|
Surely I'm not the first person to see someone say something racist and wonder where it comes from. What made them this way? Do they realize? If I pointed it out, what would they even say?
Once in college I heard a girl say the most unambiguously racist remark I've ever heard in person. We were talking about our high schools and my friend mentioned that his high school was 85-90% Mexican. His roommate's girlfriend reflexively interjected, "Eww..." I don't know how you're supposed to react to something like that, but we just burst out laughing for several minutes while she just sat there looking sheepish. What defense could she possibly give?
Where do you think her remark came from? My guess is her own school had a Mexican social clique, and she was in a different clique, and cliques often do not like each other. Somehow in her mind she got from "I don't like this particular group of people who are Mexican" to, at least in the context of high school, "I don't like Mexicans." It's true I'll never know for certain, but why does that make it a useless question to consider?
|
On September 17 2015 11:30 ChristianS wrote:
Oh, I missed your response. Well it's never possible to completely rule out trolling on the Internet, but he certainly seemed sincere enough, and his post wouldn't have much of a punchline if it was a joke.
Trump isn't like other politicians, and racial reasons for supporting a candidate are qualitatively different from other reasons. Hitler used a sense of racial identity (and, by extension, the exclusion of other races) to give people the sense that in supporting him they were working toward something bigger than themselves. In difficult economic times he gave them the sense that their many troubles weren't their fault; that other races had been destroying them from the inside; and that by creating a new, racially defined nation, and removing the outsiders which were destroying them, they could create a better tomorrow.
Now I'm not saying Donald Trump is a fascist. But when I hear him talk about how because of illegal immigration we don't have a country anymore, and we won't again until we deport every single illegal immigrant, I can't help but hear that as a dog whistle only racists are meant to hear. Worthwhile, then, to consider the types of people he is appealing to, and what type of appeal he has for them.
Wow, I've honestly never drawn the link to Nazi Germany in my mind. I would guess that there are some pretty major differences, but my knowledge of that period of history is limited. My impression is that Trump is mostly bluster, and does not intend to actually deport every illegal immigrant and construct a giant wall at the border.
|
On September 18 2015 02:48 Glowsphere wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 11:30 ChristianS wrote:
Oh, I missed your response. Well it's never possible to completely rule out trolling on the Internet, but he certainly seemed sincere enough, and his post wouldn't have much of a punchline if it was a joke.
Trump isn't like other politicians, and racial reasons for supporting a candidate are qualitatively different from other reasons. Hitler used a sense of racial identity (and, by extension, the exclusion of other races) to give people the sense that in supporting him they were working toward something bigger than themselves. In difficult economic times he gave them the sense that their many troubles weren't their fault; that other races had been destroying them from the inside; and that by creating a new, racially defined nation, and removing the outsiders which were destroying them, they could create a better tomorrow.
Now I'm not saying Donald Trump is a fascist. But when I hear him talk about how because of illegal immigration we don't have a country anymore, and we won't again until we deport every single illegal immigrant, I can't help but hear that as a dog whistle only racists are meant to hear. Worthwhile, then, to consider the types of people he is appealing to, and what type of appeal he has for them. Wow, I've honestly never drawn the link to Nazi Germany in my mind. I would guess that there are some pretty major differences, but my knowledge of that period of history is limited. My impression is that Trump is mostly bluster, and does not intend to actually deport every illegal immigrant and construct a giant wall at the border.
Oh, for sure. The Nazi card is one you have to be careful playing, and I don't mean to imply that if Trump is elected you should start looking for the death camps. Both in rhetoric and in desired policies, the Trump and Nazis differ in many important respects.
I'm only meant to say that racialized rhetoric isn't like other rhetoric – it has often been used to play to people's biases and galvanize supporters by saying, "Hey, you've got a lot of problems, but they're not your fault! And they're not nobody's fault, either. You see that different-looking guy over there? They're his fault!" Given that point, Hitler seemed like a must cite.
|
On September 18 2015 03:07 ChristianS wrote:
I'm only meant to say that racialized rhetoric isn't like other rhetoric – it has often been used to play to people's biases and galvanize supporters by saying, "Hey, you've got a lot of problems, but they're not your fault! And they're not nobody's fault, either. You see that different-looking guy over there? They're his fault!" Given that point, Hitler seemed like a must cite.
How is that different from all the rest of the political rhetoric though? The Democrats and Republicans both tell their supporters that everything is the fault of the other side. Republicans demonize immigrants, gays, and the poor, while Democrats demonize conservative Christians, gun enthusiasts, the wealthy, etc. Racial rhetoric may be more pernicious, but I don't think it's so different from all the rest of the divide and conquer tactics used to win votes.
|
I think we all spend far too much time on the internet, distracting ourselves with endless streams of information/knowledge. But it is only rarely that said input matures into wisdom. I would much prefer the latter, but inconveniently, it only seems to take root when I dedicate lots of time to reading boring, slow, old-fashioned books. Oh boy the next generation are screwed.
|
@Glowsphere: That's cynical. I suppose scapegoatism can exist in other rhetoric as well, but at least it's not innate to it. A Republican can argue that the lower earners in America pay too little in taxes without demonizing the poor. A Democrat can argue for better treatment of Muslims and less special treatment for Christians without demonizing Christians. Perhaps both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of scapegoatism from time to time, but it's certainly not innate. Whereas in racial rhetoric, I don't see the alternative option.
@bITt.mAN: I'm afraid your point is too broad, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not even sure why you think the next generation is screwed. Is it because they get too much information online and read too few books? I'd be curious what you mean by "wisdom;" often books give something a fuller, slower, more point-by-point treatment of a subject, but surely there's more to wisdom than that. Even more confusing to me is what connection you're drawing to this particular thread.
|
Ten years ago, someone my age in my situation would have nowhere near the access to the sheer breadth and number of articles I've stockpiled on my 'To Read' list.
I spend most of my free time following links and reading trivia. Sure, all of its interesting, but there comes a point when endless distraction stops being worthwhile.
I have lots of exposure, I have lots of information about WHAT hardcore feminists or racial justice activists are on about. But that doesn't particularly help me figure out what _I_ believe.
I have lots of knowledge about their opinions, but feel none the wiser. I know more ABOUT the world, but don't feel any more empowered or able to do worthwhile things with that knowledge.
It's kind of like if you went on a huge tangent reading all about Taoist philosophical teaching, such that it became your primary leisure activity. But you were doing it out of nothing more than boredom, and some vague sense of not wanting to be out-of-the-know - you actually have no intention of adopting any of said Taoist beliefs. At some point, all this specialized knowledge you've accumulated feels useless, since it only acts as information, as trivia. It isn't some profound truth that'll improve your own life. You just know more stuff.
It would have been far more inconvenient to get access to this sort of obscure, nice writing even just 10 years ago. But with the explosion of blogs, media farms, and even Wikipedia, the Internet opens us a never-ending rabbit-hole of interesting yet not life-changing articles.
In my experience, feeling having gotten something more substantial than 'trivia' out of reading happens much more often when reading books. I NEVER read books, because I'm so captivated by incessantly clicking, which is frustrating.
I know it was just for fun, and just random, and something your IRL friends probably wouldn't really understand the appeal of, and it's totally OK to post about our strange internet-enabled pursuits and odd fascinations. But I felt the subject-matter of this blog was exactly the sort of thing I find myself consuming with too high a frequency. Things that seem somewhat intriguing, but are largely useless, sadly.
I mention future generations, because this problem of incessant-clicking and frequency-over-depth overdosage will be a burden that will only be worse for people younger than us.
|
Oh, sure, checking out this guy's Facebook probably won't make a big positive change in my life. For what it's worth, since you're not the first person to argue this is a waste of my time, I didn't spend very long doing it. I spent a little longer when I decided to write a blog about it, and even then it was motivated to a significant extent by wanting to practice my writing. So don't worry too much about me, I'll never get that half hour back but I doubt I'll be too much worse off for it either.
I think every generation faces its own unique challenges along these lines. Many people will suffer from it, the smarter and more capable ones will develop coping mechanisms for it, but I don't think it will cause some catastrophic drop in productivity or something. I mean if nothing else, time wasted on reading useless articles is probably still one of the best ways to waste your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
