Carrol Cox wrote:
> And to use the word that has driven many a social democrat crazy, to speak
> of the community accepting gays or being led to accept gays is, OBJECTIVELY,
> homophobia. Just as it is objectively misogyny to speak of the need to accept
> women and objectively racist to speak of the need to accept African
> Americans. (It would be ore germane to speak of the need of the working class
> to somehow incorporate white males.)
Um, the working class needs to "somehow" incorporate males of European lineage? This is where I get very annoyed. This seems to assume that all white guys are president of the local lending institution or something; whereas in my neck of the woods, when I look at the assembly line at the Mitsubishi plant in my area or in the kitchens of the restaurants or the back of the garbage truck picking up my trash, I see primarily pale penis people.
Oppression under capitalism comes in all colors, and all sexes. (How's that last part for striving to be politically correct?) It's privileged folk of all colors and all political persuasions who don't seem to be able to grasp this. And, yes...if you've got a nice white collar job in academe or wherever, regardless of your skin tone, YOU are privileged in this society. Lucky, too, because you were somehow in the position to get it. You may not feel like you are. To get clear on this, I suggest taking a parttime job at, say, WalMart. Spend some quality time with people who really have to work for a living, and are compensated at a pathetic rate for what they have to put up with. You'll discover that many of these people are actually white males. Now, who'd of thunk it?
Now, maybe you're thinking I'm one of those (shudder) populists, just because I'm willing to acknowledge some reality. Maybe I'm even vulgar. Granted I haven't read the entire article, but I do believe Alterman has a point when he says there is a split in progressive thought, between those concerned with bread-and-butter issues for everyone in the working class and those who seem exclusively concerned with so-called cultural issues, as they affect certain parts of the whole. When I first became serious about my politics a couple years ago and gravitated to the left, I sought out like-minded people; at least I thought I did. Imagine my dismay when I realized so many progressives seem to be exceedingly class-conscious; they felt okay championing gay rights, because they KNEW gay people, out gay people who were nice and middle-class like them, people who could appreciate latte and a nice Chardonnay. But the server who brought them their coffee, who bussed their table; they somehow didn't exist. ESPECIALLY if they were white. And I vividly remember the reaction in my women's group when a very young European-American man who was obviously lower class wandered into the room. He was looking for someone to report to, because he was doing community service (we met on the grounds of a non- profit religious institution)as a condition of a court sentence. He was treated as if he was from Mars, or worse. And the eye-rolling and shudders after he left...imagine, someone who'd been in trouble with the LAW...
I'm not stupid or willfully ignorant (at least I try to keep it to a minimum; I firmly believe that there's no one, certainly not me, who's too smart to be fooled); racism and sexism and homophobia are like the air we breathe, and not likely to go away soon. But there has been serious progress in these areas over the past few decades. Just ask old guys like Chomsky and Zinn. But the wall progressives keep slamming into is the wall of class, class which cuts across race, gender and sexual orientation. The class situation in this society isn't getting better, it's getting much worse. I know, we all know that...or do we? Depends on where you live and what job you have and the kind of money you make...which is what I think people like Moore and maybe Alterman are trying to point out.
BTW, thanks for the McKibben posts...it was very interesting, if depressing, reading...
Maria