skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (11/30/88)
One of the more interesting aspects of racism is the way that it reflects an obsession with control. Nazis wished to control the spread of certain genes; others have been more concerned with the spread of certain ideas. What a racist cannot do is to say to someone, "You are different, I will let you be different and I will even risk letting you spread your difference." That last part is often the most difficult. For example, in Ireland, the English tried to force the Catholics to become Protestant. But, they were more concerned with simply ensuring that Catholics were separated (beyond the pale) and unable to spread their ideas. Many of the laws passed against the Catholics involved making any kind of passing on of ideas (education, printing, meetings) illegal. Obviously, the suppression of ideas never stamps them out. The English were certain that Catholicism was a dangerous idea. They could show that it had led to oppression, wars, violence. They also believed that it led to eternal damnation. But the harder they tried to control it, the worse they looked and the more it thrived. Controlling ideas through trying to keep them from getting public expression simply does not work. Well, let's say that there is some kind of idea which X person believes is dangerous--that it has led to oppression, wars, and violence. Let's say that there is a person (Y) who seems to express this idea in a public forum. What might X do? One of X's options is to try to force Y to stop talking. He might try to scream over Y, stifle Y, get the police to drag Y off, put public pressure on Y to shut up, threaten to sue Y, try to close down the public area where Y speaks. Every one of these options is a form of force. And using force is public discourse has a variety of consequences--all bad. It legitimizes the use of force; it destroys the community of discourse (thereby preventing anyone else from being able to talk); it polarizes a community; it reduces interactions to third-grade ethics. And it doesn't work. It does not stamp out the idea. All of this assumes that X is right. And first and foremost, X has a moral obligation to attempt other methods. Those other methods involve first SHOWING that Y's statements are dangerous. It is not enough to say that they are, or to talk about similar statements which might be. Once he has shown that Y's statements are dangerous, then he can best deal with the situation by also showing what is wrong with those statements. Let's say that Y is telling rape jokes. X might show that rape jokes are dangerous, and then point out how destructive they are, what they do to other people, to relations between sexes, to women's sense of self. If he does that, he is likely not only to stop Y telling rape jokes, but to persuade every person who is standing around never to tell rape jokes, and to persuade them that they should try to persuade others of the same. What if X resorts to force instead? What if he shouts, threatens, and so on? He will likely encourage people who tell rape jokes to continue to perceive feminists as dull people with no sense of humor. He will cause the listeners to think that he has no rational arguments against rape jokes. He will cause them to feel persecuted and defensive about rape jokes. He will ensure that the community of discourse is broken up so that people will walk away with the same attitude toward rape and rape jokes that they ever had. They will probably go away telling as many rape jokes as they can think of. They will now have added incentive to tell the jokes. JEDR has started with resorting to force. He has never shown that the joke was harmful. He simply asserted that jokes lead to lynchings, and he has equated ethnic and racist humor. The only arguments to which he has responded were the weakest (the First Amendment.) We have seen the consequences of some of his actions--the flamefest, the INCREASE in anti-semitic jokes, hostile email, and polarization of the net. He seems willing to go to any lengths so perhaps we will see him attempt to shut down the net. Anti-semitism is a big issue to me. I live in an area where people flinch when my lover gives his last name, where a Jew is as strange as a Hindu. And so I give a heartfelt thanks to JEDR for taking exactly those actions which are guaranteed to make anti-semitism worse. I appreciate it. And if you did not catch the sarcasm, I will make it clearer. JEDR is exactly the sort of person whom I wish were on the other side of any issue-- he is certain to do more harm than good. -- ============================================================================= -Trish "...make of our lives a study, as if learning natural history or music..." skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu -A. Rich