Jump to content

The Truth in Black and White


Recommended Posts

A topic that has appeared on this forum over the years is whether it is appropriate, meaningful, or even sensical for an institution to apologize for what it taught and promoted in the past. That is why I thought the following front-page story from this morning's Kansas City Star is relevant.

The truth in Black and white: An apology from The Kansas City Star

Quote

 

Today we are telling the story of a powerful local business that has done wrong.

For 140 years, it has been one of the most influential forces in shaping Kansas City and the region. And yet for much of its early history — through sins of both commission and omission — it disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians. It reinforced Jim Crow laws and redlining. Decade after early decade it robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition.

That business is The Kansas City Star.

Before I say more, I feel it to be my moral obligation to express what is in the hearts and minds of the leadership and staff of an organization that is nearly as old as the city it loves and covers:

We are sorry.

The Kansas City Star prides itself on holding power to account. Today we hold up the mirror to ourselves to see the historic role we have played, through both action and inaction, in shaping and misshaping Kansas City’s landscape.

It is time that we own our history.

It is well past time for an apology, acknowledging, as we do so, that the sins of our past still reverberate today.

Inside The Star, reporters and editors discussed how an honest examination of our own past might help us move forward. What started as a suggestion from reporter Mará Rose Williams quickly turned into a full-blown examination of The Star’s coverage of race and the Black community dating to our founding in 1880....[/quote]

 

(I'd recommend to anybody interested to read the rest of the story here: KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star)

The articles are fascinating because they clearly identify that even though the paper was never an overtly racist rag that promoted the KKK or whatever, the way it treated black people and white people differently caused more harm in more ways than you would probably guess was possible. I can't help but think of Proverbs 28:13 and D&C 58:43. I tip my hat to the Star for publishing this.

Edited by Analytics
  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

A topic that has appeared on this forum over the years is whether it is appropriate, meaningful, or even sensical for an institution to apologize for what it taught and promoted in the past. That is why I thought the following front-page story from this morning's Kansas City Star is relevant.

The truth in Black and white: An apology from The Kansas City Star

(I'd recommend to anybody interested to read the rest of the story here: KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star)

The articles are fascinating because they clearly identify that even though the paper was never an overtly racist rag that promoted the KKK or whatever, the way it treated black people and white people differently caused more harm in more ways than you would probably guess was possible. I can't help but think of Proverbs 28:13 and D&C 58:43. I tip my hat to the Star for publishing this.

I think it is appropriate, meaningful, and even sensical for an institution to apologize for what it taught and promoted in the past.  I also think it is optional and non-essential.

The Church and a news outlet share a common principle of “ongoing revelation” and share the principle of reporting such in the form of doctrine and news, respectively.

I think lapses in reporting knowledge and facts in possession are much more egregious than gaps in knowledge and facts that are obtained later. So, I think it would be more appropriate, meaningful, and even sensical for an institution to apologize for reporting contrary to what it knew than to apologize for not knowing, which seems to be what The Kansas City Star is doing. Otherwise, a retraction or correction would suffice, as the Church did with her essays and disavowals.

Does the Church see herself as one of the most influential forces in shaping global (or American) morality (see references to the relationship between the Restoration and American Racial Culture in the Race and Priesthood Essay; I would say not)? Does she see herself, for 150 of her 200-year history committing sins of both commission and omission which disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black people, reinforced racist policies and robbed an entire race (or Black Americans) of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition (likewise, the Race and Priesthood Essay indicates otherwise)?

Perhaps most important to me, does the Church see herself as having acted contrary to the extant revelation or in line with what might be expected absent a revelation, and again the essay indicates that no, she did not.

I empathize with those who desire to be antiracist, sorrowfully acknowledge and apologize for their racism past and present, strive to do better than the past and remain open to current correction. But they do not, in my opinion, need to apologize. I think that is a moral argument that is more important to some than to those for whom proactive forgiving is a more powerful force in effectuating real change.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think lapses in reporting knowledge and facts in possession are much more egregious than gaps in knowledge and facts that are obtained later. So, I think it would be more appropriate, meaningful, and even sensical for an institution to apologize for reporting contrary to what it knew than to apologize for not knowing, which seems to be what The Kansas City Star is doing. Otherwise, a retraction or correction would suffice, as the Church did with her essays and disavowals.

I wouldn't describe the Star's actions as "reporting contrary to what it knew." If you've haven't had the pleasure of ever visiting Kansas City, it is a remarkably gorgeous city, "the Paris of the Plains." Real estate developer and visionary J.C. Nichols deserves most of the credit for making the city so beautiful. He had a vision of a beautiful city where people spent extra money to make beautiful and long-lasting brick homes that were well maintained and were surrounded by beautifully manicured public spaces with fountains and hedges. The Country Club district, the Plaza, and Ward Parkway are the crown jewels of his vision. It really is an amazing place. Kansas City is also called "the City of Fountains" and claims that it has more public fountains than any other city in the world, except Rome. Kansas Citians take a lot of pride in their city.

The darker side of this vision is that J.C. Nichols was a racist in a way similar to how the pre-1978 Church was racist. According to his vision of the city, blacks should live on the east side of Troost Avenue, and whites should live on the west side. J.C. Nichols was a leading pioneer in HOAs and putting restrictive covenants on property in order to enhance the value of the neighborhood, and all of his developments had restrictive covenants that included the stipulation that only whites were allowed to own or live in his neighborhoods. That's pretty much the extent of his racism.

The Kansas City Star was a strong business partner to Nichols. It was never an overtly racist paper. It just did its best to pretend that black people didn't exist. Generally, black people wouldn't be mentioned in the paper with the exception being when they crossed Troost and committed crimes against white people. 

In addition to the lead article I partially quoted from above, there are six articles about six ways in which the paper hurt black people:

As floodwater upended Black lives, Kansas City newspapers fixated on Plaza, suburbs

When civil rights movement marched forward, The Kansas City Star lagged behind

J.C. Nichols’ whites-only neighborhoods, boosted by Star’s founder, leave indelible mark

Charlie Parker? Jackie Robinson? For The Star, Kansas City Black culture was invisible

‘Brutes’ and murderers: Black people overlooked in KC coverage — except for crime

Kansas City schools broke federal desegregation law for decades. The Star stayed quiet

For whether or not the Church is guilty of similar crimes, it would be interesting to compare the Star to the Deseret News. Of course it isn't totally apples-to-apples because Utah never had a big black population. But some of these issues go beyond local news stories. Did the Deseret News have sport stories about Major League baseball? How about Negro League baseball? Did it do a good job of covering the civil rights movement? 

The harm has to do with how the Star's actions reinforced stereo types, caused white people not to understand or appreciate the humanity and goodness of black people, and caused black people to have fewer opportunities and public resources. The way the Star came clean on all this is eye-opening about the extent of the problem.

Link to post

When businesses do this, it can come across as anywhere between virtuous apology, and pandering/virtue signaling in order to preserve profit.  "We used to be bad, but now we're good - buy our newspapers!"

Other Example: 

U8UZyVI.jpg

Ok, but you're still selling this stuff for money, right?

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, Analytics said:

A topic that has appeared on this forum over the years is whether it is appropriate, meaningful, or even sensical for an institution to apologize for what it taught and promoted in the past. That is why I thought the following front-page story from this morning's Kansas City Star is relevant.

The truth is Black and white: An apology from The Kansas City Star

(I'd recommend to anybody interested to read the rest of the story here: KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star)

The articles are fascinating because they clearly identify that even though the paper was never an overtly racist rag that promoted the KKK or whatever, the way it treated black people and white people differently caused more harm in more ways than you would probably guess was possible. I can't help but think of Proverbs 28:13 and D&C 58:43. I tip my hat to the Star for publishing this.

Proverbs 28:13 - "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy."

D&C 58:43 - "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

Could you explain the meaning of "the truth is black and white" here?  Was it a play on the title of the article ("The Truth in Black and White")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I wouldn't describe the Star's actions as "reporting contrary to what it knew." If you've haven't had the pleasure of ever visiting Kansas City, it is a remarkably gorgeous city, "the Paris of the Plains." Real estate developer and visionary J.C. Nichols deserves most of the credit for making the city so beautiful. He had a vision of a beautiful city where people spent extra money to make beautiful and long-lasting brick homes that were well maintained and were surrounded by beautifully manicured public spaces with fountains and hedges. The Country Club district, the Plaza, and Ward Parkway are the crown jewels of his vision. It really is an amazing place. Kansas City is also called "the City of Fountains" and claims that it has more public fountains than any other city in the world, except Rome. Kansas Citians take a lot of pride in their city.

The darker side of this vision is that J.C. Nichols was a racist in a way similar to how the pre-1978 Church was racist. According to his vision of the city, blacks should live on the east side of Troost Avenue, and whites should live on the west side. J.C. Nichols was a leading pioneer in HOAs and putting restrictive covenants on property in order to enhance the value of the neighborhood, and all of his developments had restrictive covenants that included the stipulation that only whites were allowed to own or live in his neighborhoods. That's pretty much the extent of his racism.

The Kansas City Star was a strong business partner to Nichols. It was never an overtly racist paper. It just did its best to pretend that black people didn't exist. Generally, black people wouldn't be mentioned in the paper with the exception being when they crossed Troost and committed crimes against white people. 

In addition to the lead article I partially quoted from above, there are six articles about six ways in which the paper hurt black people:

As floodwater upended Black lives, Kansas City newspapers fixated on Plaza, suburbs

When civil rights movement marched forward, The Kansas City Star lagged behind

J.C. Nichols’ whites-only neighborhoods, boosted by Star’s founder, leave indelible mark

Charlie Parker? Jackie Robinson? For The Star, Kansas City Black culture was invisible

‘Brutes’ and murderers: Black people overlooked in KC coverage — except for crime

Kansas City schools broke federal desegregation law for decades. The Star stayed quiet

For whether or not the Church is guilty of similar crimes, it would be interesting to compare the Star to the Deseret News. Of course it isn't totally apples-to-apples because Utah never had a big black population. But some of these issues go beyond local news stories. Did the Deseret News have sport stories about Major League baseball? How about Negro League baseball? Did it do a good job of covering the civil rights movement? 

The harm has to do with how the Star's actions reinforced stereo types, caused white people not to understand or appreciate the humanity and goodness of black people, and caused black people to have fewer opportunities and public resources. The way the Star came clean on all this is eye-opening about the extent of the problem.

The Star’s primary mission is to report news, so if it did that in a way that only in hindsight they concluded negatively affected the local and national Black community, and they wish to apologize for it, I can understand that but do not expect them to. If the Deseret News operated the same way, I would feel the same way irrespective of the difference in size of the Black communities between KC and SLC or the two papers’ impact on national racism as a result of their reporting and editorial decisions.

You mention guilt, crime, harm and coming clean in relation to the problems of racism. Apology and the presumably accompanying improvement in behavior in my mind would be insufficient for any of these; guilt and crime should be punished and ideally accompanied by restitution. At the same time you don’t seem to be attributing criminality to the Star, so apology is about as far as it can probably go.

I think everyone in America, of all races, can afford to acknowledge their racism and correct it. You mentioned a number of forms the Star perpetuated. Apology for me is not a mandatory step in that corrective process, though punishment and restitution are essential for the criminal justice process. The true satisfaction for all involved is in the correction, and where criminal, restitution as well.

Edited by CV75
Link to post
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

When businesses do this, it can come across as anywhere between virtuous apology, and pandering/virtue signaling in order to preserve profit.  "We used to be bad, but now we're good - buy our newspapers!"

Other Example: 

U8UZyVI.jpg

Ok, but you're still selling this stuff for money, right?

I struggle with this criticism.  I see your point, but I also see the position taken by Warner Brothers and other purveyors of material that, by today's standards, are "racist."  They  have a few options:

Option 1. Continue to distribute such materials, but offer a statement that retracts or apologizes or at least contextualizes the harmful/offensive elements of the material.

Option 2. Cease to distribute such materials altogether.

Option 3. Continue to distribute such materials, but make no effort to retract or apologize or contextualize the harmful/offensive elements of the material.

Option 2, at least in an across-the-board way, seems impractical, even inappropriate.  There are many forms of entertainment / artistic / literary media (movies, books, etc.) that have harmful/offensive elements, but ceasing to distribute them would amount to pervasive censorship and revisionism.  I find that fairly troubling.  I will note here that Option 2 may be appropriate for some media, the worst, but I think that would need such deliberate and calculated censorship would need to be circumspect and voluntary.

Option 3 seems to be a good way to go for a lot of media.  Let the materials speak for themselves.  And let this option be a counterbalance to Option 2, the need for such being made apparent by stories such as this one (from last month!) :

Quote

Schools in Burbank will no longer be able to teach a handful of classic novels, including Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, following concerns raised by parents over racism.

Middle and high school English teachers in the Burbank Unified School District received the news during a virtual meeting on September 9.

Until further notice, teachers in the area will not be able to include on their curriculum Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, Theodore Taylor's The Cay and Mildred D. Taylor's Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.

Outside of the scriptures, To Kill a Mockingbird was perhaps the single most formative book in my life.  It helped me begin to understand the evil of racism in ways that abstract denunciations of it never could.  Atticus Finch is my single greatest fictional hero.  His example, and that of Abraham Lincoln, were key to my deciding to become a lawyer.  I was introduced to the novel by my ninth grade English teacher, Mr. Wickes.  I am very grateful that he had the opportunity to do so.

That leaves Option 1.  Is it appropriate?  In some contexts, yes.  Consider Disney's Dumbo, which has a character, an anthropomorphic crow, named "Jim."  Yeesh.  And then there's the depiction of American Indians in Disney's Peter Pan.  Yeesh again.  These films are currently on Disney+ with the following content warning:

screen-shot-2020-10-15-at-4.57.39-pm.png

I think this example of Option 1 is, in this context, preferable to saying nothing (Option 3) or censoring these films altogether (Option 2).

On the other hand, Disney is completely censoring its Song of the South.

On other other hand, "{i}n 1992, the Library of Congress deemed the film {Birth of a Nation} "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry."  A summary:

Quote

The film was controversial even before its release and has remained so ever since; it has been called "the most controversial film ever made in the United States". Lincoln is portrayed positively, unusual for a narrative that promotes the Lost Cause ideology. On the other hand, the film portrays African Americans (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. The film presents the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) as a heroic force necessary to preserve American values and a white supremacist social order.

In sum, I can't say that any of the foregoing options is the "best" or "exclusive" one.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

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

Proverbs 28:13 - "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy."

D&C 58:43 - "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

Could you explain the meaning of "the truth is black and white" here?  Was it a play on the title of the article ("The Truth in Black and White")?

Thanks,

-Smac

A typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out--I fixed it.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The answer to this question is definitely not black or white.

My housemate was born in West Africa and, as I am, is a naturalised citizen of the nation where we have made our home. He is also a passionate convert, the only one in his family, who has had to repeatedly defend his decision to be baptised as a Latter-day Saint to critical family and friends, both here and in Africa. We both know racism first-hand, though his experiences have been far, far more intense than mine.

When this topic was raised on this forum at some point in the past, I asked him his opinion on the agitation for the Church to issue an apology for past practices. His response: 'Hell no!'

He then went on to explain how offensive and demeaning it is to him personally when people seek to find offence on his behalf, and he concluded with a spirited defence of Latter-day prophets.

So yeah, not black or white ...

I would suggest that in general, you shouldn't demand an apology from somebody as a condition of forgiving them, much less as a condition for not harboring resentment and ill will.

The Kansas City Star offered a great apology because it wasn't done in an effort to appease outside forces--black or white--that were upset it had done wrong and were threatening to harm it economically if it didn't bend to their demands. Rather, it came from within.

If you were to come visit me in Kansas City, I'd show you Ward Parkway and the Plaza and the beautiful parts on the city that J.C. Nichols built. You'd sense the reverence I actually feel for him and that part of his legacy. But I'd also take you across Troost and show you where Henry Perry and Arthur Bryant started the American BBQ craze. I'd take you to the Negro League baseball museum. We'd go to the Blue Room and hear world class jazz, and then go over to the American Jazz Museum and learn how Kansas City is right up there with Chicago and New Orleans as one of the cradles of this sophisticated music. 

My point is that for generations, the [white] readers of the Kansas City Star were barely aware of the rich culture that was taking place on the other half of the city, much less in a position to appreciate it. So not only were black people hurt by how the Kansas City Star reported the news, its white readers were hurt too. The Star's apology shined light on the fact that a big group of the victims didn't even know they were victims. By apologizing, it educated the world about how it fell short of its own values, and enriched its readers by doing so.

Edited by Analytics
Link to post
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would suggest that in general, you shouldn't demand an apology from somebody as a condition of forgiving them, much less as a condition for not harboring resentment and ill will.

The Kansas City Star offered a great apology because it wasn't done in an effort to appease outside forces--black or white--that were upset it had done wrong and were threatening to harm it economically if it didn't bend to their demands. Rather, it came from within.

If you were to come visit me in Kansas City, I'd show you Ward Parkway and the Plaza and the beautiful parts on the city that J.C. Nichols built. You'd sense the reverence I actually feel for him and that part of his legacy. But I'd also take you across Troost and show you where Henry Perry and Arthur Bryant started the American BBQ craze. I'd take you to the Negro League baseball museum. We'd go to the Blue Room and hear world class jazz, and then go over to the American Jazz Museum and learn how Kansas City is right up there with Chicago and New Orleans as one of the cradles of this sophisticated music. 

My point is that for generations, the [white] readers of the Kansas City Star were barely aware of the rich culture that was taking place on the other half of the city, much less in a position to appreciate it. So not only were black people hurt by how the Kansas City Star reported the news, its white readers were hurt too. The Star's apology shined light on the fact that a big group of the victims didn't even know they were victims. By apologizing, it educated the world about how it fell short of its own values, and enriched its readers by doing so.

Likewise, Juneteenth is a celebration of freedom for white people as well as Black people, but without priming the attention of white people through apology.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The answer to this question is definitely not black or white.

My housemate was born in West Africa and, as I am, is a naturalised citizen of the nation where we have made our home. He is also a passionate convert, the only one in his family, who has had to repeatedly defend his decision to be baptised as a Latter-day Saint to critical family and friends, both here and in Africa. We both know racism first-hand, though his experiences have been far, far more intense than mine.

When this topic was raised on this forum at some point in the past, I asked him his opinion on the agitation for the Church to issue an apology for past practices. His response: 'Hell no!'

He then went on to explain how offensive and demeaning it is to him personally when people seek to find offence on his behalf, and he concluded with a spirited defence of Latter-day prophets.

So yeah, not black or white ...

A similar discomfort occurs when white people apologize for racism, because it places an often ambiguous burden on the recipient to deal with it while the apologizer feels just fine now. The offense may not have been criminal, but it is often deeper than the apologizer can appreciate given the racial socialization of Black people and the lack of such socialization in whites.

Link to post
Quote

Today we are telling the story of a powerful local business that has done wrong.

For 140 years, it has been one of the most influential forces in shaping Kansas City and the region. [...]

That business is The Kansas City Star.

I don't think I'll have time to wade into the larger conversation here, but I couldn't help but read this and think, 'my, they sure think highly of themselves.'

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 12/20/2020 at 11:55 AM, Analytics said:

A topic that has appeared on this forum over the years is whether it is appropriate, meaningful, or even sensical for an institution to apologize for what it taught and promoted in the past. That is why I thought the following front-page story from this morning's Kansas City Star is relevant.

An institution doesn't actually say anything.  Ever.  Unless you count what people within an institution say and think of what they say as if they are speaking for the entire institution to which they belong.  I consider that to be what those people are saying.  

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

An institution doesn't actually say anything.  Ever.  Unless you count what people within an institution say and think of what they say as if they are speaking for the entire institution to which they belong.  I consider that to be what those people are saying.  

That is so absurdly incorrect.  The reason corporations were established in the first place is so that they could speak and act for themselves.  The Church was originally operated as a trust and now it is a corporation and has been since the 19th century.  Corporations and trusts can apologize and do. 

An apology has no meaning whatsoever unless it relates to wrongdoing within the statute of limitations, but it is done.  It is done to assuage the masses, among other things.

Here's a Forbes article on some modern corporate apologies:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2018/10/24/10-powerful-examples-of-corporate-apologies/?sh=233c29fd40de.  

Here's a Wiki article about apologies made by the Catholic Church:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II.  

The most significant example of a corporate apology would be reparations paid for slavery.  I just don't see it; don't see the meaning of it or the sense of it.  But America has a lot of paying to do for hundreds of years of slavery and transportation and kidnapping.  I'm not sure how that would be done.

As far as the Church apologizing for wrong in the past, I don't see how it would benefit anyone except critics.  The Church is guided by geniuses and idiots, and each claims entitlement to represent God.  There are going to be mistakes.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

That is so absurdly incorrect.  The reason corporations were established in the first place is so that they could speak and act for themselves.  The Church was originally operated as a trust and now it is a corporation and has been since the 19th century.  Corporations and trusts can apologize and do. 

Apparently you count what people within an institution say and think as if they are speaking for the entire institution to which they belong, and as I said, unless you count that, an institution doesn't actually say anything.  Ever.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Apparently you count what people within an institution say and think as if they are speaking for the entire institution to which they belong, and as I said, unless you count that, an institution doesn't actually say anything.  Ever.

A corporation does the talking, not the individuals in it.  That's the law and has been the law for a long time.  The Board meets, negotiates a position on a public statement or a corporate action, and executes it.  No one person does the speaking for a corporation unless articles of incorporation permit one person to do the speaking.  

The Church is a corporation sole.  No particular general authority speaks for the Church.   When the Church speaks, it is does under the authority of the First Presidency.  These are simple concepts.  Master them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As far as the Church apologizing for wrong in the past, I don't see how it would benefit anyone except critics.  The Church is guided by geniuses and idiots, and each claims entitlement to represent God.  There are going to be mistakes.

According to the publisher of the Star, frankly confessing your own history and coming to terms with it was a moral obligation for them. They did it hoping it would help them move forward and be a better paper. They suggest that other organizations should go through this same process to "get the poison out." According to their line of thinking, to the extent the Church is guilty of similar misdeeds it should apologize not only because it is a moral obligation, but also because doing so will help it heal and move forward and be better. The main people this would benefit is its leaders, members, and the broader community.

Of course an argument can be made that it's better to leave the sins of the past in the past and just move forward without a confession. If the Church continues with that that approach, we can all see the irony in a Church that exhorts its members to confess their sins to the Church isn't willing to confess its own sins to the members.

Link to post
19 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

A corporation does the talking, not the individuals in it.  That's the law and has been the law for a long time.  The Board meets, negotiates a position on a public statement or a corporate action, and executes it.  No one person does the speaking for a corporation unless articles of incorporation permit one person to do the speaking.  

The Church is a corporation sole.  No particular general authority speaks for the Church.   When the Church speaks, it is does under the authority of the First Presidency.  These are simple concepts.  Master them.

People are the entities on this planet who do all of the "talking" and a corporation is not a person, even though silly man-made laws treat and define a corporation as a person. 

And that means that even if a person says a corporation is "talking" or can "talk" it is only the person who says that who is doing the talking. 

Master that concept.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

People are the entities on this planet who do all of the "talking" and a corporation is not a person, even though silly man-made laws treat and define a corporation as a person. 

And that means that even if a person says a corporation is "talking" or can "talk" it is only the person who says that who is doing the talking. 

Master that concept.

This derail is bound to go exciting places.

tenor.gif?itemid=16327664

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
37 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to the publisher of the Star, frankly confessing your own history and coming to terms with it was a moral obligation for them. They did it hoping it would help them move forward and be a better paper. They suggest that other organizations should go through this same process to "get the poison out." According to their line of thinking, to the extent the Church is guilty of similar misdeeds it should apologize not only because it is a moral obligation, but also because doing so will help it heal and move forward and be better. The main people this would benefit is its leaders, members, and the broader community.

Of course an argument can be made that it's better to leave the sins of the past in the past and just move forward without a confession. If the Church continues with that that approach, we can all see the irony in a Church that exhorts its members to confess their sins to the Church isn't willing to confess its own sins to the members.

Try putting yourself in the place of a member of an organization and then suppose someone else in that organization apologizes for something specific someone else did as a member of that organization which the person apologizing did not do.

That's what we're talking about.  Someone apologizing for something someone else did.  That would be like me apologizing for something you said on this message board because we are both members of this board and I did not like what you said.

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Try putting yourself in the place of a member of an organization and then suppose someone else in that organization apologizes for something specific someone else did as a member of that organization which the person apologizing did not do.

That's what we're talking about.  Someone apologizing for something someone else did.  That would be like me apologizing for something you said on this message board because we are both members of this board and I did not like what you said.

Did you read the Kansas City Star article I posted?

Instead of talking about "an organization" in abstract, let's talk about the Kansas City Star. Consider the following questions:

1- Is the Kansas Star a thing? Or is it merely a collection of people and it's nonsensical to refer to it as an entity in its own right?

2- If it is an entity in its own right, does that entity do things? For example, if I said, "The Kansas City Star covers the Chiefs," would you object and say, "No, the Kansas City Star can't cover the Chiefs. It can't do anything! Only people do things--not abstract organizations!" Or would you not take issue with the claim that the Kansas City Star can do things, such as "cover the Chiefs"? 

3- If you agree that the Kansas City Star can do things, can we ever make value judgments about what it does? Would it be wrong, for example, for it to knowingly publish hurtful lies?

4- If you agree that we can make value judgments about what the Kansas City Star does, can the Kansas City Star strive to make moral decisions? Can it have values? If so, why can't it apologize when it falls short of its own values?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

To the world:  I apologize for everything bad The Nehor has ever said.  

Be more specific please. Apologize to those this Nehor person specifically hurt and acknowledge how hurtful those words were.

Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Be more specific please. Apologize to those this Nehor person specifically hurt and acknowledge how hurtful those words were.

I am not your secretary, and you should apologize personally.  I think it's a bit silly for someone to apologize for what someone else said or did.  I hope my example helps you to see that.

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...