A Question on Ancestral Reflection---Luis

By

  I wanted to hop on this thread to discuss "Acting Like an Ancestor" ties to substantial change by building off the quote, "it often takes everything a generation has to win the struggle immediately in front of them. But if they can pass on the right things--and if we in the generations that follow pick up what they left for us--that can be enough" (200)." I first took a more cultural lens into this impactful concept that I agree will construct the "just" world. I appreciated Tawio for discussing the hidden history and practices of cultures of marginalized individuals' ancestry. Coming from a household of a culture outside of the United States, more specifically from Mexico, which is often hard to think about my history because it's not all good. However, I wonder to what extent Taiwo is considering educating ourselves on our cultural/historical background with our identities, especially where there are intersectionalities that could contradict each other. 

The question on the appropriate level of self-reflection stems from his statement that "...we don't have to take up everything our predecessors took up, we needn't accept their path as ours simply because it was theirs" (205). While I understand Taiwo instructed us to stick to some of our ancestral values, I believe carrying the good parts to reflect on would lead to a false narrative. In addition, I remember finding it challenging to learn about my history. Most ethnic and race teachings are not in academia. Even when it is, some scholars teach through xenophobic, stereotypical, and racist views. For example, looking at Mexico, I will find strong core values such as love, patriotism, and family. However, on the other side, I find homophobia, colorism, and hierarchal oppression of poor folks. However, I believe one's objectives are more effectively structured when you carry both aspects. The false narrative I was discussing had to do with the thought of the "us versus them mentality." At times, reflecting on one's history can make us think that we are the only ones who know how our historical oppression feels, which leads us to move away from collaboration.

I am open to feedback on my thoughts, which could be me overthinking about this last impactful section. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more