Bardan Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 Was sent this cartoon on Facebook today, asked to comment. Hope you like my take... Intellectual dishonesty...the old bait and switch... Between Two Boys the moral seems clear. White boy jerk! What is obscured is that each boy is assumed, post-moral lesson, to be a personification of multiple individuals of multiple generations stretching back centuries. The reader is encouraged to retain their moral conclusion about Two Boys after the moral question has been changed completely. A moment's reflection tells the reader that not all whites were jerks to blacks, and that not all blacks were jerked around. Sometimes whites were jerked around, sometimes they jerked each other around; Sometimes blacks jerked white people around and sometimes blacks jerked blacks around. In past history practically everyone was jerked or jerking, most often within their own races. Those living today are not their ancestors. The sins of my father or the crimes against your ancestor happened to them, not us. We should not have to pay for or be apologised to depending on the color of our skin. Being in a racial category does not make one part of a collective innocent or collective guilty. If you think race is a moral category (ie, you are a racist) you'll probably like this cartoon and feel accordingly guilty or entitled, depending on your race. Advancing that prejudice while obscuring the fact you're a racist takes trickery (bait and switch) and a reliance on lack of critical thinking skills in those close to you.
tiepolo Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Doesn't even make sense, either, since it ignores the fact that most whites never had slaves, some whites were worse off than slaves, and some blacks actually owned slaves. Still, never let the truth get in the way of promoting profitable white guilt... Also, Red Indians of the five 'civilised tribes' also owned black slaves, so should they turn in their reserves? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Qo5kp5QeU
Recommended Posts