Chapter 3: And a Stick to Beat the Devil With, page 28

Chapter 3: And a Stick to Beat the Devil With, page 28

Discussion (15)¬

  1. pencilears says:

    welcome to the racism zone!

    • BadgerMan says:

      Is it racism if it’s positive? It’s not descrimination, it’s something else entirely. And, he is being historically accurate as well. Just in an awkward, psuedo-racist way.

      • TKDB says:

        I mean, technically racism is the belief that one race has inherent superiority over another. So he is being racist, just not in the way we’re used to in the western world. In typically racism is directed against blacks, his is in favor of them. But it’s still racism.

        • Slither says:

          “In typically racism is directed against blacks.”
          Racism is just as often directed against Asians, Native Americans, Eastern Indians, Africans, Middle-Easterners, Inuits, Frenchmen, and every other race/nationality as it is directed against Blacks/African-Americans. Racism is not “typically” directed any more against any one particular race than it is other races. Gah. That’s almost as bad as saying racism started with Christopher Columbus (I have seen people say as much before).
          Generalizing like that simply doesn’t work or make sense.

          • Lurkily says:

            It’s a typical American mistake. It’s what we are taught from history, being one of our biggest shameful mistakes, even though more hispanics seem to face discrimination here than blacks do.

      • wirrit says:

        It’s not putting anyone down, certainly — but, she -IS- pigeonholing everyone into very, very specific roles, on the basis of race and nothing else. Just because she’s putting a positive spin on it, doesn’t mean it isn’t racist to do so.

        And it isn’t quite discrimination, at the moment — But, that doesn’t mean this worldview is neccessarily free from discrimination, either. Would Feather’s approach here be different, if Mr. “The Strongest Man” was the writer, and “Wisdom Man” was the bodyguard? If something needs to be figured out (or not figured out), her eyes will be on Ben and Ben alone.

        So, this is definitely not the most obvious and common kind of racism seen today. ..but, it still qualifies.

      • Dan P says:

        It’s an ontological impossibility to discriminate in favour of one thing without discriminating against something else…

  2. Observer says:

    Racism is discrimination against others on basis of race. “Positive” or negative, any discrimination on the basis of race is racism. So yeah, Jake’s kin are pretty racist.

  3. Ike says:

    The irony there is that Scip is the “wisdom man” and Ben “walked off a continent” (traveled from Washington to Arizona).

  4. C. Mage says:

    What we’re seeing here isn’t so much “racism” as it is “overgeneralization” that people are solely products of their genetics. That’s a crock, people are the results of the choices they make.

  5. soof says:

    and I get discriminated because I am white! get that in your over-generalized world view :-P

  6. Bercilac says:

    Wow, soof. Reverse racism. Haven’t heard that one before.

    A lot of people here are sounding like “I’m not racist, but…” types. Hope that’s working out for you. I got tired of it a couple of years ago. Now it’s like “I got brought up in a racist community, but I’m working on it.”

  7. T.C.R.M says:

    racism is making or holding an assumption, positive, negative or neutral, based on race. There’s no well intentioned, or put in practice loop hole.

  8. Slothrop, T. says:

    I think it is typecasting of racial archetypes based on theosophical and evolutionary theoretical timelines. Maybe it’s racist, maybe it’s not. It’s definitely stereotypical and erroneous assumption on some level. Sad to say but ‘race’ is still a HUGE issue in the US despite some (white) people’s claims otherwise. The comments here are a testament to that. 400 yrs of negative reinforcement aren’t countered and resolved with 50-150 yrs. of spotty improvements and denials of a lack of change in attitudes. There’s a lot of superficiality in the discussion of the subject. The truth of the matter shows up in much more unconciously incidental ways.

  9. Jenny Creed says:

    On one hand it’s pretty funny to be able to tell an allegorical story about the history of the world using archetypes associated with the people in the room. On the other hand it’s deeply problematic to differentiate between one kind of people and another. It doesn’t matter if your prejudices are positive or negative, they’re still prejudices that keep you from treating people as individuals and equals. This is the root of divisiveness, of keeping people turned against each other in conflict over our differences instead of working for our common interests.

    Of course from what we’ve seen there’s not a single person in Templar who could even understand any part of what I just said.