A fraction of a dot maybe, but every man and woman will leave a mark on the world, and I hope that mine is a positive one and makes life better for those that come after ... even if only a tiny bit ... the reverse would be awful ...
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Things change and man adapts and adapts those things around him. We look back and don't see as much of an issue - the Downs near me (from what I can gather) were once forested and cleared for grazing. Wolves, bears and other animals man sees as a threat were relatively common in Britain. Is it bad (the Downs are brilliant) and I don't fancy meeting a bear as I put the bins ok, but am ok with a fox. But wasn't man just doing then what we do now? We see something that can be changed and we do - and if it can't be changed immediately we try to think of a way to change it.
And we're only here being able to talk about this 'electronically' because of what man does - energy, plastics.. all the crap - and innovation.
To me, it is just the speed of change that is the challenge that poses the problem. Nearly 2 million years of living close to the earth and being part of it (even though we still adapted it to suit us) - and 300+ moving stupidly quickly through various technologies - and that rate of change getting faster decade on ... year on.. month on.
I know it doesn't justify or excuse in any way what we're doing and have done, but species come and go on this planet. I hope we come through it, learn something along the way and go on to better things. Irrespective, the world will change slightly, but just carry on - new species will come and go and man will be a vague memory lost in the mists of time.
As for slavery (and talking specifically about the Afro-American slave trade) - I don't see that as racist - and I'm not trying to whitewash the slavers actions at all - in fact I think in my view they were worse than racist. I see the 15th+ centuries as again like a perfect storm. On one hand you have the largely unknown continent of Africa - not united and controlled by tribal nations. Not technically as advanced as Europe. Then you have navigational advances mean that ships could travel beyond sight of land easier. The ship technology had also started to advance beyond galleys. Then due to those advances, America and the Indies were 'discovered' - but proved to be difficult to tame.
I had initially thought that the African slaves were then taken by conquest - ie a more advanced technologically powerful group dominating a weaker - but having a quick read, I'm not sure that's entirely the picture (although I'm not sure what I've read isn't just white apologist stuff). What appears to be put forward is that the West African tribes used slavery (as did most cultures around the world) internally ,and that when the Europeans arrived, slaves (from local conflicts) were in some cases bought from the local tribal chiefs. I would guess that it was a mixture of taking and trading. I don't think the skin colour mattered per se (maybe itmade it easier to justify their abhorrent actions) - and this why I think this was far worse than racism - they were just seen as a commodity to buy and sell elsewhere. It just so happened they came from West Africa and were black but I don't think (and this is impossible to prove) that that mattered - they needed manpower in the Americas, navigation and ship tech meant they could transport people in bulk as objects, and in West Africa they came across a place where they could buy that resource or take it. Isn't that worse than racism? It's what we would see today as 'The Market' - 'the market' finds its level and is the all. And we still see that same driving force in place today.
You make some good points with regards to power. Even if we were to take the position that slavery was based purely on equiring labourers, it definitely progressed to not be that way. As parts of society became enlightened and slavery deemed wrong there was a push to justify it through scientific racism. This includes viewing races as biologically distinct, taking skull shape and size to present the wrong idea that blacks were in-between whites and chimpanzees. This feed into ideas and stereotypes that informed Western culture.
It may be thought these ideas are part of the past but there are signs that they continue, if even in more covert ways. Just a reading through the history of the KKK, NF, Rosa Parks and the Windrush generation demonstrate that the abolition of slavery doesn't end racism. Even in football there have been and continue to be signs of discrimination.
As others have spoken about sexism I feel I've little to add, just that things should be equal even if taking difference into account. Physicallity wasn't and isn't a good reason to stop women having less rights for such as voting or equal pay for example. If this was the case then it would apply to men as well.
I am not saying 'isms' and 'ists' don't exist or that they shouldn't be eradicated - just that things we see as being an 'ism' maybe aren't and have a different 'source' (ie greed, the pursuit of power, or the aftermath of conflict). So many groups have used racial, religious or sexual differences to justify discrimination - I agree. I think Eugenics, that the Nazis latched onto, was a British 'thing'.
Where I think 'we' go wrong is that we see 'ists' and 'isms' as bad (rightly) and focus on them - and because we're so wrapped up in then being politically correct, fail to see that the pursuit of power or greed does vastly more damage and is largely ignored ('...it's just the market...') as it's not seen as 'ist'.
If I said that paying a Phillipino $x was racist and if it was a female $x/2 was both racist and sexist, would the west be happy in using cheap labour? But if that's seen as '...that's how the market works..' then we don't bat an eyelid. Market differences aren't seen as 'ist'. That's just how economy works. 'Ist' or greed?
Physicality was a good reason for pay difference - why do you see that as any different to say being intelligent? If intelligence drives pay today, why shouldn't physicality in a job where physicality counts? And as I was trying to show, for most of humankind's history, being physically strong was a necessity. Men were, in general, physically stronger than women - that was just genetic. If that wasn't the case, the split wouldn't have worked that way. The physically stronger women would have done the physically harder labour, and the men the less physically demanding (unless the physically stronger women had been sexist and forced the men to do the 'harder labour'!) and female children would have been in demand as a pension rather than male. It's only (comparatively) recently that brains have become more important than brawn.
Where I think 'we' go wrong is that we see 'ists' and 'isms' as bad (rightly) and focus on them - and because we're so wrapped up in then being politically correct, fail to see that the pursuit of power or greed does vastly more damage and is largely ignored ('...it's just the market...') as it's not seen as 'ist'.
...
Men were, in general, physically stronger than women - that was just genetic.
Any time you arbitrarily assign attributes to a group you are displaying your prejudice, and furthering the effect of that prejudice on those people.
”We” are not “wrapped up” in being politically correct. This is more prejudice, assuming everyone is so when they are not.
Rage against political correctness is usually just hiding prejudice for shame from their peers. People who understand their prejudice feel no need to hide, they simply dont behave in racist or sexist ways...treating people equally, its much easier, and benefits the disempowered at no cost.
Being prejudiced is not the same as being impolite.
Prejudice is leveraged for all sorts of reasons, none of which change or alter that prejudice is - of itself - a significant problem that should be dealt with, to everyone’s benefit.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'm the worlds worst for foot in mouth disease.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
It may be thought these ideas are part of the past but there are signs that they continue, if even in more covert ways. Just a reading through the history of the KKK, NF, Rosa Parks and the Windrush generation demonstrate that the abolition of slavery doesn't end racism. Even in football there have been and continue to be signs of discrimination.
As others have spoken about sexism I feel I've little to add, just that things should be equal even if taking difference into account. Physicallity wasn't and isn't a good reason to stop women having less rights for such as voting or equal pay for example. If this was the case then it would apply to men as well.
”We” are not “wrapped up” in being politically correct. This is more prejudice, assuming everyone is so when they are not.
Being prejudiced is not the same as being impolite.