Tuesday, August 15, 2006

 

JSH: On correcting Ullirch

Someone yet again has made a post about the incident where I made a complaint to Oklahoma State University about a posting by David Ullrich.

I made a reply in that thread which made me consider the value of talking about the argument that Ullrich made which resonated on this newsgroup.

The gist of that argument I've gathered is that if you're dealing with a minority, and that person insults you, why shouldn't you be able to use whatever is available to insult them back, including racial slurs?

I think that argument resonates because in America there are people who feel that minorities get a lot of advantages—from being minority—and get away with a lot of things, and like to use race to their advantage—play the "race card".

So, the idea that hey, why can't they get some as well, and why can't others use racial slurs to get back at them, resonated on the newsgroup so that people defended Ullrich.

Trouble is, I said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, so there is a problem with equating that to some grievous insult on the level of a racial slur, but also, you have to wonder about the logic behind that argument and why it would resonate.

And some people claimed that it was silly to make a big deal since Ullrich just TALKED of a racial slur being an appropriate reply—without delivering—and how dare I hold anyone on Usenet accountable for anything they say and contact his university?

And they were silent when posters began a rain of racial slurs against me, using the word "nigger" that Ullrich had not said.

The problem here people is consistency—you need to follow rules.

What I see though is a need to have an OTHER, as in someone not like you or in a group you consider your own, to whom you feel anything can be done.

And an US, people who you will defend no matter what, as you see them as your own.

That is the problem that besets our world as when you dehumanize another person, they get upset and dehumanize you, and next thing you're shooting at each other, as why not?

If that person is just some thing, not even human to you, who follows other rules other than human rules, why can't you just FORCE them to act as you want?

If only it were simpler to just say, people are people, that other person may annoy the hell out of me, but hey, that person is still a human being.

When you see people make up rules for themselves that are different than the rules for other peoples or groups, I say, you're seeing why racism is dangerous, as one group decides it is superior, and then they do things that another group can't live with—and why should they?

And next thing you know, they are killing each other.

Some people seem to think the answer is to BE SUPERIOR so that you have the best bombs and the most guns, and you can gun down the weaker group until they accept your assessment that you are superior.

But history shows that does not work.

Your group has an advantage for a while, and later it does not. Your children or grandchildren or later generations pay the price as the pendulum swings, and technology moves without care about your preoccupation with your own grandeur.

Oh, until we get to today, when hey, humanity can just knock itself off completely, and no more worries about who is superior!

Everybody will be dead.





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?