I have been subjected to my share of racism in my lifetime, though I am not sure if I have ever been racist myself. But because I tease everyone equally, making jokes about all kinds of things, it is very possible that someone has indeed been offended by something I have said. However, there is also the intention, or lack of intention behind it - and intention matters. An intended joke can have unintended consequences, but an intentional statement is pretty clear cut, even if it doesn't reach the intended outcome.
For instance, some people have intended to hurt my feelings by saying something racist, but after facing similar after so many years since childhood, they rarely (if ever) land as intended. I see it more as childish and a marker of low-intelligence. Sometimes I am surprised though, so I have to give them credit.
I understand racists.
A lot of people say they don't understand how or why people are racist, because we are "all human" and blah blah. But, that I see this as copout reasoning, as although it is true, it doesn't actually address the reasons why someone would believe or act a certain way. Human nature is pretty predictable and the reasons for racism is pretty predictable as well. In the past it was about superiority and control over others, and yes, that is still the case. But as racial integration has happened over time, it has become more about identity preservation.
This has been further catalysed by the whole identity politics movements over the last few decades, where we have gone from a slow crawl in the right direction toward less racism, to a clawback toward racism due to constant fragmenting of people into group labels of all kinds. Our "identity" is no longer what we do, it is what we say we are, even if the reality of the situation of us is quite different.
For example, here are some photos from a demonstration in Finland the other day, with a few hundred white supremacists, complete with shaved heads, face masks and Nazi salutes.
Do they look like shining examples of upstanding Finnish citizens who want the best for their country? Or, do they look more like damaged and disillusioned children who didn't get enough hugs from their parents? I also find it ironic that they cover their faces with what could very well be described as an ideological face covering.
There was only one image of the counter-demonstrators and even though they are not wearing masks to hide their identity, I can only see four faces - and two of those have nose rings. Which again, whilst not a condemnation of who they are as people, along with their clothes, does point to their place in society also.
They are playing the identity game as well.
Racism isn't going anywhere as long as we keep doubling-down on labelling as a way to differentiate ourselves from others and feel special as an individual, because the colour of skin is the lowest hanging fruit for labelling, as it is visual and hard to hide. But what is hard to see, is people's behaviours as individuals, which means that many will feel unjustly lumped into a visual grouping that they behaviourally don't belong to, which facilitates even more resentment and societal disconnection.
While a meritocracy has many flaws, there should be more emphasis put on the way we behave as individuals, rather than what we look like. But it would also be interesting to see what these people did for work.
While a job role doesn't tell much, it is just another way to label people, but it does mean that two people who are on opposing sides in one ideological position, are simultaneously on the same side in another. Obviously, I don't know if those people are doctors and my intuition says they are not, but who knows. But hypothetically if they were, they might be working together in the same department, helping each other save people's lives each day. Doesn't that matter?
And I think this is where we have an issue as society, as all sides make assumptions about others, and themselves based on very limited information. The racist can do it on skin colour, but there are many other irrelevant labels that people use that are going to change opinions and behaviours of how they treat them.
What is race superiority?
I believe that most of us would be able to define what a functioning member of society is, someone who adds value in some way. However, I would also assume that the colour of their skin wouldn't be part of that definition. It is only after the role has been defined that some preference comes in and says "oh, they should also be X colour". I reckon that most of us want to live in a clean and safe environment, with enough opportunity and the ability to experience some joy. And if we had those things, we probably wouldn't care too much about skin colour. But, those things are continually being chipped away in the quest for corporate profit, and that profit is also enabled by outrage, making racism and division of all kinds, a self-fulfilling cycle.
I believe we should be moving well away from labels as indicators of quality of person and toward behaviours as the defining factor. People shouldn't "feel special" because they belong to a group label, nor should they be treated badly based on that same label. But I do think that we should be treating people based on their behaviour and judging ourselves based on it too.
Act like an asshole, be treated as an asshole.
Skin colour doesn't come into it. Nor does job role, or nationality, or religion, or any other stupid fucking label that people ascribe to in order to make them feel better about themselves. But in a world where people are feeling pretty shitty and increasingly lazy, it is far more convenient to call oneself and others something as a differentiator, than actually do anything meaningful. It isn't an act of making the world better, it is a selfish belief for ego preservation.
Banning protests and symbols doesn't stop the rot of identity prejudice, because they are just symptoms of the underlying psychological problems of an ill society. These people in the pictures above, are all ill. They might not seem it to themselves, but they seem it to each other, right? The other side is ill, because what they believe is flawed. But the fact is beliefs are always flawed. If they weren't, they would be truths. And what that means is that whenever we believe something, it should be a caution sign that we shouldn't act, before investigating further, because our conditioned defaults are trying to take over.
Yet, we all believe ourselves to be correct.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
