LDS Church denounces racism

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

Racism is not 'the' problem, racism is a problem, but the growing racist influence in our country is the result of the problem of evil leaders and the destruction of the family unit.  Racism in our modern culture has less to do with people actually being racist, and more to do with people being trained, led and guided toward racism, on purpose.

AMEN to this.

Make sure each one of us is not one of those guided toward racism.  On purpose.  And make sure each one of us is not guided to believe such-and-such is a racist.  On purpose.  That's really the only way to STOP THIS STUPID THING!

Edited August 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 The biggest drawback to looking at her blog (And I strongly suggest that people do that!) is that we are giving her the attention she so obviously wants. It's a double edged sword. ...

I'm thinking about "...the attention she so obviously wants".  And I think this also applies to our society's collective attention to the neo-nazist factions and how it plays into their objectives. I wish we could discipline ourselves to rob them of that attention.

i'm talking about the way their opponents went to confront them at the rally.  I wish both sides could somehow segregate themselves (or even be compelled) from one another without giving audience at best, and without the violence which ultimately serves their goals at worst.

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm thinking about "...the attention she so obviously wants".  And I think this also applies to our society's collective attention to the neo-nazist factions and how it plays into their objectives. I wish we could discipline ourselves to rob them of that attention.

i'm talking about the way their opponents went to confront them at the rally.  I wish both sides could somehow segregate themselves (or even be compelled) from one another without giving audience at best, and without the violence which ultimately serves their goals at worst.

 

This is not "our society's collective attention".  It is the American Media FORCING it to our society's collective attention.

[NeuroTypical]

First they came for the neo-nazis and I said nothing, because neo-nazis. Actually, I sort of joined up with them.

Then they came for the rest of the race hating organized mobs like the thugs in the KKK and the BLM, and that was ok too. Buncha violent race-baiting uniform-wearing armed mobs of anti-cop, anti-rule-of-law thugs. They weeded out the most horrible 10% of those folks, and everyone remaining sort of had a point and went back to what they were doing, without their Coke cans full of concrete and firebombs.

After that, I went back to saying stuff when they came for people. Especially Christian bakers. Leave those dudes alone - there's five other bakeries on that street, ya bunch of agenda-driven yahoos.

[JoCa]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

  I never got a straight answer out of him about how "blacks" and "Japanese" were such horrible people, but "that guy who was down on his luck" was a perfectly acceptable person, even though he may have been black or Japanese.  

If one reads history it is really easy to see why and if you had lived their life you probably would have believed the same thing.  Read Flags of Our Fathers.  The Japanese during that time period were extremely brutal and savage.  In Flag of Our Fathers, he documents how his father had a best buddy who was kidnapped by the Japanese in cave fighting on one of the islands.  He found his buddy with his head cut off and genitals sown in his mouth.

If you had lived through that, you'd hate the Japanese too.  Today the Japanese are an extremely docile, non-fanatical culture (okay except the idea of committing suicide which is still big in their culture), but live through the horrors of the Japanese culture of the 1920s-1940s and yeah you'd hate them too.

[Mike]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not "our society's collective attention".  It is the American Media FORCING it to our society's collective attention.

No, I think you're mistaken.  The media you constantly talk about is just a part of all of us.  I feel you are falling back on your own favorite narrative and ignoring my point.   

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

If one reads history it is really easy to see why and if you had lived their life you probably would have believed the same thing.  Read Flags of Our Fathers.  The Japanese during that time period were extremely brutal and savage.  In Flag of Our Fathers, he documents how his father had a best buddy who was kidnapped by the Japanese in cave fighting on one of the islands.  He found his buddy with his head cut off and genitals sown in his mouth.

If you had lived through that, you'd hate the Japanese too.  Today the Japanese are an extremely docile, non-fanatical culture (okay except the idea of committing suicide which is still big in their culture), but live through the horrors of the Japanese culture of the 1920s-1940s and yeah you'd hate them too.

I have to qualify this.  This does not apply to all Japanese people.  This only generally applies to the Japanese imperialists.  The Japanese culture itself has not changed much throughout its history and it was the Japanese people who diligently worked to oust their Imperials even before America dropped those bombs.

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, I think you're mistaken.  The media you constantly talk about is just a part of all of us.  I feel you are falling back on your own favorite narrative and ignoring my point.   

 

No, I think you are mistaken.  This is not a narrative.  This is observation.  The media is not "just a part of us".  They are an activist group.  Want proof?

I'm gonna amend this to include a majority of colleges and universities administration and faculty.  They are also not "just a part of us".  They are also an activist group.

Edited August 16, 2017 by anatess2

[JoCa]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I have to qualify this.  This does not apply to all Japanese people.  This only generally applies to the Japanese imperialists.  The Japanese culture itself has not changed much throughout its history and it was the Japanese people who diligently worked to oust their Imperials even before America dropped those bombs.

Totally agree. The larger point being that in today's modern society we can't fathom why people had a deep hatred for the Japanese . . .but there were some very good reasons as to why they did.  The same applies to other situations.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Totally agree. The larger point being that in today's modern society we can't fathom why people had a deep hatred for the Japanese . . .but there were some very good reasons as to why they did.  The same applies to other situations.

My most memorable incident of racism towards me happened back in 1992 when I worked as a cashier for a local mom-and-pop grocery in Ohio.  I was usually assigned to open the store at 7AM and this old man is always by the doors waiting to go inside.  Everyday he would buy a cup of coffee and the newspaper.  But, he refused to come through my register.  The owner has to check him out.  He told the owner that he refused to be served by a Vietcong.  Of course, not only was I not a Vietnamese soldier, I'm not even Vietnamese.  But, yeah, I don't know if he was a Vietnam Vet - he wore a Vietnam Vet hat - but if he was an American during the Vietnam War era I understand why he held this hatred to a point that he won't even let a Vietnamese cashier serve him.

[JoCa]

The idea that one race is superior to another is to me repugnant.  I don't believe someone should be punished simply b/c of something they believe-now if they act and do something that violates another's God given rights, then pain should be coming.

But I do enjoy my culture, my heritage and my race.  I enjoy that my ancestors came from the traditional European stock.  I enjoy eating traditional European food- cabbage and ham for Easter.  I like being able to come home to a traditional culture.  I enjoy going to other countries and seeing their culture . . .but I also like my own and I'd like to keep it that way for me and for posterity.

I think what you are seeing is the natural pushback against the insanity of people and Europeans taking blame for "white privilege" and owning it and then turning around and appeasing everyone and anyone for the sins of past generations.  I make no excuses or apologies for the past . . . it is done, over with, learn from it, grow from it, understand it was a different time, different people.  Just because I enjoy my culture doesn't mean I approve of everything they did, every culture has it's warts and problems. I personally find it repugnant that I am expected to bow down and grovel like some pig simply b/c a group of people who are starting to get political power demand that I apologize and make reparations for the past. 

It is done, over with, live and let live. 

And no, I don't want my children going to a school where (as another individual of another race put it to me), the administrators were playing adult rap and dancing in the street of an elementary school.  That's fine if another person wants that for their child-not for mine. There is definitely a difference in culture.

It's why IMO multi-culturism is a cancer.  I really enjoy going to other places and seeing the differences and being immersed in the differences.  But if we take all the differences and put them together then France isn't France anymore, China isn't China anymore it just becomes one big pot. And I honestly enjoy seeing the difference- I don't want everything to be the same everywhere. It provides the spice of life.

Interesting factoid; the entire reason Texas became a state is because Mexico (primarily Hispanic) invited and encouraged US citizens to settle in the area.  Over a period of time, the Americas ended up outnumbering the Mexicans.  They fought a war over it b/c the American culture did not mesh with the Mexican culture.  Texas became it's own nation and then eventually joined the US.  It's why the north and south fought . . .b/c they were two different cultures that didn't mix together.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

No, I think you are mistaken.  This is not a narrative.  This is observation.  The media is not "just a part of us".  They are an activist group.  Want proof?

I'm gonna amend this to include a majority of colleges and universities administration and faculty.  They are also not "just a part of us".  They are also an activist group.

If you prefer to call your narrative an observation that's fine. I won't quibble over that insignificant difference. You're still ignoring the point I addressed.  It appears you won't examine it with me (as I have already examined your observations regarding the U.S. Media on other occasions). And that's fine. We can leave it there.

 

[AnthonyB2]

Whilst I appreciate that a clear stance was made in terms of distancing from unacceptable groups.

I think there are some interesting questions (for some of which I have no answers)...

If Gen Lee is unacceptable as a figure to be placed on statue, (remember the original protest was the removal of his statue) due to his own views and that far right people laud him, how far do we go with repudiating people from previous generations?? Is Jefferson or Washington Ok to have statues, as slave owners? Teddy Roosevelt certainly had strong views on race? A case could be made against Winston Churchill? And to hopefully not to be too controversial on an LDS website, but some people find Brigham Young a challenging figure.

Instead pulling down statues, why not raise statues of others....Put a monument to Sherman next to Lee, or MLK, or Jackie Robinson or just some local person of colour notable?

Also genetic testing has clearly revealed that many people who present as one race, having ancestry of another. The number of test where people thought they had native American blood but actually had white ancestry and then seem disappointed in being partly of European descent.  I have the possibility of having native Australian ancestry and would  be very happy if I were so. People have a lot more mixing then many realize.

 

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, AnthonyB2 said:

Whilst I appreciate that a clear stance was made in terms of distancing from unacceptable groups.

I think there are some interesting questions (for some of which I have no answers)...

If Gen Lee is unacceptable as a figure to be placed on statue, (remember the original protest was the removal of his statue) due to his own views and that far right people laud him, how far do we go with repudiating people from previous generations?? Is Jefferson or Washington Ok to have statues, as slave owners? Teddy Roosevelt certainly had strong views on race? A case could be made against Winston Churchill? And to hopefully not to be too controversial on an LDS website, but some people find Brigham Young a challenging figure.

Instead pulling down statues, why not raise statues of others....Put a monument to Sherman next to Lee, or MLK, or Jackie Robinson or just some local person of colour notable?

Also genetic testing has clearly revealed that many people who present as one race, having ancestry of another. The number of test where people thought they had native American blood but actually had white ancestry and then seem disappointed in being partly of European descent.  I have the possibility of having native Australian ancestry and would  be very happy if I were so. People have a lot more mixing then many realize.

 

Addressing this issue is a tough one.  In part, because my own representations have been kidnapped by the Alt-Right and others.  I spent a lot of time in the Deep South when what many consider the confederate flag (which was actually only one of many, and was actually the Battle Flag for troops from Virginia) was found on most of the flags there, and where statues of the Confederate Generals were easy to be found.  I appreciated being able to go visit various historical areas, and even visit digs at certain sites.  There is a deep and rich history there in regards to the Confederate States, the reasons why they were formed, and what happened afterwards. 

I personally don't want them to destroy such memorials like the statue of General Lee.  I thought it was horrible that they decided to change the flags which states had into others, and that taking down these flags is a loss of history or the recognition of what it was.  This isn't because I think slavery was a good cause, or think anything along those lines, but because of the history that these items bring to mind, and the stories that they relate that may otherwise be forgotten (and history forgotten is history bound to be repeated).

However, I feel uncomfortable relating these views as these symbols seem to have been hijacked both by the Alt-Right and their followers as well as those on the violent and very history reconstructionist of the far left.  To say, I also don't want these statues and flags taken down or destroyed indicates that I align with one of those two groups, both of which I absolutely do not agree with.  Traditionally those things have been symbols that represented ALL people in the South, not just those who were racists or otherwise.  Now days, however, one cannot express that they would rather those statues remain and flags be left to fly, without somehow being seen as aligned with those groups.

It also leads to that question which you raise...where does this insanity end?  Robert E. Lee may have been a slave owner, but overall, he was opposed to the South leaving the Union and their reasoning for doing so.  However, he had a very strong sense of loyalty to his state (remember, states were seen differently back then, with states being more like nations in something like the EU rather than a UNITED STATES that Lincoln and others saw it as) and when asked specifically, went to lead their troops.  His is a tragic story where though his personal convictions were different then those who led the confederacy, his sense of duty and loyalty to his government led him to work against those convictions and fight for what he felt was his own patriotism.  If we take down his statue, simply because he was a confederate general...after all those statues are gone...where do we go from there.

Washington really is a logical extension, because he too was part of that Southern legacy.  Maybe we start smaller and remove others that don't agree with our sense of modern day morals, such as James Madison, the very individual who proposed the 3/5 compromise.

Or maybe James Monroe who owned slaves like Robert E. Lee, but was also similarly opposed to it (which is a rather ironic thing if you think about it).  His idea was to send freed slaves to another nation in Africa, and in that light, Liberia has it's capital named after him.

Or maybe Andrew Jackson who owned slaves, actively traded, and was a proponent of it?

OR perhaps someone many don't recall, John Tyler who supported it's expansion in his time?

Who do we go after next in these instances. When we look at only one or a few components of these individuals lives instead of their whole person as reasons to eradicate their memories, it can start looking an awful lot like a witch hunt.

But as I said, I don't express these feelings as much these days, as, it unfortunately, a lot of this dialogue has been hijacked by extreme groups on the right and left instead of letting normal correspondence talk about it, and hence any who may discuss it are many times seen as being part of that far left or far right grouping.

Edited August 17, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Mike]

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

First they came for the neo-nazis and I said nothing, because neo-nazis. Actually, I sort of joined up with them.

Then they came for the rest of the race hating organized mobs like the thugs in the KKK and the BLM, and that was ok too. Buncha violent race-baiting uniform-wearing armed mobs of anti-cop, anti-rule-of-law thugs. They weeded out the most horrible 10% of those folks, and everyone remaining sort of had a point and went back to what they were doing, without their Coke cans full of concrete and firebombs.

After that, I went back to saying stuff when they came for people. Especially Christian bakers. Leave those dudes alone - there's five other bakeries on that street, ya bunch of agenda-driven yahoos.

I'm of course aware of Martin Niemöller's quotation, "first they came for...", but I'm not clear on what you're saying here.  Would you elaborate/clarify for me, please? 

 

 

[Guest]

Quote

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

-- Erik Satie (Or Judge Aaron Satie of Star Trek universe)

We can denounce their motives and their beliefs all we want.  But we only have the right to denounce them because we also support their right to say that which we disagree with.

Quote

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

--Evelyn Joyce Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

Edited August 17, 2017 by Guest

[Mike]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We can denounce their motives and their beliefs all we want.  But we only have the right to denounce them because we also support their right to say that which we disagree with.

And this applies across the board--to everybody, right?

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

And this applies across the board--to everybody, right?

I don't see why not.  The very essence of these quotes is that free speech is free speech.  If you exclude anyone from it, then you're excluding everyone from it.

[Mike]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't see why not.  The very essence of these quotes is that free speech is free speech.  If you exclude anyone from it, then you're excluding everyone from it.

Not sure how literally I should take this given in particular how quick some are to bring up herrings like, oh, semantics, support, tacit approval, and good standing with the Lord. Do you think it's worthwhile to talk about how free (free speech) is acceptable in the context of this thread?

 

 

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

If you prefer to call your narrative an observation that's fine. I won't quibble over that insignificant difference. You're still ignoring the point I addressed.  It appears you won't examine it with me (as I have already examined your observations regarding the U.S. Media on other occasions). And that's fine. We can leave it there.

 

I just examined it with you.  What you point to is a result of propaganda driven by the drivers of information FORCING it on the collective attention.  Here.  Watch this video.  She says it much more clearly (and much more fun-ly) than I can.  But, sure, you don't have to believe me.  You can believe that there are just that many American racists collectively giving these people platforms.  That's up to you.  I believe you're wrong and that's my examination.  What's your examination?

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

Not sure how literally I should take this given in particular how quick some are to bring up herrings like, oh, semantics, support, tacit approval, and good standing with the Lord. Do you think it's worthwhile to talk about how free (free speech) is acceptable in the context of this thread?

The quotes (in context) are about government or any type of "force" that would threaten body or life.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Mike]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I just examined it with you.  What you point to is a result of propaganda driven by the drivers of information FORCING it on the collective attention ...

I honestly feel that you are not paying attention to what I originally wrote because this isn't what I am talking about. 

What you just did was tantamount to telling me that my problem is that I don't see what you see, and if I would just put on your glasses my problem would be solved.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Mike

[Guest]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

We need to keep perspective. Nazi's are not infiltrating all   ranks of society. This is not Germany in 1937. 

Oh, well, that's a relief.  

Honey, it's ok.  We can come out of the bunker now.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

I honestly feel that you are not paying attention to what I originally wrote because this isn't what I am talking about. 

What you just did was tantamount to telling me that my problem is that I don't see what you see, and if I would just put on your glasses my problem would be solved.

If you want a discussion, you discuss.  Not just tell me I am not paying attention to what you originally wrote and not explain WHY you think so.  I read what you originally wrote.  And everything you wrote after that.  And what I wrote was a response to it.  Now, if you want to discuss, then tell me why you think I misunderstood your post and stop being passive aggressive to the point of non-discussion.  If you don't want to discuss further then say so.  Then I can file that away to The End.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm of course aware of Martin Niemöller's quotation, "first they came for...", but I'm not clear on what you're saying here.  Would you elaborate/clarify for me, please? 

Well, I'm not advocating "going after" anyone violently, or criminally.   I'm absolutely advocating "going after" neo-Nazis and their BLM mirror-image folks in the arena of public debate, legislation, and any other legal arena.

Denver has a reasonable AM talk radio guy.  He did some research, and estimates there are around 3,000 people in America willing to stand up and identify themselves as a neo-nazi or white supremacist or KKK.  Those are 3,000 who need to be targeted for public shaming, they should lose their jobs, their neighbors should know who they are, people should engage them verbally and call them out for their evil beliefs whenver possible. And this guy should keep working his miracles with them. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by NeuroTypical