Racism and Mormonism

[_antishock8]

In the Millennium, however, this will no longer be a problem as economics will no longer be relevant.

I just saw Religulous last night. I wish Bill Maher would have interviewed Droopy instead of Tal Bachman for the Mormon segment. This would have definitely made the cut..

[_Some Schmo]

Growing up Mormon, I was more exposed to bigotry toward homosexuals than toward people of other races. There was absolutely no doubt what my father thought of gay people (badly), whereas I'm trying to even remember a time when he spoke ill of other races. When speaking about the idea that blacks were "less valiant" I seem to remember him talking about it very matter-of-factly, not laced with invective emotion. It was like he was teaching us about bread making or something. Although I don't pretend to know the heart of my late father, I don't think he was a racist, but I really don't know for sure. Given that race was pratically a non-issue in our house, I think it's safe to say he didn't think about it much.

Most of the racism I experienced was at school, and it was mostly against Asians, the Polish, and Native Americans (I grew up in western Canada). There was also a lot of crap thrown at the French Canadians, now that I think about it. I remember thinking very young that racism didn't make much sense, since I knew cool people and dickheads of every race and nationality. If I ever demonstrated racism, it was in the form of telling "Polack jokes" or other racist jokes. For me, it wasn't about feeling ill toward these other types of people; it was all about getting a cheap laugh.

But most definitely, my bigotry toward homosexuals was something I learned from a young age, and I only self-identified it and threw it off about five years ago, I'm embarrassed to say. The thing is, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life, and I will always be an advocate for the equal rights of gay people.

[_beastie]

Here in NC, a teacher in the Cumberland county school system was filmed being hostile, under the aegis of teaching kids about our political system in the Presidential election cycle, to anyone she discovered who 'would vote McCain'. The poor kids. The humiliation starts around the 20 second mark. My own child was in the receiving in of one these lectures where a Black school teacher openly advocated Obama precisely because he is Black.

Notice the one kid says he's voting for Obama because he's Black. How is this not bigotry?

I remember when I was a kid our town elected its first Black mayor back in the early 80's. Everyone was positively excited about it (perhaps with the exception of my parents).


This was a phenomenal achievement for a city whose Black population was less than 2% in terms of "progressive" behavior. For all of us latently "racist" white people, how is it possible that a Black man in Spokane garnered 82% of the vote? This is why I bristled at being labelled a racist because I didn't support Obama. It's patently absurd when it's clear most people Center and Center-Right don't have issues voting for anyone as long as they share similar ideologies or motivations.

First, I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up in response to me, in particular. I didn’t call you a racist for not supporting Obama. I do think that dart is likely racist, but it’s not because he wasn’t supporting Obama – it’s due to the other things he said on these threads.

Second, you seem to be arguing a strawman here – is anyone here arguing that black people cannot be bigots? Where did someone make that argument? It certainly wasn’t me.

Third, there are plenty of bad teachers, and I’m sure there are plenty of bigoted teachers in this world. Personally, I wouldn’t even tell my students who I was supporting until the election was over because I didn’t want their parents to think I was trying to influence them.

Having said that, this video doesn’t pass the smell test. The teacher in question knew she was being filmed for a documentary. Normally teachers – like other human beings – don’t engage in blatant misbehavior when they know they’re being videotaped. In fact, the teacher in question has claimed that the video was heavily edited, and she was using exaggerated reactions in order to provoke discussion.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs. ... 0881106074

She said the film’s producers asked her to talk about politics that day and that she not only discussed the presidential race but all the races in North Carolina.
She said her comments of “Oh lord” and “Oh Jesus” were her way of engaging her students to spur discussion. She said the camera does not show her sticking her tongue out and throwing up her hands when one student said he supports Obama.

Now, maybe she was just an incredibly stupid woman. But I am suspicious, and I tend to believe the video probably was heavily edited to obtain the end result. Like I said, normally people don’t engage in blatant misbehavior when they know they’re being videotaped for a documentary.

Now, as to whether or not the fifth grader was a “bigot” for saying he was voting for Obama because he’s black – gee, I have no idea. This is a fifth grader, and that means the child was around 10-11 years old. At that age, children’s perceptions of abstract political issues are still somewhat vague. I certainly would not be willing to label an 11 child a “bigot” because he said he was voting for Obama because he was black, no more than I would label the eight year old child in my class a bigot because he said he voted for McCain because he was white (in our mock elections).

Maybe the kid’s a bigot. Or maybe the kid overheard his parents talking excitedly about the possibility of a black president and translated that as: vote for him because he’s black. I have no idea, and frankly, neither do you. Certainly people being excited about the possibility of the first black president does not mean they’re bigots. You were excited about the possibility of a female VP, and that doesn’t make you a sexist.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've definitely know some LDS who in real life made what I think of as racist remarks. I think it has something to do with doctrines and also what develops culturally, if you will, in a family.

I wasn't raised up in that type of environment, so it's a little difficult to hear when someone makes racist remarks. My strongest influence in that regard, was a humble woman who didn't think she was above anyone else.

[_beastie]

by the way, AS, since you're into "mirror" posting, like our old friend Wade, here's what you bringing up the videotape comes across to me, mirrored back to you:

http://www.jcfloridan.com/jcf/news/loca ... for/39223/

The Jackson County School Board has taken action against a teacher who apparently made racial commentary on presidential candidate Barack Obama.

According to parents and students in Greg Howard’s seventh-grade social studies class, Howard on Friday, Sept. 26 asked the class a question regarding Obama’s call for change, and proceeded to write out what the letters C-H-A-N-G-E stood for.

“She told me that he wrote on the board ‘Can You Help A (expletive) Get Elected, and then laughed about it,” said Shelia Christian, a mother of one of Howard’s students.

Jackson County Superintendent Danny Sims said that description of this incident was “pretty accurate.”

Sims said Howard apparently repeated the action in more than one class, having made the comment in “a couple of periods.”

According to a news release from the school board, Howard was suspended with pay on Monday, Sept. 29.

On Wednesday Howard was given a written reprimand regarding his actions, and those actions will be reported to the Florida Department of Education Office of Professional Practices, according to the school board.

As of Thursday, he was suspended without pay for 10 days, was relieved of his football coaching duties, and will be transferred to the Jackson County Adult Education program, according to JCSB.

Howard is also required to submit a letter of apology to the students involved, and is required to attend diversity and sensitivity training, the school board reported.

Sims said Howard’s racial commentary was not directed at any students, but were directed at a political party.

“We’ve handled this swiftly and we’ve handled it with a concern that we’re not going to tolerate it and this is a pretty stiff (action). The situation is behind us and we’re ready to move forward,” said Sims.

“My daughter came home very upset after that happened. When you’re in school teaching our kids, you’re supposed to be teaching them what’s right by the law, not what’s right in your opinion. This is not the stone ages. We don’t come through the back door anymore. I raise my kids to be respectful and they should be led by example,” said Christian.

The expletive was n***er, in case someone was confused.

:::mirror off:::

Now, let's say I brought that up, not as a "mirror" of some sort, but rather as just part of the conversation. What possibly purpose would there be behind it? We all know some people are racists. We all know that some racists end up teaching school. So what would the point be?

[_antishock8]

Beastie,

When I use:

"------------"

It's simply meant that I'm done with the previous thought, and instead of making another post I just segue into another thought.

I'm not sure what a "mirror" post is... And I'm not sure what Wade would do reference "mirror" posting.

[_antishock8]

Here's the aforementioned teacher's side of the story for Beastie's edification:

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=309848

-----------------

I wonder if Beastie feels as indignant or put off by Rev Wright's ideology and comments as she would my mother's action or the White teacher's comments that she linked?

[_beastie]

Here's the aforementioned teacher's side of the story for Beastie's edification:

I already provided a very similar link.


"Mirror" posting was what Wade Englund used to do all the time on ZLMB. He would "mirror" back the poster's bad behavior - or, of course, what he perceived to be the poster's bad behavior. He was trying to "teach" the poster a lesson. But, in the end, Wade's behavior always ended up being far worse than the poster he was "mirroring", and he caused immense aggravation for the mods - including LDS mods - and was given "time out" several times for the behavior.

It really doesn't work, AS. I believe in tit for tat in that I think this is the internal moral compass that human beings normally use to guide their own behavior, but when we start to deliberately apply a calculated "tit for tat" it usually doesn't work. Part of the problem is that people obviously don't necessarily perceive their behavior in the same way you do, so the mirroring usually makes no sense to them. And often our perceptions have, indeed, distorted the person's behavior in our eyes. It usually just ends up escalating the situation, particularly on the internet where we don't have normal body language/social cues to rely on to help us interpret people's intents.

In other words, I really see no practical purpose, in terms of this conversation, for you to bring up that silly video. That's what I was trying to demonstrate by posting the "n***er" episode.

In regards to Reverend Wright, I'm not familiar enough with his body of teachings to judge whether or not I would have been outraged, and neither are most of the people commenting on it. They're normally using an out-of-context sound bite as the basis of their outrage. When I read the fuller context of the "goddamn america" sound bite, I agreed with what it seemed to me was his larger point - that is (if there is a god, that is, which, of course, I don't believe in to begin with, but using the believers' perspective) Americans can't claim God is on their side just because we're Americans. There have been times in our past history when God, if he were a just God, would be constrained to damn America. I agree with that point. That doesn't mean I don't love America - I do. I think the US is a country based on a noble vision. It means that I love the US enough to want it to be better, when it needs to be.

[_beastie]

"------------"

It's simply meant that I'm done with the previous thought, and instead of making another post I just segue into another thought.

Thanks for clarifying.

[_Droopy]

Spiritual discipline. LOL. b***s*** rationalization. Amazing.

You have deteriorated, in an intellectual sense, markedly over just the last year or so. Very, very sad Tarski.

Let's just say that society uses taxes for the greater good (like the roads you drive on) and it is part of a social contract that we enter into by being citizens etc. So, you are free to leave the country just like one is free to leave the Mormon commune. LOL. (spiritual discipline! LOL). The rest of us want to, umm, f*****g cooperate and get something done.

If ever you do want to engage in a serious philosophical discussion on this issue Tarski, I really will be willing and ready to do so at any time.

Oh, and please remember not to pay taxes and definitely don't drive on public roads or expect any police to come and save you. Maybe there is a tract of land in the antarctic somewhere for you.

See above.

I do enjoy your rationalizations though so give me another. Try this:
"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Try this:

Jacob 2:17, 18, 19
1.Tim:17
Hel 6:17 (notice the context here)
Mark 10:24 (again, the context)
Alma 1:29-30 (context yet again)
Mosiah 2:22
2 Nephi 1: 31
Gen. 39:2
Alma 50:17-
Alma 62:48-51
And of course, Job 42:12

Apparently, Jesus was calling the individual he was speaking to in the verse you mentioned to be an Apostle, which would, indeed, have entailed such a requirement in that individual case. The scriptures I've provided above, and many others that could be mentioned, would indicate that this is not the case for the overwhelming majority of human beings and under most circumstances in which the Gospel governs our lives or even an entire society.

Clearly, as socialist economic theory and the application of that theory in the form of actual public policy cannot create wealth and, in point of fact, simply consumes and redistributes that which is created in the productive private sector (whether those producers are Saints or not) whatever form the United Order ultimately takes (and there is no reason, theologically, to assume that a United Order in the the technologically advanced 21st century would look like a United Order in the pre-industrial mid-nineteenth century, under conditions of naked survival), it will not be a socialist system in any normative secular way. That is, if prosperity, riches, and economic abundance are salient features of a righteous society, then it could not be the case that it would be a socialist society, as socialism has nowhere it has ever been tried produced anything but, when applied to a lesser extent, economic mediocrity or economic stagnation, or, when taken to its logical and conceptual conclusion, authoritarian to totalitarian (and, for the majority of the population, poor) police states.