Racism

submitted by Death_By_Democracy from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The remarkable potential of a site like this lies in the conversation one level above the slurs people like to throw around because they can.

Only in an environment where people are allowed to consider such speech as acceptable does the broader question appear: What if the concepts that "all races can live together in harmony in a society" and "our similarities dwarf our differences" are wrong? This is a huge and important question. These premises are now so deeply ingrained in our society that they represent doctrine. To question whether all races are equally capable of living within the structure as it is constituted is considered Heresy in the modern intellectual environment. But what if the doctrine is wrong and has been since WWII?

Has western society benefited from this doctrine? Do we believe that today's society is more or less functional than the society pre-WWII, when racism was still roughly acceptable?

How many are willing to approach these questions with an open mind?

The mud-slinging names are brainless, I'll grant you. But there are deeper questions behind them that have been suppressed for decades. The debate was defined as "over", but is our society demonstrating that ending it as we did was in fact a large mistake rather than the universal "progress" the 90+% of the intellectual class accepts it as?

[–]Nathanielthomas 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know. Let me ask you a rhetorical question instead: have indigenous people benefited from your so-called Western doctrines since coming here and colonizing their lands and people and telling them what to think and what to do?

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Civilizations have been wiping out other civilizations since the beginning of humanity. This is not a new phenomenon and it is not unique to the west.

Your question is absolutely right on target. Is it beneficial for either the "winners" or the "losers" for two distinct groups to be forced to live among each other?

On a more personal note, I - as an individual - am genuinely color-blind. With regards to any individual with whom I come in contact, I judge that individual based on the interaction we have. If a group looks dangerous, I stay away, whatever their color or creed. I've seen dangerous-looking groups of young white men; I've seen dangerous-looking groups of young black men. As a white man, I fear the black groups more, because angry black men are more likely to direct their anger on me simply for my race than are the white men. That dynamic works both ways, of course. Black men feel more nervous around groups of dangerous white men.

I repeat my original theme: is the "melting pot" actually the most harmonious way to design a society, or would it make more sense to acknowledge genuine differences among races and ethnicities, allowing different societies to form independently from each other, each following the traditions and capabilities of its homogeneous group?

And would such an idea even be possible or is it logistically simply never going to happen because peoples interbreed, and to think otherwise is simply a waste of time?