![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The people who commit these hate crimes do not feel that they act alone. They believe that there are many other people who approve of what they are doing. When they look around (though their apparently bigoted eyes) they saw mostly white people, mostly apathetic white people, and they feel that their actions are justified because there are so many other members of the community who they believe support their racist views. When we come together for rallies, sit-ins, and meeting we send a clear message, we let them know that they are wrong: we do not approve, none of us approve. This is why it is so important to have a lot of people show up at these events; we can only send this message by standing together to show our disapproval.
My apologies for my incoherence here... you may have to use your imagination a little to get to what the speaker was getting at. I am very tired as I have been going pretty much non-stop since around 5:30 this morning.
There was another thing that I wanted to share that I just thought of, but it flitted away before I could start on it. Damn being so tired! It was a good one too. Maybe I will remember and post it at some point.
I do have another few comments though. I have heard several people say that they've learned a lot today through the events they went to. There were enough people at the Mudd meeting to pretty much fill all three Galeleos, and a ton of Mudders at the rally--I think the education gained today through the cancelation of classes far outweighs the loss of classtime. Also, marching down to the rally with so many of my friends and fellow Mudders really made me proud. I am unhappy that it took an event like this so close to home, when there were things like, say, the war that we should have been protesting like this, but I am really, really pleased to have had the opportunity to see Mudd students demonstrate the ability to do this--an ability I think few of us thought we had. I remain somewhat disgusted that it took being pushed this far, but I would say that tonight, for the first time in a very long time, I was proud to be a Mudd student.
Hey! I remembered it!
The other thing I wanted to bring up was a question placed by one of the speakers this morning: "What do you want your community to be like?" He said that after the cross burning incident he'd put this question forward and gotten a lot of responses about how legally this or that or the other thing. He said that he thought it was really a sad state of affairs when people are defining what they want their community to be like in terms of preexisting laws. I'd never thought about that before, but I agree with it. I mean, that's backwards, we should make laws based on what we want our community to be like, not the other way around.
Alright, I think I'm finally done now.
- Mood:
exhausted
Comments
That's so true.. thanks for repeating it. It's a sentiment definitely worth considering!
While i agree there are certain things we'd want in a community, you just can't go around legislating against everything you dislike and can get the majority to go along with. If you believe people are entitled to their own opinions, you can't eliminate racism, and you can't eliminate their advocating or talking about it either. Even if opinions can be wrong (i would say that they can), legislating against the expression of those opinions is worse than the opinions themselves. Further, even if you can successfully suppress the expression of those opinions that you disagree with, its actually worse than letting them be expressed. How do you help educate someone who is holds a wrong opinion (eg, racism) if you don't know they hold it? By masking the problem, you let it fester unknown, and also incur resentment against the community in those who hold that opinion.
So while its true, we might want to make laws based on what we want a community to be like, i would hope that the nature of said community would be an atmosphere conducive to a free exchange of ideas. Both so that unpopular (but potentially right - not racism) ideas can be expressed, and so those who have flawed ideas can hear the other side of the story in an environment that is not deliberately intimidating. Banning freedom of expression by 'law' is exactly like the act of vandalism that occurred last night, it is intended as intimidation to those who hold opinions different from the actors (the majority in this case), and just as wrong.
I'm not sure, but I think I agree it's sad. I'm sort of tired, so I'm not thinking too clearly...