Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 18 2021 09:59pm)
John and Ben run a race. John breaks Ben's knee at the start. John keeps running. After 5 minutes somebody finds Ben. John promises to definitely stop doing that, and the race continues with nothing happening to John or the rest of his team.
Is it "anti-white racism" to not allow John to continue unimpeded? Is it "anti-white racism" to point out that everybody else on John's team is the beneficiary of a system that let John get away with injuring another player?
The judges saying "We don't see teams" when assessing the score from that point out are perpetuating an unfair system. It's not racist to point that out.
When you ignore the long-term consequences of the incident because "I wasn't directly the one who did the thing" you're perpetuating a racism system, especially when IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. John stopped breaking legs, but he still punches every player that tries to pass him.
the biggest problem with this analogy is that it implies that ben has no chance of his own because his knee is broken. and thats simply false. there are plenty of successful blacks, they CAN make it if they try.
a better analogy would be something along the lines of john ties ben's arm to a fence at the start. he gets mad because he cant run, and others reinforce to him that he cant run. then someone comes and unties him, but he still wont run, and sits there demanding john pay for tying him up and that john be brought back to the start.
another problem with both analogies is that they imply that all whites are equally responsible for tying up ben. at this point, john is long dead, but all of his descendants (as well as non-descendants) are being blamed for their one stubborn relative who hangs on to the notion that ben should still be tied up even though the rest of them agree he shouldnt be.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.