I referred to a couple of questions about oppression in another thread, and I wanted to develop those further before risking the possibility of Dan running off on a tangent. I’ll take time to flesh this out over the next couple of days. But until then I’ll use this a a place for any comments from Dan that don’t fit in the other thread.
No, the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities. The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies.
Still haven't had the time or the motivation to flesh this out, and with Dan's obsessive desire to jump right in and comment based on assumptions, I may realize that fleshing this out is a waste of time. Yet, I do want to throw out one other thought.
If these discussions are to be fruitful, the one things that needs to be agreed on is what measure will define success. The most common measure I see used is economic. The other is political. While I'm fine with either, I think that looking at the economic condition is probably the best broad measurement of group success. It's also the one that can be best applied across societies and cultures, which seems like the only way to accurately measure the results of oppression among groups that also cross national boundaries and cultures.
17 comments:
Are you wanting to talk about oppression here? If so...
What I'm asking you is NOT saying, "there weren't other oppressors other than white men." It's NOT saying, "there are no other factors in people's lives today."
I'm asking what SEEMS to me to be a fairly simple and straightforward few questions:
1. DO we agree that black people have been historically oppressed, for centuries and throughout our nation's history, right up to and including within our lifetime? This IS reality and I don't know that anyone disputes it, and I think we can find some common ground on this. Do you agree that this has happened?
2. Do we agree that slavery WAS and IS ALWAYS a great evil and an oppression of people? (That ISN'T asking, "was it only done by white men" it's just asking the question: Can you agree that slavery is always a great evil and an oppressive force in the lives of those enslaved, as well as for the white people (and others) who are doing the enslaving)
3. Do we agree that women were oppressed and denied liberties through most of US history right to and including in our lifetimes?
4. Do we agree that LGBTQ people have been maligned, unjustly imprisoned, beaten, killed, mocked, abused, tormented and otherwise oppressed throughout US history up to and including in our lifetime?
5. Do we agree that all these oppressions that have occurred - slavery, denying rights, denying the vote, denying liberties (as in who to marry or have relationships with, as long as we're talking consenting adults) - are wrong and ought not occur?
6. Do we agree that those who implemented those policies (and before ~50 years ago, that was almost always almost exclusively white men) were wrong to do so? That it was WRONG for white men in the US to allow slavery to be legal, for instance? That it was WRONG to deny women the right to vote?
7. Do you recognize that these liberties denied others and oppressions inflicted upon others also had the result of giving benefits to white men, who by and large, were not oppressed or denied liberties in this manner?
These seem to me to be reasonable questions to consider when dealing with historic oppression (and here, to be clear, I'm limiting the discussion to what has happened in OUR nation, where we are the ones responsible for policies - it is a given [at least with me] that ANY nation elsewhere that oppresses others is wrong to do that, as well).
Since I actually had something more specific in mind rather than giving you carte blanch to vent your spleen, and frame the conversation before I actually write my post, I’m not going to delete your comments. Nor am I going bro respond to them at this point.
Instead, I’ll ignore them until after I write the meat of the post, then I’ll edit/respond/delete your comments as appropriate.
I will point out two general thoughts. 1. If this sort of simplistic nonsense is what I should be expecting, this’ll be boring. 2. If you’re interested in ignoring oppression that doesn’t fit your narrative, this’ll be short.
Re: vent spleen...
I have literally only asked questions. Further, they are reasonable questions I suspect that 90% of u.s. citizens could agree with, if not 99%. I'm just trying to seek clarification. I'm not sure what you mean by venting spleens.
Re, simplistic nonsense...
Here again, I'm only asking very basic, very reasonable questions so you can clarify your position. I'm not sure what you mean by simplistic nonsense. Are you suggesting that claiming, as I do, that slavery is always wrong is a simplistic look at slavery? I don't understand what you mean by this comment. I'm asking reasonable questions to try to establish a baseline, some sort of common ground. And I'm asking pretty basic questions to establish that common ground. Are you saying that this is wrong?
Re, "if you're interested in ignoring oppression..."
Well here I can help you quite easily. I am 100% not interested in ignoring oppression. Not in the least. I believe we need to take a stand against oppression. Wherever it occurs, especially in places where we have some say, like our own nation.
I'm not sure why you're making this point, but I can assure you that I am not interested in ignoring oppression. I hope that helps.
Yes, you’ve literally asked leading questions based on what you’d like this thread to be about, and apparently intending to set a tone.
Yes, I’m saying that your position appears simplistic. I’m making the point because I have a pretty good idea what the post will actually be about, and it’ll look a little more broadly at oppression than you seem interested in.
FYI, I thought I was clear that your questions are still here because I’m going to see how they fit with where I’m planning to go.
I guess I'll wait until I see where you're going.
To your "questions..." in your second paragraph of this post...
"the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities."
I don't know of anyone who has said that the very real series of oppressions and injustices that black people have lived through are the only cause of current disparities. And since there have been many injustices dealt to black people over the years/centuries, I don't know how one would assess if one or the other is "primary"in causing current disparities.
It would seem rather simplistic and idealized to say that any one of the injustices - slavery, Jim Crow, overt discrimination, lack of opportunities, systemic oppression at a policy level, systemic oppression at a cultural level, systemic denigration and demonization at the cultural level, etc, etc - is THE cause. I also don't think it would be possible to disentangle the twisted barbed wire of the history of oppression and demonization and marginalization of black people in our nation and find THE CAUSE for today's disparities.
"The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies."
This, too, seems rather simplistic and perhaps a tool for further marginalization and oppression, if I'm understanding you correctly.
That is, to say, "Look, here is an African immigrant from Rwanda whose family has suffered for generations in Rwanda and yet, they've come here and flourished, starting their own business and being successful!" ...to say that and then say, "Why aren't US blacks emulating this successful African immigrant is a tool that racists and well-meaning people alike have used to further denigrate Black Americans. So, I'd be cautious about this line. It's certainly something to consider in research, but might be best left to black researchers, given the history of some whites using such comparisons as a way to further inflict harm.
To your "questions..." in your second paragraph of this post...
"the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities."
I don't know of anyone who has said that the very real series of oppressions and injustices that black people have lived through are the only cause of current disparities. And since there have been many injustices dealt to black people over the years/centuries, I don't know how one would assess if one or the other is "primary"in causing current disparities.
It would seem rather simplistic and idealized to say that any one of the injustices - slavery, Jim Crow, overt discrimination, lack of opportunities, systemic oppression at a policy level, systemic oppression at a cultural level, systemic denigration and demonization at the cultural level, etc, etc - is THE cause. I also don't think it would be possible to disentangle the twisted barbed wire of the history of oppression and demonization and marginalization of black people in our nation and find THE CAUSE for today's disparities.
"The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies."
This, too, seems rather simplistic and perhaps a tool for further marginalization and oppression, if I'm understanding you correctly.
That is, to say, "Look, here is an African immigrant from Rwanda whose family has suffered for generations in Rwanda and yet, they've come here and flourished, starting their own business and being successful!" ...to say that and then say, "Why aren't US blacks emulating this successful African immigrant is a tool that racists and well-meaning people alike have used to further denigrate Black Americans. So, I'd be cautious about this line. It's certainly something to consider in research, but might be best left to black researchers, given the history of some whites using such comparisons as a way to further inflict harm.
Are you doing okay? I know you were going to have surgery and hope the recovery is going well.
Thanks for asking. I did have surgery and things have been going great. As I was recovering I decided that I was going to avoid any of the blogs I normally follow and this is the first time I’ve even checked here since then. As I get more back to normal I’ll engage.
"I don't know of anyone who has said that the very real series of oppressions and injustices that black people have lived through are the only cause of current disparities."
If you "don't know of anyone" then that settles it.
"And since there have been many injustices dealt to black people over the years/centuries, I don't know how one would assess if one or the other is "primary"in causing current disparities."
Yet, even you simplistically almost always focus on slavery.
"It would seem rather simplistic and idealized to say that any one of the injustices - slavery, Jim Crow, overt discrimination, lack of opportunities, systemic oppression at a policy level, systemic oppression at a cultural level, systemic denigration and demonization at the cultural level, etc, etc - is THE cause."
Perhaps had you read the post, you wouldn't be so confused and wasting so much time. I clearly said "past" oppression. The point being that virtually every thing you've listed is (at least legally) in the past. Those things have been addressed in the la, and most of them quite some time ago. The question remains, is PAST racism/oppression the primary cause of current conditions.
"I also don't think it would be possible to disentangle the twisted barbed wire of the history of oppression and demonization and marginalization of black people in our nation and find THE CAUSE for today's disparities."
OK, well that's settled. I guess all the people trying to do just that should stop wasting their time and move on. Dan has spokn.
"The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies." This, too, seems rather simplistic and perhaps a tool for further marginalization and oppression, if I'm understanding you correctly."
Really, you think it's simplistic to compare "oppression" across cultures and nations? I think that your just trying to generate a cop out.
"That is, to say, "Look, here is an African immigrant from Rwanda whose family has suffered for generations in Rwanda and yet, they've come here and flourished, starting their own business and being successful!" ...to say that and then say, "Why aren't US blacks emulating this successful African immigrant is a tool that racists and well-meaning people alike have used to further denigrate Black Americans."
1. That wasn't necessarily the direction I was going, although it is a valid area of study.
a) If the US is "systemically racist" against people who can be categorized as "black", how does one explain the different outcomes of different sub groups of "blacks"? Why do Nigerians as a group seem to have a high degree of success, while other groups don't?
b) The notion that studying the actual data, regarding actual groups/subgroups/individuals/families to look at what leads to success and what doesn't as furthering racism/oppression seems simplistic and foolish. Why would we ignore the actual data/
"So, I'd be cautious about this line. It's certainly something to consider in research, but might be best left to black researchers, given the history of some whites using such comparisons as a way to further inflict harm."
I guess maybe you should have exercised patience and waited until I fleshed it out, instead of jumping in with your assumptions and prejudices. As far as your second sentence, I'm following "black" sociologists who are researching these very issues. Of course, if one limits the studies of the data to only those you define as "black, then maybe you should start be shutting the hell up on the topic. This notion that only "black" people can analyze the data, is simplistic, demeaning and absurd. That you would base things 100% on race seems strange and racist.
"I'm asking the very simple and I think easy-to-answer question: Do you agree that slavery is ALWAYS evil?"
A question that you've asked (and I've answered) before.
"I'm NOT asking if there might be some fall out from slavery that can be taken as good."
Do you understand that, in this post, I don't particularly care what question you are asking. The fact that you don't seem to understand that I've answered that question multiple times, and that I'm asking a different question, makes me wonder if you are capable of actually having a conversation. The fact that you can't get past the notion that your (asked and answered) question is the only one that matters is a concern.
"The way you're not answering my question and answering instead this OTHER question is sort of like me asking: Do you agree rape is always a great evil? And you responding with, "Are you asking me if the child that results from rape is evil...? No." No. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking: Can you affirm that rape is always evil? (adding that to try to get a baseline)."
The problem is that I've already answered the original question. I've also pointed out the problems with your assertions/assumptions that anything can be objectively "evil" in all times and places absent some sort of objective moral code. I've also pointed out that there are multiple scientists who argue that rape is a biological/evolutionary benefit and (as such) cannot be "evil". But this is all off topic and pointless.
"Can you affirm that slavery is always evil? The owning of another human being against their will and forcing them to labor for your own profit... IS that evil/wrong/horrifying immoral?"
Asked and answered multiple times and in multiple places.
"As to repeating questions, I do that sometimes for emphasis, for clarification, to make clear what it is I'm asking, since so often you do as you have done here, and ask a separate question. Maybe if that didn't happen so regularly with you, I would not repeat questions for emphasis and clarification. But because it does happen regularly, I emphasize and clarify."
I don't particularly care why you waste time asking questions already answered. From here on out, I will simply repeat that the question has been answered and ignore the repetition.
"Holy shit. I'm NOT suggesting a human is evil because she was a descendant of slavery or the product of a rape that happened during slavery."
That's a relief. The reality is that Kamala Harris as a US citizen in a position to be VPOTUS is a direct result of slavery. Whether the wealth her family accumulated from owning slaves, is part of the reason she was able to be in the position of privileged she's been in, or whatever. She's literally a result of slavery. It's kind of amusing that you assumed that her ancestors WERE slaves, instead of OWNING slaves. But, even if she was the product of her ancestors raping one of their slaves, she's still a result of slavery.
"(or whatever your point is in bringing Harris into this)."
My point is, IF slavery is "evil", then how are the results of slavery not "evil"?
"I'm saying slavery is evil. Period. Full stop. The owning of another human being and forcing them into labor against their will (the definition of slavery) is evil. Not being a descendant of slavery or a slave/master/oppressor rape, or whatever point you're trying to make."
Again, if you weren't so impatient (or obsessed with establishing the direction this thread will take to suit your own desires), you might not be asking this question.
Yet, you're still left with explaining how the results of slavery are not as "evil" as the slavery that preceded those results.
"No, the questions are not INTENDED to be leading."
Yet they are.
"They are rational, basic questions that I suspect that 90% of the US could agree with. That you are choosing to read into them "leading questions" when none is intended is something you can do, if you wish."
Are you really claiming that these questions are objectively "rational" and "basic" and that you can really speak for 90% of the US population? Or are you just spouting your opinion, and expecting me to ferret out your intent?
"But it's not the intent. At all."
Because I'm supposed to be able to flawlessly understand your intent. Got it.
"You are, as always, free to say, "No, I don't agree that black people have been historically oppressed in US history..." if you want to. Then you can make your case."
Just like you are always free to make shit up and try to attribute it to me.
"I'm just stating something that it seems like to me any rational, non-racist person could agree with. If you disagree, feel free. Make your case. Craig... "Yes, I’m saying that your position appears simplistic." Well, they ARE simple, basic questions. Questions I suspect most rational people can easily agree with. But I don't think simple = simplistic. They are reasonable questions seeking some basic base line where we can begin by acknowledging some agreement. From there, we can move on to more complex topics."
Ahhhh, the old "Dan tries to set the agenda at someone else's blog tactic. The problem is that you are clearly failing to understand where I'm trying to go, and you are doing so because you don't have the patience to allow me to finish the post. I only started this post prematurely because you were intent on driving the other post further off track. Now, your impatience drives you to make assumptions, based on your prejudices, and argue against your assumptions instead of simply waiting to see where things actually go.
How about, you let me be in charge of my posts, and my blog, and you wait until I finish this one instead of making unfounded assumptions?
Craig... "Are you really claiming that these questions are objectively "rational" and "basic" and that you can really speak for 90% of the US population? Or are you just spouting your opinion, and expecting me to ferret out your intent?"
What I SAID was "I SUSPECT..." It is clearly an expression of an opinion that I do not KNOW the facts on, but I SUSPECT. It is my OPINION, as you can tell from what I actually said.
Having said that, are you saying that you SUSPECT that 90% of the US would NOT agree that slavery is always evil? If so, you may be right. That may explain some things. But I suspect that IF you think that, you are wrong.
Here's one poll (not sure of its reliability) that showed that 20% of Trump supporters think that Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves (!!). Still, I suspect that a large swath of the US would gladly affirm that it is evil to own human beings as property.
On the other hand, in spite of you spending MANY words saying you've answered this question, I STILL don't know what your answer is. It seems like it would have saved you words to simply answer the question rather than repeat that you have answered it.
What that makes me think is that, for you, it's not a simple yes or no question. That you can't simply affirm, "Yes, of course, the owning of another human being as property is a great evil and an affront to human rights and decency and reason." But I don't know. Fill free to clarify. Or not. I just don't understand the not answering but that's up to you.
If you HAVE answered, I don't recall the answer so why not just repeat it?
To pretend that there's any question of where Craig stands on the slavery issue is to simply prove one is a liar. There's no justification asking of him such a question...to make a point or to construct an argument (as if the person asking is capable of doing so intelligently and honestly)...and it is something which at this point should be a given.
I'm not surprise that after questioning the integrity of a right-wing site on the basis of a ranking by one who has been referred to a "amateur" and "arm-chair quarterback" by various more established sources, Dan now offers a poll about which the reliability is questioned even by him. How could a journalism student do something so blatantly stupid except because he's a hack?
To say one "suspects" what 90% of the population does or doesn't believe or support is just a dodge to avoid what you would otherwise assert. Try just speaking for yourself. A compelling argument...assuming you could ever assemble one...doesn't require opinion polls, of reliable quality or not.
Post a Comment