In other words, can we only empower oppressed or marginalized people by diminishing power of those seen as "oppressors"?
As you consider this question, read this Andrew Sullivan piece.
There are many facets to what Sullivan writes. Here is some of my reactions--starting with this paragraph:
In the last few days, a poster here said that gender differences are not biology, but social constructs. This is where we are now with race. Race is no longer about biology. Race has become a discussion about the social constructs of what being white or black means. I even heard an All Black Lives Matter advocate say that black police officers are not black, they are blue. Social constructs abound all over. The language of race that reflects social constructs is the vehicle for any racial discussion. That makes discussions easier because it allows us to talk about people in terms of victims and perps, marginalized and powerful, and more. This enables the politics of race and its accompanying pandering. Gone is any discussion about individuals.*
When the Smithsonian White Culture material was posted here, my reaction was that those items (such as the scientific method) were not evidence of "whiteness" but evidence of a level of culture good for all of us. The way forward is not to diminish or otherwise tear down "whiteness" or "white culture" but to expand access to it. At the same time, we need to lose the brand "whiteness" as connected with such culture.
A few weeks ago, I began a thread about Racial Primacy. I guess Andrew Sullivan provided a platform for chapter 2. I'm convinced that the path we are on with our racial discussions will in the long run eat away at what we are trying to achieve. Power is not a zero sum game. It's huge mistake to label our highly successful culture as a "white" culture. It's destructive to keep thinking about the "original sin" of the United States. That keeps us mired in the uselessness describing our culture in racial terms. A better way is to look at the best of what we are and what we have, understand that we can build on it together and expand the tent to cover all of us.
*In my opinion, creating a cultural construct around race is the biggest difference between how we look at race here compared to, say, Western Europe.
As you consider this question, read this Andrew Sullivan piece.
There are many facets to what Sullivan writes. Here is some of my reactions--starting with this paragraph:
After all, the core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss. And so the point became not simply to interpret the world, but to change it, to coin a phrase, an imperative which explains why some critics call this theory a form of neo-Marxism.
I also reject this view. Unfortunately we are unmistakably marching in this direction with our views about race and racism. Words and phrases like "Black Lives Matter," and "White Privilege" are clearly intended to describe a situation where whites have power and black don't. To level the playing field, the argument goes, we must weaken white influence and add to black influence. The Smithsonian conspicuously brought this point home with its "Whiteness" piece and White Culture Chart. Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility has become the hottest speaker on the sensitivity training circuit. Universities and other institutions have asked white people to "check their privilege" and established other white-guilt inducing activities.
In the last few days, a poster here said that gender differences are not biology, but social constructs. This is where we are now with race. Race is no longer about biology. Race has become a discussion about the social constructs of what being white or black means. I even heard an All Black Lives Matter advocate say that black police officers are not black, they are blue. Social constructs abound all over. The language of race that reflects social constructs is the vehicle for any racial discussion. That makes discussions easier because it allows us to talk about people in terms of victims and perps, marginalized and powerful, and more. This enables the politics of race and its accompanying pandering. Gone is any discussion about individuals.*
When the Smithsonian White Culture material was posted here, my reaction was that those items (such as the scientific method) were not evidence of "whiteness" but evidence of a level of culture good for all of us. The way forward is not to diminish or otherwise tear down "whiteness" or "white culture" but to expand access to it. At the same time, we need to lose the brand "whiteness" as connected with such culture.
A few weeks ago, I began a thread about Racial Primacy. I guess Andrew Sullivan provided a platform for chapter 2. I'm convinced that the path we are on with our racial discussions will in the long run eat away at what we are trying to achieve. Power is not a zero sum game. It's huge mistake to label our highly successful culture as a "white" culture. It's destructive to keep thinking about the "original sin" of the United States. That keeps us mired in the uselessness describing our culture in racial terms. A better way is to look at the best of what we are and what we have, understand that we can build on it together and expand the tent to cover all of us.
*In my opinion, creating a cultural construct around race is the biggest difference between how we look at race here compared to, say, Western Europe.
