Quote:
|
I understand your example, but lets try to take political philosophy out of the mix for a moment. We don't have to be just white, black, liberal, conservative or communist to form and bear hatred. What is the solution?
|
otto:
there is no way to take political worldviews out of this.
fundamentally, for reasons that i have spelled out a number of times and lack either the time or the energy to repeat (and i don't mean this to sound snippy, though it probably does: it's just my 3-d situation at the moment), i do not accept the conservative-specific reduction of racism to a type of sentence, nor do i accept that "hatred" is meaningful in this context as a way of desginating anything except a reductive-to-dismissive interpretation of a discourse that originates with folk who occupy a position of exclusion from this order, in the main, and who by virtue of the meanings of that exclusion have every right to be angry and to enact that anger.
on the other hand, if that's all that was happening in liberation theology--i'm snippy and so everything should burn--i wouldn't be in this discussion because i would have nothing to say about the way in which the politics are being framed--because in the conservative-dominated version that we're talking across, that's all wright's politics are presented as being.
but liberation theology goes beyond this to a systemic critique of capitalism on the one hand and a view about building alternate, autonomous economic communities on the other--communities which are not dominated by capitalist forms of exchange, production, etc.
this is what i mean by selective quotation designed to trivialize a politics that at some level or another more conservative folk find threatening on the one hand, and the simultaneous use of those selective quotations to do political damage to obama.
short alternative version: to accept your question, i'd also have to accept the way in which wright's politics are framed as adequate: i don't.