Re: OIT and Race etc

I thought I was sending this to Cybalist_admin, honestly! I got
confused in going back and forth between the two forums. This was
never meant to appear in Cybalist, I had no intention of
perpetuating this topic on that forum, honestly. Sincerest
apologies, and I beg the forgiveness of the moderators.

Andrew


- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
wrote:

>
> To Torsten:
>
> In the reply I wrote, I said that I would be more offended by
> the "hot-headed" racial label than by having my opinions excluded
> because of race, the opposite of what you say. I wanted to add to
> this that maybe my statement is not correct. It's actually hard

(for

> me personally) to say: I guess I found that the "opinions

excluded"

> prejudice would be less offensive to me because in actuality I

don't

> think anyone would actually do this openly and with a cool head. I
> think openly declaring such a prejudice would only arise if one

were

> angered or enraged or indignant, and in that situation recognition

of

> the circumstances would mitigate any offense I might feel (because

in

> such circumstances I think all human beings are prone to
> overgeneralizations and emotional and therefore probably inaccurate
> statements). I would be more offended if such a prejudice were
> calmly and unemotionally stated, as though it were taken for

granted,

> self-evident, and expectable, e.g. if it were mentioned as part of
> the logic for one of the arguments in a posting on Cybalist (if

this

> is what actually happened, I am not aware of it -- I thought e.g.
> Gobineau's ancestry caused debate around whether his views are
> respectable, not automatic exclusion of his views). And I

personally

> understand and in a certain way almost respect this prejudice,
> because I feel it is often or predominantly justified. I try to
> avoid taking personal offense at such statements and recognize the
> historical and factual background that (seem to) legitimize them.

It

> also depends on whether the word "blacks" is used as opposed

to "non-

> Caucasian" or another more indirect word. If someone said to
> me, "Your opinion is excluded because you are black", what would be
> offensive to me would be that I don't even think of myself
> as "black", whether you believe that or not and whether it's

correct

> or not, and so the statement might be incorrect (to me) and

therefore

> presumptuous (how "black" is anyone?). It also makes it sound like
> colour alone determines validity. But if someone said "Your

opinion

> is excluded because you are not Caucasian" or some other less
> emotional appellative, I would be less offended because the words
> used would (for me) immediately bring to mind historical and

cultural

> factors that could make such an exclusion appear to be a merely
> logical, non-emotional necessity (assuming that some topic were

being

> discussed in which non-Caucasians have little authority due to
> historical factors). And while such a statement could come

across

> as somewhat objective in nature, to me the statement that a certain
> race is hot-headed sounds more like an obvious insult, since "hot-
> headed" can often be used to insult a person. It also seems
> unobjective and overgeneralized and not based on demonstrable
> historical fact, rather just one person's impression of people of a
> certain colour. It would be better to say "Human beings of
> predominantly African ancestry are genetically prone to more

frequent

> instances of aggressive or violent behaviour", and maybe say
> something like "based on genetic research". Because this would

sound

> very factual, it would be much less likely to cause offense (to me

at

> least). So I guess in my little exploration of the issue here I

have

> come to the conclusion that it's not necessarily what you say that

is

> more or less offensive than something else, it's quite often how

you

> say it (and that implies the intent behind it, whether it is to
> express contempt or conceit which are harmful or instead merely to
> state fact and reason(s) which could potentially be helpful).
>
> Is this at all helpful? I hope I haven't been contradictory or
> confusing, it's really a difficult question to answer objectively
> (and without ever having experienced any prejudice in my life, here
> in Canada, or even in my travels to Europe and yes the U.S.).
>
> Andrew
>