OK. But that is comparative isn't it? Does that mean to really hate someone, I need to live in a shoebox in the middle of a motorway? Who should I then hate? And is that hate an 'ism'?
I tend to agree - I think that it's the power that corrupts (and it's not gender specific) and causes people to disrespect those perceived to be weaker. Whether that's mental power, physical power, financial power.... Power comes in so many guises. But is the abuse of that power then 'ist' if it targeted against a specific group? If you take slavery - it has occurred and occurs around the world in all ages. Slaves have been black, white, green , yellow, male, female...Slavery has been performed by people of all colours and sex. Black on black, white on white, white on black...Was slavery itself racist or just the exercise of power? Weren't the slaves just 'weaker' in some way that allowed the more powerful to abuse them? But did the powerful 'hate' them? I'm not sure that slavery was ever racist in the way it is used now - it was 'slavist' rather than 'racist' - the slave was just someone weaker.
Sorry, I'm not explaining it too well. It doesn't matter what happened to Boudicca did it? OK - cause and effect - she wouldn't have acted if what happened hadn't (!) - but it was what she did that was no different to a male. Not gender based. She saw a wrong and used power to exact retribution (and London wasn't only populated with Romans was it?) in an awful way. She condoned and used violence just like a man. Power was the driver. She was a terrorist - and used terror.
As for Trump - I told you I'm weird - it's just my perception. The pursed lips (always reminds me of the wide-mouthed frog joke) when he speaks, the hairsprayed hair, the fake tan - just his general demeanor makes me, using my pocket psychology, think that he's a man not happy with his sexuality! There - six degrees of separation - ists and isms to Trump's mental state.
Is there a just cause for prejudice? Here's a thing though - at this time I think people should have 'freedom' in as much as if I want to set up an all male club that should be fine. Ditto for a woman. Ditto for any colour skin. Ditto for any sexual orientation. Ditto for.... So by default those clubs would be seen to be 'ist' wouldn't they? But are they - are they being prejudiced? Lesley Garret (the singer) said a few years ago, at this time of yer, that King's choir should let in girls because they have just as good voices. I don't dispute the quality statement, but if King's wants an all boys choir, shouldn't that be fine - but am I then being prejudiced and 'ist' by saying that? And I find it difficult in my own head to see what line I'm drawing between what I see as 'ist' and what isn't.
I think equality should exist across the board. But then I know I ignore my own ideas. I know that women should be paid the same as men, that conditions for all should be the same, but I'm happy to buy cheap goods and ignore the conditions used in their manufacture. Is that then racist, sexist and every other 'ist' - as I don't care enough about the harm done - and worse, justified and excused by the lame ' a dollar a day is better than nothing' argument. Doesn't that though show power? Hasn't it always been thus? We applaud industry for keeping prices down as they chase cheap labour around the globe and don't care (or not care enough) if it's 'ist' - or at least I do as a hypocrite. But is it any more 'ist' than the act of slavery - just exploitation of the weaker by the more powerful?
Watch the Terry thing - and see if you have doubts about whether it was 'ist' or not. It was an 'ist' statement - not doubted - but was/is Terry 'ist' or just trying wind up Anton and get inside his head.
I don't see the answer in the first paragraph - what am I missing?
<<< End of edit
End of sermon...
PS Mark Carney doing the Reith Lectures (a bit of a tenuous link) is exploring what I would class as related issues - ie how we perceive value and how that valuation effects us. I'm not that bright and I find keeping up with arguments difficult, especially financial stuff, but he's a personable chap and presents it well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9 (it's also available on Sounds on BBC iPlayer on smart TVs where you can see the lecture as well)
Sorry, I'm not explaining it too well. It doesn't matter what happened to Boudicca did it? OK - cause and effect - she wouldn't have acted if what happened hadn't (!) - but it was what she did that was no different to a male. Not gender based. She saw a wrong and used power to exact retribution (and London wasn't only populated with Romans was it?) in an awful way. She condoned and used violence just like a man. Power was the driver. She was a terrorist - and used terror.
As for Trump - I told you I'm weird - it's just my perception. The pursed lips (always reminds me of the wide-mouthed frog joke) when he speaks, the hairsprayed hair, the fake tan - just his general demeanor makes me, using my pocket psychology, think that he's a man not happy with his sexuality! There - six degrees of separation - ists and isms to Trump's mental state.
...
You're saying that Boudicca 'acted like a man' .............. but by your own evidence she acted as some angry 'people' do ... nothing to do with gender.
And as for Trump, you said " Trump ... comes across as effeminate to me - ..."
which part of "...The pursed lips (always reminds me of the wide-mouthed frog joke) when he speaks, the hairsprayed hair, the fake tan ..." do you perceive as feminine behaviour?
Effeminate (adj) (of a man or boy) ... "having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy." .................https://www.dictionary.com/
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I think you share many of the doubts and dilemmas that keep me awake! Slavery is as old as mankind. The Greeks built democracy, apparently, but not for slaves, or women, of course. I feel that the present emphasis on black African slaves is very political and even a little cynical. All powerful nations have used slaves from wherever they could be found. As ethics changed it became necessary to regard your slaves as less than fully human and a dark skin or ignorance of Christianity was a good excuse. Now, in the west, we no longer accept this but we know that slaves are still used, even in this country. Many of them are women, working for wealthy families, more are sold into the sex industry. But children digging minerals in Africa or toiling in garment sweatshops in India are also slaves. And what are we doing about it? Not a lot. Instead of agonizing about the past, we should be putting our house in order now. Well, I think so, anyway!
...Boudicca - exactly. She exhibited traits that are perceived to be masculine - but aren't. They tend to be to do with power. Power has been largely in the hands of males - so the traits are perceived masculine.Although, I'm still not sure whether men have a gender bias towards violence - but that will be proven in time.
As for Trump - all of it . We all assess others and form opinions (whether accurate or not) from visual/aural/nasal keys. In my formative years, the men weren't the peacocks as such - so seeing someone with fake tan, hairspray (odd here, as seeing slicked back 'oiled' hair was common in the 50's BUT not in the late 60s/70s) - just the way he moves and , and how he over promotes the masculine side (the boy's locker syndrome and the overly strong handshake - the alpha male ritual). (As an aside just watched Crashing by Phoebe Waller-Bridge that has a character who over emphasises one side to hide the other.).
I just wondered if it was only me who saw Trump in an effeminate way and Googled 'anyone else see trump as effeminate' .
And again another leap that's totally unfounded - I would also say of all the men I have seen, that Trump dislikes women. What gives me that idea? I can't put a finger on it. Or maybe he is just a general bully and uses his power to put down anyone, whether males/female, black/white, gay/straight who he perceives to be a threat and is 'weaker'.
The more I say the bigger the 'ist' hole I dig I think,as I make judgements on superficial things. But in my defence, isn't humankind by its nature 'ist'? We're pattern matching beings - we collate and group and then put value on what we perceive. As we progressed through history we grouped - and each group fought with the other groups - family against family, tribe against tribe, village against village,town against town, city against city, city state... and each of those thought they were better in some way than their opponents - they were 'ist' and practised 'isms'. These 'isms' were encouraged. Trump is encouraging 'ism' in Americanism - as though they hold some value above anyone else. Oddly now we're encouraged not to indulge in 'isms' - well, not until they're needed like in the Falklands war or even Brexit - they they're encouraged again. But it's just power using the power of 'isms' - the natural traits of the human mind.
I am not saying that racism doesn't exist - it does. All the 'isms' I think exist, but I'm not so sure that all things reported as being 'ist' are. Racism in America is primarily aimed (or is it?) at Afro-Americans (Hispanic may dispute that, as may others) . But that only exists because of slavery - so it's so easy to conflate the two.
The odd thing though, is that we are aware of how all this appears to work - we see it happening now (even though it isn't always slavery per se as the people are 'paid', they are paid comparative slave wages) and do nothing. And I mean me in that. I do nothing. But, but, but - where is that line? I also now that certain people got paid less than me, I was paid less than others. So where do you draw that line? How do you value something and how do you pay a valid payment? Who assesses what is the value? And in that assessment don't you engender 'isms'? Didn't 'we' make a fundamental mistake when we valued the nurturing of a child less than a house, a holiday or a new car - or in some cases just living?
That's why I thought the Mark Carney thing in some convoluted way linked to this - finance and 'isms' - because it's all about how we value things that causes how we treat them. We value the T-Shirt more than the person making it it seems.
Apologies for all this. I know I must come across as barking. Put it down to me being stir-crazy.
@steveTu "Racism in America is primarily aimed ( or is it ) at Afro Americans........."
You forget the Native Americans who also suffer appallingly - they just don't have the same international profile so their plight is often ignored by the world at large.
I purposely left out the native Americans but only as I see them as Caesar saw the Gauls, or the Saxons saw the Britons or...
It gets really confusing eh? Like I think slavery in itself isn't racist (but can lead to racism), invasion, or whatever you want to call it where one (or multiple) civilisation(s) usurp another's territory, isn't really 'ist'. What that leads to tends to be marginalisation of the usurped - but again is a 'power' thing as I see it. At what point that becomes 'ism' is less clear. I suppose you could argue that slavery turned into an 'ism' when slavery was abolished, but the slaves still treated as 2nd/3rd class citizens. What marks the end of 'colonisation' - the 'usurped' are always 2nd class aren't they?
Weirdly that brought an image to mind in the way people think. We all abhorred how the Japanese treated POWs, but that treatment was based on social and moral norms where the Japanese placed less value on people who surrendered or who were captured. We all baulk at that - but don't civilisations do that all the time? The one's beaten have a lesser value and are marginalised. But is that an 'ism'? It was just more apparent and graphic with the Japanese.
That's also why I get so confused with terrorism - to me terror is that heightened fear of imminent and impending threat and in terrorism, it is in the fact that it's hidden-surreptitious. But isn't terrorism a term used by the powerful over the weak? I don't condone any terrorism in anyway shape or form, but is it realistic to expect all 'enemies' to wear uniforms and say 'here we are' when their weapons are less powerful than yours? If a bully has a big stick, would you walk up to him with a twig? And does the bully use terror to control? Is any bomb ever any good, whether it's dropped from 5 miles high from a stealth bomber on set off on a bus? Aren't they both terror? I get so confused over what's right or wrong - it all seems so wrong to me.
I'm happy to buy cheap goods and ignore the conditions used in their manufacture. Is that then racist, sexist and every other 'ist' - as I don't care enough about the harm done - and worse, justified and excused by the lame ' a dollar a day is better than nothing' argument. Doesn't that though show power?
It's not a lame argument. Watch documentaries like Deadliest Roads or similar on Youtube and you will see African kids breaking limestone with a hammer to make gravel/hardcore. They are basically self-employed/contractors, anyone can come to the mine, break stone and get paid for the weight of the finished gravel. This is usually left to kids and women because it is the easiest job in the mine. Their fathers mine the stones, do heavy loading and similar jobs. Together, the whole family makes just enough to eat. Take this job away from the kids and they will go hungry. I think we all agree that in an ideal world, kids shouldn't need to work and gravel should be made by a machine. But the owner of the mine can't afford to buy a stone crushing machine. He also can't pay more to the kids because the prices of gravel are set by his luckier competitors who sell machine-made gravel. The gravel is used for building works in their country so it isn't us using their labour, it's all them. What should we do? Would you want to take these jobs from the kids? Should their state help? Buy the machine for the mine owner (taking away jobs from the kids)? Give some living minimum to the kids and make them dependant on the state? Anyway, their state is poor and doesn't have money to do that. Even worse, it's probably corrupt and doesn't even care. Should we do something? Would it be justified to force rich people to pay higher taxes and send some aid to those kids? Would it be 1) ethical thing to do and more importantly 2) would it work long-term (assuming it won't get stolen by their corrupt leader)?
Posts
And as for Trump, you said " Trump ... comes across as effeminate to me - ..."
which part of "...The pursed lips (always reminds me of the wide-mouthed frog joke) when he speaks, the hairsprayed hair, the fake tan ..." do you perceive as feminine behaviour?
Effeminate (adj) (of a man or boy) ... "having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy." .................https://www.dictionary.com/
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Slavery is as old as mankind. The Greeks built democracy, apparently, but not for slaves, or women, of course. I feel that the present emphasis on black African slaves is very political and even a little cynical. All powerful nations have used slaves from wherever they could be found. As ethics changed it became necessary to regard your slaves as less than fully human and a dark skin or ignorance of Christianity was a good excuse. Now, in the west, we no longer accept this but we know that slaves are still used, even in this country.
Many of them are women, working for wealthy families, more are sold into the sex industry. But children digging minerals in Africa or toiling in garment sweatshops in India are also slaves.
And what are we doing about it? Not a lot. Instead of agonizing about the past, we should be putting our house in order now. Well, I think so, anyway!
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2018/02/02/trump-supporter-illegal-immigration-native-american-legal-arizona-snopes/302350002/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-supporters-navajo-legislator-legal/
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I think we all agree that in an ideal world, kids shouldn't need to work and gravel should be made by a machine. But the owner of the mine can't afford to buy a stone crushing machine. He also can't pay more to the kids because the prices of gravel are set by his luckier competitors who sell machine-made gravel. The gravel is used for building works in their country so it isn't us using their labour, it's all them.
What should we do? Would you want to take these jobs from the kids? Should their state help? Buy the machine for the mine owner (taking away jobs from the kids)? Give some living minimum to the kids and make them dependant on the state? Anyway, their state is poor and doesn't have money to do that. Even worse, it's probably corrupt and doesn't even care.
Should we do something? Would it be justified to force rich people to pay higher taxes and send some aid to those kids? Would it be 1) ethical thing to do and more importantly 2) would it work long-term (assuming it won't get stolen by their corrupt leader)?