Look; its no secret; Utah has serious problems with racism. Latinos (especially undocumented immigrant Latinos) are demonized, insulted, and accused of conspiracy (what with the anchor baby stuff and such). Just recently, there was a big fuss over a Utahn impersonating a police officer in order to catch a Hispanic man who was speeding; and wouldn't you know, the cop impersonator asked about the man's citizenship before anything else (the Hispanic man was a Brazilian college student, by the way). "Minuteman" anti-Hispanic groups are increasingly popular in Utah.
Arabs, though not especially targeted here in Utah, have the same racism and religious bigotry directed towards them here as in the rest of the United States. This is despite the fact that the majority Mormons here in Utah should really know better than to persecute a religious minority.
Blacks facing racism in Utah, well, uh, I shouldn't need to really explain that, beyond pointing out that the majority Mormons might have seen the disbarment of blacks from the priesthood as an excuse for further racism. I have to give props to the LDS church leaders, however; in the early years of Utah as a state, they spoke out against the Klu Klux Klan and prevented it from gaining a hold here. But that alignment against the KKK didn't prevent racism against blacks from appearing here in Utah.
Asians (especially Indians) get the generic conservative American treatment; that of mocking their accents and resenting that Asia is slowly growing in economic and political importance.
Native Americans are really just ignored here in Utah, which is a form of racism in itself, I suppose.
But to point out the reason for the title of this post, there's two ethnic minority groups Utahns, especially Mormon Utahns, absolutely adore. Jews and Polynesians.
Utahns adoring Jewish folks is fairly obvious; Utah was colonized by Mormons, and we Mormons believe ourselves to be a sort of "cousin" to Jews, religiously. We try to pattern ourselves after Jews, and are fiercely pro-Israeli. A Mormon who isn't pro-Jewish is more of an oddity than a Mormon who is. Heck, we call ourselves things like "Israel" and "Zion". Even the non-Mormons in Utah tend to have similar views about Jews. Utah is a very positive place to be a Jew, in my opinion. You'll get Mormons trying to convert you, of course, but they won't do it as aggressively as they try to convert other groups, and more often than not, Mormons will be actually interested in Jewish culture, since our theology makes us perceive ourselves as related to Jewish folks.
A more interesting oddity is the presence of Polynesians in Utah. Because the story of Utah is, as always, intertwined with the story of Mormonism, we'll need a little background info. Mormons and Polynesians having good relations with each other began in 1851, when George Q. Cannon went to Hawaii as a missionary. A little later in 1865, the prophet Brigham Young sent a letter to the Hawaiian King Kamehameha V, detailing the church's teachings, and affirming his belief that Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Maoris and Tongans included) were related to the civilizations in the Book of Mormon. That belief has been held by Presidents of the Church (and quite a few members) rather consistently for decades.
Nowadays, Polynesians have a huge population of LDS members; 1 in 4 people living in American Samoa are Mormon, 17% of Tongans belong to the Church, Hawaii has roughly 70,000 members, and Samoa itself has nearly 13% of it's population professing the LDS faith. All in all, Polynesians have quite enthusiastically embraced the LDS church. Thousands have even moved to Utah after becoming Mormon.
And of course, good relations with the Mormon Church breeds good relations with the Mormon populace; some of our most popular LDS movies feature Polynesians, Utah (specifically Mormon Utah, but it seems to be bleeding over to the non-Mormons) has co-opted bits and pieces of Polynesian culture (especially the haka), and some of the top tourist sites for Mormons have been Polynesian cultural centers.
I'll provide some further anecdotal evidence for this curious love of Polynesians by Utahns; in 12 years as a (white) Utahn, I have never heard an unkind word said about a Polynesian because of his race, and I have never heard of a white-on-Polynesian hate crime, or vice-versa. The worst I have heard is just gentle jokes about how Polynesians eat a lot more than white people, and how physically fit Polynesians are. I've never even heard insinuations that Polynesians shouldn't participate in intellectual tasks because of their physical attributes. If anything, white Mormons try to emulate Polynesians when around them. Furthermore, I have never seen a Mormon ward (basically a congregation) in Utah without a Polynesian family, and I have always seen that family being one of the most popular family. Racism against Polynesians definitely exists, but it's quite subtle, and you have to look very hard to find it.
So there you have it; Jews and Polynesians are the most beloved minorities in Utah. Mormons especially love both groups. So, bringing this very long rant back to the beginning of this post, Utah has problems with racism. But, like in any state, a highly influential minority public figure could fight effectively against entrenched racism without being accused of patronizing minorities, like a white would be accused of doing. The very fact that Utah had a Jewish governor in the past effectively extinguished any lingering racism towards Jews in Utah, for example.
This is all horribly disorganized in my head (and probably has tons of bad grammar), but I've already pointed out the incredible racism Utahns have towards most races. I think that a person who became Governor of Utah could very effectively use his/her status as Governor as a sort of "bully pulpit" to beat down racism in Utah through word, law, and personal example. As I explained, normally, most minorities in Utah would be looked down upon for being a minority, even though they'd be better able to fight racism. Even if a minority became Governor, they'd have massive nativist/racist resentment against them for fighting against that racism. A Polynesian Governor however, would be able to avoid both the trap of being perceived as a patronizing white, AND the trap of simply being a minority Utahns dislike. Therefore, I think a strong, anti-racism Polynesian Governor will be Utah's best bet to beat racism in Utah.
Just a very long, rambling thought. My next post will be better written than this; I've just had an "off" day for writing.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Prosperity Gospel? That's not my Gospel.
So there's a thing called the "Prosperity Gospel". It's a specific religious movement that claims essentially that if you're rich and Christian, you are blessed by God, no matter how you got your money, and how many people you stepped on. And here's the thing, if you're poor, then apparently God hates you.
No, really. This insane idea that the rich, rather then being blessed with their riches so that they can have the opportunity to help the less fortunate, are divinely ordained to do whatever they darn well please with their money is an actual, mainstream idea. The worst part? It's teamed up with the proponents of "small government". Y'know, those folks who are always saying things like "keep the government outta my money". The prosperity gospel kooks have teamed up with (some, not all) of the libertarians, leading to an absurd mindset that the government taxing your money is not just inconvenient, but an actual sin. That God would rather you spend your money on selfish and personal whims, opposed to helping people through social programs.
And like I outlined earlier, the Prosperity Gospel sanctifies the rich. It literally gives them a higher position than the poor. Combined with libertarian philosophy, it leads to some ugly things. Like the constant suspicion of the social programs designed to help the poor. Somehow, someone who is poor is expected to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty, and if they can't do that even through hard work, being forced to rely on the social safety net, that is a personal failing. Think about that. If a hard-working teacher (with say, several kids) cannot provide for herself and her family, than it is a personal failing on her part. Yet, a rich man, born into wealth (or born poor, we're not picky here), and never having to work as hard as the teacher is seen as somehow morally better, simply because he is rich and the teacher is not.
Those programs designed to uplift the needy, and the taxes required to pay for them are regarded as godless. Yes, they are called "SOCIALISM!". Taking from the deserving! God blessed the "hard work" of the rich by giving them riches! Those poor folks didn't become filthy rich on their own, so they do not deserve any contribution from those blessed with more! The poor soul searching for a job, forced to rely on unemployment benefits? GODLESS PARASITE! Those blessed with more shouldn't have to give of themselves for this wretch! The single mother, trying desperately to put her children through school so they can have a better life than she does? WHY, THAT'S RIPPING MY MONEY (of which I have a hundred times of what I'm being asked to pay) AWAY FROM MY DESERVING HANDS!
MY MONEY. DESERVING. MY MONEY. MINE.
How utterly vile. I reject this gospel of the rich and the stiff-necked. I throw away this caring for gold and Mammon.
I follow the gospel of helping the poor and the needy. I hate to throw Mormon scriptures out on the drop of the hat, but here's Mosiah 4:16: "Also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish."
Oh; that's pretty clear on helping the needy. How about those that don't do so? Oh, look, Mosiah 4:17-18: " 17: Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart into him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just. 18: But I say unto you, O man, whosoever do this hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
Oh. So you shouldn't withhold your substance either. Okay. But we Mormons are a weird folk, what does the Bible, the cornerstone of Christian theology, say about this? "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he shall also cry himself, but shall not be heard." Proverbs 21:13.
Oh, well how about the New Testament? From Jesus himself; "He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11.
Oh, well, let's just say you hate the Book of Mormon, but love the Doctrine and Covenants. "Wo unto you, rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls, and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgement, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!" D&C 56: 16.
First, I love the phrase "canker your souls". Canker sores are really painful on the mouth, so imagine how bad one on the soul would be. Second, right then. All the major scriptures have the gospel of helping the poor and condemning the rich (I don't have my trusty Quran ready, but seeing as how it's got charity as one of it's five pillars, I'm guessing it says something similar).
And that's not even including the grisly fates of the greedy in the Bible.
Right then. So who is really in charge of this "Down with the poor, I want my riches" gospel? Who are the kind of people that enthusiastically support this? Who recognizes this selfish, miserly philosophy as God's word?
Not I. Not the holy scriptures. So who's really behind this "MINE IS THE GLORY" gospel? What sort of selfish, bitter spirit of a person would want this?
Think about that.
(Side note: for those religious folks that hold the libertarian view that "oh we can fix it all by privately giving to charity, despite all the problems within completely private charity; even good government can't do it because government is bad"; think about the great and wise kings and rulers in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What were they known for? For their wisdom and kindness in supporting the needy, right? Well, they certainly didn't use their own money; so who's money did they use? They of course used everyone's money. They were the government, and they used taxes/tribute money. And yet they helped the poor.)
No, really. This insane idea that the rich, rather then being blessed with their riches so that they can have the opportunity to help the less fortunate, are divinely ordained to do whatever they darn well please with their money is an actual, mainstream idea. The worst part? It's teamed up with the proponents of "small government". Y'know, those folks who are always saying things like "keep the government outta my money". The prosperity gospel kooks have teamed up with (some, not all) of the libertarians, leading to an absurd mindset that the government taxing your money is not just inconvenient, but an actual sin. That God would rather you spend your money on selfish and personal whims, opposed to helping people through social programs.
And like I outlined earlier, the Prosperity Gospel sanctifies the rich. It literally gives them a higher position than the poor. Combined with libertarian philosophy, it leads to some ugly things. Like the constant suspicion of the social programs designed to help the poor. Somehow, someone who is poor is expected to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty, and if they can't do that even through hard work, being forced to rely on the social safety net, that is a personal failing. Think about that. If a hard-working teacher (with say, several kids) cannot provide for herself and her family, than it is a personal failing on her part. Yet, a rich man, born into wealth (or born poor, we're not picky here), and never having to work as hard as the teacher is seen as somehow morally better, simply because he is rich and the teacher is not.
Those programs designed to uplift the needy, and the taxes required to pay for them are regarded as godless. Yes, they are called "SOCIALISM!". Taking from the deserving! God blessed the "hard work" of the rich by giving them riches! Those poor folks didn't become filthy rich on their own, so they do not deserve any contribution from those blessed with more! The poor soul searching for a job, forced to rely on unemployment benefits? GODLESS PARASITE! Those blessed with more shouldn't have to give of themselves for this wretch! The single mother, trying desperately to put her children through school so they can have a better life than she does? WHY, THAT'S RIPPING MY MONEY (of which I have a hundred times of what I'm being asked to pay) AWAY FROM MY DESERVING HANDS!
MY MONEY. DESERVING. MY MONEY. MINE.
How utterly vile. I reject this gospel of the rich and the stiff-necked. I throw away this caring for gold and Mammon.
I follow the gospel of helping the poor and the needy. I hate to throw Mormon scriptures out on the drop of the hat, but here's Mosiah 4:16: "Also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish."
Oh; that's pretty clear on helping the needy. How about those that don't do so? Oh, look, Mosiah 4:17-18: " 17: Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart into him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just. 18: But I say unto you, O man, whosoever do this hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
Oh. So you shouldn't withhold your substance either. Okay. But we Mormons are a weird folk, what does the Bible, the cornerstone of Christian theology, say about this? "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he shall also cry himself, but shall not be heard." Proverbs 21:13.
Oh, well how about the New Testament? From Jesus himself; "He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11.
Oh, well, let's just say you hate the Book of Mormon, but love the Doctrine and Covenants. "Wo unto you, rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls, and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgement, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!" D&C 56: 16.
First, I love the phrase "canker your souls". Canker sores are really painful on the mouth, so imagine how bad one on the soul would be. Second, right then. All the major scriptures have the gospel of helping the poor and condemning the rich (I don't have my trusty Quran ready, but seeing as how it's got charity as one of it's five pillars, I'm guessing it says something similar).
And that's not even including the grisly fates of the greedy in the Bible.
Right then. So who is really in charge of this "Down with the poor, I want my riches" gospel? Who are the kind of people that enthusiastically support this? Who recognizes this selfish, miserly philosophy as God's word?
Not I. Not the holy scriptures. So who's really behind this "MINE IS THE GLORY" gospel? What sort of selfish, bitter spirit of a person would want this?
Think about that.
(Side note: for those religious folks that hold the libertarian view that "oh we can fix it all by privately giving to charity, despite all the problems within completely private charity; even good government can't do it because government is bad"; think about the great and wise kings and rulers in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What were they known for? For their wisdom and kindness in supporting the needy, right? Well, they certainly didn't use their own money; so who's money did they use? They of course used everyone's money. They were the government, and they used taxes/tribute money. And yet they helped the poor.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)