|
Termyn8or -> RE: Blame Frames: Justifying Racial Injustice (8/27/2008 10:18:53 AM)
|
I too, haven't gotten all the way through the article, but I got the gist of it.
Rationalizing amoral and immoral acts has been a trait of humans throughout time. Each time the rationale can be changed to suit the situation i.e. whatever act is desired. I'll comment more on the article later after finishing it, but I am opinionated enough to continue for now based on what of it I have read. :-)
Any act can be justified. In the formative years of this country, they forced the Native children to go to the English schools. Have to civilise them, lest they become a threat were they to remain savages. Then not so long later, it became illegal to teach the slaves to read.
Then we have the witch trials in Salem et alii. Borne by irrational fear, which was quickly whipped up in a religious society, these trials were public and touted as a "solution". Anyone who did something stupid could be deemed "bewitched" and half drowned, and then nicely dried off by burning at the stake. Talk about some strong rationalisation. What's more, if a true witch were to do no harm, they should be fully protected by the Constitution and any laws against witchcraft per se should have been struck down.
Same with McCarthy, it was not illegal to be a communist. It was illegal to try to overthrow the government by subversion, but there did not need to be evidence of that, membership in certain groups was enough. Of course we now know that the government has been taken over by subversion, an overt subversion that many still do not see.
The government has always been an expert at rationalization. Infected blankets for the Natives, the bounty on buffalo, clear attempts at genocide. That was OK though because it was for "the greater good".
However their expertise at rationalization is waning. From KPMG to Iraq, to jailing a guy for importing lobsters that didn't meet the standards of another country (IIRC Honduras), to actually sending a US Citizen to Mexico to be jailed, even though he had never been in Mexico.
So this is nothing new, the author of the article just seems to be analyzing it. The government can no longer rationalize everything so they have taken to sweeping things under the rug so to speak.
It also happens on a personal level i.e. "I'm going to pass that ass who cut me off and give him the brake test of his life", with rationalization, one doesn't see what that really means, which is "I am going to try to cause an accident and risk lives because someone cut in front of me in line".
The US government is not the only one to do it. Isreal "won it's independance" from the Palestinians though almost everyone in the world knows what really happened. This is the most blantant form of rationalization I can think of at the moment.
And then when a government or large corporate entity runs of of tools with which to rationalize, they will finally give up, and they will say something like "Mistakes were made", and then they quickly go find some convenient scapegoats. Every American has seen that play out many times, but have a short memory.
Oh, I have not even touched on the white v black issue. Reverse discrimination is the worst form of discrimination, and I don't say that because I have white skin. When what I guess would be termed "forward" discrimination was rampant, there were no doubt times when a Black person would not be hired in favor of a White person who is less qualified. Then there was a period of rampant reverse discrimination brought about by racial quotas. So now in some cases the Black candidate for a job was hired in favor over a White candidate who was better qualified. Neither one is beneficial to society in any way.
In either case you have less qualified people to do the work, whatever that may be. Those who deserve to "win" the position do not because of race, and failures are hired. This works both ways.
Additionally the race that is discriminated "for" also does not experience fairness. As such they are less impelled to succeed. Even before my awareness increased, I never gave a thought to skin color when it came to business.
A Black Man walks into my shop looking for work. He seemed qualified, and did well during his "probationary period" which lasted a day. I hired him. I asked him how much he wanted to make, money wise and it sounded reasonable so without dickering, he got the job at the rate he wanted. He asked "You got a problem hiring a Black guy ?", I pulled a bill out of my pocket and said "What color is this ?, this is the only color I care about". We are talking the early eighties here. Of course we watched him in the beginning, as we would anyone. Later when everybody else had to leave we let him watch the shop. He was trustworthy.
It doesn't take quotas, it takes fairness. Just like it doesn't take censorship, it takes decency. In my view, if people in general stop rationalizing amoral acts, they will see through the rationalizations of our "leaders" and many more will mobilize to end these wrongs. The problem is that it takes most of us to about age forty to see this issue clearly, yet we can vote at eighteen.
HA, here's a twist. (HK, now you didn't think I was going to throw in a little twist did you ?)
They raised the drinking age and now Ohio colleges are discussing lowering it for some reason. IMO there should be no drinking age, but up to eighteen it is at the discrection of the Parents or guardian(s). Issues raised on one side are drunk drivers, which is a valid point because they are not really experienced drivers and alcohol can devastate what skill they do have very quickly. On the other side the point is raised about binge drinking by college students and that basically they would like for them to not go into hiding to drink. Both sides could be right, both sides could be wrong.
What about the voting age ? Maybe we should raise the voting age ? I could certainly rationalize it, but that might not pass muster here. I honestly think that very few eighteen year olds are qualified to vote. On the other side of the argument is the fact that they old enough to go fight and die for their country.
In the formative years of this country, an eighteen year old Man usually already had a family, and knew about responsibility very well. Not all, but many. The eighteen year olds of today are in school, college if they're lucky :-)
They can go fight and die for our country but can't vote ? That is one hell of a counterpoint, but my point is still valid. So where do we draw that "line" ? Really, if the governments would not successfully rationalize war, this would not be an issue. If eighteen year olds were more informed and intelligent, this would not be an issue.
They would also not go binge drinking and hiding to get away with it, and leaving their buddy to die in an alcoholic coma either, whether or not it is legalized. That would require good teaching before the age of eighteen.
Time was when life itself taught. Farm boys needed to work in the fields for the family to eat, farm girls had to help Mom. That made it work. They learned the necessary skills and moved on to start their own famimlies at an age we now consider to be too young, at least for optimal results.
Things have changed, I know people in their thirties who could only talk about how much sex they were getting and how tough they are. One is married with kids. I don't even want to talk to this guy, he sounds like a cocky teenager and I don't even talk to him anymore. He lost all my respect. The problem is, I think his type is not all that rare. This is the guy who's olady was caught stealing DVDs. I would like to hear her rationalize that, a complete non-essential. "But the kids wanted them so bad". My ass, they are just producing another generation of hypocritic rationalizers.
On second thought I would rather not hear it.
My main point is however, that rationalization is almost a universal trait, and some don't even realize that they are doing it.
T
|
|
|
|
