Doug writes:
I take that to mean that while none of these folks
>are personally homophobic (or misogynist or racist), they nonetheless think
>those sorts of issues shouldn't be talked about very loudly because they
>alienate the masses. As if the masses weren't of all sexes, persuasions,
>and colors.
>
>
>
>
I haven't been keeping up with my homework, but this identity theme reminds me a lot of the emancipation debate on the left in central europe in the 1840s: For Jews to be emancipated, humanity must be emancipated first. Fine. But when Jews joined up, some of their general emancipation friends on the left just couldn't get over their anti-semitism. Some of them kept seeing "jew" when then looked at bankers and the like. So too now. For gays, various peoples of various colors, women and so on, emancipation can't come before general emancipation. This implies that solidarity among gays, peoples of color, whites, Jews, perhaps even suburban commuters making a lousy 30K a year is required on many basic issues--living wage, political power, education, housing , health care--as well as the will to get out in the streets together, for example, to shut down NYC for a day or two to show Guilaini and his ilk that a "left" is alive and ready to challenge their authority. But this solidarity cannot exist for long if various folks coming together keep seeing "Jew", as it were, when they look at bankers. That is, if some on the left keep seeing "queer," and keep getting bent out of shape when gays, blacks, and others insist that identity is part of our common struggle--instead of workers more or less in the same situation as they are, bringing concerns to the left as legitimate as any--how can we hope to challenge the Wall Street? Is the dynamic of solidarity really that much different today from what it was at the dawn of the modern era?
Steve Cohen
********************** Steven R. Cohen lomco at pipeline.com