|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 05 2020 02:37 Uldridge wrote:
That's why I said basis. Biology isn't the ultimate answer.
Testosterone causes to act a certain way.
Certain gene profiles with certain expression patterns cause a certain 'default' behavior.
Let me ask you a few questions: Why do you think people are conservative? Do you think they can even adhere to your view? Do you think you can come to a synthesis with these people that make up such a large chunk of society?
You're misunderstanding his argument as far as I can tell. He's arguing that it is culture that leads to testosterone making men more aggressive instead of more kind for example, not genetics.
________________________________
sounds an aweful lot like eugenics btw, so i would be careful on how anyone promoting that is trying to frame the conversation.
Yeah, particularly the "gene profiles with certain expression patterns cause a certain 'default' behavior". That seems like a bit of conflation between separate ideas I would expect on a site of ill repute.
Also the allusion that I may be genetically unable/unlikely to agree with conservatives.
|
On June 05 2020 02:29 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 02:11 puppykiller wrote:
This All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter shit is a petty waste of time. Accept the ALM crowd and tell them to put their money where their mouth is by attending protests and standing up for Black lives (since they are part of all lives).
Make it clear to the All lives matter folk that you see them as allies, because they care about all lives including yours.
Or BLM can just stay pissed off at them and have yet another hurdle to jump over to make change. Now there's something new in the way, a battleground that could have been sidestepped...
Some of you are too obsessed with waging war to consider that war breeds enemies. Doesn't sound like "by any means necessary." Sounds more like, "I just want to fight people I don't like." Some of you are mentally trapped in a world of war and think it's all about war, forgetting that the war was supposed to be a means to an end. I bet 50 years later if your still alive you will still be in this mental state, weather our society heals or not. BLM do this, people just don’t want to listen, or are ignorant of some of what they do. I’ve seen enough attempts at ‘why didn’t BLM say anything about x white guy?’ get squashed immediately by people linking to statements about said incidents on Twitter and Facebook the last week to do me a lifetime. Nothing is as symptomatic of fragile white sensibilities that they can’t get on board a black-driven movement without changes to the branding being made. Like it or not all lives matter and blue lives matter have been commandeered by groups who are already enemies and hostile to the movement, as has been pointed out before in this thread. Yes in an ideal world I’d agree with your sentiment but we’re far from an ideal world currently.
I agree with each point you made. Can we at least try this for the thread to see how the All Lives Matter crowd react. If they react the way you say I will take back my post.
Acknowledge we are both working towards the same goal. Acknowledge we have different peaceful means. Acknowledge that each side meeting it's goal is a step forward. Acknowledge that we are allies, if All Lives Matter throws a protest, we will attend because we support the cause... so if they do and we show that token of good faith, they should feel comfortable to come to our protest. We don't have to chant "All Lives Matter" and they don't have to chant "Black Lives Matter", but we can still be allies. The middle group can unite and the extremes (the far and few that only care about white or black lives) lose their control over the situation.
|
On June 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 02:37 Uldridge wrote:
That's why I said basis. Biology isn't the ultimate answer.
Testosterone causes to act a certain way.
Certain gene profiles with certain expression patterns cause a certain 'default' behavior.
Let me ask you a few questions: Why do you think people are conservative? Do you think they can even adhere to your view? Do you think you can come to a synthesis with these people that make up such a large chunk of society? You're misunderstanding his argument as far as I can tell. He's arguing that it is culture that leads to testosterone making men more aggressive instead of more kind for example, not genetics. ________________________________ Show nested quote +sounds an aweful lot like eugenics btw, so i would be careful on how anyone promoting that is trying to frame the conversation. Yeah, particularly the "gene profiles with certain expression patterns cause a certain 'default' behavior". That seems like a bit of conflation between separate ideas I would expect on a site of ill repute. Also the allusion that I may be genetically unable/unlikely to agree with conservatives.
in your case thay may be an accurate statement lol
|
On June 05 2020 02:50 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 02:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On June 05 2020 02:11 puppykiller wrote:
This All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter shit is a petty waste of time. Accept the ALM crowd and tell them to put their money where their mouth is by attending protests and standing up for Black lives (since they are part of all lives).
Make it clear to the All lives matter folk that you see them as allies, because they care about all lives including yours.
Or BLM can just stay pissed off at them and have yet another hurdle to jump over to make change. Now there's something new in the way, a battleground that could have been sidestepped...
Some of you are too obsessed with waging war to consider that war breeds enemies. Doesn't sound like "by any means necessary." Sounds more like, "I just want to fight people I don't like." Some of you are mentally trapped in a world of war and think it's all about war, forgetting that the war was supposed to be a means to an end. I bet 50 years later if your still alive you will still be in this mental state, weather our society heals or not. BLM do this, people just don’t want to listen, or are ignorant of some of what they do. I’ve seen enough attempts at ‘why didn’t BLM say anything about x white guy?’ get squashed immediately by people linking to statements about said incidents on Twitter and Facebook the last week to do me a lifetime. Nothing is as symptomatic of fragile white sensibilities that they can’t get on board a black-driven movement without changes to the branding being made. Like it or not all lives matter and blue lives matter have been commandeered by groups who are already enemies and hostile to the movement, as has been pointed out before in this thread. Yes in an ideal world I’d agree with your sentiment but we’re far from an ideal world currently. I agree with each point you made. Can we at least try this for the thread to see how the All Lives Matter crowd react. If they react the way you say I will take back my post. Acknowledge we are both working towards the same goal. Acknowledge we have different peaceful means. Acknowledge that each side meeting it's goal is a step forward. Acknowledge that we are allies, if All Lives Matter throws a protest, we will attend because we support the cause... so if they do and we show that token of good faith, they should feel comfortable to come to our protest. We don't have to chant "All Lives Matter" and they don't have to chant "Black Lives Matter", but we can still be allies. The middle group can unite and the extremes (the far and few that only care about white or black lives) lose their control over the situation.
All Lives Matter does not throw protests, there is nothing to protest. All lives already matter nothing is wrong.
Do you understand?
|
On June 05 2020 02:57 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 02:50 puppykiller wrote:On June 05 2020 02:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On June 05 2020 02:11 puppykiller wrote:
This All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter shit is a petty waste of time. Accept the ALM crowd and tell them to put their money where their mouth is by attending protests and standing up for Black lives (since they are part of all lives).
Make it clear to the All lives matter folk that you see them as allies, because they care about all lives including yours.
Or BLM can just stay pissed off at them and have yet another hurdle to jump over to make change. Now there's something new in the way, a battleground that could have been sidestepped...
Some of you are too obsessed with waging war to consider that war breeds enemies. Doesn't sound like "by any means necessary." Sounds more like, "I just want to fight people I don't like." Some of you are mentally trapped in a world of war and think it's all about war, forgetting that the war was supposed to be a means to an end. I bet 50 years later if your still alive you will still be in this mental state, weather our society heals or not. BLM do this, people just don’t want to listen, or are ignorant of some of what they do. I’ve seen enough attempts at ‘why didn’t BLM say anything about x white guy?’ get squashed immediately by people linking to statements about said incidents on Twitter and Facebook the last week to do me a lifetime. Nothing is as symptomatic of fragile white sensibilities that they can’t get on board a black-driven movement without changes to the branding being made. Like it or not all lives matter and blue lives matter have been commandeered by groups who are already enemies and hostile to the movement, as has been pointed out before in this thread. Yes in an ideal world I’d agree with your sentiment but we’re far from an ideal world currently. I agree with each point you made. Can we at least try this for the thread to see how the All Lives Matter crowd react. If they react the way you say I will take back my post. Acknowledge we are both working towards the same goal. Acknowledge we have different peaceful means. Acknowledge that each side meeting it's goal is a step forward. Acknowledge that we are allies, if All Lives Matter throws a protest, we will attend because we support the cause... so if they do and we show that token of good faith, they should feel comfortable to come to our protest. We don't have to chant "All Lives Matter" and they don't have to chant "Black Lives Matter", but we can still be allies. The middle group can unite and the extremes (the far and few that only care about white or black lives) lose their control over the situation. All Lives Matter does not throw protests, there is nothing to protest. All lives already matter nothing is wrong. Do you understand?
So you're saying there is no war in Ba Sing Sae?
|
On June 05 2020 02:38 Trainrunnef wrote:
Isn't that completely opposed to your comment about human nature NOT being immutable?
EDIT: sounds an aweful lot like eugenics btw, so i would be careful on how anyone promoting that is trying to frame the conversation.
Okay, I'll try to convey this more constructively, because I've kind of been rambling, without accidentally sounding like an übermensch advocate.
Your genetic makeup is basically the blueprint, not only for your body, which extends to physiology, which extends to behavior. It's not because you're prone to addiction that you'll be an addict. You can fight the urges. You can identify (early on) that you like alcohol just a tad too much and restrict yourself from either indulging, or refraining from drinking too much.
What I'm saying is that, while your (epi)genome lays out some kind of fate for you, it's what you encounter and how your body reacts to these encounters which either makes this come true or not. Perhaps I was too absolute in what I was saying. There's a lot of flexibility, but the flexibility needs the opportunity (a specific event) for it to arise.
On June 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're misunderstanding his argument as far as I can tell. He's arguing that it is culture that leads to testosterone making men more aggressive instead of more kind for example, not genetics.
For instance this right here. Testosterone can do different things based on what environment you're in. However, you need the right environment for testosterone not to make you a machoman.
|
Now connect/reconcile that, to/with this?
On June 05 2020 00:11 Uldridge wrote:
But the common class interests aren't inextricably tied to racial justice. For the majority group its just justice and some kind of subset of justice that needs to be served.
Not everyone can be as aligned to your cause as you deem necessary, but they can still be an ally imo.
For example, you'd have to understand the coal miner fighting for health care being just a little bit less passionate about BLM. Because fighting for health care is his fight. And fighting takes a lot of energy.
With this response in consideration:+ Show Spoiler +On June 05 2020 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 00:11 Uldridge wrote:
But the common class interests aren't inextricably tied to racial justice. For the majority group its just justice and some kind of subset of justice that needs to be served.
Not everyone can be as aligned to your cause as you deem necessary, but they can still be an ally imo.
For example, you'd have to understand the coal miner fighting for health care being just a little bit less passionate about BLM. Because fighting for health care is his fight. And fighting takes a lot of energy. They invariably are. Race is a construct explicitly designed as an incarnation of "the other". This otherization is intrinsic to dehumanization. That dehumanization is inextricably connected to the exploitation that maintains the illusion of peace and prosperity among the bourgeoisie (also characterized as "negative peace"). The inhumanity of maintaining that illusion is constantly brought to our attention by our material conditions beyond superficial materialistic possessions/comforts. Opiate epidemic, Crack epidemic, riots, wars, climate change and a whole lot more are this manifesting. As should be clear with at least war and climate change, the consequences of inaction and fence-sitting aren't limited to the borders of the most egregiously offending individuals/guilty parties and nations. This isn't to disregard research on empathy in relation to social proximity but to embrace it and integrate it into a larger framework of social understanding. This is where I would segue to Freire and being more fully human if I believed people were with me up to this point.
I think we might agree on what must be done and our disagreement is how hard we must try or how successful we can expect to be in specific circumstances.
I think you might be saying the conditions we need to change people's behavior will take a lot of work? If it is, I agree, one reason we haven't a moment to waste. To the inevitable 'but how" I obviously favor Freireian revolutionary love and a problem-posing critical pedagogy. But there's other good ideas out there I'm unfamiliar with I'm sure.
EDIT: Another particular I'm picking up is that you seem to be looking at the individual level (gay relative gets married someone understands gay rights suddenly) while I'm talking about the systemic/cultural level (marriage equality is normal and people are surprised to find out it wasn't always this way).
|
For a revolution you need much more momentum than what is currently going on. These protests are still peanuts.
You need a large chunk of the USA to feel like they can't cope any longer. I'm almost convinced that a large portion of these people will never be influenced insofar to start revolting against the current system. One of these reasons is that they don't have anything to necessarily fight against. Why would a conventional family with a house and steady income leave that behind? You do not need a lot of comfort to be unwilling to give that up.
My initial point was that human strife is human strife, regardless which demographic or subculture is waging its war. I guess you didn't agree with that and we went into a little semantics tangent. I still don't think race needs to be tied to common class interests. An us vs them is not one race versus another race. And to be infusing race into the point, muddies it with more hurdles and semantics and potential tripwires for certain groups to align themselves than necessary. Clean, simple, potentially (hopefully) unifiying language is necessary to align people, not using divisive words like "race" - because you know it'll encite numerous groups to quibble about whatever bullshit instead of focusing on the prize (which is the revolution).
I believe we need lives to be a lot worse for people in general before the US can start to heal. Perhaps Trump can fuck it up so badly in the next 4 years that revolution becomes a given, but if it doesn't then, I have low hopes of it actually happening.
Edit to your edit: I don't necessarily understand what your examples are with the gay marriage thing, because it's still not considered normal in the US in a lot of areas if I'm correct and your conservative uncle isn't suddenly going to understand it if this union happens? Maybe your examples are some abstracted form, but I feel like they're flying over my head.
I do tend to focus on the individual level. Even though the systems are what's actually the problem and (re)cycling what's outdated/broken (all these old people in the government, yikes), it's the individuals that'll make the difference. The individual will break shit, the system is meant to keep it together and only works to change incrementally.
|
On June 05 2020 04:02 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +For a revolution you need much more momentum than what is currently going on. These protests are still peanuts.
You need a large chunk of the USA to feel like they can't cope any longer. I'm almost convinced that a large portion of these people will never be influenced insofar to start revolting against the current system. One of these reasons is that they don't have anything to necessarily fight against. Why would a conventional family with a house and steady income leave that behind? You do not need a lot of comfort to be unwilling to give that up.
My initial point was that human strife is human strife, regardless which demographic or subculture is waging its war. I guess you didn't agree with that and we went into a little semantics tangent. I still don't think race needs to be tied to common class interests. An us vs them is not one race versus another race. And to be infusing race into the point, muddies it with more hurdles and semantics and potential tripwires for certain groups to align themselves than necessary. Clean, simple, potentially (hopefully) unifiying language is necessary to align people, not using divisive words like "race" - because you know it'll encite numerous groups to quibble about whatever bullshit instead of focusing on the prize (which is the revolution).
I believe we need lives to be a lot worse for people in general before the US can start to heal. Perhaps Trump can fuck it up so badly in the next 4 years that revolution becomes a given, but if it doesn't then, I have low hopes of it actually happening.
Edit to your edit: I don't necessarily understand what your examples are with the gay marriage thing, because it's still not considered normal in the US in a lot of areas if I'm correct and your conservative uncle isn't suddenly going to understand it if this union happens? Maybe your examples are some abstracted form, but I feel like they're flying over my head.
I do tend to focus on the individual level. Even though the systems are what's actually the problem and (re)cycling what's outdated/broken (all these old people in the government, yikes), it's the individuals that'll make the difference. The individual will break shit, the system is meant to keep it together and only works to change incrementally.
To try to reign this in a bit more I'm going to focus on this:
My initial point was that human strife is human strife, regardless which demographic or subculture is waging its war. I guess you didn't agree with that and we went into a little semantics tangent. I still don't think race needs to be tied to common class interests. An us vs them is not one race versus another race. And to be infusing race into the point, muddies it with more hurdles and semantics and potential tripwires for certain groups to align themselves than necessary. Clean, simple, potentially (hopefully) unifiying language is necessary to align people, not using divisive words like "race" - because you know it'll encite numerous groups to quibble about whatever bullshit instead of focusing on the prize (which is the revolution).
Class war is inherently an us vs them, and in part because of the biological dispositions we discussed, a powerful sociopolitical mechanism. Race is also an us them conflict. Class in the US is rooted in our economic system of capitlaism, as is race. They are both inextricable from capitalism today.
We can't infuse race into the discussion or the subject because it is and always has been there. Your talking about ignoring it. Which brings us back to the "Yeah, I'll fix it, but only if you stop bringing it to my attention in ways I can't ignore". Which we know is actually "Yeah, I'm not going to fix this and would like you to accept that or complain in a way I can ignore".
|
I'm not talking about ignoring it, I'm talking about it not always being the case.
|
On June 05 2020 04:30 Uldridge wrote:
I'm not talking about ignoring it, I'm talking about it not always being the case.
You're talking about ignoring it when convenient for you.
Just to make the connection to US politics clear in my argument, this "let's focus on making things more equitable and not mention race" gave us The New Deal which tossed Black people in particular under the bus to secure a more equitable white America (which got pissed away over the last ~50 years anyway).
|
This is how I see it. If I'm wrong, I guess that's because I'm still seeing through the white supermacy lens a little too much I suppose:
People currently protesting because of systematic abuse against minorites is a common class interest tied to racial justice.
Coal miners protesting for better health insurance is a common class interest tied to social justice.
Homosexual people protesting because they want to legalize same sex marriage is a common class interest tied in with the LGBT justice.
The world becomes better for making these things better for these communities, but saying they're all a race thing is not how I'm seeing it.
Edit: Accounting for every possible group is a recipe for disaster too. It makes things overly complex way too easily and nothing will get done. That's why we need to either change things one at a time gradually, or completely brute force it.
|
On June 05 2020 04:40 Uldridge wrote:
This is how I see it. If I'm wrong, I guess that's because I'm still seeing through the white supermacy lens a little too much I suppose:
People currently protesting because of systematic abuse against minorites is a common class interest tied to racial justice.
Coal miners protesting for better health insurance is a common class interest tied to social justice.
Homosexual people protesting because they want to legalize same sex marriage is a common class interest tied in with the LGBT justice.
The world becomes better for making these things better for these communities, but saying they're all a race thing is not how I'm seeing it.
Edit: Accounting for every possible group is a recipe for disaster too. It makes things overly complex way too easily and nothing will get done. That's why we need to either change things one at a time gradually, or completely brute force it.
Surely you can see how race is connected to any and all of those?
I'm arguing people's brains are capable of seeing all those as connected because people can occupy many or all of those identities at once. Somewhere there's a Black lgbtq coal miner waiting to hear which parts of your identity we get to ignore for progress? Because it seems the people that insist on this always expect their whiteness and their (almost always) maleness to be centered as the identity (because they view it as neutral/normal) through which we make the argument for a more equitable and just society.
The idea that white people are morally and socially obligated to simply act right is seen as an unreasonable expectation for them but the bare minimum expected from anyone else that wants equitable treatment in society.
EDIT: This is evidenced in the "I know this is horrific stuff I'm complicit in, but you're going to need to be nicer if you want me to do anything about it" rhetoric It presumes they can be horrific and still demand a pleasant demeanor from the people they're abusing rhetorically or literally (in the case of police).
|
On June 05 2020 04:40 Uldridge wrote:
This is how I see it. If I'm wrong, I guess that's because I'm still seeing through the white supermacy lens a little too much I suppose:
People currently protesting because of systematic abuse against minorites is a common class interest tied to racial justice.
Coal miners protesting for better health insurance is a common class interest tied to social justice.
Homosexual people protesting because they want to legalize same sex marriage is a common class interest tied in with the LGBT justice.
The world becomes better for making these things better for these communities, but saying they're all a race thing is not how I'm seeing it.
Edit: Accounting for every possible group is a recipe for disaster too. It makes things overly complex way too easily and nothing will get done. That's why we need to either change things one at a time gradually, or completely brute force it.
so then why did you originally start by opposing BLM for being too racially focused when you acknowledge here that accounting for too many things makes things complex?
Which came first? the chicken or the egg? you argue that BLM shouldn't push away potential allies to its cause by focusing on racial injustice, yet an unfocused argument is destined to go nowhere.
|
What would it take for a police department to run out of tear gas?
|
I mean sure, there exists a black gay coal miner, but the specifics are not about his race. If you're telling me that black homosexual coal miners get unfairly targeted by police, put in more hazardous situations than their colleagues (or get less of a premium, or it's harder to obtain for them - I don't actually know the specific english terms regarding health insurance or that the he has less of a chance of marrying as opposed to white homosexuals, then it's a race thing sure.
Has race been a major topic of discussion during those issues? If so, I'm sorry about not being as considerate yet.
Sometimes certain groups have more pressing matters to fight for maybe? I don't know man.
I think it's difficult for a caucasian centric culture to have a viewpoint other than its caucasianized center. Just like Asian cultures will have an asian centric viewpoint and African cultures have their african centric viewpoint.
Again, I come with the word difficult, because not many people are equipped to just flip a switch and start from a cultural relativistic point of view. I know and understand the concepts, but I'm not exercised in it well enough to just put myself in other culture's shoes. That I don't know enough people around me that are culturally different doesn't help me.
Out of curiosity, what constitutes as acting right and what do white people systematically do that's not as acting right?
Sorry if I'm (seemingly) obtuse, trying to get to the nitty gritty here.
On June 05 2020 05:11 Trainrunnef wrote:
so then why did you originally start by opposing BLM for being too racially focused when you acknowledge here that accounting for too many things makes things complex?
Which came first? the chicken or the egg? you argue that BLM shouldn't push away potential allies to its cause by focusing on racial injustice, yet an unfocused argument is destined to go nowhere.
I didn't know I was opposing BLM for being too racially focused? If this is where I stated that not everything is inextricably bound to race? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask with your reply.
Accounting for many things makes things too complex because you're bound to miss a beat and then it's another few decades of issues for these demograpics. Or things move to a halt because you can't appease everyone and nothing happens, which causes the cycle to restart. Focusing on singular things is more coherent.
If black coal miners are systematically treated worse than non black coal miners (show me a coal miner that's not black amirite?), it's definitely a relevant issue. If they're not, why tie race into it?
|
|
|
I donated to Kelly, of course I’m donating to science why wouldn’t you...
|
On June 05 2020 05:24 Uldridge wrote:I mean sure, there exists a black gay coal miner, but the specifics are not about his race. If you're telling me that black homosexual coal miners get unfairly targeted by police, put in more hazardous situations than their colleagues (or get less of a premium, or it's harder to obtain for them - I don't actually know the specific english terms regarding health insurance or that the he has less of a chance of marrying as opposed to white homosexuals, then it's a race thing sure. Has race been a major topic of discussion during those issues? If so, I'm sorry about not being as considerate yet. Sometimes certain groups have more pressing matters to fight for maybe? I don't know man. I think it's difficult for a caucasian centric culture to have a viewpoint other than its caucasianized center. Just like Asian cultures will have an asian centric viewpoint and African cultures have their african centric viewpoint. Again, I come with the word difficult, because not many people are equipped to just flip a switch and start from a cultural relativistic point of view. I know and understand the concepts, but I'm not exercised in it well enough to just put myself in other culture's shoes. That I don't know enough people around me that are culturally different doesn't help me. Out of curiosity, what constitutes as acting right and what do white people systematically do that's not as acting right? Sorry if I'm (seemingly) obtuse, trying to get to the nitty gritty here. Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 05:11 Trainrunnef wrote:
so then why did you originally start by opposing BLM for being too racially focused when you acknowledge here that accounting for too many things makes things complex?
Which came first? the chicken or the egg? you argue that BLM shouldn't push away potential allies to its cause by focusing on racial injustice, yet an unfocused argument is destined to go nowhere. I didn't know I was opposing BLM for being too racially focused? If this is where I stated that not everything is inextricably bound to race? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask with your reply. Accounting for many things makes things too complex because you're bound to miss a beat and then it's another few decades of issues for these demograpics. Or things move to a halt because you can't appease everyone and nothing happens, which causes the cycle to restart. Focusing on singular things is more coherent. If black coal miners are systematically treated worse than non black coal miners (show me a coal miner that's not black amirite?), it's definitely a relevant issue. If they're not, why tie race into it?
The thing is other cultures have demonstrated they can integrate a caucasian-centered world view into theirs. This is called "Westernization" which various cultures have integrated to varying degrees including the complete and total abolition of their previous culture.
Act right means being humane. The status quo is objectively inhumane.
Really this argument boils down to a very elaborate version of:
Oppressed peoples: "I want you to recognize my humanity"
White people: "Make me!"
Oppressed peoples: okayy...
White people: "whoa, what are you doing?!? I can't continue my life as it was if you keep trying to make me recognize your humanity. Stop being divisive, we all want a better world right?!"
Repeat for the last 220+ years.
|
Westernization is pretty much a relic from the cultural rape that happened around those times. I wish we left Africa and Asia and America alone. The world would've been so much richer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
