[Peace-discuss] driving away members

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...in our own local context," Al?  Where do you have in mind?

How would you answer the question in "the posting below"? --CGE


On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Alfred Kagan wrote:

> I have to say that the posting below makes me quite angry. We want to
> create a better world, a world where we have confronted sexism and all
> other kinds of discrimination. If we go along with sexism to
> accomplish our work, we can't accomplish our goals.  This discussion
> has nothing whatsoever to do with "manners" or "what can't be said."  
> It has everything to do with treating people fairly and promoting
> values that we endorse. To talk about manners is to trivalize the
> discussion.  In fact, let me be so bold as to say that we would not
> even be having this discussion if we did not have to actively confront
> sexism within our own local context.
> 
> 
> At 1:22 PM -0500 4/28/04, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >As I've said, I don't defend Gerstein's language nor any sexism inferred
> >from it.  And I agree that some white males (me, for example) enjoy
> >privileges in our society (as do some non-whites and some non-males). But
> >the identity politics that you imply is a counsel of despair: instead of
> >working to stop the war or winning the vicious class struggle that
> >underlies it, we spend our time enforcing manners -- condemning what can't
> >be said, insisting on what must be admitted, and winkling out "unconscious
> >racism" (as we did with Howard Dean) and "unconscious sexism" (revealed in
> >Gerstein's language, regardless of what he might say on the subject).
> >
> >But, that said, out of curiosity, what do you think would count as my
> >"giv[ing] up some of my privilege"?  How would you know that I'd done it? 
> >--CGE
> >
> >