Jump to content

Byu devotional talk re: Sin of racism'


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

............................then acknowledges that there have been elements of racial injustice, such as the above-referenced bombing, the "Trail of Tears," hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens with Mexican heritage forced to leave the U.S. during the Great Depression (I was not familiar with this), the WWII internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and more.

4. He then speaks to "what some call 'America's Original Sin': slavery."  He speaks about the wealth generated by this slave labor, the horrible treatment endured by slaves, their lack of rights under the law, their inability to protect themselves and their family members from being separated from each other and sold, and so on.  He says that slavery "was, and is, a sin against the family."  He then talke about post-Civil War "convict leasing" (Wikipedia: "a system of forced penal labor which was historically practiced in the Southern United States and overwhelmingly involved African-American men") and the legal machinations that facilitated it.  He also speaks of lynchings of black people, and how they were often authorized by local government.  He gives an example of a black woman, Mary Turner, who was lynched while 8 months pregnant for publicly speaking against the lynching of her husband on the day prior (Wikipedia article about this is here, though be warned it's pretty awful).

5. He then transitions into how we can find peace by realizing that Jesus Christ "knows the exact pain of each African slave.  Black children who died in dark mines.  Mary Turner, full with child, hanging in agony from Folsom's Bridge," and also the three little boys murdered at Haun's Mill.  He then speaks about the love and mercy and atoning power of the Savior.

What is truly disturbing are the photos we have of crowds of white folk proudly standing around at those lynchings, the same way Germans and Austrians would have themselves photographed during the wholesale slaughter of Jews before and during WW II (see Hitler's Willing Executioners).  Centuries earlier it was the Roman Catholic French freely slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Protestant Huguenots.  I have mentioned before on this board the willingness of some Americans to slaughter innocent men, women, and children in Amerindian villages, those same Americans being found later on both sides of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Truly has Hannah Arendt made the case for human savagery and the banality of evil.  Only the righteous are willing to stand in the face of such evil, as did the Mormon teenager, Helmuth Huebener, who stood against Hitler and was executed for it (

Quote

6. He then speaks about how our current concepts of "race" and racial groups "was established through a complex history of colonialism, a merging of economic systems along with early misguided attempts to understand human behavioral differences through science."  He then spoke of how 19th century scientists were developing formal structures of taxonomic nomenclatures for the natural world, and then started adapting those principles to "racial categorization" of human societal groups with similar physical traits, and to therefore "attempted to attribute intelligence and behavioral traits to the physical features of various racial groups."  These scientists then posited that the "white" groups were "naturally superior," and that this superiority was then used to justify slavery and other forms of racial oppression.  Very insightful and reasoned stuff, this.

American scientists were in the forefront of that eugenics movement, and Hitler merely adapted it to suit his own prejudices.  We like to  pin blame on the Germans, but we ourselves are the true enemy.

Quote

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

9. He spoke of Martin Luther King, but also of other less well known champions of the Civil Rights Era.............................

What worries me is the willingness of left-wing ideologues to throw Dr King under the bus, and to pretend that we did not have a Black President for eight years, as though no progress has been made.  Fortunately he did not take that tack, and notes that progress.  Fortunately, we have seen a good deal of information coming out on successful LDS efforts in Africa (in addition to what we heard during April Conference).  Interpreter has recently carried some articles on our missionary efforts in Africa, where spectacular growth is taking place.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

... What worries me is the willingness of left-wing ideologues to throw Dr King under the bus, and to pretend that we did not have a Black President for eight years, as though no progress has been made.  Fortunately he did not take that tack, and notes that progress. ...

Amen!  This is the biggest problem with the current "Woke" climate.  For all the ways in which we're not where we could be, not where we should be, and not where we ought to be when it comes to race relations and equality, it seems as though the current movement's biggest urge is to disregard completely the decades and centuries of sacrifices (and, dare I say, progress) made by those who came before them.  Does prejudice exist now; does racism exist now; still, do people mistreat their fellow human beings on the basis of race?  Unfortunately, yes, on all counts.  But there's no comparison between the racism, prejudice, and mistreatment as it exists now as compared to how it existed then.  But in the eyes of the "Woke," it's as though no such progress ever has been made, and in their eyes, anyone who believes that such progress has been made is part of the problem.  For them, there's no "1860s vs. 1960s vs. Now."  It's.  All.  The.  Same.  Thing.  For too many "Woke" activists, it seems that for them to admit that any progress at all has been made is to threaten their very reason for being.

And yes, Robert, I know were from different generations and you lived it while I have simply read  about it, but I'm sure, because of that, that you believe the truth of Jorge Santayana's dictum that "He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it."  I wonder, how many of the "Woke" are at all familiar with Santayana?  Not many are, if any at all are, it would seem.

There is a nobility and wisdom in Bruder Hubener's very countenance that belies his years.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Throw Dr. King under the bus? It is true that we had a Black President but look at the ire and pushback that generated. The idea that this was a simple step on the road to equality without a huge reactionary pushback against the very idea of it is silly. Many were threatened by it and many still are.

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

The idea that Dr. King can be reduced to a couple of milquetoast sound bytes about equality that almost everyone can ostensibly say without self-examination is a disservice to what the man taught, did, and was. 

Dr King hoped that individuals would be judged based on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin.  That may be a milquetoast sound byte to some, but it is anathema to the BLM ideologues who hate Dr King and his legacy, and who wish to cast endless aspersions on the principles of equality of opportunity.  Thus, nothing that Dr King did can be praised, and nothing that has in fact happened in America can be touted as an improvement -- since all white people are systemic racists by definition, and since only anger, hatred, and violence will bring any change.  In fact, tossing Dr King and all other civil rights workers under the bus is essential to the doctrine of original sin closely held by BLM and their kin.  Thus, we must necessarily forget anything said by Frederick Douglass, Dr King, or Congressman John Lewis (who was still warm in his grave while everything he stood for was disregarded).  In the sick BLM view, Medger Evers, Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney died for nothing, and standing on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was completely meaningless.  The fact that a Black man was President for eight years is only evidence of hate and racism -- couldn't possibly be because he won a couple of national elections.

BLM stands for Orwellian doublethink and the destruction of true freedom for minorities.  I marched with Dr King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in the 60s, and I recognize nothing in BLM which has anything to do with civil rights for minorities.

BLM-style racism just got Cornel West denial of tenure at Harvard (he is now happily taking the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Chair at Union Theological Seminary), and Thomas Sowell (a fellow Marine) continues to tell it like it is for those who don't understand what is actually happening.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Amen!  This is the biggest problem with the current "Woke" climate.  For all the ways in which we're not where we could be, not where we should be, and not where we ought to be when it comes to race relations and equality, it seems as though the current movement's biggest urge is to disregard completely the decades and centuries of sacrifices (and, dare I say, progress) made by those who came before them.  Does prejudice exist now; does racism exist now; still, do people mistreat their fellow human beings on the basis of race?  Unfortunately, yes, on all counts.  But there's no comparison between the racism, prejudice, and mistreatment as it exists now as compared to how it existed then.  But in the eyes of the "Woke," it's as though no such progress ever has been made, and in their eyes, anyone who believes that such progress has been made is part of the problem.  For them, there's no "1860s vs. 1960s vs. Now."  It's.  All.  The.  Same.  Thing.  For too many "Woke" activists, it seems that for them to admit that any progress at all has been made is to threaten their very reason for being.

And yes, Robert, I know were from different generations and you lived it while I have simply read  about it, but I'm sure, because of that, that you believe the truth of Jorge Santayana's dictum that "He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it."  I wonder, how many of the "Woke" are at all familiar with Santayana?  Not many are, if any at all are, it would seem.

There is a nobility and wisdom in Bruder Hubener's very countenance that belies his years.

Amen, Brother.  It is nice to know that someone on this board gets it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dr King hoped that individuals would be judged based on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin.  That may be a milquetoast sound byte to some, but it is anathema to the BLM ideologues who hate Dr King and his legacy, and who wish to cast endless aspersions on the principles of equality of opportunity.  Thus, nothing that Dr King did can be praised, and nothing that has in fact happened in America can be touted as an improvement -- since all white people are systemic racists by definition, and since only anger, hatred, and violence will bring any change.  In fact, tossing Dr King and all other civil rights workers under the bus is essential to the doctrine of original sin closely held by BLM and their kin.  Thus, we must necessarily forget anything said by Frederick Douglass, Dr King, or Congressman John Lewis (who was still warm in his grave while everything he stood for was disregarded).  In the sick BLM view, Medger Evers, Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney died for nothing, and standing on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was completely meaningless.  The fact that a Black man was President for eight years is only evidence of hate and racism -- couldn't possibly be because he won a couple of national elections.

BLM stands for Orwellian doublethink and the destruction of true freedom for minorities.  I marched with Dr King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in the 60s, and I recognize nothing in BLM which has anything to do with civil rights for minorities.

BLM-style racism just got Cornel West denial of tenure at Harvard (he is now happily taking the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Chair at Union Theological Seminary), and Thomas Sowell (a fellow Marine) continues to tell it like it is for those who don't understand what is actually happening.

 

The myths of economic inequality? You can believe that if you want (you would be wrong) but the idea that you can agree with Dr. King and also believe that is ludicrous. His talk about racial economic inequality and the need for a radical redistribution of economic and political power (like I quoted above) are all over what he said. There is a reason he was hated. I suspect you would have at least disagreed with him if he were alive today teaching the same things.

In addition to misrepresenting Dr. King you also managed to completely misrepresent BLM.

C47D8ABC-83E9-4CC0-A651-A0590031052E.png.9c1814daa3feb32a787f011793a71efa.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There is a play about Bruder Hubener and his exploits.  Who knew? :unknw:   I'd like to see it produced: https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/02/24/kss-huebener-playwright-discusses-lds-church-suppressed-play-first-high-school-performance/

Here is Professor Tom Rogers' 2014 comments (email to me, with my redactions) on his Hubener play:

Quote

 

The first really significant play I ever wrote was “Huebener,” which I composed while on the ‘Y’ faculty and which had two productions there—the first in 1976, the second in 1992 after its ban by leading General Authorities was apparently lifted, coinciding with the end of the Cold War.  Although I had been told of the Huebener Affair by a fellow missionary when I served in the North German Mission (1955–1958), which then included both Hamburg and Berlin, the Mission’s headquarters, as well as all of East Germany, I put it out of my mind until, by serendipitous chance (?), a colleague in the BYU Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages, Alan Keele, pointed at me during a presentation to members of our college faculty and, while discussing the praiseworthy mention of Huebener in the novels of two post-WW II Nobel Prize winning authors, Heinrich Boell and Guenther Grass, pointed at me and said, “Tom, you should write a play about this.”  I’d even forgotten that I’d ever written plays before ten years earlier transferring as a DFA candidate at the Yale School of Drama to a Russian major in, first, the Yale Graduate School and, later, at Georgetown University.  

Alan and Doug Tobler, who were about to publish a book about the Huebener story, generously provided their research materials as a basis for my play.  I could not foresee that it would become the sensation it was and continues to be for successive generations of new audiences.  Next month, for instance, I’ll be traveling to St. George with my agent to attend a performance by students of the Pine Valley High School, speak to the audience and the next day help conduct a playwriting workshop for the director’s students.  (The play was previously produced at Dixie College through the encouragement and auspices of its former president, my junior high and high school buddy, the historian Douglas Alder.)  About ten years ago I directed a production here at the Bountiful Davis Art Center and a decade earlier   with Church members in St. Petersburg, in Russian.  Rudi Wobbe and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe were featured guests at two of the premiere performances, and Karl Heinz continued to attend later productions throughout the state, speaking to and fielding questions from their audiences.  (Karl-Heinz and I had previously been fellow actors on the stage of Deutsches Teater Salt Lake City.)

Although in 1976 we were allowed to continue with the exceptional extended run of performances that lasted a good five weeks at BYU, Keele, Tobler and I were asked by two apostles, one who now heads the Church, to desist from further mention of the Huebener incident.  This was, I know, a real blow to my colleagues, and I sometimes wonder if they don’t still harbor a certain resentment, at least regret that they assisted me to write the play.  When a few years later Walk Ons, a SLC based theatrical group made up of former BYU theatre students, asked if they could perform the play, I had to deny them permission.  It was then that a young attorney associated with their enterprise, David Anderson, took it upon himself to write an alternate script.  To promote it and Walk On’s ensuing production, David’s older brother, Vern, who had once been my first counselor in a BYU LDS student branch and who was then the AP bureau chief in SLC (subsequently editor of the SL Tribune’s editorial page), ran an expose of the Church’s earlier suppression of my play that went around the world on the AP wire and got my name in the New York Times.  In the process of writing that piece, Vern and his associates tried to wrest from me the name of the apostle who had expressly suppressed it.  Although I knew who it was, some saving instinct prompted me to tell them I could not remember.  Repercussions followed when my dean told me that ########## had been asked by the Board of Trustees if I’d betrayed the apostle’s name, which did appear in the AP release.  #######, bless his heart, assured the Brethren that he knew me well and could vouch for my being above such disclosure.  (Gulp!)  My dean, Richard Cracroft, later assured me (from ########) that the Brethren wanted me to be at ease, that they knew I was not the source.  [My immediate reaction—I just wanted to vomit!  It reminds me of all the sycophantism and scandal that just now surround New Jersey’s governor, Chris Christie.]

“Huebener’” launched my serious avocation as a playwright, later cited by Gene England as “undoubtedly the father of modern Mormon drama.”  Without that first play on the subject, I doubt Huebener’s story would have much come to people’s attention before Michael Whitaker’s excellent BYU produced documentary and a full page spread article that simultaneously appeared in the Church News.  (Mike still has serious ambitious to direct his own script on the subject as a feature film with noted Hollywood actors, which he’s also shown me and for which he’s asked me to concur that it does not plagiarize mine.)  This is a long, digressive way to indicate that, to my knowledge, Doug Tobler was, if at all, only slightly involved in the production of David Anderson’s script.  (I attended one of its performances, at which Rudi Wobbe was also in attendance.)

As for the unfortunate“White Rose” trio, I’m quite sure that long ago German film makers produced a sympathetic and objective treatment of their ordeal.  (As was done in several other post-WW II German films such as “Die Bruecke” and “Das Boot.”  (Boell and Grass were particularly impressed that, unlike other dissidents, Huebener never advocated violent retaliation against Hitler.)

On one of my post-mission trips to Berlin I visited the Ploetzensee memorial and infamous execution site.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The myths of economic inequality? You can believe that if you want (you would be wrong) but the idea that you can agree with Dr. King and also believe that is ludicrous. His talk about racial economic inequality and the need for a radical redistribution of economic and political power (like I quoted above) are all over what he said. There is a reason he was hated. I suspect you would have at least disagreed with him if he were alive today teaching the same things.

In addition to misrepresenting Dr. King you also managed to completely misrepresent BLM..............

Woke ideologues naturally take this stance and disregard any sort of factual analysis.  It is their right to be wrong, and one must expect such nonsense from the neo-Marxist Left -- which has done everything it can to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry for those who do not have the "correct"  apriori views.  For them the Constitution is an albatross around the necks of woke people everywhere, just as it was for Johnny Reb in the 1860s.

 

 

 

 

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

Woke ideologues naturally take this stance and disregard any sort of factual analysis.  It is their right to be wrong, and one must expect such nonsense from the neo-Marxist Left -- which has done everything it can to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry for those who do not have the "correct"  apriori views.  For them the Constitution is an albatross around the necks of woke people everywhere, just as it was for Johnny Reb in the 1860s

This is just so bizarre, Robert. Any number of critical movements for freedom could have been considered "woke" and radical in their day. Your dismissal of BLM seems to be every bit as bad or even worse than what you claim BLM to be. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

The talk is quite good.  A few points:

1. He starts out by comparing 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama with the Haun's Mill massacre.

2. He says that Pres. Nelson has asked us to "lead out" in abandoning "attitudes and actions" about prejudice.

3. He says "there is much to be admired" about the history of the United States, "far more" than he could speak about even if he was given a week to do so.  Then then points to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He then acknowledges that there have been elements of racial injustice, such as the above-referenced bombing, the "Trail of Tears," hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens with Mexican heritage forced to leave the U.S. during the Great Depression (I was not familiar with this), the WWII internment camps of Japanese-Americans, and more.

4. He then speaks to "what some call 'America's Original Sin': slavery."  He speaks about the wealth generated by this slave labor, the horrible treatment endured by slaves, their lack of rights under the law, their inability to protect themselves and their family members from being separated from each other and sold, and so on.  He says that slavery "was, and is, a sin against the family."  He then talke about post-Civil War "convict leasing" (Wikipedia: "a system of forced penal labor which was historically practiced in the Southern United States and overwhelmingly involved African-American men") and the legal machinations that facilitated it.  He also speaks of lynchings of black people, and how they were often authorized by local government.  He gives an example of a black woman, Mary Turner, who was lynched while 8 months pregnant for publicly speaking against the lynching of her husband on the day prior (Wikipedia article about this is here, though be warned it's pretty awful).

5. He then transitions into how we can find peace by realizing that Jesus Christ "knows the exact pain of each African slave.  Black children who died in dark mines.  Mary Turner, full with child, hanging in agony from Folsom's Bridge," and also the three little boys murdered at Haun's Mill.  He then speaks about the love and mercy and atoning power of the Savior.

6. He then speaks about how our current concepts of "race" and racial groups "was established through a complex history of colonialism, a merging of economic systems along with early misguided attempts to understand human behavioral differences through science."  He then spoke of how 19th century scientists were developing formal structures of taxonomic nomenclatures for the natural world, and then started adapting those principles to "racial categorization" of human societal groups with similar physical traits, and to therefore "attempted to attribute intelligence and behavioral traits to the physical features of various racial groups."  These scientists then posited that the "white" groups were "naturally superior," and that this superiority was then used to justify slavery and other forms of racial oppression.  Very insightful and reasoned stuff, this.

7. At about the 11:11 mark, where he says: "In other words, racism is an idea that a racial heirarchy exists, where certain groups are superior to others.  In the context of the United States, the racial heirarchy places whites at the top and African-Americans and other people of color at the bottom."  He speaks in the present tense, but I think he's referencing a broader historical context.  He then says this heirarchy was rationalized by not just the "scientific" ideas noted above, but also by religious texts.  People then used these "distorted interpretations of holy scripture were used to argue that individuals with African ancestry were destined for servitude, or were somehow lesser children of God."  This is really insightful and useful stuff.

8. He then speaks of changes to these attitudes, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  He said many of those who fought for racial equality were deeply religious and Christian, and were comforted by the "blessed are" Beatitudes.

9. He spoke of Martin Luther King, but also of other less well known champions of the Civil Rights Era.

10. "Because of the humble and holy sacrifices of previous generations of all races and ethnicities, we have made strides in the United States concerning racial equality.  He points to the current Congressional makeup consists of almost 1/4 of members who belong to racial minorities.  He nevertheless notes that "racism remains a destructive force in our society."  He says that racism, amounting to notions of racial superiority, which is a form of pride.  "The adversary uses pride, intrinsic to racism, to attempt to distort a foundational tenet of the Plan of Salvation that we are all equal spirit children of heavenly parents.  He twists this foundational tenet with racism to falsely claim that there are racial groups that are inherently different, and that certain racial groups are are better than others."  He says the "fruits" of these sentiments are hatred, of our fellow man, and ultimately of God.  He then quotes General Authorities as condemning these things as sinful.

I'm out of time, but I encourage you to listen to this talk.  I think it's important and substantive and helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find this speech parallels the principles covered in the second half of President Oaks' talk in October 2020:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/17oaks?lang=eng

I am also trying to find another address / conference talk from the second half of 2020 that mentioned the Mexican trail of tears and Japanese internment camps.

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is just so bizarre, Robert. Any number of critical movements for freedom could have been considered "woke" and radical in their day. Your dismissal of BLM seems to be every bit as bad or even worse than what you claim BLM to be. 

Dr King denounced violence on no uncertain terms, and so do I.  BLM is both violent and racist.  That is hardly acceptable, although woke people want to excuse it.  The end does not justify the means, plain and simple.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I think we get into trouble when we try to idolize King, just as we do when we try to idolize Lincoln or Jefferson or Washington or Joseph Smith.  King was a man (and apparently, not a particularly virtuous one at that).  His place in national memory is enshrined by the logic and oratory he deployed in pursuit of his goal—lofty notions of the brotherhood of mankind and equal treatment under law which appealed to our highest principles.

If King’s daughter wants to come out and affirm what his detractors long suspected—that “equal treatment under law” was only a half-measure towards the ultimate goal of preferences or reparations, or that he was a closeted Marxist, or that he hoped to assert collective white guilt in perpetuity or what-have-you—very well.  She knew her dad better than the rest of us, I guess.  But King’s apparent authority and ability to unite folks across racial lines came from his apparent lack of personal animus or avarice, his talk of forgiveness, his ability to reflect back to Americans their own best image of themselves, and his apparent willingness to destroy the racial caste system.  If his successors re-direct the movement he built into settling old scores as they seek to a new caste system (and claim that was actually King’s goal all along)—I think they’ll be severely disappointed at how shallow support for King (as an individual) would actually turns out to be.

Edited by mgy401
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Woke ideologues naturally take this stance and disregard any sort of factual analysis.  It is their right to be wrong, and one must expect such nonsense from the neo-Marxist Left -- which has done everything it can to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry for those who do not have the "correct"  apriori views.  For them the Constitution is an albatross around the necks of woke people everywhere, just as it was for Johnny Reb in the 1860s.

It is ironic that you want to call the Left Confederates when the Right are the ones festooning themselves with the Confederate Battle flag. There is a saying I keep hearing about the current Right: "It is always projection." It very often is.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dr King denounced violence on no uncertain terms, and so do I.  BLM is both violent and racist.  That is hardly acceptable, although woke people want to excuse it.  The end does not justify the means, plain and simple

Dr. King did speak against violence.

"You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare."

It is worth remembering at this point that Dr. Kings marches and protests often had violent people involved in them. He did not want them there but he was blamed for it. Here is one response from the media at the time:

Protest.thumb.jpg.12f8b6a8631462d35ac9f9a90aa7d04f.jpg

Sound familiar as to how the BLM marches are being portrayed? The accusations that MLK was violent and racist were the song of most of the media back then despite the violent agitators using his marches as an excuse and not with his consent. There is nothing new under the sun.

Something about garnishing the sepulchres of dead reformers while stoning the living ones seems applicable.

6 hours ago, mgy401 said:

I think we get into trouble when we try to idolize King, just as we do when we try to idolize Lincoln or Jefferson or Washington or Joseph Smith.  King was a man (and apparently, not a particularly virtuous one at that).  His place in national memory is enshrined by the logic and oratory he deployed in pursuit of his goal—lofty notions of the brotherhood of mankind and equal treatment under law which appealed to our highest principles.

If King’s daughter wants to come out and affirm what his detractors long suspected—that “equal treatment under law” was only a half-measure towards the ultimate goal of preferences or reparations, or that he was a closeted Marxist, or that he hoped to assert collective white guilt in perpetuity or what-have-you—very well.  She knew her dad better than the rest of us, I guess.  But King’s apparent authority and ability to unite folks across racial lines came from his apparent lack of personal animus or avarice, his talk of forgiveness, his ability to reflect back to Americans their own best image of themselves, and his apparent willingness to destroy the racial caste system.  If his successors re-direct the movement he built into settling old scores as they seek to a new caste system (and claim that was actually King’s goal all along)—I think they’ll be severely disappointed at how shallow support for King (as an individual) would actually turns out to be.

A quick reminder that his "ability to unite people across racial lines" is mostly a myth. White people (with rare exceptions) either hated him or kinda sorta sympathized but whined about his methods being too extreme and his movement being too hasty. MLK was a brilliant uniter but it was mostly his ability to unite various Black groups behind his goals that earned him his reputation as a uniter. The reverence white people heap on him now came long after he was safely dead (i.e. silenced).

The idea that BLM and MLK are dedicated Marxists is a delusion of the Right who cannot conceive of an enemy that is not a "commie". It is so lazy. Anything that challenges their worldview must be Communism and therefore bad. After that nut with the knife charged the Capitol with his car and killed himself and some police I got to listen to people talk about how the far-left Nation of Islam was probably trying to promote Marxism with this demonstration and the scary realization that the First Amendment is utterly wasted on some people. I just wanted to despair at how stupidly ignorant that take is and the intellectual laziness it betrays. We need another Enlightenment and hopefully we can catch a few more people this time.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that BLM and MLK are dedicated Marxists is a delusion of the Right who cannot conceive of an enemy that is not a "commie". It is so lazy. Anything that challenges their worldview must be Communism and therefore bad.

What difference, if any, is there between trained Marxist organizers and dedicated Marxists? Are you really going to say you’re unaware of the following?

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

[1] A quick reminder that his "ability to unite people across racial lines" is mostly a myth. White people (with rare exceptions) either hated him or kinda sorta sympathized but whined about his methods being too extreme and his movement being too hasty. MLK was a brilliant uniter but it was mostly his ability to unite various Black groups behind his goals that earned him his reputation as a uniter. The reverence white people heap on him now came long after he was safely dead (i.e. silenced).

[2] The idea that BLM and MLK are dedicated Marxists is a delusion of the Right who cannot conceive of an enemy that is not a "commie". It is so lazy. Anything that challenges their worldview must be Communism and therefore bad. After that nut with the knife charged the Capitol with his car and killed himself and some police I got to listen to people talk about how the far-left Nation of Islam was probably trying to promote Marxism with this demonstration and the scary realization that the First Amendment is utterly wasted on some people. I just wanted to despair at how stupidly ignorant that take is and the intellectual laziness it betrays. We need another Enlightenment and hopefully we can catch a few more people this time.

1.  Point taken; but if the idea of MLK as cross-racial unifier is a myth and a critical mass of people who have hitherto embraced that myth come to reject it—then his stock goes even lower among those not already predisposed to accept the demands du jour of the latter-day race warriors.

2.  In the current context, that’s sort of a distinction without a difference.  BLM, Nation of Islam, Marxist, fascist, Stalinist, communist, social democrat, authoritarian, progressive—from a practical standpoint the common thread between them is that to a greater or lesser degree they all think I owe them something, are all unwilling to leave me alone, and all want at least some of my stuff. 

Edited by mgy401
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What difference, if any, is there between trained Marxist organizers and dedicated Marxists? Are you really going to say you’re unaware of the following?

 

Oh goody! We get to do this again. The organization BLM had a few people at the start who had Marxist views. It is worth noting that the organization started in 2013 and its objectives are not Marxist. Then you have the protests which are collectively not made up of official members of the BLM organization. BLM becomes a slogan for a movement that goes way beyond the organization whose name they took.

The BLM organization is not made up entirely or even primarily of Marxists. The protests were not advocating Marxism. There have not been any demands issued for Marxist policies. It is like claiming “Mormons” are all sorcerers because Joseph Smith practiced a bit of weird treasure hunting. It is a massive red herring used by the conspiracy minded who think anything even moderately socialist in anything is proof that that organization is seeking to recreate Stalinism. It is cheap. It is cowardly. It makes everyone who succumbs to this lazy worldview less mentally sharp than they were before. It is McCarthyism with delusions of intelligence. What I am trying to say is that it is bad and unhealthy to fall on this cheap reductive rubbish as some kind of trump card.

”Please stop allowing the police to kill us.”

”No, you see, there are some people in an organization that is involved in your movement that are possibly horrible commies.”

”What does that have to do with our demand?!?!”

“If policing changes at all due to your demands than what is to stop communism from ruling the nation?!?”

”What? Are you all demented?”

“Now you are just being mean and hurtful. No justice for you.”

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

1.  Point taken; but if the idea of MLK as cross-racial unifier is a myth and a critical mass of people who have hitherto embraced that myth come to reject it—then his stock goes even lower among those not already predisposed to accept the demands du jour of the latter-day race warriors.

2.  In the current context, that’s sort of a distinction without a difference.  BLM, Nation of Islam, Marxist, fascist, Stalinist, communist, social democrat, authoritarian, progressive—from a practical standpoint the common thread between them is that to a greater or lesser degree they all think I owe them something, are all unwilling to leave me alone, and all want at least some of my stuff. 

1. True, but maybe they will stop sanctimoniously posting MLK quotes every year as if MLK’s cause was a complete success and they support it. A small win but worth getting.

2. The Nation of Islam is far-right black supremacy. They hate LGBT rights, believe in traditional gender roles, and are fiercely loyal to a kooky leader. They are MAGA with a little more melanin.

They all want something from you? You just want them to leave you alone? Sounds familiar.

"Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you; if I take up for you I shall lose the vote of Missouri.” - President Martin Van Buren

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is ironic that you want to call the Left Confederates when the Right are the ones festooning themselves with the Confederate Battle flag. There is a saying I keep hearing about the current Right: "It is always projection." It very often is.

Reminds me of those silly billies attempting to decide which is better, Hitler or Stalin.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

..............................Sound familiar as to how the BLM marches are being portrayed? The accusations that MLK was violent and racist were the song of most of the media back then despite the violent agitators using his marches as an excuse and not with his consent. There is nothing new under the sun.

Something about garnishing the sepulchres of dead reformers while stoning the living ones seems applicable.

Those incapable of independent thought and incisive analysis will always deny the facts.  Most people believe what they want to believe -- based on apriori considerations.  For most populations, decisions are largely based on the toss of a coin -- heads I win, tails you lose.  Revisionist history is most common among those too young to have actually lived it, or so guilty themselves that their own misery demands company.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A quick reminder that his "ability to unite people across racial lines" is mostly a myth. White people (with rare exceptions) either hated him or kinda sorta sympathized but whined about his methods being too extreme and his movement being too hasty. MLK was a brilliant uniter but it was mostly his ability to unite various Black groups behind his goals that earned him his reputation as a uniter. The reverence white people heap on him now came long after he was safely dead (i.e. silenced).

The idea that BLM and MLK are dedicated Marxists is a delusion of the Right who cannot conceive of an enemy that is not a "commie". It is so lazy. Anything that challenges their worldview must be Communism and therefore bad.

Most people, including most LDS people, have no idea what communism is, and never will.  Indeed, Marxists are not communists, and have never tried communism.  Marxists are totalitarian state capitalists.  Words like liberal, conservative, and "communist" are emotive in nature and have no substantive content.  MLK was a follower of Jesus Christ and of Mohandas Ghandi, and like them he had to be assassinated.  You might want ask why.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

After that nut with the knife charged the Capitol with his car and killed himself and some police I got to listen to people talk about how the far-left Nation of Islam was probably trying to promote Marxism with this demonstration and the scary realization that the First Amendment is utterly wasted on some people. I just wanted to despair at how stupidly ignorant that take is and the intellectual laziness it betrays. We need another Enlightenment and hopefully we can catch a few more people this time.

Yokels is as yokels does.  Your expectations will not be realized.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. True, but maybe they will stop sanctimoniously posting MLK quotes every year as if MLK’s cause was a complete success and they support it. A small win but worth getting.

2. The Nation of Islam is far-right black supremacy. They hate LGBT rights, believe in traditional gender roles, and are fiercely loyal to a kooky leader. They are MAGA with a little more melanin.

They all want something from you? You just want them to leave you alone? Sounds familiar.

"Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you; if I take up for you I shall lose the vote of Missouri.” - President Martin Van Buren

 

1.  To the extent that they’re posting the quotes because they believe he has some special authority—sure.  To the extent that they are quoting him because he was right—no dice.  The idea of being judged by the content of one’s character rather than by the color of one’s skin is heady stuff; redistributionists and vengeance-seekers are going to have to engage with the argument, rather than simply memory-holing everyone who made it.

2.  Sure.  Because seeking government aid to compel thieves to disgorge tangible real and personal property stolen within the past sixty months, is the exact. same. thing. as advancing the idea that both morally and legally a child should be acknowledged as being born with an inescapable, unpayable financial obligation to a third party due solely to the skin tones of the parties involved.  :rolleyes:

Edited by mgy401
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 4/9/2021 at 5:20 AM, The Nehor said:

The myths of economic inequality? You can believe that if you want (you would be wrong) but the idea that you can agree with Dr. King and also believe that is ludicrous. His talk about racial economic inequality and the need for a radical redistribution of economic and political power (like I quoted above) are all over what he said. There is a reason he was hated. I suspect you would have at least disagreed with him if he were alive today teaching the same things.

In addition to misrepresenting Dr. King you also managed to completely misrepresent BLM.

C47D8ABC-83E9-4CC0-A651-A0590031052E.png.9c1814daa3feb32a787f011793a71efa.png

When you can predict the economic success of someone based on  the zip code they are born into you have economic inequality. Plain and simple.

Link to post
On 4/9/2021 at 10:20 AM, The Nehor said:

In addition to misrepresenting Dr. King you also managed to completely misrepresent BLM.

Yeah, BLM is just SO noble. Riots and communists notwithstanding, right?

Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Lands Topanga Canyon Compound

Cullors identifies as a communist & advocates for the abolishment of capitalism. No doubt she will now start hosting seminars there on her "compound."

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oh goody! We get to do this again. The organization BLM had a few people at the start who had Marxist views. It is worth noting that the organization started in 2013 and its objectives are not Marxist. Then you have the protests which are collectively not made up of official members of the BLM organization. BLM becomes a slogan for a movement that goes way beyond the organization whose name they took.

The BLM organization is not made up entirely or even primarily of Marxists. The protests were not advocating Marxism. There have not been any demands issued for Marxist policies. It is like claiming “Mormons” are all sorcerers because Joseph Smith practiced a bit of weird treasure hunting. It is a massive red herring used by the conspiracy minded who think anything even moderately socialist in anything is proof that that organization is seeking to recreate Stalinism. It is cheap. It is cowardly. It makes everyone who succumbs to this lazy worldview less mentally sharp than they were before. It is McCarthyism with delusions of intelligence. What I am trying to say is that it is bad and unhealthy to fall on this cheap reductive rubbish as some kind of trump card.

”Please stop allowing the police to kill us.”

”No, you see, there are some people in an organization that is involved in your movement that are possibly horrible commies.”

”What does that have to do with our demand?!?!”

“If policing changes at all due to your demands than what is to stop communism from ruling the nation?!?”

”What? Are you all demented?”

“Now you are just being mean and hurtful. No justice for you.”

So the fact that the three founding members of BLM are self avowed Marxists, and one of the formally declared goals of the BLM movement is the disruption of the traditional Judaeo-Christian nuclear family, replacing it with the Marxist goal of “collective parenting,” holds no sway with you with regard to whether or not you can admit the BLM movement is sympathetic to Marxism? Why don’t you be honest with yourself and others and at least admit it’s understandable why some could reasonably conclude BLM is a Marxist oriented movement?

By the way, why would you, as an active and presumably believing Latter-Day Saint, want to make common cause with an organization whose stated goal is replacing the divinely ordained father mother family (the only way for men and women to inherit the fulness of exaltation) with Karl Marx’s destructive perversion of the scripture based family structure?

Perhaps you could explain why you appear to so ardently support BLM when its goal, if achieved, would destroy the work of God and cause him to smite the earth with the terrible curse of divine rejection prophesied by Malachi? Or do you hold the views you do because you believe the Church is is eventually go along with the Marxist redefinition of the traditional nuclear family?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
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...