 | hitekker on Oct 3, 2017 | next [–] The key paragraph: >The Cagots were not an ethnic group, nor a religious group. They spoke the same language as the people in an area and generally kept the same religion as well. Their only distinguishing feature was their descent from families identified as Cagots. Few consistent reasons were given as to why they should be hated; accusations varied from Cagots being cretins, lepers, heretics, cannibals, to simply being intrinsically evil. My take is that people generally enjoy having "punching bags". Based off this article and other instances of man's inhumanity to man, "punching bags" are people who are: 1) Outlets for existing grievances and resentments, a.k.a. scapegoats. 2) Powerless, weak, and unable to retaliate against abuse, a.k.a. victims. 3) Designed, in the minds of the abusers, for the purpose of being abused, a.k.a. inferior, subhuman etc. Through this lens, the aforementioned "reasons" are rationalizations, a facade over our collective sadism. Sure, a single tragic event may start the cycles of violence, but the reactor that powers it over generations is our built-in desire to hurt "other" people, to take pleasure in "their" misery, and, most significantly, to pretend that "we" are doing so in the interests of morality, society, etc. It feels good therefore, it must be good! Such a twisted sentiment isn't always at the forefront of our minds, but given how often we as a species and as individuals have sought to make "punching bags" out of each other, I would say shared-sadism is more sublimated than staged. |
|
| laretluval on Oct 4, 2017 | parent | next [–] "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." - Aldous Huxley |
|
| sorokod on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] The basic premise for most of the marcial arts movies. |
|
| hitekker on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] A choice quote. |
|
| hfuweuuwer77 on Oct 4, 2017 | parent | prev | next [–] > My take is that people generally enjoy having "punching bags". I don't think this is true for a person, but is regularly encouraged at the group level and higher. Particularly if the group has developed a hierachy. Nations states do this a lot. Religion does this a lot. Corporations do it a lot. I don't believe it's a truism of humans, but a truism of authoritarians and those with power. Fear of death is an individuals core motivator. Understanding ones environment, and safe ways to utilize what's available in it to prevent death. Authoritarians have manipulated the people around them to prevent their death. Authoritarians want to keep that power, so they peddle propaganda to their followers to give them a justification to support them, not $VILLAINS_OF_THE_WEEK. |
|
| gnarbarian on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | prev | next [–] Now we do the same thing with political parties! |
|
| PhasmaFelis on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Are you proposing that major political parties are "powerless, weak, and unable to retaliate against abuse"? |
|
| gnarbarian on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] I'm referring more to people's tendency to dehumanize and hate another group. |
|
| PhasmaFelis on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] The rest of us are talking about something much more specific. Do read the article, it's interesting. |
|
| sevensor on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] I was interested by this story, so I did some more googling, but as far as I can tell there are only two sources of information about the Cagots on the internet. One is a widely copy-pasted article by the author Tom Knox promoting his book about despised peoples, and the other is the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britan...). Might be worth following up on the books cited in the Britannica article. |
|
| ykler on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | next [–] The French Wikipedia article has much more info than the English one. |
|
| sevensor on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Thanks for the pointer! I should remember to check out the wikipedia in the local language for subjects like this. |
|
| vacri on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] > So pestilential was their touch considered that it was a crime for them to walk the common road barefooted or to drink from the same cup as non-Cagots. The Cagots were often restricted to the trades of carpenter, butcher, and rope-maker Not that bigotry ever made sense, but "your very touch spoils the road upon which you walk... but by all means, cut up our meat for us" is a particularly weird one. |
|
| sevensor on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] Interesting. Unlike the suppression of linguistic minorities (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha), this is very local and based purely on being a member of the wrong family. It seems that even during the persecution, nobody could figure out what the Cagots were being persecuted for, other than a vague notion that they might be unclean. |
|
| GuiA on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] Huh, TIL (I’m French). My mom and grandma frequently used the word “caqueux” as a pejorative when I was growing up, but I assumed it was derived from “caca” (“poop”). Makes more sense now. |
|
| thope on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | next [–] what about "caguer" ? it sounds even closer |
|
| Renaud on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Caguer is from the south-west. It's derived from he latin cacare, to shit. |
|
| projectramo on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] More info from a journalist with some origin theories: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285450/The-untoucha... |
|
| sitkack on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | next [–] > Japan still has a class of people called the Burakumin: these untouchables are condemned to the lowest jobs and the dirtiest slums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin |
|
| _0nac on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Not really: they're almost entirely assimilated now thanks to social & geographic mobility. Some prejudice lingers particularly around the Kansai area, but as one example, being of buraku descent didn't stop Hashimoto from being repeatedly elected as governor and mayor of Osaka. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dru_Hashimoto |
|
| panglott on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] I do not believe this is entirely true. Hashimoto had to change his name to hide his background, for example. Many Japanese are extremely hesitant to speak about this issue at all; it remains a very sensitive topic. There is evidence of recent employment discrimination and marriage discrimination, especially in western Japan. Japanese silence on the issue speaks volumes. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2009/01/20/issues/bre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin#Social_discriminatio... |
|
| _0nac on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] His mother changed their family name when he was a child. He was "outed" during his first election campaign, but this did him no appreciable harm, and the media made a bigger deal of his father having apparently been a low-level Yakuza gangster. Also, it's difficult to disentangle "extremely hesitant to speak" and "genuinely unaware/doesn't care": as far as I can tell, for most Japanese, the issue is an irrelevant historical relic. Living in Tokyo for years, the only reference I ever heard or saw a single piece of train station graffiti proclaiming that a certain train station was an etamura (derogatory term for buraku village). As noted, around Osaka it's a bigger thing, but the days of employers or prospective inlaws routinely engaging detective agencies to root out any trace of buraku origin seem to be long past. (Although doubtless you could still do this if you really wanted to.) Finally, it's indeed a political issue, and often in unsavoury ways: the article you link to goes into some detail about how the Buraku Liberation League, which has... non-mainstream views on how many buraku there are and how badly they're persecuted, has Yakuza ties and earns considerable profits from government assistance projects. |
|
| panglott on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] As far as I can tell, the fact that it remains a taboo to discuss means that it remains extremely socially salient. Some of that is the fallout of the 1960s-era denunciation campaigns, which were both seemingly effective and very painful in the context of Japanese values. Most Japanese I have talked to about this view the whole topic as extremely shameful. But with something like this, it would be useful to have some kind of positive indication that it is a historical relic, rather than just something declined to discuss anymore. But any effort to gain real demographic information is seen as a threat, because that's how buraku people were systemically blackballed in the past. |
|
| SideburnsOfDoom on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | prev | next [–] That's The Daily Mail, I'm not sure that "journalist" applies. |
|
| akkartik on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] One of my all-time favorite characters is Le Cagot from Shibumi by Trevanian. https://www.amazon.com/Shibumi-Novel-Trevanian/dp/1400098033 Up there with Edna from the Incredibles. |
|
| throwawayknecht on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | next [–] Somewhat bizarrely, though, he is Basque and it's suggested he's wildly divergent genetically (though it's not clear if it's really suggesting that, or just Hel using it to rile him up - Hel is enough of a Marty Stu it's reasonable to read some authorial belief into it), neither of which is true of the Cagot. |
|
| akkartik on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Yeah he's not going for accuracy with the nom de guerre. The name is part of his campaign to create a larger-than-life cartoonish character to help the Basque movement. Saying crude things is very much part of it. In that regards the choice of name may not necessarily be progressive and an attempt to identify with the Cagot. (Though I haven't read the book in 20 years.) Edit: I just remembered the Author's Note at the front of the book saying something like, "With the exception of <three people including Le Cagot>, none of the characters in this book are real -- though they may not know it." Unfortunately Google Books doesn't show that page. |
|
| sitkack on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] > Their only distinguishing feature was their descent from families identified as Cagots. |
|
| fvdessen on Oct 3, 2017 | parent | next [–] > Rhyming songs kept the names of Cagot families known. |
|
| sitkack on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] So if you could move and change your name, you would be instantly off the shit list? |
|
| vacri on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] In the time period we're talking about, what you're saying is not trivial. Hell, it's not even trivial today - look at the stereotypical 'poor white trash' guy. Scrub him up and put him in a suit, and the way he talks and behaves isn't going to make him indistinguishable at an upper-class dinner party. Or a different angle: take a modern-day American and put him in the UK. Without a lot of work, it's clear what his origin is from his speech and his customs, despite the similar cultures. Now go back 500-1000 years, where people didn't move around much (sometimes enforced by law) and most people only spoke their regional dialect. And if you were able to move town, the work you knew how to do was still the shit work for the lowest class - it's not like you could just pick up silversmithing on a lark, for example. |
|
| munificent on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] > They spoke the same language as the people in an area > and generally kept the same religion as well. Their > only distinguishing feature was their descent from > families identified as Cagots. |
|
| mastazi on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Yes but they were prevented from participating to various trades, which means that even if they moved somewhere else they would have lacked the know-how, this was not trivial in that era, given that formal education was not available to the vast majority of people, and given that the usual way to learn any trade was to be an apprentice at your parents' business. In addition moving to a new place was not trivial, you would have been questioned as to why did you move by the locals and you would have had no land to start with. All of this changed only with the industrial revolution, when moving from your ancestral place became "normal". |
|
| vacri on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] The comment I was responding to was "if you could move". And in my first paragraph, I gave you two clear examples of where someone can speak the same language and still have their origins be identifiable. |
|
| cwyers on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] I think you're underestimating how much linguistic drift and regional dialects and accents there were before widespread literacy and then radio, film and television helped to further standardize things. They spoke the same way as the people in their area -- but that's no guarantee they wouldn't stick out if they moved far enough away that nobody would recognize them. |
|
| mastazi on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] In central Italy (e.g. Tuscany or Umbria), still nowadays, you can experience a clearly recognizable change in accent by just moving to the next village 5-10 km down the road. Until not so long ago, it was normal in many places in Europe to call "foreigner" anyone who was not from the same village (my grandparents, born in the first half of the '900 in a village which is less than 30 km from Rome, called people from Rome "stranieri" which in Italian means "foreigners"). This must sound almost incredible to someone from e.g. North America, but you need to realize the feudal past left major traces in modern European culture. |
|
| MandieD on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] You can still encounter different dialects from one Alpine valley to another in Austria and South Tyrol (part of northern Italy since after WWI, but still culturally south German), audible to even a non-native but attentive German speaker. The older the speaker, the stronger the dialect. |
|
| sitkack on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] A couple of MOOCs or a bootcamp and they could make 80-120k in 16 weeks. |
|
| rukuu001 on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Besides the reasons mentioned already, moving villages had another problem: no one did it unless they'd somehow ruined their reputation in their home village, or they'd been expelled. So a stranger turning up in a village would have been viewed with extreme suspicion. |
|
| _0nac on Oct 3, 2017 | root | parent | prev | next [–] Yes. Which is why they no longer exist. |
|
| nwah1 on Oct 3, 2017 | prev | next [–] Fascinating, and sad. |
|
| legostormtroopr on Oct 4, 2017 | prev [6 more] >The Cagots were not an ethnic group, nor a religious group. They spoke the same language as the people in an area and generally kept the same religion as well. Their only distinguishing feature was their descent from families identified as Cagots. Yet, now despite a history of abuse and segregation, descendants of the Cagots are now just seen as "privileged whites" who need to apologise for historical slights against ethnic groups their ancestors never met. |
|
| | glibgil on Oct 4, 2017 | parent | next [2 more] [flagged] |
|
| legostormtroopr on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] Care to elaborate? |
|
| | orbat on Oct 4, 2017 | parent | prev [5 more] [flagged] |
|
| Chris2048 on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] > Nobody is saying.. Plenty people say that |
|
| orbat on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] So instead of actually reading the article that I linked to that explains the concept, you decided to argue semantics? I'm fine with you not wanting to educate yourself, but don't pretend your answer was somehow a good rebuttal if you didn't even bother with the actual meat of my argument |
|
| Chris2048 on Oct 5, 2017 | root | parent | next [–] It's HuffPo, a thoroughly biased media - there is no "education" to be had. It also doesn't appear to be a regular article, but part of "the blog" i.e, an opinion piece. Why don't you argue the point from the article you think are relevant? As far as I see, it just throws up a load of anecdotes, and assumes a bunch of premises around them, e.g: > If you were born cisgender ... you don’t have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage. I'm cisgender male. I'm pretty sure people would be outraged if I tried using the female toilets. Why is this point lost if I weren't cis? The "Invisible Knapsack" document that post references is bullshit. What is it supposed to "prove"? Is this what you consider an argument? > After one reads McIntosh’s powerful essay, it’s impossible to deny.. Nope. Entirely possible.. Finally, why do I only have to respond to the points you want me to respond to? If you don't want to be contradicted about something, don't say it in the first place. "argue semantics" usually means arguing over "different interpretations of one or two particular words that were used" - can you tell me how this applies here? You straight-up said something that wasn't true, and I contradicted you; this is not arguing semantics. |
|
| legostormtroopr on Oct 4, 2017 | root | parent | prev [–] > Nobody is saying all whites "need to apologise" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/0... > Here’s the basic concept: White people have created a political and cultural system that discriminates against and excludes people of color every day. Therefore, white people have a responsibility to actively work to level the playing field for the people of color who are disadvantaged and threatened by racism and racial inequality. It looks like, yes, yes they are wanting white people to (if not apologise) but make amends for historical grievances. |
|
