RANT
So today and yesterday when I commented on one of Booth's latest notes, I realized how low awareness of social history really is. I mean, is it that difficult to understand the concept of white privilege? Is it that hard to understand that the way things are now is a result of long-term historical processes? It's like assuming that the U.S. is so well-off today because of some "bootstraps" fantasy--and not looking at the factors contributing to its wealth--slavery, Indian removal, the invisibility of women's labor (productive and reproductive), and so forth--not realizing that the U.S.' "wealth" as it exists today is basically based on theft.
I mean, some of the things I read were really stupid. This one really takes the fucking cake, however:
" I'm whole heartedly for non-discrimination in our government but to expect an equal playing field and equal opportunity from everyone implies something that we are fundamentally not, equal."
So basically--Inequality is neither socially constructed nor historically contingent. It's the result of choices, and we should, therefore, do nothing to equalize outcome. We live in a perfectly equitable world where social determinants (like race and class) aren't a factor. Dialogue about racial issues isn't necessary--because racism ended with the Civil Rights Movement! A lot like feminism isn't needed because women have the vote, or whatever the fucking argument is.
Libertarians constantly whine about how "the government" forces change. What great historical analysis. Surely social movements played no role whatsoever. There have never been any broad-based, consciousness-raising movements demanding change--fuck that.
Another gem:
"Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act prevents private businesses from discriminating. I think you are ludicrous if you believe that this didn't force individuals to change the way that they conducted business and their lives."
I thought this deserved special recognition for being one of the dumbest fucking statements I've ever read. What's next--praise for George Wallace? Is he against the Voting Rights Act because it eliminated the literacy testing qualification for voting? Seriously, just give me a fucking break.
I mean, some of the things I read were really stupid. This one really takes the fucking cake, however:
" I'm whole heartedly for non-discrimination in our government but to expect an equal playing field and equal opportunity from everyone implies something that we are fundamentally not, equal."
So basically--Inequality is neither socially constructed nor historically contingent. It's the result of choices, and we should, therefore, do nothing to equalize outcome. We live in a perfectly equitable world where social determinants (like race and class) aren't a factor. Dialogue about racial issues isn't necessary--because racism ended with the Civil Rights Movement! A lot like feminism isn't needed because women have the vote, or whatever the fucking argument is.
Libertarians constantly whine about how "the government" forces change. What great historical analysis. Surely social movements played no role whatsoever. There have never been any broad-based, consciousness-raising movements demanding change--fuck that.
Another gem:
"Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act prevents private businesses from discriminating. I think you are ludicrous if you believe that this didn't force individuals to change the way that they conducted business and their lives."
I thought this deserved special recognition for being one of the dumbest fucking statements I've ever read. What's next--praise for George Wallace? Is he against the Voting Rights Act because it eliminated the literacy testing qualification for voting? Seriously, just give me a fucking break.