BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Race, hegemony and diversity

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Mr Tricks
23:19 / 13.04.06
Subnaut, for someone who consistently claims to change their mind and second guess their ideas the majority of your recent posts on this thread have been disturbingly consistent.

Can I suggest that you read through the other threads that have touched on this subject to varying degrees?
Whiteness
Colored -> Black -> African-American -> Person of Color
Wealth, Power and Race - is it just that the white guys want some things more?
When a Red Indian is not a Red Indian and other un-PC terminology.

it may be that reading these tread might she ad more light on your assumptions and opinion than the dialogue as it's proceeding here.

In my experience, those who benefit from racism (as defined by (id)entity earlier -great posts BTW) knowingly or ignorantly seem to argue against the efforts involved in eliminating it. Might this be an externalization of knowing one has something to loose in a restructured paradigm? Witnessing the racist structure of society as it is, even in passing, will ultimately force the decision to either support the continuance of that structure or begin the long long process of dismantling it.

In this light Language is one of many fronts upon which this pull and push is constantly happening. Take heart, at least language is one of the safer arenas history has provided for this conflict. Which would you choose? the potential embarrassment of "questioning/correcting" some one's use of a phrase at a party or registering "black voters" in Alabama circa 1960.

On a personal level, if we focus on our own behavior, we have the problem that we'll always get closer but never there. But maybe this is how it has to be? I don't know.

Not sure what that means. But I'll see it and raise you a Zen koan:
    Before enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying waterAfter enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water


I mean, if we're concentrating on pointing out and scolding racist action we may
-behave injustly towards those exhibiting it, or
-see it where it isn't, which if pointed out becomes racist action of its own accord (like the accidental double-entendre repeated or quoted)

Both of these concerns read as somewhat trivial insecurities in light of the greater injustice of generations of racism. Is it the Nobel ignorance fantasy that makes you want to not risk offending the individual perpetuating racism in a manor "louder" than the ambient societal level? Might there be a greater injustice in staying silent and allowing this person to either
  1. (best case?) Continue to live in ignorance
  2. (worst case?) Find renewed comfort in their use of bolder racism


Today, in this day and age doubt it would even be possible to see racism where it wasn't. First you'd have to accept that society (in the US) was founded on racist principles and continued to resist every effort made towards abolishing those principles in function and concept. Just look at any newspaper, there's plenty of evidence everywhere; Katrina or senate bill HR 4437.

That pointing out a potential racist action becoming one thing also reads as an excess of privilege.


-non-racist behaviours should be chosen wherever possible over racist behaviours, and
-a more equal society and more equal interactions between human beings will be assisted by a reduction in behaviours that favour inequality.
As such, a person who exhibits racist behaviour out of ignorance does not violate the first, but is not assisting the goal of the second.

I think I have a problem with "wherever possible" it reads more to me like "whenever convenient." When can you possibly justify that racist behavior was the only option available? This Nobel Ignoramus you seem to continue to rely on is become more and more hollow. If a person make a poor choice of phrase they need to be corrected, simple and clear. If a person takes a racist action then there's really no excuse, there is a potential for harm to come from that action and it must be addressed as such.

I'm arguing with the idea "I'm better because I'm not racist"

Well putting aside any thoughts that everyone is racist to different degrees, I might have to argue against your argument. If a racist is someone who's actions support/rely upon and reinforce a system that provides oppression to a group of people, then how could you place this person on equal footing with another person who does not?

Perhaps that statement should be examined more closely. Is the "I" who is "better" better then before, when they were racist? "Better" in what way?
 
 
Spaniel
08:40 / 14.04.06
Also it really doesn't matter who is the better human being overall (if such a thing can be measured - which it can't) it matters that some bad in the world is being stamped out. Just because I might be an absolute git to my family, doesn't mean that my efforts to defeat racism aren't worthwhile, useful and decent.
 
 
the permuted man
14:10 / 14.04.06
Ok, first, I'll try to read the linked threads when I get a chance. I'm on the third page of the PC thread, and will get to them in turn.

Are you being deliberately silly?

Yes, I was.

could you unpack all that stuff about nationalism and how it differs from racism?

I'm probably misusing the word. I'm looking for the analogue of racism regarding immigrants and often extended to foreigners in general.

Especially if you can do so with reference to the definition of racism I gave a few posts ago

racism— the products of racial prejudice that reinforce and are reinforced by the extant racial hierarchy

I'm afraid to rearrange the definition especially without a good word to use instead of racial. In Russia, there were a lot of unemployed too proud to take the jobs designated for those of Romani or Khazakstanian origin. The resulting free time was usually diverted to mob work, skinhead groups, drunkeness, or some combination. The skinheads mainly target people who "look" different, so 3rd generation Khazakstanians are as much at risk as visiting Chinese students. Many Americans I knew could "pass" (you'd have to buy new clothes obviously), but many couldn't either. One guy I knew from Texas was forced to watch a home video of a gang beating two foreigners to death (he knew one of the skinheads because it was his tutor's son). I feel like I'm openening up way too many tangents, so I need to get back on track. Regarding Japan, it's a different situation, but I think just as bad.

Orange, wow, I want to comment on nearly every sentence you wrote.

see it where it isn't, which if pointed out becomes racist action of its own accord

Tons of examples. Dividing up on a task, say camping:
A: Ok, B and C, pitch tents; D and I'll gather some firewood; E prepping food.
D: You only picked E because they're XXX

So if D is seeing it where it isn't they're creating it.

There are more and less effective (and hypocritical) ways to educate people like this, but the basic idea doesn't seem to me to be a bad one

I agree. The information should be available at the library and on the internet. I don't think it should be withheld if someone asks you about it either. If you know the person well enough, more direct approaches are also warranted.

Perhaps that statement should be examined more closely. Is the "I" who is "better" better then before, when they were racist? "Better" in what way?

To answer:

If a racist is someone who's actions support/rely upon and reinforce a system that provides oppression to a group of people, then how could you place this person on equal footing with another person who does not?

That's precisely what I mean. People think they are better than people who exhibit more racist behavior than them.

I think I have a problem with "wherever possible" it reads more to me like "whenever convenient

It wasn't even my wording originally! It's never the only option available, but sometimes the only perceived option.

Also it really doesn't matter who is the better human being overall (if such a thing can be measured - which it can't) it matters that some bad in the world is being stamped out.

It can't be measured. All my uses of it (I hope) have been regarding a perception of inequality.

Just because I might be an absolute git to my family, doesn't mean that my efforts to defeat racism aren't worthwhile, useful and decent.

I think I understand what you mean. Not that if your efforts included executing offenders or inciting it to raise awareness they would still be decent; but rather (gulp) a bad person can do good things? Or better worded: a person can do bad and good things.
 
 
Spaniel
14:23 / 14.04.06
Well, I'm not sure how relevent that little aside is to this discussion, but I'm of the opinion that a good deed is (usually) a good deed regardless of who commits it and whether they also do bad things, and vice versa.
 
 
the permuted man
14:39 / 14.04.06
I agree, but it seems here

Also it really doesn't matter who is the better human being overall (if such a thing can be measured - which it can't) it matters that some bad in the world is being stamped out

you might be trying to set up some sort of justification clause? Which, without discussing Italian politics in the 1930s, do you mean that
-stamping out bad justifies bad deeds it might require, or rather
-stamping out bad is still a good deed even though it may have required some bad deeds (the consequences for which you're still responsible)
 
 
the permuted man
15:26 / 14.04.06
I think it's reasonable to try to minimize suffering in the world

Reasonable, yes.

I think what (id)entity is getting at is that when someone exhibits racist behavior, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, the possibility exists that it will harm the target of that behavior, in any number of different ways

I agree. But there's nothing wrong with being hurt. To be extra clear, if someone murders me, the wrongness of the murder does not fall on me.

I do not think society is our greatest accomplishment; I think we are. Similarly, I think the state of the individual is more important than the state of society, because I believe the individual will outlast society. I believe society is emphemeral and the individual is eternal.

As such I believe an individual's own responsibility to ecumenical (as oppossed to relativistic, self-dictated) ethics and conscience is more important than whether or not the world is a nice to place to live in. I believe that violation of this code is (becomes) its own punishment sooner or later and I have no further responsiblity to punish an offender thereof.

I'm not saying "Hooray! let's hurt people because it only corrupts ourselves"; I'm saying "Let's not hurt people, because it only corrupts ourselves".

Both of these concerns read as somewhat trivial insecurities in light of the greater injustice of generations of racism

To me, no improvement of society is worth individual corruption.

Might there be a greater injustice in staying silent

Yes. There are risks on both sides, which is why I think it's important to know the offender well before attempting to correct them. Regrettably, it's gotten to the point that a calm explanation can do just as much harm as a snooty or reprimanding correction.
 
 
Mr Tricks
15:37 / 14.04.06
Tons of examples. Dividing up on a task, say camping:
A: Ok, B and C, pitch tents; D and I'll gather some firewood; E prepping food.
D: You only picked E because they're XXX

So if D is seeing it where it isn't they're creating it.

This still seems to rely on a desire to avoid simple Faux Pas over resolving potential inequity. Unless A,B,C,D,E are camping together, with-out ever having spent any time together before, a simple measure of communication would resolve any "issue." As I understand much of this thread you seem to be arguing against such efforts towards communication.

D is free (and should be) to express any observation about race, sex the environment whatever (assuming D is speaking from personal experience), just because A,B,C & E aren't aware of a dynamic does not mean "it" doesn't exist. The scenario, as presented, is still being weighted in favor of established norms (one that is, as we've discussed, slanted towards racism).

Why assume that D is seeing something that isn't there rather than examine the potential assumptions on the part of A,B,C&E that have moved D to make such an accusation?

there are just too many variables in that abstraction to make it of much use.

does XXX = vegetarian?
 
 
The Natural Way
15:50 / 14.04.06
Does ANYONE have ANY IDEA what subnaut is talking about?
 
 
the permuted man
16:00 / 14.04.06
I thought the example was pretty clear. Try this one.

Three kids bike to the candy store. John says, "Sue and I will run in quick; Miguel watch the bikes." Inside, Sue says, "That's rude, I could have watched the bikes." John: "Why's it rude?" Sue: "You know, because, you think he might steal something--just because he's Latin American."

How is this not an example of racial prejudice reinforc(ing) the extant racial hierarchy?

Not only is Sue allowing a situation to reinforce a terrible stereotype she harbours (namely: Lain Americans are prone to theft); but furthermore she's reinforcing the (correct or incorrect) notion that the people around her are engaging in racism requiring her intervention. The more she reinforces this the harder it will be to not even think about it. She'll have a reason why John chose Miguel instead of her, or also why all three might go in. With intent irrelevant, no amount of John's protesting the innocence of his motivations can disuade her from the error of the behavior. In practice, the way I've seen these situations play out is Miguel stops hanging out with them. Probably not the best conclusion we can imagine?
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:09 / 14.04.06
But there's nothing wrong with being hurt. To be extra clear, if someone murders me, the wrongness of the murder does not fall on me.

Wait-a-minute. By the logic of that first sentence you would be saying that there's nothing wrong with you having been murdered. Secondly you're claiming that only those who truly know that murderer should make any attempt to stop said killing. Ridiculous. If I see a person beating another person to death the most I should do is find that person's best friend so that they should do something about the damage being done?


I do not think society is our greatest accomplishment; I think we are. Similarly, I think the state of the individual is more important than the state of society, because I believe the individual will outlast society. I believe society is ephemeral and the individual is eternal.

Yet you continue to argue in favor of the societal norm rather than any effort to bring justice to the individual (murder victim or offended person of color) subjected to inequity.

As such I believe an individual's own responsibility to ecumenical (as opposed to relativistic, self-dictated) ethics and conscience is more important than whether or not the world is a nice to place to live in. I believe that violation of this code is (becomes) its own punishment sooner or later and I have no further responsibility to punish an offender thereof.

So the guy who burns a cross on some one's lawn will suffer their own punishment from breathing in those fumes? This stance is of course easy to assume when the individual (you?) benefits form the privileges afforded by an unjust system. What member of oppressed group will assume the blame for being oppressed?

The phrase "I have no further responsibility to punish an offender thereof" is very telling. I don't think anyone but yourself is equating correction with punishment. Every individual who wishes to live in a "just" society must take responsibility for insuring that justice. Otherwise it become privilege for some and oppression for another. It is particularly important for the privileged to understand that their benefits are a direct result from an other's oppression. Your ability to feel "no responsibility" is directly tied to the privilege of not being among the oppressed.

I'm not saying "Hooray! let's hurt people because it only corrupts ourselves"; I'm saying "Let's not hurt people, because it only corrupts ourselves".

I don't buy it. It reads more like you're saying I'm willing to let someone be hurt so that I can remain free of the potential of that hurt being directed towards me.


To me, no improvement of society is worth individual corruption.
Again you're claiming that an effort made, by an individual, to adjust inequity currupts the individual while taking an unjust/hurtful/racist action is allowable because the society that make that sort of action available to some is emphemeral. Furthermore if that individual is ignorant of the damage wrought those actions it could be admired, but if this person is aware of such potential for damage it's okay because they will somehow end up punishing themselves.


Yes. There are risks on both sides, which is why I think it's important to know the offender well before attempting to correct them. Regrettably, it's gotten to the point that a calm explanation can do just as much harm as a snooty or reprimanding correction.

What planet do you live on where this happens?
Why are you so willing to concern yourself with the feeling of the person committing the injustice? Where you apologizing to those "nationalists" who jumped you for the harm being inflicted upon their knuckles by your head?
 
 
the permuted man
16:20 / 14.04.06
My bus leaves in fifteen minutes, so I'll just say quickly:

Secondly you're claiming that only those who truly know that murderer should make any attempt to stop said killing. Ridiculous. If I see a person beating another person to death the most I should do is find that person's best friend so that they should do something about the damage being done?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If I saw someone being beaten to death I would step in and try to stop them. Likewise, if I'm working fast food and I see someone spit in food designated for someone, I'd throw it away and tell them to make it over.

I'm talking about what you do when you see that person with bloody hands over the dead body.
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:25 / 14.04.06
I'm talking about what you do when you see that person with bloody hands over the dead body.

I'm eager to read what you would do in such a case, why & how that relates to your previous posts.
 
 
the permuted man
18:41 / 14.04.06
I'm eager to read what you would do in such a case, why & how that relates to your previous posts.

What do you mean what would I do?--I'd run away. I was merely driving at the fact that correcting someone is not preventative, it's after the deed is done.

Regarding your above reply, I don't think you understood my post which prompted it. I doubt responding to your replies will help clarify it, but I'll try:

I do not think society is our greatest accomplishment; I think we are. Similarly, I think the state of the individual is more important than the state of society, because I believe the individual will outlast society. I believe society is ephemeral and the individual is eternal.

Yet you continue to argue in favor of the societal norm rather than any effort to bring justice to the individual (murder victim or offended person of color) subjected to inequity.

The offender suffers more than the victim because the victim hasn't done anything wrong.

As such I believe an individual's own responsibility to ecumenical (as opposed to relativistic, self-dictated) ethics and conscience is more important than whether or not the world is a nice to place to live in. I believe that violation of this code is (becomes) its own punishment sooner or later and I have no further responsibility to punish an offender thereof.

So the guy who burns a cross on some one's lawn will suffer their own punishment from breathing in those fumes? This stance is of course easy to assume when the individual (you?) benefits form the privileges afforded by an unjust system. What member of oppressed group will assume the blame for being oppressed?

No, he suffers because he's done something wrong. He's still to blame. Where did you get the idea he wasn't?

Every individual who wishes to live in a "just" society must take responsibility for insuring that justice.

By behaving justly.

It is particularly important for the privileged to understand that their benefits are a direct result from an other's oppression.

I agree.

Your ability to feel "no responsibility" is directly tied to the privilege of not being among the oppressed.

It's directly tied to the fact that I don't care how anyone else chooses to behave.

I don't buy it. It reads more like you're saying I'm willing to let someone be hurt so that I can remain free of the potential of that hurt being directed towards me.

You're baiting me. I'm eager to suffer.

To me, no improvement of society is worth individual corruption.
Again you're claiming that an effort made, by an individual, to adjust inequity currupts the individual

Merely, *if* action attempting to correct perceived possible propitiation of inequity does, it's not worth the cost.

while taking an unjust/hurtful/racist action is allowable because the society that make that sort of action available to some is emphemeral.

What? I already said non-racist behaviours should be chosen wherever possible over racist behaviours. It's allowable because no one's figured out a way to prevent it. If you know how to take away the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions, go ahead. You have my 100% support. Correcting it is not how.

Furthermore if that individual is ignorant of the damage wrought those actions it could be admired,

I said I was attracted to it and I explained why.

but if this person is aware of such potential for damage it's okay because they will somehow end up punishing themselves.

They will suffer.

Yes. There are risks on both sides, which is why I think it's important to know the offender well before attempting to correct them. Regrettably, it's gotten to the point that a calm explanation can do just as much harm as a snooty or reprimanding correction.

What planet do you live on where this happens?

There are people more inclined towards offensive behaviour because of how they've been reprimanded in the past.

Why are you so willing to concern yourself with the feeling of the person committing the injustice?

Um...because I believe all people are equal and love them all.

Where you apologizing to those "nationalists" who jumped you for the harm being inflicted upon their knuckles by your head?

I was more just wishing it was over.
 
 
Orange
23:52 / 17.04.06
Okay, I have no idea how to respond to most of what you're saying, subnaut, since I seem to disagree with you in a pretty fundamental way regarding the relationship between an individual and his or her society, so I'll stick mostly to expanding on my original points in light of your responses.

*if* action attempting to correct perceived possible propitiation of inequity does [corrupt an individual], it's not worth the cost

Okay. Although you're very specifically using the conditional here, you're still drawing conclusions as if the mere possibility of making a misstep and stepping on some toes (which IMO hardly constitutes "corruption") renders acting on the desire to lessen someone's suffering a mistake.

It's allowable because no one's figured out a way to prevent it. If you know how to take away the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions, go ahead. You have my 100% support. Correcting it is not how.

Just because we can't "take away the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions" does not mean we shouldn't strive for a more tolerant, less discriminating, more decent world.

You say that you value the individual over society, but so far I've only gotten that you value yourself over society. You said that your ability to feel "no responsibility" is "directly tied to the fact that I don't care how anyone else chooses to behave." It sounds to me like your definition of "society" is "everyone else".

For example, you say I believe an individual's own responsibility to ecumenical (as oppossed to relativistic, self-dictated) ethics and conscience is more important than whether or not the world is a nice to place to live in. But if a person's responsibility for their actions depends on how educated they are about possible harmful results, how is that not relativistic and self-dictated? If you don't hold other people up to the same ethical standards as you do yourself, then how can you claim anything about an individual's responsibility to an absolute (as opposed to relativistic) set of ethics? Your own responsibility, sure, but not other people's.

The information should be available at the library and on the internet. I don't think it should be withheld if someone asks you about it either. If you know the person well enough, more direct approaches are also warranted.

How not to hurt people is not something you learn from the library or the internet. You learn it by continuously interacting with people, and communicating about issues like this with people you know well, not so well, and hardly at all. If you valued other people as much as you value yourself, I think it would make sense to share what you know, or even just think you know*, about choosing non-racist behavior over racist behavior and what you think constitutes racist behavior, with someone who has done something you think is racist. And then listen, as well. That communication stuff is how we learn, and how we hopefully make the world better for individuals everywhere!

*You might be wrong! Don't worry, this is human. It does not make you irredeemably corrupted.
 
 
the permuted man
16:39 / 18.04.06
You say that you value the individual over society, but so far I've only gotten that you value yourself over society. You said that your ability to feel "no responsibility" is "directly tied to the fact that I don't care how anyone else chooses to behave." It sounds to me like your definition of "society" is "everyone else".

Two things, because I get this reaction a lot.

1) It's not selfish to not care what other people do to other people when I don't care what other people do to myself. It's equivalent.

2) The "individual" I value is an internal individual. I'm not saying someone shouldn't be robbed for the greater good; but rather someone shouldn't rob. There's no internal harm in being robbed.

For example, you say I believe an individual's own responsibility to ecumenical (as oppossed to relativistic, self-dictated) ethics and conscience is more important than whether or not the world is a nice to place to live in. But if a person's responsibility for their actions depends on how educated they are about possible harmful results, how is that not relativistic and self-dictated

No, a person is always responsible for their actions. All I've said is just because you think someone has done wrong, doesn't mean they have.

If you don't hold other people up to the same ethical standards as you do yourself, then how can you claim anything about an individual's responsibility to an absolute (as opposed to relativistic) set of ethics?

See, to me this is relativistic. "Hold other people up to the same ethical standards as you do yourself"? Just because you follow some ethical standards, you think everyone else should?

The whole point of what I'm describing is breaking the universal ethical code leads to ruination--whether anyone knows that code or not.

How not to hurt people...You learn it by continuously interacting with people, and communicating about issues like this with people you know well, not so well, and hardly at all.

Totally agree. But treating people how they ask to be treated is a far cry from the original racism is wrong irrespect of intent or impression.

For example, I've asked everyone who knows me not to ask questions simply to initiate conversation. I don't store my thoughts in conveniently prepared answers (intentionally) and answering questions forces me to form answers (which I don't like to do without good reason). Despite requesting this and explaining it, everyone I know insists on initiating any contact with a question. Granted, the kindest of them stop halfway and say something like "Oh, I'm not supposed to ask you questions", but this is usually followed by "What am I supposed to do then?" I say, if you want to talk, start talking. But people think it's rude to start talking without asking a question and (so far) no one thinks respecting my desires is more important than violating that personal rule.

Also, I don't see why you can't learn considerate behaviour from the library or internet as well.

You might be wrong! Don't worry, this is human. It does not make you irredeemably corrupted.

Right, because why would we try to understand what I'm actually trying to say when we could absurdly exaggerate and missapply it?

Again, it seems you might be arguing against the racism is wrong irrespect of intent or impression point, which I didn't introduce, and no one has really challenged.
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:41 / 18.04.06
subnaut, as I read and re-read your posts I find the continual theme, with regard to this thread, to be based somewhere between an utter fear of other people and an extreme desire to not be inconvenienced by other people. It's almost disturbing when considered alongside a willingness to argue for some fundamentally despicable behavior.

Basically it reads as such: "anyone can behave anyway they please so that I can behave in a manor I choose and not have that behavior questioned in any way."

Now if I'm miss reading your posts then I would ask that you clarify how your stance is different, without those definitive statements on personal corruption and the like which I'll get to in a paragraph. How about an answer to what you'd do if you found yourself in the company of persons using a racial epithet in the presence of a member of that same race?
    Would that action or inaction differ if you knew the person speaking? How?
    Would that action or inaction differ if you knew the person of color present? How?


In that last post you stated that you were not arguing against the stance that "racism is wrong irrespect of intent or impression." You've also stated If you know how to take away the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions, go ahead. You have my 100% support. Correcting it is not how.

On the one had you're saying that you will offer 100% support in working towards eliminating the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions yet consistently argue that correcting such use in language is not how.

    How do you know this?
    Is there some particular insight you have that the rest of us are not privy to?
    How is you can say so with such conviction while earlier on you expressed admiration for the certainty that comes with ignorance or at least the perceived lack of second guessing?
    I'm curious how you can be so consistently certain of the wrongness of correcting a person's use of unjust/hurtful/racist language when you also claim "I'm an arrant second guesser, changing my mind countless times before I manage to speak and usually for the next day or so afterwards"


This seems to add up to a fundamental fear or unwillingness to engage those around you rather than some ethical stance or philosophical insight.

Interestingly you stated Put somewhat radically oppositely, we could cure racism by ending offensive language or by no longer being offended by it. which pretty much contradicts all your claims that correcting a persons poor (or perhaps ignorant) use of a phrase is not an answer. How else would you propose "ending offensive language" if you are so certain correcting another use is not effective?

Along these same lines you've presented a few other ideas as fact with not even a link to substantiate them.
  • The whole point of what I'm describing is breaking the universal ethical code leads to ruination--whether anyone knows that code or not.
  • Regrettably, it's gotten to the point that a calm explanation can do just as much harm as a snooty or reprimanding correction.
  • Let's not hurt people, because it only corrupts ourselves
  • But people think it's rude to start talking without asking a question



As personal models for living, I have no problem with them, live your life as you choose. However, these statements do nothing to validate your points and seem to confuse the matter. I was hoping to create this post with a minimum of quoting but just can't seem to do so. I'm still trying to see any substance that would disqualify my theory that your argument is based mostly on self interest.

Your answer of run away whentalking about what you do when you see that person with bloody hands over the dead body. seems to support my theory. Why not "call the police" the least invasive method of righting a perceived wrong?

Then there's this business of expecting people who know you not to ask questions simply to initiate conversation. How the hell is this equivalent to a person at a social function having to hear them self referred to as racial epithet? If that wasn't troublesome enough then how do you reconcile that particular need with "I don't care how anyone else chooses to behave."

Might there be an unspoken " . . . unless their behavior effects me."?


I was also going to chew on that tale of Sue, John & Miguel. I'll try and keep it short. You asked "How is this not an example of racial prejudice reinforc(ing) the extant racial hierarchy?"

Well Sue is exhibiting a dawning awareness of racial dynamics between herself, John & Miguel. This could be based on observing her own feelings (she may be discovering her socially inherited racism) or the actions of John. Her interpretation of John's actions may or may not be accurate, but her willingness to voice them demonstrates at least an attempt recognize such a dynamic. If she wanted to "correct it" she might consider offering to watch the bikes herself; maybe she'll do this next time and let poor Miguel pick his own candy. Or they could get a lock.


It may be that she's correct in her observation and John may have made his choice consciously or unconsciously. He at least now has the opportunity to examine that dynamic himself, possibly becoming a "better person" in the process. If she was mistaken John could go watch the bikes himself (let's hope the wheels are still on them when he gets there), or simply tell her she's mistaken.

Interestingly this story hinges on another racist assumption. That Miguel (as a Latino) is subservient and would do as he's told by John, no questions asked. The story crafts John as "white" by virtue of Sue's concern. So what does that say about the potentially racist assumptions of whomever crafted that little story?
 
 
Spaniel
20:06 / 18.04.06
Personally, Sub, I'd like it if you slowed down and started to think long and hard about what you're posting.
Imo, your posts have come across as semi-coherent, rambling and chock full of unsubstantiated assertions and non-sequiters - and that's when I have some idea what you're talking about.

I'm not saying this to be mean, or to suggest that you're stupid, it's just friendly advice. Take it or leave it.
 
 
the permuted man
20:51 / 18.04.06
Basically it reads as such: "anyone can behave anyway they please so that I can behave in a manor I choose and not have that behavior questioned in any way."

Now if I'm miss reading your posts then I would ask that you clarify how your stance is different

I've repeatedly stated each person should try to behave in a non-racist manour. So, no, it's not an attempt to be able to behave any which way we want.

On the one had you're saying that you will offer 100% support in working towards eliminating the human capacity for unjust/hurtful/racist actions yet consistently argue that correcting such use in language is not how.

How do you know this?

I don't. But I've suggested both that
1) it may be an imperfect solution, and
2) our human tendency towards inequity preceedes it (developmentally)

Interestingly you stated Put somewhat radically oppositely, we could cure racism by ending offensive language or by no longer being offended by it. which pretty much contradicts all your claims that correcting a persons poor (or perhaps ignorant) use of a phrase is not an answer. How else would you propose "ending offensive language" if you are so certain correcting another use is not effective?

Out of context, I can see how it might seem contradictory. It's simply a logical statement that offense can be cured by removing the offending element or by no longer being offended by it. I certainly wasn't implying either were even possible.

Along these same lines you've presented a few other ideas as fact with not even a link to substantiate them.

First, I only made the definitive statement post to explain where my stance on this issue is coming from. While I thought it could be helpful, I also thought it might be a good way for people to discount my argument on grounds of its construction. Like, I can see why subnaut thinks that--because their fundamental belief structure is flawed!

The whole point of what I'm describing is breaking the universal ethical code leads to ruination--whether anyone knows that code or not.
belief
Regrettably, it's gotten to the point that a calm explanation can do just as much harm as a snooty or reprimanding correction.
I already replied to your gripe with this once: "There are people more inclined towards offensive behaviour because of how they've been reprimanded in the past."
Evidence: people have told me that and have exhibited an increase in offensive behaviour shortly before or following such a claim
Let's not hurt people, because it only corrupts ourselves
belief
But people think it's rude to start talking without asking a question.
this was in specific reference to the [particular] people in that situation

Interestingly this story hinges on another racist assumption. That Miguel (as a Latino) is subservient and would do as he's told by John, no questions asked. The story crafts John as "white" by virtue of Sue's concern. So what does that say about the potentially racist assumptions of whomever crafted that little story?

Different social groups have different atmospheres. In most groups I've been in it's more common to say "Do this" than "Will you do this". It doesn't mean it doesn't mean the same thing. Like, I would tell my friend to grab me a soda, but I would ask a coworker. I'm not expecting either of them to do it, nor would they think I was (except maybe the coworker).

Clearly the example did little to help you understand the abstract situation I described and for which it was requested. It doesn't seem like another one would help either.

Your answer of run away whentalking about what you do when you see that person with bloody hands over the dead body. seems to support my theory. Why not "call the police" the least invasive method of righting a perceived wrong?

I wouldn't call the police, but I'd appear if subpoena'd. I would call an ambulance if I thought there was a chance of saving the victim's life.

--

I don't think I have any new material to add to this thread. I'll continue to answer questions for clarification but I'll probably start ignorning stuff intended to advance the sub-theme "subnaut is a selfish racist"--which you're welcome to think if you want to.
 
 
the permuted man
20:57 / 18.04.06
Boboss, doesn't sound mean at all. I wish I would have thought a lot more about my initial posts before hitting post reply.

I ramble because I don't know how to say what I think, but thinking about it more usually (99.9%) ends in me giving up trying to say it. Which probably wouldn't have been a bad thing concerning this thread.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply