An Apology and an Explanation

[Mike Crudele]

No: HPFGUIDX 157706

I want to apologize for my last few posts on the Bigotry issue. I got overly emotional and it fostered a strident tone that I am embarrassed to have taken. I also let my emotion get in the way of a more reasoned argument, which results in a double negative in regards to my position on the subject.
   
  I did read other responses on the issue with the intent of not revisiting it myself. However, several people have directed questions to me. Since I have cooled off and out of courtesy to those people, I would like to answer.
   
  First, I am half Italian and half Polish. I call myself a "Wopollock" (actually my brother came up with the term). <g> Now if someone were to call me a "greasy wop" or a "stupid pollock", if I got offended at all it would be at the adjective not the noun. I say "if" because I'm afraid I would be mostly bemused that this was the best insult that this person could think up. (and if it was Hagrid that used it, I think I would be correct in my bemusement). In my irrational state, I think I argued counter to my purpose. As Jaime pointed out (and Alla, I think), Jewish people don't have a problem using the term "Jew" as long as there isn't a nasty modifier put in front of it. So, I accept that depending on your tolerance and your experience, one could either shrug off or be offended when their religion, ethnicity, etc. is used as the object of a derogatory (or attempted derogatory) comment.
   
  I am also not sure if we can necessarily conclude that the person that called me a "stupid pollock" is bigoted. They may or may not be, in my estimation. I guess, since I would invest no time in arguing with a bigot (or against this fictional pathetic insulter), I will never be bothered to ascertain their motivation. If you understand the subtext of this statement, then you understand my feelings with regards to those that I *did* argue with on this subject. Even when I disagreed, I found your motivations to be admirable.
   
  Now, onto a more overall or in general perspective. As much as anyone would like to see racism, bigotry and the like be wiped out, most would not see that as a very likely to happen. I am happy to note the difference in sensitivity to bigotry that has occurred in my lifetime. Comments, phrases and words that that were once used with no thought as to their effect on others are heard much less often today. And society in general, if not in specific, is less tolerant of those phrases, at least many more are willing to call the perpetrator to task.
   
  Where I think care should be taken on this front is to be too strident as to where we draw the line of tolerance. This is not a statement on being PC or anti-PC. (Honestly, I couldn't tell you which way JKR leans, or if she has any opinion on PC at all. Her subtext is so subtle (at least for me) that I can get no reading.) But rather what I refer to is the need to point out everything that hints at bigotry, racism, etc. You see, it is too easy to create a backlash. Some that may harbor minor or no feelings of bigotry could too easily decide that everything is being made "illegal", for the lack of a better term. If that becomes a pervasive feeling or even a minority viewpoint then we are doing our cause a disservice. If people, in really any significant amount, begin to feel like anything they say is going to be criticized, they *might* decide "why bother?". Driving people to the point of indifference helps not. Driving people to start using terminology that they may
 otherwise would not have used, is the reverse of where we should aim. 
   
  Besides, with regards to the true bigots, "Better to let minor infractions slide by unnoticed than to shine a spotlight and thereby add ammunition to the feeble minded."
   
  Mike

 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]