John Kennedy on Art

[JockoJohnson]

You do not understand racism. Racism is the intent to claim superiority for a race, to exclude another race, to ignore wrongs to another race, etc.

So in one breath you say that racism is to exclude another race and in another that it is not wrong. As it CURRENTLY stands now, Miss Black America --- or any exlusive pageant ---is racist. At the time it was created, there was good reason for it. It's time has come and gone. As a progressive you should encourage it.

Also, no response to me or the other people asking if it is art if it insults Christianity? You state that it is not art if it insults Muslims.

 

[Craig234]

So in one breath you say that racism is to exclude another race and in another that it is not wrong. As it CURRENTLY stands now, Miss Black America --- or any exlusive pageant ---is racist. At the time it was created, there was good reason for it. It's time has come and gone. As a progressive you should encourage it.

I could try to clarify, but suspect the effort would waste both our time.

Also, no response to me or the other people asking if it is art if it insults Christianity? You state that it is not art if it insults Muslims.

That's so clearly not what I said, it's hard to understand your post.

While I won't try to clarify this either, I will repeat:

Art critical of some things about some Muslims *can* be art. Some things simply aimed at bigoted attacks on Muslims *can* not be art, using 'art' as a cover.

 

[werepossum]

So in one breath you say that racism is to exclude another race and in another that it is not wrong. As it CURRENTLY stands now, Miss Black America --- or any exlusive pageant ---is racist. At the time it was created, there was good reason for it. It's time has come and gone. As a progressive you should encourage it.

Also, no response to me or the other people asking if it is art if it insults Christianity? You state that it is not art if it insults Muslims.

I'm pretty damned far from being a progressive, but I'm willing to give the Miss Black America pageant the benefit of the doubt. If there are fifty-five contestants and one is black, does she actually have a one in fifty-five chance of winning? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps she has a one in ten chance. In any case, this pageant is certainly discriminatory, but not necessarily racist, and as long as it's privately funded I don't care if they want to run it next to a Miss Lily-White Toothless Cracker America pageant.

 

[daishi5]

You do not understand racism. Racism is the intent to claim superiority for a race, to exclude another race, to ignore wrongs to another race, etc.

There is a difference on this between a majority's or the group in power's behavior - in which same-race only tends to be racist, exclusionary - and minority race behavior, which tends not to be claiming superiority, not aimed at putting another race as secondary in worth, but merely a group identity, perhaps a response in part to a history of racism against them, doing something that is for their group but not aimed against others.

Hence, blacks in South Africa now do reportedly have some racist history against whites now that they're in power - following a long history of racism against them.

You can find racism between strains of Chinese, or Chines against other Asians; same with Japanese; or with Russians; same with South Americans.

While the Miss Black America pageant may have been born in a worse situation of racism than exists now, what has never been is racist, implying 'this is black-only because whites aren't good enough to be in it'. It's different to say 'we want it just for us' when whites do it with a history of a racist 'separate but equal law' as the law of the land from the Supreme Court for sixty years following even worse racism - and white mob violence in places to oppose its repeal - and whites' power status.

A 'white-only' club where are only 10% blacks, or a 'black-only' club where there are only 10% whites, is more exclusive, than a 'black-only' club where there are only 10% blacks, or a 'white-only' club where where are only 10% whites, which are more an affiinity group - as long as there isn't some 'elitism' about it, like the 'skull and bones' club for the kids of the powerful.

If whites in 90% white groups form something, it's like to be to put down blacks in some way, even if it's 'we're not comfortable with them'. If blacks in 10% black situations form something, it's likely to have some relief from that minority status. Go to Europe, and you will find 'American ex-pat' groups, that aren't about Europeans being second class or nor being comfortable with them because they're inferior.

The distinction takes a little common sense, not a simplistic definition as 'oh it was only one race so it's racist!'

That's awfully convenient simplicity coming from someone in the favored group, ignoring the history of real racism and denying the real issue.

I live near East Peoria, home of Matt Hale, I know a bit about it, but I have never been on the receiving end.

My belief is that we don't want to end up with a bunch of "separate but equal" situations where we self segregate as a reaction to initial racism. Things such as black history month, do blacks deserve one more than native americans? Programs that promote a race and give them special attention also leave some other groups out as somehow "not deserving" of the same special treatment, how do we decide who deserves special history months?

I am also not trying to say that it is racist now, but that as a solution it has problems. In fact, I think it has big problems. How are we supposed to say that we believe everyone is equal when we base so many things on the color of their skin. I don't think the black people are getting special treatment that is "oppressing" white people. I think it is more like we treat the handicapped at the special olympics, give them a month to show them how "special" and "important" we think they are then go back to ignoring them the rest of the year. And with the pageant, most reactions from my ancedotal experience are not about how white people are not allowed to join, but are more along the lines of "how cute, they even have their own little beauty pageant, its so special." And I know they formed the pageant with good intentions, but I don't think it is working.

And to reply again to another section now that I have had some time to think it over:

Programs that treat people differently based on the color of their skin are direct reactions to pervasive and enduring racism. The idea that programs made to combat the effects of racism are responsible for our continuing racism not only ignores centuries of history, but fails a basic test of temporal ordering.

Just because a program was started with good intentions does not imply that it is successful. And nothing prevents a program from having unintentional consequences. For example, texting bans caused people not to stop texting, but to work harder to hide it and seem to have driven up the number of deaths due to texting. And just because I believe our attempts to combat racism have made the problem worse, does not mean I believe that they have become the only or even the main cause of continued racism, I merely believe they are not helping.

 

[fskimospy]

http://nativeamericanheritagemonth.gov/

 

[daishi5]

http://nativeamericanheritagemonth.gov/

Did not know that at all.

 

[Craig234]

I live near East Peoria, home of Matt Hale, I know a bit about it, but I have never been on the receiving end.

My belief is that we don't want to end up with a bunch of "separate but equal" situations where we self segregate as a reaction to initial racism. Things such as black history month, do blacks deserve one more than native americans? Programs that promote a race and give them special attention also leave some other groups out as somehow "not deserving" of the same special treatment, how do we decide who deserves special history months?

For one thing, our history taught tends to have a strong bias for whites - among other biases, such as class biases, where most people are pretty much left out.

I have no problem with a 'Native American history month' - it sounds useful.

One difference I will note is that blacks have a unique place in American history. They're the race huge numbers of ancestors were imported here for slavery, the race present in our society in large numbers (~15%) for centuries but singled out for second class status - while Native Americans have been far less a part of the culture of the US, more a people who were in the way and destroyed by the US growth, on the margins of US society, even now partly on separate-nation reservations.

We could similarly use Mexican history month - another society both on the margins of US expansion, overrun with half their land taken, and living in the US today.

Having things that are 'black' or 'Native American' or even 'British American' are not inherently 'bad' or racist.

I could try to explain some distinctions whether one is or isn't, but if that's needed I doubt it'd do much good.

 

[bamacre]

A genius learns from the past, an idiot lives there.

 

[daishi5]

For one thing, our history taught tends to have a strong bias for whites - among other biases, such as class biases, where most people are pretty much left out.

I have no problem with a 'Native American history month' - it sounds useful.

One difference I will note is that blacks have a unique place in American history. They're the race huge numbers of ancestors were imported here for slavery, the race present in our society in large numbers (~15%) for centuries but singled out for second class status - while Native Americans have been far less a part of the culture of the US, more a people who were in the way and destroyed by the US growth, on the margins of US society, even now partly on separate-nation reservations.

We could similarly use Mexican history month - another society both on the margins of US expansion, overrun with half their land taken, and living in the US today.

Having things that are 'black' or 'Native American' or even 'British American' are not inherently 'bad' or racist.

I could try to explain some distinctions whether one is or isn't, but if that's needed I doubt it'd do much good.

This has been too far derailed. I want to start a new topic on it, but I won't have time to participate until next week, so if work permits, I will start a new thread next week if work permits.

 

[werepossum]

A genius learns from the past, an idiot lives there.

+1

 

[Zebo]

I don't think my tolerance could run up a bar tab worthy of paying with gold.

That's okay mine will. After shoveling rocks into sluice box 16 hours a day for a couple weeks you'll learn the meaning "another bottle please" when it's time to unwind. I am serious about going BTW. I just need to find someone crazy enough. And with about 10K for provisions and survival skills because there is no civilization this is straight up living off the land and defending against it. My family stills has a claim.

 

[bamacre]

I just need to find someone crazy enough.

And you thought of me.


:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Zebo]

Well... yeah! Gold and 19th century, you got it!

(quite a bit of gold actually like never work again to not pay for the trip but you still get 19th century out of it)