by OnTheWayOut 37 Replies latest jw friends
Racsists live on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.
This is true, dear Skeet (peace to you!), although those on the "darker" side who engage it in are often just reacting, responding to, and/or mimicking what they learned from some on the "lighter" side. Keep it in proper perspective, dear one.
Racists and those who sympathize with them frequently seek to rationalize their racism. It's racism regardless of the ethnicity of those who engage in it, and it is never justified.
Whoa, folks (peace to you all!), please read what I posted:
"This is true... although those on the "darker" side (of the Mason Dixon "line") who engage it in are often (and so not ALWAYS, of course!) just reacting..."
As for the term "Mason Dixon Line" and this particular application ("racists live on both sides")... I have heard the term applied in both ways: north vs. south of the line usually by those "up north" who are thinking literally as to the term... and black vs. white, usually by those "down south" who mean it in inuendo. I totally realize that these issues "cut both ways." Since the analogy was to the "Mason Dixon" line, however... and not the global world... I only commented as to that: most folks HERE... where the "Mason Dixon" line IS. Most of the "racism" FROM the dark side, however, is merely in reaction to the contempt they/their ancestors experienced... imitated in the same form (hated of the race); however, it is a copycat response, and not something born simply of the inherent hatred of and contempt for the race itself. It is the difference between, say, "I hate asians (hypothetically) because they ARE asians"... and "I hate asians BECAUSE they did such and so to me/mine/theirs/others, etc."
In addition, "ethnic" tension... while not all that different from racism and very similar in its manifestation... isn't racism. Indeed, if often includes folks of the SAME race. Like some religious conflicts do (i.e., Irish Catholics vs. Irish protestants).
I don't condone racism from ANY direction. I believe that even in reactionary situations, it makes the one no better than one who first displayed it toward him, and perhaps worse (due to the hypocrisy).
Here, though, I perceived an attempt to deflect ("What's the big deal? There are black/northern racists, too!"), which may have been wrong, but I don't think so. Hence, my comment to "Keep it in perspective." Even if there ARE non-white/northern racists (although, the lady in question is living in the North, so...) the article was about what this particular woman did... which was wrong on SO many levels. Pointing the finger back doesn't negate what SHE did. That's all I meant.
Hope that clears THAT up... and peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
In addition, "ethnic" tension... while not all that different from racism and very similar in its manifestation... isn't racism. Indeed, if often includes folks of the SAME race.
Well that's the thing though. Race cannot be biologically defined, so ALL categories are arbitrary. Maybe you think that the citizens of Rwanda are all the same race, but I don't think they viewed it that way. Originally this animosity did not exist to this degree. Tutsi was simply a term for cattle herders and I think (but can't remember for sure) the Hutu were horticulturists. Anyway, it was more descriptive than identifying. Then the Dutch came in and needing to choose a group and create a hierarchy, they simply decided the Tutsi would be above the Hutu and counted as Tutsi anyone that had more than 10 heads of cattle---even if that was not accurate. We could say that they were reacting to the stress and inequality that colonialism brought, that would be very true. But what happened after that? Mrs. Jones says:
However, Tutsis are often taller and thinner than Hutus, with some saying their origins lie in Ethiopia.
During the genocide, the bodies of Tutsis were thrown into rivers, with their killers saying they were being sent back to Ethiopia
So now suddenly the Tutsi are Ethiopians, with a different heritage than the Hutus. What is race? To a great extent, it is geographically defined. It's perceived physical differences. It's not only skin color. They clearly thought of the other as not their type.
My point was simply that predudice does not have to be taught. It's something we are all capable of---and we are the ones who choose exactly where to draw the artificial lines. You can point to outside forces as increasing the tension, it does, but it is always a choice. No one is mimicking---they are giving in to a human trait.
Do you know, if you take in a large population from point a to z and you look at skin color and other traits, you will find that individuals at point a and z may look very different. But people between point a and b show very little difference. It's hardly perceptible. Point a to point e, a few more difference but again, not that noticable. So where do we draw the line? At point K? Is that where a new "race" starts? Point M?
So what we, as Americans, say are the same race when looking at a group of people may not be their perception at all. We may classify certain skin tones as a certain race, while they are looking at height and body build. It's subjective.
however, it is a copycat response
And I think everyone has the intelligence to develop their hatreds and loves on their own.
"I hate asians (hypothetically) because they ARE asians"... and "I hate asians BECAUSE they did such and so to me/mine/theirs/others, etc."
So tell me the difference. A person who says they hate black people because they think they are inferior. A person that hates white people because some white people have been responsible for horrible things. It's all prejudice. It's judging someone's character before you even know them, before you know if they've done anything to hurt you at all. If someone hated me because I'm white, it wouldn't be because of anything I did to them, it would be because I was white. I would have been prejudged.
NC
I just found something that may help me explain what I am trying to say. When you look at it, look at how other countries define race. Check out Guam. What we call Asian, they break down into many more races. Look at Austraila---it separates English and Irish, yet we simply call them all "white".
I apologize for my use of the term "race," dear NC (peace to you!). Unfortunately, I come from a different time and "forgot" that the term has evolved. For that reason, I see no need to respond to your comments as to race - I concede to your definitions. However, I would like to comment as to what came after, if you don't mind - thank you!
My point was simply that predudice does not have to be taught.
I don't disagree, dear one (peace to you!). But racism most frequently is. Children develop their own prejudices, yes. But they aren't BORNE racist...
It's something we are all capable of---and we are the ones who choose exactly where to draw the artificial lines.
At a certain age, yes, I absolutely agree. MY point, however, is if one people is subject to a certain kind of treatment BECAUSE of their race, ethnicity, heritage, what have you... those who are so treating them are engaging in racism, if you will. If those same people come to hate those who treat them such BECAUSE of how they're treated and NOT because of the others' race, ethnicity, heritage, etc., then I don't think you can call that racism. The hate has a different foundation and impetus.
You can point to outside forces as increasing the tension, it does, but it is always a choice. No one is mimicking---they are giving in to a human trait.
I don't think I can agree, dear one. I've seen children mimick racist behavior... but I don't think you can call them racist. In the same vein, while I know many want to PERCEIVE some of those so oppressed as "adults" and so in control of their own "human traits"... I don't believe that that is always the case. I would point to the acceptance of European "christianity" among U.S. slaves and native Americans a couple/few centuries ago as an example. Due to having little or no choice, these eventually mimicked the worshipped of those who brought it to them. Same thing: if you have no way to fight back... you have two choices: give in or die. Usually the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" thinking kicks in. It's called "assimilation." You become what's around you.
Do you know, if you take in a large population from point a to z and you look at skin color and other traits, you will find that individuals at point a and z may look very different. But people between point a and b show very little difference. It's hardly perceptible. Point a to point e, a few more difference but again, not that noticable. So where do we draw the line? At point K? Is that where a new "race" starts? Point M?
I'm not sure we're talking about the same things and I apologize if it was my post that caused the confusion. I get it that you disagree with my position that some conduct that looks like racism is often just reaction, response to, and/or mimicking what was learned. I have to stick by that, though, dear one, sorry.
So what we, as Americans, say are the same race when looking at a group of people may not be their perception at all. We may classify certain skin tones as a certain race, while they are looking at height and body build. It's subjective.
Yes, you are right, of course. I don't think I was trying to define race, though... at least, not as it has recently evolved to mean. For me, until the country I live in changes its forms... I kinda go with that. I realize it's not entirely accurate, but it was really just a generalization. I apologize if it was inappropriately or inaccurately used.
And I think everyone has the intelligence to develop their hatreds and loves on their own.
Ooh, if only that were true! If that were the case, much fewer young people around the world would be blowing themselves up... or putting themselves in the line of IEDs. There would also be a whole lot less religious fanatacism... and post-war PTSD.
"I hate asians (hypothetically) because they ARE asians"... and "I hate asians BECAUSE they did such and so to me/mine/theirs/others, etc." So tell me the difference.
The first never DID anything to BE hated. They just are who they are. The second, although they, too, may not have done anything personally/individually, the perception is that... based on a tangible track record, they, as a race/group/demographic... have done some harm. An example would be, say, you're a Native American during colonization of the States. You see the massacres, see your family stolen/massacred... by "Europeans." You're not going to hate those Europeans because they're Europeans... but because of what those Europeans have done. See enough and you may never trust a European again. Your life could depend on you NOT trusting them. Your life COULD depend on you not letting a single one that YOU come across LIVE... and so you're "hatred" turns into a means for survival. NOT saying that's right, just saying it is.
A person who says they hate black people because they think they are inferior. A person that hates white people because some white people have been responsible for horrible things. It's all prejudice.
Prejudice, yes, dear one... but not necessarily RACISM. Which is what I thought we were discussing. Heck, I'm prejudice (i.e., pre-judge) in some regards. I kind of did that with the lady in the store, yesterday. I assumed, on how she presented herself, that she "was"... what I perceived. Turns out, she was not. I have a prejudice against unoccupied young men who live in housing projects. I try NOT to be... but they give me a LOT of grief, cost a LOT of money. So, when I see one, I tend to jump to conclusions. I'm rarely wrong... but I'm not always right. Every so often one or three of them are actually pretty good kids but just out of work for a spell. Doesn't matter to ME, though, what race they are - if they're "hanging out" doing nothing, my "spider senses" start "tingling".
It's judging someone's character before you even know them, before you know if they've done anything to hurt you at all.
Prejudice, yes. I think racism goes farther, though. It doesn't even allow for a character TO judge. Doesn't CARE whether they've done anything wrong to you, or not. They don't HAVE to do anything wrong... to you or anyone. They are hated... because they ARE.
If someone hated me because I'm white, it wouldn't be because of anything I did to them, it would be because I was white. I would have been prejudged.
Yes, on a personal level. On a greater level, however, if someone didn't even want to get to KNOW you... regardless of your character... or whether you "did" anything... to ANYONE... that might be due to racism. If you, the majority, say "Stay out of MY neighborhood, orange people!" and do all you can to keep them out... that could be racism. If, on the other hand, those orange people say, "Well, okay, YOU stay out of OUR neighborhood, then!" that would be mimicking what YOU first said/did. They're only reacting... albeit in the same way... to what YOU first put out there: you don't want/like us... we don't want/like you." Again, I'm not saying it's RIGHT; as I said, I personally think it's hypocritcal.
I realize that perhaps, from your (and many others') perspective prejudice and racism are the same thing. Being that the terms are often used interchangeably, I can see that. From where I sit, however, they're not, always. Racism really only has one definition, whereas prejudice can apply to many things... and, in some instances, be warranted.
ENNYWHO... I hope I sufficiently explained my comment as to the "Mason Dixon Line."
Peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
ENNYWHO... I hope I sufficiently explained my comment as to the "Mason Dixon Line."
All the "explaining" does not change the content of what was previously posted.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, notwithstanding its effort to masquerade as a swan.
Talk about being "shadowed"...
This woman with the sign reminds me of the comments Barbara Bush made after Katrina. She basically stated that these people, (those displaced by the floods), need to get their kids back in school. I remember watching TV and hearing her words. But, look at where she lives and how she was raised. No clue whatsoever.
