Women’s March on Washington Opens Contentious Dialogues About Race: Concerning "White Allies"
41 replies, posted
[quote]Many thousands of women are expected to converge on the nation’s capital for the Women’s March on Washington the day after Donald J. Trump’s inauguration. Jennifer Willis no longer plans to be one of them.
Ms. Willis, a 50-year-old wedding minister from South Carolina, had looked forward to taking her daughters to the march. Then she read a post on the Facebook page for the march that made her feel unwelcome because she is white.
The post, written by a black activist from Brooklyn who is a march volunteer, advised “white allies” to listen more and talk less. It also chided those who, it said, were only now waking up to racism because of the election.
“You don’t just get to join because now you’re scared, too,” read the post. “I was born scared.”
“This is a women’s march,” she said. “We’re supposed to be allies in equal pay, marriage, adoption. Why is it now about, ‘White women don’t understand black women’?”
If all goes as planned, the Jan. 21 march will be a momentous display of unity in protest of a president whose treatment of women came to dominate the campaign’s final weeks. But long before the first buses roll to Washington and sister demonstrations take place in other cities, contentious conversations about race have erupted nearly every day among marchers, exhilarating some and alienating others.
In Tennessee, emotions ran high when organizers changed the name of the local march from “Women’s March on Washington-Nashville” to “Power Together Tennessee, in solidarity with Women’s March on Washington.” While many applauded the name change, which was meant to signal the start of a new social justice movement in Nashville, some complained that the event had turned from a march for all women into a march for black women.
In Louisiana, the first state coordinator gave up her volunteer role in part because there were no minority women in leadership positions at that time.
“I got a lot of flak locally when I stepped down, from white women who said that I’m alienating a lot of white women,” said Candice Huber, a bookstore owner in New Orleans, who is white. “They said, ‘Why do you have to be so divisive?’”
The post that offended Ms. Willis was part of that effort. So was the quotation posted on the march’s Facebook page from Bell Hooks, the black feminist, about forging a stronger sisterhood by “confronting the ways women — through sex, class and race — dominated and exploited other women.”
In response, a New Jersey woman wrote: “I’m starting to feel not very welcome in this endeavor.”
A debate then ensued about whether white women were just now experiencing what minority women experience daily, or were having a hard time yielding control. [b]A young white woman from Baltimore wrote with bitterness that white women who might have been victims of rape and abuse were being “asked to check their privilege,” [/b]a catchphrase that refers to people acknowledging their advantages, but which even some liberal women find unduly confrontational...
But then she (Ms. Willis) read a post by ShiShi Rose, a 27-year-old blogger from Brooklyn.
“Now is the time for you to be listening more, talking less,” Ms. Rose wrote. “You should be reading our books and understanding the roots of racism and white supremacy. Listening to our speeches. You should be drowning yourselves in our poetry.”
Ms. Rose said in an interview that the intention of the post was not to weed people out but rather to make them understand that they had a lot of learning to do.
“I needed them to understand that they don’t just get to join the march and not check their privilege constantly,” she said.
[/quote]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/womens-march-on-washington-opens-contentious-dialogues-about-race.html[/url]
I read the article. Like I don't want to simplify it but it's really "Woman A on facebook says that she's more victimized than Woman B. Woman B is scared off by Woman A's bullshit."
This sort of thing happens a lot when it comes to groups of people who are or feel oppressed. It's kind of like a godwins law. The longer you talk about being oppressed, the more likely it is to talk about how oppressed you are to other people.
They're basically just arguing over who has the highest victim status, causing their group to become more divided and less diverse by excluding everyone who isn't "oppressed" enough. Kind of hilarious actually, and highlights the fact that the ultimate goal for some of these activists is not *really* equality.
On the one hand, it is true that privileged white people are often the ones to practically hijack social justice movements and just talk over everyone else who would want to get a word in, with a side dish of holier-than-thou
On the other hand, turning it into a contest on who is more oppressed and thus gets to be the [I]real[/I] victim deserving of support in lieu of others is straight-up toxic and will cause the downfall of these equality movements if it continues
[quote]“Now is the time for you to be listening more, talking less,” Ms. Rose wrote. “You should be reading our books and understanding the roots of racism and white supremacy. Listening to our speeches. You should be drowning yourselves in our poetry.”
[/quote]
'you're wrong and ignorant, listen to us we know what's right'. Man this sounds condescending.
[QUOTE=meek;51678866]They're basically just arguing over who has the highest victim status, causing their group to become more divided and less diverse by excluding everyone who isn't "oppressed" enough. Kind of hilarious actually, and highlights the fact that the ultimate goal for some of these activists is not *really* equality.[/QUOTE]
That's why I fucking despise the term "ally". An alliance is a deterrent against your enemies, that much is true. But an alliance usually happens between parties that would otherwise fight one another.
Remember when we were ~allied~ to the soviet? I sure wish the same would happen to me on an interpersonal level /s
Fuck allies, I'd rather have a friend.
The left has always been prone to splits and divisions
[QUOTE=Conscript;51678983]The left has always been prone to splits and divisions[/QUOTE]
So has the right.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51678984]So has the right.[/QUOTE]
The right is by its very nature fragmented, as every country's own right wing is in an inherent rivalry with those of other countries. Meanwhile, the left wing is traditionally striving for some degree of internationalism, with varying success.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51678983]The left has always been prone to splits and divisions[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51678984]So has the right.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because individuals can be members of a political party yet still have differing opinions from one and another.
To be honest, i rather throw out those who do nothing but polarize debates, be those people be left or right.
"divide and conquer" seems apt
[QUOTE=meek;51678866]They're basically just arguing over who has the highest victim status, causing their group to become more divided and less diverse by excluding everyone who isn't "oppressed" enough. Kind of hilarious actually, and highlights the fact that the ultimate goal for some of these activists is not *really* equality.[/QUOTE]
A lot of them have dropped the "equality" plate and just taken up the more honest quest for "Equity". IE race/gender class guilt, and payout for perceived class transgressions. So whenever you hear about an "Equity" department or class at a university, now you know what it is
It's a little more honest, so a step in the right direction i guess?
Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.
Both ought to shut the fuck up and stop getting into a pissing match about who feels marginalised by who, they're not there because of race - it's about women's rights.
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679155]Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.[/QUOTE]
Is this the Alex Jones' definition of marxism?
These people are likely middle class ie bourgeoisie. There is no talk of seizing and socialising the means of production and distribution. These people don't want to establish a "dictatorship" of the proletariat or workers. They do not necessarily believe there will be an era of post scarcity where the state will no longer be necessary. They probably aren't (in the aggregate) even opposed to capitalism, any qualms they may have with capitalism are likely more with crony capitalism or radical free market bs.
If you're going to talk about politics try to get informed before you do so.
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679155]Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.[/QUOTE]
How is this comment in any way relevant? What does this have to do with "Marxism?"
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679155]Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.[/QUOTE]
please define marxism in your own words
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679155]Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.[/QUOTE]
Oh dear this should be good.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679207]Is this the Alex Jones' definition of marxism?
These people are likely middle class ie bourgeoisie. There is no talk of seizing and socialising the means of production and distribution. These people don't want to establish a "dictatorship" of the proletariat or workers. They do not necessarily believe there will be an era of post scarcity where the state will no longer be necessary. They probably aren't (in the aggregate) even opposed to capitalism, any qualms they may have with capitalism are likely more with crony capitalism or radical free market bs.
If you're going to talk about politics try to get informed before you do so.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the middle class is the bourgeoisie. In marxist theory, I believe the aristocracy no longer exists and the only two classes remaining are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. (As a result of the rise of liberalism)
The proletariat consists of both the lower and middle class, it's just that it expanded to include the proletariat with slightly more rights. The bourgeoisie are still those who have seized the means of production, rich businessmen and such.
But yeah, nVidia doesn't know what they're talking about.
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679155]Marxism in action, it can't die soon enough.[/QUOTE]
What.
Like, this isnt good, but that definition makes no sense.
Its like if i called climate change inherently racist.
[QUOTE=Erfly;51679331]I don't think the middle class is the bourgeoisie. In marxist theory, I believe the aristocracy no longer exists and the only two classes remaining are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. (As a result of the rise of liberalism)
The proletariat consists of both the lower and middle class, it's just that it expanded to include the proletariat with slightly more rights. The bourgeoisie are still those who have seized the means of production, rich businessmen and such.
But yeah, nVidia doesn't know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Yeah marxism is no longer applicable to the modern world, I do believe in socialising certain things (not all) and I believe that IF we could achieve post scarcity "the state" would no longer be necessary. But all his stuff about class isn't really relevant anymore.
But yeah, nVidia doesn't know what they're talking about.
These people are thinking solely in terms of race. They are putting people into different boxes and stacking them according to which one is the most oppressed this week on twitter, but if you're white you need to shut up.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679367]Yeah marxism is no longer applicable to the modern world, I do believe in socialising certain things (not all) and I believe that IF we could achieve post scarcity "the state" would no longer be necessary. But all this stuff about class isn't really relevant anymore.
But yeah, nVidia doesn't know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Social classes with low mobility between them are still a huge issue depending on the county, it's just that I doubt Marxism presents a good solution to it or even a particularly great theoretical explanation of the issue.
Marxism is also still a thing as long as there are people who believe in its methods.
The people in the OP probably don't quite, but in Germany for example that fringe of the political spectrum is still represented to some small extent.
[editline]16th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=nVidia;51679387]These people are thinking solely in terms of race. They are putting people into different boxes and stacking them according to which one is the most oppressed this week on twitter, but if you're white you need to shut up.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty certain that's not Marxism but just plain racism.
Both are authoritarian views, but they don't have that much in common.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679367]Yeah marxism is no longer applicable to the modern world, I do believe in socialising certain things (not all) and I believe that IF we could achieve post scarcity "the state" would no longer be necessary. But all this stuff about class isn't really relevant anymore.
But yeah, nVidia doesn't know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Believing Marxism is outdated is a reasonable position to hold, but do you [I]really[/I] believe class isn't relevant anymore? Class is as relevant now as during Marx's day.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;51679389]
I'm pretty certain that's not Marxism but just plain racism.
Both are authoritarian views, but they don't have that much in common.[/QUOTE]
Then i probably had a misunderstanding of the word.
But there is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism#Neo-Marxist_Feminist_Therapy]Neo Marxist Feminist Therapy[/url] (i'm not making this shit up) that aligns a bit better with what i was after.
Incredible. Modern social justice becoming a pissing match of who is the biggest victim.
Past leaders must be turning in their graves right now.
[editline]16th January 2017[/editline]
Although its funny to see white liberal women have their privilege check turned on them.
Its a wonder why movements such as these struggle to gain media attention when they turn on each other, fundamentally dividing and weakening the movement.
/s
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51679414]Believing Marxism is outdated is a reasonable position to hold, but do you [I]really[/I] believe class isn't relevant anymore? Class is as relevant now as during Marx's day.[/QUOTE]
Marxism ideas about class are irrelevant.
It's not the proletariat (working class) against the bourgeois (middle class) anymore.
The time marx lived in class was clearly defined and social mobility was low. Social mobility (while shitty in UK and US - worse than Pakistan...) is better now, so people move between traditional working class and traditional middle class. Due to automation and other things we (UK, US, most of europe) have moved from primary and secondary (blue collar and stereotypical working class jobs) sectors to tertiary and quaternary sectors.
[URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-now-has-7-social-classes-and-working-class-is-a-dwindling-breed-8557894.html"]This link discusses a study suggesting the original classes are no longer relevant[/URL]
We have class but our classes aren't the same as the classes in Marx time and his solution for giving all the power to the working class is totally insane.
We need fairer distribution of wealth and smaller disparity in compensation for work but Marx's solutions taken as they are are outdated and extreme. I'm pro socialising things people absolutely need but something which is neglected (by marx and other far left peeps) is the idea that privatisation can be used to adsorb and mitigate risk. That said I do consider myself fairly left wing.
I believe that privatisation in certain fields is great - business is risky and no perfect system can be made - failure will always happen and, for lack of a better term, its better for a private actor to go under the bus than for the state to fail. I see entrepreneurs and investors as people who are willing to take risks on behalf of the state. If the state fails in providing something its a disaster - if 1 of 20 competing companies collapses its a much smaller disaster. I think stuff which people need to live (utilities, healthcare, security) should always be provided by the state, then let private companies set up shop and try to compete if they wish to. Transparency, education and a good system should help avoid corruption where private actors corrupt the government to serve their private agendas.
Marx's views on class are from a different time and are too simplistic.
Sorry I meant to put all [b]his[/b] stuff about class rather than all [b]this[/b] stuff about class.
And here I was, foolishly thinking that the Women’s March on Washington would be about women, not race.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
