DCP doubles down on semantics to salvage Brigham’s racist legacy

[drumdude]

DCP regularly takes a sentence from here out of a giant post, completely out of context, to form a straw man argument.

He should have no issues with what ABC did.

[Gadianton]

But you left out a key part of his quote: "slavery came to an end nationally only a few years afterward." (emphasis added) "Only a few years"??? Uh, you mean like an entire decade? (1863?) Yeah, sure: for this Mopologist, being enslaved for *11 years* qualifies as "only a few years.

You're right to call me to the carpet for this. I really missed the ball. To correct my comparison in light of this information, it would be like a bank robber robbing banks for 11 years, and then being taken down by a security guard, and then (the bank robber) lauded as "not that bad" or perhaps even a hero.

I mean, is he going to argue next that Hitler deserves new consideration, because his anti-semitism was actually "anti-semitism 'lite,'" and that there were others in the Nazi party who were way worse anti-semites

In SP there have been some conversations that bear this out. Hitler was "unaware" of this or that, and certain programs were spearheaded by his underlings.

In Mopologetics, the captain never goes down with the ship.

[Kishkumen]

The only people buying this defense of Brigham are the people who already revere Brigham and could not stand to have him taken away from them. I think it is pretty clear that an LDS person is not to think badly of an LDS prophet, or at least voice criticisms publicly. Holding the status of prophet exempts the holder from the regular demands of society's moral and ethical criticisms. Remember, you do not criticize the Brethren, even if the criticism is true. Heaven and earth will be moved to give the prophet every benefit of the doubt that no one else will ever be accorded to such a high degree. All this is so predictable, that it is hard to be upset about it, as outrageous as it may seem to the onlooking outsider.

[Physics Guy]

Slavery was a really hot topic in 1850s America, and Young was clearly on the wrong side of the biggest moral issue of his own time by far. Okay, maybe that doesn't make him so much worse as a human being than most of his contemporaries—but it sure as hell doesn't make him a Prophet of God.

[drumdude]

Slavery was a really hot topic in 1850s America, and Young was clearly on the wrong side of the biggest moral issue of his own time by far. Okay, maybe that doesn't make him so much worse as a human being than most of his contemporaries—but it sure as hell doesn't make him a Prophet of God.

A very common argument from not just Mormon but Christian and Jewish apologists, is that God couldn’t just repeal slavery all at once. His people would be so shocked by such an abrupt change, that they wouldn’t be able to cope.

Within this ridiculous framework, Brigham Young can be seen as “threading the needle” and gently guiding believers slowly away from slavery.

Predictably, I’m being denounced by The Usual Suspects as attempting to whitewash Brigham Young. The claim is that I’m denying that Brigham held views that would be considered racist by the standards of the twenty-first century (although I absolutely don’t deny that), as saying that Brigham did not endorse chattel slavery (which is precisely what I do say, because the evidence is clear), and as declaring that Utah’s Act in Relation to Service, which was signed by Governor Young on 4 February 1852, was not a slave code (which it plainly wasn’t).

In this worldview, Brigham didn’t have the authority or the ability to simply denounce slavery all at once. Even God himself couldn’t have denounced slavery. It had to be slowly, so slowly, chipped away at. With countless humans suffering unimaginable horrors for centuries while God nervously paced back and forth, helpless to fully denounce the abomination.

This is the kind of thing you have to believe when you are DCP.

[Kishkumen]

I think it is silly to try to imagine what was actually in Brigham’s heart, whether you are an apologist or a critic. And, it is the case that, realistically speaking, huge changes are difficult to effect quickly, even if you are in a position of power. Could there be threading of the needle? Sure. But, here’s the thing, I don’t see any reason to hold up Brigham as a great man for his views or actions regarding race. Quite the contrary. He seems to be a fairly middling to regressive person of his time, who was at the same time in a position where he might have pushed a little more to make positive changes, if he had been more morally courageous.

[Physics Guy]

Right: nobody needs to demonise Brigham Young. He can be an ordinary figure of his time, not a great moral leader but not a terrible person.

He just can't be a Prophet of God. A prophet of God in his time would have heard God saying

Go down, Moses,
Way down in Egypt's land,
Tell old Pharaoh,
Let my people go.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Right: nobody needs to demonise Brigham Young. He can be an ordinary figure of his time, not a great moral leader but not a terrible person.

He just can't be a Prophet of God. A prophet of God in his time would have heard God saying

Go down, Moses,
Way down in Egypt's land,
Tell old Pharaoh,
Let my people go.

God is constantly changing his mind.

Come forth, Brigham,
Way down in Zion's land,
Tell the people,
You will be my chattel now.

[Doctor Scratch]

Looks like I was right. ABC *was* “shadow banned”:

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been down in central Utah filming. Very long hours. Almost no computer access. Your comment was automatically relegated to the queue because of its use of a shortened form of the term for Nationalsozialisten and for a reference to the most common term for involuntary servitude. (Both terms were flagged in yellow. To escape that happening again, I've purposely avoided using both terms in this paragraph and I've modified one below.) I wasn't around to fix things.

abc ""Perhaps my statement could have been more precise."
I'm not sure a reasonable person would read your statement and not draw the conclusion that you were saying that Brigham Young was not racist and not an advocate for slavery. I think anyone reading

"I’ve often heard Brigham Young denounced as a racist and a supporter of slavery. In fact, I’ve encountered accusations that his racial attitudes were little different from those of the [Nationalsozialisten]. It should be obvious, I think, that such claims are false."

would reasonably conclude that the second statement is an emphasized repetition of the first, and that the claims the final statement references are all of the previous. That is, that this is a denial that Young was racist and that he was a supporter of slavery, both.

As I've said, perhaps my statement could have been more precise. However, since I've repeatedly said -- even in the very article under discussion -- that Brigham Young expressed opinions about racial matters that make us cringe today, I think it reasonable to deduce that I wasn't denying that he was, by today's standards, a racist.

abc "Still, you and I have always talked in good faith. If you say that this wasn't your intended meaning, I'll take you at your word."

Good. I'll consider the matter closed, then.

As for the rest, I've determined that, for my own sanity and in order to conserve my time and energy, I won't argue this matter with anybody who hasn't read This Abominable Slavery.

First: it just isn’t believable that ABC’s post simply vanished because it happened to contain the words “Nazi” and “Slave.” Second, I was once told by, uh, an “informant” that the Proprietor frequently loses his temper and goes ballistic with banning people. I think it’s safe to say that ABC got caught in the crossfire of the Afore’s unhinged wrath.

Finally: whether or not anyone has read the book won’t affect anything. Please. How silly. If anything, having read the book will ensure an even faster banning.

The Afore could save himself a lot of exasperation by simply abandoning this project. BY’s racism just isn’t defensible.

[drumdude]

Whenever a critic on SeN points to a single author to support their argument, DCP cries foul. “Oh well then who am I to dispute X, which must be the ultimate authority on Y,” he asks in his characteristic sarcastic tone.

But who knew, when it comes to this subject, all you need to know is contained in one singular book. Which is the sole authority on the entire subject.

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.