Blacks, apologies, and reparations

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mormon/Missouri relations don't reflect in the least modern black/white relations. The comparison is ludicrous.

Tex, serious question. Does it bother you to align yourself with Lingo and the stuff he's spewing in this thread? Because, as you know, I have kind of admired you in an arcane sort of way.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

America did not have a monopoly on slavery. It existed (and continues to exist) in almost every nation on earth. Why obsess about the United States variety?

The Jews/Holocaust comparison sucks. Were it not for the Holocaust, Jewish families would have remained in their homes in Europe and been just fine.

Also, I'm against the idea of paying reparations to the 4th-generation descendants of Holocaust victims, so there goes hoya's "RACIST!" screech.

I dont know how to do that thing where you selectively break up a post into various quotes, so apologies beforehand..

1. Your point about why "obsess" over the US variety of slavery strikes me as incredibly insensitive overly simplistic. Maybe you are purposely being obtuse, but it seems narrow-minded to advocate historical amnesia simply because similar problems exist elsewhere beyond our borders. One very good reason that we should keep race struggles in the public conscious is that, for better AND worse, it promotes dialogue and progress. yes, the progress can be slow, and yes, there are those on both sides of the argument that have agendas. But those in society who have no real voice still benefit by our collective awareness of slavery, racism, and other societal injustices. We arent anywhere near perfect as a country, though, I admit. we still have lots of work to do.

2. The Jews/Holocaust comparison--thanks for saying it sucks. Maybe it does, which is why I couched it beforehand. Your point seemed to be an "ends justifies the means" approach to slavery. While jews would have remained in Europe and been "just fine," I guess you are saying that those that live in Africa are, for the most part, not fine and unhappy? You could be right, I have no way of proving how people in Africa feel about living in Africa. I know plenty of Americans that are unhappy here, too. Doesnt mean that it is not a great place to live. I have a feeling many Africans are happy to live in their home countries. Also, had jews remained in Europe and been just fine, would there have been an Israel? I don't know.

3. Why would the US pay reparations to Holocaust victims? I know that there was a recent case in LA where a holocaust decendant living locally was able to procure lost art that the Nazi's stole during the War. The art recently surfaced in Europe and this woman staked her claim to it. But the US was not a party to the litigation. I cant imagine anyone asking the US to pay them for what happened in the Holocaust.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mormon/Missouri relations don't reflect in the least modern black/white relations. The comparison is ludicrous.

This was not the point of the comparison.

The response was to YOhio's reference to the effect of government-sanctioned apologies....that, true, they do not right past injustices, but they do allow for a measure of some soothing.

The Missouri apology is the same way. Just because you didnt care about it doesnt mean others in the Church did not. I have a feeling many did. Perhaps you are asserting that everyone feels as you do and found the Missouri apology to be hollow and meaningless?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont know how to do that thing where you selectively break up a post into various quotes, so apologies beforehand..

1. Your point about why "obsess" over the US variety of slavery strikes me as incredibly insensitive overly simplistic. Maybe you are purposely being obtuse, but it seems narrow-minded to advocate historical amnesia simply because similar problems exist elsewhere beyond our borders. One very good reason that we should keep race struggles in the public conscious is that, for better AND worse, it promotes dialogue and progress. yes, the progress can be slow, and yes, there are those on both sides of the argument that have agendas. But those in society who have no real voice still benefit by our collective awareness of slavery, racism, and other societal injustices. We arent anywhere near perfect as a country, though, I admit. we still have lots of work to do.

2. The Jews/Holocaust comparison--thanks for saying it sucks. Maybe it does, which is why I couched it beforehand. Your point seemed to be an "ends justifies the means" approach to slavery. While jews would have remained in Europe and been "just fine," I guess you are saying that those that live in Africa are, for the most part, not fine and unhappy? You could be right, I have no way of proving how people in Africa feel about living in Africa. I know plenty of Americans that are unhappy here, too. Doesnt mean that it is not a great place to live. I have a feeling many Africans are happy to live in their home countries. Also, had jews remained in Europe and been just fine, would there have been an Israel? I don't know.

3. Why would the US pay reparations to Holocaust victims? I know that there was a recent case in LA where a holocaust decendant living locally was able to procure lost art that the Nazi's stole during the War. The art recently surfaced in Europe and this woman staked her claim to it. But the US was not a party to the litigation. I cant imagine anyone asking the US to pay them for what happened in the Holocaust.

This is far more than caca like Lingo deserves. He dosen't deserve to be treated seriously, including any efforts at enlightenment. I would try to scrape him off my shoe and move on. You have a bigger heart than I do, DDD.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mormon/Missouri relations don't reflect in the least modern black/white relations. The comparison is ludicrous.

Why is the comparison ludicrous? If anything, Mormons deserve less of an apology today than blacks do from government bodies. Mormons were driven out of their homes and killed. Blacks were taken from their homes, shipped to a foreign land, enslaved, beaten, killed, raped, and legislatively treated as property.

Mormons today have no problems living in Illinois. Blacks today are still persecuted and discriminated against.

If anything, the comparison is "ludicrous" because it shows just how inconsequential Mormon suffering was to black suffering in comparison.

And yet, how did Mormon leaders react to the apology? With approval and thankfulness. Here is what President Hinckley said in conference in 2004:

"We are pleased to note that on April 1 of this year, the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution of regret for the forced expulsion of our people from Nauvoo in 1846. This magnanimous gesture may be coupled with action taken by then Governor Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who in 1976 revoked the cruel and unconstitutional extermination order issued against our people by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838."

"These and other developments represent a most significant change of attitude toward the Latter-day Saints."

If an apology meant that much to Mormons, what could it mean to blacks today?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is the comparison ludicrous? If anything, Mormons deserve less of an apology today than blacks do from government bodies. Mormons were driven out of their homes and killed. Blacks were taken from their homes, shipped to a foreign land, enslaved, beaten, killed, raped, and legislatively treated as property.

Mormons today have no problems living in Illinois. Blacks today are still persecuted and discriminated against.

If anything, the comparison is "ludicrous" because it shows just how inconsequential Mormon suffering was to black suffering in comparison.

And yet, how did Mormon leaders react to the apology? With approval and thankfulness. Here is what President Hinckley said in conference in 2004:

"We are pleased to note that on April 1 of this year, the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution of regret for the forced expulsion of our people from Nauvoo in 1846. This magnanimous gesture may be coupled with action taken by then Governor Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who in 1976 revoked the cruel and unconstitutional extermination order issued against our people by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838."

"These and other developments represent a most significant change of attitude toward the Latter-day Saints."

If an apology meant that much to Mormons, what could it mean to blacks today?

I would expect President Hinckley to be gracious. But as for me and my house, big friggin' deal.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex, serious question. Does it bother you to align yourself with Lingo and the stuff he's spewing in this thread?

Are we?

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This was not the point of the comparison.

It was to Cali.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I would expect President Hinckley to be gracious. But as for me and my house, big friggin' deal.

In general, if a certain resolution of an issue is totally irrelevant to one person, but highly relevant to another person, and both are asked if the issue should be resolved in that manner, it seems prudent that both should agree that such resolution is acceptable.

[JohnnyLingo]

This is far more than caca like Lingo deserves. He dosen't deserve to be treated seriously, including any efforts at enlightenment. I would try to scrape him off my shoe and move on.

For a place that's supposed to promote open discussion, this attitude is shockingly prevalent here at the good ol' Cougarguard.

I dont know how to do that thing where you selectively break up a post into various quotes, so apologies beforehand..

1. Your point about why "obsess" over the US variety of slavery strikes me as incredibly insensitive overly simplistic. Maybe you are purposely being obtuse, but it seems narrow-minded to advocate historical amnesia simply because similar problems exist elsewhere beyond our borders. One very good reason that we should keep race struggles in the public conscious is that, for better AND worse, it promotes dialogue and progress. yes, the progress can be slow, and yes, there are those on both sides of the argument that have agendas. But those in society who have no real voice still benefit by our collective awareness of slavery, racism, and other societal injustices. We arent anywhere near perfect as a country, though, I admit. we still have lots of work to do.

I'm not a fan of the idea that we need to keep race struggles in the public consciousness. I'm not advocating historical amnesia; we need to remember the past, if just to avoid making the same mistakes over and over.

But I don't think we can ever heal as a nation if we keep picking at the scab of slavery. Looking at the scar is not the same as ripping the stitches open over and over again, if that analogy makes any sense.

2. The Jews/Holocaust comparison--thanks for saying it sucks. Maybe it does, which is why I couched it beforehand. Your point seemed to be an "ends justifies the means" approach to slavery. While jews would have remained in Europe and been "just fine," I guess you are saying that those that live in Africa are, for the most part, not fine and unhappy? You could be right, I have no way of proving how people in Africa feel about living in Africa. I know plenty of Americans that are unhappy here, too. Doesnt mean that it is not a great place to live. I have a feeling many Africans are happy to live in their home countries. Also, had jews remained in Europe and been just fine, would there have been an Israel? I don't know.

I definitely do not believe in an "ends justify the means" viewpoint in regards to slavery. I don't believe slavery was good because it brought individuals to America, a land of great freedoms and opportunity.

I'm not even saying Africans aren't happy, because that phrase is too universal to make sense. In terms of happiness, the average African is probably more satisfied with their life than the average American is.

But if being here is so much worse than being in Africa, no one is stopping Americans from moving.

3. Why would the US pay reparations to Holocaust victims? I know that there was a recent case in LA where a holocaust decendant living locally was able to procure lost art that the Nazi's stole during the War. The art recently surfaced in Europe and this woman staked her claim to it. But the US was not a party to the litigation. I cant imagine anyone asking the US to pay them for what happened in the Holocaust.

We wouldn't... I was thinking Germans. Either way, I don't like the idea of reparations happening several generations down the road. Every person has control of their own life... yes our parents and grandparents affect us, but the farther back that line goes, the less that's true.

Mormons today have no problems living in Illinois. Blacks today are still persecuted and discriminated against.

Bwahaha... Mormons never experience prejudice. Funny.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is the comparison ludicrous? If anything, Mormons deserve less of an apology today than blacks do from government bodies. Mormons were driven out of their homes and killed. Blacks were taken from their homes, shipped to a foreign land, enslaved, beaten, killed, raped, and legislatively treated as property.

Mormons today have no problems living in Illinois. Blacks today are still persecuted and discriminated against.

If anything, the comparison is "ludicrous" because it shows just how inconsequential Mormon suffering was to black suffering in comparison.

And yet, how did Mormon leaders react to the apology? With approval and thankfulness. Here is what President Hinckley said in conference in 2004:

"We are pleased to note that on April 1 of this year, the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution of regret for the forced expulsion of our people from Nauvoo in 1846. This magnanimous gesture may be coupled with action taken by then Governor Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who in 1976 revoked the cruel and unconstitutional extermination order issued against our people by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838."

"These and other developments represent a most significant change of attitude toward the Latter-day Saints."

If an apology meant that much to Mormons, what could it mean to blacks today?

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 ...