I've been thinking about this for the past hour or so. Probably it's a question that requires more time than that, so take this for what it's worth...
First. "At some point down the line, if I said nothing I am/was complicit."
Is that really true? Where does that idea come from? When I think about it, I wonder if it's rooted in the aftermath of World War II, and the question of how the Nazis could have risen to power. And that makes me wonder if it isn't actually rooted in a desire to justify our treatment of German civilians both during and after the war. I'm not sure if that's true, but it just occurred to me that, as a meme, I can't think of any literary examples of it prior to the mid-20th century.
So then we have to ask ourselves, what can actually be gained by "speaking up" now? In the days after 9/11 I participated in antiwar marches and in other activist projects meant to combat the demonization of the entire American Muslim population. It seems to me that one of the reasons that my participation was helpful is that I was not a Muslim. What I expect to see soon is the demonization of the rural, white population. Of course, that demonization has been going on for some time now from the cultural Left, but once Biden-- "author of the Patriot Act"-- takes office, it's probably going to receive official sanction and aid from federal law enforcement. Since I am a white male living in a rural county, it seems to me that, more than my own voice, what would help would be members of other demographics speaking up on my behalf.
I expect Q-Anon to be the Al Qaeda of the 2020s. AQ exchanged for QA. The gods have a sense of humor.
...
I typed that an hour ago and have been thinking more on the matter.
I think that one thing we ought to aim for is some kind of Rural Americans Anti-Defamation League. This would apply the tools and tactics of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and so on to rural Americans. One can imagine a webpage with a "Debunking Myths" section:
MYTH: Rural Americans fight against gun control because they are criminal and violent. FACT: Hunting is central to rural American culture. Firearms in rural America are used primarily for hunting. Gun crime is an urban problem, not a rural problem.
MYTH: Rural America is primarily white, therefore Rural Americans are privileged. FACT: The so-called "white privilege" is a phenomenon of urban and suburban European-Americans. When rural Euro-American demographics are separated from their urban and suburban cousins, they show levels of generational poverty, addiction, literacy, and employment far more comparable to urban black populations or other marginalized groups.
MYTH: Rural Americans are racist. FACT: According to studies X, Y, and Z, racist attitudes have declined 80% since 1950 (insert other data). Moreover, Ibram X. Kendi in "White It's Okay For Me To Hate White People" defines racism as "prejudice plus power." As we have already seen, rural Americans have little or no political power. While individual racial prejudice is immoral and must be combatted everywhere, rural Americans are not and cannot be racist in the same way as non-marginalized groups.
...And so on. Such an organization would publicly shame Hollywood films and TV shows that portray rural Americans in a negative light and would push for policies designed to promote employment and combat addiction in rural counties. Attacks on rural Americans by powerful corporations and politicians would be ammunition for such a group. Twitter's hypocritical stance in permitting anti-white hate speech while removing anti-black hate speech would be one example. Obama's "cling to their guns and their religion" speech would be another. The key is to turn every attack into an opportunity to highlight your opponent's evil and hypocrisy. Always use the frames of "education," "debunking myths," and "equality."
Anyway, that's way off of your main point. I think the point, though, is-- Consider what your goals are, and only do things which will further them. If not speaking up really is complicity, who is complicit, and in what? Blacks who didn't speak up against segregation or Apartheid were not complicit; whites were. Muslims who did not speak up after 9/11 were not complicit; non-Muslims were. It's a very different thing to remain silent if you're in the group that's being targeted, from if you're in the other group.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2021-01-14 03:08 pm (UTC)First. "At some point down the line, if I said nothing I am/was complicit."
Is that really true? Where does that idea come from? When I think about it, I wonder if it's rooted in the aftermath of World War II, and the question of how the Nazis could have risen to power. And that makes me wonder if it isn't actually rooted in a desire to justify our treatment of German civilians both during and after the war. I'm not sure if that's true, but it just occurred to me that, as a meme, I can't think of any literary examples of it prior to the mid-20th century.
So then we have to ask ourselves, what can actually be gained by "speaking up" now? In the days after 9/11 I participated in antiwar marches and in other activist projects meant to combat the demonization of the entire American Muslim population. It seems to me that one of the reasons that my participation was helpful is that I was not a Muslim. What I expect to see soon is the demonization of the rural, white population. Of course, that demonization has been going on for some time now from the cultural Left, but once Biden-- "author of the Patriot Act"-- takes office, it's probably going to receive official sanction and aid from federal law enforcement. Since I am a white male living in a rural county, it seems to me that, more than my own voice, what would help would be members of other demographics speaking up on my behalf.
I expect Q-Anon to be the Al Qaeda of the 2020s. AQ exchanged for QA. The gods have a sense of humor.
...
I typed that an hour ago and have been thinking more on the matter.
I think that one thing we ought to aim for is some kind of Rural Americans Anti-Defamation League. This would apply the tools and tactics of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and so on to rural Americans. One can imagine a webpage with a "Debunking Myths" section:
MYTH: Rural Americans fight against gun control because they are criminal and violent.
FACT: Hunting is central to rural American culture. Firearms in rural America are used primarily for hunting. Gun crime is an urban problem, not a rural problem.
MYTH: Rural America is primarily white, therefore Rural Americans are privileged.
FACT: The so-called "white privilege" is a phenomenon of urban and suburban European-Americans. When rural Euro-American demographics are separated from their urban and suburban cousins, they show levels of generational poverty, addiction, literacy, and employment far more comparable to urban black populations or other marginalized groups.
MYTH: Rural Americans are racist.
FACT: According to studies X, Y, and Z, racist attitudes have declined 80% since 1950 (insert other data). Moreover, Ibram X. Kendi in "White It's Okay For Me To Hate White People" defines racism as "prejudice plus power." As we have already seen, rural Americans have little or no political power. While individual racial prejudice is immoral and must be combatted everywhere, rural Americans are not and cannot be racist in the same way as non-marginalized groups.
...And so on. Such an organization would publicly shame Hollywood films and TV shows that portray rural Americans in a negative light and would push for policies designed to promote employment and combat addiction in rural counties. Attacks on rural Americans by powerful corporations and politicians would be ammunition for such a group. Twitter's hypocritical stance in permitting anti-white hate speech while removing anti-black hate speech would be one example. Obama's "cling to their guns and their religion" speech would be another. The key is to turn every attack into an opportunity to highlight your opponent's evil and hypocrisy. Always use the frames of "education," "debunking myths," and "equality."
Anyway, that's way off of your main point. I think the point, though, is-- Consider what your goals are, and only do things which will further them. If not speaking up really is complicity, who is complicit, and in what? Blacks who didn't speak up against segregation or Apartheid were not complicit; whites were. Muslims who did not speak up after 9/11 were not complicit; non-Muslims were. It's a very different thing to remain silent if you're in the group that's being targeted, from if you're in the other group.