Jump to content

Pres. Oaks and "Black lives matter"


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Having read Elder Oaks' talk, can you identify a situation that needs to be improved, and consider how a good-faith, root cause analysis of policy contributing to it might be conducted?

From the article:

Quote

“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. Racism is still recognizable in official and personal treatment of Latinos and Native Americans.”

Pres. Oaks was speaking generally.  That's his job, and I am fine with that.

I had hoped that some here would be willing to help me to better understand what he was referencing.  To move beyond generalities into specifics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I am not persuaded that the "system" he was referencing is "America."

CFR that I ever made that claim.

Well, I'm not sure what you are claiming.  I have repeatedly requested for you to identify the systems/institutions that you believe are "racist," and you have repeatedly refused to do so.  You have instead suggesting I am trying to bait or trap you.

I did not mean to irritate you, but it appears that I have.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

Well, I'm not sure what you are claiming.  I have repeatedly requested for you to identify the systems/institutions that you believe are "racist," and you have repeatedly refused to do so.  You have instead suggesting I am trying to bait or trap you.

I did not mean to irritate you, but it appears that I have.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I am having a hard time understanding why you are being so resistant to the idea that "generally speaking" (as you claim he was doing) that housing and employment in America is systemically racist.

That is what he said, in general terms.  I accept it.  You seem to be dodging and twisting and turning.  Can you accept what he said in "general" terms? 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I guess I am having a hard time understanding why you are being so resistant to the idea that "generally speaking" (as you claim he was doing) that housing and employment in America is systemically racist.

Because that's a significant generalization.  And a vague one.  

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is what he said, in general terms. 

Well, sorta.  Again 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."

He's citing "examples."  He's noting "systemic discrimination in employment and housing, publicized recently."  Is he referencing a nationwide, epidemic sort of thing?

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I accept it. 

I accept what he is saying.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

You seem to be dodging and twisting and turning. 

I'm trying to A) avoid the gloss/embellishment, and B) get down to some specifics.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you accept what he said in "general" terms? 

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

From the article:

Pres. Oaks was speaking generally.  That's his job, and I am fine with that.

I had hoped that some here would be willing to help me to better understand what he was referencing.  To move beyond generalities into specifics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sometimes we can find the specifics in our own lives, which is one purpose of his job :)

Looking at your practice in racial terms, what is the racial makeup of your clientele (the firm's and your own caseload) in comparison to your catchment area? What is the revenue from your clientele, broken down by race and per capita by race? What is the "win" / "lose" judgement ratio, by race? What kinds of cases (policies) are reflected by race?
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

The opportunity not only being that particular event (job offer for example), but being prepared to take advantage of it mentally, physically, and financially and socially now I think about it....  

Mentally is both education training, but also psychological preparedness.  Anyone who has been told they are lazy, bumbling, can't follow through, stupid, etc all often has trouble not letting those accusations alter how they see themselves, especially when such labels are given in childhood.  Mistakes are blown out of proportion, fears can even cause illnesses that get in the way of accepting opportunities when they come.  If an opportunity requires risk and one has no savings, one may not be able to leave a job to invest in professional development to get a better job later because there are immediate needs that current paycheck is needed for  And socially...we are social animals, moving into what others see as their own territory when they also see us as outsiders is very difficult and sometimes creates obstacles that can't be overcome (if a manager and all your workers refuse to work with you from the outset and the company doesn't back you because you were hired for appearance...that job becomes a much harder opportunity to take).

It is not enough to offer opportunities where we get to pat ourselves on the back for being so enlightened and then blame failure if it happens on the other if we don't invest time and resources into finding out what individuals or communities need to be able to go for that opportunity that has been given them.

Absolutely -- that was my answer in the event I got push-back! :) 

 

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

Well, sorta.  Again from the article:

He's citing "examples."  He's noting "systemic discrimination in employment and housing, publicized recently."  Is he referencing a nationwide, epidemic sort of thing?

Read it closely. He is not suggesting that these are the only examples of systemic racism.  He said that "the examples most familiarly reported by the media today are ..."  "These include..."

He is listing them as general and well reported examples of systemic racism in America, as if to say, "open your eyes people, it is happening, just look at the media".  Yes, that is my embellishment.  It is sad that he had to even generally list examples to demonstrate that systemic racist discrimination exists in America.  The reason he probably felt compelled seems obvious for anyone reading this thread.  People here cannot even get themselves to acknowledge that systemic racism exists in America.  

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm trying to... B) get down to some specifics.

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I don't know what specific examples he is referring to.   I believe him that it is happening though, and that it is systemic in those institutions he generally referred to, and that it is racism, and that this systemic racism exists in America.   

 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sometimes we can find the specifics in our own lives, which is one purpose of his job :)

Looking at your practice in racial terms, what is the racial makeup of your clientele (the firm's and your own caseload) in comparison to your catchment area?

I don't know what you mean by "catchment area."

I've never taken race into account when providing legal representation to clients.

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the revenue from your clientele, broken down by race and per capita by race?

I don't break clients down by race, nor do I know their income.

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the "win" / "lose" judgement ratio, by race?

I don't know.

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What kinds of cases (policies) are reflected by race?

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post

Re: knife wielding and police use of proportional force. Some food for thought:

From a martial arts instructor I used to train with (hopefully this video is visible to the public??):

facebook.com/belton.lubas/videos/10224257060803714

The 21 foot rule that police are trained to be aware of:

 

Also: Look up Officer Tatum's breakdown of the Philadelphia police shooting on youtube. (it does include footage of the shooting so I'm not linking to it directly). Officer Tatum is was a police officer and does a great explanation of why they are trained to shoot for center mass (including risk of civilian injury from ricochet), and why tasers were not a realistic option given the particular scenario. If you can look past his Maga hat, he has some very insightful things to say.

I suggest, if you have the means and health, to do some martial art training and especially SPARING. You will quickly see how fast things happen, how much adrenaline effects your mind in the moment, and in general will give you a broader understanding of threatening situations. Police should be held to high standards. They need MORE training which requires more funding not less because in the moment you do not have time to think. You react. You react with what you've trained.  But Police are not God and if someone really wants to do harm to you or others they will. Even in the face of "superior" weapons (See the videos above).

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

Read it closely. He is not suggesting that these are the only examples of systemic racism.  He said that "the examples most familiarly reported by the media today are ..."  "These include..."

He is listing them as general and well reported examples of systemic racism in America, as if to say, "open your eyes people, it is happening, just look at the media".  Yes, that is my embellishment.  It is sad that he had to even generally list examples to demonstrate that systemic racist discrimination exists in America.  The reason he probably felt compelled seems obvious for anyone reading this thread.  People here cannot even get themselves to acknowledge that systemic racism exists in America.  

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I don't know what specific examples he is referring to.   I believe him that it is happening though, and that it is systemic in those institutions he generally referred to, and that it is racism, and that this systemic racism exists in America.   

 

Perhaps a good example is the issue of not having enough Black people for COVID-19 vaccine trials given their physiological differences, which could render a vaccine that does not work as well for blacks as for whites. Some of their reticence to participate stems from experience (the Tuskegee experiments, sterilization and eugenics practices in the last century and the like). The healthcare system's role (and other negatively affecting determinants such as income, employment, access related to housing and transportation, etc.) in addressing health disparities and inequities may also contribute to a suspicious attitude.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

You react with what you've trained.  But Police are not God and if someone really wants to do harm to you or others they will. Even in the face of "superior" weapons (See the videos above

It would be interesting to have nonAmerican police officers examine these occurrences to see it their analysis would match or be different from American trained. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The judeo-christian ethos is not an "internal direction."  That's rather the point.

"That" being . . . what, exactly?

The Bible is not an "internal direction."  It is an external and superior authority, an arbiter that differentiates right from wrong.

Everyone picks and choses from the Bible, if ever they treat it as scripture.  And everyone interprets whatever it is they do choose.  Composing the moral code is very much an internal affair.  Everyone simply treats different things as important and thus moral in different ways.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Through individual and communal means.

Where are you coming up with this?  God is externally directing it, too.  

Only in people's minds is that happening.  After all there is no evidence God is anywhere.  It's only true to some people assume that God is there and therefore assume that which inspires them is from God.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be projecting here.  Korihor-esque theories that reject an external and superior arbiter is your position, not ours.  I-get-to-do-whatever-I-want-ism is your thing, not ours.  I-am-my-own-personal-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is your theory, not ours.

Mine?  Whatever do you mean?  I think there is an objective moral code.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.  No.  The I-as-an-individual-am-the-sole-and-ultimate-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is the bread and butter of secular humanism.

Nah...that's I think where your confusion lies.  No secular humanist suggests "I-as-an-individual-am-the-sole-and-ultimate-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong " at least none of that I've seen.  Here's a quick definition:

"Secular humanism, often simply referred to as humanism, is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making."

While human reasoning always plays a factor it is not all there is involved in morality and decision making.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Religionists submit themselves to an external set of laws and commandments.  We didn't invent them, but we agree to abide by them.

Well, humans did invent them though.  It's only in the mind of religionists that God invented them.  And they only apply to an individual religionist if that religionist personally feels they do or should apply.  There are many Christian religions based on the notion that there is somethign to disagree with in the Bible, for instance.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The "ifs" don't stand up very well.

"Reason" that is based on . . . the judeo-christian ethic.

 

Again, this is the convenient part of secular humanism, which is built on the very ethos it purports to reject.  And when it's not based on that ethos, we get things like the death and misery of hundreds of millions of the various atheistic regimes of the 20th century.  Hitler.  Stalin.  Mao.  Pot.  

There was nothing humanist about these, nor their regimes.  They were heavily dogmatically charged religions, basically.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The judeo-christian folks have been far from perfect, certainly.  Many wrongs have been committed in the name of Christian religions, for example.  But I think the Christians have learned from the errors of the past.  The Crusades are very much in our rearview mirror.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So in your view Christian atrocities ended at the Crusades?  Interesting.  Also interesting you have confused the dogma of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao with secular humanism.  As defined above humanism rejects dogma....these people and their atrocities relied heavily on dogma and were not in anyway based on humanism.  They represent the opposite of what i'm talking about.  

Link to post
33 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The 21 foot rule that police are trained to be aware of:

It sounds like they are updating that too, however (at least in the county where this video was filmed). 

The video states that "policy 16 refers to the 21 foot rule as an outdated concept that agencies should eliminate from their policies and training."

If you watch from 3:17 it gives better alternatives - especially if the officer already has his gun unholstered, unlocked, and aimed at the target, is not backed up against a wall, or can put an object between him and the person wielding a knife.  It is good to see how quickly things can happen however and to have a general idea of distance and time that things can occur.  

Edited by pogi
Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "catchment area."

I've never taken race into account when providing legal representation to clients.

I don't break clients down by race, nor do I know their income.

I don't know.

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you do not take race into account when providing legal representation to clients. But can you get the stats I mentioned, or derive educated guesses/estimates as part of your personal application of Elder Oaks' talk?

For clarification: Catchment area is the geographical area from which your clients are drawn. I'm not asking for the clients' personal incomes, but what percentage of the practice's revenue comes from white and black clients. I'm asking what kinds of cases white clients might have that are different from black clients as a possible indication of the different issues faced by each group. 

What might the reaction be if you asked for these stats? I'm sure grad students are doing all kinds of studies like these in all kinds of businesses (and cheap! :) )

Link to post
53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Read it closely. He is not suggesting that these are the only examples of systemic racism.  He said that "the examples most familiarly reported by the media today are ..."  "These include..."

He is listing them as general and well reported examples of systemic racism in America, as if to say, "open your eyes people, it is happening, just look at the media".  Yes, that is my embellishment.  It is sad that he had to even generally list examples to demonstrate that systemic racist discrimination exists in America.  The reason he probably felt compelled seems obvious for anyone reading this thread.  People here cannot even get themselves to acknowledge that systemic racism exists in America.  

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I don't know what specific examples he is referring to.   I believe him that it is happening though, and that it is systemic in those institutions he generally referred to, and that it is racism, and that this systemic racism exists in America.   

 

I suspected this was your position. I also suspect you didn't need Elder Oaks to convince you of this belef. It's probably inappropriate to delve into the 'whys' of your position without running afoul of the board rules. It does become tedious watching posters go back and forth on this board about what Elder Elder Oaks really meant. I will grant you that it seemed pretty clear to me what he meant to say - systemic racism exists. I would just counter that it was unadvisable to say it the way he did. Too bad we can't delve more substantively into the issue... : (

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours 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?

 

I'm reading in pieces part of this thread. So I know I'm missing stuff and There's a strong chance that I won't answer this well enough. 

Have you heard the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." It's basically the idea that reducing something to just the parts that make it will likely leave you missing something essential that's only seen in the greater whole. 

An individual is not whole without the context, experiences, beliefs, and perspectives that they've gained over their lives. when we try to just focus on the individual we're often missing or becoming blind to their inner world and experiences that truly make them a whole person. 

When George Floyd happened I had plenty of people who still loved me the way they usually did. But they were missing something in me that had fundamentally cracked because they were missing the context of all that I was and am. Though I know they love me I learned (or re-learned in most cases) that their love have limits. The love that touched me the most were from the ones who acknowledged my hurt, sat with me in it, and/or checked in on me without asking to see how I was holding up. They had seen me in my context and knew I would likely be hurting.

If I truly want to love someone I need to be able to express and experience compassion within their frame of reference and context. Not just my own. That sort of love can push us because it often takes us outside our comfort zone, worldview, and own experiences. But that, to me, is Christ like love.

 

with luv,

BD

  • Like 3
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I will grant you that it seemed pretty clear to me what he meant to say - systemic racism exists. I would just counter that it was unadvisable to say it the way he did.

Thank you, and I guess you can take it up with him.

Do you also agree that it seems clear (as it was to Deseret News and myself) that President Nelson, along with the senior national leaders of the NAACP,  also suggested in their joint op-ed that systemic racism exists in America and that it should be "rooted out"?  I assume that you think this was also unadvisable.  

Link to post
26 minutes ago, pogi said:

It sounds like they are updating that too, however (at least in the county where this video was filmed). 

The video states that "policy 16 refers to the 21 foot rule as an outdated concept that agencies should eliminate from their policies and training."

If you watch from 3:17 it gives better alternatives - especially if the officer already has his gun unholstered, unlocked, and aimed at the target, is not backed up against a wall, or can put an object between him and the person wielding a knife.  It is good to see how quickly things can happen however and to have a general idea of distance and time that things can occur.  

Thanks pogi,
I probably didn't do a good job articulating my thought- which is that under stress people do what they have rehearsed and trained.  (If it's the 21 foot rule or what ever else). I think we'd all be in favor of what ever is most effective. :)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thank you, and I guess you can take it up with him.

Do you also agree that it seems clear (as it was to Deseret News and myself) that President Nelson, along with the senior national leaders of the NAACP,  also suggested in their joint op-ed that systemic racism exists in America and that it should be "rooted out"?  I assume that you think this was also unadvisable.  

Well, no doubt the NAACP has that stance. I'm not sure why the Church (I'll take your word for it) would take the same stance if indeed that is what they did. There was a link a couple of pages ago citing several examples of what a gentleman believed was evidence of systemic racism. It was so lacking in critical thinking that it turned me off from the rest of the list. : (

Link to post
49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Everyone picks and choses from the Bible,

Which is why I so appreciate having living prophets and apostles.  

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

if ever they treat it as scripture. 

We do.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And everyone interprets whatever it is they do choose. 

We do not.  "{N}o prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  (2 Peter 1:20)

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Composing the moral code is very much an internal affair. 

It is very much a community affair.  I didn't make up the concept of "judeo-christian ethos."

Whether or not the individual chooses to submit to the judeo-christian ethos is "very much an internal affair."  But the development of the moral code itself?  Nope.  That's not "composed" by the individual.  If I recite Hamlet's soliloquy, I am not "composing" it.  I am accepting it as composed by it's author.  The same, I submit, goes with the judeo-christian ethos.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

Yes.  Through individual and communal means.

Where are you coming up with this?  God is externally directing it, too.  

Only in people's minds is that happening. 

The Bible is not not an "internal" thing.  It may be internalized by the individual, but it reflects an external arbiter of right and wrong.

I'm starting to get the vibe that you really need to project this aspect of secular humanism (that the individual is the arbiter of right and wrong, rather than an external and superior source), but it just doesn't work.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

After all there is no evidence God is anywhere. 

Yes, there is.  Quite a bit, actually.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's only true to some people assume that God is there and therefore assume that which inspires them is from God.  

"It's only true to some people assume that God is not there and therefore assume that which inspires them is not from God."

Easy peasy!

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

You seem to be projecting here.  Korihor-esque theories that reject an external and superior arbiter is your position, not ours.  I-get-to-do-whatever-I-want-ism is your thing, not ours.  I-am-my-own-personal-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is your theory, not ours.

Mine?  Whatever do you mean?  I think there is an objective moral code.  

Written where?  By whom?  When?

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

No.  No.  The I-as-an-individual-am-the-sole-and-ultimate-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is the bread and butter of secular humanism.

Nah...that's I think where your confusion lies.  No secular humanist suggests "I-as-an-individual-am-the-sole-and-ultimate-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong " at least none of that I've seen.  Here's a quick definition:

"Secular humanism, often simply referred to as humanism, is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making."

Who gets to decise what "human reason" dictates vis a vis moral/ethical questions?  The individual.

What are these "secular ethics?"  Who established them?  Where did they come from?  Do they originate in, and are they based on judeo-christian thought?  Sure seems like it.

What is "morality" in the absence of an external and superior arbiter of right and wrong?  There is none.  Only what the individual chooses.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

Religionists submit themselves to an external set of laws and commandments.  We didn't invent them, but we agree to abide by them.

Well, humans did invent them though. 

We invented some religious precepts, but not all.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's only in the mind of religionists that God invented them. 

"It's only in the mind of secularits that God does not exist."

Easy peasy!

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And they only apply to an individual religionist if that religionist personally feels they do or should apply. 

Well, no.  There are plenty of Latter-day Saints to would like to disregard the Law of Chastity because it conflicts with how they "personally feel."  And yet they submit to it. Because they believe there is an arbiter of right and wrong that is external and superior to them.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

Again, this is the convenient part of secular humanism, which is built on the very ethos it purports to reject.  And when it's not based on that ethos, we get things like the death and misery of hundreds of millions of the various atheistic regimes of the 20th century.  Hitler.  Stalin.  Mao.  Pot.  

There was nothing humanist about these, nor their regimes.  They were heavily dogmatically charged religions, basically.  

Secular humanism is very much a religion.  Rejecting the existence of God is a dogmatic, evidence-free dogma.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So in your view Christian atrocities ended at the Crusades?  Interesting. 

No.  Christianity has improved, but still has a long way to go.

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also interesting you have confused the dogma of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao with secular humanism.  As defined above humanism rejects dogma....these people and their atrocities relied heavily on dogma and were not in anyway based on humanism.  They represent the opposite of what i'm talking about.  

I dunno.  If you get to paint all theists with the same brush, then why not pain all atheists the same way?  Goose, gander and all that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Well, no doubt the NAACP has that stance. I'm not sure why the Church (I'll take your word for it) would take the same stance if indeed that is what they did. There was a link a couple of pages ago citing several examples of what a gentleman believed was evidence of systemic racism. It was so lacking in critical thinking that it turned me off from the rest of the list. : (

Here is the op-ed:

https://medium.com/@Ch_JesusChrist/locking-arms-for-racial-harmony-in-america-2f62180abf37

Here is the quote:

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. 

If racism is "rooted" in some "processes, laws, and organizational attitudes" within government, business, and education, that sounds like he is suggesting that systemic racism exists in America, and needs to be "rooted out once and for all".   That is the way that I read it, and that is the way that Deseret News interpreted it as well.

The church is taking this stance because they believe it exists in America, and because it is wrong.

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

had hoped that some here would be willing to help me to better understand what he was referencing.  To move beyond generalities into specifics.

I don’t know what Pres Oaks was referencing, but there were specific examples given in the videos you referenced here and you just dismissed them. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73278-pres-oaks-and-black-lives-matter/?do=findComment&comment=1209998658

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

What exactly do you think a revolution would accomplish besides getting a lot of people killed?

Link to post
5 hours 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?

Yes, because in treating each other as individuals, we must recognize that we do so as part of a collective (both them and us) having been socialized or conditioned very much on the basis of race. Recognizing that people of different races do have different societal experiences irrespective of our common humanity, and that those experiences are harsher for some races than others, bridging the differences between those collective experiences is vey much a systemic process and can be very complicated.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, longview said:

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.

Antifa body count was a solid 0 last I checked. I did hear of recent incidents that might have moved it up to 1 or 2. I have not had time to do a dive into it. Have been focused on the election for the last few months. Marxist? So we are back to the Civil Rights era tactic of denying legitimate grievances by labeling people as being filthy commies? How original.

This was a few months ago but showcases the difference in body counts and shoots down the “both sides” rationalizations some try to cling to: https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7

”It was the British military that rode roughshod over the people and treated them like second class citizens.” Can you use a bit of reflection as to how that is analogous to today? 

I am not agitating for a revolution. I am saying that denial of the grievances may make one happen. You cannot tell people to address their grievances through the system forever when the system fails to address the grievances or, in some cases, actively defends the aggressors. Eventually the oppressed and disenfranchised will turn to violence.

I wasn’t disparaging Jefferson and I think you know that despite disingenuously claiming that I was. I think the American Revolution was legitimate. That was the whole point of the analogy. We are not there yet but this recent reactionary embrace of the vilest elements of our society makes it more likely.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...