It is not because I am staying calm and you are not - and if that's not a condescending statement I don't know what is (you know, not calm = emotional = not logical = irrational, as opposed to calm = logical = rational, and thus superior). It is because I feel that I am discussing social structure with someone who has a hegemonic viewpoint. I'm sorry that I feel that way, I guess, and I'm sure that's not entirely true, but there it is, that's the problem. That's how I see your background and that's how I see your circumstances. In that context, namedropping is insulting, because it's a mark of what/who you know, to be used as artillery in an argument against me, the subaltern of the two of us. I'm really surprised that this is not more obvious to you. That also explains what you see, and what very well might be, my righteous anger and indignation towards you, and why I see insults and condescending language.
We've never been able to discuss race and wealth, I think that's just a fact. The only thing we can talk about is gender, and that sparingly. I can only talk about race and wealth with my friends who are poor minorities. I know that is petty to you, and exactly not what you want or what you see as helpful, but to me, you and your authors and Steve saying that comes across as something the hegemons are telling the subalterns to keep them from complaining too loudly. Yes, still and yet, that's how it comes across, and I guarantee if I showed this conversation (which I wouldn't) to my friends who are poor minorities, that's how it would come across.
I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. Far from it. But it's the same problem with rich Western countries trying to tell poor violent countries elsewhere to adopt democracy because democracy is what they see as the right way to run a country, whether you're rich or Western or not. And that may very well be true. But because it's coming from these particular countries, the poor violent countries just see it as "be like me - I am right, and you are wrong because you are different". Which sucks for democracy, because there's a very good chance democracy is the way (just an example), but it'll have a hard time being accepted in those parts of the world precisely because of the people promoting it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-26 12:35 am (UTC)We've never been able to discuss race and wealth, I think that's just a fact. The only thing we can talk about is gender, and that sparingly. I can only talk about race and wealth with my friends who are poor minorities. I know that is petty to you, and exactly not what you want or what you see as helpful, but to me, you and your authors and Steve saying that comes across as something the hegemons are telling the subalterns to keep them from complaining too loudly. Yes, still and yet, that's how it comes across, and I guarantee if I showed this conversation (which I wouldn't) to my friends who are poor minorities, that's how it would come across.
I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. Far from it. But it's the same problem with rich Western countries trying to tell poor violent countries elsewhere to adopt democracy because democracy is what they see as the right way to run a country, whether you're rich or Western or not. And that may very well be true. But because it's coming from these particular countries, the poor violent countries just see it as "be like me - I am right, and you are wrong because you are different". Which sucks for democracy, because there's a very good chance democracy is the way (just an example), but it'll have a hard time being accepted in those parts of the world precisely because of the people promoting it.