You're A White Male!!!
Ergo STFU.
Of course women are entitled to hold forth on "male privilege," masculinity, and everything else associated with being male. Nonwhites are entitled to lecture us on "whiteness" and "white supremacy," and blah blah blah.
Of course the view is carefully jury-rigged and retrofitted with qualifications and epicycles in order to guarantee that those in the upper-reaches of the progressive stack are granted every epistemic and dialectical advantage. Wouldn't want pesky considerations of consistency tripping them up at any point. I take it that the main retrofit is Marxist: the working class is epistemically privileged and knows more about the bourgeoisie than it knows about itself; the working class, however, remains opaque to the bourgeoisie. 'Cause power or whatevs. And mutatis mutandis, the same goes for race.
I actually think there some grain of truth in such a view. If a certain group of haves (or whatever) occupies center stage, all the have-nots (or whatever) observe them carefully all the time, whereas the haves barely even notice the have-nots, obscured in the shadows. Lithuania and Lithuanians know a lot about the U.S. and Americans; this is not reciprocated.
But the neo-Marxist left takes a smallish and easily-overcome difference in degree and, as is its wont, turns it into an in-principle difference: it's impossible for whites to know about...well...whatever it is that it's convenient for the left to deny that they know about...
Mostly, of course, this is just a cover-story to give progressives an excuse for talking over white dudes. Because, as it turns out, a lot of people have a hard time accepting equality. They can accept the inferiority of x to y, or flip it to the inferiority of y to x--but the idea of equality turns out to be an unstable position for them. Somebody has to be inferior.
Of course women are entitled to hold forth on "male privilege," masculinity, and everything else associated with being male. Nonwhites are entitled to lecture us on "whiteness" and "white supremacy," and blah blah blah.
Of course the view is carefully jury-rigged and retrofitted with qualifications and epicycles in order to guarantee that those in the upper-reaches of the progressive stack are granted every epistemic and dialectical advantage. Wouldn't want pesky considerations of consistency tripping them up at any point. I take it that the main retrofit is Marxist: the working class is epistemically privileged and knows more about the bourgeoisie than it knows about itself; the working class, however, remains opaque to the bourgeoisie. 'Cause power or whatevs. And mutatis mutandis, the same goes for race.
I actually think there some grain of truth in such a view. If a certain group of haves (or whatever) occupies center stage, all the have-nots (or whatever) observe them carefully all the time, whereas the haves barely even notice the have-nots, obscured in the shadows. Lithuania and Lithuanians know a lot about the U.S. and Americans; this is not reciprocated.
But the neo-Marxist left takes a smallish and easily-overcome difference in degree and, as is its wont, turns it into an in-principle difference: it's impossible for whites to know about...well...whatever it is that it's convenient for the left to deny that they know about...
Mostly, of course, this is just a cover-story to give progressives an excuse for talking over white dudes. Because, as it turns out, a lot of people have a hard time accepting equality. They can accept the inferiority of x to y, or flip it to the inferiority of y to x--but the idea of equality turns out to be an unstable position for them. Somebody has to be inferior.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home