I'm always seriously surprised by how easily convinced people are of flimsy equivalencies. Every debate on the Internet, it feels like there's a swarm of people that believe that taking a stand against intolerance or bigotry is the same as bigotry itself.
I always encourage everyone to read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, especially his critique of white moderates: "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
My grandfather was a white male police captain during the civil rights troubles in Birmingham, AL. He also gave King the notebook he would use to write Letter from the Birmingham Jail. His quiet support of King literally enabled King's actions in more ways than I can relate.
To divide a people based on skin color is wrong. King, and my grandfather, were not lovers of one skin color over another; they were lovers of respect. It is respect that will break the chains anywhere they are found.
His quiet support of King literally enabled King's actions in more ways than I can relate.
He genuinely just said a policemans actions during the Civil Rights era enabled MLK. You can't make this up.
And then to talk about respect in the context of race, when black people are routinely disrespected by individuals, institutions and the state in America.
If we talk about tolerance as a peace treaty (which the article encourages us to do) then I might rephrase what you said slightly differently:
"Holding people to account for breaking the treaty is not the same as breaking the treaty"
If you accept my rephrasing, then I would like to argue that many things which people claim as "taking a stand against intolerance and bigotry" are themselves acts which break the peace.
If tolerance is not a moral precept then it cannot in any sense belong to an ideology.
Comments
Yay for nuance and social & historical context!
I'm always seriously surprised by how easily convinced people are of flimsy equivalencies. Every debate on the Internet, it feels like there's a swarm of people that believe that taking a stand against intolerance or bigotry is the same as bigotry itself.
I always encourage everyone to read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, especially his critique of white moderates: "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
My grandfather was a white male police captain during the civil rights troubles in Birmingham, AL. He also gave King the notebook he would use to write Letter from the Birmingham Jail. His quiet support of King literally enabled King's actions in more ways than I can relate.
To divide a people based on skin color is wrong. King, and my grandfather, were not lovers of one skin color over another; they were lovers of respect. It is respect that will break the chains anywhere they are found.
Did you just try to say that MLK and his jailer did the same amount of good for Civil Rights????
He genuinely just said a policemans actions during the Civil Rights era enabled MLK. You can't make this up.
And then to talk about respect in the context of race, when black people are routinely disrespected by individuals, institutions and the state in America.
Show me where it says "same".
If we talk about tolerance as a peace treaty (which the article encourages us to do) then I might rephrase what you said slightly differently:
"Holding people to account for breaking the treaty is not the same as breaking the treaty"
If you accept my rephrasing, then I would like to argue that many things which people claim as "taking a stand against intolerance and bigotry" are themselves acts which break the peace.
If tolerance is not a moral precept then it cannot in any sense belong to an ideology.