Discussion of Racism
yov,
If racism is hating someone because they are a certain race, then American blacks aren't racist in their hatred of whites. They don't (speaking generally) hate whites because we're white. They hate whites because of what 'we' did to them. This isn't racism, it is simply human nature.
Whites hating blacks, on the other hand, are hating them (generally speaking) because they are black (and the various undesirable characteristics they associate with being black). This is racism.
So in general, when one group has done something to subjugate or harm another group, then it is natural for the harmed group to hate the harmers for what they've done. It would be transcendent for them not to. If the first group is one race and the second another race, that is incidental to the relationship of oppression. You are mistaking the hatred for racism because of the presence of a racial difference.
For example, supposing I was waiting in line somewhere and a group of 10 people butted in my way, and they all happened to be black. I would be annoyed at them because they butted in my way, but by your reasoning, I would be a racist because all the people I'm annoyed with are black. But I'm not annoyed with them because they're black, I'm annoyed with them because of what they did. If a group of people is hated by another group of people for what they did, that isn't racism, even if the two groups are of different races.
If racism is hating someone because they are a certain race, then American blacks aren't racist in their hatred of whites. They don't (speaking generally) hate whites because we're white. They hate whites because of what 'we' did to them. This isn't racism, it is simply human nature.
Whites hating blacks, on the other hand, are hating them (generally speaking) because they are black (and the various undesirable characteristics they associate with being black). This is racism.
So in general, when one group has done something to subjugate or harm another group, then it is natural for the harmed group to hate the harmers for what they've done. It would be transcendent for them not to. If the first group is one race and the second another race, that is incidental to the relationship of oppression. You are mistaking the hatred for racism because of the presence of a racial difference.
For example, supposing I was waiting in line somewhere and a group of 10 people butted in my way, and they all happened to be black. I would be annoyed at them because they butted in my way, but by your reasoning, I would be a racist because all the people I'm annoyed with are black. But I'm not annoyed with them because they're black, I'm annoyed with them because of what they did. If a group of people is hated by another group of people for what they did, that isn't racism, even if the two groups are of different races.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
I thought tinwë's recent post was excellent, but as I sit here mulling over "what racism means to me," I find I keep coming back to judging people in a group, instead of individually.
If you asked me when my most racist moment was, I would have to say "trying to get onto a trolleybus in Leningrad in the 1980's" -- an event repeated many times. Chaos! Rudeness! Pushing! Equipment failure! I often found myself thinking bad thoughts about Russians-as-a-group on those cold mornings in 1988. That despite the fact that (as they say, but it's true!) many of my closest, dearest friends were not just Russians, but Leningrad Russians.
But when my mind slipped from anger at the people right there on the tram to generalizations about Russians -- that was the slip into racism. (Don't worry, I slipped back into being a good person when I got off the tram!)
I think, however, it's a slip that we are hard-wired to make. It's EASY for us to think racist thoughts, of one sort or another.
(Perhaps I should say, "group-ist," because sexism -- which I've also experienced! -- is related.)
I don't know how we can remake, once and for all, this dark side of human nature, but I do feel we have to, first and foremost, be hyper-vigilant with respect to our own minds -- to notice when we start thinking groupist thoughts, and, to the best of our abilities, disarm those thoughts and go down a different path.
If you asked me when my most racist moment was, I would have to say "trying to get onto a trolleybus in Leningrad in the 1980's" -- an event repeated many times. Chaos! Rudeness! Pushing! Equipment failure! I often found myself thinking bad thoughts about Russians-as-a-group on those cold mornings in 1988. That despite the fact that (as they say, but it's true!) many of my closest, dearest friends were not just Russians, but Leningrad Russians.
But when my mind slipped from anger at the people right there on the tram to generalizations about Russians -- that was the slip into racism. (Don't worry, I slipped back into being a good person when I got off the tram!)
I think, however, it's a slip that we are hard-wired to make. It's EASY for us to think racist thoughts, of one sort or another.
(Perhaps I should say, "group-ist," because sexism -- which I've also experienced! -- is related.)
I don't know how we can remake, once and for all, this dark side of human nature, but I do feel we have to, first and foremost, be hyper-vigilant with respect to our own minds -- to notice when we start thinking groupist thoughts, and, to the best of our abilities, disarm those thoughts and go down a different path.
Last edited by Teremia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Cerin, you're right that disliking people for a reason unrelated to race is not racism. However, if you hated all black people because some pushed in front of you in line, that would be racism. This comment:
I find it interesting (and I'm speaking generally now) that many of the first people to excuse black racism are also the first people to emphasise that not all Muslims are terrorists and that resenting all Muslims for the actions of terrorists is bigotry. It's odd that they can see that for Muslims, but not for whites.
Would only be true if all whites were all oppressing blacks.If racism is hating someone because they are a certain race, then American blacks aren't racist in their hatred of whites. They don't (speaking generally) hate whites because we're white. They hate whites because of what 'we' did to them. This isn't racism, it is simply human nature.
I find it interesting (and I'm speaking generally now) that many of the first people to excuse black racism are also the first people to emphasise that not all Muslims are terrorists and that resenting all Muslims for the actions of terrorists is bigotry. It's odd that they can see that for Muslims, but not for whites.
What doesn't work, though, probably, is for one group (A) to lecture another group (B) on how resentment and hatred are bad things -- especially when group B feels oppressed by group A.
Sometimes my kids play out miniature versions of this scenario, and I'm tellin' ya, nothing good comes of it.
We have to learn how to root hatred and resentment out of our own psyches, and we have to be responsible also in some way for whatever "groups" we belong to, and challenge those groups, whatever they may be, to do better.
Sometimes my kids play out miniature versions of this scenario, and I'm tellin' ya, nothing good comes of it.
We have to learn how to root hatred and resentment out of our own psyches, and we have to be responsible also in some way for whatever "groups" we belong to, and challenge those groups, whatever they may be, to do better.
Hang on, tinwë. You brought Jews into this, but you are - rightly - talking about Jews wanting to destroy Nazis and Nazism. You are not talking about Jews wanting to destroy Germans. And these are events that happened almost a hundred years after slavery was abolished, survivors of which still live among us. My grandfather's family was destroyed except for his one brother.tinwë wrote:The Nazis weren’t racist because they hated the Jewish ownership of banks and newspapers, the Nazis were racist because they believed they were better than Jews, and they acted on that belief, and had the ability to act on it, by stuffing Jews into furnaces and killing them. And you’re going to tell me that a Jew is racist for hating and wanting to destroy Nazis after that? It just boggles my mind.
By your logic, what, precisely, does Truehobbit owe me?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
All these definitions of racism have me examining my own prejudices, and I am beginning to think that my attitude towards "rednecks" qualifies.
Although, since they aren't a separate race and can't be identified on sight, it takes some actual investigation per person to see if they are, in fact, rednecks. I'm not sure what that says about me... except that I don't find Jeff Foxworthy's jokes funny. I've known too many people who fit his definitions of "You might be a redneck if..." and I despised them.
Although, since they aren't a separate race and can't be identified on sight, it takes some actual investigation per person to see if they are, in fact, rednecks. I'm not sure what that says about me... except that I don't find Jeff Foxworthy's jokes funny. I've known too many people who fit his definitions of "You might be a redneck if..." and I despised them.
Frelga, I’m not really sure what your question is. I don’t think I’ve said anything about owing anybody anything. If you are talking about reparations, well, that’s a whole other discussion. I guess, if nothing else, I would say that Hobby owes you the courtesy of not calling you a racist if you express harsh feelings towards Nazis.
But you raise a good point: in one way it is easier to talk about the Holocaust because we have a name for the perpetrators of that atrocity - Nazi - a name that is almost universally reviled and virtually noone would bother to defend. The situation changes when the discussion moves to the larger ethnic group the Nazis belonged to, namely Germans. Of course I would not condone calls for the destruction of Germans. That would be foolish considering that my own mother is German (her family fled from Germany at the onset of the war).
It becomes even more muddied in the US. It is an undeniable fact that whites oppressed blacks here. It is also undeniable that not all whites are, or were, guilty of that transgression. However, when Barack Obama talks about blacks in barber shops discussing their anger towards whites, I’m pretty sure he’s not just referring to a discussion of historical events. My guess is that at least some blacks do in fact direct their anger, and hate, towards all whites. And that is wrong, and it should be condemned. I just don’t think that it rises to the level of racism, especially not when viewed through the lens of history.
Look, part of this is just semantics. Racism is a form of hate, and hate is a part of racism, and at some level the two can, arguably, be equated. It wouldn’t really matter to me at all except that when I consider the millions of Jews killed and the entire population African Americans terrorized by lynchings and cross-burnings, I just can’t accept that Jeremiah Wright is the same thing as a racist. Should he be criticized for his remarks? Yes. Does that make him a racist? Not in my opinion.
Holby, you’re right, hate is hate, and it’s almost always corrosive. I may rightfully hate bee stings, but if I spend my whole life doing nothing but hating bees for stinging, my life will be pretty pointless. That doesn’t make me wrong to say that I hate bee stings though.
But you raise a good point: in one way it is easier to talk about the Holocaust because we have a name for the perpetrators of that atrocity - Nazi - a name that is almost universally reviled and virtually noone would bother to defend. The situation changes when the discussion moves to the larger ethnic group the Nazis belonged to, namely Germans. Of course I would not condone calls for the destruction of Germans. That would be foolish considering that my own mother is German (her family fled from Germany at the onset of the war).
It becomes even more muddied in the US. It is an undeniable fact that whites oppressed blacks here. It is also undeniable that not all whites are, or were, guilty of that transgression. However, when Barack Obama talks about blacks in barber shops discussing their anger towards whites, I’m pretty sure he’s not just referring to a discussion of historical events. My guess is that at least some blacks do in fact direct their anger, and hate, towards all whites. And that is wrong, and it should be condemned. I just don’t think that it rises to the level of racism, especially not when viewed through the lens of history.
Look, part of this is just semantics. Racism is a form of hate, and hate is a part of racism, and at some level the two can, arguably, be equated. It wouldn’t really matter to me at all except that when I consider the millions of Jews killed and the entire population African Americans terrorized by lynchings and cross-burnings, I just can’t accept that Jeremiah Wright is the same thing as a racist. Should he be criticized for his remarks? Yes. Does that make him a racist? Not in my opinion.
Holby, you’re right, hate is hate, and it’s almost always corrosive. I may rightfully hate bee stings, but if I spend my whole life doing nothing but hating bees for stinging, my life will be pretty pointless. That doesn’t make me wrong to say that I hate bee stings though.
Holbytla, I don't see what your objection is, any more than I saw what yovargas' objection was.Holbytla wrote:I've come away with the same impression as yov.
I have read pages and pages of "yeah it isn't right but..".
No.
There. Is. No. But.
There is no excuse.
Hate is hate.
Period.
At NO point in any of this discussion is anyone saying racism is OK. About all that WAS said is, "Yeah, it isn't right, but it's understandable. We can see where it is coming from."
No excusing it, no saying it's okay, but recognizing that it exists and why it exists: to do anything else would be to refuse to see that dead elephant. I suspect that many white people were shocked and, as Faramond said, freaked out. Well, tough. This was a reality check that must have been long overdue. I don't regard Mr. Wright's comments as racist, anyway. He was pretty clear that he wasn't talking about ALL white people. I didn't hear "hate", either.
Did people think that creating a holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., and maybe Denzel Washington winning an Oscar meant that black people were cool with it all? That centuries of REALLY awful oppression and abuse were no longer an issue?
There won't be any "racial reconciliation" until this is all out in the open. I just hope it doesn't cost Mr. Obama the election.
Dig deeper.
Well I am too lazy to go back and pull out specific quotes from posts people have made.
The general feeling I got by reading the last few pages were people explaining the actions of Wright and by association Obama. I read about how certain ministers of certain faiths do certain things and how the white man is scared or disturbed by ministers of that sort.
And there was talk about slavery and oppression and Jim Crow.
I don't see any of this like that.
I saw a man at a pulpit preaching bigotry. I know one of our candidates is a parishioner at that church and is a close friend of that minister. To me the rest of it is all spin. I have no tolerance for anyone of any creed that behaves that way regardless of their history. Explaining it with rationalizations to me is like trying to justify it. It was wrong for anyone of any race to preach like that. That's it.
All of the rest of the stuff I read was like reading people trying to soften the blow with explanations. There aren't any explanations other than hatred.
It is understandable when a guy whacks another for saying something rude to his girlfriend. Explaining it and understanding it helps how?
It is still wrong. That is all it is. Nothing more.
Lumping Hillary in with enslavers, oppressors and haters because her skin is white is every bit as wrong and should be every bit as villified as if she attended a David Duke meeting. Is it? No way because it is understandable.
Can you imagine me sitting here trying to explain her actions if she did that? What am I going to say? Well David Duke isn't all about that, he has many good things about him too?
You know I see and hear all the time, racism, sexism and most forms of hate. I know of slavery and all the other wrongs people have committed through the ages. You know what? I feel absolutely zero guilt about those things. I was not around during slavery and I wouldn't know Jim Crow from Adam. All I am concerned about is me and my actions. I don't care who did what to whom and when. I had nothing to do with it, and it explains nothing to me.
I saw not one Obama supporter in that thread rail against what Wright did, nor rail against Obama for associating with that guy. Not one.
Does Obama hold those ideals? Most likely not, but it wasn't until long after the fact that he spoke out against them. Up until last week he tolerated the hatred. He did nothing to change it.
And nothing I read in that thread leads me to believe that anyone is doing anything differently here. They are tolerating the hatred.
That is my impression of what I read. That is why I walked away with the feelings I did. Right wrong or indifferent.
Yov will have to speak for himself.
edit: to change a "was" to a "was not"
The general feeling I got by reading the last few pages were people explaining the actions of Wright and by association Obama. I read about how certain ministers of certain faiths do certain things and how the white man is scared or disturbed by ministers of that sort.
And there was talk about slavery and oppression and Jim Crow.
I don't see any of this like that.
I saw a man at a pulpit preaching bigotry. I know one of our candidates is a parishioner at that church and is a close friend of that minister. To me the rest of it is all spin. I have no tolerance for anyone of any creed that behaves that way regardless of their history. Explaining it with rationalizations to me is like trying to justify it. It was wrong for anyone of any race to preach like that. That's it.
All of the rest of the stuff I read was like reading people trying to soften the blow with explanations. There aren't any explanations other than hatred.
It is understandable when a guy whacks another for saying something rude to his girlfriend. Explaining it and understanding it helps how?
It is still wrong. That is all it is. Nothing more.
Lumping Hillary in with enslavers, oppressors and haters because her skin is white is every bit as wrong and should be every bit as villified as if she attended a David Duke meeting. Is it? No way because it is understandable.
Can you imagine me sitting here trying to explain her actions if she did that? What am I going to say? Well David Duke isn't all about that, he has many good things about him too?
You know I see and hear all the time, racism, sexism and most forms of hate. I know of slavery and all the other wrongs people have committed through the ages. You know what? I feel absolutely zero guilt about those things. I was not around during slavery and I wouldn't know Jim Crow from Adam. All I am concerned about is me and my actions. I don't care who did what to whom and when. I had nothing to do with it, and it explains nothing to me.
I saw not one Obama supporter in that thread rail against what Wright did, nor rail against Obama for associating with that guy. Not one.
Does Obama hold those ideals? Most likely not, but it wasn't until long after the fact that he spoke out against them. Up until last week he tolerated the hatred. He did nothing to change it.
And nothing I read in that thread leads me to believe that anyone is doing anything differently here. They are tolerating the hatred.
That is my impression of what I read. That is why I walked away with the feelings I did. Right wrong or indifferent.
Yov will have to speak for himself.
edit: to change a "was" to a "was not"
So Americans should do what? Obama should be dumped, shoved out of the way, vilified for associating with Mr. Wright, castigated for being a likely racist/hater himself? He should withdraw from the race? Hang his head and slink into obscurity?
What?
Are you expecting perfection from a political candidate or are you going with reality here? If I was an American I would see Obama as an honest man who ADMITS he has a friend who made those comments. Obama does not try to pretend the guy isn't his friend. No spin here, not that I can see.
We've all said that racism is wrong. It just so happens that I don't see Mr. Wright's comment as racist. Hateful? Just how were they hateful, in what exact way? Nor do I see Mr. Wright as being "just like" David Duke and his ilk. Was David Duke himself ever the victim of vile racism and discrimination? Were his parents? Were his grandparents? Or has he not spent his life and did they not spend their lives as members of the very group who enslaved and/or oppressed the people Mr. Wright belongs to? If you can't see the difference, then you must wear really weird glasses. And if you think that the resentment and hatred isn't going to last, then you are hopelessly - what -naive? How are black and white Americans going to move past the past until this is all brought out into the open for EVERYONE to see, black and white alike?
Don't you think people should KNOW this stuff? Do you think people should be able to pretend it doesn't exist? Do you think black people should just, you know, shrug and say, "Well, I guess I can forget all that and never feel any resentment or hatred or anger ever again, cuz it's wrong"?
If you think understanding why these remarks were made isn't a useful exercise, then I'd really like to know what you think would be useful.
I can't recall that anyone here asked YOU to feel guilty about anything. I don't feel guilty about the plight of the First Nations people in Canada, although I can certainly see - see very clearly - why so many of them hate the White Man with all their hearts. I think "my people" and my government have a lot to feel guilty about, for sure. Personal guilt I do not have, collective guilt I share.
What?
Are you expecting perfection from a political candidate or are you going with reality here? If I was an American I would see Obama as an honest man who ADMITS he has a friend who made those comments. Obama does not try to pretend the guy isn't his friend. No spin here, not that I can see.
We've all said that racism is wrong. It just so happens that I don't see Mr. Wright's comment as racist. Hateful? Just how were they hateful, in what exact way? Nor do I see Mr. Wright as being "just like" David Duke and his ilk. Was David Duke himself ever the victim of vile racism and discrimination? Were his parents? Were his grandparents? Or has he not spent his life and did they not spend their lives as members of the very group who enslaved and/or oppressed the people Mr. Wright belongs to? If you can't see the difference, then you must wear really weird glasses. And if you think that the resentment and hatred isn't going to last, then you are hopelessly - what -naive? How are black and white Americans going to move past the past until this is all brought out into the open for EVERYONE to see, black and white alike?
Don't you think people should KNOW this stuff? Do you think people should be able to pretend it doesn't exist? Do you think black people should just, you know, shrug and say, "Well, I guess I can forget all that and never feel any resentment or hatred or anger ever again, cuz it's wrong"?
If you think understanding why these remarks were made isn't a useful exercise, then I'd really like to know what you think would be useful.
I can't recall that anyone here asked YOU to feel guilty about anything. I don't feel guilty about the plight of the First Nations people in Canada, although I can certainly see - see very clearly - why so many of them hate the White Man with all their hearts. I think "my people" and my government have a lot to feel guilty about, for sure. Personal guilt I do not have, collective guilt I share.
Dig deeper.
You asked for an explanation of what I said and I offered it. I never said I was spouting facts, just telling you how I felt.
I never said anything about Obama or what he should do other than point out that he only addressed these things after they had become an issue that was about to mar his run for the presidency.
When I hear someone preach from the pulpit that the "whitey" is to blame for all the ills of the black man, I consider that bigotry. No different than a white person blaming whatever ills on a black person. It is a generalization and to equate my skin color with the acts of politicians and slave owners of yore is no different than any other form of bigotry, which in my view is nothing more than a form of hatred.
I reread my post several times and I see no place where I said David Duke was "just like" Wright. I do not equate the two, I was giving an example. I used Duke because what he was preaching was bigotry. Same as Wright in that instance. Well except that Wright used the house of God to deliver his speech.
I've have been teased, cajoled, embarrassed, hated and discriminated against. I have Irish ancestors that were treated like absolute dogs when they came to this country. Does that qualify me for some sort of special treatment? Allowing the bigoted speeches to roll on endlessly without any type of rebuke does what to stop the ball rolling? Do you suppose that there is a person in this country that isn't well aware of this country's past and the present problems with racism? How much further out does it have to be brought? At some point we have to start going forward. At some point we have to just say enough of all bigotry from all people.
You can't change history. All you can do is learn from it and deal with the present. Allowing any form of bigotry to exist is doing nothing constructive to cure this world. The lesson shouldn't be racism against black people is wrong. The lesson should be that all bigotry is wrong regardless of how understandable it is.
I never said anything about Obama or what he should do other than point out that he only addressed these things after they had become an issue that was about to mar his run for the presidency.
When I hear someone preach from the pulpit that the "whitey" is to blame for all the ills of the black man, I consider that bigotry. No different than a white person blaming whatever ills on a black person. It is a generalization and to equate my skin color with the acts of politicians and slave owners of yore is no different than any other form of bigotry, which in my view is nothing more than a form of hatred.
I reread my post several times and I see no place where I said David Duke was "just like" Wright. I do not equate the two, I was giving an example. I used Duke because what he was preaching was bigotry. Same as Wright in that instance. Well except that Wright used the house of God to deliver his speech.
I've have been teased, cajoled, embarrassed, hated and discriminated against. I have Irish ancestors that were treated like absolute dogs when they came to this country. Does that qualify me for some sort of special treatment? Allowing the bigoted speeches to roll on endlessly without any type of rebuke does what to stop the ball rolling? Do you suppose that there is a person in this country that isn't well aware of this country's past and the present problems with racism? How much further out does it have to be brought? At some point we have to start going forward. At some point we have to just say enough of all bigotry from all people.
You can't change history. All you can do is learn from it and deal with the present. Allowing any form of bigotry to exist is doing nothing constructive to cure this world. The lesson shouldn't be racism against black people is wrong. The lesson should be that all bigotry is wrong regardless of how understandable it is.
Well, I disagree with you, obviously.
The issue won't go away because bigotry is wrong. Centuries of mistrust and mutual hatred and contempt can't be wiped out by making moral pronouncements.
"Allowing bigotry to exist"? Who's allowing? Like, who gives the permission or takes it away? I'm honestly puzzled here, Holbytla, and I can't quite follow YOU.
I daresay someday, if the world doesn't end first, there will be a large degree of racial harmony in the USA. It is painfully, glaringly obvious from the outcry, uproar, anger, bewilderment, and pain, that day hasn't arrived yet. It is so far from having arrived it would seem that train has barely left the station.
I think this was the shock, this was the news that "freaked out" so many people.
I don't know, either, what "ills" a white person could blame black people for. Black people never enslaved or oppressed white people in the USA: that is the crime that WILL NOT be forgotten, cannot be forgotten, MUST BE addressed and some form of reconciliation sought. It has not been done. And until it is done, men like Mr. Wright will have a RIGHT to be angry.
Do they have a RIGHT to be bigoted and hateful? No. No one does. But I understand why they feel that way and I don't understand who would stop them.
The issue won't go away because bigotry is wrong. Centuries of mistrust and mutual hatred and contempt can't be wiped out by making moral pronouncements.
"Allowing bigotry to exist"? Who's allowing? Like, who gives the permission or takes it away? I'm honestly puzzled here, Holbytla, and I can't quite follow YOU.
I daresay someday, if the world doesn't end first, there will be a large degree of racial harmony in the USA. It is painfully, glaringly obvious from the outcry, uproar, anger, bewilderment, and pain, that day hasn't arrived yet. It is so far from having arrived it would seem that train has barely left the station.
I think this was the shock, this was the news that "freaked out" so many people.
I don't know, either, what "ills" a white person could blame black people for. Black people never enslaved or oppressed white people in the USA: that is the crime that WILL NOT be forgotten, cannot be forgotten, MUST BE addressed and some form of reconciliation sought. It has not been done. And until it is done, men like Mr. Wright will have a RIGHT to be angry.
Do they have a RIGHT to be bigoted and hateful? No. No one does. But I understand why they feel that way and I don't understand who would stop them.
Dig deeper.
Well that is the whole point. Somewhere somehow someone has to say stop. Otherwise it will be endless pushing back and forth.
Well if people are so dead set against bigotry, then where was the hue and the cry? There cannot be two sets or dozens of sets of standards. There can only be one. Bigotry can't be tolerated. It can't be any simpler than that.
I don't know this for a fact, but I am willing to bet the tenor here and other places would have been dramatically different if Hillary had been attending a church with a preacher railing against anyone.
Just more of people hating people is all.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day that people stop hating other people because of their skin color or religious preferences. It isn't ever likely to happen as long as there are people around. I think in this country, racism is more exposed in part because we are far more diverse than many countries, and we are allegedly supposed to hold ourselves to higher ideals. I am sure racism in Japan, China, Saudi Arabia etc. is alive and well. In fact I'm sure it is far more destructive and prevalent than here at its worst.
Education and time are the only things that can alleviate racism. Antagonistic speeches aren't going to do it.
By allowing, I mean letting it go unchecked without speaking out against it. Vociferously. In all manifestations of it. Obama waited until the kettle was about to boil over before addressing it. People here essentially sloughed it off and understood why."Allowing bigotry to exist"? Who's allowing? Like, who gives the permission or takes it away? I'm honestly puzzled here, Holbytla, and I can't quite follow YOU.
Well if people are so dead set against bigotry, then where was the hue and the cry? There cannot be two sets or dozens of sets of standards. There can only be one. Bigotry can't be tolerated. It can't be any simpler than that.
I don't know this for a fact, but I am willing to bet the tenor here and other places would have been dramatically different if Hillary had been attending a church with a preacher railing against anyone.
I was neither shocked or freaked out. This sort of thing has been all too familliar to me in my life. I have heard it from skinheads, neo nazis, black panthers, etc. etc.I think this was the shock, this was the news that "freaked out" so many people.
Just more of people hating people is all.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day that people stop hating other people because of their skin color or religious preferences. It isn't ever likely to happen as long as there are people around. I think in this country, racism is more exposed in part because we are far more diverse than many countries, and we are allegedly supposed to hold ourselves to higher ideals. I am sure racism in Japan, China, Saudi Arabia etc. is alive and well. In fact I'm sure it is far more destructive and prevalent than here at its worst.
Education and time are the only things that can alleviate racism. Antagonistic speeches aren't going to do it.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46098
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Holby, I completely agree with you, to the extent that you say that any form of hatred is bad, wrong, and needs to be spoken out against. However, where we part company is where you say that black people's anger against white people is "No different than a white person blaming whatever ills on a black person." To say that it is wrong is correct. To say that it is "no different" is to disregard all of the history that has gotten us to this point.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I will echo Voronwë here, Holbytla. Anger can be just: and black anger over white oppression is JUST.Holbytla wrote:I was neither shocked or freaked out. This sort of thing has been all too familliar to me in my life. I have heard it from skinheads, neo nazis, black panthers, etc. etc.
Just more of people hating people is all.
This cannot be lumped in with skinheads and neonazis. It isn't "just more of people hating people".
Anger does not equal hatred, anyway. That some black people hate all white people is possible. But Mr. Wright wasn't preaching "hatred" of all white people, as his remarks make very clear.
Dig deeper.
The paths are different. Cetainly there are far too many cases where blacks are oppressed or treated unfairly by whites. Certainly anger regarding that is understandable.
What isn't tolerable in my eyes is equating that with all white people. What isn't tolerable in generalizing and preaching about white oppression and breeding contempt for all white people. Which is exactly what Wright's speech was aiming at. The notion that it is ok to rail against "whitey" is accomplishing nothing but divisiveness.
You want to rail against people that are treating you unfairly? You have my blessings. Just don't base it on skin color because that is inherently unfair and also inaccurate. There have been and are plenty of blacks that have oppressed other blacks.
Call people out individually not in a group. I'm not part of any group and neither are most people that I know.
What isn't tolerable in my eyes is equating that with all white people. What isn't tolerable in generalizing and preaching about white oppression and breeding contempt for all white people. Which is exactly what Wright's speech was aiming at. The notion that it is ok to rail against "whitey" is accomplishing nothing but divisiveness.
You want to rail against people that are treating you unfairly? You have my blessings. Just don't base it on skin color because that is inherently unfair and also inaccurate. There have been and are plenty of blacks that have oppressed other blacks.
Call people out individually not in a group. I'm not part of any group and neither are most people that I know.
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
What gives hatred, whether it be racist, religious or political its importance is power. If two neighbours live side by side and hate each other all their lives, no harm is done (apart from to their spirits) until one has power over another. If one is the shopkeeper and won't have the other in his or her shop; a teacher who won't educate the other, a policeman who criminalises the other, a politician or housing official or bank manager who allocates resources differentially; indeed also the terrorist or criminal who also use a power to injure in expressing their hatred, then that hatred becomes destructive to society.
One ought to distinguish between the hatred expressed by the weak and impotent which is destructive only of their spirit and the hatred by the powerful which has enormous potential for evil.
I read Obama's speeches and he sounds like a man who has experienced the negative opinions in different communities and wants to recognise they exist and then get past them. In my humble opinion that sounds like a good thing.
One ought to distinguish between the hatred expressed by the weak and impotent which is destructive only of their spirit and the hatred by the powerful which has enormous potential for evil.
I read Obama's speeches and he sounds like a man who has experienced the negative opinions in different communities and wants to recognise they exist and then get past them. In my humble opinion that sounds like a good thing.
Speaking only for myself here: "The sins of the fathers" kind of things is a hot-button topic, maybe at least in part because people seek out fairness, and from a human perspective there is inherent unfairness in being crippled by a set of things you cannot control and that should not be relevant to what you are perceived as or limited to doing - whether it be what your people did in the past, or your skin colour, or something more "mudane", in the sense of being less of a hot button topic, like a speech impediment or whatnot.
I do agree with Holbytla in that an seemingly endless circle is no good - unless perhaps each iteration of the circle has a little less power than the previous and it might eventually work itself out.
That's an easy thing to say. I know.
Nothing's likely to change in a meaningful way until people, for any arbitrary set of "people", don't have reason feel threatened or afraid, or angry, or defensive, or any other strongly negative emotion.
Problems do not spring up on their own and they do not go away on their own.
In the end though, the quickest way to change somebody's prospects and the quickest way to progress forward is maybe to give them opportunity. It is a sad and fortunately rare human being who wants to receive without working. Most people, when given an opportunity, jump at it and work to realize potential. The key is in the opportunity. But opportunity really is only possible where the playing field is really, truly level. And I'm afraid that the playing field on this topic is not level, or else there wouldn't be any stories about black people being watched closely by the same store clerk who just casually glance at white customers, and so on.
Maybe at some point there will be a lack of withholding opportunity ( whether consciously or not ) and a lack of hating ( whether consciously or not ) and the energy poured into swinging around each other in a kind of perpetual motion will instead be poured in achieving harmony and balance. Chances are that this process will work smoothest when the providing of opportunity comes first. For it is the lack of it in the first place that have helped nudge this theoretical perpetual motion machine into motion. The trouble with that is that part of the reason it is being withheld ( by some! ), is fear - fear perhaps fueled in part by divisive, hate-filled speech. People are naturally driven to protect themselves and their families, and there is the fear that providing the opportunity, providing the power, to somebody who profess to hate you - even if the "you" is a categorization and not meant to include you specifically - will result in harm.
And so it goes around and swings around. There's justifications for everything, leaving aside how firm or shaky the ground for those justifications may be, for they are not all created equal and I do not mean to imply that they are, and so there's a deadlock.
People do not like being swiped with a big, broad brush - whether they belong under it or not, they are threatened by it. People who never really gave a thought to a certain situation suddenly gets touched by the brush, and out springs the negative emotions. They are antagonized, cast into a negative frame of mind that they wouldn't have been in at all if it wasn't for that brush. Now, instead of a base on the middle ground that could help bridge the divide, one side or the other has been swelled. It is this propagating ability of categorization that makes it such an impossible problem to face. It doesn't matter what the category is, it harms. "All X are Y" statements should never be applied to humans except in very rare cases, such as "All humans are mammals."
I do agree with Holbytla in that an seemingly endless circle is no good - unless perhaps each iteration of the circle has a little less power than the previous and it might eventually work itself out.
That's an easy thing to say. I know.
Nothing's likely to change in a meaningful way until people, for any arbitrary set of "people", don't have reason feel threatened or afraid, or angry, or defensive, or any other strongly negative emotion.
Problems do not spring up on their own and they do not go away on their own.
In the end though, the quickest way to change somebody's prospects and the quickest way to progress forward is maybe to give them opportunity. It is a sad and fortunately rare human being who wants to receive without working. Most people, when given an opportunity, jump at it and work to realize potential. The key is in the opportunity. But opportunity really is only possible where the playing field is really, truly level. And I'm afraid that the playing field on this topic is not level, or else there wouldn't be any stories about black people being watched closely by the same store clerk who just casually glance at white customers, and so on.
Maybe at some point there will be a lack of withholding opportunity ( whether consciously or not ) and a lack of hating ( whether consciously or not ) and the energy poured into swinging around each other in a kind of perpetual motion will instead be poured in achieving harmony and balance. Chances are that this process will work smoothest when the providing of opportunity comes first. For it is the lack of it in the first place that have helped nudge this theoretical perpetual motion machine into motion. The trouble with that is that part of the reason it is being withheld ( by some! ), is fear - fear perhaps fueled in part by divisive, hate-filled speech. People are naturally driven to protect themselves and their families, and there is the fear that providing the opportunity, providing the power, to somebody who profess to hate you - even if the "you" is a categorization and not meant to include you specifically - will result in harm.
And so it goes around and swings around. There's justifications for everything, leaving aside how firm or shaky the ground for those justifications may be, for they are not all created equal and I do not mean to imply that they are, and so there's a deadlock.
People do not like being swiped with a big, broad brush - whether they belong under it or not, they are threatened by it. People who never really gave a thought to a certain situation suddenly gets touched by the brush, and out springs the negative emotions. They are antagonized, cast into a negative frame of mind that they wouldn't have been in at all if it wasn't for that brush. Now, instead of a base on the middle ground that could help bridge the divide, one side or the other has been swelled. It is this propagating ability of categorization that makes it such an impossible problem to face. It doesn't matter what the category is, it harms. "All X are Y" statements should never be applied to humans except in very rare cases, such as "All humans are mammals."