Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[pogi]

Just now, bluebell said:

that has not been the scope of my part of this discussion.  

That is where this whole discussion began.   Was it right to try and whitewash the Native American culture, beliefs, practices, religion, morals in an effort to make them more white?  Someone chimed in that perhaps their culture wasn't worth saving anyway, then you defended him based on the fact that some things are immoral in and of themselves.  

If your only point was solely that some things are immoral in and of themselves, then I have a problem with that too if you are stating it as an absolute matter of fact.  I don't care if you are stating it as a matter of personal relative belief.  But it sounded to me like you were justifying what happened because of some absolute moral superiority principle that I just need to accept and get over.  And Therin lies another danger of such moral absolutism, it can also be used to justify the eradication of other cultures, beliefs, morals, religions that don't jive with one's superior absolute morals.    What happened to Native Americans doesn't matter because my morals are absolutely right and theirs are absolutely wrong.   Such views don't breed humility, respect and tolerance, cooperation and understanding, and healthy forms of diversity etc.  

Just now, bluebell said:

But I agree the absolutism can be dangerous. Religion can be dangerous. Atheism can be dangerous. Relativism can be dangerous.

Evil has been done, or allowed to flourish, under the banner of every “ism”.  Whether or not something can be used for evil is not a good standard to determine whether or not it is of worth.

 

Suggesting that everything is dangerous therefore everything is of equal danger/worth is not helpful.   There are differing degrees.  For example, polio is dangerous...so is water.  Does that mean they should be compared and placed on equal footing to be eradicated?  Heavens no.  

Demanding that a moral is an absolute in and of itself, while admitting that one can't know for sure and is only suggesting as much from a relative perspective is really unreasonable ground. 

 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is true.

Mormons were allegedly becoming a "mongrel race", said critics, because they were mixing with non-white races.

So Brigham put a stop to it.

But remember the civil war was just around the corner.

Maybe that separation granted Utah/the church survival.

I would say it was responsible for keeping members alive in a slave state, much as we would now wish they would have stood on principle instead. The survival of Mormonism as a New Religion was likely more the influx of European, especially Danish/English converts at the point where most NRs fall apart. When there was a debate (in the 50s? Can't remember) about how to categorize Mormonism, calling us an ethnic group was on the table. That would have made me an ethnic Mormon. 

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is why I find a pragmatic Instrumentalism so important.

That's the whole thing right there.

The standard is Alma 32.  Is it a sweet Doctrine that improves your life?

If so, it is "true".

 

Exactly! 

That is why I find the ethnocentric whitewashing of Native American culture, beliefs, religion, practices to make them more white because we are morally superior so disturbing.  How can we say that none of their practices, beliefs, religion, etc. wer sweet to them?  It is disturbing to me that such whitewashing is being justified on the basis of moral absolutism. 

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons were allegedly becoming a "mongrel race", said critics, because they were mixing with non-white races.

So Brigham put a stop to it

This seems to be understating things based on my very limited knowledge (some posts here over the years and a wikipedia article). It seems to me that making slavery in Utah legal and having apostles who own slaves is a very active position on the issue, not just a defensive one to protect themselves from critics.

[ZealouslyStriving]

So... The long and the short of it is those opposed to the Church think they should've had everything perfectly right from the beginning. No allowances can be permitted for the Restoration to be progressive and received line upon line. No allowances can be made for centuries of cultural biases to be progressively overcome. It had to be perfect from the beginning or it's bubkus.

Do I have that about right?

Edited February 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Spelling

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is where this whole discussion began.   Was it right to try and whitewash the Native American culture, beliefs, practices, religion, morals in an effort to make them more white?  Someone chimed in that perhaps their culture wasn't worth saving anyway, then you defended him based on the fact that some things are immoral in and of themselves.  

If your only point was solely that some things are immoral in and of themselves, then I have a problem with that too if you are stating it as an absolute matter of fact.  I don't care if you are stating it as a matter of personal relative belief.  But it sounded to me like you were justifying what happened because of some absolute moral superiority principle that I just need to accept and get over.  And Therin lies another danger of such moral absolutism, it can also be used to justify the eradication of other cultures, beliefs, morals, religions that don't jive with one's superior absolute morals.    What happened to Native Americans doesn't matter because my morals are absolutely right and theirs are absolutely wrong.   Such views don't breed humility, respect and tolerance, cooperation and understanding, and healthy forms of diversity etc.  

Suggesting that everything is dangerous therefore everything is of equal danger/worth is not helpful.   There are differing degrees.  For example, polio is dangerous...so is water.  Does that mean they should be compared and placed on equal footing to be eradicated?  Heavens no.  

Demanding that a moral is an absolute in and of itself, while admitting that one can't know for sure and is only suggesting as much from a relative perspective is really unreasonable ground. 

 

I've been following this off and on through the thread, but haven't responded. I'd note that the first post that started this line of thought by @Danzo was not as absolutist in its wording as you're currently taking it. He at no point used all or nothing wording. He used "not always," "can be," "many" when making his argument. That makes me assume that he recognizes parts and aspect of said cultures (it's not a unilateral culture) are good. I certainly didn't see anyone assume that abandoning aspects of culture, means that what happened to Native tribes doesn't matter.

My brother's mom had him go to school off the Rez to go to school up in UT to avoid some of the problems that happen in the area. It was a decision that increased his chance of well-being and solid education, though it did reduce his cultural ties. There are definitely problems in many Native american communities...though I would probably note that many of those are the heritage of generations of mistreatment that stitched trauma responses into a culture norm and left many of these communities in the US in depleted lands with limited resources. Some are also trade-offs.

I don't think I've seen a post that insists all native american cultural practices are bad or worth discarding. Just that it's false to assume all are good. My family has a long list of people who have had similar decisions to make about what they bring forward or try to reconnect with/maintain fI arom their OG culture in the US dominate culture. This includes Navajo,  nigerian, texmex, moroccan, and peruvian cultures. There's things that are really good and worth while to keep, even when they run counter to the dominate culture. There's ones that aren't and were not picked up. And there's aspects that having ties to other cultures give us vantage points to recognize problems in the dominate culture as we've engaged in it. 

 

I am not an absolutist. I am not a relativist. I have beliefs that are found in both. For example, I believe everyone makes sense if you have understand their context (relativism). I believe everyone has the light of christ that can help them find truth and right in their circumstance (absolutist). I believe we're all likely wrong to one degree or another (both???). And I believe just because something or someone can/should be understood that it means their actions or justified (absolutist). Most cultural practices are just contextual reflections of values and preferences most commonly utilized in a culture. Most cultural aspects are just neutral (relativist). 

I've seen the problem when relativism goes wrong...and man can it go really wrong. The biggest ones I deal with are people's inability to name something as bad in their lives or the lives of others, which enabled toxic patterns that harm them or others. 

I've seen when absolutism goes wrong...and it can also go really wrong. Fueling feelings of superiority and/or rigidity. The can also fuel blindspots and can lead to really unhealthy advice/practices. 

When someone reaches these extremes, I'm not exactly sure which I would describe as being worse. They both can have some nasty consequences. 

Personally I don't think the answer to absolutism is relativism. I think there's a healthy middle ground that allows for both flexibility that is grounded in guiding priniciples. I think these philosophies just lead to a false dichotomy that leave people most invested in them unable to see the pitfalls to their own logic.

 

With luv,

BD   

 

 

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:19 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just ones that I’m intimately familiar with. Ones where I know the thoughts and feelings of both family members, close, friends relatives, etc. Nearly all of them reject your interpretation. This isn’t a hard problem to fix. 

They must just be "dumb Mormons....."🙄

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So... The long and the short of it is those opposed to the Church think they should've had everything perfectly right from the beginning. No allowances can be permitted for the Restoration to be progressive and receive line upon line. No allowances can be made for centuries of cultural biases to be progressively overcome. It had to be perfect from the beginning or it's bubkus.

Do I have that about right?

I don’t think so.  
 

The church appears to have a no apologies policy (informally so but consistent) which is difficult for some people, and for some it puts into question which of the present tenets are also flawed?  
It seems to be a simple and reasonable question within a religion that asks a lot of its members and teaches its membership to follow the prophets and where doubt and questions are not generally encouraged IMO. 🤷‍♀️

it’s best to understand that people are definitely flawed and to take personal responsibility for the details we choose to believe and ascribe to.  We have a right to commune with God directly- even the women 😅

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think so.  
 

The church appears to have a no apologies policy (informally so but consistent) which is difficult for some people, and for some it puts into question which of the present tenets are also flawed?  
It seems to be a simple and reasonable question within a religion that asks a lot of its members and teaches its membership to follow the prophets and where doubt and questions are not generally encouraged IMO. 🤷‍♀️

it’s best to understand that people are definitely flawed and to take personal responsibility for the details we choose to believe and ascribe to.  We have a right to commune with God directly- even the women 😅

Thing is... Things are progressing in a positive direction, but that doesn't seem good enough. It seems that unless the Church grovels to their satisfaction and completely throws every previous prophet and apostle under the bus they will never be satisfied- if even then. They would probably go on and on that it wasn't fast enough or find something, anything to nitpick.

Edited February 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Phone and fat fingers

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Thing is... Things are progressing in a positive direction, but that doesn't seem good enough. It seems that unless the Church grovels to their satisfaction and completely throws every previous prophet and apostle under the bus they will never be satisfied- if even then. They would probably go on and on that it wasn't fast enough or find something, anything to nitpick.

I don’t resent anyone else their needs. 
when my husband acts the fool, it helps me tremendously when he explains why he did what he did and demonstrates interest and care for the impact on me.  (More often I’m the fool, and he needs the same from me) 
it’s a reasonable need in a relationship, but it won’t happen in our religion so sometimes that’s too painful for people.  I understand that.  Membership is not as easy for some as it is for others. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by MustardSeed

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I've been following this off and on through the thread, but haven't responded. I'd note that the first post that started this line of thought by @Danzo was not as absolutist in its wording as you're currently taking it. He at no point used all or nothing wording. He used "not always," "can be," "many" when making his argument. That makes me assume that he recognizes parts and aspect of said cultures (it's not a unilateral culture) are good. I certainly didn't see anyone assume that abandoning aspects of culture, means that what happened to Native tribes doesn't matter.

My brother's mom had him go to school off the Rez to go to school up in UT to avoid some of the problems that happen in the area. It was a decision that increased his chance of well-being and solid education, though it did reduce his cultural ties. There are definitely problems in many Native american communities...though I would probably note that many of those are the heritage of generations of mistreatment that stitched trauma responses into a culture norm and left many of these communities in the US in depleted lands with limited resources. Some are also trade-offs.

I don't think I've seen a post that insists all native american cultural practices are bad or worth discarding. Just that it's false to assume all are good. My family has a long list of people who have had similar decisions to make about what they bring forward or try to reconnect with/maintain fI arom their OG culture in the US dominate culture. This includes Navajo,  nigerian, texmex, moroccan, and peruvian cultures. There's things that are really good and worth while to keep, even when they run counter to the dominate culture. There's ones that aren't and were not picked up. And there's aspects that having ties to other cultures give us vantage points to recognize problems in the dominate culture as we've engaged in it. 

 

I am not an absolutist. I am not a relativist. I have beliefs that are found in both. For example, I believe everyone makes sense if you have understand their context (relativism). I believe everyone has the light of christ that can help them find truth and right in their circumstance (absolutist). I believe we're all likely wrong to one degree or another (both???). And I believe just because something or someone can/should be understood that it means their actions or justified (absolutist). Most cultural practices are just contextual reflections of values and preferences most commonly utilized in a culture. Most cultural aspects are just neutral (relativist). 

I've seen the problem when relativism goes wrong...and man can it go really wrong. The biggest ones I deal with are people's inability to name something as bad in their lives or the lives of others, which enabled toxic patterns that harm them or others. 

I've seen when absolutism goes wrong...and it can also go really wrong. Fueling feelings of superiority and/or rigidity. The can also fuel blindspots and can lead to really unhealthy advice/practices. 

When someone reaches these extremes, I'm not exactly sure which I would describe as being worse. They both can have some nasty consequences. 

Personally I don't think the answer to absolutism is relativism. I think there's a healthy middle ground that allows for both flexibility that is grounded in guiding priniciples. I think these philosophies just lead to a false dichotomy that leave people most invested in them unable to see the pitfalls to their own logic.

 

With luv,

BD   

It is possible that there has been some miscommunication here.  This whole discussion has been happening in the context of the IPP whose purpose was to assimilate Native Americans into American/LDS culture, religion, morals, etc. and to eliminate their "superstitions" etc.  It was a whitewashing.   I viewed Danzo's comments as defending holistic whitewashing on the basis that "maybe their culture wasn't worth defending".   If he would have said that in some areas, I can see how these people may have been benefitted by the program, but in other areas, I don't think the ethnocentric whitewashing was justified, I could have agreed with that.   But he seemed to justify the program as it was.  The moral absolutism was introduced by bluebell in defending Danzo by saying "some things are immoral in and of themselves."   That is a position that is not defensible if they are trying to establish it as moral absolute that we must all accept and assimilate to. 

I too see things much as you do.  I am an absolutist in that I believe there are absolutes.  I am a relativist in that I don't believe those absolutes can be known with any degree of certainty in mortality and therefore our truths and morals are only relative to those absolutes.  Absolutism is a belief only, it is not my experienced reality.  What we all experience is our own relative morals and truths in mortality.   So, in terms of what I actually experience, which is all that I have words to speak about, I am a relativist.     

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This seems to be understating things based on my very limited knowledge (some posts here over the years and a wikipedia article). It seems to me that making slavery in Utah legal and having apostles who own slaves is a very active position on the issue, not just a defensive one to protect themselves from critics.

Yes, but we were talking about the pre-Utah period. They weren't in the middle of slavers in Utah where the government itself became their biggest enemy. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is where this whole discussion began.   Was it right to try and whitewash the Native American culture, beliefs, practices, religion, morals in an effort to make them more white?  Someone chimed in that perhaps their culture wasn't worth saving anyway, then you defended him based on the fact that some things are immoral in and of themselves.  

If your only point was solely that some things are immoral in and of themselves, then I have a problem with that too if you are stating it as an absolute matter of fact.  I don't care if you are stating it as a matter of personal relative belief.  But it sounded to me like you were justifying what happened because of some absolute moral superiority principle that I just need to accept and get over.  And Therin lies another danger of such moral absolutism, it can also be used to justify the eradication of other cultures, beliefs, morals, religions that don't jive with one's superior absolute morals.    What happened to Native Americans doesn't matter because my morals are absolutely right and theirs are absolutely wrong.   Such views don't breed humility, respect and tolerance, cooperation and understanding, and healthy forms of diversity etc.  

Suggesting that everything is dangerous therefore everything is of equal danger/worth is not helpful.   There are differing degrees.  For example, polio is dangerous...so is water.  Does that mean they should be compared and placed on equal footing to be eradicated?  Heavens no.  

Demanding that a moral is an absolute in and of itself, while admitting that one can't know for sure and is only suggesting as much from a relative perspective is really unreasonable ground. 

 

Whitewashing of any kind is wrong, whether to justify racist actions (or make them appear less racist), to frame a cultural more as a function of race, or to perpetuate cultural mores that run contrary to God’s way (or to make them appear less immoral). All kinds of racism can be factors; aggressive, aversive and paternalistic come to mind in these examples.

I believe the Book of Mormon teaches that repentance can only come according to the gospel light available, and that eventually everyone will have all the light they need to exercise their agency to repent to the degree for which the Lord atoned. It is an individual process that that be supported and enjoyed collectively. Of course, racism and ignorance affect the application of this principle, but when properly applied, the Spirit eradicates both.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is where this whole discussion began.   Was it right to try and whitewash the Native American culture, beliefs, practices, religion, morals in an effort to make them more white?  Someone chimed in that perhaps their culture wasn't worth saving anyway, then you defended him based on the fact that some things are immoral in and of themselves.  

If your only point was solely that some things are immoral in and of themselves, then I have a problem with that too if you are stating it as an absolute matter of fact.  I don't care if you are stating it as a matter of personal relative belief.  But it sounded to me like you were justifying what happened because of some absolute moral superiority principle that I just need to accept and get over.  And Therin lies another danger of such moral absolutism, it can also be used to justify the eradication of other cultures, beliefs, morals, religions that don't jive with one's superior absolute morals.    What happened to Native Americans doesn't matter because my morals are absolutely right and theirs are absolutely wrong.   Such views don't breed humility, respect and tolerance, cooperation and understanding, and healthy forms of diversity etc.  

Suggesting that everything is dangerous therefore everything is of equal danger/worth is not helpful.   There are differing degrees.  For example, polio is dangerous...so is water.  Does that mean they should be compared and placed on equal footing to be eradicated?  Heavens no.  

Demanding that a moral is an absolute in and of itself, while admitting that one can't know for sure and is only suggesting as much from a relative perspective is really unreasonable ground. 

 

That's where your discussion may have begun but my discussion with you didn't begin there.  It began with my support of Danzo's statements in his post where he shared his Native American wife's point of view of Native American culture.  I was never a part of that other discussion. 

(And I haven't demanded anything so maybe calm down a bit on the hyperbole.)

But I wasn't suggesting that everything is equally dangerous, only that it can be and so throwing out a statement about how absolutism is dangerous to prove your point isn't proof of anything because so many other things are also dangerous.

I also want to make sure you understand that I'm not talking about the philosophy of moral absolutism.  I'm not arguing that everything is always moral or always immoral regardless of circumstances or context. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Exactly! 

That is why I find the ethnocentric whitewashing of Native American culture, beliefs, religion, practices to make them more white because we are morally superior so disturbing.  How can we say that none of their practices, beliefs, religion, etc. wer sweet to them?  It is disturbing to me that such whitewashing is being justified on the basis of moral absolutism. 

Who has said that none of their practices, beliefs, religion, etc. were sweet to them?

Edited February 28, 2024 by bluebell

[Stormin' Mormon]

47 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So... The long and the short of it is those opposed to the Church think they should've had everything perfectly right from the beginning. No allowances can be permitted for the Restoration to be progressive and received line upon line. No allowances can be made for centuries of cultural biases to be progressively overcome. It had to be perfect from the beginning or it's bubkus.

Do I have that about right?

God meets us where we are, and then brings us to where He wants us to be.  It's for this reason, that I'm not bothered by Joseph's participation in folk magic or his expectation that his BoM journey would conform to the tropes of folk magic (buried treasure, guardian spirit, site visit once a year for x number of years, etc.)  God worked with what He had in Joseph, but slowly brought him along to where He needed the prophet to be.  By the end of his life, Joseph no longer needed physical implements to receive divine communications.  

The Lord works similarly with us collectively.  He meets us where we are and uses His prophets to advance the church closer to the Zion community He needs us to be.  It's a game of inches (stubborn creatures that we are) and He's not gonna get us to where He needs us to be in a single generation (nor apparently, in a dozen generations).

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is possible that there has been some miscommunication here.  This whole discussion has been happening in the context of the IPP whose purpose was to assimilate Native Americans into American/LDS culture, religion, morals, etc. and to eliminate their "superstitions" etc.  It was a whitewashing.   I viewed Danzo's comments as defending holistic whitewashing on the basis that "maybe their culture wasn't worth defending".   If he would have said that in some areas, I can see how these people may have been benefitted by the program, but in other areas, I don't think the ethnocentric whitewashing was justified, I could have agreed with that.   But he seemed to justify the program as it was.  The moral absolutism was introduced by bluebell in defending Danzo by saying "some things are immoral in and of themselves."   That is a position that is not defensible if they are trying to establish it as moral absolute that we must all accept and assimilate to. 

I too see things much as you do.  I am an absolutist in that I believe there are absolutes.  I am a relativist in that I don't believe those absolutes can be known with any degree of certainty in mortality and therefore our truths and morals are only relative to those absolutes.  Absolutism is a belief only, it is not my experienced reality.  What we all experience is our own relative morals and truths in mortality.   So, in terms of what I actually experience, which is all that I have words to speak about, I am a relativist.     

Might I suggest that the phrase "some things are immoral in and of themselves" references those things that run contrary to the higher way of life the Lord prepared for everyone. The Lord forgives that which is done in ignorance ("Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do") while also extending the best opportunity to do better once they know what they do ("To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.").

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

You know darn well what the leaders thought. You still seem to be under the impression that we, here, support racism.  They were products of their time. And some were racist. Those two things can exist at the same time. What is your point???

CFR with any modern leaders who have used the BOM verses that contain "skin" to justify racism. No more accusations. CFR so we have something to respond to. 

Good bye.

 

I tried.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

God meets us where we are, and then brings us to where He wants us to be.  It's for this reason, that I'm not bothered by Joseph's participation in folk magic or his expectation that his BoM journey would conform to the tropes of folk magic (buried treasure, guardian spirit, site visit once a year for x number of years, etc.)  God worked with what He had in Joseph, but slowly brought him along to where He needed the prophet to be.  By the end of his life, Joseph no longer needed physical implements to receive divine communications.  

The Lord works similarly with us collectively.  He meets us where we are and uses His prophets to advance the church closer to the Zion community He needs us to be.  It's a game of inches (stubborn creatures that we are) and He's not gonna get us to where He needs us to be in a single generation (nor apparently, in a dozen generations).

Hate to quote myself but I wanted to add this corollary to this viewpoint of mine:

It's because of this that a prophet HAS to be a product of his culture and time. He cannot effectively move the football if he is much further downfield than the rest of his team. A prophet cannot move a people to the 10 yard line if they are still stuck on the 50.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Hate to quote myself but I wanted to add this corollary to this viewpoint of mine:

It's because of this that a prophet HAS to be a product of his culture and time. He cannot effectively move the football if he is much further downfield than the rest of his team. A prophet cannot move a people to the 10 yard line if they are still stuck on the 50.

Very good point, imo.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's where your discussion may have begun but my discussion with you didn't begin there.  It began with my support of Danzo's statements in his post where he shared his Native American wife's point of view of Native American culture.  I was never a part of that other discussion. 

Perhaps that is where some miscommunication has happened then. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

(And I haven't demanded anything so maybe calm down a bit on the hyperbole.)

Well, you stated something as fact and that it was true whether or not I or anybody else believes it:

Quote

some things are evil whether society deems them evil or not.  

You also stated that things are moral or immoral "in and of itself".  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I also want to make sure you understand that I'm not talking about the philosophy of moral absolutism.  I'm not arguing that everything is always moral or always immoral regardless of circumstances or context. 

I don't know what you meant by the above quotes then, because that is the philosophy of moral absolutism.  Moral absolutism: The moral quality of something exists regardless of human perspectives of context, circumstance, culture, beliefs, time, and place, etc. - it holds the quality in and of itself, unaffected and unaltered by human perception. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Who has said that none of their practices, beliefs, religion, etc. were sweet to them?

It seems to be assumed in the practice of assimilation and whitewashing with the prophet calling their spiritual or religious beliefs "superstitious", etc. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by pogi

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is possible that there has been some miscommunication here.  This whole discussion has been happening in the context of the IPP whose purpose was to assimilate Native Americans into American/LDS culture, religion, morals, etc. and to eliminate their "superstitions" etc.  It was a whitewashing. 

It's interesting that you call it "Whitewashing" When countless actual, real life native Americans see those at as a good thing.  In fact they see it as such a good thing that they are willing to send their children to the US so they might have a chance at a better life.  My wife talks about how grateful she is that she made the choice to eliminate the "Superstitions" of her town. 

Your position, it would seem would be to have her return to her town, give birth at home, like her parents, marry of her children off at 14, as was customary in her town and  consult the entrails of chicken when unsure about what to do, as is customary in her town.  Then she could live your dream for her and she could practice her culture like her ancestors did for your benefit, just so you can have the privilege of seeing pure, undefiled un "Whitewashed" native Americans, disregarding the sacrifices they have made so they can join a culture they see as better for them.   

Why cant people decide for themselves what culture they want to be part of, instead of condemning them to the "culture" of their birth so that White people  can feel better about themselves.

 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It's interesting that you call it "Whitewashing" When countless actual, real life native Americans see those at as a good thing.  In fact they see it as such a good thing that they are willing to send their children to the US so they might have a chance at a better life.  My wife talks about how grateful she is that she made the choice to eliminate the "Superstitions" of her town. 

Your position, it would seem would be to have her return to her town, give birth at home, like her parents, marry of her children off at 14, as was customary in her town and  consult the entrails of chicken when unsure about what to do, as is customary in her town.  Then she could live your dream for her and she could practice her culture like her ancestors did for your benefit, just so you can have the privilege of seeing pure, undefiled un "Whitewashed" native Americans, disregarding the sacrifices they have made so they can join a culture they see as better for them.   

Why cant people decide for themselves what culture they want to be part of, instead of condemning them to the "culture" of their birth so that White people  can feel better about themselves.

 

Was any care taken to preserve Native American culture, religious/spiritual beliefs, practices, etc.?  If not, then how is it not "whitewashing". when they were required to assimilate?  The parents wanted their kids to get a good education and a shot at financial independence, so they signed on the dotted line.   A carrot was held in front of their face where they could only get it if they were baptized etc.   

No one here is arguing that these programs offered some educational benefit, but how much was sacrificed in order to get it.   There are also countless kids who have terrible things to say about the program and felt duped into it, isolated from their home and culture, and felt without place or people or cultural or even racial identity.  

People can decide for themselves what culture to be a part of.  Many of these kids didn't really have much of a choice.  They were baptized and assimilated, or they didn't get the carrot of an education.   No one asked what parts of their culture, spiritual beliefs and practices they would like to keep as they pursued an education.  Nope, it was an ethnocentric whitewash.  
 

if that is what all of the kids wanted, fine. But based on so many complaints about the program, it doesn’t seem to be based on what everybody wanted, but is what was required.

Edited February 29, 2024 by pogi

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are also countless kids who have terrible things to say about the program and felt duped into it, isolated from their home and culture, and felt without place or people or cultural or even racial identity.  

Why is your racial identity so important to you. Our children grew up without a racial identity.  I remember when they came home from school and asked us what race they were, they really didn't know.  Were they white? were they Mexican? Were they Native American? 

 

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

The parents wanted their kids to get a good education and a shot at financial independence, so they signed on the dotted line. 

Wanting a good education and shot at financial independence is a bad thing to want for your children?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one here is arguing that these programs offered some educational benefit, but how much was sacrificed in order to get it.

What was sacrificed?, what was gained?  was it worth the cost? 

I suspect the answers to these questions are highly individualized.   

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Many of these kids didn't really have much of a choice. 

What kid really has a choice about the culture they are raised in.  These are choices the parents must make until children are of a certain age. 

 

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one asked what parts of their culture, spiritual beliefs and practices they would like to keep as they pursued an education.

You know this how?

 

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

if that is what all of the kids wanted, fine.

Educational choices for children are usually made by parents.  If Children were allowed to make their own educational choices I suspect there would be a lot of unemployed teachers. 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps that is where some miscommunication has happened then. 

Well, you stated something as fact and that it was true whether or not I or anybody else believes it:

You also stated that things are moral or immoral "in and of itself".  

I don't know what you meant by the above quotes then, because that is the philosophy of moral absolutism.  Moral absolutism: The moral quality of something exists regardless of human perspectives of context, circumstance, culture, beliefs, time, and place, etc. - it holds the quality in and of itself, unaffected and unaltered by human perception. 

It seems to be assumed in the practice of assimilation and whitewashing with the prophet calling their spiritual or religious beliefs "superstitious", etc. 

I mean that some things are always immoral, regardless of the context or culture.

Let’s just agree to disagree on the rest. I should have done that from the very beginning.