I hate talking about race problems when there's more than one race present.
When I get to focus on one crew at a time I get useful discussions like the one at Blogcritics that followed up Joseph Taylor's foolishness. That discussion was useful because I got to point out the central reason Black and white people seem unable to come to terms over race:
But understand that you and I are dealing with different aspects of that legacy.What problems does racism cause you, a reasonably well-educated white male from a fairly upper middle class background?
What problems does racism cause me, a 6'2" 185 lb Black male, self-educated, no degree, had to work up from messenger to Assistant VP at a bank, father a farmer, mother a laborer that eventually got a nice safe civil service job?
I am curious what the practical ramifications are of your Black partisanship. Do you relate to me differently because I am White because of it?
Black and white folks have the same practical definitions of racism: "References to race that will make me feel bad if I accept it as I understand it." So Joseph Taylor can rant about Black partisans, swear up and down he pays no regard to race, no suh, yet drop this gem in the discussion:
But then again, my logic professor was a white guy, so maybe my ignorant belief that attacking someone because he's white is fallacious stems from that... *L*
That Eric is so reasonable and Joseph so not while both show this pattern demonstrates this is a matter of understandings, not misunderstandings. And it explains why totally well meaning people can come up with (from my perspective) the worst ideas to "solve" racism. It's because they're addressing a different problem than the one that has been so damaging to us all.
Part of what you seem to be struggling against is the irrational cultural prevalence of psychological subjectivism which leaves it up to the chance perceptions of particular individuals whether a thing exists or not.
One person's vague unease is as valid or unprovable as anyone else so somebody can say or do any foolish thing and claim complete innocence ( or hurl denunciations) without any kind of common reference point.
Some things are intrinsically wrong even if no one in particular gets their feelings hurt while other things are right no matter how many people get their nose out of joint.
Posted by mark safranski at May 24, 2004 02:54 PMThat is part of it, yes. Another part is willful denial…you can prove someone wrong as hell and they'll repeat the same argument to the next guy, as though out-arguing ten guys cancels the truth that one person speaks.
And it's not specific to race. I'm seeing it in politics, economics, religion, science…and the word that occurs to me to describe it all is disgusting.
Posted by P6 at May 24, 2004 03:25 PMDisgusting and weak.
Posted by P6 at May 24, 2004 03:25 PMI see a lot of that too. It's coupled with an increasing desire to create partisan zones, listservs,newsmagazines,talk shows,blogs, websites free of opinions that contradict the house orthodoxy.
Hmmmm Promethean Earl tends, despite his politics, toward an Aristotlelean-objective epistemology...probably why we can find common ground instead of dead ends.
Posted by mark safranski at May 24, 2004 10:28 PMTends? Mark, if its less real than a rock it's of no use to me. There are times I think Platonism is the root cause of all the maladjustments current in Western civilization.
And my politics depends on objectivity. How else do you know if something works? Hell, everyone's politic should depend on objectivity, for the same reason.
Posted by P6 at May 24, 2004 11:05 PM" Tends? Mark, if its less real than a rock it's of no use to me. There are times I think Platonism is the root cause of all the maladjustments current in Western civilization."
Amen.
I hereby promote you to the status of my favorite progressive. With that kind of realism I wonder if you will be considered " progressive " in the current political sense of the term a decade from now
Posted by mark safranski at May 25, 2004 11:06 AM