Blacks, apologies, and reparations

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hinckley was being polite, like when George Bush attends the unveiling of Bill Clinton's White House portrait. I don't expect him to look at Missouri and go, "Na, und?"

Again, your comparison is flawed. The church's relationship with Missouri bears no resemblence to the still-tense relationship between American blacks and whites.

I honestly can't believe you're arguing this. Just when I think you couldn't be more silly ...

Being polite? Wow- so you are willing to "spin" the prophets words too, eh? After all you have said about others doing the same thing with his words?

What Hinckley did was far more than "being polite." He reportedly cried upon hearing the news that the Illinois legislature had passed the resolution. He was so touched by it that he brought it up later in General Conference when discussing reasons why the church is doing so well. He sent both of his counselors to meet with the delegation from Illinois and express the thanks of the First Presidency. It was a big moment for him and the church, notwithstanding your obstinancy.

You don't get it. Fine. But others do, and it is important for them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Being polite? Wow- so you are willing to "spin" the prophets words too, eh? After all you have said about others doing the same thing with his words?

What Hinckley did was far more than "being polite." He reportedly cried upon hearing the news that the Illinois legislature had passed the resolution. He was so touched by it that he brought it up later in General Conference when discussing reasons why the church is doing so well. He sent both of his counselors to meet with the delegation from Illinois and express the thanks of the First Presidency. It was a big moment for him and the church, notwithstanding your obstinancy.

You don't get it. Fine. But others do, and it is important for them.

Perhaps I was too trite as it concerns President Hinckley. Perhaps the gesture genuinely moved him. Good for him. I don't doubt some blacks would be similiarly moved.

The point remains with them, just like with Mormons/Missouri, that it is nothing more than a meaningless symbolic gesture. Mormons are/were not being oppressed in Missouri. Blacks are not enslaved. No amount of gushing from some state or federal legislature changes that.

Moreover, race relations in America are still very tense (the point where the Mormon/Missouri comparison loses steam). Blacks, who rightly demanded equal protection the beginning, have continued to try and take more and more ground, until I think they go too far. Hence, we have the Affirmative Action backlash.

I see an apology as just another way for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the like to begin a fresh shake down of American White Guilt. And it's a guilt that no clear-thinking non-racist white person should have to feel. And it reminds blacks of a time when whites did in truth oppress them, an oppression some of them still think they feel today.

Thus I think regardless of what "soothing" such an apology might offer to some, it may not be worth the political capital spent to acheive it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps I was too trite as it concerns President Hinckley. Perhaps the gesture genuinely moved him. Good for him. I don't doubt some blacks would be similiarly moved.

The point remains with them, just like with Mormons/Missouri, that it is nothing more than a meaningless symbolic gesture. Mormons are/were not being oppressed in Missouri. Blacks are not enslaved. No amount of gushing from some state or federal legislature changes that.

Moreover, race relations in America are still very tense (the point where the Mormon/Missouri comparison loses steam). Blacks, who rightly demanded equal protection the beginning, have continued to try and take more and more ground, until I think they go too far. Hence, we have the Affirmative Action backlash.

I see an apology as just another way for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the like to begin a fresh shake down of American White Guilt. And it's a guilt that no clear-thinking non-racist white person should have to feel. And it reminds blacks of a time when whites did in truth oppress them, an oppression some of them still think they feel today.

Thus I think regardless of what "soothing" such an apology might offer to some, it may not be worth the political capital spent to acheive it.

Hmm. A meaningless symbolic gesture? How can you have a meaningless symbol?

[MikeWaters]

Here is one of the sad ironies of life: mullahs never feel any guilt about anything.

But non-mullah thoughtful people often do feel a lot of guilt about a lot of little things.

This thread is a perfect representation of that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Hmm. A meaningless symbolic gesture? How can you have a meaningless symbol?

Heh. Ok. A symbolic gesture with no tangible results. Meaningless in terms of real impact.

Better?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps I was too trite as it concerns President Hinckley. Perhaps the gesture genuinely moved him. Good for him. I don't doubt some blacks would be similiarly moved.

The point remains with them, just like with Mormons/Missouri, that it is nothing more than a meaningless symbolic gesture. Mormons are/were not being oppressed in Missouri. Blacks are not enslaved. No amount of gushing from some state or federal legislature changes that.

Moreover, race relations in America are still very tense (the point where the Mormon/Missouri comparison loses steam). Blacks, who rightly demanded equal protection the beginning, have continued to try and take more and more ground, until I think they go too far. Hence, we have the Affirmative Action backlash.

I see an apology as just another way for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the like to begin a fresh shake down of American White Guilt. And it's a guilt that no clear-thinking non-racist white person should have to feel. And it reminds blacks of a time when whites did in truth oppress them, an oppression some of them still think they feel today.

Thus I think regardless of what "soothing" such an apology might offer to some, it may not be worth the political capital spent to acheive it.

Meaningless to YOU. That doesn't make it meaningless to everyone else. Many clear thinking rational individuals would find such a statement by the government moving and healing.

If you are opposed to an apology based on what other measures it might prompt, may I suggest being in favor of the apology and opposed to such other measures. I haven't heard of a serious movement for reparations for LDS people following Illinois' expression of regret. The US Congress has passed resolutions of regret numerous times in this nation's history. I doubt any of those expressions of regret dealt with a topic that deserved such an expression more than slavery.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh. Ok. A symbolic gesture with no tangible results. Meaningless in terms of real impact.

Better?

And yet you continue to argue it will have a negative impact.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Here is one of the sad ironies of life: mullahs never feel any guilt about anything.

But non-mullah thoughtful people often do feel a lot of guilt about a lot of little things.

This thread is a perfect representation of that.

I'm trying in vain to recall seeing you feel guilty about anything.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm trying in vain to recall seeing you feel guilty about anything.

I feel guilty about a lot of things:

not praying enough, not reading scriptures enough, slacking in my calling, not hometeaching enough, etc, etc.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I feel guilty about a lot of things:

not praying enough, not reading scriptures enough, slacking in my calling, not hometeaching enough, etc, etc.

As well you should.