Dangerous speech used against the ‘majority’

We live in a society that tells us that it is not possible to be racist against a member of a majority. The argument goes that if you say horrible insulting things or discriminate against a member of a majority, then that is okay because members of majority groups have power.

The fact that we are all individuals is ignored by this illogical justification. We all bleed, we all love, we all feel pain, hurt and humiliation. Being a member of a majority does not protect us from any of this and sometimes minority groups are in power.

If I am the best person for the job and I am discriminated against and can then not afford to pay my rent then there are real-world consequences for me as a result of the discrimination. If I am denigrated with hurtful words they hurt me no differently to an individual who is a member of a minority group.

The argument isn’t even used consistently as I can be a member of a majority group in one country but be a member of a minority identity group in another. I am still the exact same individual. Are we really expected to believe that it is not racism and discrimination in one country but in another country it is?

Suze recently wrote a post about “Dangerous speech” which explained how language is used to incite violence and genocide against a group of people. I am confident that all of the things mentioned in the article are already being used in South Africa against White South Africans. To a lesser degree I have noticed it starting to happen here in little old New Zealand and I am not the only one.

The softening-up already is begun that only minorities can be victims of hate speech and racism. Which in Western societies is a fig leaf for whitey and his/her religions being the only permissible target if you want to give somebody a good kicking.

Sophistry like this means the Greens can continue to smear whitefaces as viciously as they please while baying mobs can cry out in pain as they strike viciously at Folau because he paraphrased a bible passage that directed Western morality for hundreds of years, but now apparently is a calamity.

Depersonalizing and demonising often is a first step when hateful people want to move against another group. I’m thinking that racist terms like “Colonialist” fall into that category, intended to demonize and support the idea that it’s virtuous to scorn somebody for their skin colour. The “minority only” definition may be used to give that a pass, but that confirms rather than concealing the underlying intent.

Rebecca

I challenge readers to come up with examples in the comments below, of derogatory language used against a majority group. I am thinking about media headlines, quotes from MSM articles, quotes from politicians and other high profile New Zealand people. Any language that insults, belittles, depersonalises or demonises.

Dehumanization. Describing other people in ways that deny or diminish their humanity, for example by comparing them to disgusting or deadly animals, insects, bacteria, or demons. Crucially, this makes violence seem acceptable.

Rebecca started us off with the word Colonialist. The obvious one that jumps to my mind is the derogatory phrase,  pale, male and stale.

https://www.thebfd.co.nz/2019/05/when-hate-speech-is-dangerous-speech/