Why shouldn't it? Because the majority can always be persuaded by minorities when it comes to the factuality of oppression?
Eg when Crenshaw discourages saying 'I am a person who happens to be black' & saying instead 'I am black'.
-
-
When people in minority groups are expected to only focus on the art, culture, issues etc of that group. Shakespeare must be rejected etc
-
When people are called coconuts or coons or native informants for holding humanist or liberal values as if they can't belong to them too.
-
As if whole world of ideas & art and potential relationships based on shared experiences rather than culturally specific ones are a betrayal
-
Some people might see it as a betrayal. My view is that assimilation can make people blind of their own group-based oppression.
-
E.g. women of color who have learned to explain their career failures in terms of not-misogyny and not-racism.
-
Surely, what's important is whether it *is* misogyny and racism. Shouldn't be a political requirement to think it is or isn't.
-
Agreed. But there is pressure from the dominant, universalist majority to disregard such explanations!
-
I think this is simplistic. I think a lot of the resistance to seeing racism & sexism etc comes from people seeing it everywhere.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I would agree with Crenshaw there.
-
But if someone doesn't feel that being black is that significant? If they see themselves mostly as part of humanity & an individual?
-
Then why would they even talk about Blackness and reject its relevance by declaring it an insignificant coincidence?
-
They might find being told it should be significant and they are morally wrong not to make it so more of a problem.
-
Tom's thoughts on the matter.https://tomowolade.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/the-racism-of-some-anti-racists/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.