elpablo21
Supporter
- 105,255
- 192,596
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
This is a stunningly bad faith argument in service to an insulting false equivalence - and is especially absurd in that you fancy it in service to unity.First off, if you see white supremacy as something, that didn’t originate out of 17th century trans Atlantic capital’s need for portable and highly exploitable labor, where did white supremacy come from? It seems somewhat like a strong school board meeting vibe to be opposed to the 1619 Project’s thesis. (And no I don’t actually think you have anything in common with opponents of the anti CRT opponents of the 1619 project. As it’s unfair to liken people with a very similar left wing views to the rightwing’s foot soldiers.
It is exhausting to be part of a coalition whose adhesion is secured through unswerving deference to White Fragility, where mollifying "economic anxiety" is paramount and the central pitch too often amounts to: if we achieve the mythical class consciousness whose absence deprives some straight, White, cisgender Christian men of the lone injustice they do face, surely social justice will trickle down like a mighty stream for everyone else. It is exhausting to deal with line-jumping dilettantes who demand that their own liberation be given precedence and their feelings be spared, lest they exercise their privilege to disengage.
What do you think "accountability" means in this context?When you talk about accountability for white supremacists, you have to know that under our current system, Donald Trump, the Murdochs, the Kochs, Mark Zuckerberg and other members of the racism hall of fame won’t pay a price.
I worry that this accountability will be collective retribution against poor and working class whites with plenty of collateral damage against non white workers and liberal and apolitical white workers as well.
headed to vote after work. Here in Texas we have just a handful of state props but lot's of school board seats...I'll be damned if every 1 of the people said something about no CRT and mask mandates. Bout to write in some people I guess...
headed to vote after work. Here in Texas we have just a handful of state props but lot's of school board seats...I'll be damned if every 1 of the people said something about no CRT and mask mandates. Bout to write in some people I guess...
I caught that too.'We have to do a fact check on the Christopher Columbus story"
A preemptive decapitation which, by consistent application of siege mentality 2A logic, would’ve been fully justified because Rittenhouse was carrying an assault rife.
This is a stunningly bad faith argument in service to an insulting false equivalence - and is especially absurd in that you fancy it in service to unity.
First of all, you know full well that racism, as a general concept, didn't originate in the 17th century and long predates the modern American conceptualization of "White Supremacism." When the trans-Atlantic slave trade began, Germans weren't even considered "White."
It is not a flaw in the 1619 project that its scope is limited to American slavery - as that is its explicit purpose. You're being obscenely disingenuous in attempting to twist this focus to imply that anyone who doesn't fully accept that Class Rules Everything Around Me is, in defiance of all common sense, a Karen.
That you would even stoop this low is galling, especially given that you, as someone who has repeatedly expressed pride in the study of world history, have no excuse to suggest that White Supremacism was created in whole cloth to serve "17th century trans-Atlantic capital," as though this occurred without precedent or ideological underpinning.
Even if we limit our focus to the Americas, you'll recall that the Valladolid debate occurred in 1550, and invoked Aristotle's concept of "natural slavery," written in the 5th century.
Let's not ignore that the 17th century American "labor shortage" was in no small part prompted by genocide so incomprehensibly massive that it produced global cooling - an inverse decimation that did not reduce the continental population by a tenth, but to a tenth.
I sincerely hope you don't plan to sit here and tell me that hatred is merely incidental to genocide.
If you truly believe that all such inhuman cruelty is strategically deployed in service to sheer greed, I suppose I ought to feel thankful that your relative proximity to genocide permits such a perspective.
Similarly, if it is your inclination to argue that patriarchy, which preceded the invention of currency and existed in early agrarian societies (at least some of which were organized as collectives with no evidence of private property rights), was ultimately driven by proto-capitalist forces then your reflex action to advance class-primacy only proves my point.
I merely pointed out that class reductionists are not the only ones who can craft an historical argument for the precedence of one particular form of oppression - note that I did not endorse any of these arguments, because 1) it is folly to delve back to the earliest instances of human intergroup aggression in effort to divine a single motivation 2) even if we could, this information would be utterly useless, as it does not create a valid "order of operations" for unpacking and rectifying societal injustice.
As you've acknowledged, ending classism will not, in and of itself, wholly eliminate any form of oppression aside from classism.
Thus, the class primacy argument is essentially a vanity project to justify what is, ultimately, a self-centered approach to social justice.
You may think it's useful to make such an assertion to forge common cause, but you then risk lecturing people whose experiences with oppression are, in some ways, fundamentally different from yours that you nonetheless understand the true nature of their oppression better than they, and it just so happens that your total liberation takes precedence and is a necessary first step in securing theirs.
We've had this discussion before. I've really no interest in doing so again. Everything I stated at the time still applies.
I submit to you the possibility that the position of "class primacy" functions as identity politics for cishet White men, conveniently rendering their lone problem as "universal" and everyone else's as mere "special interests."
It may strike you as a natural conclusion to view capitalism as the root of all evil, but you may want to consider the possibility that this is less the result of objectivity than subjectivity. It is natural for you to arrive at this conclusion because it best aligns with your perspective and direct lived experience.
If you don't think that the histrionics over portraying people as "irredeemably racist" is evocative of the CRT backlash, that is your personal opinion. However, I don't believe that just because someone calls themselves an "ally" and votes the same way in an election ought to render them immune from criticism.
Who's expected to make the most sacrifices in service to unity? The desire to open the tent to White moderates should never come at the dignity of those who are foundational to the movement itself. You don't tell people who pulled the very possibility of American democracy from the fire, who overcame voter intimidation and suppression, many of whom stood in line for hours at overcrowded polling places, "could you do it again, but this time maybe smile more? You're kind of scaring the guy in the Let's Go Brandon t-shirt, who I suspect has very legitimate grievances with Nancy Pelosi."
Time and time again, Democrats overextend to win over White moderates at the cost of delivering for those who actually put them in office. It has not been a particularly successful strategy. Maybe you think the problem is that we just haven't tried hard enough.
What do you think "accountability" means in this context?
When Dr. King famously wrote, "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Was this, in your opinion, "bad praxis?"
From my perspective, it is no less relevant today as it was in 1963.
A White moderate need not hold people of color in conscious contempt to be a willing accomplice to and beneficiary of White Supremacy.
Again, many of the benefits of White privilege are social and psychological. If anything, the fear of stigma has proven itself a powerful motivator, and I refuse to consider its honest use "off limits" or impolitic.
If we disagree on this point, so be it, but I will never prioritize White comfort ahead of BIPOC safety.
That is hierarchy, not unity.
He just called it for YoungkinPeeping Wasserman's page. Yeah not looking good
If only McAuliffe had done more to appeal to moderates.He just called it for Youngkin
Don't worry, I'm sure the usual suspects are in the lab cooking up a banger of a hot take.If only McAuliffe had done more to appeal to moderates.