I have no problem with dark girls, but I would never date one

I have often been tempted to compare human beings to onions. They contain many layers but no real core. However, my experiences have taught me something entirely to the contrary. Thus the following critique is wholly applicable to the complexity of human opinion and indeed to my own long-held views.

We all have sentiments we do not wish to share in public due to the fact that they are politically incorrect. But we possess these sentiments nonetheless. Many people in Colombo have deep prejudices based on race, religion, class and surprisingly even colour. However, we carefully choose the forum in which we voice these prejudices.

The present era of seeking a politically correct method of expressing almost every single thought and opinion has posed a serious threat to the nature of individual conscience. This is due to the high level of hypocrisy that has crept into our language, usages and mediums of expression. A simple example will illustrate my point. The other day I read a rather interesting web-log posting on certain chauvinist remarks made in the university I studied in. As it turns out, these comments were made in private and were probably meant for a private audience. It seemed to have been made within the context of a safe haven for politically incorrect honesty, though this is only my personal reading on the anecdote. The question that arises however is whether or not individuals should be permitted to hold such prejudices.

True liberals would agree that individuals should be permitted to feel bias but not in any way be permitted to act on such biases. So let me make it very clear that this posting relates solely to bias contained in thought rather than in action. Where one draws the line and how one ascertains the point at which thought translates into action is open for debate. I also wish to clarify that I do not in anyway advocate public or institutionalized expression of prejudice. This posting is further limited to private individual opinions containing bias.

How many of us are truly unbiased? It is blatant hypocrisy for so-called liberals to point to other individuals who are openly biased within private circles, whereas they themselves hold on to certain prejudices which remain unexpressed.

Example: “I have no problem with dark girls, but I would never date one.” This is termed “preference” but is only labeled so to escape the reality that it is in fact bias against skin colour.

Example: “I have many burgher friends. They are all super buggers. But I will never want my sister to marry one of them.” Though not as clear cut as the previous example, this is another sentiment which is often accepted as “preference” as opposed to prejudice. However, it is founded on the preconceived notion that all your burghers friends are fun-loving and do not take life seriously enough.

So everyone possesses prejudices in some form or the other. We draw an invisible line amidst all these sentiments and divide them up based on a fictitious criteria we term “political correctness.”

Now think carefully. Who are we proposing to fool here? Every single one of us are lightening quick when it comes to judging chauvinist remarks, though men-bashing is looked upon with a certain sense of accommodation. We find statements containing Christ’s name acceptable as part of every day speech though cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad is seen as preposterous. To take the question overseas, African Americans calling one another by the term ”Nigger” is considered mildly amusing, while a white comedian using the same language would be considered a step towards slavery. Who are we attempting to fool?

Here is where the misunderstanding may arise. As a writer, I do not in any way advocate censoring speech in order to prevent men-bashing, or using the Lord’s name in vain or even using the “N Word” amongst the Black community in the US. What I am advocating is an attitudinal change towards understanding that the expression of prejudice or couching views in politically incorrect terminology is in fact a more honest option than attempting to send it underground. This relates to widening the scope of tolerating bias opinions rather than widening the scope of intolerance towards prejudices.

I entirely disagree with the notion that intolerance is educative. It only seeks to condition the brain into believing that politically incorrect statements must be wrong.

Take a moment to think this through. Does one “cure” a MCP if he is informed that his sentiments are not going to be tolerated? The answer is no, due to the fact that he is not convicted about the ‘wrongness’ of his sentiments, unless he is conditioned into believing that the majority’s views must be the right ones. Instead the MCP must be permitted to perpetuate his comments until he, through his own life experience, is convinced he is wrong. There should be no attempt to reform his opinion. Rather, a mechanism to prevent him from acting on them (which includes publicizing them in a manner which infringes on the rights of others) should be established. It is crucial to appreciate the complex notion that each individual is entitled to believe that his views are correct, until he himself, void of social conditioning, ascertains for himself that his views are incorrect. If this process is not followed, then the logical sequencing follows that an MCP may in fact be correct and everyone else merely imposing their views on him.

So where is all this leading us to? Quite simple. It relates to the classic notion of taking your own plank out before attempting to clear the chip in your brother’s eye. Clichéd as it may sound, this is the exact problem we presently face in our society, and particularly Colombo’s blogsphere. We need to constantly question ourselves before passing judgement on the prejudices of others. After all, life is about choice. To choose is to prefer. To prefer is to be partial. There is no such thing as being politically correct. We can only assume to be politically correct, when all we are doing in reality is perpetuating a myth wrapped in hypocrisy.

Thank you for reading.


~ by Archangel on March 19, 2007.

36 Responses to “I have no problem with dark girls, but I would never date one”

  1. While i dont agree with all things u’ve said abt burghers, u’ve made me think a little. cheers!

  2. On your ‘true liberal’ I disagree.

    I feel while being tolerant of partiality, a true liberal would hope others would not only not act on bias feelings, but simply not have any bias feelings to begin with.

    This means a true liberal would have to be a saint who never has a partial thought himself? Therefore, it is obvious the ‘true liberal’ is non-existent. We could only consider the ‘relative liberal’.

    Life demands hypocrisy if we claim to be impartial? How smart!

    Yes, Preference IS a creature of bias. Ultimately the choice of one over the other IS based on a personal partiality towards the qualities present in that which is finally selected. (yaaawn)

    AND for example, Yes, I WOULD choose a fair girl over a dark girl because unwholesome features on a fair girl are better masked than those same unwholesome features on a dark girl. This preference for masked unwholesome features over unmasked unwholesome features IS based on my bias towards females who are not butt ugly. Ameh ahem… Of course my final choice would be based on personality and all those other politically correct criteria. (That one goes out to all the ladies out there 😉 )

    Therefore, any preference of one over the other is always based in bias and if we were to follow your reasoning, to never be considered a hypocrite a choice of one over the other could never be made. We would be living in perpetual limbo unable to decide whether we should stop bawling or not once popping out in to this dark pit of hypocrisy at the beginning of a saintly existence of indecision.

    So of course we are all truly bias; partial cretins roaming in decadent circles constantly aspiring to higher status – pawns in the Darwinian game for survival.

    I agree with you, but this all goes without saying. Your post is pointless. Ooooh celestial one up on high!We demand you tell us something we all don’t already know!

    P.S. – For a philosophical exposition of the line between thought and deed I recommend the teachings of Buddha. Not the laughing one, the Indian one – the rubbing of whose belly does not bring good luck.

  3. Bob, read the post again.

  4. Bob, thank you for your comment. But look around you. Notice the small white cloud and the skid marks? That was THE POINT. You just missed it.
    Thank you for reading.

  5. but that would mean utterly boring blog posts..judgement is good even when it’s bad 🙂

  6. read and enjoyed.

    Thank you for writing.

    ps. Bob… Woolmer?

  7. i agree with tom. judgment is fun. isn’t that what you are doing anyway???

  8. i personally like any woman i like. dark, fair, green, blue…if i like her i like her full stop. if i dislike a burgher i dislike a burger, maybe i like naother one. or maybe i like a muslim, or maybe not coz he/she may be an asshole. i dont get the point of the post.
    it is human to have “strange”/unwholesome/weird thoughts during the brain’s stream of consciousness, it is also normal (in balanced people) for the brain to quiclky remove these flashing thoughts and get a “grip” on itself. i mean to say that for example the thpoughts that can occur in someone’s mind are not wholly controllable, you may think of stabbing a person in the throat, but then quickly u think, hu? what the hell am i thinking!, and carry on to better thoughts. these are fleeting images that go through everybody’s head. are u referring to these in the post? the “removal” of these thoughts is automatic, you r not a hypocrit if u remove them, u r just sane. insane people cant manage to remove them. the only forum (as you say) in which to have these thoughts is in ur head. it doesnt mean u r a hypocrite, it’s the people who FOLLOW these thoughts who are a worry. maybe this is not what u r writing about, maybe it is, im not sure, maybe i dont get the meaning of the post…

  9. Clarification for galleblogger: I entirely agree with you. If you understood my post, you would have noticed this. What I meant was everyone should accept that preference is part and parcel of life. As is partiality. So it is hypocritical to pass judgment on others who openly display partiality.

    Clarification for Tom: I have no issue with judgmentalism per se. My issue is with those who judge others who are judgmental.

    Thank you for reading.

  10. i must admit i couldn’t be bothered reading the entire post. maybe the celestial one should practice encapsulating his view point in fewer words for the benefit of those of us with serious attention deficit issues. The fact that most of those actually reading this would be those cyber-scooting off work at either office or home would prove that we A.D.D. sufferers are in the majority in the ‘blogosphere’.

    Still I doubt I got it wrong in my initial JUDGMENT on the utility of this post.

  11. Everybody has prejudices, what’s important is to realize what they are, acknowledge them and try and overcome them. I myself love dark girls, especially if their skinny 🙂

  12. *they’re skinny…

  13. Superb post. A bit long but length isn’t everything. Just for the record ADD is not my alter ego. You sound a lot like me machan. Take that any way you will…:)

  14. Bob… Dylan?

  15. If “it is hypocritical to pass judgment on others who openly display partiality”, then it is equally hypocritical to pass judgment on others who possess a propensity to want everyone else to conform to political correctness.

    Tsk tsk.

  16. take that any way you will says Sophist… If I were you Agradevaduta, I’d show serious concern… would fleetingly consider migration, which is a lot less destructive than sucide.

    ps. Bob… the builder?

  17. Is “Disco Bob” the Village People version of the original Bob? I’m slightly confused. But I am thankful for his thoughtful comment.

    Thank you for reading.

  18. No relation.

    Thank you for asking.

  19. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…
    Since we are all born equal, we cannot have different standards for different people in society.
    As a nation, SL is one of the most hypocritical. E.g. –
    1. We talk of child conscription by the LTTE, but villages send their 6 yr olds as abittayas to the temple. (what can we call this? unethical conversion???)
    2. Similarly, we talk of child labour, but i wonder how many domestic servants are below the age of 14.
    Society decides what is pc and what is not. But that doesn’t really change people’s views. We should try to understand the nature of the human race. We will just have to learn to live among prejudice and tolerate chauvinists and bigots as part of our society.

  20. Bob, the judgment you would pass on those who force everyone to conform to political correctness is that they try to enforce a view based on hypocrisy. Tsk Tsk. Judging hypocrisy is not a problem unless you’re a hypocrite yourself, but if you’re open with your ‘preferences’ you’re not hypocritical. Got it tsk?

  21. Considering disco “bob” lacks the sense to string a few words together to come up with an original name to begin with, the one true bob is not surprised DB has failed to grasp the point in all this pointless agreement.

    please test yourself at http://www.tampareads.com/skills/kindergarten/test-html.htm before continuing.

  22. Chris: thanks for that comment. It was certainly food for thought. However, my post on hypocrisy is limited to judgementalism in relation to bias (Disco Bob, take note). I have not as yet discussed societal hypocrisy in relation to what you speak of.
    Nevertheless, as you may have noticed, I have an entire category dedicated to the larger question. Perhaps we should continue this particular discussion in a future post? I prefer not to deviate from the original intention of the writer. (But I am open to being convinced otherwise)

    Bob (the real one): as much as I agree with your point about the possibility of stolen identity, I would prefer if you refrain from antagonizing Disco Bob. But I appreciate the trouble taken to attach the link.

    As a policy, I will not delete any comment, however offensive the content is.

    Thank you for reading.

  23. Isn’t a ‘hypocrite’ one who pretends to something he/she is not? If so, isn’t the word misplaced in the post? For instance, you say that a Liberal is a hypocrite if he/she expresses a negative opinion about someone else in spite of having unexpressed biases. I don’t see how this makes that Liberal (or anyone else) a hypocrite unless he/she has the same views of the person he/she is putting down and pretends to be otherwise.

  24. That’s an interesting thought, Java. However, I’m referring to the concept of judging a person for certain actions you yourself also engage in.
    E.g. Person A publicly criticizes Person B for being bias towards Homosexuals. But Person A him/herself holds a bias against Christians. Conceptually, that makes him/her a hypocrite despite the fact that he/she does not hold the identical bias Person B holds.

    Thank you for reading.

  25. Could that then be extended to mean that if you criticize a government in power for (for example) obvious human rights abuses and if you have a bias towards homophobes, that you could be considered (in your view) a hypocrite?

    Sounds a bit strange to me!

  26. No it’s not strange because the government abusing the human rights of its citizens is presumably acting on its own biases and institutionalizing its prejudices. . The homophobe’s preferences are purely personal and have no public policy ramifications.

  27. Java, please refer my disclaimer regarding:
    a) Acting on one’s prejudice; and
    b) Public or Institutionalized prejudice

    If you understood the disclaimer, then you should appreciate the non-applicability of your example. I think a more thorough read of my original post is in order.

    Thank you for reading.

  28. Gotcha! However, the same example would apply to an individual who abused human rights (as opposed to a government or institution) wouldn’t it?

  29. Anki: judging anyone on anything implies that you stand on a pedestal from which you can pass judgment. Who among us possesses the internal perfection to stand on this pedestal without hypocrisy? For all we know the preferences you possess are themselves hypocritically engineered to adhere a different set of ideals. For some, these ideals will be based upon political correctness as dictated by the zeitgeist of their community. For others, these ideals may be based on juvenile notions of originality or egoistic notions of authenticity. When you pass judgment on the former, it is because you yourself are of the latter. Don’t forget that hypocrisy mostly means “a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess”

    Tsk tsk 😉

    PS: There’s room for more than one Bob in the blogosphere. Can’t we all just… get along?

  30. That should read “adhere to”. Please forgive the typo. Also just remembered that another word to check out should be “sanctimony”

  31. Disco Bob, you’ve made me out my assumptions. My a priori assumption is that consistency in word and deed is a virtue. Thus, I am able to pass judgment on those who do not possess this virtue although i do not possess the internal perfection you refer to, as long as I can adhere to my standard of consistency. I understand that to some, being PC may be a virtue greater that being consistent. I think the whole point of the post was that being PC requires a sacrifice of consistency.

    I think I can guess who you are… let’s have a drink and try and determine, debate and deliberate whether we can arrive at a common ground with overlapping virtues.

    see you…

  32. Sponge Bob?

    Java Jones you really are a piece of work. Your writing style is having an effect on your reading…says Sophist, the shit stirrer with the big spoon.

  33. Hey Sophist – Since by definition, “..a sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, fallacious, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point or for other motivations and Sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments, and is used pejoratively for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made”, Java don take yo ‘mind-fuck’ ass seriassly. So stir away the sheet yo be gettin into an hope fo that reackshun. If yo find the writin style to pain yo ass an yo dig dat pain, knock yoself out – don matter to no one else. Anyhows, dere was no rejoinder to dat queschun I be posin bout da ‘individual’ as oppose to ‘institushun’ (see comment above)

  34. So then what you are proposing is that no one should say anything about ANYone… no human being is entirely free from prejudice like you said (I myself hate Indians :-)… but still that should not prevent someone reacting to a statement that is totally out of sycnh or that affects them personally.
    I myself have had experiences with some of the people spoken about in the undergrad post you allude to in this post. And really while being quite nice in some ways certain comments made by some of them have also caused me to totally lose respect for the individuals concerned. I get your point about it being a private function but if I got to know about it and if it was ME you were talking about, I would have every right to still hold you accountable and confront you about it (or even blog about you in this cyber day and age). Perhaps these boys should just be more careful… I have noticed (from afar) that what they fondly refer to as “cock” arguments can get increasingly louder and can be heard by even the most UNWILLING listeners.
    Anyway they all need to be taken down a peg or two – they are extremely cliquish and use their obvious intelligence to ridicule and laugh at and judge those of us who are less intelligent. (most often because we are girls and girls are not as intelligent as boys … according to some of you anyway)and yes perhaps I’m being hypocritic – so sue me.

  35. Yesh, that was an interesting point. Perhaps confronting these individuals directly would have been a better option after all. I think you may find that the categorization in my other post supports your views (minus the sarcasm)
    Thank you for reading.

  36. you are most welcome. Enjoyed the post…. and sarcasm? where? where? WHERE?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: