User:RD/9k/Q13,31/latino
... 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.
"Manasha Jews ... It's all about being White?"
I know why they're claiming this one too. they're anarchists, and here's how anarchism works. everyone in the United States sort of believes there's no such thing as history, and every society is made of Ideals. there are "perfect" societies and there are "abnormal" societies. society is spontaneously fabricated every year, or on some time scale between every day and every decade, at least.
society is completely voluntary and optional, and the arbitrary sets of Ideals and attitudes in people's individual minds lead to forming society out of nothing every year when all its individuals interact with each other. a bunch of individuals all separately acting in parallel scales up into the entire structure of society, and creates different societies when we assume all the individuals each do one particular thing versus another particular thing. a sensible person would point to the way everybody in society could each be the proletariat,or each be the bourgeosie, and thus create 'crimson' workers' states or 'blue' capitalist countries. but for anarchists, this distinction is invisible and they replace class analysis precisely with everybody doing a specific abstract Ideal.
when it comes to history, anarchists want to say that European empire was created because all the individuals in Europe were simultaneously separately-in-parallel doing Bad "colonizer Ideals" and when everyone enacted those Ideals they all chose to create frontier wars or apartheid. but if they had wanted to, supposedly all those individuals could have turned around and spontaneously chosen to not do that. anarchists are vague about _how_ that is supposed to be possible, but they are really really really really insistent that it is. anarchists do the worst things to you they can think of** if you don't uphold that theory.
this is basically what they think revolution is. they think society is in a corrupt state but all you have to do is spontaneously "stop" and that's revolution, and it will dial society backward to a pure state as opposed to developing it forward. there is something of a fine line between anarchism and fascist ideology although anarchists will probably get really mad if you try to make them aware of that; "as we all know", fascism could only be similar to Communism because Communism contains a visible source of corruption labeled Stalinists or Hierarchy or Social Unity ("totalitarianism") while anarchism only contains promises to make society pure and no obvious material sources of corruption***, so it could never do any wrong.
so, yeah. to anarchists, the development of European society was a series of choices where all the individuals in the land spontaneously and simultaneously made one specific choice every day but that choice was basically always a bad choice and this accumulation of bad choices created Whiteness, which is an abstract Ideal rather than being an ethnic group in any way.
because Europe is made of abstract Ideals, Israel must be made of abstract Ideals, but because all Ideals are named after what came before them, Israel is made of Whiteness, because all of the abstract Ideals Europeans and North Americans all practiced at the same time before the creation of Israel are called Whiteness****; they aren't labeled 'Jewish supremacy' because if Israel was originally constructed by forces larger than it, like Britain helping in the process, then Israel's essence _must_ come from the stack of choices called Whiteness.
it's all quite ironic, because like, Whiteness is the thing that stops US people from dismantling the United States and constructing anarchy, right? that's the conclusion of all this. but if you told anarchists that Idealism was Whiteness and failing to learn historical materialism was the bad choice they made every day that is perpetuating empire I feel like they'd fly off the handle. in one way what they say is true because Idealism (Whiteness?) definitely _is_ keeping them from doing anything, in another sense they don't realize they're describing themselves and can't apply their own theory to fix their own problem.
What you really need to counter in order to stop these people is the concept that society is spontaneously fabricated and every second of history is made of Free Will. You have to stop _that_.
(* people today often believe that tribal societies are perfect societies.)
(** thankfully the worst things they can think of aren't _that_ bad, it just kind of amounts to 'extralegal anarchist house arrest for you while Donald Trump remains uncontrollable'. although if you live in a Third World country then they might consider invading it in order to gain a foothold and have the same amount of control they have back home.)
(*** personally I'd counter that by pointing out that claiming you can will what society will be tomorrow is an obvious source of corruption, because it's not that hard to get rid of Idealism and then avoid both anarchism and fascism.)
(**** this is how you get people coming up with complete and utter bullshit like "Mao is too White". Whiteness is a name for a purported stack of bad choices, so it's no contradiction in people's minds that Chinese people operating independently from the United States or Europe against the Japanese Empire and the First World could be practicing Whiteness.)
---
> there's no such thing as history
think about that a moment.
this is why people fail to grasp dialectical materialism, or what cultural relativism actually means (populational relativism, populations as separate material objects), or the concept that European empire could be a problem at one time with White people antagonizing Jews and then Israel could be created and conditions could actually change and conditions could be different inside Israel. they literally don't understand what history is.
which is rather ironic, because if you don't believe history ever changes and creates new historical periods (which a staggering number of people don't) then creating Israel would not make any logical sense whatsoever. you have to believe _creating Israel would have consequences_ to even create Israel. but this is where we are now. history is such an incomprehensible concept that comprehending all races through Idealist essences is the only way people can attempt to teach history
Anarchism is Kantianism is imperialism
Anarchism is turning historical materialism into arbitrary choices of Ideals which are the new definitions of racial essence
Don't let anarchism slide