Racism in the LDS Church--Does it continue today?

[_consiglieri]

No way, Consig. The Daily Universe lives dangerous!

OMG!

The Daily Universe took the extraordinary step Monday of re-calling all its 18,500 copies from newsstands around campus and the community to reprint the entire 14-page issue due to a typographical error on the front page.

A spelling error appeared in a photo caption in which the word “apostle” was rendered as “apostate.” In referring to activities at the General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints last weekend, the caption read in part, “Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostates and other general authorities raise their hands in a sustaining vote. . . .”

Those issues that escaped the recall must be collector's items!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_huckelberry]

The word racism seems to mean differnt things to different people. Like any word it naturally has a variety of meanings but more than for some other words the meaning of racism is sometimes suffled around to avoid issues.

I see the central meaning of the word to be reference to the condition where one group as a controlling and demeaning power over another group and uses negative characterizations of the subjugated group as justification. In US history a river of misery murder and oppression have flowed from this racism thing. In comparison the idea of calling a person not liking some other group racism comes off as trivial. Even more trivial is to notice we care more for those near us. this of course is true for all humans.

If we do not like to look at the actual role of racism in US history one way of avoiding it is to dilute the word so that it applies to everybody all the time. Then even blacks who do not like whites are racists.

A large part of racist style in the US is to use very low keyed statements to imply a stronger racist intention. Maybe that sort of thing is fading. Maybe there are not so many shibboliths to signal exclusions and enforced seperations. I still find the sound of those painful. Maybe they are no longer meant the same. Perhaps the phrase "you should marry your own kind" no longer carries the same racist code meaning that it would have in the past.

So what purposes are served in diluting the meaning of the word racism?.

[_ajax18]

So what purposes are served in diluting the meaning of the word racism?.

I doubt those responsible for diluting the word racism would ever want the word diluted. It's just a consequence of the way they use the word, a consequence I'm sure nobody playing this ultimate card ever cared to consider.

[_Themis]

The word racism seems to mean differnt things to different people. Like any word it naturally has a variety of meanings but more than for some other words the meaning of racism is sometimes suffled around to avoid issues.

I think many may include racial discrimination as part of the definition for racism, which I think would be accurate. The church's priesthood ban certainly was a racist policy and doctrine.

I see the central meaning of the word to be reference to the condition where one group as a controlling and demeaning power over another group and uses negative characterizations of the subjugated group as justification.

This again fits with the church's doctrines, teachings and policies in regard to blacks. Earlier members and leaders certainly had more racist views then later generations. This is also true of other groups as well. I think most of it is gone now, but their is some still around. More probably in older generations or more rural areas.

In US history a river of misery murder and oppression have flowed from this racism thing. In comparison the idea of calling a person not liking some other group racism comes off as trivial.

The spectrum of racism is very wide. I would not say it is trivial, but it certainly is not anywhere to the same level as the examples you bring up. I think it is wrong if a person says they do not a certain group based on race, culture, religion, etc, but I would not compare them to someone like Hitler. I recall a certain ward mission leader on my mission who really is a great guy. Before he was a member he had been a grand dragon in the KKK. He still has some negative feelings and stereotypes about blacks, but nothing compared to where he was.

Even more trivial is to notice we care more for those near us. this of course is true for all humans.

Not a good example. Because we may care more for certain individuals does not mean we do not care for everyone or think they are lesser individuals based on race or culture.

[_ajax18]

Not a good example. Because we may care more for certain individuals does not mean we do not care for everyone or think they are lesser individuals based on race or culture

But if you had to choose between giving to someone you are more closely related to and someone you are less closely related to and you choose the person more closely related to you, does that fit under the definition of racism?

Is the only case of racism practiced by human beings white men favoring other white people or a white man saying anything negative about another race? Is it possible for people of nonwhite races to be racist? Why is the only thing taught in school as racism regardless of the racial makeup of the class, examples of white people being racist? Is it because that is truly the majority of racism that is out there? I think there is just as much or more racism practiced by people of all races, not just white people. I think the focus on white racism and the disproportionate amount of attention to this specific case of racism is racist in itself.

[_Themis]

But if you had to choose between giving to someone you are more closely related to and someone you are less closely related to and you choose the person more closely related to you, does that fit under the definition of racism?

No. The choice is based not really on race but who your are related to or are friends with. This is about having more feelings towards someone, where racism has to do with negative feelings or views towards someone based on race. At least I am assuming the one who is more closely related is someone I know and have a relationship with. Now if you mean that I am giving to one becuase they are European descent over one who is of African descent becuase I assume one is more closely related then yes that would be racist. I think huckelberry's example is not about choosing based on how related you think you are, but on those who you know personally and have a relationship with. I would be more likely to hire my niece then some girl I don't know regardless of what race she may be from. I would say for many they may be more willing to say hire an attractive person of another race before hiring a not so attractive person of their race. It's discrimination, but based on other factors then race.

Is the only case of racism practiced by human beings white men favoring other white people or a white man saying anything negative about another race?

Nope

Is it possible for people of nonwhite races to be racist?

Yes and it's a problem in certain parts of the world.

Why is the only thing taught in school as racism regardless of the racial makeup of the class, examples of white people being racist?

Politics and recent history of whites being the ones oppressing other races in this part of the world.

Is it because that is truly the majority of racism that is out there?

I would say that the US and other western countries are less racist then most of the other countries in the world today. These are the only countries that are really taking in immigrants from all parts of the world today. Of course their are other factors involved as well. We need to remember that technological advances in Europe allowed those groups to be dominate and not treat other groups very well. This is an old story and if another group had advanced first in certain technology they most likely would have done similar things as the Europeans.

I think there is just as much or more racism practiced by people of all races, not just white people. I think the focus on white racism and the disproportionate amount of attention to this specific case of racism is racist in itself.

I remember a fire department taking the city to court over a program to hire more non-whites as reverse discrimination. We need to fight discrimination, but not with discrimination.

[_ajax18]

But Themis my point is that the selfish gene theory has shown that whether people even know each other personally, it's natural for them to favor someone who they share more DNA with. It's the same human feeling as a father who loves a child he has never met. Are they still family? Are they inclined to treat each other as family at some point? I've observed that most often times they do. Given the chance, the man would favor that child. Racist feelings are just an extension of that same natural human feeling. Of course it's weaker but it's still there. Some people think nepotism is just as evil as racism. It just depends who you are and how these human tendencies may have effected you. That's where people get a sense of right and wrong. So how can anyone rightly tell me what is right for me to do? He isn't me. His values are formed from his experience. My values are the results of my experience.

In school they taught that racism was something that people were taught and were conditioned for by society so as to make it a part of their behavior. I think nature is just as big a factor as nurture in this case. It's a tendency toward developing an attitude that has been selected for by evolution. In other words, I think people would grow up that way on their own without outside influence. Most people of most races see themselves as a big family. When a successful black man helps poor black people, he is lauded as a champion. When a successful whtie man helps poor white people, he is criticized because he didn't help the black people instead. I think that's wrong. I've had it rammed down my throat for my entire life and I will fight it my entire life.

[_Buffalo]

Other than that bit in the manual from the church's racist heyday and a few isolated racist members, I don't think the church is really racist anymore. It's still very sexist, though.

[_consiglieri]

Baby steps.

[_ajax18]

The Church is people and people are racist, albeit to different extents. The Church could become more or less racist. It just depends who the leader is and what policy he implements. Throwing around the word racism is a lot like throwing around the word selfish. What does selfish really mean? What exactly qualifies as selfish behavior. It's often just a shaming word used to manipulate other people through guilt to make them give you what you happen to want from them in that particular moment. The word itself has no definite meaning or single standard that people follow. People often won't define the word because they want to reserve the right to change the definition of the word depending on the results that particular definition would produce in that particular situation they find themselves in. But just like Church doctrine, not explicitly defining the term verbally may give you some time to wiggle and use double standards to your advantage, but at some point, actions and decisions define the term whether one agrees to define it or not.