Dont_mute_me_bro t1_je9bjhj wrote
Reply to comment by AnacharsisIV in NYC teachers union’s workshop on ‘harmful effects of whiteness’ canceled after influx of ‘hate’ by someone_whoisthat
"Economics is a social construct. Ethics are a social construct. Business is a social construct. If all of these justify seminars, then why shouldn't the construct of whiteness? How else shall it be deconstructed? I'm going to leave it out that kissing your sister or mother- is almost universally prohibited, as is cannibalism. We can argue about small isolated communities in remote places practicing them, but in the overwhelming majority of the world, it's prohibited; taboo in fact. One could say that it's not a just social construct, but a universal truth.
Are there seminars on the evils of economics? The evils of ethics? The evils of Business? (maybe at the risible Young Socialists Club, but nowhere else).
Setting aside that I doubt that any French speaking Canadians (including Quebecois, who are different from Acadians or Metis) identify as "Latino"...If Quebecois are in fact "Latino", there are a lot of people in Upstate New York and New England of Quebecois ancestry who should be getting "diversity points" or at least changing their census designation.
And while we're at it...since I agree with you that "Hispanic" is an ethnolinguistic designation, why are there diversity points being added to a purely *Gallego (*pure European ancestry) person from Mexico, Argentina or Cuba? Turn on Univision and see- these people are not mestizo, Indio, or anything. They might be of a fairer complexion than a Greek/Latino such as yourself.
Why does language qualify? What has historically been done to the Brazilian community in the US? Why make a designation of "Latino" at all?
AnacharsisIV t1_jebhhx0 wrote
>Are there seminars on the evils of economics? The evils of ethics? The evils of Business? (maybe at the risible Young Socialists Club, but nowhere else).
I mean, yeah? You basically described three 100 level philosophy classes. Do you think that the concepts of ethics, business or economics are in and of themselves unassailable or above critique?
>Setting aside that I doubt that any French speaking Canadians (including Quebecois, who are different from Acadians or Metis) identify as "Latino"...If Quebecois are in fact "Latino", there are a lot of people in Upstate New York and New England of Quebecois ancestry who should be getting "diversity points" or at least changing their census designation.
>And while we're at it...since I agree with you that "Hispanic" is an ethnolinguistic designation, why are there diversity points being added to a purely Gallego (pure European ancestry) person from Mexico, Argentina or Cuba? Turn on Univision and see- these people are not mestizo, Indio, or anything. They might be of a fairer complexion than a Greek/Latino such as yourself.
I don't understand your point here. New Yorkers of Quebecois or Acadian ancestry absolutely should self-identify as Latino if they want. I don't know if you're aware of this, but most government forms and other information based on them like college applications these days ask you your "race" and then "ethnicity", so it's a two part question. So you can tick something like "White, black, Asian, Native american, Pacific Islander" and then the next question is "Are ethnically Hispanic yes/no"? So that way you can have a white guy like Charlie Sheen or Cameron Diaz count as Hispanic, there's no problem with that and we've been doing it that way for decades.
> Why make a designation of "Latino" at all?
The designation of "Latino" was not made in the Americas nor by Americans. During the French Empire's conquest of Mexico, they created the concept of "Latinoamerica" as an attempt to gain allies among the former colonies of Spain and Portugal, a piece of propaganda that the colonial descendants of France, Spain and Portugal had a shared cultural heritage stretching back to ancient Rome to contrast them against the Anglo-Americans of Canada and the United States. It's all political, and it's all arbitrary, as referenced above.
Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jebpqe1 wrote
It's one thing to argue that a particular economic system (e.g. Communism) or a particular ethical system (e.g.relativism/situationalism) is evil. It's quite another to suggest that economics itself, or that ethics itself, is evil.
And if it's "all political/arbitrary", then the seminar itself is bullshit. Thanks for making my point.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments