Jump to content

rteehas

Member
  • Content Count

    428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

rteehas last won the day on August 5

rteehas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

412 Excellent

About rteehas

  • Rank
    Champion

Profile Information

  • School
    Delbarton
  • Location
    somewhere in NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, it depends on what you mean by anti-Blackness. If you mean afro-pessimism, then the issue isn't whether or not you're using it to just win rounds (although that would be an issue). The issue is that afro-pessimism requires a rejection/destruction of whiteness, so it would be a performative contradiction to run it.
  2. If you want to read cap/marx and want it to sound less shitty, look into Adolph Reed's work
  3. Not all men have testicles is a more accurate statement
  4. Not all men have penises
  5. Afro-pessimism Lots of Queer Theorists also dislike intersectionality Some Deleuzian Feminists (Read "A THOUSAND TINY INTERSECTIONS: LINGUISTICISM, FEMINISM, RACISM AND DELEUZIAN BECOMINGS" by RICK DOLPHIJN and IRIS VAN DER TUIN) also criticize intersectionality Also depends on what you mean by intersectionality. If you just mean that oppressions are interconnected, then that's essentially a trivial truth and doesn't really add anything to any discussion. If you mean the picture of intersection that traditional intersectionality gives, i.e. that oppressions are essentially additive, then that is certainly open to criticism. A lot of authors call the latter approach one that reinforces whiteness, patriarchy, heternormativity, etc. because of the way it understand oppression (for black female oppression to just be blackness + femaleness that means that the norm of blackness is male and the norm of femaleness is white). Also look into alternative approaches, like post-intersectionality and multidimensionality theory.
  6. I didn't get that from the original post. The way it was phrased led me to believe that the school and the coach were the only barriers to running those arguments. If personal beliefs are also part of the issue, then the answer obviously changes, though to some degree debate should force you to defend things you don't necessarily believe.
  7. Also, in the vast majority of rounds literally no one but your opponent and judge will known what you ran. Your school's policy might become a problem in terms of case construction, in that I'd assume your coach looks over the cases, but you can read whatever cards or arguments you want to in round. If you're really concerned about the judge mentioning it on the ballot, you can tell them about your school's policy after the round or before the round.
  8. Reading that tag was physically, and possibly emotionally, painful
  9. It was definitely a rough patch haha. I won't really defend it
  10. Curry pretty explicitly denies that black men are more oppressed than black women, at least I've seen him say as much on many facebook posts. His only claim is that there isn't really such a thing as black male privilege and that applying the same understanding of gender among whites to non-white people, black people in particular, is erroneous. He sees traditional intersectionality as flawed in that it posits the black woman as the definition of oppression, leading him, and others, to embrace things like post-intersectionality and multidimensionality theory (this is a very simplified version, but does square with the flawed view that black womanhood is the oppression of blackness + the oppression of womanhood). IMO, just like any author, Curry has some very important points and some points that seem to get it wrong. There's also a pretty big difference between white men talking about men's rights and black men doing the same. The latter don't really share in the privileges of white patriarchy and historically black masculinity has been a serious source of targeting, criminalization, murder, and sexual exploitation. White masculinity doesn't really have the same thing.
  11. her* Just in general, both of those descriptions of afro-optimism are completely false. It's actually very similar to afro-pessimism. It doesnt believe in the possibility for state-based/institutional change. Instead, it looks for the possibility of social life in social death. This is Moten's idea of the undercommons, as well as his discussion of infrapolitics. To get a good handle on it, you should read Moten's Undercommons, a google search should lead to a pdf.
  12. On that note, an interesting read from Adolphus Reed: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much
  13. The issue is that both of these are objectively false. Her father is not a Black man, which can be easily verified. I think it's a very different experience to want to be Black versus to look back and be able to literally tie your ancestors to slavery or look back, see how your ancestors looked, and know they would have been considered property. That's kinda my point. Just about any "essence" we can ascribed to Blackness, such that one could be "performing" Blackness, is tied to a historical image of the Black slave. Just think of the Black stereotypes you might see in movies, or what the media is really referring to when it says "thug". Colloquially, when people say "acting black" they mean something like that. That's because the fact of the matter is that there is no "here and now" to performing Blackness. Blackness doesn't really imply a particular type of performance; Blackness is not homogenous. You can still be read as Black, by police etc., without doing any of those things. Blackness's social existence is rooted in this historical reality in a way that I don't think gender is. That's why some light-skinned Black people might not identify as Black, they don't feel tied to that historical reality. Darker skinned Black people might still not identify as Black (a la Raven Simone) but that's because they don't want to be tied to that historical image, even though they will still be read as Black. Perhaps it's because race can, in some way, be tied to the body whereas gender can't really, given that the traditional "essences" of gender break down when actually analyzed, that I want to say she can't really be Black. I'm more using this to sort through my thoughts than anything else.
  14. This is the issue I'm trying to work through as well. I don't think it's about being a descendant of a slave, but rather the feeling of being tied to a history of slavery. Potentially looking back and noticing how your parents, grandparents, etc. either could have been or were slaves. I think this is related to what I said before. The fantasy of the "perfect" cisheteronormative body is very much "here and now", whereas the fantasy of the "perfect" Black body seems to be the historical image of the slave. The way society structures Blackness seems to indicate that you can't "perform" Blackness in the same way you can perform maleness or femaleness. As a sidenote, I'm not sure if "transracial" people feel the same type of psychological harm from being "read" as white as trans* people do from being read as the wrong gender. Again, this is just me trying to articulate the feeling I'm getting about gender and race. It almost feels like if we say that transracialism is just as legitimate as transgenderism, then blackface could become the analog of drag.
×
×
  • Create New...