Subject:
|
Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:05:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1070 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote in message
> news:002b01c01f5b$7c1e0100$68851b26@default...
> > > > They are up a creek without a paddle either way if people continue • to
> > > > insist it is TLC's responsiblility to solve the racism problem in the • USA.
> > > > 211 years worth of good ol' American know how hasn't put a dent in • that
> > > > problem,
> >
> > This is got to be the funniest or at least the most pathetic statement I
> > have read yet in this never ending debate. The USA has done nothing in 211
> > years about racism? Yes, tere are problems, but I think it will get better
> > over time. Let's see what America has done, ended slavery, ended "separate
> > but equal", etc. Along with all the strides that Americans of African • decent
> > have made? Huh, interesting conclusion, and one I think is devoid of fact.
>
> Ah, Scott, Lugnet's voice of reason. ;-P
> So you are telling me slavery = racism?
Semantically, there's no necessary connection. But around
1800 or so, with the rise of scientific racism, the two became
linked. It started out as a way for otherwise decent human
beings to "justify" the moral rectitude of slavery (and later,
to justify the moral rectitude of imposing colonial rule in
much of Africa and southern Asia). So in its distinctively
American iteration, I have to lean towards Scott's interpretation
that abolition was a milestone in the improvement of race
relations, in that it makes equal relations even possible.
In agreement with Scott (amazing! :) ) it would also be extremely
simplistic to say no dent has been put in the problem of racism
in the United States. It's been gradual and highly uneven, but
the progress has been there. There's a benefit to being critical
of ourselves--it ensures that we never forget how far there is to
go--but why is there such an aversion to acknowledging progress
in the process?
However, I don't think one can say that the US as a state was
responsible for the majority of the shift. Rather, it was a mass
of conscientous individuals and populist leaders from all walks
of life and all points on the political spectrum. If
anything, as awful as it sounds, the government of the United
States has proven rather late on the bandwagon of inclusion and
freedom. Sure, slavery was abolished; but it was abolished in
1863, long after its abolition in the rest of the world, and the
last nation on Earth to end the practice save Brazil (1888).
The circumstances also were dire; abolition was the one thing
that would guarantee no European intervention in the Civil War,
because it solidified the public perception in Europe that this
wasn't about industrial policy or states' rights, but about slavery.
US historians have long made a compelling case that to end the
war and preserve the Union, Lincoln was prepared to compromise.
That's why he waited until 1863 to emancipate unilaterally--that
was the nadir of the Union's fortunes both at home and abroad.
On the other hand, most of the North had abolished slavery long
before even Britain (1833); it wasn't a big issue, because plantation
economies didn't work there so there were no vested interests
in maintaining a system which gave no economic benefit but was a
grave moral and ideological liability.
> These are different things. Perhaps we have ended slavery, and perhaps
> we have integrated public schools, and I hope there are fewer people today
> who think of blacks as sub-humans than there were fifty years ago, but
> racism itself is no less than it has ever been. I guess you are just
> talking about black people, most of whom are stilll getting a raw deal, and
> not about the immigrants who come here and are called names they've never
> heard before, right?
Africans are the focal group. Our (interesting that the terms "we"
and "they" are used) understanding of race among immigrants is tied
inextricably to our view of Africans and African-Americans, who are
the first significant group of "others" Europe encountered. Other
groups were incorporated into a phylogeny of races, which had no
necessary implications of superiority until the beginning of the
nineteenth century and the creation of scientific racism, the
botched attempt to reconcile materialism, morality, and science
that led to all sorts of twentieth century excesses with which
we're all familiar.
"Racism" itself is a slippery term. It's just as easy to say
that less racism exists as it is to say just as much racism
exists, because it's a zero-sum concept. If there's any racism,
there's racism. If there's no racism, how do you know? Are some
'racisms' worse than others? Is there such a thing as "innocuous"
racism? (For historians, that's usually termed "racialism"--the
belief by historical agents that 'yes, they're different, but no,
they're not inferior' on the basis of race. But that's splitting
hairs!) In short, when one talks about racism, one really can't
expect to quantify the concept. It's a term with qualitative
gradations.
> You are refering to the progress blacks have made, but
> you make no reference to the progress our society has made towards ending
> hatred, racism and all forms of prejudice. You, too, are denying that
> racism is strong although you KNOW its there. You are making a choice not
> to see, acknowledge or help destroy it. Why?
Maybe past arguments are being subreferenced here, but I didn't
get this from Scott's post at all, so I'm kind of surprised at
the rhetorical exuberance of the reply. In fairness, one's
encounter with racism--usually in my case with manifestations of
white privilege, which can be hard to detect if you don't know
what to look for--is very area-dependent. When I lived on the
edge of urban Detroit, I encountered it all the time. But when
I lived in East Lansing, I never saw it. (Same with Ann
Arbor). In New Jersey, I became confused with all the subtle
variations, and even encountered what I believe was so-called
"reverse" discrimination (there's a term I'd love to abolish
myself! Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination,
etc etc etc). How urgently one sees the problem is partly a function
of where one sits geographically, and I'm don't think that taking
issue with a blanket-statement (no dent in racism) is dismissing
the problem or declaring it dead.
Anyways, um, the original topic, which follows logically: Lego
is a Danish toymaker. Denmark's major colonies were Iceland, Sweden
and Norway (we can leave aside Kalalit Nunaat--lots of land, lots of
ice, few people). There was little or no immigration from tropical
regions to these countries (can you blame them? Brrr!). Therefore,
there's a different understanding of the race issue than the rest of
the world. It's an issue that seems largely external to the world of
Billund. I don't see any malice in TLC's actions (or inactions),
but perhaps it's worth looking at the new Classic building set
boxes to see what direction--a more inclusive one--they're hopefully
headed in.
Pardon the ramble, just blathering on...
My five cents (the dollar being at NGL 2,52),
LFB.nl
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
| "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote in message news:002b01c01f5b$7c...default... (...) to (...) that (...) decent (...) Ah, Scott, Lugnet's voice of reason. ;-P So you are telling me slavery = racism? These are different things. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
