Hi there. I'm sorry, I haven't been keeping with the blog of late; there's several reasons for that. Firstly, I've been tied up with a lot of hectic happenings of recent. Some good, others bad. Sometimes, escapism from it all isn't justifiable, let alone it actually serving its intended purpose. There's questions to be answered, and notions to be put to rest, and all of that, and I want to plough through all that just to sleep easier at night.
Secondly, I've had "politics block". This phrase might appear as a ridiculous exaggeration, but there's just times when it seems as if you've said all that's to be said, and that's it. I'm not recovered from that notion entirely, to be honest. In fact, my last post was merely a question on my mind, put out to the public domain, just because I had nothing else to talk about.
So, with this, I wouldn't expect any in depth political analysis (Pfffft, you're entirely in the wrong blog if you expect that from me!), but I do have a rather important question to ask.
Okay, here goes; and I want you to think about this one carefully, and answer with complete honesty (Yes, there is a point behind this question, which I'll reveal at a later date):
Supposing you're part of an oppressed group, who was discriminated on both an institutional basis, and a social one. Supposing there was a prominent, well known and erudite speaker from your oppressed group, who campaigned heavily for your group's rights against the oppressors. Yet supposing this eloquent campaigner was also partly infamous for bigotry, or bigoted comments against another group of people (Oppressed group or not); if you had FULL knowledge of this campaigner's bigotry against the other group, would you still support both them, and their actions within the general campaign?
Thanks; I'll look forward to your input on this :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've thought about this and the answer has to be, no.
ReplyDeleteSounds noble but i think it's logical, and in the long run the best thing.
Because, okay, imagine if, as you say, despite knowing their bigotry behind closed doors, i still carry on supporting the campaign.
It will NOT WORK, because sooner or later that person's bigotry will show, and will be known publicly. So the image of the campaign will be tarnished, along with mine for knowing it and not doing anything, and it will give an excuse for the oppressors to say; "See, i told you you can't trust them.They say they are oppressed but they are nothing like that, they are oppressors too."
It's a complicated situation, the situation that you are portraying. The answer and what people would do is down to their character and if they tolerate bigotry...I hell don't!
If in that situation i tolerate the bigotted leader or speaker, then i become one too.
And that's not the best way to fight bigotry and oppression!
No one's perfect, we all have our prejudices. But it's what you do with it that counts. If you act in your prejudice then you discriminate, and you're a bigot, but if you feel that prejudice and you rationalize it, and you do not act upon it, then you're just a human being, who knows that the prejudice, is just that, prejudice and not fact.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." "what goes around comes around"...so true......fighting intolerance with intolerance will only create more intolerance and it will bite me in the butt, but if i fight intolerance with a degree of tolerance then a degree of tolerance will come right round and it will KISS my butt! :)
Sort of...that's just what i think.
Thank you for your well thought out input, as always! You've also captured my thoughts on the subject, too, but, as I say, my reason for asking the question will be revealed at a later date.
ReplyDeleteThanks once again!