Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/20/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Might seem off topic, at first. I was reminded last night catching a glimpse of the film I'd seen before, The Pursuit of HappYness. I don't know how it slipped through the movie moguls' attention, but here's a rare movie that encapsulates America. I.e. A black man who is not a victim. In this fortuitous passage I watched, the character played by Will Smith, despondently muses to himself after a particularly trying day coping with his little boy (heroic, too) and two jobs: WHY did Thomas Jefferson come up with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Did he know that it was only to be "a pursuit", never achieved? (Roughly). He by dint of energy, values and application eventually realizes his ambitions (based on true life story of a man who built up his own insurance company). I first considered, now here's a man who could never tolerate a Jefferson statue be torn down. And, "freedom"? that's what you make for yourself. Wherever there is no "systemic" restriction put upon you, in a free nation. Irrespective of past injustices. Very smart topic, this, and extremely incisive responses made; beginning from an innocuous product it touches all bases of present 'Social Metaphysics' experienced in every country.
  2. 2 points
    "The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]" This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet. This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others. I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square. And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.
  3. 1 point
    Red, brown, yellow, black and white . . . But where do you draw the line? Suppose, magically, there were five races conjured on earth. Add to that 7000 years of intermingling. Are DNA records going to be used to categorize individuals according to genome? What was Chauvin's DNA breakdown? What was Floyd's DNA breakdown? If there are no magical "race" borders, then to borrow on Wendy's slogan of yesteryear, "Where's the beef?" If Chauvin/Floyd spills over into Columbus/Green (Jemima, if you prefer), then credibility is lent to the magical five, or so, races conjured on earth. If intermingling prevails, then those who see a white cop murdering a black suspect are not willing to wait for the DNA results to confirm the Chauvin was a pale-skinned black, or that Floyd was a dark-skinned white. A is A. Both cannot prevail intellectually. The fact that this issue is spilling over into areas outside of the legal enforcement that spawned it, bears testimony that unresolved, a.k.a. unclear issues, are encapsulated into the aftermath of this incident. Without 'race', there are only individual human beings, judged by their own merit. With 'race', the conclusion "that there are only individual human beings, judged by their own merit" gets challenged in such a thread as this. My wallet, for now, is residing in my hip pocket. For some reason, I've acquired a hankering for some French Toast with a side of Sausage Links, Canadian Maple Syrup, a pat of Unsalted Butter and a glass of Orange Juice in the morning.
  4. 1 point
    Not "stereotyping" others isn't any guarantee they won't and don't racially stereotype you. And usually will. (A few times I've heard "white privilege" thrown my way). There's the difficulty of being individualist in a especially collectivist time. The decent and considerate folk, the individualists and, yes, any Objectivists (joke) might see a person and perceive "person" who -also- happens to be black, brown, white, female, short, tall, fat - whatever. Racists and anti-racists and racialists perceive: Black or White person. Racialism is what most stokes up the differences of race groups - tribes. Avidly looking for and making everything 'about' race - briefly. Something our media is expert at. This also can include individuals who are just overly sensitive of any racial aspects. I've had confided in me by a few individuals - black - that many a time they're in a social group, there will often be white individuals being over-solicitous of their opinions and jokes (listening very seriously and laughing uproariously). I was told by this guy and woman that they felt rather sad and patronized, while also being quite amused by the idiocy of their colleagues . To be not treated on your own merits is dishonesty and injustice by others. To be attributed qualities one may not have, on superficial appearances, isn't that dishonesty and injustice too?
×
×
  • Create New...