|
Mortley posted:To throw in a language-based example, many speakers of indigenous languages in Latin America, even monolinguals, believe their native languages to be worthless and that their children should learn Spanish or English. They're oppressed, but I don't agree that the source of their oppression is their mother tongue itself (rather than society's widespread discriminatory attitudes toward it), which should be discarded. I think this type of sentiment is something the author didn't quite touch on, and it's quite frustrating to see as someone who's forcibly labelled a 'Person of Colour.' There's this bizarre lack of empathy when it comes to social movement adherents, particularly when dealing with people who are not their own race. Unilaterally labelling people as 'oppressed' through vague definitions, and stating that any non-positive change = oppression. I'm going to use your linguistic example. Why do the speakers of the native languages want to teach their children spanish or english? To allow them a better chance in their futures of work, advancement, travel etc. Learning spanish or english provides endless benefits over sticking to a native language in the context you describe. This is the choice a lot of immigrants make when they move across the world for work or safety. It's lovely, but it's not oppression. Having to learn another language, particularly one that is spoken by a significant majority of the population is not oppression, it's reality. Take the example of the French in canada. The country is officially bilingual, and as a french person you can find representation in all levels of government, even if it takes a bit longer. But what happens when you stray out of the confines of francophone communities and government buildings? Things become significantly harder as few english speakers also speak French. This trend continues on as you go out further west. Is it oppression that the majority of Canadians don't speak french? Of course not. That's simply reality. The word oppression has been abused to describe any minor inconvenience, any uncomfortable reality by connecting them to a systemic nature. My personal experiences about being educated about how 'oppressed' I am have always come from some white girl or boy. Any rebuttal is a symptom of 'internalized racism' or ignorance on my part. Edit: This funny. Blue Star posted:I don't deny that there are extremists and people who aren't constructive, like people who advocate violence or whatever. But this piece and the comments seem to be saying "Hey, stop being so demanding and angry. Watch your tone." This is funny, because you just deemed 'most men' as misogynist, and all white people as racist. But you're not extremist at all. Blue Star posted:Sounds like another "political correctness gone mad" opinion piece. I don't buy it. Oppressed people do not have to take the feelings of oppressors into account, nor should they. Most men are misogynist. White people are racist. Sorry if that hurts somebody's feelings. SparkPeople fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Dec 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Umm....how are exactly are you 'forcibly labelled'? How does that even work? Actually, forget it, because I want to talk about this bit: Well I'll address this real quick. By being labelled a person of colour, I'm assumed to have gone the oppressions a person of colour goes through, and that I identify with other people of colour. This is all based off my skin colour, without regard for other attributes. It also creates an 'us vs them' mentality which I object, since it places me in an adversarial position against others, often whites. It's no different than assuming that I like Reggae music and know the latest artists, like the one lady who approached me out of the 6 staff standing in a group for suggestions when I worked at a record store. I personally hate reggae music, but similar as to how the lady deferred to me on a topic she assumed I would be more knowledgable on because of my perceived race, radical activists assume that I understand or undergo the same kind of oppression other black people due. The author of the article warned of the return of essentialism in the movement. quote:The use of 'internalization' in this context is , I think, a tacit admission that the standard way of subjectivizing truth is internally inconsistent. I don't understand your second paragraph. SparkPeople fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Just a quick question: Black (or multi-racial if you wanna get specific) and male.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh is Jezebel on the enemies list now? Generally anything on the Gawker network is trash.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:All you guys going on about the left driving people away and hurting people: can you explain what exactly you mean by that? Who is being driven away from leftist causes and activism, and why? Moderates are being driven away. People who support the ideas you do, but are turned off by the extremist rhetoric and blanketing of people. Ie. "All men are mostly racist. All white people are racist." If I was white and male, and the movement I wanted to be a part of said that attributes I have no control of make me a part of the problem, it makes my inherent existence a problem. As a black male, I'm treated as an oppressed minority or someone who internalizes hate. My life and identity is automatically assumed to match those of poor black males in inner-city ghettos, despite having literally nothing in common with them culturally, historically, linguistically, or ideologically. There's also the the elitist language growing in leftist circles that push my opinion and thoughts out of the discussion because they fly in the face of the groupthink. That's not to add the hostile inflammatory language used by activists towards the smallest causes, and the lack of clearly defined goals for the movement. It also ignores that the 'leaders' of leftist movements are some of the most privileged people around; educated in top-tier universities with consistent access to internet, media, and a supportive base. Mainstream liberal entertainers (Colbert and Stewart for example) present the movement to the public at large by inviting these voices onto their shows. The biggest thing that gets me is the lack of clear, defined goals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those people are convinced that meaningful change is impossible, so it doesn't matter if, logically, they would commit multiple genocides, because they'd never get the chance. Meaningful change is possible to the average person if presented in concrete terms. The gay rights movement has clear goals for what it wants (Protection under hate crime laws, right to marriage, right to spousal rights equivalent to heterosexual couples, rights to inheritance, rights to power of attorney, rights of visitation, etc)that are clearly set out there. These clear rights sold it to the general public as a an end goal, and as a result the gay rights movement has activist allies who actually go out and do things, and it also has passive allies who don't necessarily march or protest, but will support the votes or at least not oppose gay rights. Current social justice is about something undefined, with no end goal. That's why the public doesn't support it. I don't understand your multiple genocides thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:The thing is, in my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how nice and accommodating we are. Even the statement of simple truths is enough to rile people up. Try to talk about the poo poo that women face, or non-white people face, or LGBT people face, and you open yourself to harassment and abuse. It doesn't seem to matter if you qualify your statements with "Now, only a minority of men are like this...", or "Now obviously not all white people do this...", you'll still get a massive response from pissed off dudes and white people going "Well what about MEN being raped by WOMEN, huh? HUH?!", or "What about when BLACK PEOPLE kill WHITE PEOPLE, huh?! HUH?!" It just doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that will NOT piss these people off is if you say "Women harass and rape men just as much as vice-verse; black people are just as racist as white people and black cops murder unarmed white men just as much", despite all evidence to the contrary. If people get mad about hard facts, then you can't really help that. If your facts consist of 'All men are mostly sexist' and 'All white people are racist' then you're going to lose a ton of potential allies. The second thing is that casting a wide net of guilt places people on the defensive naturally. You're saying their identity, which they have no choice in choosing, is inherently linked to injustice, which is bound to turn people off. The third thing is that you have to make people care. Pointing to vague things like privilege and societal problems prompts a reaction of 'so what can I do about this?' or 'why should I care?' The movement is trying to forcibly change people's opinions and attitudes without giving them a reason to. Part of that is also aided by the lack of definable goals. Saying everything is lovely is easy. Saying everything is lovely and here's how we can fix it is hard. Telling people that their existence is the root cause of the problem, and that they should fix it (somehow?), is asking someone to actively do something with no benefit to them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 18:00
|
|