lorem ipsum
Add an image
Add a link
go back to maingo to old version
If you don't want to read the rant below, there's always Boggle.
I think (or would hope, I guess) that we'd all agree that getting beyond the out of hand decrying of (for lack of a better term) "stuff" as racist is a laudable goal; as laudable as eliminating ____-ism in the first place. I think, though, at present we've become so knee-jerk about the concept, and so touchy about the appearance of prejudice, that it's not much better. We've sort of done the pendulum swing, where now we aren't prejudiced, but fanatically anti-prejudiced. We get offended on behalf of people now (which I guess goes back to the authoritarian idea.)
I don't really want to gang up on Alison here, but what she says brings up, for me, a bit of a pet peeve. I mean, it's great that people are concerned enough to stand up to what they perceive as unjust, on behalf of a visibly discriminated group. However, to do so out of hand, without input from the group in question, can be somewhat condescending. I guess the best way to explain this is an anecdote (I apologize in advance, Gaut.) If you've ever gotten a ride in my van, and rode shotgun, you may have noticed a small book-like object attached to the dash. It's called a murthi (which sort of translates in English to idol, but without the somewhat negative connotation attached to idols... it's complicated, but let's just say that the idol is not worshipped, and this distinguishes it from the golden calf idea.) In any case, Jere (I apologized in advance, remember) has this habit of opening it and closing it somewhat absent-mindedly. I don't really have that big of a problem with it (but I jokingly give him shit for it, which I don't apologize for.) I can see, however, someone thinking "Hey, this is offensive to Jains. I should tell Jere to stop being an asshole." Doing so, however, implies that either I do not understand that I should be offended, or I lack the ability to express my offense (neither of which, I think, is true.) Being offended on my behalf, I feel, trivializes my take on the situation.
Maybe it's just me. It just bugs me when people perceive a non-existant offense, either on my behalf or on someone else's. Especially when it causes them to undermine something good (like cancelling school Halloween celebrations because they might offend Wiccans, or playing only "Holiday" songs because the concept of Christmas may exclude non-Christians)
load more posts . . .
October 31, 2004 -- 2:31 AM
posted by Par
List time. Tee hee.
- What the fuck are you talking about, Percy? Caves? I think your opinion is irrelevant on account of the staying home tonight because of trick-or-treaters. As far as lame excuses go, that's pretty sad. Both because it's the 30th, not even Halloween night, and because you have two brothers who could have been taking care of it. Seriously, and not to be an asshole, but if you can't argue a bullshit excuse like that one down, there may be some problems in the law for you...
- Andy, I'm holding your coat ransom. I demand, in return, a hilarious story about your nephew's encounter with that jack-o-lantern of yours.
- That's Internets (linky), if anyone is paying attention to the G-Dub (who, I understand, is just regular wack, not wiggity as some traitorous liberals would have you believe), and is also "cool" with how the youngsters "jive" these days about their "chavs"
- Something Awful's New Voter Exam. Determine your US political allegiances, based on hard-hitting insightful true/false questions such as "I support the troops, until they stop shooting and start complaining".
If you don't want to read the rant below, there's always Boggle.
I think (or would hope, I guess) that we'd all agree that getting beyond the out of hand decrying of (for lack of a better term) "stuff" as racist is a laudable goal; as laudable as eliminating ____-ism in the first place. I think, though, at present we've become so knee-jerk about the concept, and so touchy about the appearance of prejudice, that it's not much better. We've sort of done the pendulum swing, where now we aren't prejudiced, but fanatically anti-prejudiced. We get offended on behalf of people now (which I guess goes back to the authoritarian idea.)
I don't really want to gang up on Alison here, but what she says brings up, for me, a bit of a pet peeve. I mean, it's great that people are concerned enough to stand up to what they perceive as unjust, on behalf of a visibly discriminated group. However, to do so out of hand, without input from the group in question, can be somewhat condescending. I guess the best way to explain this is an anecdote (I apologize in advance, Gaut.) If you've ever gotten a ride in my van, and rode shotgun, you may have noticed a small book-like object attached to the dash. It's called a murthi (which sort of translates in English to idol, but without the somewhat negative connotation attached to idols... it's complicated, but let's just say that the idol is not worshipped, and this distinguishes it from the golden calf idea.) In any case, Jere (I apologized in advance, remember) has this habit of opening it and closing it somewhat absent-mindedly. I don't really have that big of a problem with it (but I jokingly give him shit for it, which I don't apologize for.) I can see, however, someone thinking "Hey, this is offensive to Jains. I should tell Jere to stop being an asshole." Doing so, however, implies that either I do not understand that I should be offended, or I lack the ability to express my offense (neither of which, I think, is true.) Being offended on my behalf, I feel, trivializes my take on the situation.
Maybe it's just me. It just bugs me when people perceive a non-existant offense, either on my behalf or on someone else's. Especially when it causes them to undermine something good (like cancelling school Halloween celebrations because they might offend Wiccans, or playing only "Holiday" songs because the concept of Christmas may exclude non-Christians)
October 30, 2004 -- 7:15 PM
posted by M. Mash
i think erics trying to say that shrilly denouncing everything as racist does more harm than good when it comes to actually trying to start a discourse on the issue....if you try hard enough everything can be perceived as either racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist, fat-biased, etc... its gotten to a point in society where someone is sure to complain about every little thing thats out, and anyone can claim that such-and-such organization or person is a racist, sexist, etc... a lot of people begin to engage in self-censorship, and while this roots out a lot of real, harmful prejudices, it also stifles a lot of things that arent harmful at all..... thus, schools are beginning to ban the teachings of certain classic works of literature because of the "harmful" prejudices contained in them.... is the merchant of venice evil because of its anti-semitism, and should it not to be taught to children? a lot of people say yes to this question, sadly... you can see how this kind of thinking stifles the public discourse... some people and organizations would just like to present the dumbest, blandest material that is so unoffensive it wouldnt offend a black, jewish, one-legged, blind, 70 year old female midget, rather than face the hassle of being denounced as "insensitive"... any honest discussion on these issues become very problematic in this system, because people are afraid to bring up these issues in the first place..... i am all for equality for every individual no matter what colour sex or creed, but when it gets to the point where people are taught to see prejudice in something as innocuous as a satirical advertisement, its gone too far in my opinion... eric makes a good point by linking this type of thinking to authoritarianism.... remember in china during the cultural revolution, where those denounced as "counterrevolutionaries" were purged (ie slaughtered) by the millions..... now what is a counterrevolutionary, you may ask? pretty much everyone.... would u say that any type of honest social discourse is possible in this setting? of course its impossible.... this type of thinking is identical in form to the kind perpetuated by those uptight feminists, where everything is denounced patriarchical without hardly any sort of serious critical thinking..... absolutely no good comes by shouting at the top of your lungs, "RACIST!!!!!!!!!" or "SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY!!!!!!".... all those who love freedom and equality should stand firmly against this type of simple-mindedness
October 30, 2004 -- 6:17 PM
posted by alison
Eric, I'm not sure it all made sense, but pretty much everything doesn't make sense to me right now... some connection in my brain isn't working correctly...
Anyway, I do agree, that viewpoint I posted was very narrow. I wasn't trying to paraphrase my entire WST class in that statment though (so sorry if it sounded like that), merely one of the points of discussion that it's difficult to do anything but participate in particular paradigms... while still trying to change them. I think I'm having a problem separating and fully explaining my ideas. But I'm not going to try to do that now anyway, I honestly am not sure I'm cognizant enough to drive to Jere's just yet.
Suffice it to say that yes, you're right (in what I understood!). And that we're all implicated in things, and there are a lot more productive things to say than we're all just stuck in a hole so we might as well stay there. It's just interesting to me that people like Nellie McClung - a first wave feminist - while being a feminist still perpetuated a majority of patriarchal stereotypes, and some other ones too... and then the second wave, while breaking some of those stereotypes still perpetuated a lot more... etc. etc. etc. My point is somewhere in there... maybe one of you can find it! Hopefully I'll clear the fog out of my head and see some of y'all over at Jere's shortly...
maybe my point was this: that you can't move fully forward all at once, that it takes small steps, and while in the process of taking those small steps, you'll still be committing a lot of errors in your move to the eventual goal. But then it really matters if the "ends justify the means" or the "means justify the ends" in your opinion. ;)
okay, enough from me for now.
October 30, 2004 -- 6:16 PM
posted by Al
Here is a song I think you people might enjoy... well maybe if your scottish... and are into drunken brawling songs... um... enjoy.
March of Cambreadth
October 30, 2004 -- 4:03 PM
posted by P
Lets cut it simple and say we're all in the cave. I know Par might say he's not in the cave, but I say he's in dammit!
October 30, 2004 -- 1:57 PM
posted by eric
"by participating in the paradigm (of racism in this case), we are being complicit and we are furthering the proliferation of that paradigm"
Alison, just my opinion, but i think your Women's Studies Class is offering a very narrow understanding as to how paradigms work. your statement immediately brings to mind for me Foucault's Penopticon model of survailence and discipline, where we are constantly instigating self restrictions and boundries on ourselves in the constant fear that we are seen as being complicit to some social wrong. again it's of my own opinion, but this self restriction hardly offers any sort of discursive deconstruction to those terrible paradigms, and if anything have a hand in reifying their effects. with open mockery and satire our notions of racism can directly challenged and if nothing more become delegitimized...well whatever.
the last point i would like to make is that paradigms are in no way static fixtures, and more than anything they are social constructions premised on legitimity and authority. by calling something "racist" one inherently institutes an authorization process- i am calling this racism, this is racism, and it must be recognized as such because this is what i have said. in doing so this is itself a paradigm. it situates people not likewise confronting the example as racist as being outside the power of authority. i find this also extremely problematic because it offers the possibility of the process of coding things as racist or not to be wielded against others whom do not offer a counter argument to that authority.
i hope that all makes sense.
October 30, 2004 -- 1:18 PM
posted by Arthur "Two Shacks"
Sister's back from Thailand...no more cellphone...
October 30, 2004 -- 1:15 PM
posted by Par
Sorry about the not-posting, folks. Made a slight miscalculation on some file permissions. It's all good now...
October 29, 2004 -- 3:00 PM
posted by alison
yeah, I know, it's sort-of like showing that you're trying to be progressive but also still being a bigot.... I know. It wasn't something I really consciously did until I after I'd first noticed that there were two black kids bunched together both as the more universally "bad" characters in the costume list.
I didn't intend it as something discriminatory, but yes, as we've been discussing in my WST class, by participating in the paradigm (of racism in this case), we are being complicit and we are furthering the proliferation of that paradigm... so yeah, I hipocritically hang my head in shame... though that wasn't my intent. It's just hard to point something out without implicating yourself in it these days... and how far will we ever get if we don't start questioning these things anyway? huh? How do you expect to make progress, or do you want to? huh? ;)
load more posts . . .