The Dance of Death

So there’s this story in the news about the Royal Racists.  And I have been thinking to myself lately how the terms "racist"/"racism" can be thought terminating clichés.  This works well for racists - people are triggered, and thus easier to manipulate and made to look aggressive etc. while it doesn't work so well for the person whose thoughts have "terminated".  It also has a downside for the racist manifesting in cancel culture type response, or social ostracization/violence in some cases.

Obviously we are talking about thinking feeling people here but I think that the concept of a thought terminating cliche is a valid one.

That’s something that is defined as being something that encourages people to stop thinking and accept predefined conclusions as to what to do next – that person is racist therefore either depending on your identity 1) Join them 2) Rail against them.  3) Attempt to cancel or negate them (this is actually effective)

And I say this not lightly, because people don’t have the privilege, not to mention the patience, to discuss their own existence and what they can or can’t do based on race and have intellectual discussions about race because it is too real, everyday and not strategic.  That is also me on a lot of days.  Something may happen that really unbalances me, maybe for some time.  But it is potentially more useful as a feature of someone, not a flag.  Ultimately, in times like this, people who hold racist views are likely to be in positions of power everywhere.  It then becomes a matter of degrees of racism, that degree tipping into life and death sometimes. What does it really mean if someone is a racist?  It is a binary word.  

If you take unconscious bias into account, we are probably all biased to some degree.  The bias maybe on skin tone, or something else, but most people are very biased.  It's plain.  I'd say axiomatic that this is the case just because the state of things.  

I think the bias will exhibit itself in patterns of speech - imagine for example a workplace where someone of a particular race or background is consistently talked over or interrupted, suffers a lack of acceptance by clique formation and must avoid certain individuals in social settings then their life is being attacked.  There might also be body language such as turning away, or trying to embarrass that person socially to the point of isolating them physically in social gatherings.

Socially/economically/culturally disadvantaged races included.  Obviously some races suffer worse and the racism has become problematical and affecting life chances or is dangerous.  That is where focus should be.

However, I would also argue that unconscious racism (or bias to be more fair), is not toxic it simply is.  I strongly suspect it's an artefact of neuron wiring that's evolved.  Now we need to rise above it, embrace it or eliminate it.  

Embracing it seems stupid.  It is simpler to accept the limitations of where we are from, the information we are exposed to, than to proudly state that the way we are is fine and "better" in whatever situation we may be exposed to culturally or in the world.  Clearly that’s not true.  There are too many customs for people to be accustomed to them all so isn’t it foolish to assume that your customs are the best, even if you try to be clever about it and say overall "we" are the best?

It makes sense to fear the unknown or unfamiliar.  But now we are civilised (supposedly, but in our boxes we are quite wild) then we can evolve mentally.

Unconscious bias becomes toxic very easily by acting on it to a small degree but defending it, or becoming defensive about it, it does become more toxic.  What is toxic?  This isn’t an academic paper, it’s a blog, but that is a harmful phenomenon – I describe it as toxic, a behaviour not conducive to health/happiness.  I don't presuppose everyone does, but I would need convincing how it's a useful psychological tool in supposedly civilised discourse.  

Maybe you might accept that say, the Japanese have superior cookery in a lot of ways and allow them that while slating other things like karoshi and perversions.

So for example, the Royal Racists were asking about the babies skin colour.  That is annoying and of course it is a “racist” thing to do.  But then what?  It seems mild compared to say, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and killing him, but is it also endorsing kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and killing him?  The issue is, I think, is that some people think so, and other people think asking about skin colour is innocuous to harmless/teasing possibly racist abuse but not that bad.  Is it endorsing lynching?  Well that depends on the timing of the delivery of the lines, the attitude involved all that stuff.  That’s why complaining about such things is such a minefield but then the mines should be blowing up in the faces of the people saying the things a bit more. But it seems there is a larger problem that’s more immediate for black people.  The mind fuck.

Here we are talking about what can and can’t be said and what offence can and can’t be taken, with obviously some people hoping for a code of behaviour a bit like chivalry but for racism instead of sexism but also people still dying.  Feels like a storm in a teacup distraction.  Deal with the death first, not the Dance of Death.

And what do I mean by that?  I call it the Dance of Death.  I don’t say that with any gravity, or gravitas, because I am no-one.  I say I call it that, because no one else does, and it describes something I've not read about, though it has surely been described before.  

It is the wilful act of pretending that you are not killing when you are killing or are intending to convey threat without officially doing so.  It’s the veil in front of the moves people make before you can see them make moves.  They make the veil dance with friendliness.  The oldest lie.  They say they aren't going to fight your village, but then they come at night, wielding torches and killing everyone.  Honest warfare is doomed to failure.  Therefore honesty has limits.  Being honest with everyone, isn't great.  

This is a war of sorts.

And people often saying let's have the conversation about racism, let's get it all out as a solution.  But it is all out already.  And people are in denial.  Also, people saying that tend to be racist in my experience online and in real life.  Not every time, mind, but usually at least privileged not be having their existence under threat in any particular way from a particular group because of their genetics.

But I am not so sure we are ready for this, because we are given tribal upbringings and being unaccustomed to people mean only certain people are able to do this.  No answers here, I am trying to explore the issues by flipping of quoted thought terminating cliches.  

Let's have the conversation, okay, then what?  About what?  Is it the right conversation, at the correct time?  Or is it "Kill all ze niggaz and ze Jewz" followed by a riot?  Is it even a conversation or just poeple want to be allwoed to shout what they want louder and with no consequences, including having to deal with replies.

I suspect the lessons of George Floyd have been learnt, but some of the lessons learnt by some of the cops probably had to do with making sure that these “extra judicial killings” (murders) are done more in the darkness, more deniably and more unaccountably.  The lies are the worst thing, because they make you hope but it's just a veil dancing the Dance of Death in your face.

So, this may be the problem with woke in a way.  Certainly speaking harshly has its consequences but also so does lying.  By softening speech you are making more ammunition for the death dancers as well as having the so called civilising effect.  I am actually not sure what the wisest course is probably taking each situation as it comes taking into account the individuals involved.  But that would involve removing bias and communicating.  Most people only communicate with the straw man of the person they hate.  Often someone with these issues of bias may put words, characterise, criticise, compare and idea of another person only, not the person themselves.  

During a debate for example, one political candidate may address their opponent's stance on immigration by distorting their position and attributing extreme views that align with stereotypes.  By misrepresenting the idea discourse is made impossible.