Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Trish Wilson has written a post on white privilege in connection with the now-waning Identity Blogging discussion. Seems she was inspired to do so by the discussion of a couple of real-world actions she finds problematic:
Apparently the discussions on The Agonist and Fark got really ugly. I'm not sure I need to read alla that.
I'm not bringing over the links Trish provided, but I underlined the words that should have linked to pictures of this good ol' boys club. The links are broken, and since Trish obviously knows how to make a hyperlink correctly this means they pulled the pictures down. Embarrassment? Humility? You decide. For my part, I think it should be embarrassment. I mean, look at their categorization: white men, white women, hispanics and blacks. They see no difference between hispanic men and hispanic women, Black men and Black women…"they all look alike to me."
sigh
I'll also say though I goofed on Atrios for not reading my blog, not only am I not really sure that's the case but if he does read it and simply doesn't mention it I'd have to understand. If things blew up like that on The Agonist, imagine what would happen on Eschaton.
Posted by P6 at September 27, 2003 02:01 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1765i've found that when confronted with the concept of white privilage, people tend to get real hostile. a white professor of mine bought it up (we're studying identity among other things) and most of the class blinked on in silent hostility.
True, that.
P6, you know I don't support AA on privilege, but even I believe that the bake sale was a disaster waiting to happen.
The bakesale reminds me of a story set during the Vietnam war:
Some protesters announced that they were going to illustrate the use of napalm by using it on an animal (dog or cat, can't remember). Predictably, there was an outcry, police showed up at the "place of demonstration" and the protesters went: Hey, if just the announcement of setting an animal on fire disgusts you people so much, what then about the people that are actually bombed with napalm?
The bakesale looks very similar: people adopt a distasteful viewpoint to confront the disgusted with a valid question: where do you draw the line between "good" and "bad" discrimination? Does somebody offer a consistent theory of what can be "affirmative action" and what not? Why is it OK to to have an edge getting into college, but not OK to give a discount on cookies?
Dof:
Napalming a pet doesn't misrepresent the intent or effect of napalming a human.
The "bake sale" misrepresents both the intent and effect of affirmative action.
Even so, the "misrepresenting" part is highly subjective. What is to prevent your opponents from claiming "misrepresentation" the next time they want to stifle your speech?
to quote Thomas Moore in "A man for All Seasons ":
Robert: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Moore: Oh, and when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Robert, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety sake.
Even so, the "misrepresenting" part is highly subjective.
Fine. (Subjective)≠(Incorrect).
Is the bake sale an accurate representation of the intent and effect of affirmative action?
What is to prevent your opponents from claiming "misrepresentation" the next time they want to stifle your speech?
Nothing would stop them, no matter how I define or explain anything. I do not misrepresent, however. And I can prove it every time. This is not to say I never make errors, but they are honorable errors.
And this bake sale is not an error. It is an intentional distortion. And you know that.
I'm not so much arguing the offensive/not offensive angle here, but the prior restraint.
What if someone is offended by your blog, and just by claiming it is "misrepresentation" can have yout blog pulled pending a court decision?
Prior restraint? Court action?
Forgive me my friend, but whattheHELL are you talking about?
I'm saying they are not making the point they claim they are.
Is the bake sale an accurate representation of the intent and effect of affirmative action?
If you could honestly say yes, you would have already, wouldn't you?
"but whattheHELL are you talking about?"
that would be the part where "SMU officials said they halted the event because it created a potentially unsafe situation for students."
There's two tracks here: the debate proper, and the stifling of the debate. The whole point of free speech is that it is intended to protect unpopular speech, popular speech not needing that much protection.
As for the "accurate representation", I'm not sure where you want to go with that. "Dumbing down" the issue or using slogans is rather commonplace. In the debate on US foreign policy, some people have reduced that to the slogan "Bush is Hitler", which I consider inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I think they should be forbidden from using that slogan. Indeed, it's possible that some of the people using that slogan just used it because it was conveniently shorter than "I vehemently disagree with G Bush policies".
There's possibly a third track here: why is it so difficult to have a debate on race issues? As an illustration of "accepted" price discrimination, It's totally legal to discriminate between men and women in life insurance. Discrimination based on zipcode or race can (or will) get you into trouble.
that would be the part where "SMU officials said they halted the event because it created a potentially unsafe situation for students."
…which has nothing to do with anything said here, even by you, up until this point. You need to say what you're talking about when you change the subject entirely.
On this topic, it was probably stopped because if you insult (not misrepresent, insult) peple long enough, you get your ass kicked.
We have race discussions around here all the time. I don't find it difficult, why do you say you find it difficult? What's so difficult about it?
Back on topic, you said the bake sale was like the pet napalming threat. I said it wasn't, because it misrepresents the intent and effect of affirmative action programs where napalming pets does not misrepresent the intent and effect of doing the same thing to humans. Is this something you'll respond to?
Ok, I came here after allready having read about the SMU stuff.
On the insult track, would it be OK for people who feel insulted by flagburning to kick people who burn flags? Either being insulted justifies asskicking, or you have protected speech, but you can't have both.
As for the last part, I said "bakesale relates to affirmative action as "Bush is Hitler" relates to US foreign policy"
On the insult track, would it be OK for people who feel insulted by flagburning to kick people who burn flags?
Who feels insulted by flag burning? You can't just stick a word in there and expect me to respect it as a legitimate position.
But sure, go for it.
As for the last part, I said "bakesale relates to affirmative action as "Bush is Hitler" relates to US foreign policy"
Strikes me as a total non sequitur. But I recognize that level of argument works with most folks.
And let me tell you where I'd like to go with the "accurate representation" thing. I'm discussing my positions, and mine alone. I'd like you, and everyone else, to do the same on P6. No airy-fairy suppositions. You'll note I'm not even trying to address them.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion agrees with someone else's my reasoning is the same. I'm not defending anyone's representations, so if that's what you're looking for, sorry.
"Who feels insulted by flag burning?"
Uh. Patriots?
"But sure, go for it."
Let's not. Having bigger boots ought not to be a factor in a debate. That way fascism lies.
Check out my photos of the Bake Sale at http://s88515748.onlinehome.us/gallery/BakeSale
You know, if it was really that offensive, a black man with a $20 bill could have bought all the stock (at a loss to them) and shut the thing down.
Plus, he would have had a lot of tasty cookies.