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.
So true! Look at the likes of so very many successful, forward-thinking, and/or entrepreneurial POC. For example, Bernard and Shirley Kinsey. They met in the mid 60s in very racist Tallahassee when she was arrested for participating in a protest and he was one of the organizers. Upon graduating from FAMU and marrying they moved to LA, because there were no great options for a black man in the south.
Nearly 60 years later they are an absolute treasure of a power couple. They did not sit around in the panhandle and whine about being held back. They f’ing got after it and their legacy is enduring and inspirational.
There are certain foundations that if you are going to have a discussion some things might have to be agreed upon?
Say if you are discussing horticulture, say maybe … apple trees and saying that you have to be careful when pruning to make sure larger limbs don’t fall on your head. And people keep popping up claiming that that is no concern at all because apple trees grow underground, sort of like potatoes.
So you have to spend a whole day reestablishing that apple trees have significant elements that are in fact above ground. So you move forward to pruning and limbs and gravity, and someone says, apples grow completely underground, like potatoes.
It is not so much that you want people to agree with you so much as you want to move the discussion forward, but there is always “potato guy” dragging it back to nil.
Even with your analogy I still say - why does everyone have to agree for you (and the conversation) to move forward.
No amount of you stomping your feet is going to make that person think like you think. (Or make me change how I use the current like system, for example.) Just continue on with your apple trimming instructions instead of weighing down the rest of the conversation with something from 30 pages ago.
If you (general) are using the potato guy as your excuse why nothing at all can move forward, you are just as much of the problem as the potato guy.
It is as if you wanted to talk about Shetland ponies and people keep saying “yeah those wild animals that are striped.” And you say no ponies! not zebras!!, and they say “yeah love those stripes.”