Calling it history is a bit disingenuous, it’s a religious text. Wouldn’t call the theory Scientologists put forward as ‘History’ in the exact same way
I’m talking about taking into account the hardcore racist origins of Mormonism and how they call the native americans ‘unintelligent savages’.
Does this mean we’re going to take every piece of text into consideration or do we continue to hard filter anything not Christian or white?
Would you accept the oral history of the Native Americans, Palestinians, Papuans, aboriginal Australians, Uyghurs, and every other group that have had their history erased from existence?
Highly accurate source of information, those Mormons…
As oral history, we must give it weight and a hearing.
Calling it history is a bit disingenuous, it’s a religious text. Wouldn’t call the theory Scientologists put forward as ‘History’ in the exact same way
I’d like you to read magic stones out of a hat half as well you hater.
Agreed. But we’ve already a well-established process giving massive weight to other subjective oral history, so we can’t start filtering now.
I’m talking about taking into account the hardcore racist origins of Mormonism and how they call the native americans ‘unintelligent savages’.
Does this mean we’re going to take every piece of text into consideration or do we continue to hard filter anything not Christian or white?
Would you accept the oral history of the Native Americans, Palestinians, Papuans, aboriginal Australians, Uyghurs, and every other group that have had their history erased from existence?