One point that hasn’t really been discussed: there are people on here and throughout the communities you all live in who have been directly asked by loved ones who are not the dominant race where they live to stand up for them. 3 years ago, a car salesman made a remark about “Spanish speakers” (code for immigrant and not even knowing if I was a “Spanish speaker” but figuring b/c I looked white he could make his racist remarks). The management disciplined him and I NEVER returned to that dealership again (and I did every bit of maintenance there down to routine oil changes for 8 years - I am a super loyal customer) and I bought my new car elsewhere.
When I complained about this interaction at a family dinner, my non-Caucasian sister-in-law teared up and said, “Thank you for doing that on your own. I am so tired of having to put a target on my back and stand up to those people all by myself or ask someone to do it for me.” Totally unexpected, and it stuck with me.
Many of you love to bang on disparaging what you call “white women deciding what other people should be offended about” and saying “EN should have brought forward the POC who were uncomfortable with the name.” I can only guess you have never had a loved one not of the dominant group ask you directly, please take these things up so we don’t always have to put ourselves out there in the line of fire (sadly, literally in some cases). And if you have, then I genuinely don’t understand where you’re coming from on this thread.
Hell, you think the LO here was right to fear the media??!! Imagine fearing the kind of vigilante local mobs (I think the current euphemism is “militia”) who come after people who dare make waves in many local communities, especially rural ones. Why do they need to be the face of change if some people from the dominant culture are willing to represent for them?
That’s actually the premise of a lot of legal representation. We take the heat for you as our client so you don’t have to. We shield you as much as possible from the vitriol and insult and petty meanness. We take on the crap jobs and the nitty gritty negotiations and the mind-numbing busy work so you don’t have to get stressed out about it.
Lots of people do a parallel thing wrt their loved ones. Were I EN or anyone else, and were I approached by POC uncomfortable with the name, and had I gone to bat for them, under NO circumstances would I produce their names or likenesses for anyone who demanded it. It is not safe or comfortable for some people to come forward and there’s no need for it. If I got mocked for being a “woke” “white SJW” or whatever the epithet du jour is, so be it. Nothing compared to what others suffer daily. I know what I’m doing and why and on whose behalf, whether gyou “believe” it or not, so I’m good. Demands for “proof” that I’m speaking on behalf of someone would be meaningless to me. It’s literally my job not to give out info about the people I represent, so I can do that all day.
Again, my view is that the LO made the right decision for himself and his enjoyment of his land and I wish him well with it however he wants to use it going forward. I’m only sorry that he, Glaccum, EN, and the governing bodies couldn’t have made this work a different way. I can conceive of a way it could have been a win all around. But they didn’t and that’s an end to it. Done and dusted.
FWIW, had I seen the stuff that Glaccum posted publicly and had I known he was connected with the event, I would not have patronized it as rider or spectator or vendor, so I recognize the loss to me would have been the same either way.
Even if it is private property, it’s also my understanding that castle doctrine does not permit home owners to brandish firearms for intimidation unless there is intent to use on someone entering their home.
Well… I’ve been commenting for most of this thread and on a different side of the issue than you are, but I haven’t denied “systemic racism” exists. I probably define/describe it slightly differently than you do… but absolutely it exists and is an issue.
I don’t wish to fight or argue with you, but this is a straw man argument in many respects. I’m sure you can find a few posters on this thread who have taken an extreme position, but the majority of the folks debating with you, and pushing back on some of what you have said are pretty darn moderate and have talked about the specifics of THIS situation, and why we think the way EN went about their activism with respect to the name of this venue was poorly thought out.
I’m no expert on castle doctrine And I didn’t bring that case up to defend the couple involved. I brought it up to illustrate just how quickly some of these situations are escalating and turning into something pretty darn dangerous.
By all accounts… Walker wanted to avoid having a crowd on his doorstep. Can we agree that’s reasonable on his part?
I don’t wish to fight or argue with you, but this is a straw man argument in many respects. I’m sure you can find a few posters on this thread who have taken an extreme position, but the majority of the folks debating with you, and pushing back on some of what you have said are pretty darn moderate and have talked about the specifics of THIS situation, and why we think the way EN went about their activism with respect to the name of this venue was poorly thought out.
If nothing else, these 91 (for now) pages illustrate what a poor medium the written word is when discussing or debating or hashing out or whatever…a fraught topic. We don’t have the nuance of nonverbal cues. we can’t see when someone gets anxious or gets clarity. We can’t see that second where both parties agree on a fact but might still disagree on a path forward.
Like VHM, I fully agree that systemic racism is a real problem.
I appreciate the context. I don’t know too much about Cuyler Walker himself, but this makes much more sense as to why he would be particularly sensitive to a move like that. Not opining on who was right or wrong in this case, but my confusion is lessened and I appreciate that.
For those not wanting to go back 30 pages to see what post #1182 is, I have quoted it for you below.
@Equkelly I don’t know about others but I can say that I have been known to like a post when I agree with the majority of what is said in it, and not ever last word in it.
I think that’s dangerous and you should stop doing that. Systemic racism exists and those that continue to deny it are just holding everyone back from moving forward. It shouldn’t be the same 4 or 5 users denouncing problematic comments. We all should.
1. I’m having trouble following your point on this paragraph. First, I by no means am saying that the LO is the only individual ever who has reason to fear a mob. Of course others in different situations, past and present, all over the world throughout human history have had reason to fear impassioned mobs.
I also am not arguing white people shouldn’t participate in demonstrations or activism about issues of race, and that only minorities should. Anyone can and should participate in this sort of activity in relation to an issue they feel strongly about. It’s America… we are fortunate to have this freedom in our country. I have brought up the term “white savior complex” in this discussion, however, as I think it’s a caustic term that is almost the opposite side of the coin with respect to the term “white fragility.” Both terms point at character deficits as a root cause of a white individual’s response to issues related to race relations. “White fragility” presumes that people object to various race related arguments because they have some sort of inherent racist aspects to their character, which cause them to be willfully blind, and consciously unwilling to acknowledge their own white privilege. But racism is fundamentally a serious character flaw in a human being, and I think this rationale is a thin one for alleging a serious character flaw like that. “White savior complex,” on the other hand, presumes that white people engage in race related activism on behalf of others who are minorities, not always because they care about minorities… but sometimes out of a spirit of self aggrandizement. The phrase “virtue signaling” is a bit of a variation of this idea when applied to race related activism by white people. Like the white fragility example though, at its core, accusing someone of having “white savior complex” amounts to accusing them of having a serious character flaw… and using these societal issues in an opportunistic, selfish manner. And just like the other example, I think it’s inappropriate and unfair to accuse every single white person oarticipating or supporting demonstrations related to racial injustice in our country right now as having some sort of “white savior complex.”
I’ll note, you seem to be making an argument against unfairly labeling others as having “white savior complex.” I understand the argument you are making, and it’s fair. But I think it is ALSO fair to say that it’s inappropriate to label all white people who see particular race related situations differently than others, and speak up with respect to their own perspective… well… it’s unfair to say that they all exhibit “white fragility.” That is simply another way to call someone a racist… and there are plenty of people who see multiple aspects of different situations who are not racist.
I don’t know about you… but I think attacks on other’s character without substantial evidence… well… I think that sort of thing is not good.
2. EN themselves have acknowledged that no POC approached them about the name of the venue, prior to their first contact with USEF and USEA suggesting the name of the venue should be changed because it is insensitive to black and other minority equestrians. We’ve gone over this already in this thread. Soooo… your point there is almost a hypothetical red herring of some sort…
3. I completely agree with what you wrote in the third bolded portion of your post.
”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹4. I have a bit of trouble with what you wrote in the fourth bolded portion. Personally, I didn’t see any of Denis Glaccum’s private FB posts. I did see the comments on this thread others have made about those posts. They sounded to me like the sort of silly and somewhat offensive political posts some people of his generation do seem to make on FB. I gave an example of my old Uncle Bruce… as he posts bizarre stuff at times. Anyway… I shared my perspective that my old Uncle Bruce is certainly obnoxious and polarizing on social media… but not a racist. I did see the emails Leslie shared, and the harsh response from Denis. I’ve also heard stories from others about him. Sooooo… I can totally see him being an incredibly difficult individual to deal with in this situation, and having contributed to the whole mess blowing up in the way that it did. But… I think it’s a bit too far to label the msn a racist based totally upon FB posts that neither you nor I personally ever saw. In all fairness… you didn’t quite accuse him of being a racist… you just seem to be saying that IF you saw the posts others referred to, THEN you would have boycotted the event, because you consider those postings evidence of a racist character.
Anyway… let me know if I’ve misinterpreted your meaning wrong on any of what I bolded, and my responsive points.
And how do you think reading a comment like that would make somebody feel if they experience systemic racism every day? How do you think it would feel for someone to not only read that hurtful comment but then see that 10 other members of this community liked what they had to say?
We have heard from BIPOC equestrians that the name is problematic for them. One was asked to groom there by a friend and agreed to go, resigned to the fact that “horse people just don’t understand” why the word plantation does not conjure up a peaceful, pleasant scene.
To my knowledge, they have never contradicted this and the text still stands in the original article.
As we all know by now, BIPOC equestrians who are willing to publicly link their names to this issue have since come forward (not just on EN) to offer further support.
Some people still seem to think EN are lying about this, and I don’t have any way of refuting it. I, too, would strongly oppose them releasing the names of the BIPOC equestrians who approached them just to prove a point. If you don’t believe it at this point, I’m not sure what else there is to be done.
Why is it that you can not move forward just because others do not agree with you? You can leave those others behind. You do not have to take them along and use them as a reason to not move forward.
And I didn’t bring that case up to defend the couple involved. I brought it up to illustrate just how quickly some of these situations are escalating and turning into something pretty darn dangerous.