It's all very well and good to say "it's just words, they don't matter". However, I would argue that sometimes words matter quite a bit and we make a mistake to be so sanguine about these incidents. There are a couple of reasons for this all of them having to do with language. The first is the escalation of rhetoric. The second is the the problem of nominally respectable and respected members of Congress giving aid and comfort to these sentiments. I'll take them in order.
Back when I was an undergrad the first time, I had a poli-sci professor who told us a story about his nephew who was home on leave from Vietnam. He related to us how his nephew was sitting around the dinner table and using the slur, popular at the time, for Vietnamese. My professor, who had been an instructor at the Air Force's school for intelligence analysts asked him "so, I'm a little fuzzy on the difference between the g--ks you're there to kill and the g--ks you're there to help". His nephew responded "what difference".
First you dehumanize them, then you can do damn near anything you want to them. Today Barney Frank is a fa--ot, tomorrow some *other* gay man, who spends a bit more time on the streets than I imagine Mr. Frank does is *also* the fa--ot. What's more, to the delight of the homophobe this one is right at hand with no capitol police to stop the violence. So on Monday he can shout what he was shouting on Sunday but *this* time he can do something about it. Today, John Lewis is a ni--er, tomorrow it's someone else who happens to share a skin color with Lewis but she doesn't have the benefit of capitol police protection either. Almost everyone agrees that it's wrong to hurl either epithets or bricks at *people*. However, fa--ots and ni--ers and g--ks and sp-c etc. etc. aren't really *people* now, are they? They're whatever slur is being hurled at them. If you can hurl the words at someone who isn't a person, you can hurl a brick at them.
While it is certainly true that not every incidence of bigoted words being thrown about ends in violence, every incidence of bigotry-inspired violence has, at some point, the *language* of bigotry involved. I don't recall much of having a cross burnt on our lawn, I certainly don't recall any words that were hurled at my parents but I'm willing to bet that ni--er was one of them.
On a related note, I don't consider bricks to be carriers of an opinion.
The other problem is the muted response of responsible GOP leaders. They *should* have come down hard and firm against the Tea Partiers. Instead they made half-assed attempts at dismissing or justifying the bigotry while winking in the direction of the bigots. For a year now, we have watched the spectacle of GOP members of Congress who, not 24 months before were ready to see Americans imprisoned merely for saying that George Bush was incompetent, walking
right up to the line of encouraging armed revolution.. They talk about how this is totalitarianism, fascism, the end of America as we know it, and on and on. If we *were* to ever see actual totalitarian or fascist takeover looming we, as Americans, would have something of a duty to rise up and defend our democratic republic. This isn't it but they want the Tea Partiers to *believe* that it is. We have governors openly talking secession. Congresspeople and candidates for Congress talking about the American people (at least those they agree with) 'locking and loading'. It's fire they are playing with in order to pick up a few seats in the House and Senate which, historically, they are bound to do anyway.
In this country, we seem to mistake--for reasons that escape me--the right to free speech for the right to say any damn fool thing you want and the rest of us are just obliged to sit by and take it and talk about the right to free speech. The right to free speech does, in fact, give you the right to say pretty much any damn fool thing you wish to say. It does *not* oblige any of the rest of us from saying that it's a damn fool thing or a bigoted thing. When we are silent in the face of bigotry or we shine it on with a "sticks and stones may break my bones" statement we give our silent concession to the bigots. What we are saying is this: "I recognize that, for you, your intolerance is something you are willing to go to the mat for. Well, I think you're intolerant but I'm not ready to go to the mat in defense of tolerance." When we do that, we grant them a victory they do not deserve.
Kobi, I'm not trying to jump on you or tell you you don't have a right to your opinion. You have every right to it. You have every right to express it. And I have every right to express my opinions in response to yours.
Cheers
Aj
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi
I, for one, dont have a problem with people speaking their minds, even if it does means listening to slurs. I would much rather know where people stand then to assume attitudes and beliefs have changed because it became politically incorrect to be honest about your feelings and beliefs.
And, I do attribute a lot of the slurs per se to scared people, lashing out much like a bully would. But, to respond to slurs just adds fuel to the fire.
In my 34 years of being out, I have never been a victim of a hate crime. I have had slurs said in my presence and I smile knowing from whence the ignorance comes from. I have no need to defend who I am, because I am not threatened by childish ignorance.
Not everyone is going to like us, nor do I like everyone. Prejudice is not something you can eradicate by legislation. God knows, watch a session of congressional debates - these have got to be the most bigoted, prejudicial, childish humans in the country.
As for a revolution, I doubt it will come from the middle-lower class. The folks most threatened are those on the cusp of the elite who are being squeezed out. The rest of us were never a threat.
I would appreciate if you all didnt jump all over me just because I dont tow the line in my beliefs.
|