I agree that is true. I think that is often a cynical political strategy, a convenient way to package and define in a range of positions which go far beyond both individual and systemic racism. That sounds like a way to tar, say opposition to deficit budgets, being agreeable to nuclear power, or commitment to teaching essential math skills, as being racist. Yes, those are real examples and I think they are nonsense.
1 Like
Can you specify which disparities arenât caused by racial injustice?
1 Like
It certainly shouldnât be sung anymore. The French colonizers of VietNam referred to the Vietnamese as âlittle yellow men.â And Americans once referred to indigenous people as âredskins.â
The American Museum of Natural History has been working at removing and/or updating offensive statues and exhibitions. In one case, a diorama that depicts indigenous people as inferior, albeit in a subtle way, has been updated with explanatory overlays. The change met with tribal approvalâthey wanted to preserve how they were historically depicted.
And other institutions such as DisneyPlus streaming, and the Metropolitan Opera streaming, have explanatory notes about their outdated depictions of minorities in their historical films.
Speaking of Disney, they have withdrawn the classic film âSong of the South.â They have forfeited a lot of money on this, but have only themselves to blame. Walt Disney actually hired Black consultants on how to go about filming this in an acceptable way. He was told to not feature a happy Black man on a plantation belting out songs. So Walt made the filmâŚwith a happy Black man on a plantation belting out songs.
Asian test scores? Iâve had my backside handed to me in bringing up the fatherless rate in black communities. Itâs a real issue, the cause of which is debatable.
Going back in history, geography played a significant role, as well as the availability of beasts of burden. I forget the exact figures, but there is a disproportionate measure between the percentage of the worldâs population and the number of languages spoken in Africa.
1 Like
Great example.
Another might be Jewish median household income in the US (about 3X the US median), although Jews are not a race in the traditional definition.
Yes indeed. My boys love the original Peter Pan, but the depiction for the Native Americans and the song âWhat makes the red man red?â makes me cringe. Whenever they watch the film I try to explain that this is a very offensive and disrespectful way of depicting such people. I guess i could skip the scenes but it seems like such an obvious and natural moment for education.
Though one could argue that Disney put those warnings up because theyâd lose so much money if they took down the films.
1 Like
i remember searching out the sculpture of Peter Pan in Hyde Park when visiting London.
2 Likes
Reframe the question:
- If all redneck peckerwoods are racists, is it impossible to be a racist and not be a redneck peckerwood?
- Speakinâ as a racist, I may be a racist, but I am not a redneck peckerwood.
- So, I say, it is possible to be a racist and not be a redneck peckerwood.
- All redneck peckerwoods are racists, but all racists are not redneck peckerwoods, only some are.
2 Likes
That seems to be a reasonable and justifiable demand, ⌠but ⌠what the heck are academics saying?
I readâwith credit to Christy for the claimâthat:
Well and good, ⌠for starters.
- As a âparticipant inâ and âa beneficiary ofâ systems that privilege white people, I am taggedâwhether I like it or notâwith the ignominious âracistâ label.
- What must I do to be saved?
- Sell all my goods, redistributing it among the disadvantaged, and become a homeless follower of Christ?
- Being âchild-freeâ, I suppose I could/shouldâeasier than âbreedersââbut I canât imagine my wife of 40 years being happy with my self-divestment, much less accompanying me into homelessness.
- As an alternative, I suppose I couldâwith or without my wifeâs consentâadopt and/or take in as many of the disadvantaged as my current assets would enable me to.
With proper attribution to Christy, Iâm told:
If and when I accept âthe academicsâ definitionâ, do I âjust acceptâ my lot in life? What do the academics say are âthe best practicesâ for doing something about it? Personally, I think the outsider [yes, @Klax , Iâm referring to you] suggestion that I actively promote and work toward a redistribution of my wealth AND yours is going to sink quicker than a rock that moves below an âevent horizonâ.
I reflect back on Malcolm Gladwellâs comments on the âBlind Sideâ story [about Michael Oher]. The racist family that redeemed Michael from the pit of poverty, didnât redistribute their wealth, they shared it ⌠with a kid who voluntarily accepted inclusion and cooperated with it.
More power to him and to the family. They werenât academics who stayed in their ivory towers. They showed me by their example.
In other words, if somebodyâs going to tell me that Iâm racist, I think the least they could do is show me how to capitalize on my investment in it.
3 Likes
Has anybody read:
I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times ?
- âI can see this book helping estranged parties who are equally invested in bridging a gapâit could be assigned reading for fractured families aspiring to a harmonious Thanksgiving dinner.â âNew York Times âLike all skills, these techniques take practice. But anyone who sincerely wants to bridge the gaps in understanding will appreciate this book. GuzmĂĄn is emphatic about making an effort to work on difficult conversations.â âManhattan Book ReviewWe think we have the answers, but we need to be asking a lot more questions. Journalist MĂłnica GuzmĂĄn is the loving liberal daughter of Mexican immigrants who votedâtwiceâfor Donald Trump. When the country could no longer see straight across the political divide, MĂłnica set out to find what was blinding us and discovered the most eye-opening tool weâre not using: our own built-in curiosity. Partisanship is up, trust is down, and our social media feeds make us sure weâre right and everyone else is ignorant (or worse). But avoiding one another is hurting our relationships and our society. In this timely, personal guide, MĂłnica, the chief storyteller for the national cross-partisan depolarization organization Braver Angels, takes you to the real front lines of a crisis that threatens to grind America to a haltâbroken conversations among confounded people. She shows you how to overcome the fear and certainty that surround us to finally do what only seems impossible: understand and even learn from people in your life whose whole worldview is different from or even opposed to yours. Drawing from cross-partisan conversations sheâs had, organized, or witnessed everywhere from the echo chambers on social media to the wheat fields in Oregon to raw, unfiltered fights with her own family on election night, MĂłnica shows how you can put your natural sense of wonder to work for you immediately, finding the answers you need by talking with peopleârather than about themâand asking the questions you want, curiously. In these pages, youâll learn: ⢠How to ask what you really want to know (even if youâre afraid to) ⢠How to grow smarter from even the most tense interactions, online or off ⢠How to cross boundaries and find common groundâwith anyone Whether youâre left, right, center, or not a fan of labels: If youâre ready to fight back against the confusion, heartbreak, and madness of our dangerously divided timesâin your own life, at leastâMĂłnicaâs got the tools and fresh, surprising insights to prove that seeing where people are coming from isnât just possible. Itâs easier than you think."
2 Likes
Okay, youâve stepped into my pet peeve minefield here. I agree with everything youâve said here, provided the first paragraph is taken to refer only to usage of âracistâ by academics and those influenced by them. My peevish comment, however, is that it is entirely the responsibility of those people to make clear what theyâre talking about. Their definition is used by a minority â I suspect a small minority â of English speakers, and the onus is on them to use language in a way that maximizes communication.
My peevishness springs from long experience with how physicists treat technical terms. Physics has a large stock of words with vernacular definitions as well as definitions within physics. The latter are more precise, sometimes barely overlapping with the vernacular meanings. Far too many physicists treat the technical definitions as if they were the only correct ones and everyone who uses the vernacular definitions as poorly informed. Thatâs just linguistic nonsense. Physicists are a tiny language community and their definitions have no authority for anyone outside that community(*). If they want to express physics concepts to a broader audience, it is incumbent on them to choose language that will be broadly understood.
I think those with expertise talking about racism have a similar obligation, made more pressing by the heavy moral, political, and emotional weight of âracistâ. Unless they know theyâre talking to a closed group who shares their understanding of the term, they should make clear what they mean, something that is probably most easily done by avoiding use of the words âracistâ and âracismâ without qualifying them. They have to do that every single time they use the words. And donât correct someone for using âracistâ to mean âbigotâ or âbigotedâ. Unfortunately, academics in particular are notorious for not knowing how to communicate with those outside their specialty.
(*) I mostly try to follow this principle with technical terms when I communicate with non-specialists, but I do have my limits. Chimpanzees are not monkeys, dammit.
ETA:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/average_familiarity.png
7 Likes
I wonder why academia, even if they are 100% in agreement with each other and there is no disagreement (that hasnât been cancelled or redacted), believes they have the right to rewrite definitions, insisting on definitions that are inconsistent with common use and published definitions.
And I wonder why anyone thinks the general population is required to submit to their definitions or to readily accept the declaration that members of the general population donât know as much as they think they know if they question the academic rewrites of common language.
Academic privilege does not endow that kind of power.
1 Like
I think they do have that power, though. Not because they necessarily should or because any such right was formally bestowed upon them. Itâs just a fact of culture in some ways I think. Itâs been a pattern for some things in the past (for better or worse) that the sorts of things that are bread and butter in the halls of the academics move out into public discourse at some later time. Other things are trend-setters too, Iâm sure - ask any corporate powers or advertisement agencies. We can (and often do) do worse than looking to academia for shepherding our cultural sensibilities.
[content removed with my apologies to Vance for the rude way I responded.]
We may continue to disagree on that point.
1 Like
Content removed by Vance with appreciation to Mervin.
2 Likes
Sorry for the pointed wording ⌠I reworded it to say âAnybody is free toâŚâ
Using a word or phrase in a certain way isnât a demand. Itâs a matter of whether a listener wants to make the effort to understand the claim or not.
Though - in the ensuing discussions this very well does bring us along toward moral demands - if we claim to be bound by any. So I can see your point at that level.
1 Like
So many of the parables fall into this realm. E.g. see my topic posted yesterday: Meanings from parables
Of course, but it is the next step that is most important. That step is to insist on an agreement of what the terms are and what the actual topic isâŚnot what it should be. Then and only then is it legitimate to agree that there are essentially two topics rather than one, and that there are two sets of terms, one for each.
But to the extent that it is true, it is because of the reluctance of the accuser/describer to make it personal. He adjusts the object to be larger and/or more vague than the person to whom he is truly meaning to accuse.
1 Like