4 ms·

I don’t think this is correct. Just yesterday I was thinking about the many brave white people who fought as abolitionists to end the slave trade, risking their

I don’t think this is correct. Just yesterday I was thinking about the many brave white people who fought as abolitionists to end the slave trade, risking their lives. But they could never truly understand what it was to be a slave, because they went home at the end of the day, whereas the slaves were not only forced to work without pay, they were also bred like horses, with the “strongest” ones forced to mate to make strong slaves. It doesn’t mean the abolitionists can’t understand and sympathize and even work at great personal risk to free slaves. So yes maybe anybody can “understand” it as you said - I’m not debating that. But it’s completely different to live with the constant humiliation and discrimination, getting things said and done to you that are not illegal, that ghe discriminating group then dismiss as you being a snowflake etc. So yes you’re right anyone can empathize. But I don’t think that’s what OP is saying. You really cannot fully understand unless you live it. Just like you cannot understand true poverty in African countries, when you’ve spent your whole life living in a (relatively) rich one.

starkd 4y ago
So, what's your point? Do they need to actually suffer in the same way in order for justice to be achieved? Because that's the implication he is essetnially driving at. The important thing is those abolitionist recognized a moral wrong for what it was and strove to counter it. To insist in such a way that they can never understand not only invalidates their efforts but only tries to set the stage for some kind of further remediation. But maybe that's their aim, to make sure it is never ultimately remedied and preserve the well of victimhood. How else can you read that.
- amrangaye 4y ago
  You’re making it either / or and it’s not. I can feel sympathetic to the Uyghurs, fight for their rights, canvass my representatives, donate to charities etc. But I (a black African man) can never truly know or experience what the average Uyghur goes though day to day, because I just haven’t lived it. So no, when we say that, we are not “excluding” anyone - in fact the more allies a minority has, the more likely they will achieve equality. But lived experience is different.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not what I said. I'm saying why else harp on the fact that white abolitionists could not understand their lived experience other than to disparage their contribution. I have no dispute with the idea that someone is unable to understand another's lived experience in the same way, because that's self evident. It is a truism. Why even say it other than to invalidate their contribution? Because thats essentially what they are doing.
wenc 4y ago
As a POC I relate to your point of view and lived experience certainly provides us sensitivity to certain issues that would not be front of mind for people who don’t share those experiences. However lived experience can also introduces biases — for instance, would you trust a court of law to deliver justice if the victim was also judge and jury? That lived experience which provides sensitivity and also can make one too close to the matter at hand to see things clearly. I think people with and without lived experiences can pull together and make positive contributions. I say this because there are so many examples of solutions proposed by people with lived experience that are utterly counterproductive, because they shut out the voices of those without lived experience but who might have balancing views drawn from the broader human experience.

starkd 4y ago

So, what's your point? Do they need to actually suffer in the same way in order for justice to be achieved? Because that's the implication he is essetnially driving at. The important thing is those abolitionist recognized a moral wrong for what it was and strove to counter it. To insist in such a way that they can never understand not only invalidates their efforts but only tries to set the stage for some kind of further remediation. But maybe that's their aim, to make sure it is never ultimately remedied and preserve the well of victimhood. How else can you read that.

amrangaye 4y ago
You’re making it either / or and it’s not. I can feel sympathetic to the Uyghurs, fight for their rights, canvass my representatives, donate to charities etc. But I (a black African man) can never truly know or experience what the average Uyghur goes though day to day, because I just haven’t lived it. So no, when we say that, we are not “excluding” anyone - in fact the more allies a minority has, the more likely they will achieve equality. But lived experience is different.
- starkd 4y ago
  Not what I said. I'm saying why else harp on the fact that white abolitionists could not understand their lived experience other than to disparage their contribution. I have no dispute with the idea that someone is unable to understand another's lived experience in the same way, because that's self evident. It is a truism. Why even say it other than to invalidate their contribution? Because thats essentially what they are doing.

wenc 4y ago

As a POC I relate to your point of view and lived experience certainly provides us sensitivity to certain issues that would not be front of mind for people who don’t share those experiences. However lived experience can also introduces biases — for instance, would you trust a court of law to deliver justice if the victim was also judge and jury? That lived experience which provides sensitivity and also can make one too close to the matter at hand to see things clearly. I think people with and without lived experiences can pull together and make positive contributions. I say this because there are so many examples of solutions proposed by people with lived experience that are utterly counterproductive, because they shut out the voices of those without lived experience but who might have balancing views drawn from the broader human experience.