| Author | Message | ||
     Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.170.27.218 |
I'm against it myself. It attempts to erase the vocabulary of an uncomfortable period in history using modern sensitivities as the excuse. Such works should be left intact imo. This is how it was folks. Like it or not. What next? Should we sanitize 'The Diary of Anne Frank' or 'Schindlers Ark' thus making the Nazis less offensive? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700 | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I knew without looking at the link that was going to be about Huck Finn and more particularly - about Nigger Jim | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.26.202.244 |
Yeah, The Merchant of Venice would be interesting in its sanitised form. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Indeed and while I think it's only decent to remove overtly racist material (such as Little Black Sambo) from children's libraries, as such works were written for an assumed 'whites only' readership, it's insulting young readers' intelligence to assume they can't place the racism of the past in any kind of context. We don't put Nazi children's books expounding an anti-Semitic worldview in front of children because of the offence and harm such material can cause that's only sensible but we can't censor history or its sane representation. Twain's work stimulates greater awareness and discussion, it's an intelligent and sound literary work as such it can only do good. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
The Merchant of Venice really not one of Shakespeare's better plays is a great stimulus to discussion. Does it endorse or challenge anti-Semitism? Is Shylock to any extent a caricature? The play is complex and thoughtful, and as such can be criticised without being dismissed. A 'cleaned-up' version would have no such traction and, frankly, would be less worth reading as a result. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
When Frankie Boyle got in trouble from the Mirror and a couple of other tabloids recently over the use of the words Nigger and Paki in his routine it took me nearly half an hour to find a report that actually gave the quotes and therefore the context in which they'd been used. In both cases he'd used the words to have a go at racists and their attitudes... However, this didn't stop some idiot from one of the anti-racist organisations from saying that - and I nearly quote - "Regardless of context these words should never be used on television as it normalises them". Surely, trying to ban them increases the power of the words exponentially. Whether or not you like Frankie Boyle (and I do - surprise surprise) he doesn't do racist material. To accuse him of racism because he used the P-word and the n-word (as they were called by 3 papers) in an attempt to demonstrate the inherent racism in modern day war reporting (He talked about the way deaths are reported in the various middle eastern wars by impersonating a newsreader saying something along the lines of "In Iraq today two british soldiers were killed, and a French scientist and someone else, oh yes, a couple of hundred pakis") he might be a subtle as a housebrick to the face but he's making a valid point. For anyone to say that these words should never be used, regardless of context is about as stupid a statement as it's possible to make. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Could I ask you once again, please, not to use the word "various" on a public forum? It can cause great offence and in some cases physical scarring. Thank you. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I apologise. i forgot. is hould have used the word assorted but for various reasons I forgot. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.151 |
Twain's work should be left alone. It reflects the times it was written it. And indeed could be used in anti-racist discussion. Could also be handily used in a debate with school children about the re-writing of history,too and one on the consequences of 'censoring' material for future readers. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.118.76.146 |
This reminds me of a Jean Ray story I translated a while back. In the very first (pre-war) printing of the book the expletive dirty jew is used as a matter of course. Not that Ray was a jew-hater, that's where things stood with jews, quite simply put and historically speaking. No-one loved them. But in later (post-war) printings the word is systematically replaced with something else - rascal, whatever. Interesting, isn't it? | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
Joel I once saw a verison of "Mechant" re-set in the 1930s and set agianst the rise of Facism and more importantly, the oncoming Holocaust. It cast a whole new light on Shylock and his place in society. Frankly, I'm irritated that he didn't get his literal piound of flesh, a bargain is a bargain after all! Trust a bloody lawyer to worm her client's way out of what he rightfully owed. Cheers Terry | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
The problem is, there are those who persist in wanting words to contain power, and it's impossible to deny that are different ways a term can contain power - or, different ways to exercise that power. A racial slur's power, when it has power, is obvious; when it lacks all power (calling a white a "cracker," I'm sorry, is pointless, and lacking in power: it's like throwing sand against a wall) is also obvious. But a term like a slur can achieve negative power: when it's no longer able to subjugate, when using it as it was (evilly) intended has lost value... but when it can now be turned up against others, as accusatory: when it's power is negative-signed. "He called me X" suddenly becomes the only way "X" has any inherent power anymore. And those certain specific ones who can wield that magical wand, where "He called me X" is still powerful; they might be loathe to part with that power, ultimately. It might be worth it if "X" were still invested with a certain scariness, and never completely lose its lost forbidden status, or become completely innocuous (like "cracker"), to some.... And so, the banning of terms from books, only invests these terms with their negative-sign value, though their original malicious value is completely absent. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Okay, you have a choice between that semi-thought-out response I've written above, or this rather crude and ill-conceived one below: So I guess by censoring Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, keeping back certain terms, you can only come to one conclusion: they're being niggardly now with their use of words.... | ||
| Patrick Walker (Patrick_walker) Username: Patrick_walker Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 79.70.214.113 |
It's worth quoting Lenny Bruce: "It's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school." | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.134.41.189 |
I remember when we did 'Huck Finn' at school (for inter cert English). During humdrum lessons me and my chums always used to rewrite each scene between the lines to incorporate some kind of sordid sex scenario (invariably including Injun Joe, and that chapter where Huck dresses as a girl). Never assume that schoolkids are so easily corrupted... | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.69 |
If Twain's book was rubbish it wouldn't be in print now. If it offends more than it entertains, it will slowly drop out of print and fashion and ultimately people's awareness. I'd be interested to know if Twain's recently published autobiography has been 'sanitised'. (As for Frankie Boyle, I saw his show for the first time the other week. Didn't do anything for me or my girlfriend except make us feel like we were watching a really bad comedian in 1986 trying to shock and failing miserably. Weird. Really did feel like travelling back in time. I mean, the Aids gags - where's he been since the 80s? *) *Of course, our views in no way reflect badly on Weber or his 'jokes'. | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.134.41.189 |
I should mention of course, that our view of 'Huck Finn' was heavily contaminated by the BBC TV version of 'Huckleberry Finn And His Friends'. All sing along: 'Try looking back on days that were slower, when neighbours were friends...' | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.9.16.50 |
I totally agree with the notion that words are empowered if people are denied the right to use them. For that reason I'm often uneasy when censorship of language is applied rigorously to all situations, regardless of circumstance. For example, I was irritated when a reviewer in the New Yorker called my story BETHANY'S WOOD "a scream of misogyny" purely because it gave voice to a misogynistic character. But sometimes, opposition to this kind of across-the-board ban can be manipulated. When the movie PULP FICTION came out, I was very surprised that certain of its scenes went unchallenged (likewise other Tarantino movies). I appreciate that, in gritty thrillers, it's important to represent the sordid reality of everyday life. But dialogue like "Where on my garage does it say 'dead nigger storage'?" was surely scripted for no other purpose than to raise laughs, and in that respect wasn't much of an improvement on what you used to hear in LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Joel, near as I can figure there is nothing racist in "Little Black Sambo." (The derogatory term "sambo" was derived from the book, not the other way around.) Further, even if the book was racist, surely it would disappear into the mists of history on its own, without the necessity of banning it. In my experience, banning things only serves to make them attractive and open to exploitation. | ||
| Patrick Walker (Patrick_walker) Username: Patrick_walker Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 88.109.70.164 |
In response to Mark, above, and more than a little off-topic, as far as I'm concerned Frankie Boyle is nothing more than a poor man's Jerry Sadowitz. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Paul - Scenes in Pulp Fiction didn't go unchallenged at all, matey. In fact, there's been a long running dispute between Tarantino and Spike Lee about those scenes for years. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Yeah, some of Tarantino's dialogue in that film caused an outrage. As Frank says, there's been bad blood between him and Spike Lee for years -and Lee even had a go at Samuel L. Jackson for working with Tarantino. I'd argue that the line you quote, Paul, wasn't written just to raise a laugh. That character was a total dick, and the line further demonstrated his dickishness. Tarantino is far too savvy a script writer to use a line like that purely for laughs. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.184.226 |
Chris, I'm old enough to have read 'Little Black Sambo' as a small child and even then, it struck me as being pretty nasty. You can drop a book from libraries without 'banning' it, and I do feel that ethnic minority children have a right to browse libraries without encountering material that directly insults them. The same goes for, for example, pre-war volumes of Grimm's Fairy Tales in which evil scheming Jews get their come-uppance. That kind of material requires some kind of mediation to put it in context for the adult reader otherwise, it achieves its original purpose of making certain readers feel excluded and condemned. A library for young readers can educate them about racism without injecting them with it. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.9.16.50 |
I'm glad to hear that PULP FICTION got challenged by Lee, though it's a pity it took a black film-maker to do it rather than a white one. Even if it caused controversy, it still won awards, which shows a significant degree of acceptance. I respect your views, Gary, as always, but most reactions I've heard to the 'dead nigger storage' quip were the sort of embarrassed sniggers you get when people resurrect old Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning jokes. I'm not sure I concur that Tarantino was playing any more of a dick in that movie than he plays in all the others. It was just him doing his usual motormouth thing. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
I've read "Sambo," too, actually. By "banning" I only meant that no one needs to impose restrictions on such volumes -- they will disappear on their own. I know of no Grimm's Fairy Tales that include anti-Semitism, but I'm sure it's happened. The Brothers Grimm did not write the tales; they only compiled them, and many versions of the stories exist. The book has undergone many editions and many other "edits," mostly to tone down elements of incest and violence. Rather than restricting the tales, then, it's probably easy to substitute versions that don't include anti-Semitic elements. In America, Twain's Huckleberry Finn is a common assignment for middle- and high-school students. (As are Brave New World, The Catcher in the Rye, and Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, all of which have "controversial" elements.) These books often find opposition here, especially among hypersensitive people on either side of the political spectrum, but I seriously doubt they've harmed anyone. Children are smarter than people think, and are well capable of placing a text in its historical context. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
They've changed the N-word to 'slave' in the new edition. But is there a foreword explaining this, or an afterword? It seems, on the whole, if the book isn't being taught or made available, that swapping word to fix that and then explaining it may not be a terrible solution, though clearly not an ideal one. I wonder what Twain would think. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.189.238 |
Chris, I think the sifting process you describe has filtered out the anti-Semitic stories from modern edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales there were two examples in a 1940s volume my mother found. There are crude and offensive racist statements in a couple of H.P. Lovecraft stories, as well as subtler ones in many others, but they are being read in an adult context and readers can use those elements to assess the stories criticially and question whether Lovecraft was really such a profound commentator on 'humanity'. But undoubtedly some racists have taken Lovecraft as an endorsement of their mentality that will happen where the wilful ignorance of authors and readers coincide. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
So do we change Oliver Twist with its ghastly anti-semitic and Nazi stereotypical portrayal of a money-grabbing jew? Made worse by the recent stage version? And I noticed some pretty off-handedly unpleasant comments about a Jewish landlord in Wells' "The Invisble Man?" do we edit that book? I think we have to judge whether the work itself is reflecting the author's views or the prevailing views of the time, or is a deliberate piece of prejudice. And soemtims, reading the latter can give us an insight into the darkness of a particular time and place. And yes, children are a lot more intelligent and discerning than we realise. Cheers Terry | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.9.16.50 |
One interesting story I heard, Terry, was that Dickens himself edited later editions of OLIVER TWIST, after befriending a Jewish family. The loveable version of Fagin we know today was apparently the end result. The original Fagin was a much darker and less sympathetic character, though supposedly he was based on a real Jewish fence in the East End at the time called Ikey Solomon. It's an interesting point - if the author himself changes his attitude with time, is there anything wrong with his readership doing the same thing? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
We also have to assess what else a work of literature offers in the case of Dickens, there's a wealth of interesting material and good writing (though his punctuation is hopeless and appears almost random). That means the work itself provides an intelligent literary context within which the themes can be critically assessed. 'Reflecting the views of their time' is a complex proposition, as views can vary widely in a society and the views of ethnic minorities tend to get left out of any such assessment. Going back to Lovecraft, any attempt to write off his racism as 'the views of his time' has to reckon with his dedicated defence of his ultra-conservative worldview in the face of disagreement from friends and acquaintances in the world of literature and amateur journalism. 'The Silver Key' bears witness to how much Lovecraft felt politically isolated in his cultural milieu very much in the way that contemporary racists and other right-wingers generally claim they are being oppressed by the 'politically correct'. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
What we started off discussing, and haven't moved far from, is what it might or might not be appropriate to drop from material being used educationally with young readers. That's a complex issue on many fronts. If something is judged potentially corrupting and/or unnecessarily hurtful, is it better to drop that literary work or to alter it or to present it with discussion to provide a context? It depends partly on the quality, complexity and intelligence of the source material. I'd rather see a work of literature held back to be discussed with slightly older children than presented in a sanitised form. On a lighter note, one of my all-time favourite lines is Stan's dad in South Park trying to put a porn film into 'a moral context' for a bunch of children who have seen it by accident: "When four men and one woman love each other very much..." | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
The last line of Poe's 'A Predicament' shocked me to the core... but I still wouldn't change a single word. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.177.92 |
Is there a time when it's ok to be racist, or feel racist stirrings? I felt them a bit when I heard about the news about pakistani men preying on young white girls because they were 'easy meat'. Was I right to feel this stuff? Was it avoidable? Their behaviour was racist so does it make it fair to be it back? I still feel in a mental jam over this, feeling alternately guilty and angry, at myself and the men that did these things (this 'jam' is cause of much grief for many these days, I feel). I was in Bradford this year and felt strangely oppressed by the muslim presence, at least until an elderly muslim chap said hello to me and those feelings all fell away; he was the poilitest person I'd met all day. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.177.92 |
A predicament indeed. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
I think we all feel a degree of antagonism towards other cultures, religions etc at times. It is natural defence mechanism. I mean, back in the days when we had to keep control our precious hunting grounds from other tribes there was no time for tolerance or any sort of celebration of difference (I hate that sickly clichι). Other cultures, like our own, are riddled with faults and bad practices and there is nothing wrong with being angry or hostile towards those negatives. Just as other people are justified in being angered by our own faults. You will never get me to celebrate oppression of women, you will never make me celebrate female circumcism or so-called honour killings or executing people of blasphemy and so forth. Just as you can never make me celebrate American gun laws or our own utter self-centredness, our moronic and immensely damaging celebrity worship, violence obsessions and our inability to produce male teenagers who can actually read, write or can even speak in any sort of articulate way And no, I'm not a closet BNP member. My wife is Jewish and as such, part of a much maligned and un-celebrated part of British society. I teach and in this profession we are strangled by bloody Equality and Diversity, which has reached almost farcical proportions! In fact it has become an embarrassment to those we are supposed to be equalityfying and diversitying! Regards Terry | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
No tthat there is anything inherently wrong with equality of race, culture, disability, sex and the like, I hasten to add! Terry | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.21.232.217 |
But why the compulsion to revise history? I'm very much against that. If I were a black (is that the politically correct word nowadays?) and discovered an old book full of prejudice against my ancestors, I probably wouldn't get worked up about it. I'm all for footnotes, afterwords etc. explaining those problematical passages, but to excise them - no. Excision won't change the past one bit. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Is there a time when it's ok to be racist, or feel racist stirrings? I understand what you're saying, Tony, but I think your outrage would be better directed at the individuals involved and not an entire race. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.177.92 |
In fact discovering the faults of others can be a relief, a leveller - my youngest son recently found that Africans in the time of slavery sold fellow blacks for guns (I might have mentioned this). No-one's a good or bad guy, in the end, and it's both good and bad to realise this. Hey Terry - I got my youngest lad a Michael Morpurgo book for Christmas. In a week he had it read. He's 12, and his school psychologist has told us that he's one of the best readers in the school, actually at adult level. We were very chuffed. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.177.92 |
Chris - it happens, though. I'm quite a foggy individual in that respect, and have to admit it's not great, and i'm not exactly happy with it. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Is there a time when it's ok to be racist, or feel racist stirrings?... It is interesting to note, how power-structures are always at work in a society. We live in a post-sin world, but the powerful (who understand the power of sin) want to control this as well. And so, some sins are worse than other sins, though there is absolutely no basis for segregating them. And so, to have a "racist" impulse, is considered almost the "unforgivable sin" - it is damning to the core, and can't be scrubbed clean; to have a "racist" impulse is impossible to remove, is impossible to scrub free, is forever and ever. Why? Because it is useful to pin "racism" on a political opponent - and it must be unforgivable, if it has cache and chit-value in the political world. To be a serial womanizer or adulterer is not, it's just a "sin," easily forgivable (over and over) or overlooked, as is drug-use, graft, corruption, and avaricious consumption. It is fascinating to note, that in Bill Clinton's eulogy to the late Senator Robert Byrd here in America - Robert Byrd, who was a grand poobah of some sort early on in the KKK - Bill said (paraphrasing) that Byrd had to hide his true beliefs (which were contra the beliefs of the KKK) because that's just how one got ahead, politically, in West Virginia... so that, years later, he could work to turn against them, and change the system as a whole for the better.... What I found odd, is: Why go the secret Machiavellian political-maneuvering route? Doesn't saying one believed one thing, and then came to an awakening, seem more humane, more believable? Why not just say Mr. Byrd came to see the light of his dark ways, and worked the rest of his life making up for his earlier darknesses? Because those who want to use the racism chit in politics, can't have it be a "forgivable sin": it must be an irrevocable condition, so that once you taint your political opponent with it, he can't escape, no matter how far back in the opponent's past (according to the charge the racism-hustler will make) it appeared. And so, the logic-defying notion, that Byrd was never a rabid racist and came to see light; but was always hiding out in the KKK, like a secret agent, so he could eventually work against them.... | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
Very intersting points made Craig and as I mentioned, in my teaching proffession, perceived racism is also an unforgivable sin. Tony, my comment about male teenagers was a huge generalisation of course, alhtough I do encounter the shambing, mumbler what is inarticulate innit, as a majority in my job. Great nws tht your son is a reader. I'm sure he is not among the mumbling multitude. Cheers Terry | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.221.147 |
The organisation Unite Against Fascism makes a useful distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' racists: the former are ideologically committed to race hatred, the latter are inclined towards racial prejudice in a more negotiable way. The former need to be actively blocked and fought against at all times, the latter can be engaged with in a discussion of the issues. For example, someone who argues "Immigration has to be stopped because there aren't enough jobs" needs to recognise that the main driver of immigration is recruitment: employers are keen to find cheaper labour, and immigrant workers are often willing to work for lower wages or under worse conditions. Put like that, it becomes a discussion about exploitation and the need for better employment law and stronger unions. That's why Youth Against Racism in Europe has the slogan "Jobs and housing, not racism": it gets to the heart of the economic issues that racists exploit. But to a 'hard' racist, there's no purpose in such a discussion since the real issue is biological, not economic. Being afraid of, or mistrustful of, or uneasy with, people from another ethnic group is not the same kind of racism as dogmatically hating them, because the former is open to change through experience and learning. I think not being racist simply means not having preconceived ideas (prejudices) about people because of their ethnic group. For most people, that's not an 'all or nothing' proposition: it's a complex aspect of life. Serious racists are people of terrible inadequacy: they can only boost their self-esteem by having a category of person whom they regard as less than human, and whom they blame for everything in life that they don't like. They are also ruthless manipulators of the fears and confusion of others. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
"Hard" and "soft" racists is a neat way of dividing things up, but I think they tend to break down under real-world analysis. Again, Robert Byrd - joined the KKK, and rose up in its ranks to be an "Exalted Cyclops" (egad), and was a member of it for many years as he actively fought racial equality legislation in government. Many would just instinctively say for him, it was "biological," his racism... but the left in America today, would all say, you were wrong: no speck of racism, not a mote or an iota, remained. To even accuse him of being a racist, would now be classified as: hate-filled. In America, imho, the term "racist" has become SUCH a political chit, that it has lost all real meaning. You cannot in America be anti-illegal immigration, without ipso facto being smeared as a "racist" - this is because, politically (which always boils down to, economically), certain power structures don't want their sources of power disturbed. As long as we have deadlock, one side pitted against the other, the problem remains - an entire class of people are being exploited, like serfs. As long as there's deadlock in the drug trade, the drug lords continue to make their blood millions: as long as we don't legalize all drugs on the one hand, or enforce criminalization on the other - choose one, or the other - the result is: a certain power structure maintaining its power structure. And invariably, these power structures are ugly, wicked, and exploitative. But everyone gets to feel good around the edges: mailing in donation checks to organizations as they decry the latest atrocious drug murders in Mexico, then going to the market to buy their dirt-cheap vegetables, and afterwards going home to smoke a doobie.... |