2 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoYou’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 agoNot 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.