7 ms·
When I hear someone (having, by their own description, a front-row seat for these events) reduce the civil-rights movement to this: “What I saw was a number of
by mazelife 9y ago
When I hear someone (having, by their own description, a front-row seat for these events) reduce the civil-rights movement to this:
“What I saw was a number of bad laws called into question and ultimately removed by acts of courage and wise restraint on the part of the victims of those laws.”
…as though the white-supremacist, apartheid state that existed in the south at the time was nothing more than a few pesky laws that had all gotten cleared up by 1968, I have to seriously question that person’s powers of observation. It’s such an almost perverse misunderstanding of history that it has be deliberate, right? Any time someone starts out with a premise like, “the civil rights movement, like a spiritual oil spill, left a vast residue of guilt in its wake,” and then proceeds from there, you know it’s going to be a long read.
Sure, there’s an attempt to graft some sort of philosophical backbone to the piece through this (nonsensical) distinction he makes between “appeal[s] to conscience” and ”appeal[s] to guilt,” but it’s confusingly handled and doesn’t go anywhere. Mainly what stands out for me is the relentless lack of empathy that runs throughout this article, which is really more in the way of a rant the a serious argument, anyway.
I think there’s a philosophical and moral argument to be had about victimhood, and the problematic nature of it, but you need to argue honestly. One sentence after he glibly absolves the government of responsibility for the AIDS crisis, he says, “whereas once the idea was to shake off victimhood through courage and organization, nowadays the idea seems to be to enjoy it for its emotional effects,” as though ACT UP never existed. In other words, you can make an argument, but you don’t get to rewrite or erase history that’s inconvenient to your thesis, which he does consistently. It’s disappointing this made it to the front page of HN, it’s a pretty unpleasant, dishonest piece of writing.
- kadenshep 9y ago>It’s such an almost perverse misunderstanding of history that it has be deliberate, right? It is. I'd call it being disingenuous, but that seems too forgiving. It's fundamentally dishonest, it's lying.
- 7952 9y agoThis anti-victim view seems to ignore the fact that the actions were actually malicious on the part of the government and various citizens. Homophobia was not not just a legal accident, it involved intentional acts of cruelty. As a society we are very reluctant to acknowledge that fact, perhaps because it goes against the authoritarian leanings that have become so prevalent. It makes people question why government's should have the right to control people in such intimate ways. Until we acknowledge this malice it is very difficult for people to really forgive the crimes committed against them. Especially when the perpetrators shrug of their acts in such a philosophical way. We will just commit the same crimes against other groups in the future because we haven't learned the lesson. When you hurt someone you must face your own failings head on and not just give excuses. Maybe then we can ask for forgiveness.
- classicsnoot 9y agoDid you have a "front row seat" to the civil rights movement, or were you exposed to it by a university professor? I ask because from your use of words and barely restrained anger it appears that you deem that era as some sort of holy crusade against evil. It may be that (i wasn't there) but as i study it more it feels as if the the disenfranchisement of black folks was used as a political motivation to exert state control over lifestyle choices. I know that that sentence is blasphemy at my university, but the truth has a delicious way of ignoring sentiment.
- mercer 9y agoCould you elaborate on that? I'm very interested in that thought and I've heard similar statements before.