It’s not the basis of a political ideology. It’s an analytical tool to understand identities better. As such, it’s useful in any area of contemplation where people’s identities are important.
Yes, them. They aren’t the entire left to be sure, but they definitely exist.
The presence and persistence of the Islamic and Near East slave trade, which as you note went on for over a millennia, was nonetheless not an extension of or related to European and American chattel slavery which existed as an extension of colonization of the ‘New World’ (the Americas) and extraction of material and agricultural resources from it at all costs and in direct contravention to their theocratic Christian principles expressed as far back as Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 380). The American slave trade was (to which the o.p. is referring), its own thing as the other European powers mostly used slaves as disposable labor in overseas possessions to extract precious minerals and produce agricultural goods for import, while in the American South the owning of and trading in human beings as slaves for personal use became a marquee of station as well as an extremely lucrative business venture (or not, as Jefferson discovered). Slaves were not just cheap labor; they were a commodity and a resource that proved the prowess and business acumen of the owner (even though many plantations were poorly run and perennially in debt). And this legacy is still celebrated in ‘Southern Pride’ today even if the actual slavery bit is mostly redacted out (not because many Southerners don’t believe that non-whites should be slaves but because it would be impolitic to say so in open court).
The Islamic (and Near East/Mediterranean) slave trade has its own distinct history, and still persists today in somewhat different form, which deserves a separate discussion about why the Western powers are so deferential to governments that tacitly accept (and in some cases actively promote) what is effectively slavery and involuntary servitude.
That was a good series. I’ve always had a pretty low opinion of G. Gordon Liddy who seemed to be more impressed with himself than anyone else (other than a few self-described fascists) was but that developed entirely new arrays of sociopathic behavior in Liddy as a fucking maniac who was just so desperate to be noticed that he would say or do anything.
These are both such excellent notes that they bear repeating. That the oppressed can turn around and become oppressors is basically a universal truth. Suffering does not beget empathy and humility; it more often instills a belief that only brutality assures security, which is evidenced by Israel (not only today but throughout its post-Yishuv history* and aggressive ‘resettlement’ of non-Jewish Palestinians who had lived on the land for centuries. Similarly for the persecuted ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ and successors who saw fit to impose their view of religion and civilization on the natives of North America, and doubtless the ‘pagan’ Celts who spread across Europe and invaded the British Isles only to be themselves invaded and oppressed by the Romans, Vikings, Saxons, et cetera. This is a history of the world, but that doesn’t make it just or right in a civilization where we espouse “liberty for all” or supposedly live by democratic ideals.
While I don’t think the o.p. is being intentionally provocative or hyperbolic, the examples listed to read like a series of strawmen of what hypothetical critics of the “Western narrative” would say. The reality of any intercultural group dynamics is complicated and doesn’t fit any linear, simplistic narrative. A perfect example of this are the various ‘waves’ of feminism, where some part of each successive movement became an almost parody-like criticism of the previous generation as not being dedicated or radical enough, as well as trashing down on many other marginalized groups which you would think to have coincident interest but instead are viewed as competing for attention and impact. (Not to mention being hijacked by commercial and political interests who often had intentions that were quite contrary to be movement itself.)
Any ‘narrative’ of a movement compact enough to be expressed as an elevator pitch is wholly unrepresentative of a large scale cultural phenomenon be it chattel slavery, LGBQT rights, et cetera, and you should naturally question the expansiveness of said narrative. Which does not mean dismissing it because being more complicated and requiring more nuance makes it somehow untrue, except in the minds of people who live by slogans and simple rhetoric.
Stranger
No, it’s just that it’s also the case that if you take two people with $1M assets and debts, it makes a real difference if one of them has $1M in medical debt and just inherited a house worth $1M on paper, but it’s in a weak market and they can’t even afford the property tax on it; vs. someone with a well-paying job that just bought a $1M house and has a $1M mortgage.
So you say that we just need more intersectionality, and consider job, education, debt interest, and so on… until eventually you get down to the individual.
Spice_Weasel said:
I guess, if you are incapable of dialing in your ‘good enough’ level of detail for a given problem. You’d get a smaller return on each effort level, so you’d need to understand how much effort you have available, etc.
One of the core ideas of modern physics is that the universe can be described using mathematics. I’d hesitate to call that the basis of an ideology, though. It’s an idea built up through experience.
Progressivism is an ideology. Physics isn’t.
Though even there you’ll get pushback from some quarters. Including those that think physics has gone overboard in its elevation of mathematical elegance over experiment, and that it’s been ideologically captured by the math-types.
Tell that to the bible-thumpers. Or my mom. Or the people who write those quantum mysticism books.
I used an example in this thread of how certain identities (in the case I used, LGBTQ people being disproportionately victims of domestic violence) can impact broad-level trends in predictable ways. It’s actually the “why?" where these observations get the most interesting, because it turns out heteronormative patriarchy actually does affect lesbian relationships. It’s important for people who work with LGBTQ victims of domestic violence to understand the unique dynamics that play out in these relationships and to have a toolset capable of addressing those unique barriers. This isn’t a special use case where intersectionality is useful; it’s the reason that the idea exists in the first place. People needed to figure out how to serve certain populations in their community. That’s why this model exists. Not only that, it’s foundational to how we shape social policy. Who’s getting left behind when we implement a new piece of legislation? How do we know?
To use a less politically loaded example, my kid is autistic and gifted. There’s a really big difference between trying to help a kid with global developmental and cognitive delays, and a kid like mine. I have personally found a lot of the advice and techniques of both autistic and gifted parenting experts don’t work for my kid because he is both. I’m not even trying to focus on the disability angle, just the clear and obvious population difference and the resulting different needs that you just don’t see if you label my kid either one or the other. And it matters that we highlight the existence of these kids because the resources are scarce.
They aren’t doing physics any more than flat-Earthers are doing planetary science.
Are you doing progressivism?
This doesn’t really make sense. The whole concept that oppression is bad and wrong is, pretty much by definition, based on notions of good/bad, right/wrong, etc.
I think it might more typically be found among those who have some extreme ideologies. The leftist I know who think NATO is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine tend to be the type of people who think communism is a good idea and the Soviet Union was a great place. Campism certainly isn’t limited to the left through. How many Americans when polled hated Obama Care but loved the Affordable Care Act?
Ah, that explains it. I tend to stick with the ‘local praxis is everything’ leftist types.
Some loose rocks that kick up as we plow through this topic:
For all its crimes I still prefer Western Civilization. I like that it places the individual, and the individual’s conscience at the center of human existence. Per Western Civilization, I enjoy the exercise of my inalienable rights. I also enjoy myself. And by that same token I tolerate the next fellow’s enjoyment of their rights, though they be different from my own.
The bit about the enjoyment of inalienable rights comes from the mission statement of the Carlisle Indian School, where Native Americans were forced to abandon perfectly valid and satisfactory practices, often via brutal methods; and were exposed to and often succumbed to viruses that they’d have avoided if they’d stayed home.
But those facts didn’t detract from the mission statement itself, any more than Martin Luther King Jr. among others interpretation of the Bill of Rights to include all Americans. That may not be how the founders expected it, but that is still the correct interpretation. Death of the Author and all that.
Western Civilization is Progressivism.
Also a way to exclude certain populations.
Of course. But also a big difference between a gifted+autistic kid in your situation vs. one that’s that plus some variety of queer (or not queer as the case may be), or one in a completely different socioeconomic strata, or of a different race, or in a location with different average politics, and so on.
Again, my problem isn’t with taking multiple axes into account–it’s that not enough are taken into account! Enough to always localize into an individual.
At any rate, this is still pretty far afield of the basis of a political ideology. Even if you think it’s valuable for allocating public resources, it seems kinda weak for a “core idea”.
Prefer it to what?
I think I’ve lost the plot here. Can you rephrase?
Do you have an example in mind?