by Simon 551 Replies latest social current
There is absolutely nothing in common between the killing of MB and the racist murder of Emmett Till.
I agree. I don't know how people can stand to have names like MB and TM taint the memory of people like that. The list above is full of brave souls who stood up to oppression and incredible cruelty and injustice and through their struggle changed the world. It's an insult to have petty criminals added to their ranks.
depending on the instance (if someone is raped or robbed, you don't say "shouldn't have walked down that alley" to the person) - very poor example. Walking down any alley is within the law and is therefore anybody's right to do so, unlike racially abusing soccer players or disobeying cops' orders (both illegal).
Do you agree that during the time it takes for this great societal change to happen, responsibility and hard work must be stressed for disadvantaged black people (and disadvantaged people of any other colour) as a way for self-improvement?
So to combat that, you would try to change those surrpunding influences en masse. There are a lot of ways to do this - although living standards have risen steadily in England the only thing that did change was English football's zero racism policy, 'kick racism out of football'. Racist behaviour can lead to lifetime bans from football grounds. The surrounding influences were hardly ever mentioned, let alone changed. But the zero policy on racism has largely worked - although not 100% perfect (nothing ever is) English football grounds are just about the least racist in europe. How do you feel about this? Was the harsh zero racism policy the wrong approach?
In other words, in day to day life, any decision you make, what causes you to make those decisions?
Ok, here's the problem with this.
You can't take sociological principles and apply them to any one individual in any one circumstance. Gets rather deterministic.
Can be quite absurd as well. As if you applied the statistic "Americans have 2.2 children per household" to your neighbor who has only two children, you could hardly describe them as below average.
And we could extend this to biology as well. What was this guy's brain chemistry at the time of the incident? Did he have low blood sugar? Maybe that was a factor in his decision as well.
[Note to self: dropped pronouns in this post. Strange. . . ]
LoveUnit:
"Walking down an alley" is not a poor example, as it was used to show the boundaries of the difference between "victim blaming" and showing people why what they did was wrong in an instance in a one-on-one situation. It wasn't an analogy - it was drawing the boundaries on where you confront someone on that level.
Regarding football - the issue there is that you don't cure racism by doing that, you just remove it from the public. Ending apartheid and segregation didn't make people not racist, it just made it legally wrong to do so in public in ways that directly affected people in those instances. It pushed racism to a hidden thing that could not be proven as easily, and is harder to fight, as opposed to a blatant, obvious thing.
So, for instance, that's why we have bar owners that enforce dress codes more strictly on some races than others to try to control the racial diversity of the crowd, as opposed to having a sign that says, "only 25% latinos allowed at one time." Or people telling their sons and daughters, "you'd better not bring a white person home." The problem is still there, it's just hidden in places where it can't be enforced now.
So yes, you should make laws curbing public and obvious racism/segregation/etc., but that doesn't actually solve the UNDERLYING issue, that just cuts out one ASPECT of it. For more, you need education, etc., which was mentioend on the last page.
Breakfast of champions - in 3rd party discussions of "why did this happen," and "how do we prevent this from happening in the future," those are the only discussions you can have. Why do people end up in these situations, and how can you prevent them from happening in the future.
The UN Committee Against Torture has formally urged the US to investigate and prosecute police shootings and torture of unarmed black youth.
Reuters News, Geneva, Nov.28th, 2014.
Regarding football - the issue there is that you don't cure racism by doing that, you just remove it from the public. Ending apartheid and segregation didn't make people not racist, it just made it legally wrong to do so in public in ways that directly affected people in those instances. It pushed racism to a hidden thing that could not be proven as easily, and is harder to fight, as opposed to a blatant, obvious thing.
Some racism is learned behaviour. If it's removed from public view it not only stops people thinking it is acceptable but also stops people potentially learning and copying it.
Social pressure on what is an isn't acceptable behavior can be very powerful and should not be dismissed. Much of what we call civilisation is not directly legislated, only the extreme actions have defined boundaries - the rest relies on accepted behavior by society. Where people push these too far we have laws.
So, for instance, that's why we have bar owners that enforce dress codes more strictly on some races than others to try to control the racial diversity of the crowd, as opposed to having a sign that says, "only 25% latinos allowed at one time." Or people telling their sons and daughters, "you'd better not bring a white person home." The problem is still there, it's just hidden in places where it can't be enforced now.
You confuse two different things here. One is application of rules toward others where we'd hope things would be applied fairly and equitably and can be challenged if they are not.
The other is personal views and beliefs. These cannot be regulated, we can only create an environment where we hope that the majority develop healthy opinions but it is impossible to legislate or otherwise enforce them. All that can be acted on are the outward manifestations resulting from those beliefs if they contravene laws or behaviours that society can view unfavourably in order to apply pressure even if they are not illegal.
The divide here seems to be over this:
Certain people believe that "the system" is at least partly, if not fully to blame for this man's death, e.g. Why do people end up in these situations, and how can you prevent them from happening in the future?
Others think that this man's actions were reckless and he is to blame for his death.
I offer my final thoughts here:
So General Motors produces a bunch of cars with a defective "widget" inside.
On a certain percentage of these cars, the widget causes the gas tank to explode when the driver turns the key in the ignition.
Fred was one person who owned one of these cars with the defective widget. He got out of work one day, went to start his car, and it exploded, killing Fred.
Joe also drove one of these cars with the defective widget. And one day while he's pumping gas, he thinks to himself,"Damn, I want a cigarette!" Knowing full well that lighting up while pumping gas is a super dangerous thing to do, he says "Fuck it, I need a cigarette." He lights up, and the car explodes, killing Joe.
Why did Fred die? What caused this to happen? How could this death have been prevented?
Why did Joe die? What caused this to happen? How could this death have been prevented?
That analogy does not work.
People do not make actions independent of the society that formed them. If society in your analogy is the "flawed car," you can't add an independent action in there (smoking cigarettes) because there is nothing you can make analagous to that since people's actions aren't truly independent*
As stated, in a one on one situation, talking to the person themselves means that you might be able to adjust them, so laying blame can actually have some use. It also has a use in deciding whether to remove that member from society, etc. Outside of that, strict statements of blame are completely useless, since it accomplishes nothing.
*Unless you believe we aren't strictly biological organisms, but have some type of "soul," or take the JW - styled "free will view" that ignores that everyone's decisions are a mix of biology and learned behavior from surroundings (which takes the onus off of God for creating beings that would sin in th first place).
Pacopoolio - ok fair enough your alley example was good.
'Regarding football - the issue there is that you don't cure racism by doing that, you just remove it from the public' - that's as good as it gets, I'm afraid. It must be the case that in the privacy of their own homes, people say racist things - white against black and vice versa.
I also notice that you seem strangely reluctant to answer this: Do you agree that during the time it takes for this great societal change to happen, responsibility and hard work must be stressed for disadvantaged black people (and disadvantaged people of any other colour) as a way for self-improvement?
LoveUniHateExams
over the last decade here in Britain poor white British have been added to the list of the disadvantaged. One main objection to work they raise is that the minimum wage is too low and in protest they are not going to work for that small wage and would prefer to take benefits while looking for higher paid work which is scarce. Other Britishers are glad just to have a job even if it is at minimum wage. The good thing about white British protesting in this way is that the minimum wage threshold may be raised and this would be good news for everyone. The others are presumably working too hard at minimum wage level to protest.
Stressing just hard work is not the answer imo because big firms, some of which are larger and richer than small impoverished countries, will simply take advantage in order to improve their profit margins.
Power matrixes also need to be looked at and protested over if there are obvious imbalances. One that that news channels are emphsizing over here is the all white police force in a predominantly black neighbourhood in Ferguson.
edit: another issue that has arisen over here is to do with the police embellishing evidence (in the Andrew Mitchell "pleb" case). This raises the awful spectre of a law enforcement agency acting unlawfully and damaging their own image as well as the police officer's credibililty (PC Rowland) to make the case part of their mission to pressure the government to not make job cuts in the police force. The police officer has only now been exonerated after much distress and suffering.
