> SA: It's not about the substantive argument, which is totally defensible.
> It's the way the issue is turned into this endless psychodrama.
>
> I'm having some trouble construing this.
>
> (a) What is the antecedent of "it" in " It's not about..."?
>
>
> (c) What's the antecedent of "it" in "It's the way..."
The antecedent is: "the thing that is Tim Wise-ish and hence rubs me the wrong way." (Responding to shag.)
> (d) What is the "issue," and who turns it into drama in this thread?
The issue is race and the dramatic language I quoted was from the author of the essay that started this thread.
> (b) What part of what substantive argument is sustainable?
The sustainable argument was the author's critique of the General Assembly's proposed language: “being one race, the human race, formerly divided by race, class...” As I understand it, the critique (or at least, the critique that makes sense to me) is that this language will turn some people away, especially people who feel like they're targets of racism in their own lives.
Incidentally, the author's critique is an excellent illustration of why these assemblies should not be seen or intended as a prefigurement of some future society. If you really take prefigurement seriously, you should be happy to agree that within the space of the occupation we're "moving beyond race." In reality, the occupation - for all the good it does - in itself does absolutely nothing to dismantle the structures of race, because these exist in the surrounding society and the occupation in itself doesn't change or erase those structures.
SA