When
commentators blame formal bodies of ideas or 'isms' rather than people for
the things they apparently find seriously problematic, they are quite
often trying to camouflage another kind of ism altogether: race-ism.
"I'm not against Jews, I'm anti-Zionist" or indeed "Islam represents a threat to our way of life."
And
the people who don't mind being considered shamelessly bigoted tend to
blame aspects of those groups they regard as complicit in propagating the
phenomenon they hate, which are usually only tangentially related to it,
if at all.
Even
when it's not one of these surrogate attributions, we are still dealing
with a subset of the major fallacies which persist in our culture about
how live action History actually works.
Neither
Karl Marx and his book nor Mohammed and his book are directly
responsible for the inhumanities later committed in their name.
These
detached dogmas function a bit like chemical agents which in some
people engender, or more often accentuate, what historians often refer to as a 'mentality' (or more pretentiously, a mentalité.)
It is these that we need to watch most closely, not texts or the way people dress etc. The conflicts surrounding us are driven by complex dynamics which include impersonal situations and cultural factors, but ultimately it is nearly always the aforementioned mentalities which provide the key impetus.
It is these that we need to watch most closely, not texts or the way people dress etc. The conflicts surrounding us are driven by complex dynamics which include impersonal situations and cultural factors, but ultimately it is nearly always the aforementioned mentalities which provide the key impetus.
If
you understand how they form, you can start to appreciate how
they can be either encouraged or discouraged.
Focusing on how people
look, where they are from geographically, what information they consume
and spread, can often be an unnecessary distraction.
No comments:
Post a Comment