But, here's my perspective, if we are learning about theory and feminist's theories around oppression, how are we going to move forward if we do not discuss it. I know it is hard for the members in class to chat about race, oppression and the theories around it, but we keep talking around it. Lorde chats about lesbian oppression and race oppression as well as gender oppression. I know it is easy to chat about oppression, but social change has to come from power and privileges of power, and those who play in those roles. It is hard to discuss readings without discussing "white supremacy" and "male superiority. I feel when we talk around it; it is like talking about health issues and not talking about AIDS and Cancer, and so forth. The disease, we must treat.
Does that mean the disease is a culture? Does that mean the disease is ethically based? The bottom line is we must get a cure and the next steps treat the disease with the cure. If we keep saying the cure for the disease is communication, relationship and becoming allies, then how can that happen if we do not address the actual "pinpoint" to apply it?
I wonder whether or not my peers understand what I am trying to communicate in our readings...just knowing the oppression is not enough, but addressing the privilege and power behind the scenes. I saw everyone get skirmish in class, and chatting about white supremacy people get skirmish. Most people of power and privilege do not feel they are the problem. We have that notion that "it is not I," and this is why the problem continues to exist, we ignore it because no one chooses to say, it is I, and this is what I am going to do to change. This is what I call self-examination. I have to do it all the time.
Finally, I really wanted to apologize some people see my passion as aggression, and I always try to make clear my point or perspective of all literature, text books, will not be the same as the general public, like Lorde, I will have a different perspective due to my environment and upbringing, but I hope that does not mean I should be silence. Neither do I desire for others to be silenced as well. I hope everyone feel comfortable when chatting and discussing readings in class. I was not discussing the same issues of stereotypes with the others. I was discussing issues of discernment and serenity. We as a culture need to be able to know the difference between stereotypes and true theories from false theories. It is a stereotype that white supremacy is white. It is recorded evidence that the crimes committed by people at large global has been categorized as a high number/factor of cultural power structures that keeps all other cultures as low profiles under the statistics of crimes against humanity.
Who is going to take the responsibility for that "accusation?" This is the problem that we skip over all the time in class, and so what is the reason for feminist theories if we keep ignoring their theories of oppression and causes of oppression? I know that if it was another culture in power structures globally that was deemed equal to the power constructs and structures of "white supremacy" I think there would be war, because any culture trying to over throw that power structure will be the next culture in line or destroyed. I think that is why we are fighting against the Arabs/Middle East; it is a cultural war of power against cultural war of power. Though many cultures are soldiers the hierarchy of culture is at play of who is the "global power and head" to oversee political thought, ideology and colonization/imperialism of the 21st century.
If the Arab nation wins this war, times will change, and a new dominance of power will begin to formulate, ways of thinking, belief systems, and trading systems, and so on...will that be good or not? Does it matter who's next in line of "Head of Global Affairs?" These are questions we face in war, terrorism, oppression, violence and violence against women and children. We have to ask ourselves are we the problem or the solution? If so, what are we doing to play in that role as an individual that separate us from the ethics of violence and nonviolence?
I apologize this is so lengthy, but I wanted you to know my intent in class. It was not to personally attack anyone, just the "issue" the theory is addressing for identity politics. We keep ignoring the greatest identity politics of our generation, "white supremacy," we didn't even address that one because I think too much opposition would happen. (Dealing with the little fish is good. I think Lorde, Sayeed and Anzaldua said it excellent in their theories on it all, what will happen in the precedence of identity, and how far do we take its politics?
I would like to believe in the path of nonviolence, and what path, ideology and politics will that create, but until then, the messy issues of identity and power will continue.
Safe Journeys, reflections of conflict in culture and spirit
