Tolerance of Racism?

[phishtaper]

are you guys married?

[SaggyBalls]

Maybe...there ARE parts of last weekend I don't entirely remember.

[Thorgnor]

I don't mean this to come off the wrong way, but I don't really wanna poke around in your sticky crevasses.

[SaggyBalls]

Oh, TB that's the nicest thing you've probably ever said to me.

[Thorgnor]

Latest article.

"People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur," says Dunn. "One of the ways that people may stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to re-construe the comment as a joke or as a harmless remark."

Edited February 5, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

isn't that essentially the same article?

"Published in the Jan. 9 issue of the journal Science, "Mispredicting Affective and Behavioural Responses to Racism" examines why acts of blatant racism against blacks still occur with alarming regularity, even though being labelled as a racist in modern society has become a powerful stigma. "

Because to many people there can be a difference between being racist and being 'A' racist.

a label or a descriptor...

[Thorgnor]

yes it is, but it's the latest thing I've seen updating the study, skeptic.

[SaggyBalls]

This topic demands detail, as grey areas/smudging the issue has been happening ever since the fight against racism began.

I'm not skeptical. I never doubted the FOCUS of this study, which (to me) seemed to be about people minimizing their reactions to racism and the social workings of 'us versus them' social pressure therein.

I do find it curious that anyone would think that these findings are at all a shock.

"how would I react...well I'd stand up for the other person"...yeah...you'd like to think that you would, but you'd really try to minimize the situation, or would fail to act because you wouldn't be prepared to pass a 'test' on it.

(not you TB...well...maybe...but i sincerely doubt it)

Of course in a land where more often than not the distinction is white/non-white, the issue if big. It's all but totally ruined the stereotypical distinctions between ethnic, cultural, and racial groups.

I wonder what kind of an impact Star Wars, and a lesser degree, Star Trek, LOTR and other SF (Supposed fiction...fantasy, science fiction) movies, TV, and stories has had on young people. Seeing so many different kinds of 'people' with vast differences between them, interacting and working together happily or otherwise.

[Thorgnor]

Wanna watch me twist LOTR into a totally racist re-imaging of the five ages of humanity?

[SaggyBalls]

come on...just because dwarves and elves don't get together doesn't mean that's necessarily a terrible thing.

[Thorgnor]

It's more about the demonization of people who are presented in the novel as "Black Skinned Cannibals" and "Savages", and in the film the guys with the Oliphants, you know? The Arabs.

That's hardly veiled racist intent, imo... but I'm a gun jumper.

Either way, there's an awful lot of modern literary criticisms of Tolkein alleging racism and other "conservative" values.

The "Chosen" people triumph over not only enormous odds but also fallen men, who are portrayed as orcs and ogres, at odds with both progress and the kings and lords of knowledge who provide the heroes of the story.

[SaggyBalls]

Do you take the 'fallen men' to be the downtrodden average man or the power hungry establishment in this story?

the kings and lords of knowledge...are they the good guys or the bad guys to you?

Are you so sure the 'savages' aren't Indian or African? (Haven't read the books...but I'm presuming the Oliphants aren't coming from desert lands.

The books were written before Arabia was really seen as contentious enemies of the West.

[Thorgnor]

Google it dude. The books were post WWII - I'm aware. The film is a little more recent and that's where Arabs have been substituted for what are described as "swarthy" cannibals. They came from the burnt Southern lands. I'm saying that the original racialized characters from the books have been modernized for the film, but only to fit modern racism.

It ain't hard to tell that he valorized Germanic culture, yeah? He liked it, but he was upset by the Nazi's... they'seemed to have fallen from their perch of perfection, dig? They were acting like they came from the burnt lands.

[SaggyBalls]

I wiki'd it...

"Tolkien completed The Lord of the Rings in 1948, close to a decade after the first sketches."

The books were totally finished Post WWII, but mostly written during the war.

[SaggyBalls]

"The "Chosen" people triumph over not only enormous odds but also fallen men, who are portrayed as orcs and ogres, at odds with both progress and the kings and lords of knowledge who provide the heroes of the story"

Isn't that just iconic writing? It's easy to read into 'epic' stories and paint them with a cynical brush.

[Esau.]

I believe you guys would find 'Epic Pooh' by Michael Moorcock an interesting read. Although, I have the feeling Ian knows the essay, or has read it anyway.

(Haven't read the books...

Recommendation, read the books, not just LoTR.

[Thorgnor]

Great call, brother. Have read it, but it could use a re-read.

For sure read the LOTR for anyone who hasn't. You don't know "modern" lit if you haven't, imo.

[SaggyBalls]

HA!

I can't seem to get halfway through fellowship. Maybe next time it'll happen for me.

[Thorgnor]

Sometimes the hardest slogging is the stuff that pays off the most, man.

[Thorgnor]

I know I'm the annoying wiki guy but...

Moorcock criticises a group of celebrated writers of epic fantasy for children, including Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Richard Adams. His criticism is based on two principal grounds: what he sees as the poverty of their writing style, and a political criticism. Moorcock accuses these authors of espousing a form of "corrupted Romance", which he identifies with Anglican Toryism. The defining traits of this attitude are an anti-technological, anti-urban stance which is ultimately misanthropic, that glorifies a vanished or vanishing rural idyll, and is rooted in middle-class or bourgeois attitudes towards progress and political change.

perfect. {shrugs shoulders}

[SaggyBalls]

Of course that would bring criticism, but in fairness, the vanishing 'rural idyll' fails to work because of problems that we have (infrastructure, energy) and is something that can be healthily reverted to once everything is in place. It would be ideal for families to be able to grow their own food and live in small healthy communities. In the same regard, anti-urbanism is justified as long as steps continue to be missed in making urban living healthy, plentiful, and healthy...

...and in most cases even if steps are taken, some steps are out of reach.

Fellowship is eyeing me every time I walk past it.

Unfortunately, the best political change is a move to end politics - and the 'ring of power' signifies that with me. Get rid of it entirely or else man will use it in a vain attempt to do good, and only serve to create more suffering.

Tthe statement that Moorcock criticizes the group of writers instead of their works is either a miswrite or a symptom of writing to change the world.

[Thorgnor]

I think it's somewhat anachronistic to say that the past was sustainable and that a utpian type future will look like the past, but I agree with you over all. I really like this idea...

Unfortunately, the best political change is a move to end politics

However, if you read the word "politics" as meaning the 'differential power (as in access to resources and the use of socially legitimate violence) between people', I think a more equitable political system is all we can hope for.

[SaggyBalls]

I don't think that we'll see a shift to 'utopia' in our lifetime, but in order for it to happen eventually, everyone must be on the same page for it to occur...

...so in realizing that, I need to at least throw it out there.

the past WAS sustainable, but change as it occurred knocked it off its ass. I'm not talking about the recent or semi-recent past.

It will take a lot of effort and a truly conscientous approach to make rural/agrarian areas and societies sustainable, just as it will take quite a bit to make urban living free from strife and misery, as people need their own space, and they need to be free from unjust stresses and social malady. Why is 'urban sprawl' such a huge problem? City living has a long way to go.

The issue of city/country is important in the 'racism' discussion as standards of living directly affect peace of mind.

[Thorgnor]

If the past was so sustainable why did it change?

There is a huge amount of evidence to show that Europeans began colonisation due to extreme pressure on resources. Remeber any stories about the Cedars of Lebanon? Where'd they go? We have NEVER found an entirely sustainable way to live and if you think it's fair to compare our past with the way that any other group of people do things now it's more anachronism. Not to mention that it actually places those people theoretically as our ancestors and as therefore "stuck in the past", it's also extremely ethnocentric to think that our group of humans has progressed or evolved past others.

It's bunk to think that change is the fault of technology, it doesn't wield itself. We've been living in cities for half the amount of time that we've been humans, like 7 or 8 thousand years. What's to say alll of those situations were unsustainable.

Racism is not an urban/rural issue, it's an issue of ideology and access to "belonging" in the form of wealth and protection. Racism is much more of a socio-political issue than a geographical one. ex, The land doesn't determine how you solve the problem of overcrowding, the ideology that allows you to seperate good from bad based on skin color does.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

My error...there is potntial for rural living to be sustainable, as it has been in the past (though its sustainability was evidently marginalized)

Greed and power kept it non-sustainable, and fostered the notion of expansion and growth that kept it going down that path of waste.

It's not ethnocentric to believe that humanity as a whole has evolved and has the potential to continue to evolve.

the change is not the fault of technology, but positive change will use technology and trusted knowledge about agriculture and sustainable urban & community planning to make it all work.

Geography definitely plays a huge role and is definitely a thread in the fabric of society

I never said racism is a rural/urban issue, but people moving to the country to get away from city strife is definitely a part of it. socio-political yes, but geography and society without a free flow of thought and travel contributes to people holing themselves up in the woods or shitty small towns to 'get away'.

It also contributes to people moving to urban areas to be 'with people like us' or away from ignorant and clueless bigotry.

I don't really see why you have to turn this into an argument, TB. It all fits into a greater and more objective perspective. It's not *only* this or *only* that, but there are aspects of current society, culture, and technology that can and do contribute to both positive and negative change.

The way we used to do it has worked and has not worked. The way we do it now can work but often misses the mark. The knowledge we have and the resources that we could have at our potential if decision makers cared enough about true progress could elevate life as we know it above all that's come before us...but sadly it's not happening from the top down.

It's ultimitely fair to note that anti-urban views have their place just as much as a focus on thoughtful urban living and planning - but they can only work if rural/small community living is given enough space and attention, and the same with a shift to strengthening urban living for cities and large towns.

Have you driven through small towns in Southern Ontario and noticed how they're being choked out?

All places, big and small have potential to bring a great wealth of life to fruition in this great nation but they currently don't have the ability to do so, even though they seem to be trying.

Technology will be what saves it all. Not politics or money, but for anyone to write off the thought that greed and its grip on technology has had nothing to do with it, or to affirm that there's just no chance for the old ways of life to have any merit is vitally flawed, as change demands a synthesis to excel.

Farm land, energy generation, Park Land, EcoTourism, logistics networks (people and freight), these all have a lot of potential to grow and to be fostered in this new era, and it will be the small communities and rural areas that provide the bridge between the large centres and the far reaches of Canada.

Negative change is the fault of an inconscientious and impatient approach to, and a true misunderstanding of the concepts surrounding progress and wealth.

Small communities don't have to all have big houses and wasteful sewage treatment. Village living can be far more 'urban' than most city neighbourhoods.

Rural living won't need fossil fuels en masse to heat or to fill the vehicles needed to reach them in the not so distant future.

"The land doesn't determine how you solve the problem of overcrowding, the ideology that allows you to seperate good from bad based on skin color does."

The ideology that allows people to seperate good from bad based on skin color determines how to solve the problem of overcrowding?

So after all this talk about racism, and you spouting off this and that study, you're baring your heart about it now? Is that REALLY what you mean to say?

I must say, though that it is unfortunate that people are more inclined to group together with their 'like' groups. Though it's only natural, it doesn't really add to the 'cultural mosaic' that Canada calls itself. Rural communities could really benefit from attracting people of all kinds to live there.