Peterson and Schryver: Slavery Was a Blessing to Blacks

[_SteelHead]

Bond is a true prophet. His prophecies come true. I exhort you to give heed to his counsel and teachings.

[Guest]

Wow, Bond... I didn't know you could predict the future:

In your future I see seven children who will give you seventy-seven headaches and seven hundred and seventy-seven joys.

[_Bond James Bond]

Bond is a true prophet. His prophecies come true. I exhort you to give heed to his counsel and teachings.

Obama will win Minnesota! (aimed at Mr. Stak)

[_Gadianton]

I guess I'm grateful for the massive asteroid that wiped out most of the life on earth millions of years ago in a painful and brutal way, because without that, humans never would have evolved. Even agnostic documentaries get you thinking when acknowledging fortuitous results of catastrophe. So what exactly is wrong with what Schryver is saying?

Well, I don't think that it's inherently wrong to discuss adversity in various shades of gray on a scale somewhere between fortuity and virtue so I'm not going to take a hardline stance on ought-is per se, though the Mopologists would do well to reflect upon what amounts to little more than morally reifying selective pressure.

If a boy got his ass kicked every day in elementary school by bullies, but instead of sulking and shrinking in fear goes on to take karate, study harder in school, and all-in-all, build his character in such a way that ultimately makes him successful in life, it would be difficult to fault the boy who grew into a man for relating stories about the hard times that made him strong. However, if the ass-kickers met the successful man at their 20th-year high school reunion and felt relieved if not jealous that they didn't totally “F” over the life of the kid they tormented who now is more successful than they are, and went on to opportunistically relate the story of this person to the family and friends of other individuals who they crippled as children physically and psychologically, the story begins losing its appeal.

Imagine if the subject of a Nazi eugenics miraculously healed from a surgery and survived to be very strong and have a strong family. The descendents of the Nazis could then say, "Hey look, it was a terrible thing, but you don't see this guy sulking like the others, give us a break."

I'm not suggesting Schryver has anything to do with African history, but he's a white guy whose only indication of intent in the story he related is revealed in his put-down of the yellow democrats. He's also an apologist for a church in the spotlight for its racist past. So a white, republican Mormon apologist christens his new blog with a story that cites a black persons perspective that could be used to absolve or mitigate the guilt of whites, republicans, and Mormons. hmmmm.... of all the "adversity can make us stronger" stories that could be told, why this one? Why not relate gratitude of the burning of the temple in Navoo, because had that not happened, the City Creek luxury apartments never would have been built? The apologists have a million sob stories involving "anti-Mormons", why not pick one of those to show how persecution can make us strong?

[_Chap]

I guess I'm grateful for the massive asteroid that wiped out most of the life on earth millions of years ago in a painful and brutal way, because without that, humans never would have evolved. Even agnostic documentaries get you thinking when acknowledging fortuitous results of catastrophe. So what exactly is wrong with what Schryver is saying?

Well, I don't think that it's inherently wrong to discuss adversity in various shades of gray on a scale somewhere between fortuity and virtue so I'm not going to take a hardline stance on ought-is per se, though the Mopologists would do well to reflect upon what amounts to little more than morally reifying selective pressure.

If a boy got his ass kicked every day in elementary school by bullies, but instead of sulking and shrinking in fear goes on to take karate, study harder in school, and all-in-all, build his character in such a way that ultimately makes him successful in life, it would be difficult to fault the boy who grew into a man for relating stories about the hard times that made him strong. However, if the ass-kickers met the successful man at their 20th-year high school reunion and felt relieved if not jealous that they didn't totally f*** over the life of the kid they tormented who now is more successful than they are, and went on to opportunistically relate the story of this person to the family and friends of other individuals who they crippled as children physically and psychologically, the story begins losing its appeal.

Imagine if the subject of a Nazi eugenics miraculously healed from a surgery and survived to be very strong and have a strong family. The descendents of the Nazis could then say, "Hey look, it was a terrible thing, but you don't see this guy sulking like the others, give us a break."

I'm not suggesting Schryver has anything to do with African history, but he's a white guy whose only indication of intent in the story he related is revealed in his put-down of the yellow democrats. He's also an apologist for a church in the spotlight for its racist past. So a white, republican Mormon apologist christens his new blog with a story that cites a black persons perspective that could be used to absolve or mitigate the guilt of whites, republicans, and Mormons. hmmmm.... of all the "adversity can make us stronger" stories that could be told, why this one? Why not relate gratitude of the burning of the temple in Navoo, because had that not happened, the City Creek luxury apartments never would have been built? The apologists have a million sob stories involving "anti-Mormons", why not pick one of those to show how persecution can make us strong?

++ ever such a lot.

The whole point of the Schryver blog post, which Peterson quotes with approval, is that Schryver claims to have met a black guy who thinks about race issues like a white Republican, so that's fine. Poor disadvantaged black people are that way simply because they are not trying hard enough - unlike the virtuous uncomplaining black in Schryver's story.

Mark you, some of the details of the story (like the black man complimenting Schryver on his piano-playing and letting him play in his paid spot in a hotel for fifteen minutes), are so obviously tinged with Schryver's narcissism that I suspect Schryver either made up the whole thing or exaggerated it quite significantly.

[_tapirrider]

The Mormon God must like to play some kind of a sick joke. The BYU professor talks about Africa, but what about the Irish?

"There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry." http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a ... t_time.htm

Blacks in the U.S. should thank God for slavery? What about those of Irish ancestry in the West Indies?

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1979/12/prest ... s?lang=eng "Brotherhood had a special meaning when James Ponde, a black native of the West Indies, joined the Church in December 1977. Members throughout the entire stake wept with joy when the declaration granting the priesthood to all worthy male members was announced on 9 June 1978; but Preston Ward was particularly grateful. Within twenty-four hours, Brother Ponde was interviewed and ordained a priest. Later in the year he was ordained an elder and now serves as counselor in the elders quorum presidency and as seminary teacher."

How did the god of Mormonism make something good for those Catholic Irish women and children that were sold into slavery? He denied their descendants the priesthood and left them outside of the U.S.!

[_Carton]

Mark you, some of the details of the story (like the black man complimenting Schryver on his piano-playing and letting him play in his paid spot in a hotel for fifteen minutes), are so obviously tinged with Schryver's narcissism that I suspect Schryver either made up the whole thing or exaggerated it quite significantly.

This.

In fact, from what I have seen of Schryver on the boards, I think he lives in a fantasy world where he imagines himself immensely talented, an "insider", "friends" with important people, etc. But like I've said before, we really don't have any evidence that he has really done of any of the things he claims for himself. We don't have any evidence that he has been given access to the papyri and the KEP. We don't have any evidence that he has written articles and had them accepted for publication. After all, nothing has ever been published.

When it comes to this tall tale about the black man and the yellow dog democrats, it all sounds manufactured. Playing jazz piano in a fine New Orleans hotel? No problem. I mean, who's going to prove otherwise? I doubt the guy knows how to play the piano at all, except in his fantasies that he plays out on message boards and now his blog. It's really sad in a way. The poor guy has probably spent his entire life wishing he was somebody. Wishing he was something "special". But all he really is is a deluded loser who lives out his dreams of glory in a fantasyland of his own creation.

[_angsty]

As much as have enjoyed the perpetual train-wreck that is Dr. Peterson's web life over the years, I have tried soooo hard not to respond to this particular episode. I take racism far more seriously than I take Dr. Peterson. There's something gratingly offensive about him using this particular topic to generate the kind of internet shit-storm he seems to enjoy so much.

It is difficult for me to believe that Dr. Peterson did not anticipate the kind of reaction his comments on this issue would provoke (I don't have an opinion on Schryver). To use an issue of such gravity to fuel petty online drama is in poor taste at best. I find myself disappointed-- perhaps I expected too much.

[_lulu]

As much as have enjoyed the perpetual train-wreck that is Dr. Peterson's web life over the years, I have tried soooo hard not to respond to this particular episode. I take racism far more seriously than I take Dr. Peterson. There's something gratingly offensive about him using this particular topic to generate the kind of internet shit-storm he seems to enjoy so much.

It is difficult for me to believe that Dr. Peterson did not anticipate the kind of reaction his comments on this issue would provoke (I don't have an opinion on Schryver). To use an issue of such gravity to fuel petty online drama is in poor taste at best. I find myself disappointed-- perhaps I expected too much.

Well said angsty. I've been thinking about this too without your wise reluctance to become involved.

I once told an African American ethics professor in a class of all white students that it was difficult for me, personally, a white guy, to talk about issues of race and African Americans with African Americans because it seemed so risky that I would say the "wrong" thing. My experiences in life have been so different from those of most African Americans.

Her response was that she has to take risks everyday why should I be exempt.

So I'm thinking, are there situations in which it would be legit for me not to take the risk? Say a situtation where the benefit to anyone might be very, very low? That there is little chance that I would understand the African American experience better? Say a random blog post to introduce a random colleague's blog, both of which more than likely have an almost exclusively white readership. What are the chances that I and US race relations would benefit from such a post?

lulu -
waiting for the Cornel West, Dan Peterson, Will Shryver smack down

[_RayAgostini]

This thread has probably run its course, for me any way, but in departing it I'll leave a quote:

I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction... Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe....This I say, not to justify slavery – on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive – but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. When persons ask me in these days how, in the midst of what sometimes seem hopelessly discouraging conditions, I can have such faith in the future of my race in this country, I remind them of the wilderness through which and out of which, a good Providence has already led us.

Now let all hell break loose here on Booker T. Washington.