“If victimization is equivalent to innocence, then the latter will be equivalent to denial. Of a denial that comes forth from a disbelief that one, as a victim, cannot possibly be like those who antagonize them. In this, there is more than a likelihood for such victims to be as their supposed ‘enemies’, even to wear their face, though in deception of all others who side with them. It is always at the highest possibility that one will become as those they resent, in the sheer disbelief that they are nothing like them. Such denial is the dropping of one’s own defense and self-awareness.”– Modern Romanticism
“To tell one race that they’re the only sufferer from prejudice, is always equivalent to saying upon someone that they should feel alone in their suffering.”– Modern Romanticism
How would anger not be the trigger to an immense feeling of loneliness, especially one so encouraged, upon a specific race? Is not the cure to prejudice to not feel the anger, though to weep against the shoulder of one so understanding?
Anger is the feeling that rises from loneliness. It strikes out against the world. People are angry not because of prejudice, though because of the loneliness that suffering brings when it is not unified. Anger is felt upon realizing one can only understand their own suffering, when it is not the case. Rage poisons the individual, as such a person will not, in their loneliness, release their pain through a cleansing session of weeping.
How cruel can some idiotic celebrity, politician, or activist be to say upon a race that they are the only target to prejudice? Why not then be the ones to say upon a widow that she should suffer in the dark? Why not say to a despondent and alone orphan that no one should help them? If such is the mindset we obey, then we are lost.
“Racism is to say a person is comparable to the rest, because they could never be contrasted from the rest.”– Modern Romanticism
“The moron who states that prejudice is a simple dislike, is same in the belief that soldiers warring with one another, from nation to nation, simply ‘dislike’ one another. How could a soldier simply dislike his enemy, over fearing them? Fear is a refinement tool. It tempers any individual to comprehend certain wisdom. Whether to trust or to distrust, makes either the courageous or fearful individual. No one neutrally dislikes, without prior experience to what is disliked. By that prior experience, a person is fearful of outcomes to what is embraced, gotten close to, of whatever is cast off into distance. Their distrust, their dislike, resonates in fear of outcomes to being close to whatever is kept at a distance.
One cannot neutrally dislike what is given that reproach, without being occasionally reminded on its existence. What forms prejudice in this world is the distance. Such distance always pertains to the fear in never being close. For the only reason to not be close, is in the fear of seeing something one does not wish to know.”– Modern Romanticism
“It should be easily understood that a person will only ever defend their own skin, their own hides, their own selves, when they find themselves to be physically in danger. It should be easily understood of any average human that what a person does not want to see about themselves, will be shielded by another layer.”– Anonymous
To the person who says that another is racist, are they truly believing that this person being scorned is being scorned for their skin color, or for their culture, background, and upbringing?
If I can ridicule a person who is of a different race, is my focus the race, or is my focus the culture? And, if that culture is a problem in my nation, even agreeable by those of that same race to that culture, then how am I the one focusing on skin color?
How can a person be focusing on skin color, when they are ridiculing a person’s culture?
To the person who defends another against racism, perhaps the defender is focusing more on skin color, therefore causing more needless racism in the world. It is to say that any person who focuses on what is not being focused on, sees more shallowly into the subject, than the person speaking the criticism.
It is not to say that a person who truly is racist, has actually receded away from understanding a person’s culture, should be justified on their views. Though, it is to say that the word “racist” is used too loosely to be spoken properly upon someone who merely has something intelligent to say about an evident problem.
To see the culture of a race, be ridiculing that, not the race, itself, and then be called a racist, is indeed improper. There are those among a culture who will understand the evident problems within that culture, whether they be crime-related, or whatever else, and know that someone else of a different culture does things better.
Though, to those people who automatically rush to the defense of any person who is seen being ridiculed in the name of their race, when it is in the name of their culture, are they not realizing that perhaps they are the ones who are causing the focus on skin color? Is it not to properly say that with such automatic defense for such individuals, that they are the ones to cause the world to have these needless battles for race? Are they the ones at fault for this hysteria in our current world?
It is like many have said, “How does one end racism?” and the answer is, “Stop talking about it.” If one is talking about race, and never culture, one never realizes what the deeper matters are, as those “deeper” matters are indeed beyond the color of a person’s skin.