mjp
Founding member
Okay. So how far back are we going? Where is the cut-off point when we stop taking offense at the words of the dead? In art? The bible that so many people hold dear and sacred is full of slavery and murder and unbridled hatred of women. Why don't we talk about that?to just wave your hand and say "Get over it - that was 40 years ago" is kind of condescending.
Or would that be a pointless conversation that will never resolve anything?
It's human nature to focus on, and exploit, differences rather than commonalities. That's why people who promote the idea of unity meet such resistance and have historically ended up on the wrong end of a rope, guillotine or bullet. I do not believe, based on being alive at this moment and growing up in the 60s, that discussions about friction between different kinds of people have ever made anything better.
Arabs and Jews have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, despite all the talk and treaties and governmental hand-wringing. Because they hate each other. It isn't rational, it just is.
What we say is important, I'm not arguing that it is not. But much more important is how we behave in the world when we're face to face with each other. Taking offense at a word in a novel, a work of fiction, is like taking offense at a crucifix in a jar of piss, or a sliced up shark carcass. It's pointless.
As far as things getting better for minorities, that's good news for me, since I live in a city (and very soon a state and country) where I am a minority.
Being in the minority isn't the problem. Lack of power over your own destiny is the problem. And that has always been a political problem, not a social problem. Which is why Malcolm X said, "Whether you use bullets or ballots, don't strike at the puppet, strike at the puppeteer."
As long as those in power can keep the masses at each others throats, their position is safe. You don't have to look any further than American politics to see that.