I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world.
I do apologize about length, this has built up over a long time. My work is also far from perfect, I tend to make some wonderfully impressive mistakes at times. So I just wish to apologize for the quality, rather then the content. I can only write what is on my mind and heart on this issue after all.
I always have to shake my head at this kind of commentary. As much as I agree with the concept. Its simply not how anything works, in most of the world. I get it mentally that for anyone who is being felt hard done by, especially if they actually are being hard done by, it seems like they are the only ones, or that the oppressed are the only ones, asked to justify that their state or their being oppressed is true. I mean its simple enough, someone being put down generally assumes the onus is being put on them alone to show they are valid. I grew up with family members around me who were mentally abused their entire childhood and they kind of felt like that at least.
But simply put, for ill or not, no one gets to claim anything without some kind of proof. At least not and be believed and proof needs to be presented. A person without proof or that we don't ask for proof is either being disregarded or we have already enough proof on other factors to choose believe them. I agree quite often the proof is most likely readily available, even laughably so. Its a problem with the world that it is this way, but its not going to stop being it just because its a problem. As long as the average person isn't able to verify all facts themselves in person, then there is going to be the need for citation, proof and other such factors. Asking for proof isn't about saying something is false, it is not a debate or court of law where it is putting the onus on you to defend yourself, its asking how to explain it to those who haven't come in contact with it. No doubt their are idiots that troll or those willing to take up bigotry, more then anyone would like to admit on all sides of an any issue no doubt. But that's the other problem, bigotry is a condition that people in all sides of every divide indulge in.
Why bring that up. Don't listen to bigots on the other side and especially on your own. The only means to solve this problem is to have the people on both sides who are intent to do the right things, and yes its likely most who would intend to do the right thing simply don't know what it is or about the need as its not effecting them yet. For those type of people to work together against the bigots and trolls/scum or other term you prefer for people who antagonize for the sake of antagonize rather then caring for either side of the debate in honesty.
If someone is just on about saying, 'this side is wrong', 'we are hurt', 'we are hard done by', 'you owe us', or other such claims based in separating factors, its just going to go down hill. Solidarity between the people who mean well is necessary before any form of real consolation can be brought into play. If you don't have that first, then it becomes the sense that requests/demands for fair treatment become cries of blackmail, extortion and guilt tripping for 'unfair' advantages to those who do not A) understand how some groups have been oppressed, or B) do not understand how a group that demands things that appear unfair due to lack of knowledge could ever by like their own. That which can't imagine they understand, cannot be justified in ones mind, more or less. Do not 'imagine they understand'. We really don't understand say the theory of gravity in all its complexity and such, but we imagine as common folk we get the basics enough to 'understand' it.
If you can't follow this, that is to say for lasting fixes to problems like this, people need to be shown first how were all alike till it gets through to the majority which brings about a great reduction of oppression in itself. Such things were how women and just about every ethnicity including my own got to vote. To put it simply at that time, enough white men believed insert group of your choice was the same to them enough in human nature to justify the change. Its very rare a group got where they are into the political food chain by marches, rallies, violence, etc... It was by enough people who had the vote or control coming to the conclusion that it was a good or proper thing to fix it.
Back to the point, so after solidarity and whatever fixes that alone manages, is where the problems of the past come in. And guess what that means most of us who lived in the bad times don't get to see the benefit, welcome to history, I am sorry. So I am sure one asks if people were reasonable and the solidarity got the vote, why has not much else happened in so many cases. Simple enough I am afraid, people tried to move progress along too fast for the human, societal or so on psyche. Requests and demands to/on society or the people who held the majority/power to oppress were far beyond what they could understand changing all at once or over the short term. I am not here to attack or defend those demands/requests.
Which then eroded solidarity, and we found our way back to dangerous grounds. And this was most likely made worse by people who thought 'I can make a career on this divide', 'if I say to people I have to represent them against the whites/blacks/chinese/homosexual/insert whatever agenda I can be set for life', etc.... who became politicians or agenda group leaders, etc.... Anyone in a position attacking or defending your group has to be taken with skepticism in my opinion, if they are about the divide, if they talk about the past and problems of it and say very little or very little useful about making a better tomorrow. Well they probably aren't entirely concerned with your welfare, let me just put it like that.
Which sadly means to them you are possibly rather expendable, constituency doesn't work how it should. Most politicians or agenda leaders treat it like the constituency are beholden to the representative, despite it was intended to be other way around. I am sorry to say that and please be skeptical of my position, I'd much rather you be skeptical as long as you consider the people representing you and your 'opposition' a second time. You can see the appeal, if you could let go of any sense of morality a moment, can't you? All you have to do is point these people against those people and you get donations, contributions and even possibly a government salary and pension if all goes well. You just have to sound intelligent and like you really care or fighting or the 'cause'. Its rather tempting, if you can forget you would be hurting likely thousands to millions of people that is.
At the same time, no one should be overly skeptical and for the love of all that's important to you, try not to be cynical or at least not overly cynical. There are good people, they do try to do the right things. The systems design is rather corrupting, but that does not mean those involved are all corrupt, totally corrupted or actual aware of their corruption. It can be rather easy to slip and get into the habit of slipping. But still there are people who seem to do their best all the same. My point was more that the massively successful leaders on these issues tend to be a bit more on questionable side, because the price of their success seems to be countable in body bags if you look at the history of the world.
So solidarity with everyone, who is intending well at least, the fixes it produces, the attempt to not to push beyond what the sense of solidarity provides or to push progress faster then society can healthily sustain without causing a backlash, once erosion of solidarity starts it would be best to avoid pressing it to further erode wouldn't you agree? Which at the same time is terribly unfair for those in that time and situation, but the alternative is pushing the majority or those with power to the point of backlash and losing what was gained in equal footing.
I guess a comment about equal footing is due. Tolerance, real tolerance that is, is what equal footing means. We all get the same chance to use our abilities as best we can or at least choose to and a fair livelihood and treatment, seems to sum it up okay? This doesn't mean that the other guy who may not get along with you on some cultural, religious or custom gets pushed out or losings their right to be tolerated too. Part of tolerance is that ideas, ideologies and religions that do not believe that the others for various reason are good for society or should not be a part of it, are allowed to keep their beliefs but not act on them. I believe alcoholics and smokers are highly problematic for the future, I have no intention of not tolerating them as people, and this is encouraged by laws that technically support my toleration of them by threatening punishment and/or violence if I do not.
Why I bring this up is that the us vs. them, whether we like to admit it or not, too often ends up being taken like a war, where the other side must be destroyed. Its sad and terrible in my opinion, as I honestly believe it only slows an advancement down on these issues. Censorship of opposing views, will only be seen as the justification of it? Which only leads to pointless harm and violence, as well as the possibility of losing all that has been gained, no? To put it another way, coexistence is tolerance too. If we remove the ability to act oppressively of something inclined to oppose us in an untoward fashion, that is reasonable within tolerance. If we are attempt to remove the existence of something opposed to us, especially through censorship we are most likely being intolerant.
There is of course the alternative to tolerance some have taken too. Which is to reverse the roles of oppression. I've attended in my country schools both high school and Universities where agenda groups put forward and unfairly supported people who agreed with their opinion or shared their gender/race over equally and sometimes even better qualified people. I have had an unreasonable number of white male classmates in the two high schools and two universities I attended marked down for their gender and ethnicity. Their papers were often as good as others in the class, sometimes even my own and yet their marks were lower.
I can say in the defense of some of the teachers and staff involved that it was mostly unintentional prejudice. Sadly for at least thirty plus it was outright intentional, the message was rather clear to everyone in the class room, the teachers intended those students to have a not so bright future... In the case of the high schools the agenda groups ended up causing the schools to either replace their staff on average when it came out and nearly everyone connected them were removed, one of the universities lost their credentials in a few departments and most of the agenda groups got had to leave.
Now you can say this is isolated to my country, Canada for your information, or my province or even just these schools. But its still simply put the actualization of the worst case scenario, actually reaching it and someone taking the line too far. That any of our groups can get as bad if we don't stand guard against our own sides going mental or wanting to take advantage and gain benefit. A good cause being taken advantage of does no one a benefit, as any progress it results in is nothing compared to the cost incurred. Fixing a problem cannot be used as an excuse to oppress anyone in return. Which brings me to hopefully my last point. Exportation, I guess is the best word for it.
People who aren't from whatever country one's own issues are in, do not always share your problems, in fact they can often have the reverse. And broadcasting problems can have a counter effect to the one you intend in your own. There are countries where equality is closer if not right on many of the issues I see people raging about on tumblr. Then people from those countries who think its a useful gimmick choose to run with it to try and promote a similar feeling of deep oppression in locals where it is not present or at least to a lesser degree. Or conversely those who are of the same gender, ethnicity or class or whatever as those you feel oppress you where you are, may being too young or not thoughtful enough possibly jump to the idea that people in their own country where again the conditions are much better are raging about being hard done by, etc.... Then develop bigoted views based on misunderstanding the situation.
Humans error, its just something to consider that others might be hurt or brought into a situation like yours by how you represent your situation/struggle. At the same time, I am not advising anyone just shut up, only that they think of the fact that the internet is a global affair, not a local one. We have all kinds of means to mess up the world because of it far beyond what we realize. Its probably be best I stop here, I've touched on more topics then I wished too and I feel that the intent of this was far then exceeded.
