Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
We sure do, but rather than focus on the meaning of Bennett's words, you continue to make wild misinterpretations, bad analogies, and factual misstatements.
While we're on the subject of ignorance, however, I'm going to post a link/quote. Since you asked to "explain where he is right," here it is. Since you appear determined not to understand his words, I'm not going to post an explanation of the actual meaning of Bennett's statement for you.
One of many links that say this
Unlike you, I am not under the impression that Bennett, a staunch anti-abortionist, wants to abort black babies. That would be ignorant.
However, feel free to "explain where he's wrong." |
My dispute was with the examples he chose, rather than the deed being done. I agree with you that he isn't really advocating abortion of black babies. That statement is so far from the realm of reason that only two groups of people who might think it's a viable topic to discuss seems to me to be radicals on any edge of the spectrum. The rest of us liberals can give him a pass on that comment without too much issue (not that I control the passes, but that I can in some cases decide to not recognize racism in paritilar places.
My whole point in the debate about the two looting/gathering pictures was that there was an example of two presumably non-racist (or at least would be disappointed with themselves if some thought there appearing to be racicts)--but that the actions of these two normal characters replicated aspects of our society's relationship with race, class, and the downtroden.
Specifically, we have Bennett claiming he wasn't racist in his comments because he wasn't really advocating the policy. But some of us respond to the cause of example--the underlying assumptions: black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime. Not only the statement appears problematic in light of cultural notions of how we collectively speak of the history of racism in this country, but it is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon.
So then we are left with racist artifacts floating into general consensus wihtout any malicious intent behind them, so they appear benevolent, and then this reframes the issue of abortion and mnarginalizes th evoices of the people most directly affected by the policy: black babies
And then we wonder what kind of power black babies have over the policies that most directly affect them, and it appears to be none .We would then turn to their advocates and wonder how much of their will they wre able to exert over the proces (veber-power) and if we conclucde that all of those groups have not much ability to have their voices heard and responded to in this debate, then we have someone's racist comment (with no intent of being offensive) that filtes through the structure and confirms our popular conceptions about something, and then settles next to us and it makes perferct sense that the item causing the disruption is perfectly explained by the time it returns to the person as an effect,
I have no idea if that made sense. I'm going to have to rearead this when I'm not on strange substances.