Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 11-20-2008, 02:59 PM

well, cyn, there's a way in which there's no disagreement and another in which there are two sets of folk talking past each other. *in the united states* i would make a distinction between the nature of racism directed at native americans and african-americans and other forms of discrimination--and i would make distinctions between those two generalities as well (if you think about it, the aggregation is itself a reflection of racism, but that's another matter)----because these forms of racism are in a way written into the history of the united states *from the outset*--so in a sense they're *structural features* of what the united states is. that's a feature that makes the western hemisphere different from europe, and the ways in which the histories have played out distinguishes different histories within the western hemisphere. [[i think i have the hemisphere name right--something's bugging me about it--i chock that up to just having stopped riding a lead bicycle that doesn't go anywhere]]

discrimination amongst groups that are differentiated from one another by surface features like skin color or other, deeper features like language seems to me to be *linked* to these other, structural features in that they operate with similar logics, but they're not the same as them. this seems to be the point at which the talking-past happens and the explanation seems to me to follow from the way the noun "racism" gets applied. the word racism equates things in a way that is in this case deceptive--and you see how that works in this thread.

the problem with this distinction is that you could see it as trivializing discrimination in general by making it not as bad---and i would say that making a distinction doesn't imply that, only that the two forms i started off talking about are different in kind from other forms of discrimination because of the status they have in the history of the us. that's all.

the place of agreement is that no-one is saying that discrimination between other communities is not ugly. it is. and we'd all be better of were it to go away.

if we can agree to make some kind of distinction between them--not sure how exactly--if we can keep straight that there is a shift in register (why can't is figure out a more straightforward way to say this? i blame that fucking bicycle that doesn't go anywhere) then maybe we can stop the thread from looping back on itself so much.

it may be worth doing because, despite the looping, it's an interesting conversation.

11-20-2008, 02:59 PM	#103 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, cyn, there's a way in which there's no disagreement and another in which there are two sets of folk talking past each other. in the united states i would make a distinction between the nature of racism directed at native americans and african-americans and other forms of discrimination--and i would make distinctions between those two generalities as well (if you think about it, the aggregation is itself a reflection of racism, but that's another matter)----because these forms of racism are in a way written into the history of the united states from the outset--so in a sense they're structural features of what the united states is. that's a feature that makes the western hemisphere different from europe, and the ways in which the histories have played out distinguishes different histories within the western hemisphere. [[i think i have the hemisphere name right--something's bugging me about it--i chock that up to just having stopped riding a lead bicycle that doesn't go anywhere]] discrimination amongst groups that are differentiated from one another by surface features like skin color or other, deeper features like language seems to me to be linked to these other, structural features in that they operate with similar logics, but they're not the same as them. this seems to be the point at which the talking-past happens and the explanation seems to me to follow from the way the noun "racism" gets applied. the word racism equates things in a way that is in this case deceptive--and you see how that works in this thread. the problem with this distinction is that you could see it as trivializing discrimination in general by making it not as bad---and i would say that making a distinction doesn't imply that, only that the two forms i started off talking about are different in kind from other forms of discrimination because of the status they have in the history of the us. that's all. the place of agreement is that no-one is saying that discrimination between other communities is not ugly. it is. and we'd all be better of were it to go away. if we can agree to make some kind of distinction between them--not sure how exactly--if we can keep straight that there is a shift in register (why can't is figure out a more straightforward way to say this? i blame that fucking bicycle that doesn't go anywhere) then maybe we can stop the thread from looping back on itself so much. it may be worth doing because, despite the looping, it's an interesting conversation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-20-2008 at 03:02 PM..