11–20 of 22 posts
Wouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites. The former elevates everyone while the latter diminishes everyone. At some point, the world has to recognize that non-whites don’t need paternalistic care.
If that was their goal, then yes, but given that it isn't, they do this instead.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites. The former elevates everyone while the latter diminishes everyone. At some point, the world has to recognize that non-whites don’t need paternalistic care.
Expressions of this sentiment like multiculturalism, mass migration and political correctness of the form of completely denouncing prior empires and dominant civilization is the status-quo order of the day. I think it is more uncertain how this type of worldview is opposed, not whether it is effective.
When everything is about power, even history is a threat. It's sad some people fall for this pessimistic and divisive ideology.
When everything is about power, even history is a threat. It's sad some people fall for this pessimistic and divisive ideology.
Everything has always been about power to one degree or another. Even living in a comfortable political environment where you don't have to worry about this stuff and can live in peace...first requires power. The key is getting people to think it is bad to play at the same game being played against you. Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not.
> Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not.
That sounds like "power" in ability, as in to do something, which is not the same as the "power" used in Critical Theories and other political ideologies. Freedom is not about power, and is defined in contrast to power. You want freedom from something that is controlling you, or has power over you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has always been about power to one degree or another. Even living in a comfortable political environment where you don't have to worry about this stuff and can live in peace...first requires power. The key is getting people to think it is bad to play at the same game being played against you. Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not.
To be clear, the power I'm talking about is about controlling people. There can be peace without needing to hold power against other people... unless they are the ones wanting the power. So for example, self-defense is not about power. > Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not. That sounds like "power" in ability, as in to do something, which is not the same as the "power" used…
Talking of power relations isn't really incorrect re: critical theory, probably where they go wrong is somehow pathologizing power itself. It is good to be powerful. It is bad to be weak.
Often times one does have to apply power against other people, do you disagree?
People like to abstract out the nasty parts of this stuff and think rules, or laws, or documents, or mutual discussion can somehow erase the problem of needing to have power to see one's interests and will realized.
But rules and laws and principles are broken all the time.. by whom? The powerful of course. And simply deferring to some abstraction in and of itself can not compel anyone to follow it; it must be backed up with power to enforce.
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites. The former elevates everyone while the latter diminishes everyone. At some point, the world has to recognize that non-whites don’t need paternalistic care.