0
   

Does overt racism/fascism help conceal its covert counterpart?

 
 
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 11:02 am
This Newsweek report says KKK and Nazi propaganda items are being sold on 'National Gun Day,' on the same day as the Pittsburgh shootings. Such blatantly overt expressions of racism/fascism are surprising to say the least, but considering that covert racism has become a more widespread concern than its ugly overt cousin, the question is whether the overt variety helps to shift attention away from and/or otherwise conceal more covert racism that harms people more quietly.

One obvious way I can think of is when people are told that they're complaining about nothing when they experience more subtle forms of discrimination and hate, i.e. because there are these other extreme and overt forms of hate that are going on. In the comparative mind, problems are relative to other problems, so the worse things get elsewhere, the less legitimacy there seems to be in addressing comparatively smaller problems. That means that targets of subtle, covert discrimination may be expected to 'shut up and take it' more because of this more overt variety that's being showcased in the media.

What's your view? Do you have a different perspective?

https://www.newsweek.com/uk-freedom-hall-rex-chapman-mike-pratt-nazi-ku-klux-klan-kentucky-university-1194867
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_racism
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 573 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 02:25 pm
@livinglava,
First of all, the sale of Nazi and KKK memorabilia is not, ipso facto, covert racism.

It could be or it could be as the vendor explained, a legitimate (albeit controversial) trade in collectible historical artifacts.

The Nazi Christmas ornaments for example. If these are authentic items from the period they are legitimate historical collectibles. If they were made in China six months ago, they are not.

Hardcore collectors are, in general, a peculiar lot, and a lot of money is spent collecting artifacts that the average person would have no desire to keep, let alone display in their homes, but the focus of their collection is not necessarily indicative of their ideology or character.

There are people who collect Serial Killer memorabilia, but this certainly should not be construed to mean they are would-be murderers or actual sadists.

This is a highly charged subject that can easily lead to misunderstandings and errors. For example, the two former UK basketball stars who demanded the University either prohibit the sale of Nazi and KKK items on its premises or remove their personal memorabilia apparently were ignorant of the fact that UK does not have the power or authority to determine what is or is not sold in an arena under the control of the State of KY. If they do not withdraw their demand they are placing the University in an untenable position. I hope they do not expect UK's administrators to organize and stage some sort of a mass demonstration that might disrupt future sales.

Putting that aside, I suppose that to some small extent, overt racism might assist in drawing attention away from what you are calling covert racism, but we are at a period in our history when there are fewer instances of overt racism and far greater focus (legally and societally) on covert expression so I can't say there is any sort of disturbing trend in this regard.

Ignoring overt racism would certainly help to facilitate more subtle expressions, but there is no indication that vigilance has eroded. If anything there is a greater chance of mislabeling behavior racist than there is of disregarding it.

You haven't really suggested that there is some sort of plot going on to increase overt racist activity in order to facilitate its covert cousin, but the notion seems to be hanging out in your post. I think that any such notion would be ludicrous as it would require a far greater level of sophistication and sinister intelligence than any of these hamfisted racist organizations have ever displayed.





livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 03:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

First of all, the sale of Nazi and KKK memorabilia is not, ipso facto, covert racism.

Obviously flying flags is overt. I think there is a clever interplay between suppression of overt symbols of racism and the promotion of the covert variant. It's like the taboo on overt racism exists precisely to promote covert racism, otherwise why would issues like this one involving overt racist symbols even come up?

Quote:
It could be or it could be as the vendor explained, a legitimate (albeit controversial) trade in collectible historical artifacts.

The Nazi Christmas ornaments for example. If these are authentic items from the period they are legitimate historical collectibles. If they were made in China six months ago, they are not.

Hardcore collectors are, in general, a peculiar lot, and a lot of money is spent collecting artifacts that the average person would have no desire to keep, let alone display in their homes, but the focus of their collection is not necessarily indicative of their ideology or character.

There are people who collect Serial Killer memorabilia, but this certainly should not be construed to mean they are would-be murderers or actual sadists.

I can't speak for every individual's motives, but I do think that in general, there exists a culture among certain people of creating a barrier between what they portray outwardly and the truth, which they use to get some power in social interactions. For example, someone might stick their middle finger up at you and then claim they were just pointing at the sky and they forgot they should use a different finger. In other words, they know what they're doing and what they mean, but it gives them an extra kick to do it and then deny that they are doing it; i.e. it makes them feel more powerful to be able to lie to your face and deny what they are expressly doing to disrespect or harm you in some way. Culture of hate.

Quote:
This is a highly charged subject that can easily lead to misunderstandings and errors. For example, the two former UK basketball stars who demanded the University either prohibit the sale of Nazi and KKK items on its premises or remove their personal memorabilia apparently were ignorant of the fact that UK does not have the power or authority to determine what is or is not sold in an arena under the control of the State of KY. If they do not withdraw their demand they are placing the University in an untenable position. I hope they do not expect UK's administrators to organize and stage some sort of a mass demonstration that might disrupt future sales.

I think they're just boycotting a venue that allows things they don't want allowed. That's their right, isn't it? If the venue owners decide to prohibit such trade in the future to win their business back, that's their right as well, or not?

These are interesting questions because they get into the economic politics of free speech and censorship within private venues, which the US supreme court has exempted from freedom of speech protections.

Quote:
Putting that aside, I suppose that to some small extent, overt racism might assist in drawing attention away from what you are calling covert racism, but we are at a period in our history when there are fewer instances of overt racism and far greater focus (legally and societally) on covert expression so I can't say there is any sort of disturbing trend in this regard.

I agree and so I wonder what the deal is when I see news stories about really overt racism like this or the other story of the woman sending a racist note to her new neighbors.

Quote:
Ignoring overt racism would certainly help to facilitate more subtle expressions, but there is no indication that vigilance has eroded. If anything there is a greater chance of mislabeling behavior racist than there is of disregarding it.

How would ignoring overt racism help facilitate more subtle expressions?

Quote:
You haven't really suggested that there is some sort of plot going on to increase overt racist activity in order to facilitate its covert cousin, but the notion seems to be hanging out in your post. I think that any such notion would be ludicrous as it would require a far greater level of sophistication and sinister intelligence than any of these hamfisted racist organizations have ever displayed.

I don't think it's an organizational thing. I think people have private conversations about racism not being allowed, and the people who resent it find themselves avoiding expressing their hate overtly, but they aren't about to let it go, so it festers and their minds invent little passive-aggressive ways to express hate covertly.

I think that if certain media promoters recognize this, they can provoke/stimulate more covert racism by putting out media stories about racism that effectively taunt the covert racists. It's hard to say what wouldn't provoke racists who are really steadfast in their beliefs. I think it depends on what their other values in life are and to what extent they are able to engage in open dialogue without feeling they are being manipulated.

They might be afraid of drugs and sexual liberalism more than they are just pure racist, but if you try to talk to them about how drugs and sexual liberalism also occur among whites, they will think you are just trying to get them to accept racial integration and that it will inevitably lead to more drugs and sexual liberalism. What's really needed is a strong black cultural movement against drugs and sexual liberalism, and when (some) racist whites see a culture of integration they can trust as being morally respectable, some will start losing their racism, but maybe there will be plenty of others who won't, some probably because they like the culture of drugs and sexual liberalism that they enjoy within all-white circles, and they just wouldn't want to indulge in such things with people of color, or maybe they think of people of color as being too religious and strict and so they don't want to be around what they perceive as strict moral judgment.

There must be so many different underlying motives for racial prejudice, it's really hard to say what would or could help people overcome it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2018 11:00 pm
@livinglava,
I meant to write

Quote:
...the sale of Nazi and KKK memorabilia is not, ipso facto, overt racism


The flying of a Nazi flag would most likely be an expression of racism, but is that what happened at the Nazi memorabilia booth? Pretty tough to sell the stuff without displaying swastikas and if you are selling the stuff and you want people to know, you are going to display Nazi symbolism.

I don't believe we can assume that sellers of authentic Nazi artifacts are racists or intentionally engage in trade with racists. On the other hand sellers of Nazi trinkets and mass-produced symbols are either racists themselves or amoral. No one would believe any claim that they were not knowingly engaged in commerce with racists. I'm not at all sure what was being sold at the market on the UK campus. We only have the vendor's statement to go by.

If they are not racists then they are not playing a game of deception. If they are does it really make a difference? No one is going to be fooled by the denial of someone who sells Nazi paper plates and resin busts of Adolph Hitler manufactured in China for about 99 cents a piece. You may be right about the psychology of some of these folks, but I think it's irrelevant and not of much interest (at least to me).

Everyone is free to boycott establishments for political purposes. I wouldn't describe the former basketball players' action as a boycott though. It's not likely they were much interested in purchasing goods at the market in the first place. What they are trying to do is coerce the university into shutting down a particular vendor. There's absolutely nothing wrong with their wanting to do their bit to combat racism. If the vendor is supplying racists with Nazi paraphernalia, I salute their efforts. They may not accomplish their goal but they've taken a stand. I hope though that they have verified for themselves that the vendor is not, as he claims, selling historical artifacts to collectors and now that they know the university cannot shut down the vendor's business, regardless of what it is, they will alter their approach and discontinue the efforts to coerce UK. If they retain ownership of whatever memorabilia UK has on display, they are well within their rights to insist that it be returned to them --- for any reason, but if they stick with their demand to have it taken off display, despite the fact that there is nothing UK can do to satisfy their demand, it will be an empty gesture and likely motivated by ignorance and a less than admirable desire to appear virtuous.

You are, of course, correct that the Constitution only protects free speech from restriction and prohibition by the government, and so the efforts of the players would not violate the 1st Amendment any more than you or I refusing, for political reasons, to buy products from Nike or Chick-fil-A would. However, if the university is correct, and the arena in which the market is held is under the control of the State of Kentucky then a 1st Amendment argument could be made if the State shuts down the vendor because of the nature of his wares.

Overt displays of racism are certainly newsworthy. It would be very surprising if there wasn't some sort of news coverage of a KKK parade down the main street of San Francisco, not least of all because in 2018 everyone would anticipate counter-demonstrations that might lead to violence. When it comes to the Media, "If it bleeds, it leads." To be fair though, events like a Neo-Nazi rally in Central Park, cross burnings in the suburbs of Atlanta or vandalism of the MLK memorial in DC deserve coverage. They would be news that the American people would want to know and should know. Not because there might be a gruesome spectacle of violence as Antifa thugs square off against Neo-Nazi goons, but because overt racism is despicable and threatens the stability of our society as well as individuals. If it is on the rise, the American people need to know of it. My only concern would be in coverage that made unsubstantiated charges of overt racism. Some people may disagree with me about the difference between selling historical Nazi artifacts and Nazi nick-nacks, but all charges of racism are not legitimate and I expect journalists to develop actual facts and not rely solely on accusers.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am reading that your premise is that by focusing on overt racism, racists are being provided with a means to deflect attention away from their covert expressions and actions. They are able to use more sensational stories on KKK parades and Neo-Nazi rallies to push back against their victims. A hypothetical racist might now say something like the following to a black person who has confronted him or her:

"You're complaining about petty micro-aggressions. You're all bent out of shape because someone assumed you come from a fatherless household because you are black. Come back and talk when the Klan burns a cross on your front lawn, or cops beat you up for jaywalking!"

I'm glad to learn you don't believe there is some sort of organized conspiracy involved with this, but if you believe it to be happening, I'm led to assume that you must believe that news outlets are following very flawed editorial policy and are not aware of the consequences of their coverage.

I just don't see any evidence of it. Instead, it seems that every week one news outlet or another publishes a story about something said or written which has triggered offense and the claim of racist motivation. I really don't think we need more news coverage of such things and even if we did, how would we get it? Should the media have investigative reporters roaming America looking for subtle signs of racism in what people say and do? As Americans, we can't all agree that police around the country have a double standard when it comes to the enforcement of laws and the race of a suspect. Are we likely to be open to increased reporting on micro-aggressions?

You also seem to be suggesting that journalists could somehow trick covert racists into revealing themselves by taunting them and playing on their sense of superiority. I'm afraid I having a hard time with this. Maybe I don't understand your point, but I certainly don't see the job of journalists to include a crusade to rid America of racists through some sort of psy-ops missions.

To answer your question, ignoring overt expressions of racism would facilitate an increase in covert expressions the way ignoring bank robberies would facilitate an increase in petty thefts. If people began to believe the authorities for, some reason, decided to pull back on prosecuting bank robberies I strongly suspect they would interpret this not as a clever way to reveal and catch more shoplifters, but as a weakening of the authorities resolve to fight crime, and as a result be emboldened to shoplift even more. If the Media stopped covering overt racist incidents don't you think racists would conclude that America doesn't really care about racism and be emboldened to express theirs more freely? I do.

You know, a lot of people might consider your suggestion that what is needed is for blacks to rid their culture of drugs and sexual liberalism so that white racists will be more open to integration to be a very racist statement, and, frankly, I'm not sure how to react to it other than to ask that you explain what you mean.

The statement that "what's really needed is a strong black cultural movement against drugs and sexual liberalism" would seem to mean that you believe (some) racists actually have a legitimate reason for fearing the integration of whites and blacks in American society: Contamination.

I guess I didn't fully process what you've written until I began to respond specifically to each of the paragraphs of your post and then arrived at the penultimate one. I sort of feel as if I may have fallen into the rabbit hole.

There is too much knee-jerk condemnation and snap judging of others in our society and I won't presume that I have accurately interpreted your comments. We have not had prior discussions before this thread and so there is no history upon which I can fall back. It is entirely possible that I've misinterpreted what you've written and so I'll simply ask you to clarify your comments for me. Please understand that no offense is intended.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2018 09:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The flying of a Nazi flag would most likely be an expression of racism, but is that what happened at the Nazi memorabilia booth? Pretty tough to sell the stuff without displaying swastikas and if you are selling the stuff and you want people to know, you are going to display Nazi symbolism.

I don't think the people boycotting them care. I don't think they want to support the supply chain for the stuff period.

Quote:
I don't believe we can assume that sellers of authentic Nazi artifacts are racists or intentionally engage in trade with racists. On the other hand sellers of Nazi trinkets and mass-produced symbols are either racists themselves or amoral. No one would believe any claim that they were not knowingly engaged in commerce with racists. I'm not at all sure what was being sold at the market on the UK campus. We only have the vendor's statement to go by.

I don't think it's necessarily a crime or act of hate to engage in commerce, but if people want to boycott that supply chain, isn't that their right? Similarly, if someone prefers to eat at an all-vegan restaurant than to eat meatless food at a restaurant that also sells meat, isn't that their prerogative?

Quote:
If they are not racists then they are not playing a game of deception. If they are does it really make a difference? No one is going to be fooled by the denial of someone who sells Nazi paper plates and resin busts of Adolph Hitler manufactured in China for about 99 cents a piece. You may be right about the psychology of some of these folks, but I think it's irrelevant and not of much interest (at least to me).

The question I'm asking with this thread is whether more news of overt racism provides ammunition for covert racists to dismiss/marginalize protests/complaints about more covert/subtle racism by contrasting it with the more blatant kind. E.g. you notice a culture of white superiorism at work at complain about it and you're told to chill out, it's not like they are having KKK meetings.

Quote:
Everyone is free to boycott establishments for political purposes. I wouldn't describe the former basketball players' action as a boycott though. It's not likely they were much interested in purchasing goods at the market in the first place. What they are trying to do is coerce the university into shutting down a particular vendor. There's absolutely nothing wrong with their wanting to do their bit to combat racism. If the vendor is supplying racists with Nazi paraphernalia, I salute their efforts. They may not accomplish their goal but they've taken a stand. I hope though that they have verified for themselves that the vendor is not, as he claims, selling historical artifacts to collectors and now that they know the university cannot shut down the vendor's business, regardless of what it is, they will alter their approach and discontinue the efforts to coerce UK. If they retain ownership of whatever memorabilia UK has on display, they are well within their rights to insist that it be returned to them --- for any reason, but if they stick with their demand to have it taken off display, despite the fact that there is nothing UK can do to satisfy their demand, it will be an empty gesture and likely motivated by ignorance and a less than admirable desire to appear virtuous.

I think 'boycott' is a word that can be used generally for this sort of thing. If they want to boycott the university itself and continue to pull their support because of the failure of the rules to allow the university to prevent the sale of such merchandise, that's their prerogative, isn't it?

Quote:
You are, of course, correct that the Constitution only protects free speech from restriction and prohibition by the government, and so the efforts of the players would not violate the 1st Amendment any more than you or I refusing, for political reasons, to buy products from Nike or Chick-fil-A would. However, if the university is correct, and the arena in which the market is held is under the control of the State of Kentucky then a 1st Amendment argument could be made if the State shuts down the vendor because of the nature of his wares.

Does the 1st amendment protect commerce or only speech? I.e. they might not be able to prevent them from flying the flags, but they can prevent them from selling them.

Quote:
Overt displays of racism are certainly newsworthy. It would be very surprising if there wasn't some sort of news coverage of a KKK parade down the main street of San Francisco, not least of all because in 2018 everyone would anticipate counter-demonstrations that might lead to violence. When it comes to the Media, "If it bleeds, it leads." To be fair though, events like a Neo-Nazi rally in Central Park, cross burnings in the suburbs of Atlanta or vandalism of the MLK memorial in DC deserve coverage. They would be news that the American people would want to know and should know. Not because there might be a gruesome spectacle of violence as Antifa thugs square off against Neo-Nazi goons, but because overt racism is despicable and threatens the stability of our society as well as individuals. If it is on the rise, the American people need to know of it. My only concern would be in coverage that made unsubstantiated charges of overt racism. Some people may disagree with me about the difference between selling historical Nazi artifacts and Nazi nick-nacks, but all charges of racism are not legitimate and I expect journalists to develop actual facts and not rely solely on accusers.

I just think there should be deeper reporting to understand the networks and people behind these public expressions, what their ideologies and motives are, etc. There used to be a lot of this sort of thing, with people faces/identities hidden in some way. Idk if that encourages it to give people a pulpit, especially an anonymous one, but I think it is better to understand and have dialogue with people you disagree with than to have silence and combat.

Quote:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am reading that your premise is that by focusing on overt racism, racists are being provided with a means to deflect attention away from their covert expressions and actions. They are able to use more sensational stories on KKK parades and Neo-Nazi rallies to push back against their victims. A hypothetical racist might now say something like the following to a black person who has confronted him or her:

"You're complaining about petty micro-aggressions. You're all bent out of shape because someone assumed you come from a fatherless household because you are black. Come back and talk when the Klan burns a cross on your front lawn, or cops beat you up for jaywalking!"

Excellent example.

Quote:
I'm glad to learn you don't believe there is some sort of organized conspiracy involved with this, but if you believe it to be happening, I'm led to assume that you must believe that news outlets are following very flawed editorial policy and are not aware of the consequences of their coverage.

I refuse to assume there is definitely no conspiracy, organized or otherwise. To do so would presume it is possible to get positive evidence of its absence. The whole basis for conspiracy is keeping things secret and covert. The KKK is by definition a secret organization. The resistance against Nazism in Europe during WWII was a secret, underground movement. There are black markets, secret societies, etc. that all thrive on secrecy as part of their joie de vivre. Gossip is a favorite human pastime, which involves talking with everyone except the person you're talking about, from whom you keep talk about them a secret. In short, secrecy is popular among humans, which are an intelligent species, so the conspiracy to deny all possible conspiracies by labeling people conspiracy theorists is something I reject in favor of simply remaining open to the possibility of any conspiracy actually occurring.

Quote:
I just don't see any evidence of it. Instead, it seems that every week one news outlet or another publishes a story about something said or written which has triggered offense and the claim of racist motivation. I really don't think we need more news coverage of such things and even if we did, how would we get it? Should the media have investigative reporters roaming America looking for subtle signs of racism in what people say and do? As Americans, we can't all agree that police around the country have a double standard when it comes to the enforcement of laws and the race of a suspect. Are we likely to be open to increased reporting on micro-aggressions?

Idk, but I think people should understand it all. You have anti-bullying campaigns in school and then you have kids bullying other kids by calling them bullies. If you just allow bullying to go on, whether in the form of racist micro-aggressions or whatever, you're tolerating what amounts to fascism at a subtle level. Is that really acceptable in a society that strives for liberty?

Quote:
You also seem to be suggesting that journalists could somehow trick covert racists into revealing themselves by taunting them and playing on their sense of superiority. I'm afraid I having a hard time with this. Maybe I don't understand your point, but I certainly don't see the job of journalists to include a crusade to rid America of racists through some sort of psy-ops missions.

Idk about taunting people, but imploring them to rise up to a higher level of maturity and take responsibility for stewarding liberty by respecting others and dealing with issues fairly and without prejudice.

Quote:
To answer your question, ignoring overt expressions of racism would facilitate an increase in covert expressions the way ignoring bank robberies would facilitate an increase in petty thefts. If people began to believe the authorities for, some reason, decided to pull back on prosecuting bank robberies I strongly suspect they would interpret this not as a clever way to reveal and catch more shoplifters, but as a weakening of the authorities resolve to fight crime, and as a result be emboldened to shoplift even more. If the Media stopped covering overt racist incidents don't you think racists would conclude that America doesn't really care about racism and be emboldened to express theirs more freely? I do.

It's a good example. I think it could be possible that, for example, people getting away with white collar crime might benefit from crime bosses ordering more bank robberies, which could create a platform for greater tolerance or ignorance of white collar crime. Then, crime bosses could charge white collar criminals a fee for 'protection,' which would fund the bank robberies. I don't think organized crime is stupid, because there's big money in it and there are smart people in the world willing to work for the bad guys to make more money.

Quote:
You know, a lot of people might consider your suggestion that what is needed is for blacks to rid their culture of drugs and sexual liberalism so that white racists will be more open to integration to be a very racist statement, and, frankly, I'm not sure how to react to it other than to ask that you explain what you mean.

Yes, I know and it is hard for me to vocalize it knowing that it could be taken hurtfully, as a suggestion that blacks are more racially prone to bad morality. That is why I followed that statement with another one in which I said that it could also be that sexually liberal and drug-culture whites might not want morally-clean blacks integrating into their neighborhoods because they would see them as kill-joys. When people have a whitewashed and hidden culture of illicit indulgence, new social patterns is the last thing they want. The status quo protects the facade that covers up the debauchery.

But ultimately, I also think there is prejudice against blacks among morally-strict whites because of the way the media portrays black culture in terms of gangs, thugs, drugs, sexual liberalism, etc. The media has been traditionally criticized for portraying blacks in this way, but sadly many urban young people, black and white, get suckered into the media culture and start acting that way, believing its cool, and morally-strict whites are afraid of that culture coming into their lives. So if there were more visible culturally/morally conservative blacks and whites weren't afraid of being accused of racism for being prejudiced against culturally/morally liberal urban-style (white and black) people, then that would solve the problem of racism for some whites who are only racist because they associate cultural/moral liberalism with blacks, which is racist.

Quote:
The statement that "what's really needed is a strong black cultural movement against drugs and sexual liberalism" would seem to mean that you believe (some) racists actually have a legitimate reason for fearing the integration of whites and blacks in American society: Contamination.

Talking about 'whites' and 'blacks' 'in American society' is really meaningless because none of those terms means anything singular. If conservatives don't want to deal with morally/culturally liberal urban culture, is that racist? Do conservative whites have to embrace urban gang culture to not be racist?

Quote:
I guess I didn't fully process what you've written until I began to respond specifically to each of the paragraphs of your post and then arrived at the penultimate one. I sort of feel as if I may have fallen into the rabbit hole.

Why?

Quote:
There is too much knee-jerk condemnation and snap judging of others in our society and I won't presume that I have accurately interpreted your comments. We have not had prior discussions before this thread and so there is no history upon which I can fall back. It is entirely possible that I've misinterpreted what you've written and so I'll simply ask you to clarify your comments for me. Please understand that no offense is intended.

I just thought we were having a discussion about racism, prejudice, and culture. Forgive me if you have felt offended in reading anything I've written. These topics are loaded with potential for assumptions and stereotypes that offend and/or harken to offensive precedents in cultural history.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2018 09:26 pm
@livinglava,
I have not been offended by anything you have written

I think we are having difficulty communicating, but I believe your intention for raising this question is honorable.

To summarize my positions:

Americans have a great many important rights. Having a right to do something doesn’t mean though that doing it is always the right choice to make.

I don’t think that covering overt expressions of obvious racism in anyway encourages or provides cover for covert racism. I don’t think there is a shortage of coverage of covert racism.

I don’t think the press needs to engage in a crusade to unveil covert racism, and I believe any such effort would likely result in people being falsely accused.

If the press wants to search for admitted racists willing to provide them with interviews that would address what they believe, and why, fine, they get to determine their editorial policy, but what they are most likely to produce is a whole lot more heat than illumination. What is very unlikely is that any journalists will somehow find a way to convince these folks they are wrong thinking, or discover some secret behind racism that society can use to combat it.

Education in this area needs to be focused on children who are forming opinions , not adult racists who hold steadfastly to them.

A small number of adult racists may change their thinking, but it will only happen through personal experience, not by questioning or lecturing from the press

“Black Culture” is no better or worse than “White Culture”. The sort of societal problems you have ascribed to blacks, in general, are shared by whites...and yellows , browns, and reds. All of the problems that are associated with blacks are really problems of poverty and poor education and there a plenty of poor, undereducated people of all races.

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 10:32 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don’t think the press needs to engage in a crusade to unveil covert racism, and I believe any such effort would likely result in people being falsely accused.

Maybe the coverage of covert racism could be disentangled from the culture of false accusations. Really, false accusations work like smokescreen to hide and de-legitimate true awareness of microfascism. It is like when you are in a classroom and all the kids are accusing each other of bullying because they've figured out that is a way to get away with harassing other kids and thus bully them in a more subtle way that won't get them in trouble.

So people should be aware of covert racism/fascism and they should also be aware of the culture of false accusations and how that is yet another form of (micro)fascism.

Quote:
If the press wants to search for admitted racists willing to provide them with interviews that would address what they believe, and why, fine, they get to determine their editorial policy, but what they are most likely to produce is a whole lot more heat than illumination. What is very unlikely is that any journalists will somehow find a way to convince these folks they are wrong thinking, or discover some secret behind racism that society can use to combat it.

I think that studying racism elucidates how human social-cultural operates at a deeper level. Nietzche had the concept of 'will to power' and that really helps to explain fascism, from racism to strategies of lying and covert manipulation, inequality-ism, etc. etc. People are all trying to gain power over their lives in various ways and racism is a way of scapegoating other people without getting to know anything about them beyond their physical body characteristics.

Quote:
Education in this area needs to be focused on children who are forming opinions , not adult racists who hold steadfastly to them.

Children learn by modeling adults. When children see that an adult has power because they are mean and express hate, the child sees an opportunity to gain power by modeling that behavior. Racism is a way of talking tough, rejecting politically-correct BS, and generally exhibiting one's independence in thinking and saying things that are taboo, as well as daring to threaten violence to take a stand.

I think if you look at the attitudes and behavior of left wing people against the social injustices they perceive, you can see how the same tactics of racism/fascism are embraced for the same reasons that right-wing fascists/racists embraced them, and the left wing people choose the left because it gives them an opportunity to express these same violent attitudes in a way that can be defended as ethical, i.e. because it is against something else that is deemed unethical/evil.

Quote:
A small number of adult racists may change their thinking, but it will only happen through personal experience, not by questioning or lecturing from the press

Idk, it didn't change through the years when the press kept silent either.

Quote:
“Black Culture” is no better or worse than “White Culture”. The sort of societal problems you have ascribed to blacks, in general, are shared by whites...and yellows , browns, and reds. All of the problems that are associated with blacks are really problems of poverty and poor education and there a plenty of poor, undereducated people of all races.

Embracing morality and self-discipline are the keys to a better life at level of wealth/income. Focusing on people's moral character and behavior is also the key to appreciating people regardless of their physical appearance. That is why MLKjr. said to judge people by their character rather than the color of their skin.

At present, there is a pro-racism culture that thwarts cultural shifts toward judging people by character by accusing people of racism if they don't embrace immorality and bad behavior. MTV may not have introduced such culture, but it is the best way I can think of to identify how it works. Not just blacks, but all people are portrayed behaving badly and engaging in immorality and it stimulates a culture of fear. Young people like it because it gives them power against people who fear them, and they are still young enough to not worry about the consequences of such behavior or fear others too much. But as they get older, they seek to distance themselves from that kind of immorality and mischievous behavior, and that stimulates a lot of racism and segregation into 'safe/middle-class' and 'unsafe/poor' neighborhoods.

What is really needed is for all people to reject immorality and mischievous behavior so that people can live together in peace in any neighborhood at any income level. When people are poor but they avoid stealing, don't fight and act aggressive/hostile, don't use and/or sell drugs/sex, etc. etc. then they just need a little bit of income since their household costs should reflect their income levels. When drugs are brought into poor areas for people to distribute for easy, fast money, it brings down what could otherwise be an area of rising prosperity.

Racists used to say, "there goes the neighborhood" when a black family would move into an otherwise all-white neighborhood, but that expression should really be used when drugs enter into an otherwise decent-albeit-poor neighborhood of generally good moral character.


[/quote]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does overt racism/fascism help conceal its covert counterpart?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 07:09:02