Indeed, the principle is correct. I was poking at the idea that “all people are equal” (but, to be clear, not at the person that voiced the idea ).
Yes, we are all part of a single species, but that’s it. The [rights you are entitled, the opportunities you will be able to access, the respect you’ll get, if you’ll get to live] depend very much on your [skin color, ethnicity, religion, country of origin] and/or on [skin color, ethnicity, religion, country of origin] of the others. Colonialism and racism are still very much alive these days.
The idea to treat people differently based on their [skin color, ethnicity, religion, country of origin] keeps such concepts alive. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And while some things can be regulated and enforced (e.g anti-discrimination laws) or influenced in a desired direction (e.g. educational support) – one thing will for sure never change, fair or not: Respect has to be earned.
I look at it philosophically. According to your previous life’s karma you are born in a different country or even planet or multiverse. In a different species, or gender, and different levels of beauty, health, wealth, education, fame, and privilege. Today some one is white, next life they could be black. Today you are a rich educated woman next life a poor homeless man. Today a human meat eater next life a cow who is sent for slaughter. And so on. Karma is the universal system of justice. You can’t escape it. “For just as a calf can find its mother in a herd of 10,000 cows, in the same way your actions will find you.” Chanakya Pandita
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that less-good books should be or will be published. Quite the opposite: the argument is that excellent books have been overlooked due to societal factors outside the author’s control.
After all they are business to make money and at the end there is the bottom line. Even if it is a case of “get woke and go broke.” They can only do that for so long before investors complain.
Actually, sadly, it is. There are abundant examples, both historical and recent, of people being treated more or less respectfully because of the color of their skin, even in otherwise identical situations. Until very recently, in the United States, even such mundane honorifics as “sir” or “ma’am” were used almost exclusively when addressing white people.
I see what you mean. I’d call that “fake respect” (although, the opposite of it is literally “disrespectful” behavior). Based on attributes a person can hardly influence. Ethnicity, gender, caste, inherited wealth, position in society, etc. That’s not why I mean. Instead, to quote Wikipedia:
“Respect is a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities and achievements.”
This can only be earned. No force in this world can make me respect a random human of the same skin color without reason. Being polite as a default? Sure. Respecting elders? Why not. Fearing a powerful authority? Maybe.
Respect is said in many ways. If I understand it correctly, the kind of respect you mean is equivalent to “recognition of one’s achievements.” So, I would agree. One must earn it.
The respect I meant, however, is of a different kind, one that is also more fundamental: respect for one’s dignity as a human being to one’s fundamental human rights.
This is putting the oxcart ahead of the oxen. Would things improve if everyone agreed to ignore these issues? No. Suppose we allow racism and colonialism to be swept under the rug. In that case, we are making it easier for the absurdities faced by millions of people every day to keep happening unchecked.
Didn’t say it would be easy (or in some cases even possible, because humans are weird). Yet some manage to achieve it despite unfavorable circumstances.
That one is tricky. You could… e.g. “respect the law” (other people’s rights), either because you think it’s the right thing to do, or because you’re afraid of getting caught violating it and getting punished. The law can’t fix people’s hearts, so this sometimes has to be good enough.
Well, I can’t stop you from fighting your own theses (I didn’t suggest anything like that), but I can volunteer as an umpire if you want. You won. And the other you lost.
What I will say (or rather repeat) is: Nothing good will come out of a change of roles. You want a society without racism? Stop treating people based on their “races”.
Or, to quote Dr. Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” He could’ve said that they should be treated better than other children. Based on their skin. But he didn’t.
The idea is to achieve fairness and equality. That’s the spirit. But, right now, there’s a whole lot to be done to get there, before we transcend these bonds to race, ethnicity, and nationality.
Seems so simple, doesn’t it? But it isn’t. In many circumstances, there is no way to enforce laws (internationally, for instance) to make sure people/countries with less power (and, usually, darker skin color) are not treated unfairly.
To reiterate, my point is that racism is real. Colonialism is also very real. There will be a whole lot to discuss regarding these issues in the next one hundred years or so. Everything so far was just a warm-up.
I can’t offer a quick solution how to make the whole world a happy and just place within a few years. As you said: it’s not that simple. And it becomes less simple with each passing day, as new powers arise on the globe and news alliances are forming. They don’t necessarily all share the same view on “human rights”. What to do with countries who don’t comply voluntarily? Economic sanctions? Military force?
I wasn’t sure if a certain word he uses frequently is still allowed or considered derogatory these days. But seriously: Can you point me to a specific paragraph that you consider in conflict with this quote or my understanding of the whole speech?
Pretty much the entire speech. It’s very clear that he “has a dream” of a future that does not yet exist, is advocating for very visible action to bring that future into existence, and is insisting that “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”
Yes, and he talks again and again about how he visualizes this dream, e.g. “one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood”, “one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers”.
I might be going out on a limb here, but I’m quite certain he wasn’t in favor of perpetuating racism.
This starts to get a bit ridiculous, to be honest. Either pro or contra racism. Am I that bad at conveying my message? Maybe. But why do the targets keep constantly moving and changing in size?
No. But he was absolutely clear that it wouldn’t just go away, that people would need to take proactive action to fix the racism embedded in institutions.
).
But seriously: Can you point me to a specific paragraph that you consider in conflict with this quote or my understanding of the whole speech?