[Vision2020] Rick Perry's Newest Problem

[j Whitney]

The difference is that our national, state, and city governments are meant
to be impartial establishments that serve the people--all the people.  It
should be an educated venue that does not perpetuate harmful and inaccurate
beliefs/stereotypes, let alone to an entire race of people.   By allowing
those place names (of gov't owned land, not privately owned) to remain, our
governments are showing that they endorse the discrimination and harm
against the people who are impacted by it, and in doing so, are teaching our
children and the next generation that this is an acceptable policy as a
nation.  Place names and mascots are something that impacts everyone because
of their very public nature, therefore they should remain
non-discriminatory.

Yes, each person has the right to read, say, and think any offensive thing
they wish.  A book that has offensive content, even to a wide majority of
people, is still acceptable, and owning such a book is a right to each of
us.  Those who are offended by that book could choose not to read it or not
support it with their purchase.  You could say, though, that people could
just avoid attending games with offensive mascot names or not visit or talk
about places with offensive titles, but the difference is that the book was
not printed by the government, nor is it a widely used social icon.  Once a
name, item, idea, person reaches a large enough level in society, it has
greater influence over those who live in that society, therefore, there is a
greater responsibility that those things not outright harm, marginalize, or
malign entire sections of the population, and should certainly not then
receive government acceptance.

Rick Perry now falls into this category on some level.  Whether he changes
the name of his family land or not, is ultimately his choice, as his land is
NOT a societal icon or location, but the fact that HE sees no problem with a
name that is harmful is concerning, since he aims to represent the entire
nation.  Would he then decide to ignore harm caused to others because he
himself is not impacted?  Government approved/endorsed names are an aspect
of society that perpetuates the disadvantage of discrimination on a
structural level, and should be addressed.  Structural discrimination is
particularly insidious because it becomes an unconscious part of people's
beliefs about the world and the people in it, leading to disadvantages for
those it targets.  If we could remove the structural disadvantages to
minority groups in our society that hinder opportunities and access to
resources for everyone, we'd have less people needing government support
just to live.  Removing or changing the items that prevent others from
succeeding would help us all!


On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
> Of course I'm not saying that they shouldn't be offended or insulted.  I'm
> saying that shouldn't be enough to force the people who named the place to
> have to change it, either through the law or through social pressure.  Can't
> we live in a world that has things others find offensive?  People fight to
> keep books containing material that others find offensive from being banned,
> why is it different with mascots or place names?
>
> Paul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20111004/2a7dc16b/attachment.html>