Monday, April 10, 2006

Politics of the Oppressed

Instapundit linked to this article about Darfur that asks why black Americans are not more involved in urging action about that crisis. My first thought is that there isn't a *special* reason that black Americans should be active about the events in Darfur. This assumption is a problem of it's own. Do we as human beings care about human beings or do we mostly only care about those who are like us?

From the article:
A multitude of factors limit black American access to the growing crisis in Sudan, where the death toll is estimated to be as high as 400,000 and more than 2.5 million people are in refugee camps following the destruction of their villages.
Firstly... this is a horror. Secondly... why did the author chose to phrase the issue as limited access? Certainly any American has equal access to the news about Darfur. How could they not?
"If more black Americans were aware, I know they would care," said Mrs. Thorpe. But, because of some levels of violence, "I've heard people say we have a genocide over here. But [compared to strife in Africa,] this is cake. We have this mentality that we're always oppressed."

It's the same reason that feminists and homosexuals and any other group that thrives on being oppressed amplifies the problems in the US and ignores the problems overseas. This is why not being allowed to marry in the US is far far more horrific than getting gruesomely killed in Iran for being gay. This is why it's so more desperately important to support diversity by having the Taliban Man attend Yale than it is to denounce and take action about the treatment of women in the middle east. Why get worked up over the execution of teenaged girls for the crime of being raped?

It's politics of course. If the causes of the past are supplanted then a certain political party loses. Big time. If the demographic groups that prop that party were to abandon their group identity *as it applies to politics* there would be no party at all.

This is why we get lectures every election cycle about how this group and that group are "voting against their own interests" because we all *know* what their group interests are. I can only imagine how my experience as a woman translates to the experience of people who *aren't* over 50% of the population. It's not all that hard for me to flip one in the Democratic direction and go off and do my own thing, even while they go on and on about women's interests. It's harder for blacks who chose the other party. Oh, woe to the Uncle Toms. It's harder yet for homosexuals. Just ask GayPatriot. Having independant political views from your assigned group is portrayed as self-hatred or being a traitor to your race.

To maintain the political solidarity it's necessary to keep the preditor pressure on the group. Just as soon as people start to look outside of themselves for causes they believe in, it's all over.

Thanks to Mudville's Open Post. (Always a very fun list of links.)


Blogger Morgan927 said...

Synova, Synova, you missed why people are upset about the Taliban spokesman going to Yale. Yale is adamantly against the war in Iraqi AND Afghanistan. Yale is anti-US military, anti-US for that matter, then takes o n a student who is very anti-US, anti-women, anti-diversity. Yale is being acused of being anti-american and subversive.....

1:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home