so blacks don't know what it is like to be white? and thus will always be incompetent to function in mainstream society?
which doesn't seem to hold back asians?
is it because they are lighter so they can guess even if they cannot understand?
Actually, Bruce, "mainstream society" isn't white and
male so much anymore.
And while I am not going to get into an extended
discussion of racial politics, the notion that Asians
don't encounter discrimination is also laughable --
and in either case, a white guy isn't in the best
position to "explain" the African American or Asian
American experience, unless he's done a bunch of
ethnographic research.
Armchair analysis of culture based on outdated and
limited perceptions is completely unhelpful -- and not
usually informed by listening and observation (the
keys to logical deduction and scientific observation).
Cheers,
Brian
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
so blacks don't know what it is like to be white?
and thus will always be incompetent to function in
mainstream society?which doesn't seem to hold back asians?
is it because they are lighter so they can guess
even if they cannot understand?From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:13:17 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need to
be more politically correct to succeed?Starchild:
A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.
The simple reality is that most white guys --
certainly white guys who live in white suburban
areas
-- don't know what it's like to be a black American.Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.
Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
gay.Yet we have white straight guys presuming to
describe
all of these things and counter the testimony of
others as a matter of policy.If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy
for
"white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
equally wrong for a white straight group of guys to
ignore the issues of the black and gay communities
and
claim they don't exist.Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
theories and thoughts, we pretend that those
problems
just don't exist and that acknowledging that they do
is somehow endorsing "group rights."Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
consider individuals of those various communities as
individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and very
few people of color or of alternate sexual
orientations or women -- the latter representing a
majority of humanity -- get involved.If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
majority of society should be ignored, and worse,
that
a majority of society should be condemned in a
bigoted
way with state power because restrictions elsewhere
would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we
cannot
act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull the
lever of the party that represents their own
self-interest. After all, we're not making any
effort
to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try
to
understand their context -- we're simply denying it
exists and writing them off.And such foolish amortization goes both ways.
Cheers,
Brian
--- Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink .net> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I think I understand your core point very well.
You
> speak of
> "building a broader based movement that solidly
> embraces our
> principles." That is exactly what I am trying to
do.
> We must reach
> out to people on the left, and I have been
> championing such an
> approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
> principles of
> individual rights, not on the premises of group
> rights and "I'm-more-
> oppressed-than- you" identity politics. The latter
> premises are
> incompatible with our principles, and poison to
the
> libertarian ideal
> of a society where everyone is treated equally
under
> the law.
>
> I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but
we
> should avoid the
> implication that a person's statements are
> automatically less valid
> because of his or her race, gender, sexual
> orientation, etc. It was
> this implication, in your statement, "We've got
> white guys
> 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we
have
> gay men
> 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to be
> government property
> isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
> "PC." I realize that
> such persons saying such things *look* bad to
those
> who *are* coming
> from a politically correct perspective, and I
assume
> that's what
> concerns you.. I share that concern, but it's a
tough
> balance -- as I
> said, we cannot afford to embrace identity
politics,
> nor should we
> try to restrict free speech. We just need to
> communicate in a
> sensitive manner that shows we understand
legitimate
> grievances and
> recognize the reality of oppression where it
exists.
>
> The charge of "trading the rights of a group of
> people" is specious
> here. I could just as well say that you are for
> "trading the rights
> of a group of people" when you oppose U.S.
> government military
> intervention in Darfur because of the effect it
will
> have on the
> liberty of people in the U.S. Broadly speaking,
"gay
> rights" *is* a
> single issue in national politics. Yes, there are
> lots of sub-issues,
> but that's also true for other meta-issues like
> migration, drugs,
> monetary policy, civil liberties, and so on, et
> cetera, ad nauseum.
>
> This is a side point, but the Republicans are far
> from out as a
> national party. Most of their current downturn is
> related to the
> situation in Iraq, not to issues such as race,
> gender, and sexual
> orientation.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild:
> >
> > If you view not being racist, not being
> homophobic,
> > and not being misogynistic as "PC," then I'm
> afraid my
> > core point has escaped you.
> >
> > As for the success of the Republican strategy,
> things
> > are going really well for them as of late,
aren't
> > they?
> >
> > As for "moving towards a more free society," if
> you're
> > willing to trade the rights of a group of
people,
> or
> > discount them as a "single issue," than you are
by
=== message truncated ===