segunda-feira, 24 de março de 2025

Premature Silence

 It is a good thing when people are concerned with justice, when they want to acknowledge and fight against racism and other forms of bias and prejudice. But it is also a smart thing to see that a lot of people agree that these issues are important, but sometimes have different opinions about the methods to achieve it.

This is a good topic of discussion. It is not smart to assume that one political group has ownership on these issues, and has authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong, and that disagreeing with this group means being on the side of racism and injustice.

There is danger when discussing things becomes a crime in itself. Danger of stalling all the dialogue and giving the victory to a political group by force.

For instance, some movements took the front in the manifestations of the rightful outrage about the hateful and racist treatment that George Floyd received from some policeman, which resulted in his unacceptable death. Obviously there was reason for protesting.

But what also happened is that I read about a maestro that criticized when some people, during the protests, attempted to burn a public building. Also, there was a journalist that manifested outrage when some vandalized a synagogue. I agree with them both, just as I believe that looting is wrong, even in the case of a rightful protest.

But the result of these two people manifesting their opinion, that seems to go against the idea that a certain movement should be “untouchable” – no movement should – was that those people, who manifested their legitimate opinion, just couldn’t find work anymore, and their old colleagues didn’t show up to defend them by fear of being targeted too.

I am not saying that Freedom of Expression should not have any limits. I don’t think someone should be allowed to say, “What those cops did to Mr Floyd is what must be done”. That would be incitement of racist violence. But I also think it would be horribly wrong to say “let’s do that with people who question any of our methods”.

Those two examples I gave are not the only ones. There are more people who lost their jobs, lost all opportunity of working with what they learned to master, they were somehow excluded from places they had got into with their hard work. A kind of banishment.

Banishment is no joke. There were societies in the old, old times where a person convicted of a crime could choose between death of banishment, that is, leaving the tribe and going alone to the woods. Because in fact it probably meant death.

And in fact, deaths did happen in our modern world persecutions. There was did Canadian teacher, a white man, that was present in a meeting where a black girl from outside the school said that Canadian education system had worst problems than the US one. He disagreed with that, he simply disagreed with that. The girl mocked him and proceeded to accuse him of all kinds of bigotry, referring to him as “whiteness”. He too lost all respect from his previously friendly working environment, and ended up suiciding. I have no problem saying that this black girl acted in a criminal way. Why should I? She was given power and used it horribly.

It is not smart to say that the cases are few. Thought policing must be cut by the root. One single case like that can put a whole group of people in fear, giving more and more strength to the patrol. The more we accept, the worst it gets. Who can say what the limits will be?

And we can see clearly that the limits are being tested. You see how people are policing about everything. Nowadays, it seems that it became wrong to say something like, “I see differences between man and woman”. It’s happening. I don’t claim to have totally solved this mystery about man and woman, but why should the discussion be shut?

Saying simply that there is something called “woman” and something called “man” now can get you accused of hating Trans People. I have all solidarity and respect for Trans People, but I also think: if that person decided that she is a Trans Woman instead of a man, it is because she sees meaning in the word “woman”. Isn’t it obvious? Oh, but what about all the spectrum? Well, a spectrum is something that goes from some place to somewhere else, not something that goes from no place to nowhere. Right? Again, I am not saying I have all the answers, but forbidding basic human concepts is insane.

Just like some values that I always cherished, like “I treat people the same with no regards for color”. Now it is considered wrong. It is what we should have done to the beginning. You think it’s too late to do it now, okay, but I won’t accept to be called racist if I think different. I heard of a teacher who even suggested flagging students that say things like that. Are you kidding?

Again, it is not a small problem. Nowadays you don’t need a guillotine. Just destroy some people’s lives and see everybody else getting afraid. In the old times, you could escape defamation by packing your things and moving to another place. Now, with Internet, sometimes you just can’t escape.

And of course, there are not only the ones who dislike the situation but are afraid. There is a lot of people who just rides whatever wave is there for their own benefit. The system that is being formed in the world of education is no joke. In the press too.

And the more power this thing gains, the more it starts to interfere in other spheres of human life. For instance, if a man is accused of the hateful crime of sexual harassment, and you say, “I think he wasn’t properly judged yet”, a lot of people will be mad at you and scream, “don’t you see you may be defending a sexual predator?” The thing is, I am not defending or accusing nobody – I am defending a principle, the principle of fair judgement that has proven to be the best to solve some kind of issues.

Don’t you see the obvious danger of thinking that “some crimes are so horrible that just being accused of them makes you guilty”? Think, please. Parallel judgements, judgements by “the public”, the influenceable public, are terribly dangerous, just check History.

The goal of this total politization of all spheres of life seems to be simply establishing that there is a group of people with a certain political mind that have all the answers. There are no more issues to be discussed, just answers to be accepted. The fight against prejudice and injustice simply belong to these groups. They can do all they want.

It can go to unpredictable places, have strange consequences. You can become unable to even say you don’t like certain song lyrics. I don’t like, I am not saying it should be censored but I don’t like, songs that have a too explicit, artificial and exaggerated vision of sex, like so many around. And I like even less, the fact that a lot of it is somehow made in a way that can be appealing to children.

For some reason, it seems that academical people acts as if this music is an authentic expression of the oppressed ethnic groups of the world, so criticizing it is something related to a racial prejudice. So, this is what black and brown people are? A people who sings pornographic songs for children? When did it happen? Oh, wait, I saw it happening. On television. Yes, television.

Also, a lot of people in the World act the same way regarding rap music that talk about women in a disrespectful way and about crime as a “cool” thing. I have to respect it because it’s the “black thing”.

Of course I have nothing against the rhythm itself, and probably there are some lyrics that are more interesting than that, but there are too many guys who just talk shit. What? I can’t say nothing bad of a guy if he descends from Mtv? Oh, it started small somewhere… a lot of things start somewhere, but just some are picked by Mtv.

I imagine that there are some people that listen to those crime lyrics the way I used to listen to a Bob Dylan outlaw song. Probably. But I wouldn’t say those crime songs hadn’t pushed some people “a little more” to that side. I am forty years old and don’t expect everybody to have the same musical taste as mine. But why should I feel any bad for not liking it?

I repeat, I am not saying gangster rap should be forbidden – or even the porn “songs”, although some protection for children is a good topic of discussion, in my opinion. What I am saying is: a guy can make the song, another guy can say he loves it, and I can’t say I don’t?

What I am discussing here is not even those songs in themselves, but the politization that happens, when they make it a matter of “racial identity”. Suddenly, I could be called “racist” for not liking a type of song. Music as a root expression of peoplehood ended with the beginning of the recording industry and the age of celebrities. It’s just a different moment in History, not necessarily worst. But now, an artist speaks for himself. Just for himself. And I can dislike anything, and talk about it, right?

And what is the connection here? Why the Entertainment Industry seem to have majorly picked a side politically, and why the college people praise the Industry? Well, there must be something good for both. Having the praise of college people is good for those artists, and be on the side of the “cool” people of Entertainment makes the College people seem “cooler”.

All in all, people take sides politically, and a lot of times is by hatred. Maybe college people and entertainment people both hate the same thing, the “normal life”. There are people who will feel much better about themselves if they prove that “normal life” can only be a fraud.

And so, alliances form. American anti-American people and foreign anti-American people hate America for different reasons, but there is a lot of money and champagne flowing in all directions, and what exactly will replace America, well, we’ll see that later, let’s just enjoy seeing those silly commonsense losers fall.

Can’t you see that in this World all is falling into politics, and politics is big business? I personally find it difficult – I am just being honest – to see any real plan playing out there except “win at any cost”, but the fact is that people get tied. They have to please their comrades.

And we all had a good example of it all in the current Israel-Hamas War. There was not much room for discussion. It was simply established that Israel was wrong. Almost nobody in the entertainment and very few people in the press spoke differently from the mainstream, seems that nobody wanted to be seen by their comrades as taking the “wrong side”.

Of course they made it all a matter of “caring for the Palestinian civilians”. Okay, but wasn’t the subject worthy of at least a little bit of discussion? Discussion about the fact that we can’t say the democratic countries are never justified for going to War, discussion about when a reaction is needed and what is the best possible reaction. Discussion about the complex World where a country like Iran supports Terrorism and is treated so nicely by the UN. But there was no discussion at all, only the “nice guys” taking the “right side”. Even talk about hostages was kind of forbidden, kidnaped babies’ posters torn down.

Why not discuss, if you say you care so much? For instance, here is what I see. When you have your civilians under brutal attack, like October 7th, you basically have three options. One, do nothing to defend them, don’t react against the source of the attacks, leave your civilians just praying that it won’t happen again. Two, make a reaction with no ethics or any regard to the civilians on the other side, say goodbye to International Law. Or Three, react with ethics, try your best to avoid civilian casualties, respond to International Law, knowing that war will be painful and tragic losses will happen on both sides, but hoping that it will end with a peace that is worthy, the end of attacks, and a bigger conscience in the World about how serious Terrorism is and how just say the word “peace” will not stop it. Hoping a better World can come.

Israel clearly took the third option – they are ready to respond any questions regarding International Law and seem compromised to not go one step further once Terrorism is out. Besides those three options, do you see any other? Do the Hollywood people have some other option to suggest?

The “nice guys” can’t answer the question: should Israel consider the existence of Hamas acceptable? In fact, not even the UN wants to discuss this.

It is a clear example of how all this “coolness” and “look how righteous we are, on the side of the oppressed”, instead of fomenting important discussions, is being used to shut them. I ask again, are we so sure we already have all the answers?

What the mainstream intellectual world seems to be proposing is a strange kind of “End of History”. Yes, all thoughts have been thought, all questions made and answered, the right side is defined, and is totally connected to a specific political group. It’s not time to hear nobody anymore, just apply what we know – we seem to know everything – with an iron hand.

Who is not afraid of losing all their friends, of being considered totally in the wrong side? Of losing all opportunities of realize any dream connected to what they most love to do?

In the end, we just get afraid. Afraid of being judged. And consequently, we end alone, because everybody else can turn into accusers. So, that’s it. The intellectuals winners got it all, and everybody else is isolated from one another. Even if those intellectuals and entertainers didn’t solve the problems they speak about yet.

Come on, let people come with different ideas to solve these big issues of prejudice and injustice. And if you end up being the one who solve them, then you can claim some recognition. Until then, don’t try to shut everybody else.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário