Last week, Pres Biden signed a law making a new Juneteenth holiday. But let’s face it. Race is still a tough subject to bring up. Is there ever pushback from black people when white people talk about racism? We’ll talk about white people leading conversations about race with Emmy award winning director Loki Mulholland.
Loki: I mean, this is just to be fair, because racism is a white person’s disease that we keep asking everyone else to solve. Now, there’s a lot of emotion involved in this, a lot more emotional investment for African Americans than it is for white people, clearly. So, that’s going to come out from some people. Again, they’re entitled to those opinions. But, yeah, you can feel like you’re getting piled on or whatever else, but why be in the game, if you’re just going to quit?
Loki: People ask, “Do you ever get pushback from black people?” I’m like, “No, most pushback that I get is actually from white people.” There are some people who aren’t happy with me that are African American, I’m sure. That’s all right. There are people who said–look, there’s African Americans who aren’t happy with my mom. Good grief. That’s all right. But, that’s not all black people, just like, not all white people are racist, for goodness sakes. It can seem like that, but not every black person is an angry black person, either. Even though the white people, anytime a black person says something oppositional or questions somebody, [a white person might say,] “Oh, well, they’re an angry black man.” I get people like, “Is it unfair for you to be hired to talk about diversity inclusion? Who are you to talk about diversity inclusion?” I’m like, “Well, [I was hired] because they’re not going to listen to you, if you’re black.” Trust me, white people don’t listen to black people. If they’re talking about racism, they’re definitely not listening to that. Because, one, we go, “They have an agenda, because they’re black.” It’s racism, so, of course, they have an agenda.
Loki: There’s more of an inclination for a white person to listen to me talking about it, because also my mother. I get that little, I don’t want to call it a trump card, because I don’t curse. But, I had that little card. I can play my mom card, because she’s a civil rights activist. People can see that. There’s something to be said about that. It’s not for African Americans to go, “Oh, my gosh, thank goodness there’s a lot of white person who’s actually a decent human being,” like my mother. It’s for white people to go, “Oh, I didn’t know we were involved in the civil rights movement. Wow.” It’s something to stop and think. This wasn’t just a black issue. This is an American issue.
Even within the Church, we have a tough time talking about racism. The LDS Church prohibited black men and women from receiving priesthood rites in the temple until 1978. Should the Church apologize for past racism? Emmy award winning director Loki Mulholland will weigh in on that issue.
Loki: The Church already is doing, believe it or not, work and reparations, in the respect of the work that they’re putting forth and the resources for the Freedmen’s Bureau and so forth, and the economic help that they’re providing in cooperation with NAACP, and doing these things. It might not be the reparations people want to see. But, I think there is something there, by the way. But what’s the harm in apologizing? This is a political issue at that point and regard. So, the reason the U.S. doesn’t apologize for slavery is because then that makes them accountable. Congress doesn’t apologize, because once you do, then you recognize that you’re actually accountable. Well, don’t we actually believe in fixing mistakes? Don’t we actually believe in that sort of stuff? Isn’t that the whole principle of the Gospel?
GT: Elder Oaks doesn’t, apparently.
Loki: First, you have to recognize it as a sin. So, a wrong was done. President Oaks is a lawyer, so let’s just be fair, and we all know that. I don’t mean to say anything bad about lawyers. At the end of the day, if a wrong was done, then yes, we need to apologize for that wrong. Then, okay, well, how do we fix that? What does that look like? Sometimes it’s just an apology. There’s nothing wrong with apologizing, even if you don’t think you’re wrong. If someone else was injured, you might not have meant it. That’s not what your intent was, but you apologize for some of the simplest things. In this regard, why not apologize? I just don’t understand why that wouldn’t be the case. We’ve pretty much come out and said this wasn’t a Church policy, but we allowed it to continue. My understanding is there’s no written document anywhere saying that blacks shouldn’t have the priesthood. There was nothing at the pulpit, the proverbial pulpit, if you will, in General Conference.
I was surprised to hear that the Church made a 7-figure donation to the Slavery Museum in South Carolina, has recently made headlines for a new scholarship program with the NAACP and United Negro College Fund, and has done a lot of work with the Freedman’s Bank records? Were you aware of these programs? Is this a form of reparations to the black community?
I expect the loudest voices here that dispute the need for apologies will come from white people. What do you think? Do you think the Church should apologize for the temple and priesthood ban? Is it true that white people have a much harder time admitting to racism than blacks?
Wheat & Tares 
I think this statement is condescending and insulting:
I expect the loudest voices here that dispute the need for apologies will come from white people.
In essence it discounts an entire population’s views in belittles their thoughts purely because of the color of their skin.
“Is it true that white people have a much harder time admitting to racism than blacks?”
My experience is not broad enough to address this question even if I were confident I understood what you mean by “admitting to racism”. So far as I understand that phrase, I’m aware of many whites who admit to racism (count all the white supremacists and overt anti-semitists among them) and many whites who acknowledge systemic and personal racism in our culture and some who suspect it in themselves.
I wonder if there’s a definition you have in mind and whether there’s any statistical survey (of whatever quality) that might help answer the question.
The Church absolutely should apologize for prior actions and policies that fostered racism. There is no shame in admitting that the Church is composed of human beings who, because they are human, make mistakes.
The irrefutable fact is that members of the Church who engaged in racism in the past or engage in it now are wrong. It is beyond dispute that current Church leaders recognize this.
Racism is one of the twin relics of barbarism that must be abolished. All organizations must do their part.
Issuing a formal apology for past racist teachings and policies is widely seen as a strength not a weakness. But church leaders seem to believe such an action to be a show of weakness for admitting what many members already believe them to be: men who have human flaws and are often products of their time.
Apologizing would to great. Isn’t that part of the seeking forgiveness process?
Perhaps church leaders feel they have acknowledged errors via the essays etc
However, until and unless they make a clear statement in a General Conference, it will likely go unnoticed by many members.
Case in point:
I know of a church employee who, during the recent BLM protests, explained to his adult children that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and therefore facing challenges in their lives on earth. Luckily, some of his children were better informed and set him straight.
The folklore & nonsense that washed around the Church & BYU in the 1960s-70s re: why Blacks couldn’t hold priesthood (less valiant in pre-existence being at once the most odious & ridiculous) is, above all, instructive. We still fight the same battles over & over again, always w/ appeals to the irrational, implausible & unprovable: a woman’s place and standing in the church (2 speakers last conference); what is homosexuality; is political progressivism “orthodox” or even acceptable; America and the world; even the reality of climate change. I do not look to the church for guidance on any significant issue outside the moral context of my on life, and even there I have to be careful. For instance I wouldn’t pattern my relationship w/ women on the behavior of JS or BY. The LDS leadership thrives on dispute & controversy w/ The World. To them, this means they’re doing their jobs, or so it seems to me.
Racism is alive and well in our Mormon congregations, even if it’s not as overt as it was in the past. It’s as alive and well as the GOP, which is FLOURISHING. Here’s an example I blogged about that reveals the white supremacist thinking, and I can tell you for sure that the person who said this does not think she is a racist: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/17/erasing-race/
Quoting from that piece: “I was disconcerted in this Relief Society discussion by a well-meaning older woman’s remark that in her belief there will be no other races in the hereafter, and that will make things so much better because we won’t have these divisions between us–they simply won’t exist. Then she went on to list these (apparently divisive) races: Asian, blacks, and so on (I think she ran out of color groups). I leaned and whispered to the Relief Society President sitting next to me “And white people. Right? No more white people?” But no, Caucasians / Europeans / beige people like her (and me) didn’t make the list of races that would no longer exist. It could have been an omission, but I had a sneaking suspicion that it wasn’t. She seemed to be implying that color itself was an impurity to be removed, and without it we would all be the same, unified–that same is good while different is bad.” When we hear Church members claiming that all this anti-racist talk is “divisive,” what they are really saying is that it’s uncomfortable to recognize white privilege and white supremacy, but they still want to hold on to the idea that white is the best version, the default. This is not comforting to anyone but white people. This is racist. It’s a deep ugly racism that dare not speak its racism louder, but it’s there, nonetheless. Of course, it will go unchecked in our congregations because there are hardly any BIPOC in attendance, and so many white Mormons don’t see that absence as a problem that points to a serious flaw in our past and present. It’s much easier to blame BIPOC for “being divisive” / existing.
@JCS what is the other of the twins?
I am in a book club that reads a lot of pretty progressive books and had some really great conversations about race – I was shocked, actually, given my community demographics. But White Fragility was a bridge too far for the group and resulted in a *very* awkward discussion and the selection of a Candace Owens book for the next meeting for a counter-perspective (didn’t read that or attend – that’s a bridge too far for me). .
Yes, it’s hard to admit we are racist. (I’ll be honest – white fragility wasn’t a fun read for me either.). I loved Joanna Brooks’ recent interview about this. She gives a lot of ideas for how we can own and remedy our institutional and personal racism without demonizing each other.
I’m finding the on-line book by Lawrence Blum, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy & Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts & Education, University of Massachusetts, somewhat helpful on a number of issues including the semantic differences that have sometimes turned what should have been discussions of racism into little more than position-taking and declarations of moral superiority or inferiority. It even touches briefly on the question posed by the OP that had me confused.
https://cornellpress.manifoldapp.org/read/i-m-not-a-racist-but/section/131a7879-0e6c-4446-abc9-e0b3a6e0f7f9
@Elisa YES on the Joanna Brooks interviews. Acknowledging our history of racism is uncomfortable for us all, but so necessary if we want to move forward (and isn’t it part of repentance—as a people can we collectively repent?). Joanna Brooks has insights we need to hear. (Also, Elisa, have you found any podcasts she has done more recently than 2020? I would listen.)
Elisa: I don’t know if JCS intends to come back to the discussion (he likes to drive by early, then I dunno, go back to his actual job or something), but I kind of assume you know the quote. It still bears saying that the twin relics of barbarism are slavery and polygamy. I think this could be expanded to racism and sexism.
There was a lot of criticism of White Fragility, a lot of it from black authors and people on the left politically. The criticism is that it talks down to black people and is a book by white people for white people. I’ve actually loved all the Ta-Nehesi Coates stuff I’ve read if you’re looking for new stuff. Also, Joanna Brooks’ book is quite good as well, and probably the most comprehensive book on the history of racism in the Church.
Angela C, Ta-Nahesi Coates’ stuff is pretty depressing. The impression I got from him was that black people have been nothing but oppressed by white people and always will be no matter what white people do going forward. The damage has been done and not only is irreparable and uncompensatable, and anything white people do to try to repair or compensate will be done out of demeaning white guilt which is just a form of white patronization. To be fair, it’s been a couple years since I’ve read him, but his outlook was so overwhelmingly negative and hopeless, you kinda have to shake your head and distance yourself from it. Maybe his later stuff is more productive, but Between the World and Me gave no prescription for moving forward. It was just a whole lot of hurt, rage, disillusionment with supporting evidence.
I’m not JCS, but I believe the original “twin relics of barbarism” were slavery and polygamy.
Martin, that’s an interesting comment about Coates. You’re not entirely wrong about the tone of Between the World and Me, but I wouldn’t criticize Coates for it. I certainly wouldn’t distance myself from his work, uncomfortable though it can be.
Between the World and Me is framed as a letter to Coates’s son. He writes the letter to prepare his son for the realities of life as a Black man. He sugarcoats nothing because his son needs, above all, to understand what he should really expect. Offering false hope would be a betrayal of Coates’s fatherly responsibility. Have things improved for Blacks in America during the past four hundred years? Yes, of course they have. But that fact is practically irrelevant for a Black person trying to navigate the lethal danger of being pulled over by a traffic cop.
The irrelevance of hope is what hit me hardest about that book. To live as a Black person in America today, you have to be tough, pragmatic, and longsuffering in ways that never occur in my life. The book made me feel that fact like nothing else that I’ve read. I felt the absence of hope. Then I realized that Coates owed nothing to me in writing his book. He doesn’t need to acknowledge racial progress because he has no obligation to make me, a white person, feel better about things. The book is not about my feelings. It’s about explaining the facts of life and survival to the person Coates loves most in this world.
This doesn’t mean that Ta-Nehisi Coates is a despairing or hopeless thinker. He has written fiction that takes quite a different angle on the world. His stories tend toward fantasy, science fiction, and alternate reality. His writing can be hopeful—just not so much when he writes about the cold realities of the world that he lives in now.
After reading Isabel Wilkerson’s “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” I started on her previous work, “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration.” It’s a massive understatement to admit I’ve learned an enormous amount about the black experience in the United States.