I think the downvotes are there because the poster is not saying “stop with the minority oppression discourse already.” It’s saying “the minority oppression is fueled by those at the top who want to see you divided. Address that first.”
But then, that’s my interpretation.
Say, you have two holes in a sinking boat, from which water is coming in. And one is bigger than the other. You have resources to fix one at a time. Which one do you fix first?
I think your metaphor is a little more apt than you think: The complaint is that because white people are uncomfortable with talking about race, they will insist that fixing the big hole will somehow also fix the smaller hole, and therefore there’s no reason to acknowledge the small hole.
I see it as white people saying “you know what… in the end, the enemy is actually that guy at the top. Let’s help each other address that. Everyone wins!” So in a way, I agree with the message regardless of motive. If white people’s motive is to avoid the race conversation, welp, in the end once the bigger issue is resolved, then black people will have less noise to help them (white people) see their (black people) predicament.
This mindset requires a silver bullet solution to class problems before the conversation about race can start. The practical effect of this is that ideas that would make the world piecemeal better for people of color (any people of color, not just blacks) are deemed not worthy of consideration.
Similarly, because we’re talking about this argument being used to silence non-white voices, that means that there is an assumption that any pro worker solution to class problems that is dreamt up must be inherently better for people of color. Without listening to anyone who might tell you otherwise. It gets very White Man’s Burden-y.
Basically, there’re two ways to interpret the idea that race problems are class problems:
They’re the same, so if we only focus on one, that’ll solve the other
They’re the same, so if we focus on both, that’ll solve the one real problem.
The former excludes voices, and you should be mindful that it furthers the divide that those in power want. The latter is inclusive, and allows for multiple fronts against “The guy at the top”
Man, I’m a person of color, and I’m all for inclusivity. But I’m also a practical dude and I prefer effective solutions rather than making ideology get in the way of solving issues.
If ideology means a longer term game, that doesn’t help the black person unfairly stuck in death row, or shot by the police, or fired without justification or falsely accused of rape today.
I think the downvotes are there because the poster is not saying “stop with the minority oppression discourse already.” It’s saying “the minority oppression is fueled by those at the top who want to see you divided. Address that first.”
But then, that’s my interpretation.
Say, you have two holes in a sinking boat, from which water is coming in. And one is bigger than the other. You have resources to fix one at a time. Which one do you fix first?
I think your metaphor is a little more apt than you think: The complaint is that because white people are uncomfortable with talking about race, they will insist that fixing the big hole will somehow also fix the smaller hole, and therefore there’s no reason to acknowledge the small hole.
I see it as white people saying “you know what… in the end, the enemy is actually that guy at the top. Let’s help each other address that. Everyone wins!” So in a way, I agree with the message regardless of motive. If white people’s motive is to avoid the race conversation, welp, in the end once the bigger issue is resolved, then black people will have less noise to help them (white people) see their (black people) predicament.
This mindset requires a silver bullet solution to class problems before the conversation about race can start. The practical effect of this is that ideas that would make the world piecemeal better for people of color (any people of color, not just blacks) are deemed not worthy of consideration.
Similarly, because we’re talking about this argument being used to silence non-white voices, that means that there is an assumption that any pro worker solution to class problems that is dreamt up must be inherently better for people of color. Without listening to anyone who might tell you otherwise. It gets very White Man’s Burden-y.
Basically, there’re two ways to interpret the idea that race problems are class problems:
The former excludes voices, and you should be mindful that it furthers the divide that those in power want. The latter is inclusive, and allows for multiple fronts against “The guy at the top”
Man, I’m a person of color, and I’m all for inclusivity. But I’m also a practical dude and I prefer effective solutions rather than making ideology get in the way of solving issues.
If ideology means a longer term game, that doesn’t help the black person unfairly stuck in death row, or shot by the police, or fired without justification or falsely accused of rape today.