(no subject)
May. 23rd, 2025 12:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwinI really, really, really hate that quote that implies that the Nazis were evil because they lacked pure blood, that "evil is a lack of pure blood."
Now I have to assume "pure blood" meant something different at the time. But "pure blood" seems intended to include one group, and exclude all others.
I'm autistic. We tend to have trouble understanding allistic people. So we're said to "lack pure blood." And allistic people have a lot of trouble understanding us. So, again, we're said to "lack pure blood." We do tend to care about other people. So either that's irrelevant to whether we "have pure blood," or it's another way we "lack pure blood." If anything, I think we may have a harder time knowing-not-knowing, and dismissing people's humanity because they're not our in-group. And maybe caring too much and too freely will be defined as "lacking pure blood." Some people will insist that, really, we "have pure blood," but I don't see the point in arguing for it; better to drop the whole idea so that no one will be condemned for "lacking pure blood."
P.S. Whoops, the word was "empathy," not "pure blood." Not that it changes anything. It's still implying that some people are born good, and others born evil, and it's still subject to arbitrary redefinitions to define the out-groups as born evil. It probably didn't imply that in 1945, but in my experience, it does in 2025.
Now I have to assume "pure blood" meant something different at the time. But "pure blood" seems intended to include one group, and exclude all others.
I'm autistic. We tend to have trouble understanding allistic people. So we're said to "lack pure blood." And allistic people have a lot of trouble understanding us. So, again, we're said to "lack pure blood." We do tend to care about other people. So either that's irrelevant to whether we "have pure blood," or it's another way we "lack pure blood." If anything, I think we may have a harder time knowing-not-knowing, and dismissing people's humanity because they're not our in-group. And maybe caring too much and too freely will be defined as "lacking pure blood." Some people will insist that, really, we "have pure blood," but I don't see the point in arguing for it; better to drop the whole idea so that no one will be condemned for "lacking pure blood."
P.S. Whoops, the word was "empathy," not "pure blood." Not that it changes anything. It's still implying that some people are born good, and others born evil, and it's still subject to arbitrary redefinitions to define the out-groups as born evil. It probably didn't imply that in 1945, but in my experience, it does in 2025.
