"Waiting on the World to Change"

[Ceicei]

Tonight, my son gestured me to come over to him. He found something on YouTube that would interest me. It is a video (based on John Mayer's song of the same title) about the deaf people seeking recognition for themselves as a group. Here is the video for you to enjoy.

[yt]hKnF9CCYQPQ[/yt]

When I viewed this video, some thoughts came up I would like to discuss with you on a broader scale applicable to everyone.

Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Day, or in some places, known as Civil Rights Day. For me, it is representing a day to honor increased tolerance.

These are what I would like to discuss: How many groups, whether based on color, sex, nationality, age, religion, or whatever, while "waiting to change their part of the world" have succeeded, or are the successes merely a change of societal behavior? If we look back over the past several years, we achieved a lot for many different groups. We already have various laws and regulations that were set to enforce tolerance or a semblance of equality in society.

Within the past year in the media (shows, radio, etc.), there are several instances when people have said and/or done the wrong thing, showing that prejudice with their thoughts (whether intentional or not) is alive and well. Could society truly hope to become a tolerant world, or is it too much to expect such tolerance, given that thoughts (when not expressed) cannot be regulated? What is the ultimate goal of our world-wide society?

- Ceicei

 

[Kacey]

Well, first, my concern is the number of people who are waiting for change, instead of trying to cause it. There are quite a few people out there who feel that, because they are not actively adding to the problem, they are doing all they need to do.

In regards to the recent expressions of prejudice by several well-known personalities - I find it a move forward that these people could openly express their prejudice and be so swiftly derided for it. Better that such idiocy should be shared openly, and be so openly and swiftly denigrated, than that it should, like too many other negative attitudes, be forced underground where it will create greater resentment, leading to larger groups believing such inappropriate crap.

Too many people use differences as a way to lift themselves up, to say that they are better than someone else because they are different from me in [insert prejudice here]. As a world-wide society, I can only hope that we are headed for a future where what a person does and says determines others' reactions to them, rather than what a person looks like, or who their ancestors were, or where they were raised, or how much money they have, or any other of the multiple reasons people use to differentiate between themselves and those they believe themselves better than.

 

[morph4me]

Change doesn't happen without a reason. The status quo is very comfortable and there are very few people who are comfortable with change. Standing up for change makes you a target for "rocking the boat" so most people are quite content with the way things are. All of the big changes that have occured have done so because one person or a small group of people were willing to put themselves out there and fight, not stand on the sidelines and wait. Silence is the voice of complicity.

 

[Ceicei]

Many people are followers, so they look to a leader somewhere who will be proactive with whatever needs to be done. Some followers are uncertain what to do and would rather someone lead. As the saying goes, "safety in numbers". The followers would rather see what happens to those who take the first step, especially (as Morph mentions), the persons who lead often are the ones who "rock the boat" and are a target for critics.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how many noticed this, but I thought I'd bring it out. Whoever coordinated the translation of the lyrics into American Sign had a few lines of the lyrics shown as "looking forward" to a world change. That suggests to me they knew change doesn't happen overnight. It takes time, even years, for change to occur.

Think over the different periods of the American history. Were some people to attempt certain actions a few years or so earlier (than what did happen in history), the consequences may not come out the same way. Things that take effect (war time, collective frustration, economic problems, social fatigue, etc.) sometimes lead to a society ready for a change.

Of course, as Morph says, change is not easy. It's painful and shakes people out of their comfort zones.

- Ceicei

 

[Ceicei]

In regards to the recent expressions of prejudice by several well-known personalities - I find it a move forward that these people could openly express their prejudice and be so swiftly derided for it. Better that such idiocy should be shared openly, and be so openly and swiftly denigrated, than that it should, like too many other negative attitudes, be forced underground where it will create greater resentment, leading to larger groups believing such inappropriate crap.

I agree with you that it is a step forward to have people react to what is said/done; however, with enough prominent people being derided swiftly, the thoughts would eventually be forced underground anyway. At what point and how could this vicious cycle be stopped and/or corrected? I am not sure if people could always be able to change such "idiocy".

I recall reading some years ago a newspaper article that brought across some certain points (when I was still young and impressionable). I had thought people were enlightened enough to be more tolerant to the point they were more accepting with their attitudes. What that article mentioned were some elderly people speaking their minds openly and they said things indicating their long held thoughts/prejudices were still there. At that time, it made me realize thought processes weren't that easy to change, even when things around them may change.

- Ceicei

 

[morph4me]

I recall reading some years ago a newspaper article that brought across some certain points (when I was still young and impressionable). I had thought people were enlightened enough to be more tolerant to the point they were more accepting with their attitudes. What that article mentioned were some elderly people speaking their minds openly and they said things indicating their long held thoughts/prejudices were still there. At that time, it made me realize thought processes weren't that easy to change, even when things around them may change.

- Ceicei

I wonder sometimes, especially with elderly people, if they are actually predjudiced or if they are reverting to terminology that was used when they were young, without malicious intent. We have a synagogue in our area that I used to belong to. The building sits back off of a sparsely travelled road, part of the building has big glass garage type doors so during the summer months services can be held with the doors open. There was an incident where someone threw rocks at the windows one night, breaking several of them. The first thing that the president of the congregation did was decry the biased and anti-semitic actions. It never occured to him that the building situated where it is and constructed the way it is, might just have been the target of vandals without religious motivation. There's a saying that goes something to the effect of "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be attributed to stupidity" and labeling something as prejudice before knowing all the facts just turns into a vicious cycle.

 

[Ceicei]

I wonder sometimes, especially with elderly people, if they are actually predjudiced or if they are reverting to terminology that was used when they were young, without malicious intent. We have a synagogue in our area that I used to belong to. The building sits back off of a sparsely travelled road, part of the building has big glass garage type doors so during the summer months services can be held with the doors open. There was an incident where someone threw rocks at the windows one night, breaking several of them. The first thing that the president of the congregation did was decry the biased and anti-semitic actions. It never occured to him that the building situated where it is and constructed the way it is, might just have been the target of vandals without religious motivation. There's a saying that goes something to the effect of "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be attributed to stupidity" and labeling something as prejudice before knowing all the facts just turns into a vicious cycle.

Well put, Morph.

There are a lot of words whose meaning changed over time, often earning an entirely new meaning. Some people forget, as you mentioned in the bolded words above, that words may have meant differently in another time. Case in point: The word "gay" used to mean happiness and/or joy, now the same word means a gender preference.

Still, some people will argue this doesn't give excuse for their choice of words regardless of the culture and how words may be used previously. I think people need to extend tolerance a bit further, to also strive to truly understand others and the times/reason people may select certain words. Some things are not said with malicious intent, yet you see people getting "up in arms" over the choice of words rather than the intent. If people would focus more upon intent rather than just merely the choosing of words, perhaps there would be less misunderstanding. Maybe not....

- Ceicei

 

[Empty Hands]

I wonder sometimes, especially with elderly people, if they are actually predjudiced or if they are reverting to terminology that was used when they were young, without malicious intent.

The elderly aren't stupid. They've had 30-40 years at least to learn that calling a black person the n-word isn't acceptable. Excusing this behavior, as long as the person in question isn't suffering from dementia or similar, is just the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Also, with the elderly in my family at least, it went well beyond terminology. Some of my grandparents and their siblings would still spout off the most ridiculously stupid and wrongheaded stereotypes about various minority groups.

 

[morph4me]

The elderly aren't stupid. They've had 30-40 years at least to learn that calling a black person the n-word isn't acceptable. Excusing this behavior, as long as the person in question isn't suffering from dementia or similar, is just the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Also, with the elderly in my family at least, it went well beyond terminology. Some of my grandparents and their siblings would still spout off the most ridiculously stupid and wrongheaded stereotypes about various minority groups.

I'm not saying that the elderly aren't prejudiced, I'm saying that terminology changes and that people get comfortable with the terms they are familiar with. I have an 84 year old aunt who, when referring to a black person, uses "colored". When she was growing up, hell, when I was growing up, that was acceptable, but times have changed. The term dumb isn't used to describe someone who can't speak anymore, just someone who shouldn't.

I think Ceicei said it best,

Still, some people will argue this doesn't give excuse for their choice of words regardless of the culture and how words may be used previously. I think people need to extend tolerance a bit further, to also strive to truly understand others and the times/reason people may select certain words. Some things are not said with malicious intent, yet you see people getting "up in arms" over the choice of words rather than the intent. If people would focus more upon intent rather than just merely the choosing of words, perhaps there would be less misunderstanding. Maybe not....