I’m in an interesting argument over at John Barron’s Truth in Religion & Politics on a recent “pro-family” document signed by various republican politicians that suggests that black people were better off as slaves than as free people, because at least as slaves, they were in family groups.
So when are racist appearing statements not racist in intent and outcome?
My response is walks like a duck, talks like a duck so it is on the balance of probably, in fact a duck.
I have taken to evaluting issues and events on a meta-level – rather than look at the specific claims, to look to who is supporting the claims.
When the supporters are homogenous rather than diverse, chances are, no matter what the claim – discrimination and fear of those who are outsiders is what is driving the issue, claim or social movement.
When the support crosses socio-economic, ethnic and sexuality boundaries of groups, then the movement, issue or claim is simply more likely to have merit and honourable intentions – give the varied support.
By anything with homogenous support should trigger a deeper consideration and analysis – because if only one group is behind a thing, then it’s because it’s in their and only their interest – and often is the group attempting to force their preferences on everyone else.