As someone that's barely paid any attention to what's happening in the world for the last couple months because there are only so many times I can read the same damn thing about Coronavirus (which has done wonders for my general mood, highly recommended), I was prompted recently to actually find out what's happening when a colleague mentioned riots. And my news feed is awash with statues, and whether they should be there or not - to the extent that one would be forgiven in thinking this whole thing was all about statues. I'm not going to even try to pretend to know what the solution is, or even what meaningful progress towards a better world looks like, or how that can be achieved, via protesting peaceful or otherwise, or any other means. But also, wish there wasn't always such an easy "out" for both politicking types, and most "casual" protestors (i.e. the ones that make a few posts to their like-minded social media buddies and call it a job well done) Like - Let's make it all about statues, property damage, flouting corona rules or whatever else instead of what it's actually about, because that way there's a "win" in sight and it gets to go away after that.
Indeed. My deepest hope is that the protest movement simmers down into a long-lasting climate of discussion, debate and reform, rather than just fizzling out. But I'm getting flashbacks of Occupy, which seemed world-endingly huge and important for a month and then....nothing happened? I could be wrong, maybe there were actual changes in response to it. I haven't heard of them, doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Kind of linked to the undercover racist point, about those who choose to spend more time spreading/discussing those examples instead of the core issues trying to be tackled. With the statues I feel it's slightly different as it can generate genuine discussion about relevant topics ('hidden' systemic racism in society, education, government etc), whereas focusing on the looting just removes focus from the original issues in my opinion. And also whilst 'slactivism' can be bad if those who take part think they're god's gift as a result, being too down on it can result in those who might like or share something to their friends do nothing instead, whjich I would argue is worse, better to have lots of people give an extra 1% than a few to give an extra 50% type thing.
Bingo. Let's be proud of the fact that people did what they had to to get the political momentum to finally abolish slavery, but part of that compromise was NOT compensating the slaves, but compensating the slave owners for their lost "property" and lost income. Compensating someone for something we think of as being obviously immoral and illegal gives legitimacy to the practice. It's an "evil once removed" situation for the debt. It's not the slave owners who have taken payments all the way up to 2015, it's the banks that lent the money. So the original compensation is long over, but it's been paid with interest all the way up until 2015. That's a lot better that continuing to pay payments to past slave owners into the 21st century. But the question of reparations is still there.
I'm not sure that's entirely the case. A climate and level of discussion conducive to change is intangible, and there's nothing that defines "success". So those that are thinking "I want to help, but I don't know how" will be drawn to something tangible - like a bunch of statues. And then the statues get removed, and it's a win, and most involved think they've done a good thing, and they're not entirely wrong either, but it's not a fix. And a mob tearing down a statue is far more interesting than boring discussions about politics, so that's going to be what the media focus on because that's going to get all the clicks, and it creates this sort of storm we see here. Or maybe the "win" is keeping the issue in focus for as long as possible so that they may be core to policy makers of the future's principles, in which case, maybe even the most casual or protestors are doing a good thing?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/youre-going-back-mexico-woman-024138384.html I'd been waiting for that......
I think even 'casual protestors' (slacktivists) can be helpful yes in terms of spreading awareness and keeping issues in the media spotlight etc. However if they focus on the wrong things it may not be helpful as it keeps the wrong things in the spotlight, and gives people a false sense of achievement/success at which point they may feel its over. The idea of that picture (to me) is the overall idea that silence is siding with the oppressors, and so if you're focusing on those topics, whilst you're not completely silent and could potentially be helping, you're being silent on the parts that really matter, and so are still siding with the oppressors to a certain degree. As has been said already, it's not as black and white as that obviously, but as a general rule that's how I approach it.
I get what you're saying, but taking that to it's end is the "you're either with me or against me" sort of thing and that doesn't lead to discussion, that leads people shutting alternative viewpoints out of their social circles. Like the video V-T posted (seriously, wtf is wrong with people), she has such conviction that I think she does truly believe that Mexicans as a whole or individuals, are a threat to her personally. In a way that you or I may think... I dunno, lions are a threat to us and should be roaming the African plains where they're meant to be instead of roaming around my neighbourhood. I don't know how you get through to someone like that and have a meaningful discussion, but on the other hand I don't think you can shut them out end-masse either, because then the smartest and most motivated ones out of them rise up as a mouthpiece to reclaim that voice, and do more damage than the individuals ever could. I dunno clearly - as you say not black and white, and I'm just spitballing thoughts rather than saying anyone here is right or wrong.
That kind of entrenched generalizing about an entire ethnic group comes about from living in close proximity to bad neighbourhoods, I've encountered it before. I wouldn't say that people in that mindset are impossible to coax out of it. In fact, since their racial stereotyping is built on direct experience, rather than vague abstractions, curated news media and imaginings, it might be easier to break through. If a problem neighbourhood was enough to convince them that "Mexicans are bad because they do all the crime where I live", showing them a series of multiracial neighbourhoods where Mexicans don't cause problems and different ethnicities coexist peacefully might be enough to shatter the impression. Unrelated. Has anyone here read Eddo-Lodge's book 'Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race'? I saw it a couple of years ago and wondered about getting it, but decided against it because the title just left a bad taste in my mouth. But all the reviews speak very highly of it.
Interesting - I would have thought the "taught" and generational racism would be easier to break than the "learned" that you're referring to - like it would be easier to concede that something what your family, peers tell you, and you what you infer from what you read in the media is wrong versus something that you've formed an opinion on based on your own very real experiences.
Imo the only way to break some people of their prejudices is for them to see the world and experience different cultures. Buuut the kind of people you see being openly racist are probably also the ones who don't know what a passport is for and wouldnt travel even if they did.
Or they fly to Spain to get skin cancer, eat Heinz beans, drink Stella and experience precisely zero hings that could be qualified as spanish...
In the past I was 100% on that side, and it's only recently I've switched to the more 'with or against' as there have been times in the past where there has been outrage and what not at events, but with very little action as a result. And I think that's partially due to thinking most people are 'good' and that there's nothing wrong with not getting involved, and for me that's changed a little, so now the passive/non involvement is an active negative, I don't think everybody needs to be out on the streets or donating money, as I mentioned I think it's better for people to be 'slacktivists' than not taking part at all, but it doesn't mean people should be just share something kind of related and think they're really doing their bit, as I said depending on what they're sharing they could be harming things, or even if they're sharing something spot on, whilst it's something it doesn't make them god's gift to the cause As I saw earlier: "White supremacy won't die until white people realise it's a white issue they need to solve, not a black problem they need to empathise with" Note: (this is speaking as someone who has never been active about this stuff before, and was 100% the kind of person who would most likely do nothing, 'not my problem', 'don't want to get involved', 'don't know enough so don't feel I can contribute' (which of course means I should educate myself, not that I should ignore it!)) I read it earlier this year, title originally like you put me off but I now like it, cover adds to it as well. In general thought it was pretty good and I'd recommend giving it a read, not saying it's going to completely change your world but I felt it had some good points and just helped my understanding.
Oh and that whole thing with the 75 year old white guy bleeding from his ear was all a set up........... https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-news-live-republicans-taken-071700457.html
On the Removal of Statues Keep your statues of racist white dudes, but make racism history. I keep seeing statues removed around the world. In my own city a statue was removed and a mural was painted over. Removing these things is just tokenism to the movement instead of substantive changes to our racist present. It's like asking someone with a racist shirt to turn it inside out and thinking you fixed that person's racism. You haven't. For now, removing statues just hides the racist reality of our society. It's not the cure or end-game anyone is protesting for. It's a mollifying distraction. I'd much rather change our society and keep the statue as a memorial, a history lesson, for those who come next. And because we need more representation, let's fund as many statues of modern leaders and heroes and of underrepresented contemporaries of those whose statues we leave up. Let's decide now to remember our history as diverse as it was, including women and POC. Add that to what we have now and then tell that story more completely. On Hypocrisy of "Stay at Home" Supporters Now Protesting. I don't see hypocrisy here. From the protesters, I see a consistent hierarchy of values. They value public health and safety. They put the freedom to go about life as normal on the back burner to save hundreds of thousands of lives, possibly millions. They kept staying home and advocating others to do so. In the wake of bunker-nuts doing the opposite and holding armed protests, many states are moving toward re-opening. This was already happening to varying degrees when George Floyd was killed. So those who had done their part by staying home, but who saw, once again, injustice come upon someone in their society who is part of a marginalized group, in this case black people, took to the streets to protest for that minority group, just like they stayed home for the elderly and immunocompromised. Any discussion there may have been about an alternative response in the wake of Covid was already dead. The selfish right-wing nut jobs had already ended that discussion. So now is the protesters' chance to get the last word on what justice in a free society looks like. No. The hypocrisy is when a bunch of people who storm a state capitol brandishing weapons for their right to get haircuts think can criticize those protesting now. Sorry, you spent any credibility you may have had when you put Basking Robins ahead of the health of others. They claim that stay-at-home orders are a violation of their rights, but say nothing of the due process rights denied to George Floyd. That's hypocrisy. Those who protested getting a haircut are also consistent in their values, especially now as they criticize those who are out protesting for George Floyd. Their message is loud and clear, "I value myself over the health of others. I care more about returning to an unjust status quo than I do about equality." It's a morally bankrupt position. They have no grounds to claim they care about anyone but themselves.
Bizarrely enough, one of the most racist people I've ever met was as you describe - totally isolated, rural, no travel, no worldly experience - but the other two I've met were super well travelled. Worked abroad, spent time in South America, Africa, you name it. A major common factor that I think is very significant is that both had spent significant time in racially fraught impoverished countries in Africa, and had spent time living in South Africa. Their racism was very specifically a legacy component of another age: the age of apartheid and imperialism. I didn't stress out too much about it, both were very elderly. Without wishing to sound callous or sociopathic, some problems solve themselves. The other guy was just brainwashed by the internet, had spent too long on weird sites and gone full neo-Nazi. I worried for his sake more than for anyone else's, because he's never gonna meet a Jew or a black person as long as he lives. But he will struggle to make friends.
Karen? She's on a power trip. It's the result of us having pretty much turned it into an art and science to help women avoid any consequences for their actions, this clip serves as a good demonstration.
People often apply racism where ethnocentrism, group preference and tribalism should be used instead. Years ago I read that the Welsh talked about teaching Welsh as first language in school and the immediate response was to accuse them of racism, as if seeking to preserve your own language (by extension your culture, they are linked) would be the expression of holding a belief of racial superiority. It isn't but that was the response. The uncomfortable truth is that we have both racial, ethnic, and cultural self bests interests that we collectively share and identify with. Those will be at odds with, sometimes in direct opposition to, those of other racial and ethnic groups. This is hardly a controversial statement. It is easy to forget or right out ignore human base nature when living in an age of egalitarian ideology and blank slate ideals, where everyone is equal, where the sexes are the same, where everything is a social construct free to be molded and changed on a whim. As if changing hardware, firmware and software on a computer.
I agree we should keep them. Just not on display outside. It's not good really. I can just imagine being black, and reminded of it every single time I walk past one of those statues. They need to be kept in museums, and yeah we need to add more to our racism history. Don't get me wrong we did it when I was at middle school (9-13) but if anything it just caused more division then. Most of us were too young to understand it properly because at that point we were still innocent and all the same. The first girl I ever kissed was black, and the first female private parts I ever saw were black and asian. I was 5, we were at nursery playing "show me yours" sorta thing. But as I say, up until that point I had no idea at all we were different in any way. Neither did they. We were just kids. However you did have the kids with racist parents who just used to say bad stuff and etc. And of course back then (early 80s) the teachers did nothing. We just need to remove them from display. I don't want history rewritten or forgotten because it is our best teacher, but I just don't think having stuff like that on public display is a good way of making people feel welcome in their own home. One we brought them to to do our **** jobs and then have reminded them of it pretty much every day since. That needs to stop.
