gender and race really dont have much application here though Tiruin. (Taken as an asexual male in a very sexual world, I know all too well how out of the norm I am, but this just gives me something to look at and marvel, rather than simply live and take for granted-- I see where I am different, but I also see where I am the same. The proclevity to denounce or discourage that which is different or difficult to understand is universal between all races, all genders, all sexualities. It is the basis of religious extremism, the basis of racism, the basis of gender politics, and nationalism. It is endemic in all of the human race.)
what seems unspoken in the article linked prior, is that the cultural condemnation always fixates on the WORDS used. Never on the rationale behind the intent that powers those words.
"Oh no! He said the N word! How terrible!"
et al.
The word is not what is terrible. It derives from Niger, the country, as well as the latin adjective for for the color "black", negra.
At its most simple core, the word just means "Black".
Like "retarded", or "gay", or "queer", or any other euphemism for a term that society finds "difficult" (or even "icky"), it has ridden the roller coaster of being first offered as the accepted term, become saturated in the all too human malignancy for things that are percieved to be different, and come to mean something entirely different from their etymological roots.
The underlying pathos is not the words used to describe or inflect that sense of malign view--- They are victims, casualties. The words are not responsible.
What is responsible, is the human aversion to things that are different.
Fighting this nature, and it is a natural thing for humans (as it affects all races, all creeds, all genders, all nations, all cultures), is hard. Condemning a word? That is easy.
However, if we are serious about wanting to help ourselves as a species to outgrow this thing that once served our ancestor's survival, that now only holds us back, we must give genuine care and consideration to the efficacy of our proposed solutions.
Does denouncing a word, or use of a word, get rid of the underlying pathos? Clearly, it does not-- as evidenced by the findings presented in the prior linked article. (Something that I myself noticed independently some time ago.) What benefit, therefore, is there in castigation of a word?
As far as I can tell, it actually reinforces the pathos, rather than combating it-- It creates an artificial layer of abstract division between people. "I may not be perfect, but at least I dont use the N word!", and pals. It foments a faulted world view that the words themselves are imbued with irredeemably malign intent, giving rise to the false notion that there is never a legitimate time or means of using those words.
This does not solve the pathos, it enshrines it.
The way to attack the pathos, and move forward beyond it, is to be enraptured by differences, not appalled by them. Ideally, the words we use to describe ourselves should be common, ordinary, and free of such baggage. The problem, is that as a species, we tend to use language to exclude, not include.
"I'm an athlete!" holds some natural connotations that may simply be untrue, for instance. Such as, it implies that the person who ascribes that way is less inclined to mental exploits; it implies they are not also a "scholar."
We seek to emphasize things that make us different, rather than things that we all have in common. We even try to deny things we have in common that we know are deleterious. For instance, everyone is a liar, because at some point in their lives, they have told a lie. Be it a little one to avoid hurting somebody's feelings, or big ones about their tax returns, or where they hid the bodies. Does not matter the severity, everyone is a liar--- so, why do we all instinctively deny this thing we all clearly have in common? Because denouncement of negative things makes us feel better about ourselves compared to how we view other people. It's a dirty truth, but as far as I can tell, it is a universal one.
The first step to resolving a problem is accepting that there is one.
I am different than other people, but being different is not a problem. Castigating people who are different? That *IS* a problem. Applying lazy mental shortcuts to words we use to describe others, to accentuate that hidden castigation? THAT is the buried pathos behind hate speech.
Everyone is guilty, even if we dont realize it. It is endemic to human kind. When we castigate "racists", for instance. Racists are people, and they have the same drives and urges as anyone else. They just do not admit that they have a problem, and are in denial. When we castigate them, we only harden them against that acceptance. We dont help them, and we dont help ourselves by doing it-- but we do anyway, because it makes us feel better about ourselves to demonize others. We would be better served as a species to feel sympathy and pity for people who are consumed by primitive hatreds and are too proud to admit they have a problem, much like we are better served to have sympathy for alcoholics, and drug addicts.
It is hard to feel that way for people who are hurting you. A victim of child abuse from an alcoholic parent may have extreme difficulty in giving that parent the love they need to overcome their alcohol abuse. But, does being insular, cold, and harboring deep resentment and even hatred to that parent really help the victim? Or-- does it really cause them to enter into a cycle of suffering and pain instead?
As a species, we "pussyfoot" around topics we find challenging, or "Icky."
Homosexuality, for instance-- Many heteronormative people find they idea "gross" by a combination of primitive instinct (Not like me, so dangerous- avoid!), and cultural disgust (Makes baby jesus cry!), so they dont want to talk about it, because talking about it makes them have to think about it, and that makes them uncomfortable.
So, they invent cute euphemisms like "fruity", or "poofter", much like squeamish grown-ups who dont really want to talk about sex to an inquistive child will use words like "Pee pee" to describe a genital organ instead.
The ultimate underlying pathos is this squeemishness.
What makes it something to be squeemish about? People have sex. It's a fact of life. People have sex all kinds of ways. Some prefer certain ways, some prefer others.
Likewise with race. It is this squeemishness about the issue that makes us pussyfoot around the issue-- but what issue is that exactly? The simple fact is that people who are sufficiently different from us physically invoke an instinctual response we find unpleasant, and we dont really want to talk about it. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with perceptual differences triggering an evolutionarily programmed response. Really pay attention to yourself and your emotional state the next time you see somebody with a major disfigurement, like a burn victim. Do their burns make them dangerous to you? No? Then why do you have a hard time accepting them as "Same as self" internally?
I am aware of this response, and I CHOOSE to ignore it. Not everyone *IS* aware of it consciously though, and may be quite offputting to people who's only crime is being different from them.
With that thought in mind, consider this:
A person feels derision for somebody they consider to be a racist. They behave in a way that is offputting to a person who is different from them (that person made a different choice than they did-- but pay attention here)-- because that person chose to be offputting to a person who is different from them. (!!!!! So are they really all that different!?)
I can only conclude, therefor, that people who castigate people who suffer from primitive hatreds, rather than feeling sympathy and well wishing for them, are acting irrationally, and are perpetuating the problem, not working to solve it.
I lament this.
When I see people rise up in furious anger over a word, I lament it. It does not solve the problems it seeks to solve. It is just more in an endless litany of mutually applied violence and reprisal. I understand this, because I understand the pathos-- I live with the pathos. I live with it every day.
When a person uses a word like "Nigger", or "Faggot", or "Retard", we should understand that they suffer from hatred, and are a victim of their own hatred, much like an alcoholic is a victim of their alcoholism. Responding with hatred of our own, in the form of ostracism, censure, or reprisal, only infects ourselves with that hatred.
The real solution, is understanding, concern, support, and love.
Witholding those things does not help the person afflicted with hatred. It only drives them harder down its destructive path.
The words are not the problem. The problem is the lack of the higher understanding and acceptance. When we denounce and castigate people who invoke the negativity manifest in such words, we ourselves perpetuate the problem.
Out of a position of pure reason, I cannot, and likely will not, ever condone the censorship of such words, and will equally never condone ostracism of people who suffer from an oppressive cycle of pain and hatred.
I understand why people do it. I literally feel the same pathos myself. But I am honest about myself in this respect. I know the better path.
I am saddened whenever I hear a story like this one, where intolerance rears its ugly head.
Author
Topic: How to respond to warning? (Read 6173 times)