When is discrimination OK?

Great Debates
21

Mr.Zambezi, I am not saying the people of any poor country should have the rights to “share the goodies” as you put it, although someone might have that view. I am saying a person of another nationality has no right to buy the house next to yours, work a job and make a living. I am not talking of giving him anything except the chance to make a living for himself. This is the same that was denied blacks in the years of segregation. Why is it wrong to deny this right for reason of race and not for reason of nationality?

I have aunts, uncles and many cousins in the US and several European countries and they have no legal right to see each other. My cousin, who is a US citizen, has been living in Holland for quite a long time on a tourist visa and could not legally work. Things were getting more and more difficult for her and finally she has resolved the problem by getting married to a Dutch guy.

Personally, if I was asked who should have the right to live next door to me, either some person of different race but same nationality as me OR my relative who is of a different nationality, I will always feel closer to my relative than to some stranger who just happens to be born closer to where I live.

As I said, the point I am trying to make is that morals are very relative and it is very narrow minded to judge people of other times and of other cultures by your own standards. It just makes no sense.

I can understand people of past generations who believed race should be a factor in determining your rights because that is the culture they grew up in. Today we do the same thing with nationality even though this concept is much more artificial than race. Why? just because we have grown up seeing it as natural.

22

Sailor,

I’m with you on this one.

I live in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. For many, many, years there has been a springtime parade with Andrew Jackson as the figurehead. (For those not up on Florida history, Jackson was the first governor of the state.)

As parades and celebrations go it’s always been pretty typical. And though it’s not always occurred during optimal weather, the parade is part of a week long celebration that marks the passing of winter.

Several years ago certain elements of the fringe minority began to demand that all references to Andrew Jackson be eliminated from the celebration because Jackson was a slave owner.

As of this year, the local government gave in to the minority interest “moving Jackson to the back of the parade”, and minimizing his significance in the celebration. The minority element is not satisfied saying that they want him removed completely.

What we are ultimately left with, is a vocal minority that demands that the state capital NOT honor its first governor because his actions 150+ years ago, though within legal and moral guidelines of the era, violate the morals of today.

I hope that future historians find THAT more offensive than slavery!
SouthernStyle

23

Ohhhhhhh. YOu are asking about open immigration. I assume that if your relatives move next door to you, they will also request the rights of a citizen?

Either way, A country controlling the movement of people across its borders seems to me to be necesary for the security and financial well being of the State. I don;t think that this will ever be looked at as discrimination of any kind by rational people.

Isn’t this the same argument that is being discussed in CA over the “right” of illegals to get healthcare, welfare, and free schooling?

Of course, part of the issue is whether the foreigners are also paying taxes…the question is then are they simply requesting the goodies when they show up on our soil?

24

>> I assume that if your relatives move next door to you, they will also request the rights of a citizen?

Wasn’t that what blacks were doing? Why was it wrong to deny it to them? I think SouthernStyle gets my point and you make my point.

25

Why? Didn’t both of them work within a system they at least helped create and perpetuate? Didn’t Hitler, just as people like Jefferson did, believe that those they oppressed were sub-human, therefore what they did was morally acceptable?

It’s a real quandary, trying to reconcile the genuine magnificence of what the founding fathers accomplished with the reprehensible act of owning slaves, a practice that was not–as has been noted in this thread earlier–universally accepted, not even in the colonies. I can’t work it through in my mind satisfactorily. Why shouldn’t African-Americans (and all of us who are their brothers and sisters) not be offended by someone who was a slave-owner? How can that possibly be glossed over as a triviality? It was evil and a convenience, no matter how we rationalize it.

And, SouthernStyle–wow!–please tell me you’re not actually suggesting that someone throwing a wet blanket over the spirit of your precious parade is more offensive than the institution of human slavery.

26

Gotcha sailor.

Be careful with moral relativism. I would not state that the Founding Fathers, or anyone from a bygone era, was evil because they owned slaves at a time when it was standard to do so. I might think less of them if they were sadistic, homicidal slavemasters, though.

But saying that anything can be and is moral depending on the circumstances can be, but isn’t necesarily, dangerous. Theft is OK if you are hungry, cheating on your wife OK if you are bored, mass murder OK if you are “mentally impaired”, and so on.

27

This is a little off the main topic, but FWIW: Hollywood scripts do frequently say, “an Asian doctor,” “a black cop,” or whatever. The thing is, the vast majority of the Hollywood power structure is white, so when you read a script and a character is named as “an auto mechanic,” the white reader automatically visualizes a white character.

The point the non-white activists make is that if there’s no reason for a character to be of a specific ethnic background (or gender), then mix it up. We all know about the stereotypes we see in the movies: gang members are black or hispanic, nurses are women, and so on.

Of course, in trying to remedy this, you frequently see on TV and in the movies the classic mixed-bag look, where the important protagonists are white, surrounded by a bunch of supporting-role ethnic types. (Look at “E.R.” for an excellent example, especially the first couple of seasons; Eriq LaSalle’s character is the lone exception.) This is also what gives us the “black lieutenant” syndrome, where the white actor playing the lead cop reports to a black supervisor: “NYPD Blue,” “Law & Order,” “End of Days,” ad infinitum.

So no, the producer doesn’t get in trouble if the script says “a black man.” The point of the debate is, why should it be specified at all?

28

because hollywood is trying to create a fantasy world that doesent exist:)
“, SouthernStyle–wow!–please tell me you’re not actually suggesting that someone throwing a wet blanket over the spirit of your precious parade is more offensive than the institution of human slavery.”

the problem is it has absolutely nothing to do with the instution of human slavery. Why should people deny their own history because some people had past histories that were offensive.

No one cares about Clinton actually breaking the law but people care about andrew jackson being a slave owner.

For me discrimination is fine whenever its relevant. If it somehow applys it will be like any other physical feature, because thats all it is.

29

Mr.Zambezi, morals are also not so clear cut. What is moral for one (“saving babies”) is immoral for another (“it’s denying a woman her rights”). So, as far as the “here and now” it is the law that rules and should be followed. He who doesn’t agree with the law should strive to have it changed. If you justify breaking the law, as you say, you start down a very dangerous path.

But when judging people who lived in other times and/or other cultures you should also judge them by their own laws and culture, not by ours. If they observed their laws they did well. If they improved them they did better (Lincoln freeing the slaves). But those that lived by earlier laws should not be condemned for not observing later laws.

A thought comes to my mind. When I was a kid, DDT was the insecticide of choice and no one knew of all the negative things that were later discovered. In the country, every evening, my mother would come into my room and spray so much DDT that mosquitos would drown in the stuff. Today that would be unthinkable and she would be accused of child abuse, but that was then. Should I think now that she was a bad mother for that? It would be ludicrous.

So again the point it: Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. A couple hundred years from now they may judge us as heartless for our treatment of gays or foreigners today. They will find no excuse for us unless it is in the understanding of our culture and our own limitations.

I have been in Spain for the last few weeks. Every day in the news you could see many Africans arrested while trying to get to Spain illegally, in small boats, from Morocco. As soon as they are caught, they are returned to Africa to face poverty and hunger. But these are the lucky ones. Every day you also see the bodies washing ashore of those that drowned trying to make it. So many bodies wash ashore that the cities in the area are refusing to pay for the burials and say it is the central government who should pay for them.

The Spanish Coast Guard welcomes rough weather which makes it more difficult for small boats to cross… but the boats keep coming and it just means more bodies.

Now, it is easy for us to say “they are illegal, have no rights, etc.” but wait a couple of centuries and see how those people will judge this. Even by today’s standards, if you have any decency, you cannot feel this is OK. So, what is the solution? I do not have one… I just think we should be much more understanding when we judge the past.

After all, our ancestors, with all their shortcomings, brought us from the stone age to where we are today. Not bad.

30

Another institution that may not be judged favorably by future generations is war. They may call us all sorts of things for not finding a better way to resolve things. Many people today think that way…

31

Direct quote from SouthernStyle:

I did not comment at all on whether or not it was appropriate to change the nature of the parade. I did comment on SouthernStyle’s sentiment reflected in the last line, which certainly did have something to do with slavery, and I don’t think I’m misreading it.

32

But Bob Cos, do you not see his point? Regardless of what you may think of Jackson specifically, there seems to be some sort of double standard going on here. Must we ignore all the good things that were done then because slavery was in the picture? SouthernStyle is right to point out that at the time, Jackson wasn’t doing anything wrong by their standards, and it is ludicrous for us to expect him to live up to the future. Where does one draw the line against people who have their delicate sensibilities bruised by anything that has any connection to slavery? Shall we simply marginalize or vilify any non-abolitionist regardless of whatever else they did? Why not get rid of Washington’s birthday too, since he owned slaves?

Let’s say that you decide to devote your life to medicine, and you eventually come up with the anti-cancer wonder pill. 200 years from now, after the Great Animal Rights Movement, everyone is vegetarian and believes that it is nothing short of barbarous to kill an animal for any reason. Do you think it is just or reasonable that the PETA Party wants to shut down your parade because when you lived you were an avid hunter and fisherman? Or worse yet, a rancher? Regardless of what the future generations believe, we live in an era where killing animals for meat and even for sport is considered perfectly acceptable, and it is hardly fair of them to expect you to believe otherwise. Nor is it reasonable for the PETA Party to quash the celebration of your cancer cure.

33

Just a thought: If one cane condemn Jackson by judging him through the lens of current social mores and morals, shouldn’t they also judge Slaves who engaged in female circumsicion, ploygamy and enslaving other tribes?

34

I’m going to try again. My comment on SouthernStyle’s post, and the clarification to Asmodean, did not in any way comment on whether or not it is appropriate to influence the nature of a parade in the name of political sensitivity. I did not comment on Jackson as a leader or as a human being. I did not state that either side in that debate was right or wrong.

What I did say, and continue to hold, is that it is ludicrous to describe modifying a parade–hell, let’s concede for the sake of this argument that it’s completely unjustified–as being the more offensive practice when compared to human slavery. And that is what SouthernStyle said.

I will comment on the issue you are rasing, however. In an earlier post I did comment that I have yet to satisfactorily work through in my mind how to reconcile the great and morally questionable attributes some historical leaders seemed to have possessed. I still haven’t figured it out. But I will say that I do not consider owning slaves as being connected only remotely to this issue–meaning Jackson is fair game for discussion, regardless of the laws in his times. Remember, slavery was hotly contested even in his day. If you consider it “delicate sensibilities” to be troubled by a political leader who owned slaves–which is not to say we need to villify him completely–then you and I disagree. This whole “get over it” mentality, when racial opression exists to this day, is disingenuous from my perspective

35

Yes, if by “judge” you mean we should not just dismiss out of hand the discussion of a morally questionable practice by saying, “Well, that’s just the custom of their day.” It’s all fair game as a philosophical debate.

Is it your point, though, that these somehow offset each other? I don’t want to read into your meaning, which is why I ask.

36

I am not saying that slavery was not bad, nor am I saying that racial discrimination is a thing of the past. What I am saying is that slavery should not be the only issue ever used when judging the past. When it becomes the only barometer by which historical figures can be judged, that is simply ridiculous. There needs to be some reasonable perspective. Acknowledgement of Jackson’s slave-owning history does not need to, and should not, be justification for ignoring all other aspects of his life.

Yes I do believe that anyone who reacts as if slavery is the only issue of any importance in history to have delicate sensibilities. I am not asking anyone to forget about slavery, nor am I asking them to ‘get over it.’ What I do suggest is that they adopt some sense of proportion, and not simply try to eradicate history in the name of their ideas of social consciousness.

37

Bob, I am not saying that the slaves “deserved it”. Instead I am pointing out thatit is in vogue to tear aprart the great leaders of our nation over slavery, but it is taboo to judge non-whites in the same manner.

No one ever tallks about the slave trade that is currently legal in the Sudan. But man, they are sure willing to rip T. Jefferson a new one. I am just saying that if you are going to engage in this historical revision of morals, then it should be done equally, among all races, and all men.

But personally, I think it shouldbn’t be done at all. If someone from 200 years ago did great things, celebrate those. I sometimes get the feeling that what happened with Jackson is a way to erase white heritage by minority groups.

38

What I find more disturbing is that the protests were against his owning of slaves but not his signing of the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent Trail of Tears. The legality was questionable, as the Supreme Court overruled the Indian Remoal Act in 1832, declaring the Cherokee Nation to be sovereign. The Treaty of New Echola gave the US government the legal grounds for removal (though the legality could be disputed as there was disagreement among the Cherokee and only a minority supported removal) but there is not and was not any moral justification of the Trail of Tears.

So owning slaves was legal and socially acceptable at that time and place, but the Trail of Tears was immoral by the standards of the time and the legality is questionable, yet Jackson is reviled for slave owning and not what amounts to mass murder?

39

Ptahlis wrote:

What I am saying is that slavery should not be the only issue ever used when judging the past. When it becomes the only barometer by which historical figures can be judged, that is simply ridiculous. There needs to be some reasonable perspective

It certainly isn’t the only issue ever used when judging the past, and your implication that it is seems to lack reasonable perspective.

40

Yep, your points are valid, and I agree. I hope you’ll agree I didn’t say slavery was the only issue worth considering in evaluating historical figures. I think we would probably disagree on what the appropriate sense of proportion is, though. Owning slaves is not a trivial matter, regardless of the great deeds someone may be credited with. It’s not eradicating history by pointing out that the person in question was guilty of this–quite the contrary.

If no one talks about the slave trade in the Sudan, that’s wrong. It doesn’t invalidate discussion regarding the great Jefferson, though. I’m fascinated by your last paragraph. Why is it appropriate for you to wish for the celebration of great deeds that are historically accurate, but not appropriate for others to want to bring historically accurate misdeeds into the fray? Because it’s not pleasant to contemplate? What about White heritage is erased by pointing out that it was really a shitty thing to own slaves?