Many people think that freedom of speech means the right of anyone to say anything. They are right, and it does. But the corollary to speaking is hearing. I have the right to hear what ideas are out there. Sure, racists have the right to hate speech, but not just for their benefit; we have a right to know who they are, who is saying what. I want to know who the racists are and what they are saying so that I can write logical essays opposing their views. Verbal and literary dialogue is the real point of this whole discussion. A terrorist sympathizer might write "Death to the infidels" and be protected by free speech, but he crosses the line when he acts on it, when he commits murder, which is not covered by free speech. And now we segue into two other topics: "race" and "cultural sensitivity".
A Religion is not a "race". I have written elsewhere about race, about how there is no such thing as race; it has no scientific basis. It is just a psychological construct which becomes a social construct when shared by a group of people. Since I have already covered this elsewhere, I don't want to waste any more space here on race. But when people of some religions actually believe they are a race, or have a race-based religion, it is still just a social construct, but it confuses people who are sensitive to racism.
Racism is when someone makes judgments of other people based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, etc. This is why the concept of "race" has no scientific basis: no racist groups can agree on how many "races" there are, or which of our superficial, physical characteristics counts in determining a "race". The problem is that racists are not only people who judge others by race; racists are also people who self-identify by race. Racists always divide the human race into "Us" and "Them". People do not have a choice about the genetic markers they inherit from their parents, but they do have a choice about the culture and social constructs they accept. Social constructs are beliefs, but culture is both beliefs and actions. Culture is learned behavior, and anything that can be learned can be unlearned. And now we come to the topic of cultural sensitivity.
As I said in the previous paragraph, people have no choice about the genetic markers that give them their superficial physical characteristics. Also, looking at a person and describing their physical characteristics (the construct of "race" is only good for describing missing persons), does not tell you anything about who they really are. Describing their clothes, speech, and actions might give you clues to their general cultural affiliation, but not always, and that still won't tell you who they really are, what they really believe, what their individual life-experiences have been and how they have reacted to them. Racism is just plain stupid and hurtful. But the problem here is that groups of people whose culture is based on racial identity will cry "racism" when someone criticizes their culture or their religion. Liberals cave in and enable this racism when they self-censor themselves in the name of "cultural sensitivity". I agree that it is hypocritical to criticize other people's cultural beliefs when one is too cowardly to question one's own culture. Ironically, that is my main criticism of other cultures; that they are too cowardly to question their own beliefs and values. But most Progressives do question their own cultures first, and that is what makes us different than your standard establishment liberal or conservative. So where does that get us on the self-censorship topic?
Stay tuned tomorrow for Part III of “Remembering The Paris 12”, when I will discuss the different levels of self-censorship. I will also deconstruct the social construct of “cultural sensitivity”, maybe not as extremely culturally offensive as some of you would like, but culturally (to some) offensive all the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment