5 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. This is not merely an issue of identity politics.

      This is a use of logos that falls flat as soon as you examine it for more than five seconds. This entire thing is an exercise in extreme identity politics. This author recognizes that an easy way to undercut an argument is to make it up front and take it our of your detractors mouth, but it doesn't counter the fact that they have not cited a single concrete example, choosing to talk entirely in hypothetical. This is so disappointing considering the strong opening sequence of their protest. Change occurs in the real world, not in our mind palaces. All they've done is parse apart relatively insignificant micro-aggressions in a way that damages the unified front against macro-aggressions. Using #LatinoLivesMatter is solidarity, and the author hasn't made a truly compelling argument why that wouldn't be the case that doesn't rely on conjecture or highly questionable subjective conclusions.

    2. it does not treat "Black" and "Native" as mutually exclusive experiences.

      Okay, but what if they are mutually separate experiences? Some Native people aren't black.

    3. This could be seen as, and in fact often is, an attempt by non-Black people to absolve ourselves from the social responsibility we have to address our own issues with racism.

      Citation? This feels like projection. Not trying to be overly negative, but this is a pretty harsh and damning statement based entirely on the author's perception. I feel like the author uses the right buzzwords and invokes the correct pathos, but what they're saying is ultimately an attempt to top the wokeness pyramid. The idea that, in 2020, when black people and protestors are being murdered at alarming rates, poor people are being evicted, and California is on fire, we would have this conversation is asinine. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but I don't think I've ever seen an article that is theoretically anti-racist be so opposed to intersectional solidarity.

    4. While these alternative tags have sometimes been used with the intent of being in solidarity with Black communities, their impact has in part been to effectively ignore the need for non-Black people of color to consider the forms of anti-Blackness we find within our own communities.

      I have respect for this writer and their nuanced take on this issue, but this is teetering into the realm of "pathologically woke". #BLM and all movements advocating for the rights of minorities must be populist in nature. If they are not populist, then they risk becoming elitist. This level of policing of how well-meaning anti-racists and POCs advocate for their rights ensures #BLM will be relegated to college students and professors. Considering there is already a narrative that racial justice movements are cause-celebs for the well-to-do and easily offended, I can't help but feel statements like these cause more harm than good.

    5. I am lying in the street because of a point Stokely Carmichael once made in a speech: that the destinies of Black and Latino peoples are intertwined. I am using my body to block the flow of traffic, the flow of a society that has disregarded humanistic thinking by normalizing violence against Black, Latino, and Native people. At the same time, I am dying-in specifically to show my solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

      This reminds me of Frances Ellen Watkins Harper's speech to the white suffragettes, criticizing them for not standing in solidarity with the struggles of black women.