From "Does Anyone Have a Clue About How to Fight Back Against Trump’s Racism?/Moderates and progressives have a lot to lose by ignoring each other on this crucial question" by Thomas Edsall (in the NYT).
Edsall quotes lawprof Ian Haney López, who has recommended "cross-racial solidarity as the key to both racial justice and economic fairness" and received pushback from progressives, who tend to be "wary of any alliance with working and middle class whites." Haney López says that "racial justice activists" resist "the race-class approach" because they don't like the way the Democratic Party elite always seem to be telling them to "subordinate their concerns to larger goals."
Here's a highly rated comment from over there:
It boils down to this. Racial resentment IS American politics. America was born of racial resentment, built from racial resentment and is still divided by racial resentment.Which side is full of resentment — the left or the right? The people who think in terms of economics or the people who think in terms of race? Reading that comment, I wasn't really sure, but I presume the commenter is perceiving resentment as a quality possessed by the side he's not on. Isn't that how it always goes?
Framing the resentment along economic lines gives people an excuse to view the resentment as being nonracial. But is just that, an excuse. The core motivation is race, more specifically white privilege. No one want to be called a racist.
The whole package is then wrapped in the flag as a patriotic position. Actually, it is because America has always been about race.
I looked up "resentment" and got halfway down a rathole labeled "ressentiment." I'll just point it out. Just so you know I know it's there.
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206@Pookie Number 2:
I’m not sure I understand your point here. I don’t think my grandparents ever actually profited from the trauma of being imprisoned and seeing their family members murdered.
I suspect that some people abuse that history (bad apples in every crowd), but I also suggest that this experience probably creates some legitimate uncertainty about what could happen.
I was just being a bit of a smartass Not sure if you ever read Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry, but he makes the point that exploitation of the Holocaust is not limited to merely financial exploitation but also to political exploitation and to justify Israeli actions.
But I also wouldn’t assume that popular culture is an accurate representation of the prevalence of certain sentiments.
Well it is not merely pop culture. There is quite a bit of kvetching about country club exclusions or white-shoe firms. I grant your point about over-representation, but also Jews themselves are over-represented in media and entertainment, so a megaphone effect is already occurring.
Not sure if you ever read Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry, but he makes the point that exploitation of the Holocaust is not limited to merely financial exploitation but also to political exploitation and to justify Israeli actions.
I haven’t, but I was trying to address a related point anyhow. The idea that, say, Iranian leadership would willingly sacrifice themselves to destroy Israel may sound hopelessly paranoid to some people, but it’s something that a lot of Israelis believe in good faith, what with Hitler diverting German military resources to maintain Auschwitz rather than to fight the Soviets. I’m not saying that fear is correct, I’m saying it’s sincere.
Whether that deserves American involvement is, of course, a completely separate issue. But (and again, I haven’t read Finkelstein, although I am familiar with how he’s portrayed) I’m less inclined to believe that the referenced Israeli actions are an intentional abuse of the legacy of the Holocaust.
I’m not saying that fear is correct, I’m saying it’s sincere.
I touched on the topic of sincerity earlier in this thread when
I wrote: “ I suspect that some of it is certainly cynical self-motivation and some of it is bleeding heart true belief. How much of one or the other is pretty much unanswerable.”
As you’ve probably seen me write before, I don’t really care if a person making an argument is sincere or not. The strength of an argument rests on its merit, not the sincerity (or lack thereof) of the person making the argument.
The strength of an argument rests on its merit, not the sincerity (or lack thereof) of the person making the argument.
Of course. What I’m saying is simply that the sincerity (or lack thereof) demonstrates whether these actions (and their associated intentions) are accurately described as exploitative.
What I’m saying is simply that the sincerity (or lack thereof) demonstrates whether these actions (and their associated intentions) are accurately described as exploitative.
Oh that I definitely disagree with. You can exploit a sincere feeling.
"Howard said...
We are all racist. Ending the effects of racism are like getting sober. The first step is admitting you have a problem."
Ignorance is like that too, Howard
Post a Comment