I've
been recently taken to task by yet another poster on a site. At the
root of his criticism was the fact that I objected to a comment that
was clearly racist. i.e. it was in the context of Obama's
acquiescence to the powers that be in USPolitics ...he called Him an
Uncle Tom.
This
is based on Harriet Beecher Stowes book of the same name. It referred
to a subservient 'nigger' (slave) who is willing to sacrifice his
life etc for the white 'massa'.
In
this , the only, real context... it introduce colour as a pejorative.
I
would argue that one wouldn't refer to Bush or any other Prez as
white uncle toms. Thus the term is demeaningly used,and as such my
criticism was/is valid.
This
obviously stung the poster in such a way he continued the attack
later. But this time as a tit for tat attack on me personally.
Now
here is the conundrum, One of his criticisms was that I'm verbose in
my responses and using the site as an ego therapy. The first is
valid (from his perspective), the second isn't.
Clearly
the reader has made the non existent link between making a racist
comment and him being racist.
Hence
his response.
My
problem is that see the difference between the two i. e. I don't
believe that one swallow = spring . Put another way if I hit my thumb
with a hammer and let out with an expletive, that doesn't mean that I
am a simple minded foul mouthed individual prone to bad language in
public or in print.
By
that reasoning I don't believe the commenter is a burning cross or
closet racist bigot. Merely that the terminology is offensive to me
and that I consider it unacceptable, not to mention that coloured
people reading would find it so too.
It
is one thing to attack an action or words but not the personality of
the person doing /making them. Especially given that I'm reasonably
sure Obama is personally unknown to both of us.
I
would further argue that such terms or personal attacks are
unproductive in getting a discussed compromise or working conclusion.
It is psychological fact that repetition forms opinions. One only
needs to watch the news on politics or ads to hear/see the 'staying
on message' and the incessant repartition.
The
problem is that not enough people draw the line between personality
and function.
i.e.
Obama's fate will largely depend on the public's impression of him
personally, their personal disappointments ( they over expectations
about what he can functionally do), rather than the impressive list
of positive things he has done... This is further emphasised by
Romney's campaign being largely ' that he is not Obama'. The truth is
if Romney is successful he will be beholden to simply a 'different'
group
of Plutocrats.
The
media in fact the whole Capitalist edifice is based and bolstered by
the vagaries of Personalities/emotions not substance.
i.e.
Gem stones ...diamonds in particular aren't all that rare rather the
high prices/value is artificially kept high by restricting their
availability by the DeBeer's cartel the consequences of which are
diabolical.( blood diamonds)
Perhaps
my most trenchant disgust is how the media focuses on the sensational
or personalities rather than the un adorned facts . i.e. An US
Senator visiting Israel went 'skinny dipping' and that is a scandal?
Why? Because the media has said so again and again and Again. People
have had natural tendencies deftly hyper sensitised to whereby
such trivial actions has bearing on public opinion on his ability
to do his job.
When
in truth it has absolutely none.
Essentially
I'm rebelling over the over simplification , the personality V
competence to lead a country which leads me to How do I communicate
with others if all they want is over simplified, glorified,
sanctimonious gossip and personalised attacks in lieu of reasoned
in context analysis of topics perhaps to arrive at a solution?
No comments:
Post a Comment