Note: This is the final post in a series of five. Here are parts one, two, three, and four. Down below, I’m calling people out and asking questions to try and include more people in the conversation.
I’ll tell you something that I rarely tell anyone: I secretly want to be a conservative.
I don’t want to have to tell anyone what they should do with their money. I don’t want to be the one going up to some rich guy and saying, “look man, don’t you think you should be spending some more of your money on schools and less on all those cars?” Or telling my employer that he should really be offering me health care. Or telling some hardworking businesswoman who has spent the last two years looking for the perfect place to put her business, “sorry, but I think it might affect this rare species of birds that calls this place home. Or even demanding that a company not selectively hire employees based on age, sex, or ethnicity. All this regulation that we as liberals, demand of our government. I wish I didn’t have to be a part of it.
Wouldn’t it be cool if we just put an end to all that regulation – all these crazy laws and offices and paperwork – and just let things flow? Maybe HP’s right. Maybe everything will get better. We’ll implement a flat tax to be more fair to the wealthy (I mean, is it a crime to be rich?) and with the lost revenue we’ll make cuts in programs like welfare which just makes people dependent on the government. And sure, maybe an affordable education will be less accessible, but you heard HP, if someone wants it bad enough, they’ll work hard enough for it and they’ll feel better about themselves because nobody helped them out.
In fact, I totally envision it right now. We cut welfare. We cut social programs. We cut afterschool programs. We cut outreach programs. No more free health care at the emergency room. Then, when we do all that, all the inner-city minorities are going to wake up the very next day and they’re going to think, “what the hell have I been doing with my life. All this time I’ve been pretending I was the victim, but really HP was right, it’s because we don’t “embrace the American work ethic with life-or-death fervor” and also because of “the special role of television in the life of black children and the low expectations of their parents.”1 Blacks will realize that if they could just learn how to pronounce ask, all their worries would be gone.
Then Latinos will stop sleeping away their entire days under a sombrero with a Corona in their hand and Blacks will throw away their TV’s which will bankrupt all the major channels in one day because we all know that only blacks watch television.
Please.
Personal Responsibility Is A Good Thing
Conservatives like HP, Black Pundit, Thoms Sowell, and Star Parker adopt the very best of conservative ideology – self sufficiency, fiscal responsibility, and the freedom of individual choice. But because those concepts are so appealing, they then get drawn into the daker side of conservativism: low corporate taxes, lower taxes for the wealthy, low minimum wage, little or no worker’s comp or health care, less social spending, less spending on education, more military spending, lower environmental standards.
I can relate. After reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I was infected by a completely new understanding of personal responsibility. It forever changed my outlook on life. I came to understand, for the first time, that absolutely nobody was responsible for me except myself. And that I should not be dependent on anyone else. I have always been an independent person, but not always self-sufficient and reading Atlas Shrugged changed that.
Do I think self-responsibility should be encouraged? Absolutely. That is always what I tell my little sister. It is what I told every student I worked with at Gompers. You have to do this because you want it yourself, not because anyone wants it for you.
If there’s one sentence in this series that will piss off some minorities – liberal and conservative alike – it is this: I agree with Cornel West that the development of minority conservativism is “healthy”. (Chapter 4 of Race Matters) That sounds patronizing, but I say “healthy” because the impetus of the minority conservative movement is not to pull the ladder up, but rather to take the mechanism of social change away from the government and into the hands of the individual. Though most conservatives wouldn’t admit it, this directly parallels the autonomy movement of the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico and the “demand side supplying itself mentality” of the open source movement. Basically, people are beginning to look beyond the government for ways to both offer help and receive it and I think that’s just swell. I only hope that in the process, these self-described minority conservatives don’t fall into the trap of supporting policy which adversely affects the very populations they claim to support such as a flat tax and low spending on education.
It will forever be argued whether programs like Social Security and Health Care fare better under government or private sector control. I would argue, hands down, that in the US the government does a better job administering both. However, in Mexico I would actually favor the private sector as the skyscrapers of Guadalajara and Monterrey are filled with much less corruption than the political palaces of Mexico City and Los Piños. But regardless, what is most important is that the programs are well accounted for. Citizens and the press must be relentless in making sure public money is neither squandered in government beuracracy nor carried away in CEO bank accounts.
But Now What?
There are things we can all agree on. We want more diversity. We want more integration. We want more underrepresented minorities in the sciences. We want less poverty and more social mobility. We want choice and we want equality.
In fact, the only thing we disagree on seems to be how to get there. As liberals, we like to think that it’s ideology first and policy second. That we believe in things like equality and justice and then set policy and make programs to promote our ideas. But really, we come up with the ends first and then deal with the means. What we want is diversity and equality. HP says this is because we feel guilty. But really we’re just like him.
So we come up with programs like affirmitive action because it’s the easiest fix, or as Cindylu calls it, “band aid.” But the unintended consequences of affirmitive action are that some minorities feel like they are admitted or hired because of their skin color and not their ability. Meanwhile, other students who are well qualified get turned down from their top choice schools to make room for underrepresented students who will increase the on-campus diversity.
But the question remains, how do we increase diversity in higher education? It’s not an easy problem to deal with, but when I look at just who is dealing with it, they are always liberals. Conservatives such as HP either pretend ethnicity is not relevant or blame underrepresentation on “cultural deficits.”
Fine, let’s say, the problem lies in cultural deficits. Then what? What are you going to do about it? Just give me one single plan of action that will promote diversity in higher education.
HP is saddened when minorities are admitted to a high caliber school like a UC and then choose to major in something like Chican@ studies. I wish HP would take a couple Chican@ studies (or even urban planning) classes himself. Then he would learn the history of how the city of San Diego has gone to such lengths to keep Barrio Logan isolated from the rest of San Diego and filled with junkyards and factories and the very worst of public schools. He would learn that an entire community of Paisanos called Chavez Ravine was razed without compensation to clear the way for Dodger’s stadium. He would better understand that, while racism is not as pronounced today as it was 30 years ago, the after-effects of such deeply ingrained (and top-level) discrimination just a few decades ago stll have a very lasting impact that needs to be counter-balanced. And by interacting with other students in these classes, he’ll better understand what drives them to focus on ethnic studies and righting the wrongs of the past.
Do universities have a role to play in promoting diversity and integration? Absolutely. Cindylu calls it the service component, I call it an agenda and every university has one. Unlike the NBA, the university system has a clear interest/responsibility in defining the society which its alumni will both be a part of and help change. And the university understands that a society functions best when it is diverse and integrated. You could also ask if universities should require their science students to take history classes and vise-versa. The answer is yes because a society functions better when it’s citizens are well rounded.
As many problems as EAOP has, I can say with absolute confidence that every student who interacted with an EAOP tutor/mentor (even me) was better off for it. It is a shame that, as Cindylu said, they are cutting so much of the program and probably soon, the entire program due to budget cuts and conservative disapproval of outreach programs.
In Closing
I hope HP will:
- Continue to be my friend in the decades to come.
- Stop obsessing over the differences between liberals and conservatives.
- One day become an activist for what he believes in, be it pro-life/anti-choice legislation, urban education, minority success, whatever. My point is that just getting more people to say they’re conservatives is really not accomplishing anything at all.
Watch out for some warm and fuzzy bleeding heart liberal sentiment here. I’ve learned a great deal writing these posts and especially from the comments following them. I think the conversation between Cindylu and HP about affirmitive action and outreach programs does an amazing job at showing both sides of the debate.
In order to give HP some time to study for his midterms and DD enough time to do her 5000 crunches, I’m asking them not to comment on this one for a couple days.
I’d really like to hear from some other people who have been mostly quiet so far. Rarely do I beg for comments and call people out, but …
Wizzal – what do you think about this series? Do you agree/disagree with any of it? Have you taken anything away?
Moreno – still no comments about anything related to ethnicity?
Karen – as an immigrant yourself who has “succeeded” in American society and also participated in an inner-city outreach program, did this series spark any thoughts?
Abogado and Bobbo – how has ethnicity come into play in your first year of law school? We’ve said in private that we think ethnicity influenced which law schools some of our friends got into. Are there any unspoken assumptions in your classes that some of the students are only their because of their ethnicity?
Yvette – Any thoughts on the series?
Elena – did you come away with anything from the series or are conservatives still fascists?
Rosalí – What’s your south of the border perspective?
Elenita, DT, Julio, Seyd, LP, Thivai – Anything?
And anyone else. If you’ve been following this blog for a while (or even if you haven’t) and have anything to say, we’d love to hear it.
“But overall, the trend is clear: at combined SAT scores of 1300 and above, the presence or absence of affirmative action makes no significant difference at all to the odds of a white student being admitted. At lower scores, the difference exists, but is tiny. A white student with a combined score below 100 has a 96.7% chance of rejection from a selective school with affirmative action, and a 93.3% chance of rejection if affirmative action didn’t exist. In either case, the odds are overwhelming she’ll be rejected; and the primary reason for the rejection is her poor SATs, not her race.”—I am trying to find the studies, the link I had for this is down.
No, your series hasn’t added much. I’ve grown in compassion for you and understood you a little better (I think) but other that I haven’t learned anything new. Is HP a facist? No, he is just someone who has chosen to reject reality and I don’t know how I am supposed to show it to him. I know he believes that he has pulled himself up from his boot straps and that if we all just work hard we too will be able to achieve great things. Again, I just don’t know how to show him the way.
I’ve had a chance to hear from some of the people who make admissions decisions here. I don’t think a single person is here because they are an “under-represented” or black or brown or whatever minority. I am really impressed with how seriously administrators here take their role, and how thoroughly they review every application. We are basically the biggest law school in the country and I think we also receive the most applications, but I swear, they knew us by name when we got here. Race is a very small factor (some fraction of “background experience”) in the admissions process that I would imagine is statistically insignificant. Still, I believe we have a very diverse student body and this place wouldn’t be the same otherwise.
At any rate, the bottom line for me is that there is a problem with race in this country, affirmative action is a patch for that much larger social problem. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is worth pursuing or that it can’t make a difference, but there are structural problems that still have significant effects. I don’t know how anyone can honestly deny that but obviously people do. I’ll chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.
Government Regulation:
Oso – I’d like to touch on your government regulation vs. Non-regulation comment, but I’m affraid I wouldn’t make much sense without a long-winded rant. Basically, and at a very superficial level, the distinction between regulation and non-regulation is a fallacy. If the government doesn’t say “you can’t do that” then they are saying “you can do that”. Why is one regulation and the other not? There is no difference. Each proclamation is backed by the coercive power of the government as an institution. Think of it in terms of property. I imagine a conservative would say that property rights are basically non-governmental or non-regulatory – probably alluding to notions of natural rights. But what is a property right without the backing of the government (i.e. police)? So when someone says “the government should not regulate where this business women can set up her business”, they are totally missing the point. If the government allows her to set up her business they are regulating by saying “nobody else has the right to interfere with this business woman setting up her business where it will destory the environment. If they do they will be stopped by and injunction, fine, criminal prosecution or some other governmentally instituted punnishment.” Either way there is government regulation. That same line of thinking applies nearly everywhere and is generally accepted as far as academic circles go. So the question becomes not “should the government regulate?” but “which side/cause/class/group etc. should the government protect?”. There is still plenty of room for argument within that question, and in some respects it may ammount to essentially the same thing, but I believe it fosters a much more honest and revealing discussion about people’s underlying values.
So there you go. That probably made very little sense, but I didn’t want to go too far in to it. If anyone wants to discuss the issue further I will try to clarify, otherwise…discuss on.
My comments definitely won’t be so long. I’m fixing to go to my friends to watch the super bowl! Race, conservatives, liberals – all very interesting. I do learn from reading. I learn that people can be passionate, but mostly I learn that I’m more confused and very uniformed. I feel I can’t give a well thought out argument for anything. At least not now, especially when there’s a bowl of cheese and chips waiting for me.
With that said:
I would not be anywhere without affirmative action. I didn’t get into college through an affirmative action program “officially,” but – if it weren’t for affirmative action programs, i wouldn’t have ever been afforded many opportunties.
I agree with Abogado. There’s a problem with Race. We need to do more talking. We need to realize that we’re not going to agree, but we need to talk. I wish the people from my hometown read this blog or just read. They need to be having these conversations as well.
Before I begin commenting properly, I’d like to invite everyone–conservatives, liberals, minorities, Fascists, Communists, all–over to my house to destroy my old networking equipment. I would have posted earlier if not for my damn cable modem. GRRRRR. Maybe we can hash out our differences while we beat the crap out of useless hardware?
I’m not sure I have much to add here, really. I identify more as a liberal than a conservative, but I identify more as a political independent than anything else–a moderate, if they still exist in our current political climate. I’ve never particularly identified with any party, even if I’m registered as a Democrat for sake of the primaries–I prefer to make my own choices on the issues, and on major pieces of legislation. So, for me, this series was an interesting read and raised some worthwhile questions, but I’m not sure it gave me any sort of new perspective.
Okay, I take it back–I have one thing to add: like Cornell West, I see the “rise” of minority conservatism to be a good thing. Too often in recent years, politics has been made out to be a zero-sum game, this sense that if one side is right the other must be wrong. I prefer to think that liberals and conservatives need each other to balance their respective weaknesses–conservative focus on the individual offset by remembering a sense of cohesive social community, for example–especially in a two-party democracy. And the more diverse each party becomes, the better policies become as a whole.
I think a political balance…er equilibrium is healthy for democracy…but what is it really that American right-wingers want? Do they want an economic model that looks like what is in place in most countries in Latin America and for the most part the rest of the Third World? Let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why do these people tend to use religion as an underlying motivation in their ideology? Do we really want to get rid of the middle class and allow the elite to prosper at the expense of those at the bottom? Is it not a government’s duty to look out for all its citizens?As for Affirmative Action…if there was an equal playing field then there would be no need for this program, which I am proud to say I was a part of. We all come from different experiences. When I was thirteen I was working in the fields, picking grapes alongside my parents. Does that count as anything? Should a university value that more than a privileged students higher GPA or their SAT score? It has been fifty years since Brown v. Board and that suffices to create equality for all? Give me a break. I probably don’t make much sense pero ni modo! Anyhow, great series Oso!
“Then what? What are you going to do about it? Just give me one single plan of action that will promote diversity in higher education.”
I hope I am not being repetative and am staying in context of subject here because I have to admit I did not read the whole series.
I am going to step out of the box here and may sound conservative. I do not believe in programs such as Affirmative Action and grants for minority students. Sure it helps in the short term and there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of these “solutions.” But they are quick fixes and not the solution thus the quotations.
It starts in the community. It starts when you are a kid. It starts with where your passions are. I see kids more passionate about Hip Hop than about school. And that is great you are into something but is that going to put the bread on the table?
It starts with the family and there are a lot of broken down minority families these days that is no wonder there are broken down aspirations. But don’t get me wrong and blame it on the family. It is up to the individual. But it does help to have leaders. And that is what we all must become Oso.
Heroes – worth of being looked up to because of your success be it financial, family, spiritual, or whatever and accountable of other’s respect. That is our mission for those who have climbed the ladder and reach down to the lower rung. I am responsibly for my succes and me alone but, there was always help that helped me along the way and that is no contradiction.
So maybe we need more posts like this. Maybe we need more voices calling in the vast sea and make sure those who are listening come to our shores instead of The Sirens.
I have a lot to say on this topic and Oso addressed some far reaching points that definitely need an appropriate answer by people on my side of the isle. Being that this is his last post of the series I want to make sure that my ‘concluding remarks’ fairly represent my side of the isle. In addition, I want to take in everything he has said, think about what my answer is, and than chew on the best way to explain my side to a liberal leaning audience. So that you guys can better understand what motivates, if not all minority conservatives, atleast this minority conservative.
So since this post requires such a high level response, I am going to postpone responding until after my midterm on Thursday. Probably during next weekend, when I have more free time to gather my thoughts.
So please, post away, but be sure to check back in a week or so, because as my governor once said, “I’ll be baackk”. 8)
Interesting header image you’ve got here… does it signify something relative to your blog?
Elena,
If you would unlock your chones we’d probably have better luck leading HP in the right (digo left) direction.
Very true, I’ve always been one to look at all sides of the issue.:D
Come on Elena, what do you say? You know what they say about minority conservatives, right? 8)
I have a much easier time understanding the “classical conservative” than a fan of Bush. Maybe HP will comment on that … I know he’s a big admirer of Dubya.
Good idea. I’ve been wanting to post on this topic for some time now, I feel my boy Bush gets a bad rap.
If I forget, remind me.
Especially after Bush’s recent budget proposal, it’s pretty obvious that this administration is much more interested in protecting the small wealthy minority than the at large citizenry.
Ohhh, the self-control….So much to respond to, so little time.
Also, I agree with all of you who say we need to discuss race more in this country.
Right, which is a (very important) fringe benefit of more minorities becoming conservative, we can finally start talking about the issues without all the (liberal) censorship. Everybody presenting ideas, nobody cares who you are (black/white/brown/male/female), just analyzing what works and doesn’t work, ahh, the conservative dream. One day!!!
Btw, this isn’t my concluding post…just stopping by in between breaks (I kinda miss you guys – especially Elena ;)).
Oso,
I had no idea you were writing these —I’ve been so busy, it’s been hard to keep up with my reading, linking and blogging. I’ll respond with more later but, just wanted to put this out there; because it is something I always end up discussing with the likes of Avery Tooley (a conservative) and Prometheus 6 (a liberal) : Yes race, but what about CLASS. What is considered a race issue in this country, elsewhere, especially in Latin America, it’s a question of class in the most basic of Adam Smith/Karl Marx sense of the term. But again, I have to go back and read all the posts to respond properly. With that in mind : You rock!
“moreno – still no comments on ethnicity?”
you know what i think. ethnicity rocks. its the foundation of this puzzle we call human existence. we pull apart the threads and trace their lineage until we go blind. we tie down the inferior and replace it with the mouths of the hungry and the poor. ethnicity is the rock buried miles beneath the surface of our skins, bruised and beaten like a racehorse yet persistent like the traffic of the city. ethnicity cries out “recognize me” yet forces us to shun its talents. we scrape and scrape and get nothing but flowers for fingernails. and so, dear readers, i propose a toast: to ethnicity!
p.s. i will eat your children
That’s the best picture of me in awhile!
Its 2:30 and I have to teach at 8am so I’ll be brief and hopefully catch you later (thanks for the comment at Dialogic) to explain in more detail…
Top Ten Reasons I Dislike Bush (The President!) In No Particular Order (not just Bush personally, but also his whole administration):
Using Religion as a Club (I was raised by Holy Roller grandparents when i was young–I know fanaticism when I see it)
State Sponsored Homophobia
The Continuing Rollback on the Environmental Regulations of the 1970s
The Continuing Assault on Labor
The Coddling Of Corporate Offenders
This Ridiculous War (I know you didn’t want to mention the war–if I was a Bush supporter I wouldn’t want to either)
The Hypocritical Pose That He Is a Washington Outsider (he’s the fucking son of a former president!)
His Pathetic Attempt At Fixing Education Through Standarized Testing
The Fact That He is In No Way a Conservative (as in conserving and restoring)
The Fact That He is Proud That He Does Not Read!
and a bonus bitch:
His Spoiled Child Smirk (seriously people, you know this man, you’ve dealt with man-childs just like for most of your life)
Peace Hispanic Pundit … last year I was placed in the strange position of condemning so-called liberals at Progressive Blog Alliance because they were condemning you for having an opinion and because they were calling you a sell out to your race. I thought it was one of the most ridiculous statements I had heard (that minorities “should” only be liberal otherwise they are selling out their people) and found it to be very disturbing coming from people posing as progressives…
i dont watch wife swap. i live it.
Is this the face of minority conservatism?…Oso, HP, others, did you see this–what do you think
I tend to follow a strict policy of not engaging in topics that are ‘hot’ and I can careless about. Reason being that the discussion will quickly become a great black hole that sucks all of my time. And why waste my time on things that I have no interest in.
With that said, since you specifically called me out, I will respond but keep in mind that I will not defend my position, only explain it. In addition, I have not watched the episode in question, or for that matter, any of the episodes that have been featured (TV, what is that? Conservatives discourage TV, remember!!!).
Homosexuality, unlike race, unlike ethnicity, unlike sex, is defined by its actions. It is a behavioral attribute, and as such, can be analyzed, criticized, and debated on like all other actions. This distinction may be subtle, but it is fundamental.
So, with that said, some religions find homosexuality immoral. You may agree or you may disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is an issue religions are free to disagree with.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that masterbation is wrong. You may disagree, you may agree, but that is clearly the Churches right to teach that. If I find a Catholic who argues against masterbation, I listen to what he has to say, process it and make up my own mind. But I don’t take it personally even if I
domay masterbate myself.Now, if I understand Christians correctly, I think their philosophy dictates that it is in fact compassionate to tell someone who is commiting immoral acts that those acts may result in the damnation of the individual. But if the person doesn’t share those views, they can always either ignore the person, or tell the person to leave them alone.
So do I consider her a conservative, following conservative philosophy. Sure, I don’t see why not. I am sure you consider vegeterians your comrads, even though you may personally see nothing wrong with eating meat.
In the same way a Christian, whether I agree with her or not, is a conservative regardless of her religious affiliation.
I hope that helps.
Now, as far as issues I do care about, you mentioned liberals were calling me a sell out and what not above, well hopefully in the next few months, when I am studying for my GRE, I can devote more time to blogging and online discussions. Because I have had it on my ‘things to do list’ for some time now to go out gunning for these liberals, especially the minority (specifically Mexican) ones. The more I study politics, specifically the differences between liberals and conservatives, the more I realize that a Mexican who stays true to his cultural roots (as I have!!), will be much more at home in the Conservative Philosophy than in the Liberal one, and I think a good public discourse on that topic will be healthy and give everybody a chance to see who is right. So stay tuned, good times are coming!!! 😈
HP,
In my experience conservatives are the main consumers of network TV (look at the repressed content of sex as titilation–TV news shows, very conservative–ratio of cop shows, have you read Hakim Bey on “cop culture” on TV) My conservative students are fascinated by Reality TV and celebrities–I haven’t figured it out yet, but I’m thinking about it… what is it they are missing?
“Homosexuality, unlike race, unlike ethnicity, unlike sex, is defined by its actions.”
This seems somewhat naive in that you think cultural definitions and experiences of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality are “solely” biological determined and that homosexuality is “solely” determined by mental action…
Did you lay in your bed as an adolescent/teen and ponder whether you wanted to fuck males or females, wrestling with the decision, until you made the “right” choice/action? ??? Or did you just become attracted toward a particular sex because that is inherently your orientation (however you want to deem its origins–nature or nuture, the reality of this attraction is beyond simplistic designations of “choice”)… you might think about your stance here? Furtermore, designations of ethnicity, race, sexuality and gender should also be “analyzed, criticized, and debated” along with designations of heterosexuality and homosexuality and every other sexual orientation.
I have no problems with religions deciding they find something immoral and condemning it… I have a problem with them attempting to legislate their fantasies. Don’t forget (like the african american woman on Wife Swap) that it wasn’t to long ago that interracial relationships were considered “immoral” and “abhorrent” and “illegal”–often resulting in violence and death. Go visit a Christian Identity (more self-identified conservatives) site to check out current racist views on interacial relationships…
It is never compassionate to make a person cry and to tell them their life has no value–that their love for another person is evil and an abomination… how fucked up must be a person to do that to another person. Any Christian (a real Christian?) would condemn this as cruel and a betrayal of Christ’s teachings (you know the guy that hung out with the workers, prostitutes, and thieving tax collectors). Jesus preached radical love for others, not discriminatory hatred…
As for my considering vegetarians my comrades… I wouldn’t make that assumption just because someone is a vegetarian. A major problem is your essentialist thinking.
Vegetarians = eating habits outside the mainstream
Thivai = thoughts outside the mainstream
Thivai and vegetarians are comrades
Faulty reasoning…
Vegetarians come in all stripes and the choice to forgo meat doesn’t have a direct correlation with someones political beliefs. I have found vegetarians with wonderful open personalities and I have found vegetarians with oppressive, controlling, intolerent temperments.
“In the same way a Christian, whether I agree with her or not, is a conservative regardless of her religious affiliation.”
Are all Christians conservatives? Once again this seems to be an essentialist distillation that ignores the radical characteristics of Christianity (ignored by many American protestants–although there is a powerful strand of progressive American Christians). For instance, Liberation Theology, Quakers, Episcopilians (some), Progressive Christian Groups, Unitarian Universalists, etc…
I look forward to your posts on conservatives and liberals (mostly because I find the designations somewhat ridiculous and seek to understand why people so fiercely embrace them as their major identification) and hope you give as good as you get. I also hope that you develop a stronger sense of self-reflexivity mapping out your own frameworks (as you attempt to dismantle others).
Peace,
Thivai (who is seriously fucked-up, hypocritical and often fails to recognize his own frameworks)
I seem to lack the personality characteristic of self-control. For some reason or another, my biggest pet peeve is not having my point understood. To be honest, I can careless whether the person agrees with me or not, it is understanding my position that is of paramount importance to me. Maybe this is why I have decided to respond to your statement, even though I told myself I would not (for the record, I am not implying that the misunderstanding is your fault, it may be yours, it may be mine, my only point is that it bugs me when I don’t get understood).
So here, let me try to explain this better. You write,
This seems somewhat naive in that you think cultural definitions and experiences of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality are “solely” biological determined and that homosexuality is “solely” determined by mental action…
I made no such claim. I intentionally sidestepped the contentious issue of whether homosexuality is innate or not. I did so because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. For example, if you were a homosexual (for example, with innate homosexual desires) who decided not to act out those desires, and if I was a heterosexual who, for some reason or another, decided to perform homosexual acts, the definition of homosexual, atleast in the way Christians use it, would apply to me, not you.
My point here is that the way the term is coined, specifically in moral philosophical discussions, is with its relation to the act, not the person. This is why I specifically used the analogy of masterbation. Who would deny that sexual desires are inherent in a person? Yet the Catholic Church specifically forbids this. In other words, it is irrelevant whether you are wired towards such acts, or not.
This is not the case with regard to sex, or race, or what not. For example, what acts can you give that seperate a black person as opposed to a white person? Or a male as opposed to a female? This is not the case with regard to homosexuality.
This is how a friend of mine framed it,
So your comparisons to race, gender, etc…is not comparing apples to apples.
As for my considering vegetarians my comrades… I wouldn’t make that assumption just because someone is a vegetarian. A major problem is your essentialist thinking.
I was just trying to use a group of people that forbid acts that I assumed you might find acceptable, and ask you if you would consider them fellow liberals, even though they may find your practice of eating meat abhorant. Vegeterians just happened to be the first group that popped into my mind.
Are all Christians conservatives? Once again this seems to be an essentialist distillation that ignores the radical characteristics of Christianity (ignored by many American protestants–although there is a powerful strand of progressive American Christians). For instance, Liberation Theology, Quakers, Episcopilians (some), Progressive Christian Groups, Unitarian Universalists, etc…
For the record, I was just answering your direct question of whether or not this women can be classified as a conservative, while still maintaining her Christian principles and practices.
You wrote,
I was just responding. I did not imply that Christian means Republican, or that all Christians are Republican, or whatever you read into my post.
On a side note, I wasn’t trying to imply that conservatives actually watch less TV, I was just trying to make light of the situation by using a commonly heard stereotype that conservatives discourage watching TV, that’s all (For the record, aside from Fox News ;), I watch hardly any TV at all).
Hispanic Pundit,
I understand your frustration … but remember the writer is responsible for the effective communication of their ideas. If you are having problems being misunderstood by your readers then you might want to refine your writing. You seem to throw out a lot of general statements as if your readers should just nod their head and say “yep.”
My intent was to just point out some of these generalizations, essentialist assumptions, and fallacies …
Once again in this response you do the same thing, but like you I am tired and have other responsibilities so I’ll let it go for now in order to pay attention to other projects…
Let me just mention, I believe there really is nothing harmful in watching TV–its only a problem if it monopolizes one’s time and attention–or if it is there only osurce of information (not speaking to you directly–just refining my earlier comments on the problems of TV).
Perhaps when you have more time and I have more time we can disagree some more… good luck on your GRE’s (the anticipation is much more worse than the test–at least it was for me)
Thivai… neither solely of a liberal or conservative mindset, rather both/and… as well as…
Oso–just providing equal opportunity misreadings of both conservatives and liberals…
my comment about the “smoke and mirrors” was in jest.
as for the statement about the new trend of minority conservatives… I’m just saying the press (both mainstream and alternative) these days are acting as if minority conservatives are something new under the sun, when anyone that takes a passing interest in history would learn that minority groups in their struggles to “fit in” or “achieve” have often internalized the conservative values of the mainstream society–even bringing them to a new level.
I have no ideal if these new CMs represent a new philosophy/politics/worldview… but they are not “originating” as a context-free new force at this point in time–there is a long tradition and they sound very similar to white conservatives (in my very partial and incomplete readings/discussions)?
Great quote from the Black Pundit–he wiffed big time on that one. Who came up with their name first: the Hispanic Pundit or the Black Pundit?
Thivai … marxism, existentialism, buddhism, yoga (all ill-formed and misunderstood–luckily the middle two thrive on that)
Dangit, you guys write too much, it will take me 2 entire Cantinflas movies-length of time to finish reading this. I will have to read and take breaks, conserve my eyesite and energy that way. Wait, does that make me a “conservative” now! W00T!