Chuck, I never can understand the origin re: some of your jaded comments you make at times...like this one.
What do I mean in this particular case?
Well, let's compare a few timelines between 1933 and say, oh, I don't know, let's try 1994...
Working backward...
(#1) South Africa held on to racist Apartheid as official policy into 1994...
(#2) The heyday of OPEN race-based conflict was when the U.S. Civil Rights Movement brought out into the world's limelight what had been there all along...events such as Selma, AL (1965), The March on DC (1963), the way the first black student at the University of Mississippi was treated (1962-1963)...when students would intentionally bounce basketballs above James Meredith's room @ all hours of the night...or students in the cafeteria would get up from his table if he sat down there...and then also the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956).
(#3) Then we come to this article's particular focus: Racism vs. Jews (1933).
Now let's say it was 1993-1994...
...And you saw a letter to the editor from somebody in South Alabama critiquing open racism in South Africa.
Tell us, Chuck, would you try to rain on that parade? Would you get on your high horse and write a letter to the editor addressed to that person, saying: "Boy, you've got the nerve. 'And we know how racism had been wiped out in' the U.S. by the early 1960s, 'so this' [Apartheid] 'is clearly an outrageous abberation by' freedom lovers like you"?????
Would you? Would you attempt to negate real concerns and real expressions about apartheid racism in the 1990s by attempting to import another culture (U.S.) from a recent time frame (up through at least 1960s)...?
Thus...
...(a) implying that any U.S. citizen complaining about racist policies in South Africa had zero ground to complain -- given that the complaints were coming less than 30 years after open racist behavior in the U.S...
...(b) and even worse, Chuck, such a similar parallel comment would almost come across as someone either defending apartheid -- or at least trying to take the edge off of critiquing it.
See, Chuck? That's what you've attempted to do: You've upchucked upon 1933 racism by implicating & importing racism from (at least) the 1960s...via your use of sarcasm.
And likewise to my parallel example, it comes across as you either defending that 1933 expression of Mormon racism -- or, at the very least -- attempting to take the edge off of its critique!
And I contend that somebody speaking seriously about apartheid racism in the early 1990s could face similar CharlesWayneCT sarcasm re: a similar +-30-year extension approach.
I guess a good chunk of U.S. citizens held no right to complain about apartheid, then, eh Chuck? (Especially if they lived in the South). Is that your 'takeaway' lesson lecture for the day?
I mean, it's either that, or you actually are defending what the Mormons said about Jews in 1933 Germany!
All I said was that in 1933, the comments cited in the article were hardly the only example of racial comments that might be found in religious writings. And that it took us a while as a nation to pass what many people believe were the laws that removed institutional racism (I don’t necessarily hold to that view, but it’s certainly the accepted belief).
I do have a problem with people making arguments about past events by casting them in the light of our current sensibilities. The older generations don’t judge well based on modern acceptabilities.