|
Zonie63 -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/23/2014 9:13:31 AM)
|
FR
I think racism has been a pretty sensitive topic for as long as I can remember. I would say my grandparents' generation was pretty openly racist. Someone upthread stated that the "hallmark of bigotry is that they deny racism," but back in my grandparents' day, nobody really denied it. It was pretty overt and blatant back in those days, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. Even those who weren't racist might have felt pressure to go along with it just the same. White people, who felt that minorities should be treated fairly and equitably, were also vociferously condemned by racists. Those who supported the labor or civil rights movements often had to go out of their way to avoid being branded as "communists" or worse.
Of course, society has changed quite a bit since those days. There was once a time when racists would use their own brand of pseudo-science to justify their position, although as the "science" was examined more closely and became discredited among scholars and other educated people, that's when people started to deny racism. Technically speaking, if one views race as strictly a physical or biological component, then one might feel that comments are "not racist" if they don't directly address anything about physical or biological aspects.
So, a common argument might be something like "I don't judge a person by the color of their skin, but..." They might focus on other aspects, such as culture or politics, as the standard for their judgment. One might also hear "Many of my best friends are _____" as another way of proving that they're not racist, since they're trying to show that it's not the actual "race" (as in biology) that they're against.
I think that's where some of the miscommunication in this thread is coming from, because of contradictory ideas as to what actually constitutes racism. Some people view it as an "all or nothing" type thing and strictly as an aspect related to skin color or some other external characteristic. Some might see that as an obfuscation, a kind of sophistry and perhaps a form of denial.
I can't read minds, so I'm not necessarily going to assume the worst of someone if they make an unwarranted extrapolation based on a limited set of facts. To a large extent, it doesn't really even matter to me what somebody "feels" inside. If someone states their political position, all I would be interested in is hearing their arguments supported by facts and reasoning, regardless of whatever their personal feelings might be.
|
|
|
|
