User:RD/9k/Q13,31/latino

"oh that's messed up"
honestly. from living in the United States? I know how this came to be.
they can't understand the concept of studying countries as material objects and studying individual countries _developing_ through historical materialism through particular kinds of repeatable transitions, the general notion of China + Leninist movement = Maoist China... so they try to model cultural relativism _this way_ .
they think saying "you have to understand Black people through a uniquely Black experience" is the way to do cultural relativism, rather than understanding the 'correct' definition that it's populational relativism and that "cultures" (countries, populations) aren't made of culture or defined by culture, cultural relativism just means countries are material objects studied one-at-a-time.
so you get this very bizarre idea that the Latino subpopulation must be identified by being uniquely Latino and you have to understand the entire essence of being Latino which is specifically told to you by Verified Latino People in order to properly respect the Latino subpopulation and stop being racist.
it's a little silly, I'll definitely agree with that much.
take "the Black experience" and like, there still exist a few people who try to connect the Black subpopulation to ancestors in Africa; Kwanzaa was created for that purpose, for instance. but all of the populations in Africa today have their own unique "Black experiences", maybe two or three of them per formal country border. (I know that just for starters there are a bunch of languages in any particular part of Africa.) so there are weird logical contradictions in how they try to explain things, this group of "progressives" that I like to call "capital-E Existentialists" or "blue anarchists".

I think some of it goes back to everyone being taught Kant or faint echoes of Kant. Kant has this weird idea that society actually consists of many separate isolated individuals all doing the same behavior in parallel or following the same rules of morality or property rights in parallel rather than States existing
(!! Kant is basically just an anarchist of a different kind.)
and this worldview gives this illusion that everyone consents to it, when really it's an imperialist worldview because it assumes by default that _all human beings on earth_ are covered by the system and any particular cluster of Kantians can just conquer anyone that's causing them trouble whenever they want to under the assumption that all Kantians already live in anarchy so anyone that isn't conforming to clusters of Kantians must just be a really bad person that intentionally chose to threaten society, rather than Kantianism being a finite system that _doesn't_ automatically extend to everyone and people who don't automatically obey it _not_ being a conspiracy but just another country. I think United States people actually _cannot_ comprehend the possibility of the world being made of multiple countries. even as that's very contradictory with them supposedly understanding that ethnic subpopulations exist and performing what superficially looks like internationalism solely within the bounds of their own country.
but, that isn't the same as truly comprehending that multiple countries exist and that all countries' minorities are actually divided from each other by countries. so, yeah.