Race and racism were part & parcel with not only Mormon doctrine but also with Mormon culture generally. It was not hidden or coded, it was openly declared and taken as obvious. Part of recovering from Mormonism inevitably includes grappling with Mormon beliefs about race and confronting the systemic racism that marred and to a lesser extent still mars Mormon culture.

Unfortunately, due to the popularity and massive exposure of Dr. B. Peterson, old ideas about this topic have been re-injected into the larger culture, poisoning many a naive, believing mind, largely male and under thirty, making this topic urgent and pertinent beyond Mormonism (alas).

The following thread includes an excellent discussion on the topic:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2231999

From the thread, Henry Bemis perfectly lays out a starting point:

*****I agree with LW that the idea of "race" as a differentiating principle for human beings is a social construct. However, that is not the end of the story, because social constructs do not appear in a vacuum. Such constructs are ultimately grounded in human psychology; and human psychology is grounded in phenomenal experiences, including basic observations in the form of physical appearances, and prejudices born of all sorts of unfounded inferences that result from such experiences.

This is why both "race" and "racism" have meaning in a language such as English that itself is a social construct.

Once one realizes that people rather innocently define "race" based merely upon appearances and not differences in DNA; and that "racism" is an illegitimate attempt to assign negative biological and psychological innateness to such appearances, the dispute vanishes. The census simply seeks to determine how a person identifies within the social context of "race" without suggesting that there is some relevant biological or psychological innateness associated with it.

What more is there to talk about, other than continuing to emphatically deny the inferences associated with racism, while acknowledging that "race" is a legitimate and often useful social category--if nothing else it helps us to understand the basis for some of our social and personal prejudices.*****


If Henry is wrong, I would appreciate being done the favour of knowing how he is wrong. Thank you in advance.

Human

Emerging science shows that our idea of race is almost as wrong as racism itself.

The idea of race is the lowest common denominator for people to try to understand each other. It is tribalism at it's lowest form. Add to that the logical fallacies of the human mind and you soon realize that some people will always default to race as an explanation for behavior and cultural and ethnic characteristics.

Te curse of Cain doctrine did not grow in a vacuum. it was a common doctrine at the time of the church's inception. Theories on race were well traveled in America at the time as slavery had created an industry of moral, ethical and religious excuses to prolong it's practice.

These same theories are spewed every night on television today: they will take our jobs, they will spread disease, they will never assimilate, they are lazy, they are criminals, they will
not learn the language, they come to take advantage, ETC These lies get told every time these is an influx of immigrants, just remove blacks and insert Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Polish, Germans, Irish, Muslims...

Smith was obsessed with these ideas, as you can read in the BOM. these theories were passed around as science back then and they were the intellectual excuse for bigotry. They were so ingrained in the doctrine that they are still trying to clean it up out of their cannon and history.

But they can't.

Because so much of the doctrine, the very foundation to the BOM is the racial curse and divide that separated the Nephites and Lamanites. The exclusion of blacks from the temple and the priesthood was doctrine. Taught from the pulpit, clarified in official letters and books.

As with anything else, the church has to walk that back as they attempt to become a little less "peculiar" and join facts, science and decency, with the sole purpose of survival, not our of a high moral calling.

sb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Te curse of Cain doctrine did not grow in a
> vacuum. it was a common doctrine at the time of
> the church's inception. Theories on race were well
> traveled in America at the time as slavery had
> created an industry of moral, ethical and
> religious excuses to prolong it's practice.


As a Mormon kid I loved Kareem Abdul Jabbar, I loved Motown music and I loved MLKjr. Mormon racism bothered me terribly; so I tried to excuse it, somehow, someway.

Funny, I excused it by believing Joseph Smith must have picked up ideas about black people from “the philosophies of men” and kinda whiffed on the topic. Surely, 1978 was Heavenly Father helping us through our Prophet, correcting the mistake.

But then there are the Nephites and Lamanites, right there in the Book of Mormon. Since I didn’t love anything about Native American culture, I didn’t need to excuse it. I believed it. I had no problem calling the ”Lamanites” wagon-burners during inter-ward basketball and softball games. I was a racist.

sb Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> These same theories are spewed every night on
> television today: they will take our jobs, they
> will spread disease, they will never assimilate,
> they are lazy, they are criminals, they will
> not learn the language, they come to take
> advantage, ETC These lies get told every time
> these is an influx of immigrants, just remove
> blacks and insert Jews, Italians, Spaniards,
> Polish, Germans, Irish, Muslims...

At the risk of sounding political, we need to clarify what we hear on TV every night and what it means. Some people use claims of racism against those who oppose them, to promote their own political agenda. That has nothing to do with real racism. I for one do not believe in practicing any form of racism. Racism is immoral. Racial discrimination and wanting to uphold immigration laws (for good reasons that are generally not allowed to be discussed here) are two separate and different things. Say what you will about others and what you may be absolutely sure their motives may be, but please do it somewhere else if that's where you're headed. For many of us, racism and illegal immigration are completely unrelated topics and this thread is not about illegal immigration. If you want the truth of the matter for many or most of us, that is it. Let's not debate this further because no one can be sure of what the motivates others are and there is no redeeming value in making unfounded accusations against someone where both sides of the story are forbidden topics of discussion here. Suffice it to say, at least some of your assumptions are incorrect.

> At the risk of sounding political, we need to
> clarify what we hear on TV every night and what it
> means.

It appears that when you write "we need to clarify," you mean that you need to clarify for us.


-----------------
> Some people use claims of racism against
> those who oppose them, to promote their own
> political agenda.

Surely it goes both ways.


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

> That has nothing to do with real
> racism.

Really? So people on TV complaining about racism are insincere and trying to manipulate others? You paint with a broad brush.


-----------------
> Racial
> discrimination and wanting to uphold immigration
> laws (for good reasons that are generally not
> allowed to be discussed here) are two separate and
> different things.

That strikes me as a dubious statement in two regards. First, you have no basis for saying that racism and immigration are unrelated across the board. It is difficult to find a racist who is not also deeply invested in immigration policy.

Second, by "uphold immigration laws" people often mean IGNORE existing laws about refugees, asylum claims, immigrant detention, court representation, etc. I have yet, for example, to hear you argue that the government should abide by asylum laws and treaties to which it is a party.


-----------------
> Say what you will about others
> and what you may be absolutely sure their motives
> may be, but please do it somewhere else if that's
> where you're headed.

Yet you seem confident that you understand the motives of people who, on TV, decry racism.



-------------------
> For many of us, racism and
> illegal immigration are completely unrelated
> topics . . .

Many of you would like to separate the two issues, to be sure, but that does not mean they are distinct.


-----------------
> and this thread is not about illegal
> immigration.

Well, it wasn't until you brought up the topic of enforcement of immigration laws against illegal immigrants. Yours is the first post on that.


---------------
> Let's not
> debate this further because no one can be sure of
> what the motivates others . . .

Didn't you just tell us what motivates your opponents?


-------------
> and there is no
> redeeming value in making unfounded accusations
> against someone . . .

You just did that.


----------------
> Suffice it to
> say, at least some of your assumptions are
> incorrect.

There it is again. On the one hand you say no one can know another's motives and assumptions, then on the other you declare that you know what is in the mind of sb--as you previously did with those who decry racism on TV.

You are not being consistent. You assert your position as correct, denigrate the motives and assumptions of those who disagree with you, and then claim that no one is qualified to judge your motives and assumptions. That is not reasonable.

Sb brought up the topic of immigration first, with respect to race. I pointed out that immigration and race are two different issues unless someone chooses to veer off-topic and link them as you are notorious for doing Lot's Wife. We all know that you're an open-borders person. So you really didn't need to point that out once again here, off-topic, when the thread is not about that. We don't need to guess your motives. You've made them abundantly clear in your previous posts wherein you accuse myself and others of racism when we never even brought up anyone's race, but only differed with you on immigration issues (a dishonest tactic). It's just amazing how some people have the inability (as you demonstrate) to separate the two issues and then we are supposed to believe - now that you force the issue - that out of millions of people who are claiming asylum, that none of them are lieing because what they really want is economic asylum (not a legally justifiable claim). The institutionalized dysfunction over this issue is ever as much as big as the lies told by the Mormon church. Just leave this one alone Lot's Wife and let someone call other posters out over this off-topic issue when all they are doing is inciting arguements that are not related to the thread.

Sb made an inciteful and incorrect political off-topic biased and judgemental opinion (as is clear by reading what sb wrote). I don't care what sb's motives are, nor do I make that distinction when I said "if this is where you are headed..." (maybe that is not where sb was headed... whatever... sb's words made unreasonable generalizations and you would know that if the words did not resonate with your own prejudices).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2019 08:45AM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sb brought up the topic of immigration first, with
> respect to race. I pointed out that immigration
> and race are two different issues...

Your posts over the years have demonstrated clearly that race and immigration are intimately connected in your mind as in those of so many others who share your policy prescriptions. You have never expressed concern about illegal immigration except with regard to the southern US border and the Middle East. Insist that race and immigration are separate till the cows come home: we can read.


--------------------
> We all know that
> you're an open-borders person.

Actually, I'm not. But I do favor constitutional processes to fix problems in the system rather than just ignoring the supreme court's rulings and duly enacted statutes and I think the racially-informed application of laws and policies that you implicitly--and sometimes explicitly--advocate is some Korematsu-level shit.


-------------------
> So you really
> didn't need to point that out once again here,
> off-topic, when the thread is not about that. We
> don't need to guess your motives.

Once again, you just told us we cannot know your motives but here you confidently describe ours. That takes a certain arrogance, does it not?


------------------
> You've made them
> abundantly clear in your previous posts wherein
> you accuse myself and others of racism when we
> never even brought up anyone's race, but only
> differed with you on immigration issues (a
> dishonest tactic).

Sure.


------------------
> It's just amazing how some
> people have the inability (as you demonstrate) to
> separate the two issues and then we are supposed
> to believe - now that you force the issue - that
> out of millions of people who are claiming asylum. . .

Well, the actual numbers are south of 100,000 a year. But saying "millions" makes your argument more frightening, so let's go with that.


----------------
> . . .that none of them are lieing because what they
> really want is economic asylum (not a legally
> justifiable claim).

Did I say "none of them are lieing [sic]?" That sounds like a really stupid thing to say. Did I say that?


---------------
>The institutionalized
> dysfunction over this issue is ever as much as big
> as the lies told by the Mormon church.

That is possibly true. But violating the constitution, the law, and duly ratified treaties is not the proper way to get to your preferred outcome. If you aren't comfortable working through established procedures, perhaps you would prefer a form of government other than constitutional democracy.


-----------------------
> Just leave
> this one alone Lot's Wife and let someone call
> other posters out over this off-topic issue when
> all they are doing is inciting arguements that are
> not related to the thread.

I don't feel compelled to accept dictation from you, particularly when you are the one who introduced the "illegal immigration" issue.


-----------

> Sb made an inciteful and incorrect political
> off-topic biased and judgemental opinion (as is
> clear by reading what sb wrote).

So you are denouncing sb's views because they are not "politically correct?" Amusing. It's remarkable how many critics of the PC silliness, when push comes to shove, don't oppose rote political codes per se but only those that differ from their own preferences.


-----------------------
> I don't care what
> sb's motives are, nor do I make that distinction
> when I said "if this is where you are headed..."
> (maybe that is not where sb was headed...
> whatever... sb's words made unreasonable
> generalizations and you would know that if the
> words did not resonate with your own prejudices).

Okay, so you don't like sb's observation that race and immigration have always been interrelated. Why don't you explain what s/he got wrong about the history of US immigration law rather than just telling sb to shut up?

What did s/he get wrong?

If you want to eliminate racism then you must eliminate "race" by marrying someone outside of your "race".

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to eliminate racism then you must
> eliminate "race" by marrying someone outside of
> your "race".

Does this mean all the white men who get themselves Thai and Filipino brides are the most progressive people around then? Or that Malcolm X and Bob Marley considered themselvss both black and white due to their recent ancestry? Does Obama call himself a white man? Because he's aa much white as he is black. In fact, he was raised by the white side of his family.

No, it doesn't. Pure naïveté. It's more complex than that.

People have been marrying "outside their race" for years. Most smaller tribes in western countries have interbred with the colonists - the Métis in Canada being a prime example. Regions such as Arabia, the Maghreb/Mediterranean Basin, Brazil, India, Central Asia all have been places where people have been intermarrying for centuries. Then you have the Serbs and Croats, the Hutus and Tutsis, Russians and Ukrainians, English and Irish, white Northerners and Southerners in the USA etc who look similar to the outside eye but have fought bloody wars against each pther, sometimes with a mind to clear the other group out of some territory entirely.

Then there's neo-neo-colonialism, where people adopt babies from poor countries such as parts of Africa and parade them as trophies. I even met a trendy white academic once, who was boasting his wife was Palestinian. i said to him, "What about her personaliry?"
"What do you mean?"
"It's normal to marry people for their personality and/or looks."
"I did."
"Then why are you talking about her as an accessory, instead of someone you love?"

No answer. If people are going to intermarry, they shouldn't treat their other half like a Palestinian scarf, an Incan knitted hat or an "ethnic" tattoo that students wear to look extra righteous. Or even an unusual make of car, food etc. Love is not a supermarket item. If you marry someone, you don't boast about them being Palestinian, Tibetan or something else fashionable, that is secondary. They aren't an accessory of unconscious colonialism, or even your own middle class self-loathing.

Is that the best strawman you can give us ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that the best strawman you can give us ?

You'd know about strawmen, you have a whole field of them.

Unfortunately, it isn't a strawman. Intermarriage goes back a long way and has not eliminated racism as you claim. In fact, in some places it has occurred historically, like India, it has even resulted in caste systems.

> In fact, in some places [racial intermarriage] has
> occurred historically, like India, it has even
> resulted in caste systems.


Can you flesh that out a bit?

What races intermarried to produce the castes in India?

And how do you know the racial composition and marriage patterns since the caste system dates back to the second millennium BCE? I didn't know there were census records that long ago.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to eliminate racism then you must
> eliminate "race" by marrying someone outside of
> your "race".

If there's no such thing as race how can you marry someone outside your race tho'

I do understand fear.

https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race-science-a-review/

https://www.thenation.com/article/scientific-racism-isnt-back-it-never-went-away/

It is hard to over-estimate how much damage Claire Lehmann and her Quillette site has done to the curious, intellectually hungry minds of mostly white males under thirty.

Tragic, to say the least.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is hard to over-estimate how much damage Claire
> Lehmann and her Quillette site has done to the
> curious, intellectually hungry minds of mostly
> white males under thirty.

Complains about racism and sexism, demonizes white males...

You take this to be “demonizing” white males? Interesting.


Jordan, what do you think about the Henry Bemis quote I supplied in the OP? What’s your take, and why?

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You take this to be “demonizing” white males?

Apparently the evil white males are having their minds corrupted by Gilette, sorry Quillette, which is extending their white privilege and patriarchy. Apparently in this brave new world, the most progressive thing you can do to fight racism is to damn someone for their race, and the most progressive thing in the fight against sexism is to damn someone for their sex.

I mean, who can criticize someone for their personal choices and actions, when you can make a one time instant value judgement on them based on their appearance. I mean, it's so progressive.

> Apparently in this brave new world, the most
> progressive thing you can do to fight racism is to
> damn someone for their race, and the most
> progressive thing in the fight against sexism is
> to damn someone for their sex.

You are often wrong, often spectacularly so; and you seem constitutionally incapable of learning. But then there are times when you challenge the norms of comprehensibility.

How exactly do you "damn someone for their race" when you don't believe that race exists?

White privilege rears its ugly head once again.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> White privilege rears its ugly head once again.

More sub-FranzFanonista nonsense. Go speak to the pale guys in cardboard city about their "white privilege" and see how far you get. Maybe you can tell the Irish, or the Chechens, or the Kosovars, or the Ashkenazi, about how their white skin has privileged them through their history.

Interesting. I'm a curious, intellectually hungry, white male under thirty and I've read quite a number of Quillette articles.

What damage do you think has been done to my mind?

Your patriarchal and pasty mind must have been contaminated by it by now. The only cure for such sluggishly progressing schizophrenia of that nature, is re-education through labor. Careful now!

(The censoring and book burning squad is onto the Quillette Memorandum right now.)

And you are still wondering why “sociopath” is an insult.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you are still wondering why “sociopath” is
> an insult.

Well, firstly, it is a medical condition, so one slap on the wrist for disablist prejudice (or whatever it's called this week.)

Secondly, sociopaths are more likely to seduce simple people politically, instead of challenging them. Your sociopathic friends are more likely to be talking about fairness and equality than the real Macchiavellian desires which drive them to do what they do.

Christianity has it right when it says that evil appears as an "angel of light". Sociopaths tend to ride on the back of fashions and justice drives, rather than revealing their true intentions.

> "Secondly, sociopaths are more likely to seduce simple people politically, instead of challenging them"

And your research backing this statement comes from?

Here's some interesting thoughts:

"The researchers found that psychopathic boldness and meanness tended to be higher in Republicans compared to Democrats." From
"Study suggests psychopathic traits are higher in Republicans than in Democrats" ... "The new study builds on previous research, published in 2013 and 2014, which found that psychopathic traits tended to be higher among political conservatives." found at https://www.psypost.org/2018/11/study-suggests-psychopathic-traits-are-higher-in-republicans-than-in-democrats-52566

I will give you that the article states, "The study used a single measure of psychopathy, and the differences between Republicans and Democrats were statistically significant but relatively small."

But the last paragraph... "'Considering the political success of presidential candidates with higher levels of psychopathic traits (i.e., fearless dominance) in the US (Lilienfeld et al., 2012), it may be surmised that popular political candidates championing conservative opinions (e.g., restricting free speech and immigration, decreasing gun control and taxation) may possess elevated psychopathic traits,' the authors of the study concluded."

"And your research backing this statement comes from?"

The defining trait of sociopaths is that they are social chameleons, and will manipulate others to elevate their status. In order to do that, they latch onto what they think is popular, rarely what is unpopular (and if they do the latter at all, they dress it up as something different than it is.)

'The researchers found that psychopathic boldness and meanness tended to be higher in Republicans compared to Democrats."'

Do you know which party most of the sociopaths are in? It's the Republicrats. Or is it the Demoblicans. I forget. One of the ones which has a vested interest in maintaining duopoly, since it provides the illusion of democracy, wothout actually providing it.

You could interchange the badges between most of their candidates and no one would really notice.

My question still stands. Where's your research backing your claim?

I provided actual research showing the opposite of your claim and your response is your opinion. I'm sure it's based on your years of phycology study and research into the sociopathic mind and not your assumptions based on what you've heard here and there. Right?

>"Do you know which party most of the sociopaths are in?"

Um, did you read my post or the article I linked to? I think it was pretty clear.

Also, I love how you start suggesting that it's likely progressives that would be more sociopathic than conservatives. I provide a link to show the opposite. You then suggest that both parties are the same to the point that they could be switched and no one would notice. This is your continued tactic to move the goal posts and, say "Look over there!"

"Where's your research backing your claim?"

The social chameleon aspect of sociopaths is intrinsic to the diagnosis much as feeling extremely miserable is a major part of diagnosing depression. (Although far from the only one).

If you're really that interested read "Confessions of a Sociopath". The author is LDS and actually discusses the chameleonic behavior she used in Mormonism and elsewhere.

You realize that's not anywhere close to research to back up your claims that sociopaths are more likely to be progressives... Right? I mean, you have to know that.

Censoring? Book burning?

My heavens, who cares about Lehmann? The woman has a degree in psychology and literature. She started a forensic psychology master's degree but dropped out. What possible basis does she have for pontificating about genetics?

How does one burn the books of someone who's never written one? How does one censor someone whose books--I mean blog--comes close to defining irrelevance? Why bother?

This is like Weekend at Bernie's. You are propping up a non-entity in order to act like people are being unkind to her--and, by extension, you.

So why don't you sniff the smelling salts, let go of your pearls, and get up off the floor? You'll be okay, Jordan. Really, you will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2019 04:42PM by Lot's Wife.

LW, I must confess, I opened this thread hoping to provide more space and reason for you to continue writing posts exactly like this.

I usually don’t think this sort of thing helpful, but in this specific case I believe it might be.

Cheers

Ah, come on, Human. We both know you only read me for the corny movie references.

More seriously, I respect you greatly and learn a lot from what you write. Thank you for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2019 04:29PM by Lot's Wife.

Get a room, you two!!!

As long as it has a connecting door to yours and Saucie's.

Otherwise I'd have to pay for my own whiskey.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as it has a connecting door to yours and
> Saucie's.
>
> Otherwise I'd have to pay for my own whiskey.


That's right... with the dog and I , all drinks are on the

house for you. We think you're great.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does one burn the books of someone who's never
> written one?

That was sarcasm. I know some people struggle with it. No matter, they can burn her personal library along with that of anyone who has stepped within a ten foot radius of her and been contaminated with her ungoodthink.

You've stated repeatedly that you support censorship. You support me being censored as well. That isn't liberalism.

Trouble with supporting censorship is that one day it comes around and bites you. It's the curly snake which eats its tail, the ouroboros.

> You've stated repeatedly that you support
> censorship.

You prevaricate. Cite one instance in which I've supported censorship.


---------------------
> You support me being censored as well.

You prevaricate. My attitude towards you and your opinions is precisely as I said at 11:40 on June 7th:

"I don't want you censored. I want you to post at will. The beauty of freedom of speech, from a functional perspective, is it exposes bigotry and ignorance for what they are. I have NOTHING to fear from you and your benighted views."


--------------
> Trouble with supporting censorship is that one day
> it comes around and bites you.

As long as statists like you, people who think the government should enforce social mores regarding the disabled, those with funny names, "cultural Marxism," bad breath, etc., I think our freedom of speech is safe.

I'm waiting, Jordan. Show one instance in which I have advocated censorship.

Jordan, anybody home?

That was late at night, but I refrained from saying anything; my thoughts ran to Daniel C. Peterson, thinking perhaps it was a typo, but I waited until I had my morning coffee, and now I'm wondering if you're referring to "Jordan B. Peterson"?

https://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/article216047705.html

>>I’m gonna let you in on a little secret: Black folks keep a list of the top racists in our pockets at all times, just in case. Oddly enough, despite the brouhaha over the Notorious JBP bringing his tour to the Durham Performing Arts Center in a few weeks, he wasn’t on my list.

>>To be honest, until last month, I didn’t know Dr. Jordan B. Peterson from Adam. Even after suffering through a couple of hours of his Youtube videos, he still didn’t crack my top 20.

I'd never heard of Jordan B. Peterson, either, and I find that statement "due to the popularity and massive exposure... poisoning many a naive, believing mind, largely male and under thirty" consists of massive elements of theatrical strawmanese and little else.

Cabdriver Philosophical Observation: Lots of ideas are capable of poisoning under thirty naive and believing minds, whether male or female.

Human: "I would appreciate being done the favour of knowing how he is wrong."

I think you meant being "done the favour" of learning how he is wrong.

Assuming this message was received and understood and that I have the right "Dr. B. Peterson," you're welcome.

as if Mormons are the only racists.

Harvard has re-segregated their campus. Somehow, they get a pass.

Justice Sotomayor said she had a special perspective on the law as a "wise Latina." Somehow, she gets a pass.

Ice Cube stars in family-friendly movies despite raps that threatened to burn down stores owned by "Penny pinching Orientals." Somehow, he gets a pass.

HWint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as if Mormons are the only racists.
>
> Harvard has re-segregated their campus. Somehow,
> they get a pass.
>
> Justice Sotomayor said she had a special
> perspective on the law as a "wise Latina."
> Somehow, she gets a pass.
>
> Ice Cube stars in family-friendly movies despite
> raps that threatened to burn down stores owned by
> "Penny pinching Orientals." Somehow, he gets a
> pass.

According to Newthink, racism and sexism are acceptable as long as the right people are doing it.

The Nation of Islam gets a pass on their racist doctrine as well, even though they believe whites were created by a mad scientist (not a proper Islamic belief!) and that Ashkenazi Jews are intrinsically evil. Instead, the people who made photographic film are accused of being racist, because traditional color stock didn't show black faces well (the fact white people's faces get blurred on it too, doesn't factor into it)

Vox's video on how film stock is racist:
https://youtu.be/d16LNHIEJzs

And instead of discussing how extreme lesbian separatists talk about how males should be wiped off the face of the Earth, we hear diatribes about how air conditioning is sexist (seriously, you can look up the relevant clip on Youtube).

"Why office air conditioning is sexist"
https://youtu.be/MNH0bmYT7os

How has Harvard resegregated its campus?

Are there dorms that can only be filled with people from certain races? Classes that one must be black to attend? Sports teams that are separate but equal?

I'm having difficulty imagining how institutional resegregation would occur.

Thanks for resurrecting these comments that, probably due to the “Bemis effect” on the Board, were given short shrift in the other thread. In any event, let me make it easier (or harder) to refute such comments, but elaborating a bit on “race” as a social construct and as science.

As indicated, innocent ideas of “race” arising in human society are the natural result of human beings observing their environment and noticing that people have different physical traits that seem to be associated with different areas of the world, or different geographical ancestral histories. With this information, they abstract imperfect racial categories, and incorporate such categories into their language and everyday discourse. There is absolutely nothing offensive about these simple, bare observations, and the associated categorizations. But, it is all just a social construct.

What happens is that individuals expand these rather innocent racial categories into racial stereotypes involving traits that are not represented in the bare physical observations, and are based on inferences of character and behavior made from their own subjective experience, as complicated by their own unique histories. This results in personal prejudices that find their way back into the social network and distort the otherwise innocent categories generated by mere observations of physical traits. As such, the legitimate concept of “race” degenerates into a new concept of “racism.”

Bringing science into the picture, note that science can look at the social construct of “race” and attempt to identify the observable physical traits that underlie such constructs, and try to find correlations in the genome that match these physical traits. It should not be surprising that physical traits as observed as part of the social construct of race are linked to genetic components. Moreover, it should come as no surprise that such traits are associated with genetic populations. This, of course, is exactly what happens. No harm, no foul.

“Racism science” is quite different, however. In that endeavor, it is not the bare physical traits that one seeks to identify with a genome; it is the racist inferences that are drawn from subjective human experience that seek justification through science. In this case, science has no role to play. For example, there is nothing in the genome that isolates the negative character traits associated with racism. You cannot isolate a gene for any such traits, but at best only perhaps extremely vague "dispositions." So the program should stop in its tracks. So, why and how does it continue?

First, racism science conflates what can be legitimately isolated from what cannot be. So, they point to science’s legitimate validation of physical racial characteristics, and then attempt to piggy-back their illegitimate inferences on such racial categories. In other words, they argue that since science validates racial categories (in the sense of observable traits) it also validates racism. One way they do this is to misuse the social sciences by applying questionable “statistics” of human behavior, as racially categorized, and then point to legitimate racial categories as the underlying justifications for their racial conclusions. The unsuspecting reader is taken in by this fallacious nonsense.

(By the way you see this very equivocation in virtually all “racism science” including the following as linked by “anybody” above: (I did not read the underlying reviewed book, but I will point out that some deniers of racism science attack it for the wrong reasons, often providing fuel to the racist arguments by making the argument about "race" instead of about "racism"!)

https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/superior-the-return-of-race-science-a-review/

So, the bottom line is that “race” is a legitimate, harmless, and quite useful social category, which is supported to some extent by genetics. “Racism” is a subterfuge of race, and makes racist inferences and draws racist conclusions based upon a fallacious appeal to the limited contribution of genetics to the categories of race generated as social constructs.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bringing science into the picture, note that
> science can look at the social construct of
> “race” and attempt to identify the observable
> physical traits that underlie such constructs, and
> try to find correlations in the genome that match
> these physical traits. It should not be
> surprising that physical traits as observed as
> part of the social construct of race are linked to
> genetic components. Moreover, it should come as
> no surprise that such traits are associated with
> genetic populations. This, of course, is exactly
> what happens. No harm, no foul.
>
> “Racism science” is quite different, however.
> In that endeavor, it is not the bare physical
> traits that one seeks to identify with a genome;
> it is the racist inferences that are drawn from
> subjective human experience that seek
> justification through science. In this case,
> science has no role to play. For example, there
> is nothing in the genome that isolates the
> negative character traits associated with racism.
> You cannot isolate a gene for any such traits, but
> at best only perhaps extremely vague
> "dispositions." So the program should stop in its
> tracks. So, why and how does it continue?
>
> First, racism science conflates what can be
> legitimately isolated from what cannot be. So,
> they point to science’s legitimate validation of
> physical racial characteristics, and then attempt
> to piggy-back their illegitimate inferences on
> such racial categories. In other words, they
> argue that since science validates racial
> categories (in the sense of observable traits) it
> also validates racism. One way they do this is to
> misuse the social sciences by applying
> questionable “statistics” of human behavior,
> as racially categorized, and then point to
> legitimate racial categories as the underlying
> justifications for their racial conclusions. The
> unsuspecting reader is taken in by this fallacious
> nonsense.


And that, in a nutshell tied with a pretty bow, is all anyone ever needed to know about Charles A. Murray's and Richard Herrnstein's The Bell Curve.

Thank you, Henry. You have a knack for this.

Thank you!

Now, let me see if I got this right. Your OP quoted my summary response to the "race-racism" question, as stated in another thread, which response, I claimed, settled the issue. (A pretty bold claim) You then asked:

"If Henry is wrong, I would appreciate being done the favour of knowing how he is wrong." (Me too!)

By my count to date we have:

Confirmations (HB is right): (1) (Yours)
Refutations (HB is wrong): (0)
Those unwilling to engage HB one way or the other on this issue, either in this thread or the prior one, and for whatever reason: (I don't know, but it seems like a lot.)

It appears that the Bemis factor is alive and well! (And this wasn't even my thread!)

That's O.K. I take silence to be acquiescence! :)

And . . . It is still early!

Henry, I didn't see much need to comment since I think our views are quite similar.

"Race" as shorthand for physical appearance? Sure, although the word remains problematic because it is difficult to separate from the faulty biological argument.

"Race" as a biologically undefined, and undefinable concept? Yes.

Racism as the unjustified assignment of moral character to a concept with no scientific basis? I agree.

I still believe that there are some words that are so charged that alternatives are preferable in order to promote dispassionate consideration.

But we pretty much established that our positions are close in the previous thread, no?

Same as it ever was, Henry, same as it ever was...

My husband was born in South America; Peru, to be exact. When I first saw him, all I zoned in on was his handsome face; I didn't think: "my goodness; he has brown skin!" My first thought was: "boy, he'd make some very good looking children"! That may be crazy thinking, but that's what I thought 38 years ago, and still do. During those 38 years, we have experienced bigotry and racism where we live, shop, and worked. He's been questioned at his work as to whether or not he really has a university degree. He earned 2 university degrees. When he was working swing shift, he had a policeman follow him all the way home and when my husband parked the car, he turned and dangled the house keys for the cop to see. He's been asked multiple times at his work is he is really a U.S. citizen. When we've been in stores or restaurants, older women look at him and clutch their purses closer to them. He's been out in our front yard and had a neighbor who was out walking, say: "I didn't know you lived HERE!" The bigotry has come from mormons and non-mormons. There's a cemetery here in Salt Lake City that is for Polynesians only because in the early days, the mormons didn't want non-whites buried near them. Prejudice,racism, and bigotry are in every country of the world. Through it all, my husband is still very grateful for the opportunities in this country. Bigotry isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but each of us, in our own ways, can do what we can to wear "blinders" and make it a more pleasant life experience.

"here in Salt Lake City"

Got it.

Thanks for this, valkyriequeen.


My neighbour's wife is from Central America. Our neighbourhood is middle class and ethnically diverse. Even so, when she takes her kids to school she's often taken to be "the nanny".

My life has been a fun ride! But then I grew up in exactly the same pattern of "White Privilege" that my Baby Boomer White boy peers did via circumstances over which I had no control, but with which I am obviously grateful. In this, I have an advantage over those with 'foreign' backgrounds.

I'm just purely guessing, but when I've had the opportunity to be a victim of racism, I believe that I was successful in countering its effects by being way more 'American' in speech, attitude & action than those who sought to put me down. And that's exactly what racists desire, to enforce recognition that they are to be considered a level 'higher' than those who aren't of their 'racial sphere'. And not just Whitey does this. There is a fierce infection of racism in Mexico in which Spaniards look down on Los Indios and Los Mestizos.

The success I had via my pleasant growing up situation is visible to me with a lot of young American 'ethnics': they speak and act exactly as their White peers and I see them enjoying 'belonging'. Sometimes the 'melting pot' works. But then thanks to the tireless efforts of racists, it doesn't work all the time.

Where are my baby-eating 6' tall Space Spiders?! When will they invade the Earth and help to forge the bonds of true human brotherhood!!

Yeah "white privilege" in which a black college professor is more oppressed than the white guy sleeping in a box under a bridge. Got it...

You keep bringing up the fact that homelessness exists as an argument to suggest that white people are somehow harmed more than minority groups... Is that what you're trying to do?

I could point out that there is a black homeless man and a white man is the president. Therefore by using your same tactic, White Privilege totally exists. I mean, look at that example, my totally selected African American is homeless and my totally randomly selected White person is the President.

Picking and choosing data points doesn't make for a sound logical argument.

How 'bout we look at some actual statistics.

According to "The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress" https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

48.3% of homeless people are white
51.7% Are minorities (African American making up the largest of the sub-groups at 39.1%

So it sounds like it's roughly equal.

But, when you take into account that 76.6% of the total population of the US is White, while only 13.4% are African American. (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218) You can see that The percentages within those populations are not the same. I.e. If you are non-white, you have a greater chance of being homeless than if you are white.

Also, no one is saying that some white people don't have problems, even really difficult ones that make live completely miserable. Classism, poverty, and other problems exist even for white people, we're aware. The problem being discussed here, regardless of your attempts to distract, is that minorities have an even more difficult time getting access to resources than the majority of white people do, because bigotry is a very large problem in this country.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2019 05:32PM by Finally Free!.

Hi Jordan,

You don't see any advantage to being a white person in the United States today?

How about thirty years ago?

Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jordan,
>
> You don't see any advantage to being a white
> person in the United States today?
>
> How about thirty years ago?

Most whites in the USA have never been rich.

There was no "white privilege" for people fleeing famines, pogroms, soil degradation in the Dust Bowl. There is no privilege living in a trailer, sleeping under a bridge or getting shot to pieces in some foreign war.

This is the big myth of today. You get Obama in, and blacks are still being shot on the streets. You have white men as president and most white men still do dirty, dangerous work.

A lot of this is coming out of the universities. From people with big salaries, educational privileges above the general population, often working in some of the most élitist institutions going and they have the nerve to lecture us on inequality and privilege.

Please show us your well researched statistics that show that minorities actually have it better than whites. I mean, you wouldn't be picking and choosing specific examples out of a much larger data set to bolster your opinions, would you?

You think he's looking at a data set?

Good point, he wouldn't be making things up? Would he?

In reality, I don't think he would know a dataset if it hit him in the face. But it's fun to ask. Just like I'm looking forward to his documentation showing where you've called for his censorship. I think we'll be waiting a while for anything to back up his claims.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2019 12:08PM by Finally Free!.

Yeah, I'm no longer holding my breath on that one.

If you think about it, being censored is an honor of sorts: it implies that your thoughts are radically new and destabilizing, even dangerous. With that in mind there's no need to censor Jordan and his pals--at least not till they buy some data and gain facility with quadratic equations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2019 12:13PM by Lot's Wife.

Exactly, why bother censoring them? I liked your comment the other day, something like "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

It is.

Freedom of Speech is about the rights of the individual, to be sure. But it is also a safety valve for society, a self-correction mechanism. The stranger the doctrine, the more evil the agenda, the greater the need for public scrutiny--nay, ridicule.

JS knew what he as doing when he warned against lightmindedness and laughter at God's anointed. Humor unseats many a dictator and might have unseated him if given greater prominence in LDS circles.

So let's keep RfM fee and open and let the ultra-confident, the ultra-sincere continue to provide us with entertainment. In some ways this place is the best comedy club since Jerry Springer--and hence offers myriad opportunities to put absurdities to the test.

Agreed. I just keep thinking about some of these guys on a date, suggesting how women should "respond to my needs" (shudder). I imagine the woman they are with slowly, picking up their completely silent phone, saying, "I have to take this... What? There's an emergency? ... Sorry, I have to go." and running out of the restaurant as quickly as they can.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. I just keep thinking about some of these
> guys on a date, suggesting how women should
> "respond to my needs" (shudder).

Gee Whiz, do people have to read something sinister into everything? What I meant by that was that I have known many women who were only interested in themselves. A relationship (or even a friendship) should be a two-way thing - you should care for them and they should care for you. What the hell is wrong with that?

You don't have to read any nastiness onto it - that's in your own head. I'm not the male equivalent of a bunny boiler and certainly not a sex predator!

That's what you finally responded to? D'oh!

Yes, you were very clear... "If she is self-absorbed, that's no good to me except on a physical level."

I have a feeling, and this is just a guess based on your posts, which women you find self-absorbed... But it's good to know they are still good for you on a "physical level". (again... shudder)

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, you were very clear... "If she is
> self-absorbed, that's no good to me except on a
> physical level."
>
> I have a feeling, and this is just a guess based
> on your posts, which women you find
> self-absorbed... But it's good to know they are
> still good for you on a "physical level".
> (again... shudder)

I like women I get on with, what's wrong with that? Am I supposed to hate my other half - don't you have to wait until after you get married to do that? Physical attraction isn't everything. Only in a place like this can you get shot down for saying a relationship should involve friendship, and mah

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly, why bother censoring them? I liked your
> comment the other day, something like "sunlight is
> the best disinfectant".

Sunlight must be a social constructionist, because it does not burn all people equally quickly. So I let's not use racist disinfectant.

That's happened in our family, too.

We recently saw an excellent example of how race became racism on this board. A poster announced that he "had been told" that the US was holding Congolese immigrants at the TX border who were displaying the symptoms of Ebola. We were to be horrified by that.

Of course it wasn't true. I don't know where the deception lay--the extreme media had a field day touting the notion that people from Central Africa were exposing good-hearted Americans to a horrific disease--but the claims were utterly false. The latency period for Ebola is three weeks, and the immigrants had been out of the Congo for months. But hey, what do facts matter when you have a xenophobic rant to offer?

The bottom line is that rabble-rousers saw a chance to do their thing and some percentage of Americans were gullible enough to accept it uncritically. It's hard to know which was worse: the people who conjured such lies and spread them, or the credulity of those who took them seriously rather than, for instance, listening to the Texas health officials.



https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/NOT-REAL-NEWS-Reports-of-Ebola-cases-in-Texas-13969329.php

https://www.ktsa.com/city-says-rumors-of-congolese-migrants-bringing-ebola-are-patently-false/

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/06/11/officials-debunked-far-right-rumors-ebola-among-refugees-laura-ingraham-fearmongered-about-it-night/223904

wait... This thread is still open? Does this mean we have to discuss Race and Racism forever? What could we have possibly done to deserve that? Please end the RfM nightmare and close the thread... Before it's too late and someone makes a post starting "Well, actually... "



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2019 01:00PM by Finally Free!.