You do realise that those of us attempting patiently to argue the opposite could also resort to this sort of thing, right? Funny that it is Reed who complains about guilt by association while Woj slings around Catholicism, faith and what not! Poor form, mate.
On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:24 PM, SA wrote:
>
> Here's how I interpret this disagreement. Tell me if I'm wrong. Reed's basic argument is that underlining the "racial" component of some inequality produces no *objective* beneficial result - e.g., it does nothing to help combat the inequality. My sense is that the fundamental response of the anti-Reedians is that -- whether or not Reed is right about that -- *they don't care* . For them, what's important is that these inequalities are *lived* as racial inequalities, and for that reason they should be treated as such, whatever the objective results of doing so might be.
Assuming you put me in the anti-Reed camp (I should point out that I am not anti-Reed at all, though I am strongly against the motive-mongering/psycho-analytical style of argument), the above is only part of my position (and not the part I have stressed thus far). Rather, I do think and argue that highlighting and describing discrimination on the basis of race does help combat that particular form of inequality.
—ravi