration of the laws.'
  • 'Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.” Redress of grievances by mobs is redress by illegal means. That is anarchy, a condition that has no effective governance and no formal police, which undermines rather than protects individual rights.
  • 'Two Yale University scholars recently reminded us:  “For all its flaws, the United States is uniquely equipped to unite a diverse and divided society. …  “… Its citizens don’t have to choose between a national identity and multiculturalism. Americans can have both. But the key is constitutional patriotism. We have to remain united by and through the Constitution, regardless of our ideological disagreements.” '

It is also disturbing that Nehor would disparage Thomas Jefferson and disregard decades of petitions and public debates concerning mistreatment by British overlords and the lack of representation in British Parliament.  The Colonialists stood for retaining basic rights and self preservation.  It was the British military that rode roughshod over the people and treated them like second class citizens.  It was British arrogance and tyranny that led directly to the start of the Revolution.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Give me a break.  This is desperate. 

He was talking about the recent media portrayals of "police brutality" and "systemic discrimination" that has triggered the protests. 

And this from President Nelson, calling for an end to "systemic racism", as reported by your own Deseret News:

 

 

It’s not my Deseret News. 
 

The quote from President Nelson does not bind one to the belief that racism, while present to some degree today, can be considered “systemic” in today’s institutions. Not that I can see. 

And you did not answer my question: Did President Oaks say that “systemic racism” is prevalent today? I thought you might provide a direct quote, if there be one. 
 

Maybe you need to review the definition of the word “systemic.” I invite you to ponder my comparison to the rampant looting and arson that are going on right now. Deplorable as they are, I don’t believe they amount to our society having become “systemically” lawless and anarchistic. 

Link to post
32 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

There is widespread looting and arson going on just now, far too much of it. From this, are we to conclude that America is “systemically” lawless and anarchist? 

Like it or not, he said it was "systemic". 

From the article:

Quote

President Oaks talked about other recent examples of racism in the United States.

“The examples most familiarly reported by the media today are those that victimize Black Americans,” he said. “These include the police brutality and other systemic discrimination in employment and housing, publicized recently. 

I don't see this as Pres. Oaks saying that the United States is "systemically" racist.  To be sure, his reference to "systemic discimination" pertained to "employment and housing," both of which are A) private concerns (not governmentally-mandated or -authorized discrimination) and B) prohibited by law.

So what, in your view, is the "system" that is "discriminating" here?

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

He was commenting that racism is still evident, even in recent history as evidenced by "systemic discrimination".   

"Systemic racism in employment and housing."

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

He didn't say "occasional incidents" (those are your words), he said "systemic discrimination".  He even went as far as to say that racism is evident on the "official" (not just personal) level.

He said: "Racism is still recognizable in official and personal treatment of Latinos and Native Americans."

I'm curious what he means by this.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

People have already pointed out the probs with shooting non-lethally. Which is also likelh why the question isn’t about the shooting and so many shots...but rather why they didn’t go for tazing first. From what i read there wasn’t a big attempt for non-lethal management of the situation, which is the big problem with a lot of policing tactics in minority communities especially and policing in general. The tendency towards quick escalation by police. 

Every situation is different and they have to make judgments based on distance, whether the person appears to be on certain drugs,etc. Years ago my brother was called to a scene where a mentally ill man was standing on a car ranting and raving. As a precaution, my brother had his hand over his taser and then the man yelled, "I HAVE A GUN!" as he reached into his pants. My brother thought, "Oh crap! I have my hand on the wrong weapon!" There wasn't a fraction of a second to spare, so he tasered the man and it turned out he did not have a gun. His family said, "We wouldn't have blamed you if you had shot him." 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you did not answer my question: Did President Oaks say that “systemic racism” is prevalent today? I thought you might provide a direct quote, if there be one.

I did.

Link to post
28 minutes ago, longview said:

... marxist bLM ...

Admittedly, Marxism is a broad category that can mean almost whatever one wants it to mean. However, at least two card-carrying Marxists don't view the BLM movement as Marxist. One snippet below, but several comments on the subject.
https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/what-do-marxists-think-of-joe-biden-and-america-right-now/

Quote

Phil: I honestly believe, Jacob, that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is not a Marxist movement. Certainly, some people in the movement are Marxists in one way or another, but I have yet to see (admittedly, I do not see everything!) any signs being held up at BLM rallies saying “we demand worker-owned businesses!”, or “we demand an end to private property!” Neither have I found anything on the BLM website calling for radical reductions in economic equality or for laws that would significantly reduce corporate power.


PS: I am not a Marxist, nor am I sympathetic to the philosophy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

People have already pointed out the probs with shooting non-lethally. Which is also likelh why the question isn’t about the shooting and so many shots...but rather why they didn’t go for tazing first. From what i read there wasn’t a big attempt for non-lethal management of the situation, which is the big problem with a lot of policing tactics in minority communities especially and policing in general. The tendency towards quick escalation by police. 

First, I think we need to acknowledget hat the primary problem is not with the individual officers.  "Bad apples" aside, law enforcement officers are trained in the use of force.  They are given rules and guidelines on the use of force and are required to abide by them.  Officers, then, are following policy established by people above their pay grade.  The issue, then, is with the policy, and the policy makers

Second, the policymakers include much more than police heirachies.  State and federal legislators (the "legislative" branches), state and federal politicians (the "executive" branches), and the state and federal courts (the "judicial" branches) are all heavily involved.  Anti-police yahoos apparently have plenty of time to criticize the police, but often have little to say about the policymakers to are formulating use-of-force policies and procedures (when was the last time you heard demands to "Defund the Legislature!" or "Defund the Mayor!"?).

Third, regarding "why they didn't go for tazing first," that's up to the policymakers.  See, e.g. here:

Quote

Taser vs. Gun: Why Police Choose Deadly Force Despite Non-Lethal Options
Sept. 29, 2016, 5:16 AM MDT / Updated Sept. 29, 2016, 5:16 AM MDT
By Amanda Sakuma

Three black men were shot dead by police in the past week, marking the latest flash points in violence that touched both coasts and cut through the Midwest.

But in two of those cases — first in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and then in El Cajon, California — not all police on the scene had their guns raised. Officers had Tasers, or stun guns, ready too. That raises a familiar question often asked about deadly police confrontations: If officers have less lethal weapons in their arsenal, why wouldn’t they use them?

Officers are trained to ‘shoot to kill’

Much of policing involves a series of judgment calls made while adrenaline is kicking. And so experts say police officers are trained to assess whether they feel an interaction with a citizen could turn deadly. If tensions reach that point, officers are told the use of lethal force would then be warranted.

"Tasers are not for deadly force situations," said Eugene O’Donnell, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “The only time the police need to be shooting is when there is an absolute matter between life and death. It’s not a tool for apprehension.”

Experts acknowledge the temptation to train police to shoot to wound, rather than to kill. Why not subdue a suspect by shooting them in the arm or the leg, but not the chest?

The problem is that aiming for a person’s limbs can be exceptionally difficult, especially if a suspect is moving, which is often the case. And these altercations typically happen in high-stress environments — an officer’s aim may not be as sharp as when they train in the shooting range.

Officers instead are trained to aim toward the chest area to improve chances of actually hitting their target. It doesn’t necessarily mean officers are expressly aiming to kill.

There’s added pressure in this situation if the suspect has a weapon, especially a gun. Shooting them in the leg isn’t going to eliminate the chance that the suspect can still fire back.

William Terrill, a criminology professor at Arizona State University, said police departments don’t train cadets to reach for their Taser when they find that an imminent threat is near.

“If you were to respond with less force, it will put you in danger or another citizen in danger,” he said.

Tasers aren’t always ideal or consistently non-lethal

Policies on deadly or less-lethal force vary widely between states and police departments, as do standard practices on Taser guns. Not every police officer on the street is certified to use stun guns. And while some police departments, like Chicago, are adding hundreds more Tasers in the field, others only have enough equipment to outfit a fraction of their force.

But there are still downfalls to using the technology. Mainly, Tasers are not always reliable.

“So many shootings involve an inefficient Taser first,” said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “They often don’t work, and then what?”

From a practical perspective, police officers need to be within a relative mid-range, as far as 15 and 25 feet, in order to use a Taser. But if a subject is too close, then a Taser wouldn’t be effective either.

Tasers can also be just as deadly as a gun if certain circumstances align. For people with heart problems or serious medical conditions, as many as 50,000 volts in a single shot from a Taser could turn fatal.
...
Officers have legal leeway in using force that could be deadly

A 1989 Supreme Court case plotted out the parameters in which police could justify using deadly or excessive force. The outcome of Graham v. Connor ultimately decided that the circumstances must be objectively reasonable at the time of the incident in order to warrant excessive force. Oftentimes, the standard is boiled down to the simple question: Was the officer reasonably afraid for their live when the pulled the trigger?

“It’s subjective,” Terrill said. “It gets very hazy if someone has a gun, but they are not pointing it at an officer.”

It’s particularly tricky with cases like what happened in El Cajon this week when police approached a man who they say was acting erratically. Police said Alfred Olango, 38, pulled an object out of his pocket, leaning his arms and body forward in a “shooting stance.” The police on the scene reacted as though he was holding a gun.

Rather than vilify the men and women of law enforcement who are following the law (the training they have been provided), we ought to examine and re-examine the merits of that training, and the policies and laws that pertain to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see this as Pres. Oaks saying that the United States is "systemically" racist. 

There is systemic racism in the United States which discriminates against black people with housing and employment.  Is that better?  

However, President Nelson did suggest that systemic racism was not limited to housing and employment (as if that wasn't bad enough).   President Oaks was simply pointing out some recent evidences of racism today as reported in the media.  He wasn't saying that these are the only evidences. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I don't see this as Pres. Oaks saying that the United States is "systemically" racist. 

There is systemic racism in the United States which discriminates against black people with housing and employment.  Is that better?  

I'm not sure.  What "system" are you referring to here?

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

However, President Nelson did suggest that systemic racism was not limited to housing and employment (as if that wasn't bad enough).  

He did?  You are referring to the June 8, 2020 Deseret News article, I take it?  From that article:

Quote

In a joint op-ed published Monday by Medium, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the senior national leaders of the NAACP called for racial reform in America’s homes, schools, businesses and political bodies.
...
They also called for changes to end systemic racism.

“We likewise call on government, business and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all,” they added. “It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters.”

“Those are the sentences I like. I love that, it’s great,” said LaShawn Williams, a black Latter-day Saint and assistant professor in social work at Utah Valley University. “They are talking about changing processes. Processes are systems. The same way Windows 10 is set up to function in a certain way, racism exists in the systems in our schools, businesses and governments.”

The reference to "systemic racism" is a bit of editorializing by the Deseret News.  

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

President Oaks was simply pointing out some recent evidences of racism today as reported in the media.  He wasn't saying that these are the only evidences. 

Nobody is denying that racism exists.  But I'm trying to understand what is meant by "systemic racism."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I did.

I’ve now read the full transcript of President Oaks’s BYU address (not just the newspaper report you cited). I see in that talk a clear denunciation of racism and a call to root it out wherever and to whatever degree it might still exist, a thing I fully support. 
 

What I don’t see is sustaining of the attitude that America and her institutions are rife with systemic racism, an extremist attitude that has driven widespread rioting, demands to abolish police, destruction of historic monuments, attempts to rewrite history, calls to alter the Constitution, disparagement of Founding Fathers and of past Church leaders honored on the BYU campus, including Brigham Young himself. In fact President Oaks expressed disapprobation of such things, quoting Winston Churchill relative to the foolishness of putting the past and present at war with each other, wherein we “lose the future.”

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure.  What "system" are you referring to here?

President Oaks said it, not me. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 But I'm trying to understand what is meant by "systemic racism."

There is a link in the Deseret news article which explains my view, and the view of Deseret news.  Click on “systemic racism”

Link to post
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

President Oaks said it, not me. 

There is a link in the Deseret news article which explains my view, and the view of Deseret news.  Click on “systemic racism”

I’m not seeing a link to “systemic racism” in that article. Are you referring to the report of his BYU speech?

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not seeing a link to “systemic racism” in that article. Are you referring to the report of his BYU speech?

It’s in the Nelson/NAACP article.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I'm not sure.  What "system" are you referring to here?

President Oaks said it, not me. 

Yes, but you are attaching particular significance to it.  And Pres. Oaks was referencing "systemic discrimination" that A) arises in "employment and housing" and B) has been "publicized recently."

You seem to be positing something significantly more than that.

Quote
Quote

 But I'm trying to understand what is meant by "systemic racism."

There is a link in the Deseret news article which explains my view, and the view of Deseret news.  Click on “systemic racism”

The link is in the DesNews article, written by Tad Walch, points to a Vox article written by Jenée Desmond-Harris and published in 2015.  From that article:

Quote

The phrase "systemic racism" is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others. "Systemic" distinguishes what's happening here from individual racism or overt discrimination, and refers to the way this operates in major parts of US society: the economy, politics, education, and more.
...
Race Forward (a racial justice organization that publishes the daily news site Colorlines, and puts on Facing Race, a huge conference dedicated to racial justice) has created a series of excellent short videos starring Jay Smooth to explain — quickly, with statistics and examples, and in plain language — what systemic racism looks.

"Race Forward" has posted a series of videos narrated by a "Jay Smooth" that purports to lay out the particulars of what "systemic racism" is and how it manifests in society:

  1. Wealth Gap (1:07 long)
  2. Employment (1:02 long)
  3. Housing Discrimination (:57 long)
  4. Government Surveillance (1:13 long)
  5. Incarceration (1:02 long)
  6. Drug Arrests (:52 long)
  7. Immigration Policy (1:01 long)
  8. Infant Mortality (1:00 long)

I just watched all eight.  I am singularly unimpressed.  Facile and conclusory.  Big time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post

Call me an ignorant white guy from Utah, but I’ve always been skeptical that systemic racism in America is still an actual thing.  

But if it’s still really there, I’m happy to help make it go away.  

The problem is that we can’t agree on the extent and nature of racism today.  Nor can we agree on how to fix it.  

Can we all just treat each other as individuals and love one another.  Does it have to be so complicated?

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be positing something significantly more than that.

No I'm not.  

I am simply repeating what he said.  Systemic racism exists in America.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A) arises in "employment and housing"

Systemic discrimination in employment and housing...that is significant. 

Quote

and B) has been "publicized recently."

In no way is he suggesting these represent the only cases of systemic racism  :rolleyes:  He was just giving some examples people may be more familiar with.

 

 

 

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

Yes, but you are attaching particular significance to it.  And Pres. Oaks was referencing "systemic discrimination" that A) arises in "employment and housing" and B) has been "publicized recently."

You seem to be positing something significantly more than that.

The link is in the DesNews article, written by Tad Walch, points to a Vox article written by Jenée Desmond-Harris and published in 2015.  From that article:

"Race Forward" has posted a series of videos narrated by a "Jay Smooth" that purports to lay out the particulars of what "systemic racism" is and how it manifests in society:

  1. Wealth Gap (1:07 long)
  2. Employment (1:02 long)
  3. Housing Discrimination (:57 long)
  4. Government Surveillance (1:13 long)
  5. Incarceration (1:02 long)
  6. Drug Arrests (:52 long)
  7. Immigration Policy (1:01 long)
  8. Infant Mortality (1:00 long)

I just watched all eight.  I am singularly unimpressed.  Facile and conclusory.  Big time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not surprising, given the abandon with which the accusation of “systemic racism” is flung around these days, usually in an attempt to claim victim status. 

Link to post
56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I don’t see is sustaining of the attitude that America and her institutions are rife with systemic racism

So what do you think that President Oaks meant when he said that systemic discrimination in regards to housing and employment is a thing in America?

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not surprising, given the abandon with which the accusation of “systemic racism” is flung around these days, usually in an attempt to claim victim status. 

Are you denying that there are "victims" of systemic racism in America?  Was President Oaks wrong?

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Call me an ignorant white guy from Utah, but I’ve always been skeptical that systemic racism in America is still an actual thing.  

But if it’s still really there, I’m happy to help make it go away.  

The problem is that we can’t agree on the extent and nature of racism today.  Nor can we agree on how to fix it.  

Can we all just treat each other as individuals and love one another.  Does it have to be so complicated?

 

It gets complicated when people try to make it a matter of ideology with all the associated baggage (abolishing police, defacing national monuments, looting stores, burning churches, excusing criminal behavior, enforcing political correctness, etc.) Hence, I embrace the sentiment that black lives matter but have come to abhor the movement that goes by that title. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

You seem to be positing something significantly more than that.

No I'm not.  

Then I stand corrected.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am simply repeating what he said.  Systemic racism exists in America.

He didn't say that.  

And I'm not sure if I "stand corrected," since you continue to be embellishing what Pres. Oaks said.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Systemic discrimination in employment and housing...that is significant. 

I agree.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

In no way is he suggesting these represent the only cases of systemic racism  :rolleyes:  He was just giving some examples people may be more familiar with.

He is?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...