Re: "Call to the Nations" Speech -- The Blind Leading the Blind Discussion Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:24:17 03/28/01 Wed
Author: cezoram
Subject:

Re: "Call to the Nations" Speech
In reply to: Bill 's message, "Re: "Call to the Nations" Speech" on 06:10:55 03/27/01 Tue

>
>Domesticated Tontos?
>
>I couldn't believe that Grant referred to any Native
>Americans as domesticated Tontos. At the very least,
>such a comment could be considered an inaccurate
>stereotype, and in fact, could easily be considered a
>racial slur. I see that Grant did not directly call
>anyone at the conference, a domesticated Tonto, but
>even to bring up that image seems rather insulting.
>In Spanish, 'tonto' means: imbecile. What a lovely
>sentiment toward the Native American people!
>
>What about this paragraph?
>
>"I was raised in the 1950's, a time
>when the flickering pictures on black and white
>television screens depicted my first images of the
>Indian people. They were the war-painted,
>feather-laden, bow and arrow wielding savages who
>lined the crest of hills throughout the American West
>as the wagon trains moved through the valleys. Soon
>they would swoop down and ravage the heroic settlers
>conquering the vast new frontier."
>
>How does such comments help bring the COC church and
>the Native Americans together? War-painted? Bow and
>arrow wielding savages? What lovely images!!! And do
>you notice how Grant referred to the settlers?
>Heroic, huh?
>
>The more I read Grant's speech, the more it disturbs
>me.
>
>Cezoram
>
>
>I
>don't blame the Indians for attacking either. Neither
>did Grant. In mentioning these things he was simply
>saying that the American Indian has received a bum
>rap, a very negative press for as long as he could
>remember, but that he knew that they weren't really
>like that.
>
>Failing to mention the stereotyped hollywood image
>would have left them wondering what he really thought
>of them. This way they know that despite the fiction
>he is fully aware of who they really are.
>
>Bill

Bill,

I don't think that Grant IS fully aware of who they are. He first speaks of the Indians he saw in the movies and TV shows. Then he speaks of what he read. Finally, he speaks of them in a light which makes them look like an ideal people who were persecuted continually for no reason. At first, his view of them makes them look as if they are always wrong. Now, his view, based on being politically correct, makes them look as if they are always right. In Grant's words, the Indians of the movies were savages who swooped down on the "heroic" settlers. Now, the politically correct view must be that those Indians did nothing wrong in their past.

I particularly am disturbed when Grant used the term "heroic settlers". If the settlers were heroic, then the Indians were cowards who swoop down to ravage, rape, and kill them. Grant could have used a different word besides "heroic" to describe the settlers.

You say that Grant now knows that the Indians got a bum rap. Did they get one all of the time? Everything that the Indians did cannot be completely negative, nor can it be completely positive. But Grant tries to convince them that he understands who the Indians are, at the expense of the Book of Mormon.

Grant says:

We cannot mask with theological apologetics or cultural acrobatics the inadequate and destructive
consequences of language such as that. Whatever our view of the Book of Mormon may be, we must
purge from our consciousness any notion that the color of people's skin is an indicator of their worthiness,
or that white skin is "delightsome" while black or brown skin is "loathsome."

First, why does he feel that he must mask what the Book of Mormon says? It is clear! Grant feels that the language of the Book of Mormon is inadequate and destructive. Yet he still believes in the Book of Mormon? Hardly! Grant, if he could, would like to remove the scriptures from the Book of Mormon about the Lamanites being cursed or having their skin darkened. Perhaps, the Short Book of Mormon has already done that!

Grant, please don't try to change the language in the Book of Mormon. It is true and authentic, regardless of whether or not you like it. If you do not like the language, then stop saying that you believe in the Book of Mormon.

So, if Grant feels the language of the Book of Mormon is inadequate and destructive, how long before the book is completely purged from the COC church?

Cezoram

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]