I’m a lot less interested in discussing how the police fucked up in Ferguson (because I never expected much better from them) than I am in the civilians who have exhibited such an insane degree of racism that it’s scary.
Just like I said in the case of the freaks who kept screeching “Men and women are different,” racists are empty shells where human beings could have but never did reside and who try to fill the void with “I can’t tolerate being such a nobody, so I will find individuality in being different from somebody else.” This is why they are so attached to their racism and sexism: there is absolutely nothing else there.
There are not only rights but also responsibilities attendant on being human. One such responsibility is fashioning one’s individuality. Sadly, many folks are too stupid even to attempt something like that. They do, however, perceive that something is deeply flawed in them. Nobody likes feeling inferior and damaged, so they lash out in rage against those who remind them of their emptiness.
Clarissa's Blog 
I think that there are a significant number of white people who will actually support the police *more* when they murder an unarmed black teenager. As soon as someone points out the blatant racism of the act, they will automatically be kicked into a tribalistic sort of “us versus them” mode. This is, as you suggest, a consequence of a failure to establish a personal identity for themselves.
LikeLike
They also define themselves a certain way relative to the other person out of a need to feel more secure. This kind of thing can only happen to “those people” (which could also be homeless people, mentally ill people, etc.) I’m safe, I’m on the side of law & order. I’m virtuous or normal, this won’t ever happen to me.
LikeLike
This may be oversimplification.
Ignorance and lack of participation go hand-in-hand. A person may be ignorant because they seen no value in doing otherwise. That’s a cost/benefit analysis, not stupidity.
The political parties have done nothing to encourage interest in participation. The GOP is overt in trying to limit participation; in the segregation era, Southern Democrats did that (they switched to the GOP after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1963). Frankly, leaders of both “mass” political parties would prefer that fewer people vote, but have different preferences as to who would be disenfranchised.
People are complex and often harbor inconsistencies. They look for ways to avoid facing those inconsistencies, building belief structures and ignoring contradictory information.
I like Gary Becker’s thesis that money is the root of prejudice; that competition for scarce resources (money, jobs) is the enabler. How else can you explain why poor southern farmers fought to protect the interests of rich slaveholders in the Civil War?
Please be careful with stereotyping. If you think about it, stereotyping is an essential element of any form of bigotry, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Well the corruption of ethics in contemporary times is seen in the notion that if somebody gets killed or maimed, then both parties — the murderer and the murdered — are probably equally to blame. I don’t know who set this notion into circulation, but there it is, and it causes the erasure of ethics and ethical considerations.
LikeLike
I can think of very few cases where this applies where there is a significant power difference between the murderer and the victim. I have never heard, for example, of people trying to blame the victims of a school shooting.
LikeLike
*not* a significant power difference, rather.
LikeLike
I think it is not fashionable to take into account power differentials.
LikeLike
LikeLike