Peterson and Schryver: Slavery Was a Blessing to Blacks

[_static]

I'm going to re-post this, in larger letters, because it's the most correct post on this thread.

Slavery was evil and wrong; no one disagrees with that fact. But it happened. We cannot go back in time and prevent it. Why is it so revolting that a descendent of those who were enslaved (read: neither DCP nor Schryver, but an actual African-American) finds something good that came in spite of something evil? Why is it so disgusting for Schryver to commend someone for doing so on his blog? Look guys: nothing mortal is 100% good, and nothing mortal is 100% evil. The world is just not black and white like that. So open your minds a bit chill-out. Damn!

Unless anyone can find a specific quote from either DCP or WS which condones slavery, all you're doing is speculating about the intentions of another person; a person most of you happen to hate with such passion as to post multiple threads about him daily. Is it any wonder that many of you pour through his blog looking for any little thing you can cry foul about?

[Guest]

Rather than just reproducing in larger letters, static, why don't you just reply point by point to my post immediately above yours?

That would be called a discussion, as in "Mormon Discussions."

[_Buffalo]

I'm going to re-post this, in larger letters, because it's the most correct post on this thread.

Slavery was evil and wrong; no one disagrees with that fact. But it happened. We cannot go back in time and prevent it. Why is it so revolting that a descendent of those who were enslaved (read: neither DCP nor Schryver, but an actual African-American) finds something good that came in spite of something evil? Why is it so disgusting for Schryver to commend someone for doing so on his blog? Look guys: nothing mortal is 100% good, and nothing mortal is 100% evil. The world is just not black and white like that. So open your minds a bit chill-out. Damn!

Unless anyone can find a specific quote from either DCP or WS which condones slavery, all you're doing is speculating about the intentions of another person; a person most of you happen to hate with such passion as to post multiple threads about him daily. Is it any wonder that many of you pour through his blog looking for any little thing you can cry foul about?

No one is saying they condone slavery. The paternalist racism they espouse is quite offensive, though. The subtext of their positions is that wise white masters saved the "Negroes" from themselves.

[_DrW]

Unless anyone can find a specific quote from either DCP or WS which condones slavery, all you're doing is speculating about the intentions of another person; a person most of you happen to hate with such passion as to post multiple threads about him daily. Is it any wonder that many of you pour through his blog looking for any little thing you can cry foul about?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what possible behavior one could engage in to be so roundly disliked and vilified by others?

Do you think that thousands of well educated, thoughtful and otherwise liberal and tolerant folks just woke up one morning and decided that they were deeply offended and disturbed by the sum of Dr. Peterson's writings?

Have you read his posts on the message board threads and on his blog? Can you understand what an affront his brand of "apologetics" is are to most people?

Is it any surprise to you that these posts bring the kinds of responses they do from folks who are not required to say nice things about him?

Dr. Peterson does this to himself, and he does it very well.

[_Sophocles]

I'm going to re-post this, in larger letters, because it's the most correct post on this thread.

Are you quite sure about that? I looked back over the thread and I'm pretty sure my posts are the most correct.

(Should I be using a larger font?)

[Guest]

No one is saying they condone slavery. The paternalist racism they espouse is quite offensive, though. The subtext of their positions is that wise white masters saved the "Negroes" from themselves.

Exactly. Nothing has changed about Simon's inability to get the point.

Sad.

They sound somewhat like John Derbyshire, the writer for the National Review who got canned for his racism. Recently he has been espousing the view that "White Supremacist" is a term than has gotten a bad rap, saying that African-Americans prefer living in a world of white European dominance:

"Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think 'White Supremacist' is not bad semantically ... White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group."

That is the kind of BS I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Schryver may very well be the kind of guy who reads Derbyshire with all of the chin-stroking approbation of a fellow traveler.

[_static]

Rather than just reproducing in larger letters, static, why don't you just reply point by point to my post immediately above yours?

You didn't see it the first time, so I assumed larger letters would help you see it the second. I'm not responding to your pointless "points".

That would be called a discussion, as in "Mormon Discussions."

Really? I thought this board was called the more accurate "everyone mock and belittle Mormonism and it's adherents", because that's what I see happening here most of the time.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what possible behavior one could engage in to be so roundly disliked and vilified by others?

Do you think that thousands of well educated, thoughtful and otherwise liberal and tolerant folks just woke up one morning and decided that they were deeply offended and disturbed by the sum of Dr. Peterson's writings?

If you're referring to the citizens of this board, tolerant is definitely not accurate. Intolerance toward Mormonism is shared by many folks here, and it doesn't take a genius to see it.

Have you read his posts on the message board threads and on his blog? Can you understand what an affront his brand of "apologetics" is are to most people?

Is it any surprise to you that these posts bring the kinds of responses they do from folks who are not required to say nice things about him?

Oh, but they're required to say mean things about him?

Dr. Peterson does this to himself, and he does it very well.

Look: I haven't read everything DCP has written. I probably haven't scratched the surface, yet. I don't want to get into this with you on this thread. This thread is about the false accusations about DCP and racism.

[_Stormy Waters]

I'm going to re-post this, in larger letters, because it's the most correct post on this thread.

Are you quite sure about that? I looked back over the thread and I'm pretty sure my posts are the most correct.

(Should I be using a larger font?)

Yes. Arguments are always made clearer by larger font size. Use bright colors too.

[_stemelbow]

I find that I am on a different end of very many issues from Peterson and Schryver. I am pretty unapologetic about that. So what? These guys have public blogs, and I have a different opinion. If they didn't want to be engaged by others with different opinions, they wouldn't enter the realm of public blogging.

Disagreeing is just fine, I'd say. And they'd say the same. To take occasion to twist their words into something they did not intend, well, that's a whole other game.

I will be very open about the fact that I have a very deep antipathy toward their politics and their approach to issues regarding the LDS Church and its so-called "critics." On the other hand, I have had cordial interactions with both people.

Why am I forbidden, in your view, from expressing my antipathy toward their views, stem? Go ahead and fulminate about alleged "hatred," but in my case I think you would have an awfully difficult time arguing it persuasively. Not that you and other apologists don't try persistently to do so.

Express your concern over their views. I don't' mind. To take their words and stories to mean something not intended, well, there's something there. I'd say it stems from personal hostility. HOpe it clears up.

[_Kevin Graham]

What I don't get is why Dan even bothered to blog about this. It is his opinion, and a stupid one, but why advertise it?

Is there some slavery controversy in the news that I missed?

Where Dan is wrong is in his baseless belief that slavery produced an ultimate "good."

The more I read Dan's blog, the more I realize he isn't nearly as brilliant as he likes to lead on. Where is the original thinking? His remark about taxes being taken by the government "effectively at gunpoint" is an idiotic talking point from talk-radio specialist Neal Boortz. He has also mentioned Hayek and has spouted the usual fear-mongering points about socialism, which is about what we'd expect from someone who spends his spare time reading Right Wing sources all day. Like I said, he is like Droopy without the illiteracy issues. I'm waiting to see when he decided to quote Ayn Rand of all people.

Incidentally, I remember when the War in Iraq was well into its third year and there were no signs of WMDs, he told me that he supported George Bush's policy in the Middle-East 100%. I relayed this to Daniel Pipes, and as a result Piped placed Dan on his list of recommended professors.

Now that we know Bush's policy was based on a lie and it caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, mostly women and children, I wonder if he regrets supporting it the way he did. Doesn't appear so, as his Right Wing fanaticism has escalated in intensity and exposure. This guy is looking like an idiot.