davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Thu Jul 24 01:55:39 MDT 2003
> Response Jim C. Actually this is a good point and is a point well taken. It
> is true that we have white activists who know Indian realities very well and
> Indians who know nothing about--or help to participate in--genocide and
> oppression against Indians. Having said that, I will nonetheless say that
> first of all, as a matter of logic, a la the fallacy of composition, to
> refer to the FACT that there are white activists who chomp on granola and
> show up to demonstrations concerned with--or write about--Palestine, East
> Timor, Bosnia etc >>>
This is obviously my gut feeling based upon my own experiences,
and if it was meant to be implied as a "matter of logic", I would
have said: "as a matter of logic".
and yet have not one word to say about the reality of
> ongoing genocide against Indigenous Peoples going on right under their
Who are these progressives? I've never met progressives, who on
the one hand, attend meetings on the genocide of indigenous
groups abroad, yet, on the other hand, have "not one word to say
about the reality of the ongoing genocide against Indigenous
Peoples going on right under their noses". Or At least, I would not
really consider them progressive in any way, shape or form.
and this is a FACT, does not, as a matter of even formal logic,
> indict or give a blanket characterization about ALL whites;
this is a
> strawperson argument and nothing in my statement says or implies anything
> about how ALL whites think; this is this person's lack of understanding of
> basic logic, language and syntax.
This is like the racist, saying: I don't hate ALL blacks... I just hate
The point is that by referring to "white academics/activisits" you
are clumping different groups -- with histories as common and as
homogenous as, say, the histories of Japan and China-- into one
To begin with, what is a "white" person? Only people who descend
from Europe? Or do we include people would emanate from parts of
the middle east? And what about Latin American (.e.g, Argentina,
Uruguay, the mexican elite, braziliann elite)?
You're telling me that "white" academics, activists on progressive
lists you belong to annoy you because of eurocentric statements
they make about "Indians", but you don't say a thing about who
these people are? ie., Where are they from? Perhaps, it's because
you don't know yourself but since you have foreknowledge of their
racial background (i.e., that they are "white") it is irrelevant where
You say "white academics/activists" from progressive e-amil lists
and for all I know they could be a bunch of Persian Iranians (since
Persians do identify as "white"). I don't know, but since their
"whiteness" says it all, it appears that you feel no need to
> By the way, I am as much White as Blackfoot and vice versa (my father was
> white) if one defines Indianness by blood-quantum which I and most Indians
> do not.
I don't. If that were the case, I would also self-identify as white
since I'm technically a quarter african Aruban. Yet, since my mom
identifies as black, I identify as "mixed" ( race). Neverthless, you
seem to be saying one thing for yourself and applying a different
set of standards to "whites".
> Good argument if it applied to what I said explicitly and meant explicitly
> and implicitly.
> Jim C
More information about the Marxism