Jeshibu on 12/6/2020 at 16:12
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
If you want to do something against "mass-murderous assholes", then let's put Henry Kissinger in jail (because Vietnam and because Cambodja). Let's put GW Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney in jail (because Iraq, and in a way, also IS and Syria). Heck, put Obama and Hillary in jail for letting the whole mess in Libya and Syria happen.
That would be real action. That would have a real impact. On today's politics and tomorrow's politics.
But no. Let's tear down old statues. That's gonna help.
Guess we should stop food banks, since they're not instantly solving world hunger. Bugger off with your "those actions do not result in a perfect world thus they are not worth taking" nonsense.
Besides, have you considered that maybe having the public finally condemn ancient war criminals slightly weakens the position of the current lot?
Thirith on 12/6/2020 at 16:37
Quote Posted by icemann
I will admit that that comment was 100% based on my parents when we watched it, my view and views from friends in childhood who loved the film. Racism was just not something we understood at that time. Nowadays hell yeah sure, we know exactly what that is. But it was never once until MUCH later (2000s and beyond) where I heard mention of the racism present. As a child I (and my friends + family) did not put 2 and 2 together to = that the Africian people were slaves. As a child, going completely off memory, I'm pretty sure we all thought they were families there as workers. The whole concept of slavery + racism was not something I even knew about until wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy later. So to articulate my words a bit better, the movie was not known to me as a movie with racism and slavery present, when I watched it back then (the 1980s).
That's the thing, though: they aren't slaves.
Song of the South takes place after the Civil War. And the problem wouldn't be that the film depicts slavery, even if it did. It's what it says about these times and how it uses its black characters to express a story where everyone, the former slaves included, yearn for a better, idyllic time, when everyone knew their place and was happy. That's just a very broad summary of some of the issues, but that's not the point: it's that these issues require a closer look and a more complete understanding. Half-remembered things and a faulty understanding of both the facts and the issues at hand may not be the best basis on which to form strong opinions.
Gryzemuis on 12/6/2020 at 16:47
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Gryzemuis, bit of Whataboutery, we can take down statues AND work towards better things in politics.
No, we can't. There's only so much you can do at the same time. When the whole country is only talking about X and Y, there will be zero time/energy/willingness left for issues A, B and C.
Maybe I should emphasize that I'm not against tearing down some statues. I had never heard of Colston. No idea if he deserves a statue (probably doesn't). I have no problem with tearing down statues of Southern generals in the US (I applaud that). My problem is: a) it is mostly just symbolism, and b) it can easily go too far. Like the Fawlty Towers example.
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
Guess we should stop food banks, since they're not instantly solving world hunger. Bugger off with your "those actions do not result in a perfect world thus they are not worth taking" nonsense.
Food banks stop hunger. They help. They are not symbolism. They are great.
(Although it would be better if people weren't so poor that they had to depend on "the kindness of strangers". Having food on the table, having a roof over your head, healthcare access should all be right. Not gifts).
To be clear: I don't care if a single good deed doesn't solve every problem in the world. In fact, I applaud small efforts. We got to take it one step at a time. My problem lies with actions that don't do anything, don't work towards the goal. Things that are just done for the publicity. To give people a good feeling about themselves. If such a (political) action doesn't really do something, it's just a distraction.
Putting living politicians in jail for war crimes helps. And will help in the future. I wish Americans could be trialed at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. But no. Americans are free to murder people around the world, without the risk of justice. So we rather take some symbolic action (tear down a few statues, call Rowling a cunt, wear a button, donate 10 bucks to a good cause). And call it a day.
Quote:
Besides, have you considered that maybe having the public finally condemn ancient war criminals slightly weakens the position of the current lot?
Yes, I have considered that. And my conclusion is: no, it won't help a bit.
Pyrian on 12/6/2020 at 16:58
How can we expect to take down war criminals if we can't even take down the statues celebrating war criminals? You're claiming that we can't do the former because we're doing the latter instead, but I think it's more likely that we can't accomplish the former unless we can first accomplish the latter.
Gryzemuis on 12/6/2020 at 17:07
I don't think taking an episode of Fawlty Towers offline is the first step on the path of getting GW Bush or Kissinger to the ICC in The Hague. I also don't think it will prevent an innocent African-American being shot by a policeman next week or next month.
Again, I'm not against some/most of the stuff that's happening. I'm just stating that there is a lot of fluff action and a lot of noise, and it's not really gonna change much. Too much focus on words and things that are not the core of the problem. It risks people polarizing more.
See the Rowlings thing. Rowlings has not said anything negative about trans people. She has no suggested any action, any change of law. She didn't argue against trans rights. She didn't try to paint them in a negative light. Nope, the whole Rowlings thing is about a word. "Women" or "people who menstruate". That's what this fight is about. A word. I find that ludicrous. Newspeak. 1984. Kafkaesk.
Let's hope Trump will lose the next elections. At least then all the current events will have lead to something concrete.
Judith on 12/6/2020 at 17:26
Quote:
So if you don't like what I have say? Well fuck you. I aint going nowhere so you can go to hell. If I irritate you - Good. Put me on ignore then.
Oh and PS - FUCK YOU
That's a lovely comeback and wise words of a scholar. The university you got hired by must be lucky to have you. So on one hand you got false sense of authority, but on the other you have a meltdown so easily just because some random strangers on the Internet call you annoying? Your childhood bullying doesn't make you a special snowflake, I bet a lot of us had such period in their lives (I know I did, for quite long time actually, had to deal with it, never used it as an excuse). Guess what, you're still annoying. Most of us are. I know I'm definitely annoying, and I know best because I have to live with myself 24/7, right? :) So take a break if you must, but nobody is onto you, or insisting that you have to leave. It's just a forum, and if your self-esteem relies so much on it, then I agree with Jeshibu that you might have a problem. We're all just a bunch of internet strangers trying not to get on each other's nerves too much. And sometimes that doesn't work too well, but hey, let's try to live with that.
Back on topic, I disagree with "it's just words" kind of dismissal. Words with their meaning, sounding, the whole language syntax, it all shapes and determines how we see the world. That evolves constantly, and those who can, do everything in their power to shape it. It's why corporations and politicians use nice tone and euphemisms about every atrocious thing they do. Having a company name being used as a verb in everyday life by everyone is corporations' wet dream, because they know language is a tool and a weapon.
Also presidents and dictators are the hardest people to put on trial. They usually live safely until the old age. Making a systemic change at the bottom doesn't sound as flashy, and it requires long hard work, but at least it has chance of being more effective.
faetal on 12/6/2020 at 17:30
"It's just words" should be square 1 on "white people discussing racial slurs" bingo.
catbarf on 12/6/2020 at 17:32
Quote Posted by Sulphur
No, I'm saying that it's not relative in any way, shape, or form. Racism is racism whether it was okay in your country a hundred years ago or not, end of. Trying to justify it by saying cultural or social normalisation allowed for it therefore it wasn't racist
back then is either incredibly poor thinking or a sign of warped values.
Maybe I'm extrapolating too broadly, but this reads to me like you are arguing that the offensiveness of a word or label is detached from cultural norms. If so, that seems an odd position to take, given that the meanings of words are inherently cultural.
I mean, the word 'colored' seems like a prime example of a word formerly used as a neutral descriptor (even by Black Americans, eg the NAACP) that has gradually become seen as racially pejorative. To suggest that it has always been as pejorative as it is considered nowadays, and couldn't have been considered an inoffensive descriptor 'back then', seems to be just imposing circa-2020 cultural values and then saying culture is irrelevant.
I apologize if I've misunderstood your meaning. To be clear, I'm not defending the term that started this discussion. It is, and always has been, a slur.
Thirith on 12/6/2020 at 17:36
I'm entirely with you on the "it's just words" thing, Judith. "Words and things that are not the core of the problem" were in no small part what brought about Brexit and got Trump elected. Words are the tools that direct the anger of the frustrated and disaffected away from the actual causes of their anger towards those that they'd actually have common cause with in many ways. To my mind, it's pretty naive to dismiss them so glibly, because language and symbols have a real-world impact.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 17:39
Quote Posted by catbarf
Maybe I'm extrapolating too broadly, but this reads to me like you are arguing that the offensiveness of a word or label is detached from cultural norms. If so, that seems an odd position to take, given that the meanings of words are inherently cultural.
That's not it. Something that was used in a racist context but was normalised by society at the time - like the n-word, and I don't mean 'negro' though that it's also had fall off in usage is acceptable collateral damage from the diminutive slur it spawned - doesn't make it not racist. If the cultural norms that spawned a word are racist, you can't really validate that as 'acceptable (and not racist) in the past but not okay now'. It's not a subjective matter.
