(Continued from Part One)
If someone is expressing malice or hatred towards a certain group, it should be clear from the context. It is this contextual indicator that has allowed the formulation of many jokes in popular culture about people perceiving the word “Mexican” itself as an insult. The character Michael Scott, played by actor Steve Carell, in a 2005 episode of The Office, “Diversity Day” says to the character Oscar Martinez: “Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides “Mexican” that you prefer? Something less offensive?”
Usually the character/context reflects how closed-minded the person wielding an otherwise innocuous word as an insult is, yet the joke is still derived from the implicit rules of political correctness: Minorities, due to their personal identities being rooted in their minority status, are by their very nature inferior (according to P.C.), as they are not in the majority. Thus, P.C. thinking dictates we must overcompensate (not in how we understand and respect minorities as individual human beings, to be judged by their character as all others, but in how we refer to them, feigning or mustering up legitimate deference to their culture in order to soften the blow of their assumed inferiority) in order to not disturb their conception of self by suggesting the existing imbalance of society along conceptions of race.
In revising the established approach to activism for racial equality, (“Let us be hypersensitive to any possible racist attitude or action, and fight it.”) the Unist approach to ending racism begins with embracing racists, instead of vilifying and automatically rejecting them in our social interactions. This ostracization only serves to further alienate a person who is surely feeling dehumanized, and, acting out of fear, has erroneously determined that other races pose a threat to the livelihood, security, or well-being of themselves or those they care about. Naturally, this way of thinking applies to racists of all colors and ethnicities; whether Serbian, Bosnian, Nigerian, Egyptian, Armenian, Thai, Javanese, Peruvian, Zimbabwean, Palestinian, Israeli, or French, racism is by no means purely the domain of a specific group (usually assumed to be White/European), it exists in any place where persons see themselves as inherently genetically or culturally superior.
Instead of publicly embarrassing, shaming, or demonizing those who hold (or those whom we perceive to hold) racist attitudes or opinions, we must remind and reassure them of the irrelevance that their decision to blame other races has with the fears or anxieties that they are legitimately experiencing.
This reassurance will engender an environment where racist thoughts are not automatically censored, and thereby forced into the seclusion of private or personal discussions and reflections, but are able to be resolved, openly!
This approach offers at least the possibility, if not inevitability, of allowing someone to change their mind for themselves – as this is the only way to raise the level of social interaction towards anything resembling solidarity between races. To move away from the current level of interaction, whereby people actively avoid issues or discussions of race, for fear of being labeled a racist, or for fear of being scrutinized to such an extent that racism is bound to be read into something. And in more instances than not, we argue, people do not legitimately hold race-based hatreds, but are instead purely recounting a joke, personal observation or opinion which is not politically correct (i.e. brings to light the implied and assumed disunity or differences between races (for satirical effect or not), or plays with stereotypes in a seemingly unenlightened way). This should not damn someone to the label of racist, should it?
If we were to automatically preclude that any non-politically correct or perhaps even truly culturally insensitive jokes were truly racist, and thus can only be told or enjoyed by racists, we close out any possibility for sincere dialogue that these subjects can raise, in favor of singling out, turning our anger on, and socially censoring someone whom we have decided hates a certain race(s) based on our assumptions about how we think they view the world. So let us ask how they see the world! Let us instead remind them (those who are racist, and much more crucially those who are merely perceived to be racist), without malice or judgement against them, that we are all equally entitled to be treated with dignity. It should go something like this: “I know it maybe seems like just a joke, but do you really think that (a certain group or race) is different than you or I?” Their answer should be sincere, and whether a yes or a no, they have revealed how they truly feel about their fellow man. We should take them at their word, and not become consumed with persecuting or labeling persons as racist. More likely than not, they will Not think some persons are fundamentally different, and this reassurance should put one at ease, having averted the assumption that this person actually hates a certain group or race. Because as it is, the current P.C. approach would have you publicly denounce or shame the person, empowered by your (largely unfounded) scandalized assumption that you have outed them as an irredeemable racist scumbag.
If this new approach is agreed upon, there should be no issue reasonably discussing or even satirizing contemporary attitudes towards race! The discussion about existing inequalities in our much maligned society is otherwise completely obfuscated by the band-aid of political correctness, and our widely-adopted approach of openly ostracizing those whom we perceive of as racist.
Racism will not disappear so long as people continue to segregate themselves physically and mentally from “the Other.” By verbalizing the reality of our unequal society, we can begin to move towards a truly, willingly equal society. By advocating total global coexistence, we are divorcing ourselves from the idea of a compartmentalized humanity.
We hope that this offers you a new perspective on issues of racial equality, and how to realize it in its true form – by coexisting as human beings, judged not by the color of their skin or their ethnic origins, but by their own character.
It is inevitable, in this world of increasing globalization and international interdependence, that we should coexist as world citizens, not limited or constrained by our backgrounds or the sincere or insincere defenses thereof, but wholly at peace with our own Self, regardless of where we may have originated from. It is upon us to realize and actualize this world of coexistence, not validating some individuals based on the “foreign” or “exotic” nature of the Other, as political correctness encourages, but validating others as they adhere to the principles of the Golden Rule: to love others as you love yourself.
But that all starts with loving yourself.
More to come on each of these individual topics, and how to incorporate Unism into your daily experiences in the weeks to come.
Let us know what you think of our approach and ideas, or about political correctness and the SJW culture it has created. Are we right to think the pendulum has swung much too far in the opposite direction, alienating more people than it is supposedly empowering?
Sincerely,
The Unists!
The Unists 