I have two contrasting stories to begin this post.
The first: six months after I was baptized into the Church, I took a job based in Brazil. Two weeks after I moved there, the bishop called me in and gave me a new calling: Young Men’s President and Sunday School Teacher for the Youth (two callings in one!). Given that there were only about eight men in the ward with the priesthood, these callings should not have been a surprise, but they certainly were at the time.
So for about a year I taught the youth for two hours nearly every Sunday. And after I had been there for a year I was visited by a friend from the States who came to Sunday School and said to me, “wow, it must be strange for you to teach a class filled with black kids.”
I turned to him and said, “what are you talking about, they aren’t black.” But then I stopped and thought about it. And indeed they all were black, and I hadn’t even noticed. I had been so nervous about simply doing the job, and so anxious to do it right, and so nervous about learning Portuguese and teaching in Portuguese, that I had never even thought about the race of the young men and women — I had simply seen them as young human beings being taught by a very imperfect teacher who knew less about the Church than they did.
Now, another story. I once worked at a newspaper (I will not tell you which one, but I worked at several newspapers early in my career) that was obsessed with racism. They developed a special “diversity committee” to make sure that when a new reporter was hired race was one of the first things considered. So over the years lots of people applied for jobs there and many dozen were hired, but of course hundreds were turned down.
At one point a friend of mine came to the diversity committee and asked them to reconsider one of the people who was turned down. He was a white man. The committee said, no, they could not reconsider this because they needed diversity in the newsroom and there were too many white men. And besides he wasn’t that great of a reporter anyway. And my friend said, “well, did you know this person is handicapped and is in a wheelchair?”
The committee members were stunned. All of them were obviously thinking the same thing: how could they pass as good sensitive people who were for diversity if they were not allowing diversity regarding the handicapped? So, of course they ignored the fact that this man was “not that great of a reporter anyway” and quickly hired him now that they knew he was handicapped.
Question: who in these stories were the real racists?
While you’re pondering that question, I would like to add that we Americans (and Brazilians in different ways) have made tremendous strides towards becoming less racist. Clearly our histories are filled with racist horrors (Brazil did not give up slavery until two decades after the United States).
As a church, we Latter-day Saints need to face the fact that racism is part of our history. And we also need to face the fact that, based on my experience with a long line of family members and others, many of our members, especially older members, are indeed racist. I have close family members, some of whom are deceased, who would regularly say the most racist things you could imagine. And they were temple recommend-holding members.
But we have made tremendous strides on the issue of race. Ever since I have been a member (going on 10 years now), I have not heard a single member make what I would call a racist comment (unless you count the person visiting me in Brazil who asked about the race of the young men and young women, and he meant it in a “tender, sensitive liberal way” not a “racist conservative” way). In those 10 years, I have been a member of three wards, in Brazil, in Miami and now in Colorado, and I have visited probably a dozen others.
Let me point out that I regularly hear racist comments at work. I heard some just last week, as a matter of fact. But for me Church is, these days, a non-racist haven where people are just people.
When I think of race the way Heavenly Father most likely sees it, I think of the temple. People are people regardless of their skin color, and the temple, with its simplicity, seems to emphasize that. And without being too immodest, I think I achieved a brief moment of non-racism while living in Brazil and teaching that class. It was not planned or expected — it was a natural consequence of trying to serve others and being completely overwhelmed by my own inadequacies.
But one of the things that life has taught me is that we don’t become less racist by obsessing about race. In fact, we generally become more racist by obsessing about race. The newspaper “diversity committee” was all about self-righteousness — they were the only truly non-racists in the entire newspaper because they were on the diversity committee! They were trying to change to world and make it less racist! And in fact, they were making it more racist because they began to identify people only by their race.
So, my plea to Latter-day Saints is: people are people. Try to see them as Heavenly Father does. And that also applies to people whom you think are racist. Heavenly Father loves them too. There is a tremendous amount of self-righteousness in running around pointing out to the world how racist they are (and by extension how non-racist you are).
A beautiful post, Geoff. I think it is a worthy goal to try and see everyone as our Heavenly Father does.
I like my three year old’s take – “Mom, people come in all sorts of colors…like S. is brown and we are orange!” To him we are all just like different colored crayons in the same coloring box..
I must apologize if I miss any comments on this post for the next six hours or so — I will be occupied elsewhere and will respond when I get back.
I agree. God’s creations are all so colorful. Why would anyone think humans should be different?
” And in fact, they were making it more racist because they began to identify people only by their race.”
It is funny how conservatives have decided that acknowledging race is the real new racism.
“In fact, we generally become more racist by obsessing about race.”
Oh good, now we can go back to pretending there is no race (and no racism). How convenient.
So, when it comes to racists: Love the sinner, hate the sin. I can work with that. Is there a post coming about gays falling under the category of “people are people”?
Colorblindness sounds wonderful at first. But race does matter, especially to those who have constructed their identity around the shared racial experiences of a people. We don’t need to be post-racial, just post-racist.
Chris H.-
That’s a strawman argument. You can do better than that.
I read a lot of sarcasm and a strawman, but nothing constructive in your comment.
What happened to judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin?
Homosexuals ought to be accorded the same love and respect of anyone else. Jesus said: Love one another. Seems pretty inclusive to me.
Christopher,
You are correct; race does matter in terms of personal identity. I don’t see any problem with being colorblind in the sense that you don’t pre-judge or judge someone by their skin color. Post-racism works for me.
@ Chris H. and Christopher, who I’m guessing are liberal white guys:
I’m part Tongan (though I look more Mexican than Polynesian- go figure). I didn’t think much about race until I went to a liberal college, where I was incessantly reminded that I was somehow special because I was a minority. I was given preference, deference, and probably more respect than frankly I deserved.
The thing is, it drove me nuts. I always wondered whether I aced a class because I worked hard, or if the professor was just overcompensating for his white guilt.
The thing I kept wondering during college and still do to this day: What ever happened to content of character over skin color? This politically correct, quota-obsessed generation of progressives is anything but the fulfillment of MLK’s dream.
Brian,
You are correct; race does matter in terms of personal identity.
But that’s not what Geoff said in his post. Rather, he asserted that such an attitude only breeds racism. As Chris H. summarized so nicely, the logic seems to be that “acknowledging race is the real new racism.”
Tossman,
Chris H. and Christopher, who I’m guessing are liberal white guys
You assume an awful lot based on one comment.
This politically correct, quota-obsessed generation of progressives is anything but the fulfillment of MLK’s dream.
Ah yes, the conservative appropriation of MLK’s legacy. Please do tell what the fulfillment of MLK’s dream was meant to be.
You assume an awful lot based on one comment.
Yep, but I’m right, aren’t I?
Please do tell what the fulfillment of MLK’s dream was meant to be.
Me. I’m not white, and I’ve worked my way up to at least a satisfactory degree of the American Dream. Even by your own philosophy, I should understand MLK better than you.
Yep, but I’m right, aren’t I?
No, you’re not.
Even by your own philosophy, I should understand MLK better than you.
What exactly do you see as “[my] own philosophy”? I’m curious since I haven’t expressed any philosophy outside of stating that race matters.
What exactly do you see as “[my] own philosophy”? I’m curious since I haven’t expressed any philosophy outside of stating that race matters.
“Race matters” was all I needed to hear. Race colors your perception of society. It doesn’t color mine. I find that amusingly ironic.
Chris H. and Christopher, who I’m guessing are liberal white guys
Race colors your perception of society. It doesn’t color mine.
Care to reconcile those statements?
Christopher,
Again, I call strawman. Geoff argues that, “They [the diversity committee] were trying to change to world and make it less racist! And in fact, they were making it more racist because they began to identify people only by their race.”
One specific example, of one specific group and how race was THE sole factor in decision making. You make a giant leap by arguing “acknowledging race is the real new racism.”
That’s not the comment I was referring to from Geoff’s posts, Brian. It was this one:
we generally become more racist by obsessing about race.
I don’t see that as “a giant leap” or a strawman at all.
Brian,
I am not sure if you are using the idea of a strawman correctly. Geoff made on big strawman argument about those concerned about race and racism. That does not seem to bother you. Sarcasm? Guilty as charged.
Tossman,
I prefer socialist over liberal. I am also fat, Mormon, and I live in Idaho. Anything else you would like to know?
Christopher,
Good to see you. I have to corrupt the youth with political correctness so that they too can become a “quota-obsessed generation of progressives” for the rest of the afternoon. Carry on.
Chris H and Christopher, I prefer a friendly relationship to adversarial (although I admit there are times I break my own rule). In this particular case, I really think you guys are categorizing my post (“oh, a post by a conservative on race — must be bad”) without even really reading it very carefully.
If I were to summarize my post, I would say I made three points: 1)I had a very interesting experience in a non-racial situation in Brazil that surprised me, and I’m sharing it with you 2)obsession with race is not healthy 3)self-righteousness is not healthy.
I don’t see anywhere in my post where I say race doesn’t matter or that there is no such thing as racism. In fact, I say just the opposite in my opinion.
Look, people are going to categorize things however they want (“another bad post from a conservative”) and there’s not much I can do about your perceptions of what I write. But I just don’t see any connection between your reaction and what I actually wrote, which is strange to me.
Chris H, I would ask you to retract the insulting comment about gays not being people. I’m not even sure what you meant to say by that, but if you are implying that I don’t think gays are people, your comment is, to quote Steve Evans in another thread on another blog, “beneath you.” You can do a lot better than that.
Tossman, I have always been interested to see the stereotypes that people make. Personally, I have Mexican heritage, and two of my children from my first marriage are Hispanic primarily. But of course I am categorized as a racist white guy by some commenters. The irony is notable.
Interesting post Geoff, though I’m amazed you haven’t heard church members make racist comments. You need to try some of the wards in Northern Utah.
Care to reconcile those statements?
Nope.
I’m not sure where you live Geoff, but I concur that there is less racism in church these days. I just moved to Missouri last year, and I can still see quite a bit of racism though. I think that racism has become more apparent in the last few months with the election of an African American as president. Surprisingly, racist comments are actually at a minimum at church, though I still hear them.
On top of that, one member I know of had an uncle who was a temple attending member and a card carrying member of the KKK.
Crazy world.
Ian, I currently live in Colorado, but I have attended Church mostly in multi-racial environments in Brazil in Miami. My ward in Colorado is probably 95 percent white. But I have heard NO racist comments since moving here seven months ago.
Let me note that I hear racist comments from my co-workers all the time. So it’s not as if I don’t recognize them when I hear them.
I recognize that my experience may be unique — I have heard some racist comments from people in what I would call “traditional rural Utah,” so I know such racism exists.
In my experience, the racism inside the Church is nothing compared to the racism outside of the Church, however.
But one of the things that life has taught me is that we don’t become less racist by obsessing about race. In fact, we generally become more racist by obsessing about race.
Hmm, do you honestly believe that we’ve become less racist as a society in spite of, rather than because of, the prevalence of liberal discourse and reforms during that last six decades? Do you think we would have come to this point without Brown v. Board of Education, the civil rights acts of the 1960s, and the implementation of affirmative action policies of the late ’60s and ’70s? If so, our views of history are quite different, because I believe that “obsessing about race” has created a far juster society.
The newspaper “diversity committee” was all about self-righteousness — they were the only truly non-racists in the entire newspaper because they were on the diversity committee! They were trying to change to world and make it less racist! And in fact, they were making it more racist because they began to identify people only by their race.
Less racist, in comparison with what, exactly? Again, do we really want to go back to the “less racist” times of the Jim Crow era? Again, I believe we’ve gotten to this point because of progressive ideas about race, rather than in spite of those ideas.
As for the Church, thankfully we no longer discriminate (at least officially) based on race. Whether the lack of colored faces in the ranks of our leadership is God’s will, man’s folly, or some combination of the two, I’ll let individuals decide. And just because someone hasn’t heard any racist comments among the rank-and-file in their wards does not mean it doesn’t occur. I’m willing to bet that there were more than a few Mormon kids on that Idaho bus shouting “assassinate Obama” a couple of months ago.
David G, I would agree with you that Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights acts of the 1960s helped us become a juster society, so we can agree there.
I personally believe affirmative action has hurt race relations more than helped, so that may be where we part company (I say this as someone with two children who could, in theory, benefit from these policies).
My “obsessed by race,” I would refer you to the example of the newspaper diversity committee, which was comically obsessed by race above any and all other considerations. If that is the type of society you want, where all decisions are made based on race, I would say that we are far apart in our viewpoints. That kind of obsession is wrong and evil, in my opinion. I would say that about white people obsessing about race (KKK, etc) and black people obsessing about race (Louis Farrakhan) and Hispanic people obsessing about race (La Raza).
I will also say this: I hope no Mormon kids are shouting racial epithets, but I find it very interesting that so many Mormons are so quick to condemn our own Church members based on lack of information (“I’m willing to bet”) rather than actual facts. Again, I prefer to concentrate on the positive (“we are better than we used to be and better than the general population”) rather than the negative (“all Mormons are bigots — except for me and my coterie of progressive friends”).
Geoff,
I am a bit of a street fighting man (preferably the Rage Against version), so I tend to be adversarial. However, I like to think of it as friendly adversarial. Sorry you do not see if that way.
Wow, you used Steve Evans against me. I was trying to point out that your last few paragraph made a love the sinner argument and sounded a lot what is often said about gays. Love them, but hate their sins. I actually am not a big fan of the approach. I was not implying anthing about your attitude on homosexuals. At least, that was not my intention.
”all Mormons are bigots — except for me and my coterie of progressive friends”
Who ever said that?
Geoff, is there anything that you do not think that Mormons are better at than the general population?
David G.
Those kids were from a neighboring elementary school from the one my kids attend. They likely were all Mormon.
Chris H, just to be clear, Steve was talking about a comment of mine that he considered “beneath me.” He was probably right. That’s what happens when you don’t consider carefully what you want to write.
OK, now I understand your comment regarding racists/homosexuals. I think we need to try to love everybody, even the people we disagree with and whose opinions we despise (those are probably the people we need to try to love the most). This doesn’t mean we condone their ACTS or their WORDS, just that we recognize they are sons and daughters of Heavenly Father as well and that they deserve respect and dignity. I almost never succeed at doing this (loving my neighbor completely) but I keep on trying and some day….
Chris H, you need to spend some more time clicking around the Bloggernacle. That opinion is pretty widespread.
“I will also say this: I hope no Mormon kids are shouting racial epithets, but I find it very interesting that so many Mormons are so quick to condemn our own Church members based on lack of information (”I’m willing to bet”) rather than actual facts. Again, I prefer to concentrate on the positive (”we are better than we used to be and better than the general population”) rather than the negative (”all Mormons are bigots — except for me and my coterie of progressive friends”).”
No “willing to bet” here. Fact. My wife’s grandmother who worked in the temple until she died disowned a grandchild for marrying an African American, then explained to us that she felt a loss of the spirit when the 1978 revelation was announced. Fact. Our LDS neighbor called my wife a n-word lover when he found out she was voting for Obama. Fact. Another neighbor warned my wife against letting our daughter play with an African American child because she’d “grow up ghetto”. I could go on and on. And EQ didn’t have any blatant racism, but there were a bunch of Obama comments during the last six months that made me uncomfortable.
Like I said, you need to meet more members of the church from Northern Utah. But I’d maybe I’d call it a Utah Mormon problem, not a Mormon problem. The members of the church I met while in Australia were the most loving and charitable people I knew in how they treated the aborigine people in that area.
When people are saying Mormons are racist, I don’t think they’re making it up out of thin air, I think depending on where you live, Mormons may be racist. If I had only lived in Utah, I would probably have that view.
I find it interesting almost no comments so far (we’re up to 30 now, I believe) have pointed out how interesting my experience was in losing myself in the work and not even noticing the race of the people around me or have pointed out how the temple helps make us more equal in God’s eyes.
I really expected a returned missionary to say something like, “yeah, when I worked in rural Alabama (or Harlem, or Watts or Africa) I stopped noticing the race of people around me as well.” It would seem to me this is a more interesting topic that re-hashing all of the stories about how racist Mormons are. But that is just me.
If it helps Geoff, my brother who served in the South said he stopped noticing the color of people’s skin after about six month. Except at church because it was such a shocking change to see the racial makeup of a typical ward compared to the variety of people he tracted into every day.
Or is that not what you were looking for? 😉
Jjohnsen, you crack me up. Although we don’t agree on most politics, I think you are one of the best commenters out there. Please keep on coming back.
Geoff,
I am quite familiar with the liberal bloggernacle community and I have often seen that charged against posts on race. I have never seen anything that actually says that. Maybe that is because we read different things into what we read because of our ideological differences.
I find it interesting almost no comments so far (we’re up to 30 now, I believe) have pointed out how interesting my experience was in losing myself in the work and not even noticing the race of the people around me or have pointed out how the temple helps make us more equal in God’s eyes.
I really expected a returned missionary to say something like, “yeah, when I worked in rural Alabama (or Harlem, or Watts or Africa) I stopped noticing the race of people around me as well.” It would seem to me this is a more interesting topic that re-hashing all of the stories about how racist Mormons are. But that is just me.
When I worked on American Indian reservations in Arizona and served among illegal immigrants (primarily from Mexico) in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico, it was virtually impossible to “stop noticing” the race of those around me. The socio-economic disparity between those with white skin and those with dark skin was hard to just ignore. The racial epithets (including those of well-meaning white members) at church on Sundays was disheartening, and the Xenophobia repeated from the pulpit by Bishops, EQ presidents, and RS leaders was disgusting. The outrage expressed by some white members at the suggestion that the Latinos pray in Spanish instead of English (which they didn’t speak) so that they could participate in the ward was condescending, rude, and un-Christlike.
Back at BYU, the paternalism aimed at the only African-American student in the ward was frustrating. In my married student ward, the description of Barack Obama as a “radical Muslim oreo” who was “too different” to be president of the United States enraged me. The suggestion (made in RS in the presence of my Latina wife) that prophetic counsel dictates that we should marry those that come from similar backgrounds (which was explicated to include race, class, and religion) brought my wife to tears. The comment of a young girl in the primary class my interracial couple friends teach that “I can’t sit next to you because your skin is dirty” is bothersome and has caused that couple to put their home up for sale and move out of state.
Thanks for the invitation to share personal experiences from the mission. That felt good to unload that pent-up frustration.
Wow, Christopher, it must be tough to be you. That’s a lot of baggage to carry around. Keep on truckin’, though, you may find some silver linings in all those black clouds some day.
Funny. I was just thinking it must be tough being you, pretending that you don’t see race and downplaying (ignoring?) the significant hurt it causes other people, especially your fellow Mormons.
Wow, Geoff, thanks for showing the way toward not being “adversarial.”
I can honestly say Geoff that in my two years in downtown LA, I never once woke up surprised that everyone around me was either Latino or black (and in some places, Korean or Armenian). I don’t see the point in trying to erase or ignore racial and cultural differences, because too often in the erasure whiteness is normally substituted. Frankly, I don’t think that anyone can say with a straight face that whiteness, given its troubled history, is the order of heaven.
Peace my friend. You’re trying to pick a fight with the wrong person. If it makes you feel better, I am pretty pro-immigrant, as anybody who has been around the Bloggernacle for some time will attest. You should do a search on this site for some of my posts on immigration.
I will say this, however, David G and Christopher (and probably Chris H): we definitely see the world very differently. I have lived most of the last 23 years in Latin America and Miami. I speak, read and write Spanish and Portuguese fluently. I have spent a lot of time among immigrants in the U.S. I have Hispanic heritage and two children who are Latinas.
Of course my Latin friends have heard all kinds of racial epithets and insensitive comments over the years. But the ones whom I get along with best have chosen not to concentrate on them. They are generally upbeat, positive people who choose to see the good in the people around them rather than the bad. Believe you me: they could have spent all their time concentrating on their negative experiences (much worse than what Christopher describes) but instead they have decided to make the best of their lives and their experiences and to concentrate on getting educations, getting good jobs, getting along with the people they work with, etc.
This is what I mean by silver linings in all those clouds. Your life is what you make of it. You can either spend all of your time whining and moaning about all of the bad things that happen to you and how horrible the people at BYU are and how racist the people in your ward are, or you can choose to concentrate on the good things that happen to you. I prefer the latter strategy, and I prefer being around people who prefer the latter strategy. They generally are happier people, both inside the Church and out.
Most of this I’m sure sounds very foreign to you. It sounds to me that you tend to concentrate on all of the victims in the world and all of the bad, racist people around you. Yes, there are bad, racist people around you, but there are a lot of good people as well. Why concentrate your energy on the negative when you can think about the positive?
I have no hope of convincing you of this. But if there is one person who reads this and says, “hey, he may have a point” even if nobody comments here, then perhaps I’ve done a little bit of good in the world today.
David G, who ever said whiteness was the order of heaven? That has to be one of the strangest comments on an increasingly strange thread.
Geoff: Hey, buddy, you know nothing about me or about my worldview. We’re having a debate, so naturally we’re taking opposite sides of a question. For you to draw these stark distinctions and making sweeping generalizations based on this conversation is laughable. I’m sorry that you mistake recognizing injustice in the world for ignoring the good or being “unhappy.” I think I see plenty of good in the world, and I’m a generally happy person. I find it rather humorous that you dismiss the diversity committee for being self-righteous, when your comment #40 reeks of self-righteousness, arrogance, and condescension.
If the Church is not racist, ask yourself “why in 30 years since the revelation on blacks holding the priesthood, is there no black General Authority”?
David G, I give up. We appear to be talking at cross-purposes, and I was trying the best I know how to help you understand my position, but now I am self-righteous, arrogant and condescending! Sorry you feel that way. No hard feelings, have a good day and go in peace!
RC, I have asked myself that question many times. I completely reject the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is racist, and I would also point out that such a comment violates the comment policy at this blog. So, if you would like to pursue that line of thought I would encourage you to go to the many thousands of other blogs where such thoughts I’m sure are welcome.
I do believe we had a black GA from Brazil but that he was excommunicated for his own transgressions.
“I am quite familiar with the liberal bloggernacle community and I have often seen that charged against posts on race. I have never seen anything that actually says that. Maybe that is because we read different things into what we read because of our ideological differences.”
He may have been using a bit of hyperbole, but as a left-leaning member of the church it isn’t totally innacurate. When it comes to issues that concern women and race, many of the more liberal LDS bloggers (myself included) can be guilty of what he’s describing.
Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, I don’t think the church is racist, but there are plenty of members that are. And I honestly think it’s a problem that will sort itself out with as the older, close-minded members head off to the spirit world.
“Jjohnsen, you crack me up. Although we don’t agree on most politics, I think you are one of the best commenters out there. Please keep on coming back.”
Most? I challenge you to find a single issue we agree on. But I appreciate your posts even when we don’t agree. Now hurry and put up a anti-gay marriage post so we can stop this love fest.
@Chris H.
I missed part of your argument amidst the sarcasm. I understand the strawman well enough, thank you. 🙂
I’ve enjoyed the discussion and hope to have more time to read through some of the comments I missed.
Jjohnsen, I don’t know all your views, but I’m pretty sure we’d agree on immigration (I’m pro-immigrant, pro-amnesty and disagree with the Tom Tancredo right wing on this issue) and capital punishment (I’m against capital punishment). If we sat down and talked, you’d be surprised at the other things we agree on.
Geoff B,
I am not claiming that the Church is racist. Merely pointing out a “fact”, and food for thought, that there is no black GA” after 30 years.
I do not expect anyone to admit they may be racist. And I am sure in their minds, they don’t believe they are. But I am extremely disappointed in my supposedly good fellow members spreading hate and dissent through the internet since Pres. Obama was elected. I cannot tell you the number of emails, and comments, saying that he is the anti-Christ and the worst thing that has happened to this country since 9-11. I have never seen this much negativity towards the President in my 65 years, especially from fellow members. There seems to be more behind their actions than Pres. Obama being a Democrat.
Geoff,
Kudos to such a wonderful post and a peace-maker attitude. I don’t know how you do it, but I respect you for your abiliity to ignore liberal-trouble-makers that just want to bring the spirit of the devil.
Minor correction, Geoff. As we discussed via email earlier, Elder Helvicio Martins was faithful to the end, and was never, to my knowledge, ever excommunicated.
I was in the MTC when Elder Martins and his family arrived for language training. I had the honor and privilege of hearing their conversion story from Sister Martins and how their son was among the first of African descent in the Church to serve a full-time mission after the 1978 revelation. He even delayed his wedding to serve a mission.
@RC
Helvicio Martins was the first black GA. A wonderful man, really. I suspect there will be more black GA’s as the Church grows.
“I do believe we had a black GA from Brazil but that he was excommunicated for his own transgressions.”
Yes, there was a black GA from Brazil, Elder Martins (I cannot remember the first name, though I is son teaches religion at BYU-H). But he was not excommunicated. You have him confused with George P. Lee.
NOYDMD,
He is not ignoring the liberals. He is engaging us in conversation.
Oops, you all beat me to it.
Chris H.,
You’re a liberal? 😉
Brian,
Are you being sarcastic? I going to tell on you.
Thanks for the correction on Elder Martins. I don’t know why I thought he was ex’d, but I’m glad to hear he was not.
“I find it interesting almost no comments so far (we’re up to 30 now, I believe) have pointed out how interesting my experience was in losing myself in the work and not even noticing the race of the people around me or have pointed out how the temple helps make us more equal in God’s eyes.”
I’m confused as to how you’re using the term ‘race’ here. A broad definition might suggest that the fact that you recognized that these young men were from Brazil, spoke Portuguese, and were certainly reflective of their culture (despite the fact that you didn’t recognize their skin color), in effect meant that you were aware of their ‘race’. Since you didn’t construe your argument this way it sounds as if you aren’t taking such a broad view. Perhaps ‘skin color’ is the qualifying factor of race in your view. But the problem here is that your example of the handicapped person in the wheelchair then isn’t a question of race.
Perhaps you could clarify.
Oops I forgot to finish the italics. The first paragraph is Geoff speaking.
[Fixed. —The Editor]
SmallAxe, one of the interesting things about Brazil is that there is much more mixture of races than in the U.S. Most Brazilians have some African blood (as we all do, in the end — but theirs is more recent).
The point is that the students in my class, when I stopped to think about it after a year of teaching them, were mostly what we in the U.S. would call “black” or “African-American.” The point, which apparently you missed, is that because I was concentrating on serving them the best I could, I did not notice that they were “black” or “African-American” looking until somebody pointed it out to me.
So, the people involved were both racially African and had a darker skin color.
As for the handicapped person, you have managed to completely miss the point of my post. I would respectfully suggest you read it again.
The point, which apparently you missed, is that because I was concentrating on serving them the best I could, I did not notice that they were “black” or “African-American” looking until somebody pointed it out to me.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I got that point. My point is that the lack of awareness of one aspect of race doesn’t mean that you were completely unaware of race (or not racist), unless you are arguing that the particular aspect of which you were not aware is the only aspect or the only essential aspect of race. If that’s the case though, and it does seem to be the case, then your comments about the diversity committee hiring somebody because he was in a wheelchair cannot count as an argument about race.
FWIW, I would also suggest a more charitable stance toward your readers. It’s better to assume that you as the writer were not clear in your ideas, rather than me as the reader is foolish enough to misunderstand your cleverly crafted argument.
I think the point is that diversity, when it occurs naturally, strengthens a society. Forced diversity, or an over-emphasis on race, weakens it.
Smallaxe, let me try again.
When a human being travels around the world, he sees other people. And when he sees other people, he notices first their outward appearance. My point is that I did not notice their outward appearance as being different than mine in any way until it was pointed out to me by a well-meaning liberal who was immediately aware of their outward appearance after spend two hours with them (whereas I had not even noticed it after spending nearly a year with them). I am not saying that I do not notice outward appearance (race!) now — I am saying that in this particular one case I did not. It was an interesting experience for me that I am sharing with you.
Now, in contrast, the diversity committee was ONLY interested in outward appearance. And that was the ONLY thing they wanted to have at this particular newspaper. To be blunt, they wanted more black and brown faces. But when somebody pointed out that their diversity did not include the handicapped they were flummoxed because how could they be well-meaning liberals and social engineers without considering the handicapped.
My point, which I will reemphasize, is that they were the true racists because they ONLY cared about race (meaning outward appearance). Whereas, from the Lord’s perspective race is not important — we are all created in His image. And when you engage in service, especially in the temple but elsewhere in His church, hopefully you will begin to see that more and more.
Is that clearer now?
As for being more charitable, Smallaxe, I would suggest you look in your heart and examine the motives for your questions. You are not truly interested in having a dialogue — you are interested in poking holes and having a discussion on your terms about the many aspects of race that you think are important (and that I as an ignorant and unenlightened conservative must not be aware). This may be an interesting area of discussion for you, but it’s really not relevant to the larger point of the post, and you know it.
Geoff B.:
Come on. Smallaxe is one of the most charitable people on the bloggernacle. I no longer convinced that you (or others such as Bryce) deserve of such charity. But Smallaxe continues to show charity anyways. Do not open the comments if you cannot handle thoughful comments like those of Smallaxe. I might be a jerk, but your response to him reinforced his point about your responses.
This is not so much liberal vs. conservative, but the ability to talk about race from a social science perspective. That is what Smallaxe was doing.
Chris H, I’ll take your word on it. The questions did not seem honest to me (he seemed to be feigning ignorance about something that was actually pretty clear) but, in any case, I’m pretty sure I answered the question as clearly as I can. Smallaxe, no offense intended if your questions truly were meant in a charitable way.
Chris H, I don’t deserve charity!??? Luckily there are others who will keep on giving until it hurts. 🙂
Of course, you deserve charity. I have chided Smallaxe in the past for being too nice. He obviously has an understanding of race. Some of us, are just unclear about how you are using the term. It is not a simple concept.
It just seems like any point of disagreement gets blasted with “strawman” or charges of hypocrisy.
The real question is why people like Smallaxe, Christopher, David G., and myself still come around M*. I think I like that there is a high level of traffic and discussion. I am not sure if I can handle the type of conversation.
Maybe blogging is just crap and we should all give it up.
Chris H, you get a gold star for defending your co-blogger. That’s a good thing, in my opinion.
Regarding your last comment on blogging being crap, I have given this a LOT of thought. At the end of the day, I think people need to analyze why they get into blogging. If the purpose is to prove themselves right and the rest of the world wrong, then perhaps they should give it up (I am not referring to anybody in particular here — I have noticed that I have this tendency and need to keep it under control). If the purpose is to build up the Church, tell uplifting stories, flesh out ideas, have dialogues with people with different viewpoints, learn new things, then blogging can be a very good and noble thing. That’s my two cents.
The outrage expressed by some white members at the suggestion that the Latinos pray in Spanish instead of English (which they didn’t speak) so that they could participate in the ward was condescending, rude, and un-Christlike.
One could argue that it is “condescending, rude, and un-Christlike” to insist on conducting a significant element of the worship service in a language that most of the congregation (and especially the presiding authority, who is supposed to maintain the doctrinal integrity of the meeting) is incapable of understanding.
It’s one thing to eliminate the old power imbalances. It’s quite another thing to reverse them. Sadly, many liberals don’t seem interested in drawing the distinction.
JimD,
I’ve lived in wards where we did live translation into three different languages simultaneously. Unless we want to exclude half the ward members from ever participating, we have to allow them to participate in the language they speak. There is simply no way that the bishop can listen to the sacrament prayers in English and also keep his eyes open to monitor that the person signing in ASL is doing it right, not to mention listen to the Spanish translator at the same time.
I wonder if it would be useful to drop the conservative/liberal labels in this conversation? They might be useful to some extent, but I’m not sure they are obscuring more than they reveal.
JimD,
You presume an awful lot based on one sentence. To clarify, the presiding authority spoke Spanish and favored allowing the Spanish-speaker to pray in his native tongue. In fact, I would guess that roughly half of the adult males in the ward understood and/or spoke Spanish. Perhaps it would be prudent in the future to ask for clarification instead of proceeding on assumptions with no factual basis.
Geoff,
I think I know you well enough to know that your motivation with this post is not to foster controversy but to defend something you love: the church of Christ, and the community of Saints. You have perceived recent posts (perhaps the ones at BCC?) as being overly aggressive in pointing out the vestigial racism that you yourself have acknowledged exists to some extent. Are my assumptions correct? I’m just guessing, so let me know if I’m off base.
If I am correct, I want to say that I admire you greatly for that impulse, and that I regard you as a willing and capable defender of the faith, and just the kind of guy we need more of. Thank you.
The suggestion that I would make is that you allow for the possibility that the people with whom you take exception are also seeking to defend something they love: The church and body of Christ. When it is defiled by popular professors at BYU, for instance, who continue to teach that complexion is an indicator of righteousness (yes, that still happens), they feel a strong impulse to get rid of that poison, just as our bodies instinctively reject someting vile or poisonous via regurgitation. It isn’t pretty, but ultimately, it needs to be done. In other words, if you think that the motivation behind the posts at BCC was to say ”all Mormons are bigots — except for me and my coterie of progressive friends”, I am almost 100% certain that you are mistaken.
And that is why the pigeon-holing and line-drawing along liberal/conservative/progressive lines is unproductive here. We are all in this boat together, and we will all see dangers in different ways, based on our personalities and experiences. Our church leaders call us to repentance from time to time for various things – chastity, word of wisdom, lack of diligence, racism, faithlessness, and so on. It really doesn’t matter whether people outside the church are more or less chaste that we are or whether they smoke more than we do. And it doesn’t matter whether non-LDS people are more racist than we are. I think there are probably more racists in the church than there are beer drinkers, but I am happy to hear sermons and read blog posts warning me against both racism and alcohol, and I assume those who give the sermons and write the posts are doing it in the spirit of encouraging and warning.
To clarify, the presiding authority spoke Spanish and favored allowing the Spanish-speaker to pray in his native tongue.
Forgive me. It isn’t as if your immediately preceding sentence had referred to “the Xenophobia repeated from the pulpit by Bishops, EQ presidents, and RS leaders” or anything like that.
@Mark Brown
Thanks for that, Mark.
Unless we want to exclude half the ward members from ever participating, we have to allow them to participate in the language they speak
You’re always excluding one half or the other.
Seems to me it’s more efficient over the long term to just encourage everyone to learn the predominant language, wherever they may be.
Seems to me it’s more efficient over the long term to just encourage everyone to learn the predominant language, wherever they may be.
In your opinion, then JimD, if over half of the members in an American ward speak Spanish, should meetings be held in Spanish and the rest of the non-Spanish speakers have to learn the language? Or did you mean the predominant language of the society?
I can’t speak for JimD, but I think it should be in the predominant language of the society. So for wards/branches that aren’t officially dedicated official Spanish (or whatever other language) speaking branches, meetings in the U.S. should be conducted in English.
I lived in Europe for a while, and even though a good majority of the people in the various branches spoke English, meetings were held in the society’s predominant language. I didn’t expect to get up and deliver prayers or testimonies in English. Nobody thought to pander to me either.
@Mark Brown
Well said, Mark!
@Christopher
We have a Spanish-speaking branch in my stake. I think it was the perfect solution so that everyone could enjoy Church in their own language. I’m actually hoping that I can have the opportunity to join the branch at a future date and learn Spanish. My wife has a minor in Spanish and I would love to have my children learn Spanish.
Tossman, we get it. You don’t like to be pandered to. Good for you. Your lack of sympathy for those racial and ethnic minorities in the church who would like to be able to both participate in their ward and worship in their native tongue is stunning and quite sad, in my opinion.
Brian, I think that’s great. There are potential problems with the Spanish-speaking branch within a stake (as evidenced in part by the back-and-forth on the issue within the church over the last 20-30 years), but I personally favor them. Not that my opinion matters much to you, but I find it commendable that you hope to learn Spanish (at least in part) to be able to worship with your Spanish brothers and sisters, and that you hope to teach your children Spanish.
See, Geoff, I can be positive and optimistic in spite of “obsession” with race. 🙂
Your lack of sympathy for those racial and ethnic minorities in the church who would like to be able to both participate in their ward and worship in their native tongue is stunning and quite sad, in my opinion.
Christopher, to steal a well-worn page from your playbook: you presume an awful lot based on one post.
“So for wards/branches that aren’t officially dedicated official Spanish (or whatever other language) speaking branches, meetings in the U.S. should be conducted in English.”
I prefer that meetings be conducted by the Spirit. We can save the indocrination of nationalism for other places.
“Seems to me it’s more efficient over the long term to just encourage everyone to learn the predominant language, wherever they may be.”
And after that we can worry about teaching the gospel. Glad we have our priorities straight.
I prefer that meetings be conducted by the Spirit. We can save the indocrination of nationalism for other places.
Yeah, you know us Poly’s- always putting nationalism and indoctrination over the spirit. Perhaps I should visit your leftist, more spirit-filled, Swedish/Finnish/Swahili speaking ward someday. Maybe you’ll let me teach Sunday School in Tongan.
Wow,
You guys are crazy today.
Geoff. I enjoyed the post. A lot.
Mark Brown, let me respond first to your #71. Then I will get to the Spanish controversy in which I will agree with everybody who has posted! Talk about being charitable!
But first, Mark I would like to say that that is probably one of the single best comments I have ever read anywhere. Wow, just wow. You were insightful and respectful and, most importantly, empathetic of me and your fellow bloggers at BCC and elsewhere who see the world differently than I do. And I salute you! Thank you for taking the time to write such a well-worded and thoughtful comment.
Having said that, I think there are some things on which we will have to agree to disagree. Thinking, reasonable people can simply agree to see the world differently and still get along and be friends, and I hope that will be the case with you and I and Kaimi and Steve Evans and everybody else at BCC. I know I have made some snarky comments, and for that I apologize. Sometimes things sound wonderful and witty when I write them in haste and then when I read them the next morning I think, “wow, that is not what I meant to say at all.”
I think the biggest area of disagreement between us is going to have to be what the purpose of blogging is and how it can be used to build up the Church. I just deleted about 1000 words that I wrote on this subject, but I can’t think of a way of writing it without it appearing mean-spirited and personal. Let me just say, in fewer words, that I personally would never post or write something like the “Should Racism be a Temple Recommend post.” It goes against virtually all of the reasons I blog, which is to build up the Church and concentrate on positive things in the Church. See my comment #40 above for more of my feelings on this issue.
But at the end of the day, I don’t expect you to agree with my position. As I say above, we are just going to have to agree to disagree and still try to remain friends. Good wishes.
Tossman, your logic on this thread has gone something like this:
1. You are a racial minority.
2. You hate affirmative action and other perceived harmful effects of quota-obsessed progressives (and anything that even slightly resembles such actions and policies) both within and outside of the church.
3. Because of 1 and 2, all other racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities should fall in line and mimic you. Anything else is unfair and reflects the pandering of white folks instead of sincere desire to participate on the part of the minority.
I stand by my comment that I find such logic and general attitudes to be quite sad. In response to points 1-3 outlines above, let me offer my general thoughts on each:
1. For someone so adamant that race doesn’t matter, you sure do bring up the fact that you are polynesian a lot. You also, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, seem quite obsessed with the fact that Chris H. and I are white.
2. Whether you admit it or not (and despite your resistance to the more visible implementations of those policies), you are a direct beneficiary of them.
3. I find such an attitude to be quite pathetic and sad.
I think the Spanish language issue is tangentially relevant to this post, so let me post some thoughts that may seem contradictory, but nevertheless are how I feel about the subject. If this reminds anybody of Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof,” I apologize.
–Personally I like hearing other languages and I can’t imagine objecting to a service being done in other languages, even if I didn’t understand the language.
–On the other hand, when I was in Brazil people there really didn’t like it when Americans did not try to integrate and learn Portuguese. It was their national language, after all, and they felt that the Americans should try to fit in. Almost all did, but there were some who simply could not master Portuguese for whatever reason. So I am sympathetic to Americans who feel that way here as well — it is a natural feeling.
–On the other hand, we are a nation of immigrants, and this is an international Church, and people should just calm down about prayers and other elements of Church service being done in other languages. The Church is simply trying to accommodate as many people as possible.
–On the other hand, we should try to use the Spirit as much as possible.
–On the other hand, I would LOVE to go Church in Tongan!
OK, did I manage to agree with everybody? If I left you out, I apologize and agree with you!
(Seriously– I simply don’t see this as an issue where I have strong feelings either way. Sorry).
Christopher and Tossman, can I ask you guys to just tone this down? It’s getting WAAAAY too personal. I’m going to start deleting comments that are mean-spirited. Just a warning.
@Christopher
I appreciate and value your opinion more than you know. Spanish would be easy to learn, I think, since I already speak Portuguese.
Christopher and Tossman, can I ask you guys to just tone this down? It’s getting WAAAAY too personal. I’m going to start deleting comments that are mean-spirited. Just a warning.
Certainly. My apologies for distracting from the issues at hand and for any personal attacks.
For someone so adamant that race doesn’t matter, you sure do bring up the fact that you are polynesian a lot. You also, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, seem quite obsessed with the fact that Chris H. and I are white.
It’s funny, I used to hardly mention my Polynesian roots. It just wasn’t a big deal to me. Then I realized that I’m just as as Polynesian as Barack Obama is black. If his African heritage is such a huge deal, I figure I can have some fun making political hay out of my heritage too.
So I’m not really obsessed with my heritage as much as I’m intrigued by the avenues it opens up when talking culture and politics.
As for you and Chris H being white, I mentioned it to get your reaction. I mentioned being a “Poly” in my last post for the same reason. It seems that debating a minority that doesn’t exactly sound the way you expect a minority to sound has taken you aback somewhat.
Here’s the deal. I was raised to lift myself up by my own bootstraps, on my own merit, not to feel entitled, to take pride in making myself, to be an American first, a part Tongan somewhere further down on the list. Geoff was probably raised much the same way.
Sadly, I see so many other minorities take the easy route of feeling like the world has wronged them and they deserve their comeuppance. They never meet their potential because they feel they can’t do it without somebody handing something to them. They’re unhappy and they don’t succeed.
Liberal approaches to minority relations only enable and encourage this attitude of entitlement. It’s an attitude I almost fell into at college, and that I was thankfully able to escape. So yeah, I’m a little passionate about it.
Now Geoff, I know my aggressive tone gets your goat. Our respective definitions of ‘personal’ and ‘mean-spirited’ are no doubt very different. Frankly, I like reading a comment thread where opposing parties talk some smack. I dare say the entire bloggernacle could benefit from a nice dose of sarcasm and a little lightening up.
So maybe don’t delete this whole comment. Maybe just edit it a little, because the points I’ve made are very valid.
Tossman, JimD,
Have you ever visted wards where there is simultaneous translation into other languages? It really works out surprisingly well, with just a little good will. I keep hoping that Geoff will tell us about the ward in his former stake where nine languages were spoken.
In any event, your suggestion that everybody just learn the language wouldn’t work in my ward. How, exactly, do you propose that we teach deaf people to learn English? Their ears don’t work, and ASL is the only means we have to communicate. Fortunately, the church has already considered these questions and decided that it is possible to make saints out of all of us even if we speak different languages. It really is not that much of a problem, and it has some surprising benefits.
Geoff, thank you, hermano. I appreciate the effort and consideration, and I understand completely about deleting a comment before you post it. The one from me that appears earlier in this thread was actually my 4th draft. 🙂
Actually, in my former stake, five languages were spoken regularly: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole and ASL. It was wonderful.
We did occasionally have visitors from Germany, France, Italy or northern Europe who spoke other languages. I just love languages, so that was a joy.
One other great story: at the Orlando temple there is a sealer who does sealings in 10 languages. No joke. I tested him in Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian (all of which I understand well enough to judge) and he was excellent in all those languages. My wife speaks German and she says his German was pretty good too. I’m pretty sure we bored the heck out of the other people in the sealing room, however.
Tossman,
You are the only person to mention entitlement programs. Interesting that you would bring that up. Not sure why a discussion about race has to be about affirmative action or welfare. It is not liberals who have made race about those issues (at least not for the last 30 years).
Personal I am a human being and a citizen of the world first. Being American is way down on my list.
Have you ever visted wards where there is simultaneous translation into other languages? It really works out surprisingly well, with just a little good will.
Yes, mine. I live on Salt Lake’s west side- one of the most diverse communities in the state. We’ve got simultaneous translation via radio in Spanish and, interestingly, Bosnian. It works great.
Often, one of the Latinos or Bosnians will stand to bear their testimony, which they do in their native tongue while a member of their family translates for the congregation. It’s rather touching.
My argument wasn’t that we shouldn’t extend good will to our non-English speaking brothers and sisters, or that we shouldn’t help them understand the meetings via translation. I simply agreed with JimD that where English is the predominant language, meetings should be conducted in English.
You are the only person to mention entitlement programs. Interesting that you would bring that up. Not sure why a discussion about race has to be about affirmative action or welfare. It is not liberals who have made race about those issues (at least not for the last 30 years).
Chris H., I’m sorry but haven’t a clue what point you are trying to make.
Just an observation.
I think the root of the problem is the natural tendency to organize our thoughts through compartmentalization. I sense on one side conservatives are characterized as sharing stereotypical views and assume they’re secretly racist or at least defenders of racists.
Conservative commentators have concluded that since racist comments or actions are the exception rather than the rule that the problem isn’t as high on the list of concerns in America. Though there are exceptions to both generalizations, it is impossible to talk about concepts without compartmentalizing because there are always exceptions and even exceptions to the exceptions.
In an effort to compartmentalize I will say that one of my “black friends” believed that every interaction with the police was based on racism. He included incidents where racism appeared to be involved, like when an officer in the rural South, sans warrant, entered his mother’s house and put knees into his and his brother’s backs in front of their mother and one of the officers used a racial term. He also includes every time he got a ticket and the officer looked at him funny. He would describe events in his life that happen to me and probably everyone and insist that if he wasn’t black it wouldn’t have happened because as we know, only black people have ever been treated poorly by any police officers.
I only cite my friends perspective because it is germane to the central issue. Is it better to forget race and treat everyone the same, a la MLK? Does an obsession with racism tends to breed racism? Affirmative action clearly breeds racism, but at the same time provides opportunities for racial divides to fall. As diverse groups work together I know I see that there are terrific and not so terrific people in every race.
Racism is certainly not unique to any race, though I have to admit I am more embarrassed initially when I run into a white racist than a black racist until I remember that this particular white man does not represent the white race, no one does. Maybe God created a world where race exists to see how we would treat people who appear different. Though I am baffled by David’s racist comment in post 38 about whites not being the order of heaven, it does illustrates the problem. I don’t know what events he is referring to when he asserts that whites have proven they aren’t the order of heaven, but it is clear that he thinks that the actions of individual whites can be attributed to the whole race. Or maybe his is judging the actions of every white person collectively to be short of the order of heaven standard? I don’t know, but I couldn’t pass it up. Sorry.
I certainly am glad that the first African/European president debunked the long held belief that the majority of Americans are racist. And most indicators suggest that racism is declining. As for Utah, I don’t remember hearing any racist comments past middle school when kids were more mature, though the younger kids were willing to say the worst possible thing they could think of, without restraint or tolerance and definitely not respect.
If I offended anyone I apologize in advance because that is not my purpose, maybe I shouldn’t submit comments so late, but obviously I did. And kudos Geoff for admitting you’re not on the “right” side of the immigration issue. No one’s perfect.
Honestly, Ive never encountered anyone or anything in this Church that would lead me to believe it is racist. I would view it as a problem among certain Saints throughout the times, but not the majority. Also, was not one of the reasons the Church was persecuted in the 1800s due to the fact that we were anti-slavery? Perhaps that was one of the reasons those Missourians were unhappy with us, among other things.
Just some thoughts and observations.
@RC
I agree about the Obama thing, totally uncalled for.
And honestly, I could not say why there hasn’t been any black GA, though I do not feel as though the GA’s of the Church have any racist tendencies. Remember that General Authoritys are called and appointed through revelation, so inquire of the Lord why such is so, not just Church leaders.