The self-proclaimed antirasistiske activist Iran Mitchell claims in the Newspaper that I do not understand what racism is. It is unclear how she knows this, but in their post 29.05.20 will she end up with to confirm most of my points in the post she criticizes.
The 25. may I had as a columnist, a post which was entitled "Rasismebeskyldninger is politically offside". It was a playful attempt to say something about the public debate, where I used football as a metaphor and racism as an example. The point was to spread an understanding of the difference between to talk with people you disagree with, and defining them from the conversation.Johanne. Inherit. Benjamin. Andrine. Comment
Mitchell has gotten the idea that I neither understand racism or are just as worried as her. The type of claims invites to statements about how anti racist they are. It is freaking offensive.
What is cruel injustice, not least in the story. Such injustice was often accompanied by, and justified with, degrading ideologies of the vulnerable nations.
There is injustice in the Uk also, and the injustice often becomes visible in the skin color. But if you think that all men who get a coloured result, is the result of racism, one does, in my opinion, a poor analysis of politics and government in the liberal rule of law. You end up with a ghost hunting for bad attitudes in ourselves and among friends and achieves no change.
Racism is a double-edged word. In the same way that "crime" and "violence", it is both a description of an action and a condemnation. Fits to the description, follow the condemnation.Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError NEW VIDEO: A new overvåkingsvideo shows the seconds before George Floyd should have been put into the ground. Reporter: Madeleine Liereng. Video. Overvåkingsvideo / AP Show more
"Racism" is also a marker for where the acceptable uenighetsfelleskapet ends. The one that is "racist" is not a worthy interlocutor. Some think an ejection through the generous mention others as racists, is an effective tool against injustice. I do not share the optimism. At the same time narrows and destroys this process the political community.
It is to put people "offside" is a general phenomenon. In the drugs field has avholdsbevegelsen had hegemony for over 100 years. They have managed to make all views allows for a more liberal policy politically dead. One could associated with the "legalization" was not heard. You came not to speak up. Now complaints avholdsbevegelsen that they are "faced with harassment".I would be like you Debate
What they call harassment, is the rage of oppressed voices. Avholdsbevegelsen have lost their meningsmonopol and the right to decide which voices get to be "with".
the Result is that discussions about where the new boundaries should go. The is not about how the field of drugs should be regulated. It is a slugfest for the right to decide, and they in avholdsbevegelsen leads out with the tactics they have always used: to nedsnakke motstemmene. Thus, the legaliseringstilhengerne furious.
As the culture of debate, I would like to samfunnsviter call this "anomiske conditions". The debate lacks clear rules.
My concern was never racism, but the public debate. As samfunnsviter and activist for a healthy political culture, worries me that it to put each other in the political offside is an increasingly omseggripende tactics.Tearing the country in two Comment
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!