the whiter the better

the whiter the better
I read in the autobiography of Malcolm X a thesis that was tought to black people and that is that the whiter a human, the better a person.
Malcolm conjectures that black people consider mulatoes better subconsciously because of that. this kind of stereotyping rule has ramifications even today. it may not be manifested in everyday life but take for example positive discrimination. I think that in order to show that certain companis do not discriminate, they hire a prototype of a minority which they are accused of discriminating. similar event happened to me while I was driving and was not obeyed by a driver next to me. I saw that there was a group of gypsies and I reasoned that that was the reason why they did not let me go in front of them because a white (the whiter the better) driver would yield. here I realized that subconsciously I also live according to stereotypes. similarly with women. There are many survey that women in fact are not worse drivers than men but they are told that they are and that is paradoxically the reason the drive probably with no such certainty as men. women do take these reproaches that are not based on any racional argument seriously. when I see a woman driving who makes a mistake I subconsciously vindicate her behavior on the basis of her sex. when a man does a mistake I subconsciously say to myself that he has a bad day or something irrelevant like. I think that these patters that we live by are very deeply rooted and must be actively and seriously analyzed and decomposed so that we are capable of seeing not so blurilly but clearly based not on stereotypes but on personal traits and qualities.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisement
Standard

Inner voice

Is necessary to believe in sacraments or is an open heart enough? Is it really necessary to be of Catholic faith? Not every Catholic is good, but I think that everyone who is good is inevitably a Catholic – following Christs teaching. If you fulfill all religious prescripts but do not have faith, you are nothing. if you have faith, love, God-like consciense-daimonion, voice of the heart and fulfill no prescript, then you are with God. Until one does not know that something is good and something is bad (sometimes sin is doing something, but sometimes not doing, or doing nothing) then one is not quilty of such a thing. Once one knows teaching of Jesus Christ and does not accept it, then he sins because logically, it is not possible to go against teaching of Jesus – it is the highest principle even for nonbelievers. These prescripts are not outer but inner- they come from our selves, from our essence, they are not given by anybody, not even by Jesus, he came to be sacrificed for us, but he did not tell us anything new-all he said is something we would know if we had opened hearts. Through words and sincerity we arrive at the consensus that doing good is the highest human principle. Its all about choice, I cannot persuade you that something is wrong, I am not God, I do not know it for sure, maybe you can kill with a good intention, I do not know. I cannot say about concrete people or concrete situations that are either good or bad, but I can say for sure abstractly that something is wrong, evil and something right,good. What I say you either take as right and maybe not and maybe you are right in not believeing what I say-that killing someone or sex for pleasure is sin. But if one looks into one´s heart then one sees what is right and what is wrong. Sex for pleasure is very evilish thing to do, although people my disagree with it. I cannot say about concrete people or situation that something is wrong-only the protagonist can say so. It all goes back to an individual conscience. Some things on the other hand are definitely wrong. For example to kill somebody – because by killing somebody I hurt people. What is worse is that I hurt myself and damn myself. The killed one does not sin, but sin is worse than death. To die is not as bad as to die badly – in sin. What if someone sins and does not know it? Euthanasia for example may be considered a murder but may not. Hurting myself, although not doing anything evil to others is the worst thing one can do. Once I know that I hurt myself I must refrain from doing it. Other things may be more ambigous. For example masturbation – can there be a good masturbation? I do not think so, because masturbation is predominantly for my ego, my pleasure. Physical pleasure belongs only to marriage and love making with and for God´s glory. To know that something is wrong, I do not need any experience. For example lynching of people (blacks in the US history of the slave system) is wrong obviously, but what about people that do not know it? Is it possible to not know it? Hurting other always carries with it the knowledge, otherwise one would not hurt other if it did not somehow make it an egoistical pleasurable feeling. Thus one does not need any exprience to know that it is wrong. Such a damage can be very often seen in marriage that use contraception. It hurts me much, that people do not want at least to think about such things and its consequences. Maybe I am wrong,maybe contraception helps in a relationship, I do not want to be dogmatic, on the other hand – I want to be opened to everything, but have not seen up to now that contraception or anything like that could lead to a happy relationship. Golden rule says : do unto other what you want them to do to you. Does a woman want to be used anytime man want her, or should she rather follow her natural biorytmus? This is the question everyone should be willing to answer with a clear conscience.

Standard

Can killing be justified?

Charlie Chaplin in his humanity speech bade the soldiers not to fight for lords but to fight for democracy. I believe that he didn’t mean killing. I believe that what he meant is that by killing no good can be done. When he incited the will to fight,he at the same time abhored killing.when killing anybody,the killer takes up a roll of God. When I kill somebody I claim that I know more and better what to do with his life. I play God. This is of course ludicrous. If a gunman a policeman shots at somebody he should never be willing to shoot at anybody in order to kill him. If the target dies as a consequence of the shooting it is no fault of the policeman if his intention was only to stop terrorism, for example. Killing anybody is a bad thing. There cannot be an intention to kill anybody and do good. If I kill a terrorist who I believe has a bomb, then I again play God. I can only stop doing evil, that means to stop the terrorist but I cannot stop evil by doing evil- killing the terrorist. I still must have hope that everyone can change heart. I think that everything can be done in two ways, good and bad but I cannot think of any situation when killing would be justified. I cannot be sure that the terrorists would really kill. One should rather be killed,because it would be morally better choice than doing the evil of killing the other-be it even a terrorist-i can never know if he would change his mind. by killing him i would deprive the terrorist of the chance to be better-make the choice of being a better person-and for this it is justified to die-even by the hand of whom i give the chance to be better in the future.

Standard

Review of Martin Luther King

Having seen the performance of M.L. King by the TNT Theatre Britain, I can´t but applause to the five actors (of which there were four Afroamerican). The play covered some of the most important events in the civil right movement, begining with Rosa Park and the boycott, going through Martin Luther King´s speech I have a dream and ending with his death. In no more than two hourse it is possible to convey the message of the movement. In the play, there was also very nicely compared the attitude towards the non-violent King´s approach – loving your enemies, and the more radical approach. The hypothetical question is whether there would be any great and swift advancement without violence. One may even conjecture that if dr. King would not have been murdered, there would not have been such a mediality and thus the leaders and politicans would not get so much involved. This is not to say that violence is a better tool than non- violence, but it is important to think in both ways – mixing both approaches was very vividly shown in the play.

One thing I did not like was stereotyping the white sheriff as a primitive brute. I understand that when there is a deficienty of respect on one side, there is a need to compensate it by showing the other party worse than it really is – by this I do not mean to vindicate the deeds of whites towards black people but I would like emphasisze that many who were portrayed as enemies (for example police) were not given a choice and although that white policemen could have a different opinion about segregation than leading politicans, they had to folow the order and be harsh towards black people who did not listen to the orders.

Standard

Are women minority?

Woman are not very likely worse drivers than man – at least not inherently. They have been told they are and that is very likely the reason why they might actually be worse drivers. This statement shows the fact, that what we receive, what we are told is much more imporant than what is given genetically, inherently. This parallel can also be applied when dealing with the issue of race – although there is a biological difference between “races” eg. color of skin, physiological constitution (black people are predominantly physically larger and stronger than white– seen for example among bodybuilding champions). What is given is not as important as what we receive via education and societal relationships. Seeing woman as weaker is man´s viewing of the world – strenght for men is very imporant and thus men apply it also to woman. If the world was ruled by woman, empathy and sensitivity would be seen as a merit, and physical strenght would not be seen as any great advantage. Some women want to look strong, because strength is valuable in men´s world, if it was women´s world, empathy would be seen as valuable. Such striving weakens real women´s perception of what is important – showing that not empathy, but to look like men want women to look. This also corresponds very much with the objectification of women as men´s gadget. Woman beauty today is very much adored, but I am afraid that even women conform to this notion of being beautiful, but not in their own way, but in the way man like it – to be attractive for man, consequently as a tool for men´s pleasure. Some women tend to forget their beauty and rather look as men want them to look, because in today´s world man´s word is much more powerful, thus these women lose their real inner sense of what is good for them and rather conform to the mainstream viewing of women beauty.

Standard