"'We need to start learning how to simply NOT THINK about denigrating and enslaving blacks, and NOT MENTION IT.' We live in a world where this is not remotely possible. Suggesting it is the worst sort of idealism." --some Southern slave owner, 1859
The same could be applied to historical anti-semitic movements, anti-suffrage groups--anti-anything groups, really.
It can be boiled down to: "We need to start learning how to simply NOT THINK about treating other people badly because of their appearance or where they are from, and NOT MENTION IT," and people like you saying, "That's impossible. We will always be just as hateful and prejudiced as the worst of us are now. You shouldn't even suggest that it's possible to make any progress in human society."
It boggles my mind that you could even think this way. But, then, people thinking and acting in unreasonable ways is the root of these problems.
"We need to start learning how to simply NOT THINK about slavery, and NOT MENTION IT."
Do you see why this would not be an effective way to eliminate slavery?
Can you implement and maintain a market without mentioning/discussing that market?
I don't see how any activity, economic or otherwise, can exist much less persist if you can't discuss it.
How would one buy something if they don't understand what it is or its utility?
Why would someone engage in selling something if they don't know a market exists for that product and don't talk about it (market it)?
Could racist groups like the KKK persist without resorting to racial language to communicate their ideas?
This thought experiment is rooted in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity.
Yours is akin to saying, "Let's sweep slavery under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist."
Mine is akin to saying, "We should no longer even consider enslaving people or treating people badly because their skin is a certain color."
Yours would certainly be ineffective in eliminating slavery because it advocates pretending that it doesn't exist.
Mine is standing up against slavery and saying that the underlying principle used to justify it is morally wrong.
Applied to the issue of reverse racism, yours would be akin to saying, "Let's ignore or even advocate one kind of racism, while condemning another kind."
Mine would be akin to saying, "All racism is wrong. We should all stop being racist in any way, period."
I think the issue is that one side bases its position on moral principles, while the other side bases its position on utilitarianism.
One side says, "Two wrongs don't make a right. -1 - 1 = -2". The other side says, "It's acceptable to do wrong to compensate for another wrong. -1 - 1 = 0."
One side says, "We are not all-knowing or all-wise. We cannot fairly do a concrete injustice to an innocent person to compensate for a perceived injustice done to another innocent person." The other side says, "This innocent person should not complain about being treated unjustly, because this other innocent person has probably been treated unjustly."
One side sees it as a zero-sum game. The other side recognizes that, as long as racism exists in any form, we all lose.
> We will always be just as hateful and prejudiced as the worst of us are now.
That is emphatically not what the GP is saying. The problem is not the ideal that race should not matter, it's that history does not go away, or more generally we can not build the ideal world from first principles.
Those with privilege often wish it was as simple as simply being "color-blind", then everything would be fair, right? Wrong. Because even if no white person harbored racist thoughts of any kind, we are still saddled with racist institutions and wealth distribution. Even if police magically became completely egalitarian, black people would still suffer the brunt of police brutality, because they still live in the poorest areas where there is the most crime.
The bottom line is that, if you are a white male (which I am), then you really and truly should be listening and not proclaiming any strong opinion or solution, because privilege is a blind, and so you really are not qualified to have an opinion about what should be done about sexism or racism. I feel like this is especially onerous for geeks (again, like me) who value their ability to reason, but understand that your (my) feelings being hurt is much less of an indignity than most black people face on a regular basis. Don't get defensive and try to prove how non-racist you are. Instead just take a deep breath and realize that this country forcibly imported 10 million African slaves. Despite how uncomfortable that makes a lot of people, there really is no way for that legacy to ever be erased.
You saying "If you are a white male, you should hold your tongue" is hugely problematic, because it means white males should not be part of the solution to racism and should have no voice in any changes.
And that's all balderdash. In fact, go back in time a few decades, and this was not such a big deal. We were moving on. Fast-forward to today, and we have a new generation of agitators learning how to be outraged at the distant past, fomenting dissent and unrest.
We are not saddled with racist institutions--we are building a new breed of them. And poverty knows not skin color.
And what is it with this idea of police brutality? "black people would still suffer the brunt of police brutality, because they still live in the poorest areas where there is the most crime." There is less police brutality in this country than there has been at any time in its history. Those people you're talking about are suffering from crime. The problem is not police brutality--the problem is crime. Most murdered blacks are murdered by other blacks.
Frankly, how dare you tell anyone that they are not qualified to have an opinion on what is just or fair or right or wrong. That is a stone age attitude if I ever heard one. What you are advocating is effectively a detatched kind of /lex talionis/, one in which the distant descendants of people who were wronged are asked how they should be compensated by the perpetrating of further injustice upon innocents who are in no way responsible for said wrongs of the distant past.
And as a rational human being, I am fully qualified to recognize that injustice, regardless of my skin color or sex.
It's ludicrous. Ask any human being, "Hey, some folks way up your family tree a long time ago were treated wrongly. Therefore, we can give you some free money and bump you to the top of the resume pile. Is that okay with you?" and what do you think they are going to say? The problem is that, in some ways, it is a zero-sum game, because every time one person is given preferential treatment over another, that other person suffers. And that is unjust, unfair, and wrong.
And at the same time, in some ways, it's not a zero-sum game, because when one person suffers injustice, we are all wronged. The only way to stop this is to stop all injustice and treat all people equally. That is the only truly fair, just, and right thing to do. Justice should be blind, and that includes being blind to skin color and sex.
> Don't get defensive and try to prove how non-racist you are.
Why are you saying these things? Show me where I am defensive and trying to prove anything about myself. I am not and have never been the subject of this discussion. You're parroting lines, not participating in a discussion.
> Despite how uncomfortable that makes a lot of people, there really is no way for that legacy to ever be erased.
So, tell me, what is the statute of limitations? When is the expiration date? Apparently 150+ years is not it. Apparently the 600,000 deaths of Union soldiers who died as part of the effort to end slavery isn't part of the equation. So what is it then? 200 years? 500 years? 1,000 years? The dissolution of the nation altogether? If there is truly no end to this "legacy," then why are we stopping at slavery? Why aren't we going back more hundreds or thousands of years to all the other horrific tragedies perpetrated by one group upon another?
Quite seriously, where do you draw the line, and who are you--or anyone else--to make that call?
You don't bail out a sinking ship by pouring water into the ship; you stop the leak and pump out the water. You don't heal broken bones by breaking other people's bones. You cannot solve racism by applying more racism.
The thought promoted by the OP (of this idea) seems to imply that by setting an example behavior based on our ideals, others, with no such ideals, will somehow be compelled to adopt them. I just can't imagine anyone actually thinks that's true.
A German citizen in 1940 doesn't want anyone to see murder in the world, so he sets an example by NOT THINKING and NOT MENTIONING murder. And millions of people get murdered by his fellow countrymen who don't share the same ideals.
Pacifism has it's place and is often respectable. But non-confrontational, silent pacifism is a holey personal journey and has little hope of having any influence outside oneself.
