Subject: Re: with extreme prejudice
From: Tim O'Connor (oconnort@nyu.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 15:58:09 EST
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:07:09AM -0700, Patti Larrabee wrote:
> Yet, it is the afternoon we spent at the Museum of Tolerence that is
> remember the most and has been used several times as a resource for
> school assignments. Perhaps we are just very shallow people and are
> easily moved, but I don't think so.
I don't think Scottie was calling you "shallow," but pointing up the way
exhibits like those museum doors come across as preachy and more than a
little self-satisfied. If anything, the *presentation* is shallow.
It's like the old bumper stickers that command: "QUESTION AUTHORITY" --
well, OK. But only if I can start by questioning why I should listen to
some bumper sticker's injunction.
There's something a little bit authoritarian -- or, in George Orwell
terms, it is "groupthink" -- about presenting a person with doors that
have positive and negative messages, then forcing everyone to use the
negative door. Do the museum exhibit-makers think there is nobody who
might arrive with the kind of positive traits they are trying to
inculcate? That there might be an UNprejudiced person who approaches
their steps and who feels manipulated by going through the "prejudiced"
door? I'm a pretty decent fellow, I think; if I came to such an
entrance, I'd leave rather than force myself to walk through a door in
violation of my belief in myself.
How about if you've been through the museum a couple of times and have
now been properly cleansed of your ideological impurities? It doesn't
matter; next time around, the "not prejudiced" door is still locked to
you.
When I studied sociology in school, there was a pervasive "victimhood"
mentality built into the textbook and the sole course I took. (I
changed my major rather than take any further sociology courses; that's
how offended I was by the message.) The subtext was that criminals
commit crimes because "we" (presumably not the sanctimonious authors of
the texts) oppress people to the point where they are not to blame for
committing crime. To me, that's the most patronizing (and unconvincing)
argument imaginable.
Anyway, I don't imagine you're shallow for finding useful material in
the museum. But at the same time, keep in mind that there are people
who would find such an entryway offensive in an enormous way, and who
would sprint in the other direction.
--tim o'connor
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:23 EST