> I think what Charles is getting at here (although I'd wait for confirmation from him) is simply that: if there's to be a space where human beings can be(come) fully conscious as human beings, it has to be defended from
those who'd prevent that space from opening up and growing, to their detriment.
I agree it must be defended, but not necessarily with violence. I create the space in which I am fully human -- I resist. I can resist in bed, a jail cell, at my desk -- so long as I resist delusional thinking I am fully human.
> Depends what you mean by "violence" and "failed". And whether or not the "failures" can be directly attributable to violence. Haiti and the US (the political and the socio-historical entities) were both born
out of violence. Only one's "failed" (so far) by common standards, while the other's been wildly successful (so far).
By failed I mean a stable society not rife with violence and repression. US history is a litany of both.
> How could one take political power away from a powerful group that's used to having it without there being some sort of violent reprisal?
There probably would be a violent reprisal. I am not convinced that violence must be the used to face this reprisal. Such a belief may be part of false consciousness. I do not know much at all about Ghandi, but wasn't part of his approach the use of non-violence?
> Or using violence in the first place?
One could argue that heteros have been "a powerful group that's used to having it (power)." Now that queers have acquired a modicum of power there certainly has been a fierce reprisal. Should queers use violence to combat this reprisal? Should we advocate straight bashing? Bombing het singles bars?
> Don't know. The term "false consciousness" is pretty loaded. I guess it basically means the capacity to lie to oneself convincingly, even while flying in the face of "objective" reality. One could, I suppose, mistake passion for rationality. Human minds seem to be able to fuck themselves over quite nicely, so why not this way too?
I like your definition: "the capacity to lie to oneself convincingly." In my terms it would also be called delusional thinking. I do not think that passions are mistaken for rationality, but that they are mishandled (fetishized or attached to) and as a result skew/interfere with rationality.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister