re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Carroll and racism
- jenny said:
> I am quite sure it did not even occur to people in Britainright, and that's essentially what i was saying
> that it was a word one should not use, whatever the
> situation that existed in faraway America
in my first response. it doesn't _condone_ the
insensitivity, just places it in historical context.
let us also remember -- being generous to blackmonk
about the point s/he was probably trying to make --
that the way the powerful _instill_ their mechanisms to
incite the masses to turn against each other is _precisely_
to make the mechanism (e.g., racism, religion, or whatever)
seem totally "natural", so that people _don't_ think about it.
today's elite uses _consumerism_ to instill _greed_ in us,
so that we don't think about the way that that selfishness
causes us to see the world as a _zero-sum_game_ where
our greed gets pitted against the greed of other people...
and yet, how often do we question this brain-washing?
> after the 1860s.before and after, but that's beside your point.
> It is really, really stupid to blame anyone in that period150 years from now (if human beings aren't extinct, anyway),
> for using a word that to them would simply have meant
> "black person".
people will consider us to have been _tremendously_insensitive_
in the way we treated animals and the way we abused the planet.
"bowerbird drove a car," they will say, "obviously caring not a whit
that he was _burning_oil_, wasting the precious commodity which
-- had it not been wasted on the frivolous purpose of transportation --
would still be available in abundance to provide us the medicine that
would save us from the one remaining disease that ravages us now.
"and not only that, but he _ate_ animals! how barbaric can you be?"
i'll be lucky i'm dead, because otherwise they would kill me... :+)
anyway, this is my last post on this topic. it's gone on far too long.
See what's new at http://www.aol.com