Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Stereotypes

The present day solution to deal with Racism is to try to ignore the color of everyone's skin. This never works because when you look at someone, unless you're color blind you will see the color of their skin. The differences among the races create stereotypes caused by ignorance.

Most people don't talk about stereotypes and usually keep them to themselves. An occasional slip up will result in someone getting extremely angry. This anger I find unnecessary.

Instead of being offended by these stereotypes, we should be able to just make fun of them. Before you get your panties in a bundle, hear me out.

When you're among friends, do you feel as though you can crack a joke about one of them? I doubt if you did, you would be jumped, more than likely you would get a few laughs. However when you walk up to someone you don't know and start talking about their mother - you're more than likely subject to get hit. All the races are so uneasy around each other, so if we ever were to joke around one side would be angry. The solution would be to simply take all of these stereotypes we have all come to know so well, and use them for a comedy, without making anyone feel inferior.

If we could possibly make stereotypes useless, we would essentially eliminate the major part of racism. If you ever turned in Comedy Central and watched some stand up comedy, you will more than likely observe someone who is making fun of some stereotypes. Laughing at them doesn't make you one bit racist.

I'm not advocating walking up to someone of a different race and throwing a stereotype at them. More so when you're among friends of a different race. Whatever jokes you use amongst people of your own race shouldn't be shielded from the races they include.

Racism is when you hate someone for being a different color. The use stereotypes as a joke doesn't imply hatred, as long as they're in context. Taking away the power of 'The Stereotype' will make the arsenal of the KKK-type racist much smaller.

Being able to make fun of our differences is much better than defining our selves by those differences.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Leninism and Stalin

Specifically, I believe in Leninism. Lenin believed that a strong Vanguard is required to bring about Communism successfully. The Vanguard will create a Socialist state and be in control until Communism is ready to be implemented.

Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. This doesn't go too easy with many people, including fellow Comrades. Many Communists deny that Stalin was ever Marxist, but much he made the USSR more Socialist than any other leader of the USSR, through his policies. I personally don't approve of Stalin's actions when it comes to how he handled his people.

Although those who are ignorant of Communist history don't know much about Lenin, and therefore will not make the connection between Lenin and Stalin. However, for those who are educated - I've noticed that when I'm expressing my views, they commonly refer to me as a 'Stalinist', this however couldn't be any more wrong. Due to the actions of one person, a group of people shouldn't be labeled as 'evil'.

As Lenin approached death, he wrote one final testament. The two following statements were said:
"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution."

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."

People who are anti-Communist or pro-Stalin claim that this was a forgery due to the document being leaked by Trotsky to a US newspaper. However, Lenin's wife personally handed the testament to the Communist Party. From there, the men with the most power set rules for when the document was to be read aloud in Congress. They're as following:
  • The testament should be read by representatives of the Party leadership to each regional delegation separately.
  • Making notes would not be allowed.
  • The testament must not be referred to during the plenary meeting of the Congress.
Whether or not Trotsky embellished Lenin's Testament, the leadership of the USSR had tried censoring the document as much as possible without being labeled a counter-revolutionist. This leads me to believe that the Testament spoke harshly on the leadership of the USSR and if read throughly, their power would be threatened.

I believe that Lenin recognized Stalin's following of Marxism, however he feared how Stalin would fair leading a country and being in control people's lives. Lenin had every right because we all know what came about after Stalin obtained power. Stalin would've been better off had he been in a position to bring about economic policies that would bring about a successful Socialist state, and not the power to sign someone's death warrant.