Right Wingers — Expand Your Vocab

I have been trying to get out of the habit of scrolling through social media first thing in the morning. The habit is a terrible time waster, but today it did give me the fuel for a blog post.

Guillermo Del Toro received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and had a Mexican flag with him during it. I welcome the addition of the Mexican flag, especially since the president has repeatedly stated that Mexico “doesn’t send its best.” Here, we see the result of a typical immigrant’s journey: Honest, hard work. The Mexican flag is a statement akin to Olympic athletes raising the black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, Of course, this video attracted some idiots.

The term “virtue signal” has no place here. Del Toro is one of the most famous directors in Hollywood. His visual style is revered, he is an Oscar winner who has a diverse body of work ranging from Hellboy to Pan’s Labryinth to The Shape of Water.

So when this person realizes they said something stupid and then get called out for it, they say something dumber.

Why weigh in on a director’s pedigree if you don’t watch movies? It’s like me complaining about a hockey player getting inducted into the Hall of Fame if I know nothing about the sport.

I went through “Leah’s” profile and as expected, it was a right-wing treasure chest. Pro-life, Pro-Trump, and several posts discussing the need to be “colour-blind” and look for “civil solutions” to racist abuse.

This person is also Hispanic and makes sure to mention that in the bio, since she has the belief that people of colour can’t internalize racism. This Uncle Tom (or Aunt Tammy) is just one of many who uses right-wing buzzwords as a knee-jerk response and has a hard time thinking for herself.

Fanning the Flames

I have been blogging less over the past few weeks. Sometimes I might feel like I don’t know what I want to discuss, but sometimes a blog post falls into my lap. Let’s take a look at some tweets.

I came across the below one this morning, where Kaitlin Bennett is saying that democrats want to declare nuclear war on gun owners. At first, I assumed “nuclear war” was just a metaphor, meant to say that democrats are figuratively attacking gun owners.

Alas, it turns out Bennett meant it literally. Going through the comments I came across this tweet.

So, for those of us with decent reading comprehension, we realize that Jason Kander is not saying gun owners should be nuked. Kander is arguing that the government could potentially use nukes in the event of an armed uprising by the American people. The use of nukes would then nullify the safety or protection that assault rifles give American citizens. Kander’s point is easy to follow, or so I thought. It is his tweet that led to the whole “democrats want to declare nuclear war” flurry on Twitter.

I made this tweet in response.

@AmericanGunChic didn’t take kindly to it, as expected.

I ignored the childish overuse of exclamation marks. I also ignored the claim that a government or “constitutionalist” would never use the military against its own people. The government has and most certainly would do so in the event of an armed uprising by its people. History gives us numerous examples.

I ignored that point in my response because @AmericanGunChic followed up with another response that actually reveals that she understands the real point Kander was making.

“His evidence was that the government could/would use NUKES to ensure dissent never overpowered the governments stranglehold on power & control!”

Right there. That is the real point Kander was making. If @AmericanGunChic realizes that, then she knows the “democrats want to declare nuclear war” point is false. This is evidence of willful ignorance, or a desire to twist words to create a better soundbite to rile up the MAGA horde. I guess I can’t blame @AmericanGunChic for doing so since it seems to be working. Her responses still managed to get likes by people who are already on her side. If you can get away with accusing someone of wanting to declare nuclear war, why not right?

In Living Colour

You may have heard about this incident, where a white woman accosted two Hispanic women because they had the audacity to speak Spanish. If not, you’ve likely heard of similar incidents, such as the white lawyer who threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Spanish-speaking employees at a restaurants.

Some people are quick to argue race has nothing to do with these incidents. Some are also quick to argue that these incidents, or people like this, are rare.

Let’s talk about the latter point first. It is true that smartphones and social media make it easier to share incidents like this, which could possibly make them appear more common. Even by that metric, there are new incidents multiple times a week. The Twitter account above documents new ones and I am sure that this one user can’t keep track of every single incident of harassment minorities receive.

I think part of the reason we are seeing more of these incidents is because racists feel more emboldened living under a president who accused most Mexicans of being rapists. We have had social media and smartphones for over a decade now, yet there still appears to be an uptick in these incidents. Racists are more visible now, but I believe they also open themselves up to increased visibility because their beliefs are now vindicated by the leader of the free world. They feel they have the right to harass people from “shithole countries,” or harass people who look like they might come from shithole countries. Black people have had the cops called on them for babysitting and talking to their son at a soccer game. Let’s focus on the incidents where a white person gives a coloured person grief for speaking another language.

The woman in the tweet above is named Linda Dwire, and this article explains what happened before and after the events caught on tape. There are plenty of people who will feign ignorance or a desire to get “the whole story” when they see a clip like this. Apparently, the act is known as sea-lioning, and is considered a trolling tactic. Oftentimes, the sea lions will deny the validity of evidence when it is presented.

I’m going to pick apart the statements Dwire made in this article, to show how her worldview is rooted in racist assumptions. First, I want to bring up a general point to shut down the “it’s not about race” argument. Within an American context, Spanish is most often associated with Mexico and Latin American countries. Although there are plenty of white (and black, Asian etc.) people in these countries, the stereotypical image of a Mexican is normally a brown-skinned person like some of the Hispanic people we see in the video above. Also, the image below is one of the first ones I got after doing a Google Image search for “Mexicans.”

My point being, Spanish is associated with people of colour for a lot of people. Would Dwire get as upset if she was two white people speaking Russian? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Now, let’s look at some of her other statements.

“You will lose your country.” These are words spoken to the other white women, Kamira Trent,who stepped in to stop the harassment.

“You come from a generation that’s destroying this country.” Dwire is basically implying that if the other white woman doesn’t support her bigotry, she isn’t a good American. Dwire hammers that point home with: “It has nothing to do with race. It’s a patriotic thing.”

Dwire thinks people in her country should know the language, which seems fair in principle, but lets break it down. One of the women she was harassing, Fabiola Valesquez, has been in the US for eight years, so she likely knows some English. These incidents always highlight the assumption that someone can only know one language e.g. I heard them speak something else, so they must not know English. This assumption is also evident in this incident, where a Somali women was told to leave a Dunkin’ Donuts after employees heard her speaking her Native language to a relative. The woman speaks English as well, but uttering any words in your native language turns you into a loathsome other. The “melting pot” idea essentially shuts down the idea of multiculturalism, forcing immigrants (especially those of colour) to rescind any other part of their identity. Hence, the “lose your country” remarks.

Dwire then reaches for the strong crutch of freedom of speech to defend her actions, not realizing the Hispanic women were also exercising their freedom of speech when they were speaking Spanish. Like I’ve said before, the MAGA crowd doesn’t understand that freedom of speech is a two-way street. Dwire was harassed, deservedly, for harassment. According to Trent, Valesquez and others present, Dwire was loud and threatening when she addressed Valesquez and her family. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Say something rude to your boss, you can get fired. Say something rude to someone in a supermarket, and refuse to leave their space, get arrested for harassment.

Dwire’s most incriminating slipup is when she brings up welfare: “I don’t mind them coming here as long as they want to be an American and not go on our welfare system.” Nothing in the article or the video suggests the Hispanic women were on welfare. Dwire assumes that since they are Hispanic, they must be on it. This just shows how Dwire views Hispanic people (and probably other minorities) as parasitic, ‘Murica hating rats; leeching off the system.

Alt-Right Alt-Right Alt-Right


I wasn’t originally going to blog about Faith Goldy running for mayor of Toronto. When I saw the headline on Twitter I was disappointed, but not that surprised. Trump and his ilk have inspired other outright racists and their supporters, who employ semantic maneuvers to justify their racism.

Before I get into this, watch the short video below to get a taste of Goldy’s views.

I can sum it up for you, using her words, if you didn’t get to watch.

“I’m not a refugee or an immigrant…I don’t believe diversity is our strength…I believe in European Canadian identity, not multiculturalism…When studying our nation’s history I pronounce its founding peoples settlers and pioneers, not immigrants.”

So yes, I think anyone who is not racist can agree that Goldy is racist.

Goldy’s video was released on Canada Day (July 1). It has 45,168 views. That may not seem like a lot but what is more disturbing is the amount of likes the video has. It isn’t weighed down with dislikes, it has overwhelming likes and supportive comments. The people liking and commenting may work with people of colour and might say they value diversity if the topic were ever to come up in a public setting, a setting where they are not sure if their views would be shared. However, online is a different story. People like Goldy bring these bigots out of hiding and they also make them feel empowered, knowing that there is someone out there fighting for what they believe in. It is no coincidence that hate crimes, especially against Hispanic people, increased once Trump was in office.

Goldy’s announcement brings up the usual “let’s hear her out” arguments from people who either support Goldy’s racism or are just naive.

“You can’t talk about tolerance if you’re going to judge someone… Freedom of speech.”

There is no winning a debate with a bigot. Goldy does not believe in multiculturalism or diversity. She does not view people of colour as valid citizens of Canada. She does not recognize the Indigenous population of Canada as peoples, evidenced by her refusal to consider European settlers immigrants. There is no democratic debate to be had here.

In a sense, you can’t win with bigots. If you give them space, the people who are sympathetic to their ideas become emboldened and put them in power. If you deny them spaces and political power, you’re being close-minded or bigoted yourself. This allows them to embrace a victim complex that generates sympathy and eventual support from the naive and the bigoted. The below video is a good example of this.

Again, let me summarize.

Goldy was banned from Patreon after they found a video of her reciting the 14 words. The 14 words, were coined by white supremacist David Lane and are used exclusively by white supremacists or people sympathetic to the cause. The 14 words are: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Patreon’s message to Goldy says they support free speech but not “exclusionary ideologies.” So Goldy tries to paint her dismissal as being “exclusionary.” That’s just semantics, but it’s a pseudo intellectual argument that will appease the people who are already on her side and the naive free speech warriors.

Goldy also argues the video is not a new one like Patreon claims, and was from December 2017. Fair enough. Maybe she’ll say she has changed her views since then? Nope, she argues that if the 14 words said “black, Jewish” etc. then people would be fine with them. This is where you separate the pseudo intellectuals from the bigoted idiots. Context matters. If the 14 words were coined by a white supremacist and have become an anthem for the white supremacist community, then maybe that is the reason people think that they are racist? As opposed to the fact the sentence contains the word “white?”

The above video is also a good example of how terms like “identity politics” are the anthem of the right-wing bigot, who tries to defend and downplay racism by saying that minorities are too obsessed with race. People who are genuinely not white supremacists, can still end up parroting white supremacist talking points when they start to use terms like “identity politics,” “social justice warriors” or “political correctness.” While Goldy says minorities are “identity politics obsessed,” she also makes videos saying she only respects European-Canadian identity. Small consolation, this video isn’t drowning in likes. It has slightly more dislikes and less supportive comments.

Canadians can be smug when we compare ourselves to America. We look at our crime, shootings and racism in comparison to theirs and think we have it good. Then we elect people like Doug Ford and have people like Goldy running, and I am sure Goldy will get a sizeable chunk of the vote. If she wins I won’t be surprised. If she loses by a big margin, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Another Day, Another School Shooting

I was saddened to hear about America’s latest school shooting, but I can’t say I was surprised. Another teen, another assault rifle used to murder students and teachers.

As usual, this brings up the issue of gun control. And as usual, there are plenty of voices at work to derail the conversation.

  1. This isn’t the time for politics. This is the time for mourning.

This is a convenient platitude that serves to get us nowhere. It’s too soon after Florida. Is it still too soon after Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook? Saying now isn’t the time implies the conversation will happen at some point, but it appears that isn’t the real intention with this excuse. I came across a post by one of the denizens of Twitter, who was touting this excuse, only to be silenced by one of the students who was hiding as the shooter made his way through her school.

Below is only one of such posts I found, I was actually looking for a post from another user when I came across this one. If you really care about the victims, not about maintaining the status quo, maybe we can try to hear them out.

2. Guns don’t kill people….

I’m sure you all know how that sentence ends. Firstly, this argument is built on a straw man foundation. It assumes that gun control laws are meant to eliminate guns completely and/or eliminate shootings completely.

The most popular gun control reforms on the table are not about taking away all guns. They are about initiating magazine limits and putting restrictions on the kind of guns people can legally acquire, with a specific focus on restricting assault rifles.

People can still have their pistols and standard rifles for hunting, self-defence or whatever hobbies involve these tools. Most people pushing for gun reform realize that shootings as a whole will not stop. That is not the goal. The goal is to cut down on the casualties in these mass shootings, where someone with a history of mental health issues can easily acquire an assault rifle and mow down a lot of people in a crowded area. James Holmes probably wouldn’t have been able to kill twelve people and injure seventy others in a theater if he was forced to use a pistol or a rifle, instead of an assault rifle with an extended magazine. These infamous mass shootings haven’t been perpetrated by people who had black market connections to get their guns, they were perpetrated by people who were able to get assault rifles legally, either by purchasing it directly or borrowing from mommy.

It is still possible to protect yourself and your home with guns such as pistols or shotguns. If those guns aren’t suitable for you, I have to ask how you managed to make so many enemies. If you simply like shooting assault rifles, ask yourself if your hobby is worth all the potential negatives that come with it, especially since the background checks currently in place apparently aren’t thorough enough.

Gun reform still protects your 2nd amendment right, but let’s try to remember the context for the 2nd amendment. It was created to give Americans the right to bear arms as independent citizens (as opposed to British subjects) and the amendment was put in place long before weapons such as the AR-15 were invented. Maybe the founding fathers meant they want everyone to be able to buy an AR-15, or maybe that isn’t what they intended.

Also, for the “the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun” adherents, remember that the Florida school had an armed guard on duty. Maybe you’ll argue they should have had more armed guards on duty, which means you miss the point. In your world we would have AR-15 shootouts between shooters and guards at the schools. Why don’t we just cut out the root instead of attacking the weed that springs forth?

Trying to put reasonable gun control laws in place doesn’t have to become a partisan issue. It is a human issue.

The Only Cure for Racism

I know some people will be tempted to say “stop talking about it” but that is the only cry of racists who want to continue to pick their neighbourhoods, schools, spouses based on race while also saying race doesn’t matter. The same people who justify racism with racist assumptions e.g. “Maybe black people would be more successful if they weren’t so lazy”.

There are a lot of facts, case studies and events out there to demonstrate that racism is still alive and well but denial is far more powerful. If you present any of the above people have an uncanny ability to rationalize or minimize events and rebrand the world as a post-racial utopia. People who speak out against racism are labelled with terms like “social justice warrior” (sjw), which becomes a brand that makes other people want to avoid you at all costs. Even people who may be somewhat enlightened don’t want to be called a sjw, or politically correct, or a feminazi.

As I continue writing my fourth book, I am starting to generate ideas for the sixth. It may not be a novel, it may just be a short story. Whatever it ends up being, it is my own utopian creation. I thought of a world where the technology exists to actually transplant your mind into someone else’s body. It wouldn’t be a physical process, where the brain is transplanted, it would be more of a transference of your personality and thoughts into someone else’s body. This technology is quite common in sci-fi but I don’t think it has ever been used to examine how people of different races can experience daily life differently. Or at the very least, I can’t recall any works that have focused on this aspect of the switch.

If people will ignore reports, journal articles, newspaper articles, books, documentaries etc., then maybe personal experience is the only thing they will understand. If this project were to have any success it would have to last for a long period of time, at least three months. People who are reluctant to accept that prejudice and systemic racism against minorities is still rampant, are often quick to bring up examples of prejudice or perceived prejudice they have experienced. I don’t want these people to experience some name calling or some ignorant comments, and think they get the full picture.

Just like books or articles, it can be easy to derail an author’s argument by resorting to non sequiturs,  ad hominem or the ever popular straw man argument. For that reason, let’s make sure that there are no other excuses or reason for the different treatment. Let’s make sure that our new “black” subjects keep their faces clean shaven, their hair cut low and that they maintain a strict dress code when leaving their homes. Now, I realize this may not be fair. Afrocentric hairstyles such as braids should not be viewed as more threatening, but it is a sad fact that they are. Beards and casual clothing, when coupled with black skin, are also more unwelcome even in casual settings. Let’s not forget this great example of comedian Kamau Bell being told to leave a restaurant while he was speaking to his wife and her friends, who are all white. While Bell is speaking to his wife at an outside table of the restaurant an employee bangs on the window and mouths for him to leave. When confronted about this later she argues that she thought he was selling something, and that it wasn’t a “race thing”. Bell was with his wife and her friends just long enough to get introduced, before an employee is telling him to leave.

To be fair, the employee says a patron told her Bell was harassing customers, and that she was just responding to that. The question then, is why didn’t she at least step outside to see what was happening instead of knocking on a window and mouthing a command, which she says was “stop selling”. If the employee actually stepped outside and asked the group of women if Bell was bothering them, the situation would have been diffused quickly. Why was the employee so quick to tell Bell to leave? As expected, it doesn’t take long to find online discussion that defends the incident due to Bell’s clothing.

“Don’t forget that he was dressed quite poorly at the time too. Sweatpants, a well-worn hoodie, and a knit beanie.”

Ultimately, hairstyles and clothing present an easy target for derailing the observations about different treatment due to race.

Aside from the dress code and the strict rules concerning appearance, my experiment would also require a period of one week where the subjects remain home and where they are monitored (with their consent) to judge their behaviour. Why? To ensure the new “black” people getting sent out into the world are not acting like stereotypes. If someone feels the need to start talking or walking differently because their skin is different I wouldn’t want them to represent black people publicly. This one week probation period would also allow us to remove another aspect of possible derailment, stereotypical behaviour.

As a last condition, I would also want to ensure that the subjects are not informed of any of the different treatment they may receive. Otherwise the study could be accused of priming subjects to be more aware of or sensitive to certain words or actions. Of course, some subjects may have read about the alleged treatment they might get. Or they may have an exaggerated conception that they’ll be shot on sight by cops, and then interpret any better behaviour as proof that racism is dead. Either way, all realizations about different treatment must come purely from the subjects. If people truly believe race doesn’t matter and that no one (except the white ones) are judged for their skin colour, then their should be no hesitation to become a black person for three months.

I want the experiment to start with wealthy white people, who then become wealthy black people. They need to walk into an upscale store or building repeatedly, until they can no longer deny that they get more scrutiny because of their skin colour. They need to get pulled over more often by cops when driving their luxury car and realize that the random stops are not truly random. I want the rich white people to hang out with their rich white friends. I don’t want to warn them, but I want to see if they notice any different treatment.

When this test is done with the middle class they will have different experiences that are just as eye opening. They will apply for a job they are not qualified for, and then realize that affirmative action doesn’t get them a spot. Perhaps they can have men/women reject them sexually or romantically due to their skin colour. They can see someone cross the street when they approach or hold their purse tighter. Or a little more harmless, perhaps they can see the look of surprise they get when they say they like rock or metal (if they like those genres). People aren’t really shocked by white people liking rap music, but black people who like anything other than rap still get treated like unicorns in some circles. Of course this last example isn’t an example of harmful racism, but it is one that demonstrates how ignorance can still lead to minorities being treated differently. Even this simple fact is something that is often denied.

As I continued to flesh out the idea for my experiment, it sometimes struck me as being an extreme way to prove a point. However, when all other options are failing, what else can be done? If this is what needs to be done for a wake up call, then so be it.

“It’s 2017”

I recently started working on part II of Alive, which continues my story of werewolves and racism. The first one followed my black protagonist, Mason, adapting to his new abilities and breaking off from a radical sect that wanted to use their power to wage war against the people that oppress them. The second part will lead to all out war between Mason and the radical sect, but also has more of a focus on Mason’s attempts to oversee the implementation of new policies that will empower his people. A key theme of the second book is that laws are not enough to change how people think, which reminded me of an oft-cited mantra.

“It’s (current year)”. This can be used by conservatives to shut down the talk of discrimination or by well-meaning liberals who think that the passage of time is enough to ensure equality. Whatever side it comes from, the sentence demonstrates a child-like naivete of how the world works.

When slavery was abolished, racism persisted. When Jim Crow was abolished, racism persisted. I wonder if people used to say “It’s 1970”. Laws may ban people from certain actions, or maybe even certain words, but laws can’t change what is in their minds. If someone holds the racial mindset of the 1950s near and dear to their heart, they will teach those values to their kids, and so on. Time itself is not a cure for racism. This is perfectly demonstrated by the current climate of right-wing backlash, where pretty much any comment or act that doesn’t endorse bigotry is labelled as “political correctness” or the work of “social justice warriors”. People are upset that they, and society as a whole, are being called out for bigotry now more than ever. Instead of adapting to changing times, it is easier to reminisce of times when you could say whatever you wanted without worrying about consequences or criticism. At worst, these people support bigotry. At best, they enable it. Yes, sometimes people do cry racism, misogny etc. where it does not exist, but I don’t believe that these instances account for the majority. I do believe that these instances get lumped in with all of the legimate ones, especially by people whose views are already intolerant. They get a smokescreen for hiding bigotry: “I’m not racist. I just hate it when these social justice warriors get offended by everything.”

I want to know what these people consider “everything”. Is it something as simple as Madonna referring to her son as “dis nigga” or is it a case where another unarmed black man got killed?

The New Dirty Words

I have found myself spending more time on Facebook since Trump’s election. Not to peruse selfies, but to see what all my “friends” are saying about the election.  These “friends” could be someone I met just once, a former classmate or coworker, or someone I considered a close friend. With each status I come across I get more insight into how some of them really think. I have seen plenty that I like, and have also been disappointed from some of the truths these friends bring to the surface. Everyone has the right to free speech, so I am not judging them for making their voice heard. As a matter of fact, I like to have people’s thoughts on such a topic out in the open. I can now exercise my free speech to challenge some of the views presented.

There are certain words that appear repeatedly from Trump supporters; “political correctness”, “race baiters”, “identity politics”, “social justice warriors (sjws)”. I collectively like to refer to these as the right-wing buzzwords. People love to say that they don’t like pigeonholing themselves as right or left wing, or that they don’t identify with the spectrum at all. They are a unique snowflake who isn’t like the rest of the sheep they look down on. This argument parallels the infamous “race is a social construct” argument. The fact that something is socially constructed does not mean its impact can be ignored or simply dismissed. Our use of hours and minutes to plan our day is a social construct that has developed over centuries, and the political spectrum is the same. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Are you against social security or not? Are you a gun-control advocate or not? The answers to these questions will place you somewhere on the spectrum. The totality of your views about different political issues will see you land somewhere; left, right, center-right, center-left etc.

picture-2

 

Think that’s deterministic, rigid, stupid? Ok, then let me throw off another social construct. I no longer recognize myself as a black man. So a girl who only dates white guys will still be interested right? Cops who are more suspicious of black people will no longer feel the need to pull me over or frisk me, right?

The funny thing about people who reject labels such as “right-wing” is that they often do not hesitate to criticize “liberals”. In their own minds, they are just following common sense. It is the other side that is stuck in their ways and is blind to reason. I feel the same way sometimes. Trump was able to capitalize on a climate where people felt like their free speech was stifled. They wanted to say racist things without being labelled as racist. They wanted to say sexist things without “feminazis” labeling them as sexist or misogynist. These oppressed people then see a man who unapologetically calls Hispanics rapists, blacks lazy and calls to ban Muslims from the US. Their hero was born. No more of this “political correctness” or “race-baiting” that held them back.

The term political correctness originated in the 1980s, and was a term developed by conservatives to criticize policies that they viewed as being too accommodating for minorities. These policies included avoiding the use of certain words to describe minority groups and policies such as affirmative action are often lumped into this category too. Realize that the term was developed by conservatives. Now there are times that there may be genuine cases of people being too sensitive about a issue. However, I find that brandishing the term “political correctness” often allows people to defend bigotry. I have heard people rant about their empathy for minorities, but complain about sjws or race-baiters saying “everything” is racist. “Everything” is obviously a blanket term. It could include Madonna referring to her son as “dis nigga” or it could refer to Trump saying Mexico “doesn’t send its best“. Maybe prying would reveal the Trump example, or maybe someone would throw out something more harmless in order to avoid a debate.

donald-trump

The right-wing buzzwords have become scarlet letters that no one wants to wear. Even people who may genuinely hold some enlightened views about minorities reject the terms and go out of their way not to be misconstrued as “politically correct”. Sometimes it isn’t about being pc or not, it is about being racist or not, about having empathy or not.

Tucker Max, an author and businessman who I follow, started a new project called The Mating Grounds. It was a podcast that helped to promote an upcoming book, and was designed to give men actionable dating advice that was devoid of the sociopathy offered by pick-up artists. One podcast in particular caught my attention and served as a great example of someone showing empathy, but also being wary of being labelled a sjw.

One caller asked for advice on dealing with a racist area (Arizona), where he was repeatedly rebuffed due to his race. Max was quick to advise that Arizona is one of America’s most racist states, demonstrating that he doesn’t embrace the right-wing narrative of a “post-racial” society. He acknowledges the historical and present racism in Arizona. Max was also quick to say that he wasn’t a “sjw” by any means.This fear of the right-wing buzzwords sends us all back to high school; we want to be one of the cool kids. We don’t want to be caught socializing with the losers, the pc horde and those sjws.

This brings up another feature of the right-wing buzzwords, and many political terms. They are all relative. Your own position dictates what you view as being liberal or conservative. There are many people that would condemn Max as a sjw or race-baiter for his comments about Arizona. Additionally, the podcast criticizes rape culture, and stresses the importance of empathy and female choice in dating. There are plenty of people who would consider that “feminazi propaganda” or the work of a “white knight”.

You can call me politically-correct, a sjw or as white knight. I am not ashamed of my views. My views mean more to me now more than ever, especially since people with clashing ones decided to elect Donald Trump as president.

Talking About Race Will Unite Us

…but it will divide us first.

screen-shot-2016-07-21-at-50548-pm-1469135314

The Republican Convention wrapped up last night and I avoided it by all means necessary. However, I can’t help but coming across some news of it on articles or some clips on YouTube. My curiosity gets the better of me and I ended up clicking on some links. A pervasive theme of the sound bites is the idea that we need to be more united. The idea that the current administration has left us too divided. I did not watch the entirety of the speeches and context is key, so I can’t be sure if the statement is meant to criticize the discussion of racism by the Obama administration and other democratic politicians.

However, I have come across that argument being used to criticize the discussion of racism. This argument is more prevalent online than ever with the recent deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. The subsequent shooting of police officers in Dallas also added fuel to the fire, with conservative outlets speculating that Black Lives Matter and the perpetrators are connected.

Many people want us to ignore the racism all around us, arguing that it is an illusion or that black people simply deserve to be killed by cops due their violent nature. Yes, blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crimes. We also have a disproportionate unemployment rate. I can imagine someone saying “Get jobs then” and please consult this study as one example of persisting employment discrimination. I wonder how well American white people would be doing if they had the same unemployment rate we do and had the same racial biases against them. In my previous posts, I have included study after study analyzing the impact of racism on blacks. However, denial is strong and people argue that such statistics are only part of a liberal agenda. It seems that people are resistant now more than ever to discuss racism.

Hence, the argument that discussing it only divides us. They’re right, it does divide us. It brings anger and resentment to the surface. However,it also brings up ugly truths. The people using this argument are forgetting that a civil war brought us to where we are now. What we have now is not perfect but it is an improvement over 1861. What if Lincoln decided not to fight for the abolition of slavery because he didn’t want to “divide people”. At the time, only whites were considered citizens. Many of them were happy to keep things the way they were. There was no injustice being done, black people don’t need more rights, they’re property. Why couldn’t Lincoln stop race-baiting and just let peace exist, instead of dividing a united nation?

Abraham_Lincoln_O-116_by_Gardner,_1865-crop

 

Pictured Above: A “Race Baiter”

People may argue that the Civil War was about states rights. Yes, it was about the right of southern states, to continue slavery. Who knows how long slavery would have persisted if not for the civil war. Sometimes things have to get worse, before they get better. I am not condoning the shooting of police officers or violent resistance. I do support the discussion of racism and peaceful protests against a rising tide of  racism, such as police brutality that is increasingly inflicted on black people. I support the discussion of lingering racism at the individual and institutional level in many countries. I support the right to discuss discrimination without being dismissed as “politically correct” or a “social justice warrior”.