Consensus and detente on racism

So what do you suggest? I agree with you that a considerable number of people, especially older ones, hold racist views. It's impossible to work out an exact percentage, because people aren't going to own up in surveys, but the figure in the UK is generally estimated to be about 30% - and higher in some other countries.

I have no idea if that figure is accurate, but I can believe it from reading people's comments on various internet sites. That woman who called Michelle Obama an 'Ape on heels' issued a defence claiming she's not racist BUT she's entitled to say what she wants anyway. In other words, she is racist and feels emboldened to say so.

Let's assume that the 30% is correct. Are we supposed to allow a free-for-all with no protection from the 'PC mob'?

I was brought up by a racist mother, who had even more racist friends. I've seen some of their correspondence and it's truly scary. They have a totally different philosophy from what most people would consider reasonable.

Racism isn't rational, so racists use warped arguments and emotion to justify their views. Those kind of arguments are becoming embedded in the mainstream.

I feel extremely uncomfortable about it. I am not sure I could live in a "post-truth" world as to what do you turn to in making a decision? It is a nightmare situation.

The very fact that a "consensus" (is that ever really achieved?) and/or detente on racism is needed is telling in itself.

There was an interesting article recently that made comparisons to the South African situation, where racism was "like a tumour that could be excised but post operative treatment was still needed, instead of a suppurating sore that never heals".

Not saying South Africa is perfect by the way ...

i can't speak for the States but I recognise much of what he says hold true for the UK too.

Racism has not been properly addressed in this country either. Many of 'our generation' do still hold racist views but they have been unexpressed due to fears of being called a racist. I'm not talking about those who openly supported organisations such as the National Front, the EDL or Britain First. I was often shocked to hear racist views expressed by teachers, nurses, doctors, policemen, solicitors, etc and other professionals. I was less shocked to hear these views expressed by the ordinary, working classes, influenced as they might be by the papers they read.

Why? Because I'd thought that those with a higher level of education, jobs that brought them into contact with people from all walks of life, ethnicity, culture, race, etc. would have a greater acceptance of difference. I was wrong.

So yes, perhaps there was a détent on racism and that has broken down. Whereas it was generally accepted that terms like 'paki' and 'nigger' were unexceptable, and anti-Semitism was less obvious, in the new political climate it is words such as 'immigrant' and 'Muslim' which are bandied about as if these two groups are somehow undesirables and targets of hate.

I feel we're returning to the Dark Ages. Maybe it's inevitable. History shows us that each age is cyclical. It seems that reason and truth count for nothing.

Yes Dd interesting times indeed, but not something I wanted to happen.

I think it shows how easily the argument is lost.

'Post-truth' has been named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries.

Excellent post, Eloethan. That kind of argument is very dangerous. I feel that we are living through an age when intellectual thought and reason are shifting. It seems as though everything which has followed on from the Enlightenment is being swept aside.

This sort of argument is spreading and becoming influential, see post-truth. Emotional appeal not objective facts.

The headline to this article contains the words "Whites are not content to let everyone but them get special treatment any more". So apparently non-white people in the US are receiving preferential treatment, at the expense of white people. That is so obviously a ridiculous statement since the figures indicate that the vast majority of non-whites in the US have substantially lower incomes, much poorer access to health and education, lower life expectancy, lower numbers engaged in professional occupations, higher infant mortality, etc. etc.

The article then goes on to speak of the breaking down of a so-called "detente" by which whites were expected to abide by a rule not to make "outright racist statements or appeals to white racial identity" and to accept a "double standard" regarding "political and cultural tribalism".

The author contends that this detente has broken down because "minorities and progressives broke the essential rule - not to run around calling everyone racist".

So it seems that non-white people are expected to shut up about the underlying racism they have experienced in everyday life in terms of income, jobs, education, health etc., in exchange for whites not making overtly racist and inflammatory statements.

Further down the article is the heading "Blame and Destroy Whitey". I think these sorts of headlines speak for themselves.

This writer has his own agenda, which can be illustrated by a statement made in another article of his: "Why a protest vote for Trump is better than voting for a third party". He is also very critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. There seems to be a theme developing here.

Additionally, the Federalist has been described in some quarters as a "rabidly anti-LGBT" vehicle and also appears to have an anti-abortion stance. No wonder it speaks sneeringly of "progressives".