What is social justice

 

Subject: What is social justice

Is social justice really justifiable or is it not much more than an academic myth. Is there any social pattern which can be justified as mainstream or is social tapestry just too wide and varied to be covered by rules and justification. Do the proponents for the different textures and counter textures regarding the human condition not simply describe the inappropriateness of trying to find a way through this labyrinth. Are we wrong in trying to find some mean route through the twists and turns of human contempt when it comes to challenging individual prejudice.

Listening to a man who describes himself as a professor in the field of social science discard any attempt made to find some sort of compassion towards each other without first, "the white society describing itself as racist and upending current society by addressing the issue of race above all else". 

The Catholic believer who sort salvation in god of who's forgiveness we must all seek before ascending into heaven. 

The Buddhist monk who emphasised the mind and contemplation as a way of finding answers to life's mystery. 

Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Humanism and 'plain couldn't careism', all make their points, each with the surety of 'knowing' and knowing absolutely, those who fall outside this surety and are simply left to struggle.

The direction of travel over the last 20 years has been increasingly contemptuous of those who wish to go it alone and defend their right to speak out in opposition to the 'group think' of zealots who would have us all conform to their view of unanimity. The argument that all whites are racist and must do penance is a case in point. If racism is one sided because of the historical wrongs brought about by exploration and settlement which, it is claimed led to exploitation of ethnic people,  but do we not also have to consider much older civilisations such as the Syrians or the Egyptian who conquered huge swathes of what was tribal land and inflicted their ideas on those tribes.

We are selective in our damnation by making the fault much more recent and can be accused of tyranny when there was no such comparable criticism meted out to the middle eastern and Asian conquests. 

The current fuss is driven by those who now live here and enjoy the fruits of living here. We are an easy touch when we are asked to examine our  fore-fathers, seeking to give them ideals and moral parameters which are now current and perhaps questionable. The debate is fuelled by discontent, much of which is ignited often by self induced failure and the need for someone to blame. If I chose to live in China I would do so in the full knowledge that I would always be a foreigner, an outsider due in part  to my looks, the colour of my skin and my ethnicity. I wouldn't seek to redress this by trying to reeducate of the Chinese to fit my own anomaly.  And yet that is what the 'anomalies' of this country seek. They would be horrified to see themselves describe as anomalies, (to deviate from the standard normal) because we question the concept of normal in most everything these days. Normal is the current heresy, it ranks with blasphemy and like blasphemy there is no forgiveness. 

Much of what we used to call deviance is now simply part of a wider perspective, it's teachers call for a more 'inclusive' perspective until of course we are asked to address the norms and mores of adventurous men (and it was always men) who born hundreds of years ago become the fashion to swashbuckle about in ships.

We are all prone to narrative and fashion, we all want to be in tune, we sit in front of a piece of modern art or listen to some discordant modern music and nod our acceptance when every bone and sinew strives to get away. We reject much of what is modern because its untried, untested but in the field of social justice, we invoke new constructs, new norms without a moment thought, other than championing compassion.