Annoying modern trends...

[vitanola]

But it's open to debate which faction arises from "schism."

True, that, but then I take my reading from the split in the New England Church over Unitarianism in the 1820's. The Unitarians generally kept the buildings and the Trinitarians generally took the endowments and built new churches across the village square, hence they must have been the schismatics.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, the Protestant denominations here in America were under very strong Ruskinian influence during the so-called "Golden Era" (which of course I identify as the period between the election of McKinley and Roosevelt's third term, a bit earlier than the period as identified by others here). Protestant Christianity tended toward social Progressivism to a very great extent in this period, save in some backwaters. This error was eventually corrected after condsiderable expenditure by groups like the NAM and the Advertising Council through their creature "The Committee for Religion in American Life", making the Temple once again safe for the Money Changers.

Kevin Kruse's recent book "One Nation Under God" thoroughly documents exactly how this happened, naming names and citiing original archival sources. Well worth reading.

 

[ChrisB]

It is worth noting that the pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And, significantly, he didn't mention God in it. The harpies of the DAR and the professional veterans of the American Legion began tampering with his wording in the 1920s to make it "more patriotic," and then after WWII, the Knights of Columbus started agitating to add "Under God," so as to tell the godless Commies where to get off. Apparently the K of C hadn't noticed that the Nazis had marched into battle wearing belt buckles proclaiming "Gott Mit Uns," so it would seem that the Almighty's exact political alignment was a matter of some debate during these years.

 

[vitanola]

Apparently the K of C hadn't noticed that the Nazis had marched into battle wearing belt buckles proclaiming "Gott Mit Uns," so it would seem that the Almighty's exact political alignment was a matter of some debate during these years.

Heck, even back in '70 the Prussian (actually, all soldiers of the North German Federation) soldiers at the Gravelotte and Metz were also wearing buckles bearing the motto.

 

[sheeplady]

I have read and thought about Lizzie's and Vitanola's response and believe I understand them. But the "solution" IMHO is not to simply say someone's view is right because they either feel oppressed or because they are part of a historically or presently oppressed class no matter how horrible the history and present oppression in society may be.

Without objective justice - as an ideal we'll rarely achieve, but one we have to strive for - all we have is a system of everyone trying to decide who gets to be the oppressor.

To wit, if someone can claim oppression against someone else and the person being charge can not actively defend themselves in a venue striving for objective justice - and if our social norms don't believe that objective justice is a fair approach - then, IMHO, all we have done is switched one biased and oppressive view of justice for another.

If the person claiming to be oppressed is granted special status and not required to prove their claim objectively, then they have, IMHO, become an oppressor themselves.

I think this is a rather... simplistic view. In the United States we've nevery seen such a historic switch in oppressors to the oppressed.

Now, there are those that feel (as always have) that minorities and women having equal rights is taking away some of the opressor's rights; no it takes away privledge. Life is not pie. Giving someone equal rights doesn't cut your slice down.

Having been on the receiving end of some really abhorrent behavior as a white educated married woman who presents as such (including housing discrimination (pregnant), sexism, and racism) I have to imagine it's likely worse for someone who people also call a racial slur... on top of having an ethnic name, being female, and/or being pregnant).

As a perfect example: I was once told, based upon my maiden and given names that I was NOT and COULD NOT be a US citizen, and was denied a graduate funding application because of it. I am a US citizen, my parents were US citizens, my grandparents were US citizens, and my great-grandparents were all US citizens. Just imagine if I was a black woman who was a naturalized citizen with an "ethnic" name... I doubt I would have gotten that application with an apology.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think this is a rather... simplistic view. In the United States we've nevery seen such a historic switch in oppressors to the oppressed.

Now, there are those that feel (as always have) that minorities and women having equal rights is taking away some of the opressor's rights; no it takes away privledge. Life is not pie. Giving someone equal rights doesn't cut your slice down.

Having been on the receiving end of some really abhorrent behavior as a white educated married woman who presents as such (including housing discrimination (pregnant), sexism, and racism) I have to imagine it's likely worse for someone who people also call a racial slur... on top of having an ethnic name, being female, and/or being pregnant).

As a perfect example: I was once told, based upon my maiden and given names that I was NOT and COULD NOT be a US citizen, and was denied a graduate funding application because of it. I am a US citizen, my parents were US citizens, my grandparents were US citizens, and my great-grandparents were all US citizens. Just imagine if I was a black woman who was a naturalized citizen with an "ethnic" name... I doubt I would have gotten that application with an apology.

Nothing I wrote opposes what you wrote here. All the behaviors you describe, all the horrible treatment, all the disgusting prejudice should be fought tooth and claw and I'll stand with anyone fighting them. And would like to believe I have conducted myself consistent with that view in my life. Also, I have no desire to change anyone's mind about anything - if they feel oppressed, I'm not trying to tell them they aren't.

But if we as as a society want our government to put rules / laws / regulations in place to prevent this behavior - and thank God we have been doing so (imperfectly) - then there has to be impartial judgement for those rules / laws / regulations. No group / no individual - no matter how historically or presently oppressed - is granted some sort of carte blanche to not prove their claim against someone else and no one in a free society should be judged guilty of those charges without an objective judicial process.

I don't think that is simplistic at all. I think objective impartial justice is at the center of the solution.

 

[2jakes]

^^^^^
The way I see it, both of you are on similar roads.
Each brings along their own baggage that determines
how they feel and see things as they proceed towards
their destination.

 

[MisterCairo]

Drive thrus.

 

[2jakes]

Drive thrus.

speed bumps

 

[sheeplady]

As much as government regulation is important in fighting for justice, there's many things that can not be brought in front of a court of law, and if they are, there might not be enough evidence to present or get a conviction.

What it is going to take to get rid of this behavior is to makr hate the hard choice, for people who make racist statements to be outside of acceptable society, to have them be shunned and cast out. If everyone who said the n-word found themselves without friends, family, clients/customers, coworkers, employers, employees... it would drive home that our society doesn't like slurs and that we won't tolerate racism, sexism, etc.

Instead what happens is we ignore when our Aunt Mildred says the n-word, watch while someone is spewing hate in the street, and generally walk away. This behavior emboldens these sorts of racists. If the only point of time that racists are afraid is if they're taken to court, we're not going to make any progress fighting racisim. We still allow these people in our homes, BECAUSE "they'd never really treat someone bad." Uh-huh.

This is much harder than going to court. This can mean cutting off your last living relative, shunning your only child, divorce, and no longer seeing your oldest friend if they're a racist or sexist. And that's sad, and that's hard for most people.

For me, I realized a long time ago that if I was in a same sex marriage or a biracial one or adopted a child of color, there would be friends and family and professionals I wouldn't be taking this person around, and I'd have to end the friendship/ business relationship/ family relationship. I had tried to lay down boundaries and educate, I made zero headway. So why was I tolerating the behavior that I thought was so disgusting? I had no answer. So I ended these relationships and I told them why.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Sheeplady: Would you favor the death penalty for anyone who deviates from your view of correct behavior? Or how about a good, stiff, jail sentence? Sounds like you might.

 

[sheeplady]

Sheeplady: Would you favor the death penalty for anyone who deviates from your view of correct behavior? Or how about a good, stiff, jail sentence? Sounds like you might.

I do hope you are being... cheeky.

The idea of the death penalty for words is... beyond comprehension. I am not in favor of jail sentences for shouting the n-word either. The reason why boarders on political speech, but, needless to say the country I live in protects "free speech"... but does not protect you against non-governmental consequences of using slurs. What I support is social consequences for being a racist.

I think it's perfectly fitting for someone who's racist to be shunned by greater society. Now, of course, there will always be others who are in agreement with said racist behavior, they are free to ban together, talk to each other, use each other's services, etc.

I will say, shunning has long been a behavior displayed towards racists and other ists, even in the Golden Era. See 12 Angry Men as an example.

 

[vitanola]

I do hope you are being... cheeky.

The idea of the death penalty for words is... beyond comprehension. I am not in favor of jail sentences for shouting the n-word either. The reason why boarders on political speech, but, needless to say the country I live in protects "free speech"... but does not protect you against non-governmental consequences of using slurs. What I support is social consequences for being a racist.

I think it's perfectly fitting for someone who's racist to be shunned by greater society. Now, of course, there will always be others who are in agreement with said racist behavior, they are free to ban together, talk to each other, use each other's services, etc.

I will say, shunning has long been a behavior displayed towards racists and other ists, even in the Golden Era. See 12 Angry Men as an example.

"Nice people don't say such things." "Nice people don't do such things."

 

[2jakes]

Don Rickles and Richard Pryor
have made a good living saying
"not so nice things".

 

[Trenchfriend]

@all

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[vitanola]

I was referring to the efficacy of social opprobrium, as mentioned earlier by Dr. Sheeplady. The humor in a transgressive comedian's routine is rooted in its very transgression of normal social rules.

 

[Angus Forbes]

I

I think it's perfectly fitting for someone who's racist to be shunned by greater society. Now, of course, there will always be others who are in agreement with said racist behavior, they are free to ban together, talk to each other, use each other's services, etc.

I will say, shunning has long been a behavior displayed towards racists and other ists, even in the Golden Era. See 12 Angry Men as an example.

I don't think that there is any universally agreed definition of racism. Can you provide one?

Conflicting responsibilities are problematic. Evidently, you believe that socializing with someone whom you think is a racist is a worse transgression than ostracizing a parent, a child, or a friend, and that anyone you deem to be a racist should be beaten into the ground socially, so to speak. What school of philosophy gives support for this kind of action? To me, it sounds like a philosophy that is little more than a fig leaf for some seriously dysfunctional behavior, ethics, and relationships.

 

[ChrisB]

We can't even come up with a definition of race that passes scientific muster, so any attempt to pin any attribute on race is devoid of logic.

 

[Angus Forbes]

@all

Don't feed the trolls.

Hey, my friend, nobody is requiring you to participate in this discussion, which I find intreaguing, or to read my comments! If you're not interested, please just carry on.

Best regards! -- AF