|
Zonie63 -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/18/2014 7:46:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
I was referring to her casual dismissal of the impact of the N-word; not to her personal strategies. This thread was not about her personal strategies. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your last comment. That is not how hate is being reduced in this country. The historical effort has been massive and continues today fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Law. So, no. I don't buy your trickle up theory. I hope I haven't misread you.
You know what empowers people to offend you with words? Your reacting with outrage at their words. By reacting the way Greta reacts, you take that power away from others. It might cause a visceral response, but you still have the ability to choose exactly how you react.
You don't reduce hate by continually bringing up the past abuses every time they come up. It's good to not forget the past, but, at some point, the hate cycle has to be broken. You aren't going to stop people from thinking stupid things. You aren't going to be able to stop people from saying all the stupid shit they think. Not reacting back with hate helps to break that cycle.
This might be a good strategy for "street-level" racism which one might encounter, but I would say that each situation is as different as each individual. Therefore, any possible response appropriate to the level of offense may also have to be tailored to the situation. I don't think there's any "one size fits all" response, since we're talking about different cans of worms, depending on the race, country, and its history.
The outrage is not over "words." I would suggest that if there was no history of racism, slavery, abuse, murder, etc. to contend with, then probably nobody would give a shit about racial slurs or epithets - or at least, not that much. It might be the equivalent of Politesub53 calling me a "bloody Yank," which would not upset me or fill me with outrage.
There might be some differences with Greta's situation, since she lives in Singapore where she is part of the majority race which also rules the country (a completely different situation from what blacks in the U.S. have to contend with). However, in a previous conversation with her, she mentioned that there was anti-Chinese discrimination which is officially sanctioned in Malaysia, so that might be something which is of a more immediate concern and something to get outraged about.
There might also be another key difference in that, while there was certainly a history of racism and European colonialism in Asia, the Asians still living there mostly retained their language, names, cultures, and sense of identity. They're independent and sovereign now, and it's not very likely that they'll fall under European colonial rule anytime soon. These countries are strong enough and self-aware enough that they're not likely to put up with any more shit from the West. If Westerners want to call them names, why should they give a shit? They were there before Westerners arrived, and they're still there now.
In the U.S., it was a completely different kettle of fish. Without going into the long and bloody history which you probably already know, different situations may entail different reactions. People who were forcibly taken from their homeland, not allowed to retain their family name, their language, culture - and stripped of all sense of identity and self. Their identity was reduced to that of their skin color and summed up with a single word, a few phonemes strung together. I don't think people are necessarily reacting to the word itself, since even that can be circumstantial in most street-level situations. If a drunken, scraggly old homeless guy yells out a racial slur, that would be received far differently than if it was a public official or someone at a high level in society.
|
|
|
|
