Chain Link 2. You are reading this bottom-up, right?
This, too, was going to be one sentence in the following post, but it also grew out of hand.
It’s reasonable, I think, for people to be able to choose the words applied to them.
I grew up a gaijin. That’s a Japanese derogatory racial epithet for foreigners. What would I have preferred? Well, I don’t really like American, as I don’t think one nation should get to claim the name of two continents containing 22 countries. Westerner would have been OK. Something descriptive, like he’s a U.S. Citizen would probably be best.
I weigh close to three bills. That’s 21 stones if you’re British, 133 kilos if you’re from anywhere else, and two million grains if I’m fated to encounter an ungloved Midas. Obese is unpleasant. Morbidly obese especially so. “Big Guy” is not a charming nickname (Bob Mike, do people call you “Slim”? Do you like it?) I prefer large.
I’m an atheist. Calling me agnostic is likely to get you sneered at. Calling me a Bright is liable to get you bitch-slapped. Naturalist is comfortable. Rationalist and Freethinker feel nice, but I imagine are offensive to many people, because they imply that if you rationally and freely thought about things you’d completely agree with me. So I stick with atheist.
Now I’m venturing into unknown territory. If I had very dark skin, I think I would still hate African-American. It’s clunky. It wrongfully suggests that all dark-skinned people are from Africa, which has to annoy Australians, yes? And aren’t all Americans really, originally, African? I think I’d like black, or even Negroe, with an e and capitalized.
I’m heterosexual. That’s a fine term as far as I’m concerned. I loathe straight (what’s the opposite of that?) But if I were homosexual, I think I’d prefer gay (whether a man or woman.) I know several practicing bisexuals, at least one of which self-describes as queer. I think that’s mostly affect, but egads. You’ve got to help me, people. It this one of those rescued epithets, like nigger, that the “in” crowd is allowed to flaunt and outsiders can be murdered over?
But most sincerely — and this is my ultimate point — if I were significantly shorter in stature than the average person, I strongly believe I would like almost anything more than little person. That sounds so bloody condescending to me. Maybe not midget, but what — what? — is wrong with dwarf?
This will be relevant in Chain Link 3.
Subscribe by email
“Slim”, heh. People haven’t called me “slim” for about the last 35 lbs. I do get the occasional “tall glass of water” comment, which would probably bother me more if I didn’t revel in being so much taller than everyone around me (“BOW, TINY HUMANS!”).
Also, why not “secular humanist”? If it was good enough for Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut and Carl Sagan, it’s good enough for the rest of us.
When I’ve bothered to express orientation, I’ve made good use of “queer” (certain of my ex’s, who have been less charitable, have described me as “slutty” and “undiscriminating” in my affections). I think that I like “queer”, because it puts a number of different orientations under a single, less-specific umbrella, and there’s strength in numbers. Also, because “queer” rhymes with way, way more words than “bisexual”, which is really handy for chanting during protest marches.
Oh yeah, I meant to cover “secular humanist”.
I don’t really like secular humanist because of the inherent speciesism. But secularist is fine.
Regarding “there’s strength in numbers”, that is precisely the problem I have with “Bright”. As I wrote four years ago:
I also hate nonbeliever, because it falsely suggests a baseline and deviation, but if so labeled, I do turn it around and call backward religionists evolution deniers.
Hey, that’s a good one. It’s reminiscent of “Holocaust deniers.”
I prefer “atheist” too. Most people understand what that means (if they don’t think I “hate God” or worship Satan, in which case they have some problems that they need to work out).
How about “white”? I prefer it to “Caucasian.” (The Caucasus Mountains? How did I even know how to spell that? I can hardly find them on a map.) I might settle for “European-American” if I actually knew my family members in Europe.
Yes, I too would prefer white or European-American to Caucasian or honky.
My problem with “bright” is that it doesn’t really tell you anything about the beliefs of the person in question. Whether you like “atheist” or not, the word is at least accurate. Using “bright” just brings the entire system into the realm of corporate branding. Screw that.
Also, while I can see the disdain for the “strength in numbers” role for the term “bright”, it would be filling a vastly different need in the atheist/agnostic/whatever community than it would for the GLBTQWTF community. According to the FBI’s statistics for 2006 (the most recent year that I can find), reported hate crimes against atheists and agnostics accounted for 0.5% of the 1,750 crimes of religious bias. Crimes against non-heterosexuals, on the other hand, represented 98% of the 1,472 reported hate crimes based on bias against sexual orientation. Cast in that light, the notion that we need to band together suddenly becomes less a matter of artificially bouying numbers and more of a survival mechanism.
Crimes against non-heterosexuals, on the other hand, represented 98% of the 1,472 reported hate crimes based on bias against sexual orientation.
Also, did you know that oranges are juicer than granite?
Suggesting that non-heterosexuals beat up heterosexuals only a fraction of the time of the other way around, doesn’t really prove anything. You’ll get a much better idea from looking at the whole of hate crimes, where I’d expect that both these statistics are dwarfed by racial hate crimes.
You’ll get a much better idea from looking at the whole of hate crimes, where I’d expect that both these statistics are dwarfed by racial hate crimes.
Absolutely, which is why it would be in the best interests of racial minorities to band together. I didn’t mention it because your “strength in numbers” comment was directed towards a comparison of “queer” and “bright”. If we had been discussing the phrase “persons of color” (a term that I don’t particularly like, but that I’ve seen gaining momentum), I’d have included the racial hate-crime statistics as well. Since neither one of us is really in a position to speak for racial minorities, though, I think that it’s probably best to stick to (non)religious and sexual orientation based terminology for the purposes of this discussion.
Cast in that light, the notion that we need to band together suddenly becomes less a matter of artificially bouying numbers and more of a survival mechanism.
I don’t want anyone to be injured. And I don’t dislike non-heterosexuals any more than I dislike heterosexuals, and frequently less. And I have no problem with non-heterosexuals being proud of who they are.
That being said, while “banding together” is a useful strategy when it comes to “walking in large groups” and “having security at protests”, do you think that “banding together” in the sense of appearing larger, more present, and more proud, is going to have positive effects on survival rates? I’m not talking about a perfect world, I’m talking about this world, and strictly numerically.
Personally, I’d say “go for it, adopt an umbrella term”, but realize that it’s going to piss off some violent-ass people.
I think that, ultimately, banding together is a solid strategy for reducing the number of hate crimes, yes. I think that the notion of “if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us” has done a world of good for the the non-heterosexual community. I think that, as separate groups, gay males, lesbians, transgendered or transsexual men and women, bisexuals, etc would not have the lobbying power that they do as a single large group. Having the full resources of a group like GLAAD pushing for equal rights and gathering to protest crimes against the community seems, to me, to be a boon. Having those same full resources available for things like counseling, safe havens for runaways, and health services seems similarly beneficial.
In this world, strictly numerically, I don’t think that the transgender community would have the numbers to successfully lobby for protected status. In this world, strictly numerically, I think that the “safe havens” that protect young gay males would have the resources necessary to continue operating if they didn’t also offer services to homosexual females, bisexuals and transgendered youth. In this world, strictly numerically, I think that the number of crimes and discriminatory laws against non-heteronormative couples would be significantly higher if there wasn’t an extremely large and well-funded group making sure that these crimes were prosecuted and these laws were challenged in court.
I agree that banding together is going to piss off some violent-ass people, but those violent-ass people are going to hate those different from them whether or not the targets of their hate are a single, large group or a bunch of scattered smaller groups. Having said that, I do think that a portion of those violent-ass people are kept in check by the notion that the group that they hate has a large enough voice to call attention to their actions.
Imagine a world where every time a black person was brutalized because of the color of his or her skin, all of the Jewish, Latino, Arab, Asian and Native American joined forces with the NAACP to make sure that the case was brought to light and legally pursued with the full resources of those combined groups. Would it piss of some violent-ass WASPs? Almost certainly, but it would still probably have a positive net effect on how hate crimes are handled in this country.
I think we’re going to have to (respectfully) disagree on this on, Mike.
While I was chased around Ito-Yokado by hordes of Japanese children yelling gaijin! as a youth, child-on-child mortal violence is probably pretty low in Japan, especially in the 1980s. And while I have nonzero chance of being the victim of a “hate crime” as a vehement, outspoken atheist, it’s probably much, much lower than the likelihood of another “minority” being so attacked, even when adjusted for population (Are there more bisexuals or atheists in this country? Really have no idea, especially since so many of both are closeted and/or feel extreme and inappropriate shame.)
But that being said:
If Adam kills Aaron because Aaron slept with Adam’s wife, and Bill kills Brian because Brian cheated at cards, and Chris kills Charlie because Charlie slept with another man, I firmly believe that all three should receive identical sentences (What sentence? I’d need some studies to examine, but almost certainly something less draconian than the U.S.: maybe nominally 20 years, with a chance of parole after ten.)
But the fact of the matter is that Adam is going to receive a lighter sentence because it was a “crime of passion”, and Chris is going to get a steeper sentence because it’s a “hate crime”, and I think this is really fucking close to thoughtcrime legislation.
No, I know that you (Mike) are not daft or devious enough to read this as saying that “I support hate crime”. I don’t want anyone hurt or killed. But I do not want a special category of murder that comes into play because of the minority status of the victim and any private thoughts the murderer may have had.
I think that we’ve misconstrued some things that each of us has been saying. I’m going to clarify my position here.
I think that murder should be tried and sentenced the exact same way, regardless of whether the motive was a hate crime or a crime of passion. The reason for needing a large organization such as GLAAD, in my opinion, is not to get special sentencing for acts of violence against gay people, but to make sure that acts of violence against gay people are prosecuted at all. All too often, attacks against minorities have been historically dismissed (or actively supported) by the established law enforcement, and it has taken large, organized movements in order to bring these crimes to light. That’s not asking for special protection, it’s demanding equal protection.
In the meantime, while I don’t think that hate crimes should get special punishment, I do think that it’s important that we recognize, record, and answer them. Let’s be honest, there’s not really any need for a protest or public condemnation every time some guy murders the dude who slept with his wife, but I do think that there should be some recognition by the public when someone gets beaten because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their economic status, or the people for whom they feel sexual attraction. Murdering the guy who slept with your wife is a personal failing, but silent acceptance of crimes against minorities is a failure for all of society.
You need look no further than your own example to see why large, organized groups gathered together to protect their interests are still important. Adam might kill Aaron for sleeping with Adam’s wife, but Chris couldn’t have killed Charlie for sleeping with Chris’s husband, because neither Chris nor Charlie is legally allowed to HAVE a husband. I’m all for equal sentences for crimes, regardless of whether the crime is a hate crime or not, but umbrella politics is going to be necessary until those equal sentences are accompanied by equal rights and protection under the law. I think that we’re both in agreement on where we think the endpoint should be (equal rights and protection), but we’re disagreeing on the most effective method of getting that done. I feel that it can be best accomplished by gathering together groups that have similar (if not identical) interests into a single, dedicated mass, so “queer” works for me.