It seems to me that the "conversation" about Black Lives that is focused on intersectionality is focused on doctrine to the exclusion of life itself; the exclusion of physical, actionable life itself. Rather than focus on how people live or even what they think and feel, the focus is on confession, language, and conversion to a doctrine. Someone asked if what was going on was a religion. Not only is it a religion but it can't even really be discussed without using religious terms. There's a Church, now, more concerned with exclusivity than with reform. More concerned with an Inquisition than with reform. It's not that some people are going to do it all wrong, are going to address Black Lives wrong, but that anyone outside of the Fellowship can not be ALLOWED to address problems which nearly everyone, to a person...
Comments
When I was doing comparative historical analysis concerning the rise and fall of empires, creation of socio-political agreements between city-states and provinces, and certain modern political systems, I kept thinking of the resource potential and systems allocation present in the US.
HIstorically speaking, the US has a resource extraction, distribution, and allocation system that is quite advanced. Even in modern times, let alone ancient ones; dark age or pre dark age. By resource I don't just mean raw resources, but human resources as well, the service industry, as well as intellectual resources and technology. GDP is only a slightly inferior term for it, since GDP does not include the American military resource offered freely to the world. That alone might be 50% to 200% of America's GDP right there, in terms of the amount of prosperity it allows in the rest of the world.
But anyways, when I was on my historical analysis of Rome and such, I came across certain interesting limitations such as tariffs, that delayed trade and what not between neighboring nations and even between nations separated by vast oceans.
America has brought down those trade barriers, instituted universal security (or as far as American power reaches, like say not to Somalia). This has resulted in a network of states, that while individually powerful, become even more powerful together. America could have advanced technologically as far as we have, without our advances in politics; not including the military advances such as volunteer professional military combined with volunteer loyal military.
Some writer back in the American past wrote this.
"America is the world" more or less. I found that more or less agreeable, in a figurative sort of way.
Literally, America should be the world or the world should be America. Because we are the best example of how things should be done.
not have advanced.