Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Whatever you say Cameron.
Peace
|
First, Camron, thanks for the abridged history lesson on Rupp. I recently learned of some of the points you mentioned, but the fact that you produced some evidence painting Rupp as something other than the hardened, intransigent biggot that he is commonly portrayed as is certainly cause for more research on my part.
I just read a wonderful piece on the integration of the ACC that I'm sure you would (and presumably some others) enjoy.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?7153
Rut,
Despite our intermittent run-ins here, you might be surprised to know that we have a great deal in common when it comes to how we perceive the prevalence and influence of racism in this culture. With that said, however, I have to call you out on your out-of-hand dismissal of Camron's posts on Rupp. When someone takes the time to post evidence to mitigate against the popular perception of a reputed racist, then we should do one of maybe three things: 1) admit we're wrong and change our minds, 2) reserve judgment until we see further evidence or do our own research, or 3) respond directly with counter-evidence of our own.
When the choice is 4), "say 'whatever' to person presenting countervailing evidence," a perfectly reasonable conclusion is for others to say, "It doesn't matter what kind of evidence is presented; that guy thinks everybody's a racist, and nobody's going to convince him otherwise, so why try? This isn't necessarily fair, but it's not crazy. Unfortunately, though, it's even worse than that. Because in addition, it makes it easier for those people to ignore real cases of racism, because some of those trying to point out such instances are the same people who put up a wall when counter-evidence is presented in a case.
I have been influenced by popular perceptions of Rupp. I also recognize, though, that the mass media have done a good job of manufacturing some convenient arch-villains that the public can recognize and universally condemn, so that everyone can feel good about how wonderfully pure they are, since they are not Rupp. In addition to allowing many to feel good about themselves, it takes many off the hook who do not fit the profile of pure evil that the popular Rupp profile does, but who nevertheless do not have pure souls.
The popular images of racists are people like Rupp, George Wallace and Bull Conner, David Duke. But notice how convenient this construction is. If these people (or what we think of when we think of these people, accurate or not) and their respective characters are (as in equivalent to) racists, then it's very easy and even natural for people to believe that if they're not as bad as those images, then they're not themselves racist. You and I know that you don't have to have turned police dogs and firehoses on peaceful Birmingham marchers to be a racist, but on a sub-conscious level, many others don't.
If those of us who know better can change this construction, then we can help change the world by making it easier for people to see that the more virulent forms of racism (by virtue of being more prevalent) come in more discrete outfits (e.g. 28 and 40).
Peace (no sarcasm intended)