('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 19:35:05 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: Not Funny Now - SadReply-To: email@example.com
>Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Mitch writes
>> >> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>> >> For the record, I found that document, not the website, while googling. I
>> >> did not "check" the homepage for racist content (should I have?). I get the
>> >> impression from some that virtually anything said by a branded racist is
>> >> automatically a lie. Am I now a racist too because I believe *****SOME*****
>> >> of the facts stated there to be true? --- AL V
>> > By definition, unless you can supply evidence of the notion that some races
>> > are superior to another-Define Superiority-then racism is faulty thinking. It
>> > is then incorrect and non-scientific. Should we condone or coddle racist
>> > thinkers in this list, in order to call ourselves "libertarians"? Nada.
>> Allow me to substitute the word "Communist" for "racist" in Mitch's
>> statements. It should be interesting to see the effect!
>> "...Unless you can supply evidence that the idealistic vanguard of the
>> people should have total control, then Communism is faulty thinking.
>> It is then incorrect and non-scientific. Should we condone or coddle
>> Communist thinkers in this list?"
>> I think that the answers to both questions are the same.
>> Joe Dees adds:
>> > Another way to refer to racists: sociocultural luddites.
>I concur. However, there are different types of racists as well. Those
>who think that someone needs to meet a lower standard just because of
>their skin color to get the same job or to be accepted into college, or
>someone who thinks that someone who is 7 generations separated from
>their enslaved ancestors deserves 'reparations', is themselves a racist:
>they are assuming that the black person is inferior to the white person
>in that they are incapable of attaining the same level of achievement
>with the same standards of performance, or that their life was somehow
>oppressed because their great-great-great-great grandparent happened to
>be a slave (rather than, say, a serf).
>These sentiments about affirmative action and reparations arise in the
>liberal white person from the same opinions (no matter how guiltily
>felt) about the inferiority of black people that results from
>stereotypes and ignorance, feelings that blacks are somehow less capable
>of achievement as individuals than whites. Just as the KKK racist
>discriminates by hate and exclusion, the liberal racist discriminates by
>guilt and coddling, and both do it on a basis of skin color rather than
>the character of the individual.
Condescenscion is a more insidious, virulent and ultimately destructive form of racism than outright hostility. They both hurt, but only the first 'stabs the other in the back' by weakening the discriminated-against person's self-esteem by association with one who seems to deign to coddle the unworthy other only out of pity. To hate and oppose up front is to establish the other as an enemy, and thus, implicitly, as a worthy adversary, one worthy of spending one's time and effort laboring against, and one whose abilities require same, that is, one to be reckoned with, and by this means the hater confers, perhaps quite unwillingly, but confers, nevertheless, a correlative oppositional equality upon the other in a roundabout way.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT