Time for me to eat a little crow.
In this thread (which is about something entirely different), I posted the following:
You will see if you read past that point that this passage drew some instant hatred from a couple posters, as well as direct accusations that I am a racist. Having thought about it at length and having considered what I said, and what I was attempting to say, I feel that I need to further explain myself and to apologize.
First, the point that I was attempting to make, for those of you too smart to try to read the entire thread, was that societal rights and ethics are fluid and depend on what society you’re in. Therefore, it is largely unavailing to claim to have a social or cultural “right” that the larger society you live in does not recognize.
It’s called situational ethics. In terms of cultural ethics praticed by a micro-society, which can and do clash with the ethics practiced by the larger society, theft (or cheating) is a common example. There are several societies and/or cultures that have historically believed that theft is sometimes okay, depending on the circumstances, including who you’re stealing from. IIRC, these cultures have generally been ones that are insular, that believe in the superiority of their culture, and that disdain, dislike or despise the culture in power (that is not their own) due to a long history of oppression. It is my understanding that at least some of the groups in these cultures (if not the culture as a whole) have historically been understood to ascribe to an ethical system under which is it not okay to steal from others within the society, but is okay to steal from outsiders – indeed, successfully stealing from or cheating a big dumb outsider was a sign of cunning and courage. Cultures in which at least some members have at least historically been understood to ascribe to this type of situational ethics of theft include the Gypsies (the Rom), the Tinkers, various Native American tribes, and even the modern American sub-culture of street kids. The point is: Whether stealing something is a “right” thing to do or a “wrong” thing to do is by no means universally understood. So having an inalienable right to do it, or prevent others from doing it, is meaningless, because it depends entirely upon the society (or micro-society) you’re talking about.
Now, having given the matter far more thought than I did at the time I posted that example, I can see that it was, in fact, a very bad example indeed. Even if the historcial culture of the Gypsies has included situational ethics, it has been the ascribing of those situational ethics to the society as a whole that has led to greater cultural oppression on the grounds that all Gypsies are thieves – which of course they as a culture are not, and never have been. I should never have posted an example of situational ethics that would lead anyone to believe I ascribe to the indefensible stereotyping of Gypsy culture, or any culture. The point could just as easily have been made in the abstract, and in retrospect that is of course exactly how I should have made it. I also see that the way I phrased it did not make it clear that I was not ascribing situational ethics regarding stealing (or indeed regarding anything) to the Gypsies as a whole, or to modern Gypsy culture. For any offense or hurt that I might have caused by my insensitivity, I sincerely apologize. I can assure you all that it was not my intent to be insulting, much less flippantly so. I can only repeat that in retrospect I obviously didn’t give the matter sufficient thought before posting.
That being said, I have never ascribed to the idea that any one of us as posters should know the “reputation” of any other poster. There is therefore no real reason for me to expect that people reading my posts would know that I am not a racist – and yet, irrationally, I kind of do. I defy anyone to find any post in which I have ever said something racist or have condoned racism in any way. If my understanding of situational ethics or Gypsy society is incorrect, I will gladly take correction in the name of fighting ignorance and because I don’t want to post things that are factually incorrect, much less hurtful. But calling me a “cunt” or a “twat” doesn’t eradicate my ignorance; it just makes me think the person raking me so viciously is a total asshole. I guess I can see bringing out the big guns against someone you have reason to know is a racist, or in response to a post (or thread) obviously posted (or started) to spout racist shit. I have a lot more trouble seeing the justification for it when the objectionable language does not appear to have been posted for racist reasons, and when the poster in question doesn’t appear to be a racist. Maybe I’m asking too much, I don’t know; but I sure as hell would have appreciated being given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain.
So to the Board as a whole, I apologize. I include KAL and JJIMM in this apology. Though I feel their responses were uncalled for, it was reasonable for them to take offense. Just as it was and is reasonable for me in turn to have taken offense at their posts which, make no mistake, I have.
