Man Sentenced for Beating Gay Man

It is hard to fathom how something like this could happen in Salt Lake City (or anywhere else for that matter)!

A 21-year-old man has been sentenced to a year behind bars for beating a gay man in Salt Lake City last year.  Third District Judge Deno Himonas imposed the sentence on Fa Junior Moi Moi, who pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault with deadly force.  In exchange for his plea, charges of aggravated assault and simple assault were dropped.  Police say Moi Moi and several of his friends met an 18-year-old man in August 2008.  Moi Moi is accused of assaulting the man after learning he was gay.  The victim ended up with several broken facial bones.  Moi Moi also was placed on probation for 36 months and ordered to pay restitution of more than $36,000 and perform 200 hours of community service.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Still Think Immigration isn't an Important Issue in Utah?

Believe it or not, Utah is the 2nd fastest growing state in the country (Wyoming is number 1).  This is due to 3 key factors:

1. high birth rates (no surprise there)
2. low death rates (again no surprise)
3. high immigration rates (now that is a surprise to most)

Why is immigration so high in Utah?  Here is the what the articles says"

Utah also had 5.3 immigrants last year per 1,000 residents, about double the national average of 2.8. The Census Bureau estimated that Utah had 2.2 immigrants from foreign countries per 1,000 Utah residents last year, and about 3.1 immigrants from other U.S. states per 1,000 Utah residents.

"With an unemployment rate about four percentage points below the national average, Utah is still on net experiencing in-migration, but at a much slower rate than at the peak of our economic expansion," Tennert said.

Perlich said that before the 1990s, Utah had never had an increase of immigrants at the same time that the state had an overall loss of jobs. But she said that happened in the recession of 2000-01, "and it's happening again now."

In other words, it is primarily due to our strong economy.  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705353809/Utah-ranks-2nd-for-growth-in-US.html?pg=1

Projections Put Whites in Minority in U.S. by 2050

Whites (those who don't identify as Hispanic) make up 2/3rds of the population of the United States.  That figure is constantly changing and will drastically changes in the next several decades:

If immigration were to merely slow, rather than stop, non-Hispanic whites, who now account for nearly two-thirds of the population, would become a minority by 2050, according to the projections released Wednesday. If the pace of immigration increases, that benchmark could be reached as early as 2040.

Even if no new immigrants arrived, said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, the Hispanic share of the population would rise from about 14 percent in 2010 to between 21 percent (with no further immigration) and 31 percent (with the highest projected immigration) in 2050.

Quoted from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18census.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

I find this term "non-Hispanic whites" very interesting.  First of all, what does it mean?  It means that demographers don't want to put Hispanics who identify as 'white' according to the Census (which turns out to be about half of all Mexicans) in the same group as those whites without any Hispanic ancestry.  This really doesn't make much sense to me.  Any thoughts on this?

I also don't understand how "non-Hispanic whites" can be considered a minority.  Who would we consider the majority group to be?  Hispanics may represent over 30% of the population by 2050, but they still wouldn't outnumber whites.  Blacks make up 12% of the population and are not growing nearly as quickly as Hispanics.  Asians are at 4%.  The only way it would make sense to think of whites as a minority is if you count all of the non-whites as one monolithic "people of color" group.  But that doesn't make much sense to me.  Am I just missing something here?

New Immigration Bill Is Introduced in House

President Obama has said he will start working on comprehensive immigration reform next year, but a Hispanic representative, Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois, has taken the first stab at a bill he calls C.I.R.A.S.A.P. (Comprehensive Immigration Reform, As Soon As Possible).  He is evidently feeling pressure from his Hispanic constituents.  Given our discussion of immigration policy I thought it would interesting to highlight the proposed changes of this bill:

The legislation hewed closely to some recent statements by Obama administration officials, mainly in its call for improved border security, a crackdown on employers who hire unauthorized workers and some way to open the door to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Under the bill, to gain legal status and possibly citizenship, illegal immigrants already here would have to demonstrate they had been working, pay a $500 fine, learn English and undergo a criminal background check, among other provisions. Unlike previous proposals in Congress, they would not have to return to their homeland first, something known as “touchback.”

The measure also calls for additional training and equipment for border guards, though not the hiring of new ones, and would require the Homeland Security Department to improve immigration jails and eliminate a program that deputizes local and state officers as immigration agents.

The bill lacks a broad program championed by many Republicans, as well as Democrats including Mr. Obama, to address future labor demands and to better control the flow of immigration. To do that, they have advocated a program under which people could work only temporarily in the United States and then return home. Instead, the bill calls for a federal commission to study the best approach for the “future flows of workers.”

What do you think about this bill.  Do you think it will work?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the bill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/us/politics/16immig.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

LDS Church endorses Gay rights

I was stopped by a camera man and anchor woman from Daily Universe's Daily News at BYU in early december to state my opinion on the new legislation being passed on anti-discrimination laws for gay individuals. I told them that while I did not support gay marriage, I did support gay rights. Homosexuals are people, normal like the rest of us, and stated the fact that there was probably 200 or more homosexuals on BYU campus (I think that statistic is right from our guest speaker) that were living the honor code like the rest of us. Shouldn't they have all the same rights that we do? Gay marriage is not what we do, so that isn't included, but isn't everything else they're entitled to? Getting jobs like we do? Getting housing like we do? Getting an education like we do?

The LDS Church endorses Gay rights too.

Here is a clipping from Daily Universe Article:

Professors defend Church's stance on Salt Lake City ordinance

By Jocelyn Bower

- Mon, 11/16/2009 - 21:26

With the LDS church’s recent endorsement of a gay rights ordinance in Salt Lake City, many have begun speculating that the church is on its way to changing its policy on same-sex marriage. Not so, say BYU professors of religion and political science.

Last week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly endorsed a city ordinance that bans housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The BYU professors interviewed said that although the church supports tolerance and equality, it does not approve of homosexuality.

Kent Jackson, associate dean of Religious Education, said the church is not contradicting its previously-stated positions and that it has always been in favor of equality.

“The church’s response to the Salt Lake issue was not a surprise, nor a change in direction, because it is consistent with the position already expressed,” Jackson said.
Richard Davis, a professor of political science, said the church’s endorsement highlighted an important distinction in its teachings and policies.

“The LDS Church is distinguishing between being opposed to gay marriage and being opposed to any effort to end discrimination against gays,” Davis said.

Davis also said this endorsement may be a means for the church to be viewed in a more positive light on this issue.

“The church’s position on issues related to same sex marriage have been interpreted as an anti-gay stance,” Davis said. “The church is attempting to draw a line at gay marriage, but not at other aspects of the agenda of the gay rights movement.”

The church may even be sending a message to Latter-day Saints, Davis said.

“This will go a long way in signaling to church members that we should not be anti-gay and acknowledging that the gay rights movement has some very legitimate complaints about how gays are treated in society and under the law,” Davis said.

Other professors expressed similar views on this issue.

Randy Bott, a professor of religion, said although the church is endorsing anti-discrimination of gays, it is not changing its policy on homosexuality.

“I hope you can see the difference between the church endorsing agency of all people to do whatever they choose and the church adopting a policy contrary to the revealed will of God,” Bott said.

When asked how this issue compared to when the church gave the priesthood to African-American males, Davis said this incident is different because it does not reverse a church-wide policy.

“That was a dramatic reversal of church policy,” Davis said. “This is not a dramatic reversal of church policy in that sense.”

However, professors that this is still a significant incident because it’s the first time the church has actually expressed support for legislation that bans such discrimination.

A Solution

Finally here is someone doing something about the things that we have been talking about in this class. The Harlem Children's Zone strives to close the academic achievement gap between white and black children and according to the data has done a good job so far. I commend this program and its founder Geoffrey Canada for not only trying to fix the education system that is failing so many children but also trying to reverse stereotypes, and societal problems in one program. Granted it is not just one program, but a family of programs that has been proven effective in raising people out of poverty. I hope that President Obama will make good on his promise to replicate this program in different cities throughout the country. With all the talking we do in this class it is nice to hear that someone has a solution to a problem instead of merely stating that there is a problem. Congratulations Mr. Canada on a job well done. If more people and teachers actually cared about their students like you do, I'm sure that our education system would be in much better shape.

Charlie Brown v. President Obama

I heard this story on the radio this morning and thought the class might find it interesting:

In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.

Wiseman made the statements on his Facebook page, where he declared Obama to be a Muslim. Only people on Wiseman's "friend's list" had access to the post. He has more than 1,600 friends on Facebook.

"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

"A Charlie Brown Christmas," which first aired in 1965, has become an endearing program for many because of its emphasis on the "real meaning of Christmas," including Linus' memorable reading from the Gospel of Luke of Jesus' birth.

In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "...you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful."

At another point he said, "you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........"

When contacted Thursday, Wiseman declined to comment about his Facebook posts.

"It's ridiculous for someone to send my Facebook post," Wiseman said. "You guys are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill."

As the popularity of social networking sites such as Twitter, MySpace and Facebook has increased, some organizations, such as some NFL teams, have banned the use of posting comments online because of inflammatory and embarrassing remarks that invariably make it into the public domain.

To avoid online controversies, Ellyn Angelotti, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, said that everyone, not just public officials, must to be careful of what they post on the Internet.

"A lot of people think Facebook is private so only a limited number of people can see their post," Angelotti said. "But the reality is that it can be made public.

"You've got to be careful. The same social rules that apply in real life should be applied to the virtual life."

Wiseman said his post received more than 70 comments.

For the record, I think its ridiculous to say that the President scheduled his speech to deliberately interrupt the Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Furthermore, even if the President were Muslim (which he claims he is not), should that even matter? Why is it that Christianity seems to be a requirement for not only positions like to be the President of our country, but also seem to be synonymous for decency, humanity, and intelligence? What's wrong with being Muslim? Or being an Atheist? Or being anything else that isn't Christian?

I'm not even going to touch his comment about land owners voting... thoughts, anyone?

Blacks and the priesthood.

As I was looking the through the class readings about blacks and the priesthood, I wasn't really satisfied with the explanation it gave. I looked up what my Mission Prep. teacher, Brother Randy Bott, had to say about the issue on his blog. It's not an explanation, but it brings up some interesting points I hadn't thought about.

Blacks and the Priesthood

I have been asked the "Black and the Priesthood" question for many years. It wasn't until I was a mission president that the issue became much clearer. Let me begin (up front) by saying that I still don't understand all of the ramifications on “Why God gives Priesthood to some and not to others.” However, I have explicit faith that He knows the reasons and when we eventually see as He sees, we'll be completely satisfied that what He has done has been the wisest thing to do.Perhaps an example is the fastest way to teach how I handle the question. I was sitting in the Mission Home one Sunday afternoon waiting to leave for another Stake Conference. The telephone rang and the woman on the other end of the line explained that she was a Stake Missionary and had a Black investigator who wanted to talk with me about the "Black and the Priesthood" issue. I invited them over.The investigator was working on a Master's degree and seemed to be very confident and articulate. After introductions he immediately attacked me with a barrage of questions. "Why are you prejudiced against Blacks?" he asked. "I didn't know I was!" was my reply. He said: "Don't play mind games with me. I understand you have a doctorate degree and I am fairly educated myself, so let's get to the meat of the issue. Until 1978 Mormons withheld the Priesthood from the Blacks and I want to know why?" He was just assertive enough to kindle my combative spirit a little—it wasn't like a bash session but more a spirited exchange.I said: "You seem to be rather bold in coming into my home and attacking me. Would it be alright if I asked you some questions?" He agreed. I asked him what his definition of the Priesthood was. He replied that it was his understanding that it was "the power of God...." and then he continued on. I stopped him and said, "Can we just agree that the Priesthood is the power of God?" He agreed. I asked him if he thought the priesthood was a real power to which he responded in the negative. Then I followed with a rather incredulous question: "Why, then, are you upset with the Mormons keeping a 'non-real thing' away from your people?" He didn't know what to say.I continued. "For sake of discussion, let's assume the Priesthood is a real thing. Who then would control it?" He answered: "Well, I guess God would since it is His power." I asked: "Does He have to account to you on why He does what He does?" To which he recoiled and answered: "Certainly not. That would border on blasphemy!" to which I agreed.Then I asked who held the Priesthood during Old Testament times after the Exodus. He rather proudly demonstrated his understanding that it was only the Tribe of Levi. I asked: "Would you show me in the Old Testament where the other 11 tribes, which include Judah—through whom the Savior was to be born, and Joseph—the new chosen, birthright son, picketed up and down in front of the Tabernacle demanding the Priesthood?" He admitted that he couldn't and stated that he had never looked at it quite like that before. I suggested that God has always "discriminated" with regard to who could hold the priesthood.Then I decided to help him see discrimination from a different perspective. I said: "Since you brought it up, let's talk discrimination for a minute. Up until June 8, 1978 a Black could be a member of the Church, have the Holy Ghost, partake of the sacrament, and serve in the Church in whatever capacity that didn't require the Priesthood. They could be administered to, receive blessings, etc. The instant they died they could have their names submitted to the temple for temple work because there was no reference on the form as to race. Therefore, all the blessings of not only Salvation (which come from Baptism and the Holy Ghost) were available to them, but also the blessings of Exaltation (which require Priesthood for the males and temple endowments and sealings), were also available. However, they could not become "sons of perdition" because the unpardonable sin had to be committed before the dissolution of the body." Since I had just been studying it, I knew the reference, so I excused myself and retrieved my copy of the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith where Joseph taught: "A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved."A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man."I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.357)I continued: "So up until June 8, 1978, only a white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the Lord, since 1978, you too can become a son of perdition." I thought he was turning pale white in front of me.He stammered a little and said: "I had never looked at it that way before!" I assured him that most people hadn't. Then I turned to the Sister Stake Missionary who had brought the Black investigator, and said to her: "Up until this very day, God is still discriminating against 50% of His children in not allowing them to hold the priesthood-- they are women. But (I continued), I vote that women can also hold the priesthood and they too can become sons of perdition!" By this time their entire demeanor had changed.I concluded by explaining that God's stated objective for not only mankind in general but for each individual son or daughter was to give them immortality and eternal life (see Moses 1:39), and that God assured us in 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." As our belief in and trust of God increases, we are more content to allow Him to be God and us to be His children.I then explained that mortality (when viewed in God's time, which is that one day with God is equivalent to 1000 years with man—Abraham 3:4) if we lived for 72 years would only constitute a one hour 43 minute and 41 second test away from God. That we had lived with God for countless years before coming here and the God had designed our mortal existence so that, if we would take advantage of it, the time and the condition under which we were born and lived out our lives would enhance our quest for exaltation faster than any other that could possibly be. Therefore, by trying to dictate to God what should happen to us, what powers we should hold, etc. we were actually demonstrating our lack of faith in God's plan for us and placing ourselves in a position of superiority to God—which is blasphemy.The conversation ended on a very congenial note with the Sister Stake Missionary forcefully declining to accept the responsibility of the priesthood and gratefully being content to enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood—just as the Blacks had before 1978.You see, it isn't really an issue of the Black and the Priesthood or anything else. The question is, do we trust God to do the very best for us He possibly can without destroying our agency nor giving us too much too fast and thus enabling us to destroy ourselves.I hope this short explanation will give you some ideas to help all people, no matter what color to understand a little more about how God lovingly works with His children for their salvation and exaltation.

8: The Mormon Proposition

I was watching the news last night when this story came up. I don't know how many of you have heard about it, since the film hasn't been screened yet.
You can watch the news segment at this site: http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story/Controversial-LDS-Gay-documentary-to-be-shown-at/sj1Soy8q1ECrOlL4DxCifA.cspx
Here's the text of the article posted on ABC 4's website. The thing I found most alarming about the segment was the comments by Chris Buttars (in red). As if people don't already have negative views about Utah and the Church in relation to homosexuals...
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – A highly anticipated and controversial documentary about the LDS Church and California’s Proposition 8 will have its world premiere at Utah’s Sundance Film Festival.Sundance has officially accepted “8: The Mormon Proposition” for screening at next month’s festival.The man behind the documentary is Reed Cowan, a former Salt Lake TV reporter.The documentary has already created quite a buzz because of Cowan’s interview with Utah State Senator Chris Buttars.In February of this year, ABC 4 was the first to report the anti-gay comments made by Buttars in that interview.Among other things, Buttars said gays had no morals, compared gays to radical Muslims and even went so far as to suggest that gays represented the greatest threat to America.At this time, the LDS Church is not commenting on the documentary's appearance at Sundance.But Cowan said Thursday about his film, "It provides a voice to the voiceless and it strikes at the heart of one of thehighest held values in the United States of America and that is the separation of church and state."The festival runs from January 21st to the 31st.

Protect Traditional Marriage: A New Approach

Movement under way in California to ban divorce

By JUDY LIN Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.

Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.

He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."

Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.

"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."

Thought this was an interesting argument for those who promote the protection of traditional marriage. What do you all think?

Bill O'Reilly Explodes Over Illegal Immigration

While doing some research for the Immigration debate we had on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving break, I came across this video of Bill O'Reilly completely losing his cool on Geraldo Rivera. Most of us know how explosive Bill O'Reilly can get, but who is right in this case?

Both Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly make conclusive arguments for the two extreme sides. One good point brought up by O'Reilly is, the man who killed the girl was an illegal immigrant who had broken the law previously before, yet remained in the United States. Yet the only thing O'Reilly is doing is screaming to get his point across, which is getting him no where.

One point Rivera brings up is that the story is getting covered by news channels because the man who killed the girl is an illegal immigrant. Would the story still get as much coverage if it was just a citizen who was drunk driving?

What REALLY is the issue in this situation, is it drunk driving or illegal immigration, or maybe it is both?

I'll let yall watch and decide for yourself.

The Truth about the First Thanksgiving

I just read an amazing account of the first thanksgiving by James Loewen (from Lies My Teacher Told Me) and thought you all might be interested.  This historian gives us an account of how we have mythologized Thanksgiving into something it never was.  This is in no way meant to dampen your Thanksgiving.  As the author states, "Surely, in history, 'truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."  So this year, let's be thankful for the truth, or at least the truth as far as we know it.

Here is the conclusion to Loewen's essay: 

Should we teach these truths about Thanksgiving? Or, like our textbooks, should we look the other way? Again quoting LAND OF PROMISE. "By the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving)." Throughout the nation, elementary school children still enact Thanksgiving every fall as our national origin myth, complete with Pilgrim hats made of construction paper and Indian braves with feathers in their hair. An early Massachusetts colonist, Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, advises us not to settle for this whitwash of feel - good - history.

"It is painful to advert to these things. But our forefathers, though wise, pious, and sincere, were nevertheless, in respect to Christian charity, under a cloud; and, in history, truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."

Thanksgiving is full of embarrassing facts. The Pilgrims did not introduce the Native Americans to the tradition; Eastern Indians had observed autumnal harvest celebrations for centuries. Our modern celebrations date back only to 1863; not until the 1890s did the Pilgrims get included in the tradition; no one even called them "Pilgrims" until the 1870s. Plymouth Rock achieved ichnographic status only in the nineteenth century, when some enterprising residents of the town moved it down to the water so its significance as the "holy soil" the Pilgrims first touched might seem more plausible. The Rock has become a shrine, the Mayflower Compact a sacred text, and our textbooks play the same function as the Anglican BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, teaching us the rudiments of the civil religion of Thanksgiving.

Indians are marginalized in this civic ritual. Our archetypal image of the first Thanksgiving portrays the groaning boards in the woods, with the Pilgrims in their starched Sunday best and the almost naked Indian guests. Thanksgiving silliness reaches some sort of zenith in the handouts that school children have carried home for decades, with captions like, "They served pumpkins and turkeys and corn and squash. The Indians had never seen such a feast!" When his son brought home this "information" from his New Hampshire elementary school, Native American novelist Michael Dorris pointed out "the Pilgrims had literally never seen `such a feast,' since all foods mentioned are exclusively indigenous to the Americas and had been provided by [or with the aid of] the local tribe."

I do not read Aspinwall as suggesting a "bash the Pilgrims" interpretation, emphasizing only the bad parts. I have emphasized untoward details only because our histories have suppressed everything awkward for so long. The Pilgrims' courage in setting forth in the late fall to make their way on a continent new to them remains unsurpassed. In their first year, like the Indians, they suffered from diseases. Half of them died. The Pilgrims did not cause the plague and were as baffled as to its true origin as the stricken Indian villagers. Pilgrim-Indian relations began reasonably postitively. Thus the antidote to feel-good history is not feel-bad history, but honest and inclusive history. "Knowing the truth about Thanksgiving, both its proud and its shameful motivations and history, might well benefit contemporary children," suggests Dorris. "But the glib retelling of an ethnocentric and self-serving falsehood does no one any good." Because Thanksgiving has roots in both Anglo and Native cultures, and because of the interracial cooperation the first celebration enshrines, Thanksgiving might yet develop into a holiday that promotes tolerance and understanding. Its emphasis on Native foods provides a teachable moment, for natives of the Americas first developed half of the world's food crops. Texts could tell this--only three even mention Indian foods---and could also relate other contributions form Indian societies, from sports to political ideas. The original Thanksgiving itself provides an interesting example: the Natives and newcomers spent the better part of three days showing each other their various recreations.

Origin myths do not come cheaply. To glorify the Pilgrims is dangerous. The genial ommissions and false details our texts use to retail the Pilgrim legend promote Anglocentrism, which only handicaps us when dealing with all those whose culture is no Anglo. Surely, in histor, "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."

You can read the full essay at:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1006609974,95667,.shtml

Social Issues Through Cartoons

I recently came across this cartoon that addresses some of the social issues we have been discussing in our class:
 

Lou Dobbs Considers Possible Presidential Run

Former populist CNN anchor Lou Dobbs said Monday he isn't ruling out a presidential run.

Dobbs, who resigned from CNN in November after nearly three decades with the network, suggested in a radio interview with WTOP in Washington, D.C., that he's eyeing a future in politics.

"What's so crazy about that?" Dobbs quipped when asked about a possible presidential run. "It's one of the discussions that we're having."

"For the first time, I'm actually listening to some people about, about politics," he said. "We've got to do something in this country."

Support for Dobbs as a presidential contender took form on the Internet well before the veteran newsman announced his departure from CNN, where he worked as anchor and managing editor of "Lou Dobb's Tonight."

The Web site, "loudobbsforpresident.org," launched in January 2009 to rally support for a possible 2012 presidential run.

"Lou Dobbs would make a good president because he is truly a man of the people," the Web site's founder, William Gheen, told FoxNews.com Monday.

Gheen, who also heads Americans for Legal Immigration, said Dobbs "has been more in line with the American public on issues like global trade, homeland security and illegal immigration than either of the Democrats or Republicans we have been offered in the last nine years."

"People are looking for something fresh and new," he said.

Kheen said that 3,000 people pledged over $600,000 for a possible Dobbs presidential run when his Web site launched last January.

Lou Dobbs Considers Possible Presidential Run - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Interracial commercial

A commercial's attempt to create racial unity. How did they do?

youtube comments on Blind Side trailers

copeskoalbeachnut (5 hours ago)

0

Reply

You know what Kevinactula i've heard enough. Does it really matter about skin color. That family seen a young man in need,and helped him. Something you dont see very much these days anymore. If you seen a kid with no where to go or stay would you help him? Would you wanna help that young man to sucess? Thats all they are doing. Your to high and mighty to see that. And thats sad,your the kind of people making this world shit...dont ever say you've never been helped.

rangerscowboys (6 hours ago)

+1

Reply

kevinatucla - definition of angry black man. Take the chip off your shoulder and get a life. You've obviously showed your sports ignorance by not knowing what 'blind side' even means.  I could go on.......

kevinatucla (7 hours ago)

0

Reply

I changed my major just because of this movie. As a minority I can't have this junk be made anymore. This is degrading to all minorities. It's the white people who have the" blind side" and can't see that more and more minorities are running this country as doctors, lawyers, engineers. I guess we don't have much minorities in Film and thanks to Sandra making me angry I will put my brain in Films from now on. Thank you Sandra Bullock for making me angry enough to change things in this country!

kevinatucla (7 hours ago)

-1

Reply

she deserves to go to jail for this racist movie. Once again a black man is portrayed as a gorilla who can only succeed in sports and white people are babysitting him to success. The matter of fact is that minorities are much smarter than white trash and we have more minority doctors, engineers, lawyers, business owners. The only thing we don't have is people in movie business who still make junk like this. And I make sure that will change!! I just changed my major from Microbiology to Film!