Lessons from encountering the past

Stumbled across this quote, and felt it pertained to Friday's class discussion...

“I have, in this chapter, expressed doubts about the usefulness of the Holocaust as a bearer of lessons. In large part these doubts are based on the Holocaust’s extremity, which on the one hand makes its practical lessons of little applicability to everyday life; on the other hand makes anything to which it is compare look ‘not so bad.’ But there’s another dimension to this. Along with most historians, I’m skeptical about the so-called lessons of history. I’m especially skeptical about the sort of pithy lessons that fit on a bumper sticker. If there is, to use a pretentious word, any wisdom to be acquired from contemplating an historical event, I would think it would derive from confronting it in all its complexity and its contradictions; the ways in which it resembles other events to which it might be compared as well as the ways it differs from them. It is not—least of all when it comes to the Holocaust—a matter of approaching the past in a neutral or value-free fashion, or of abstaining from moral judgment. And it’s not a matter of taking a disengaged academic stance. It is medical researchers’ commitment to conquering diseases that makes researchers want to understand them in their messy complexity, to acknowledge things about them that violate their preconceptions. Expressions of moral outrage don’t help. Talk of evil humors in the blood leads you to try bleeding as a remedy (it doesn’t work). Talk of demonic possession leads you to try exorcism (which doesn’t work either). If there are lessons to be extracted from encountering the past, that encounter has to be with the past in all its messiness; they’re not likely to come from an encounter with a past that’s been shaped and shaded so that inspiring lessons will emerge.”

Pg. 261, The Holocaust in American Life, Novick

Is affirmative action no longer needed?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700008867/Utah-to-end-affirmative-action.html
I came across this article and found it quite interesting. It is about a law that is being considered in Utah, and other states across the country, about no longer giving preferential treatment due to race or sex. The bill is also being backed by an African-American activist named Ward Connerly. I found this quote interesting by Ward Connerly, saying that affirmative "presuppose that minorities are disadvantaged by definition and whites are privileged by definition."
I want to see what ya'll think about affirmative action, if ya'll think it is still needed today, and how ya'll feel about this bill. Post Away!

“Are the principal ancestors” vs. “Among the principal ancestors”

“Are the principal ancestors” vs. “Among the principal ancestors”

Class discussion about this led me to see if this was a generally held view, or not. I found that, while the introduction to the Book of Mormon was written in 1981, such scholars as Hugh Nibley in 1952, were making statements in published books prior to this, that “the Book of Mormon is not so much a history of the Indians as of their distant ancestors—people as different from them in many things as our Anglo-Saxon forefathers are from us. The story of the Indians only begins where the Book of Mormon ends” Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, Hugh Nibley, Bookcraft, 1952, pg 143, and “There is not a word in the Book of Mormon to prevent the coming to this hemisphere of any number of people from any part of the world at any time, provided only that they come with the direction of the Lord” See Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, Hugh Nibley, Bookcraft, 1952, pg 253.

Nibley also wrote that “A careful study of the motions of the Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites should correct the absurd oversimplification by which the Book of Mormon as a history is always judged. It will show as plain as day that the Book of Mormon itself first suggests the Asiatic origin of some elements at least of the Indian race and culture long before the anthropologists got around to it. The scientists no longer hold that one migration and one route can explain everything about the Indians. The Book of Mormon never did propound a doctrine so naive.” see http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/The_World_of_the_Jaredites.html

Also, BYU posted these comments, “The introduction previously said that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians," and the new edition printed by Doubleday says that the Lamanites "are among the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The passage in question is not a part of the Book of Mormon itself, but in the introduction, which Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1981.

"The current Introduction page in the Book of Mormon was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.," said Mark Tuttle, LDS Church spokesperson in the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. "A one-word change was made to the introduction in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday. That change takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography, which are not known. The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the Church." See http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66279

It should also be noted that the terms Nephite and Lamanite became known as political affiliations, not racial markers, in later times mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

I just wanted to point out that, while there was a change in the introduction, not all bought into the idea of what McConkie’s introduction posited—some, such as Nibley, felt otherwise, and voiced their view.

Don't ask...but should we be required to tell?

After the guest lecture, the different orientation couple, I got to thinking, 'Should BYU require students to voluntarily submit their orientation before attending?'

With the honor code stipulating that different sexes cannot reside together in the same residence, most likely because this can create more temptations and potentially lead to violations of the law of chastity, shouldn't those with same gender attraction be required to not live with those they potentially could be attracted to?

Don't the residents they potentially could share an apartment, or even a room with, be notified that the person(s) occupying their residence have same sex attraction?

Obviously, those with same sex attraction are not attracted to everyone, just like those with opposite sex attraction are not attracted to everyone, BUT, shouldn't everyone be required to follow the same regulations?

Isn't the point of the honor code to avoid placing people in temptations way?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, but I didn't notice it, and wonder what people think...

"We/Us" and "Them"

Has anyone else noticed that during class lectures, there is a tendency to use the terms "us," "we," and "them" when speaking about Native Americans and the United States?

I wonder, why do we use terminology that places us on one side or the other when discussing historical terms?

If I was Native American, would it be fair of me to say "You did such-and-such a thing to me"? Is it fair for me to say "We did such-and-such a thing" to them?

I don't think anyone in the class was alive during the policies/legislations/actions taken, and I find it interesting that we associate ourselves with one side or the other based on our race.

If we were discussing the Armenian Genocide, which side would we take?

Should we thus take sides in this debate? I submit no.

Gays in the Military?

VIDEO LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35190871#35190871

"It was the strongest statement yet from the Pentagon on this volatile issue...Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee he is deeply troubled by a policy that forces people to 'lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'"

I know we've been discussing homosexuality and how it affects those within our circle of family, friends, and acquaintances. What about in the military? This was news as of 2/2/10 that discussed our top military official's opinion that changing the policy is "the right thing to do." Watch the video for just a little bit to get an idea of what is recent, more relevant news in our society today.

More Intolerant=More Advanced?

So one of my friends in the U.K. posted a link to this on facebook, and seeing as how tolerance is one of the big issues--if not the single big issue--we talk about in this class, I thought I might post it here for others in class to see. Anyway, here's the URL:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7103354/Grumpiness-is-a-sign-of-advanced-civilisation.html

What do you all think? Is intolerance/aggressiveness/short-temperedness truly a sign of a more advanced society/person? Also, how much of the moral are we willing to give up in order to achieve the advanced (this is assuming that intolerance et al. are immoral)? And assuming that tolerance is moral and that this article is correct, are these things necessary for having an advanced society? Do we have to be intolerant/aggressive/short-tempered in order to learn to do "the tasks fast[er] and to [our] better advantage," so to speak? Or can we be moral and advanced?