On not speaking out: an letter to an editor.

[caladri]

I am writing in reply to an opinion piece published in your paper recently which culminated with:
They have come for the trade-unionists; what is to stop them from coming for me?
The writer of this piece is ghoulishly appropriating the struggles of trade-unionists to glorify his own life. Of course nobody is going to come for him, he's in such a

Comments

[caladri]

Indeed, this was my attempt to ironically use the exclusivism and separatism to attack a Niemöller who made the mistake of speaking out, rather than remaining silent and hoping that they wouldn't come for him. I had wrongly assumed that the referent was so obvious that I needed to offer no explanation.

His message can be read as self-interested, "if consent to let them come for those who are less secure than you, what will stop them coming for you?" or as urging empathy at the cost of the destruction of self, whether really or figuratively. I perceive a rise in separatist rhetoric in queer identity politics right now, as a sort of backlash against the mawkish inclusivity of the recent past, in which those who have the least to lose seem to have appropriated the suffering of those most oppressed to purchase moral authority, or to paint a self-portrait of victimhood. I find some of the separatism quite worrying, and felt like this form might be useful to illuminate what worries me, particularly in the context of a rising rhetoric of "hate speech" and "hate crimes", as things which impact a group even when an individual is the one attacked. Likewise, it seems wrong to me to not recognize that some who are more privileged may nonetheless feel the chilling effects of actions which target the less privileged, and quite reasonably-so.

A failed attempt, it would seem :)

[kaph]

Well, it may just be that, not having any idea what the original column was about, I failed to make the right connections. :)

[caladri]

Nono, no original column, just my fictitious framing of a response to a hypothetical Niemöller.

[twoeleven]

Oh! Um...

[kaph]

Aha!

Though I am now confused in another way. Am I to assume you are speaking in another's voice, a snarky we-don't-want-your-help voice? Or do you indeed believe Niemoller should not have spoken out on behalf of those being targeted, and thus be arrested and sent to a concentration camp? Is solidarity with the oppressed a form of self-interest? (And if this is truly your voice, then what, may I ask, do you make of Simone Weil?)

[caladri]

Another's voice, a we-don't-want-your-help voice, or something very close to it. The implication I most often encounter, though, is that it isn't actually help, just appropriation of someone else's struggles.

[kaph]

Thanks for the clarification. My brain isn't entirely up to snuff these days.

Yes, often "speaking out" is done from a place of safety, even anonymity. On the other hand, this was not the case for Niemoller. I've always appreciated his grasping that oppression of some people or groups of people, if unresisted by the larger populace, often paves the way for broader and broader oppressive measures. Witness the Patriot Act . . .

[anemone]

A failed attempt, it would seem :)

Not completely failed, because I think I got the impression you were intending to create.