This Just In: Christian Mistakes Marx for Jesus. Hilarity Ensues
My god, liberals can sure miss the point.
People are getting all worked up over Gerald Schoenewolf, a professional Homo-Changer, wrote an article in which he claimed that we should explore "other ways to look at race in America."
One "other way" that he mentions, is to look at slavery as a favor done to blacks, who got to move from "the jungle" of Africa to Europe or America where they were "in many ways better off."
"Jungle" seems not to be a geographical or ecological term for Schoenewolf, but some kind of a cultural marker. I don't really get that.
But liberals outrage just seems so misplaced. Are we really surprised that a guy who hates fags for a living might also have some other ideas that are a little unsavory? I mean, lots of folks are bigots. Not many of them make a career out of it.
But the essay itself is Hi.Freaking.Larious.
It's got a wonderfully wry pseudo-academic tone. One imagines that Schoenewolf is skewering those East Coast intellectuals that the populist right is always on about (and who the old money right is mostly friends with--it all gets very confusing). The thrust of the argument is that since Marx, we have valorized victimhood and have repressed the rights of non-victims to shape public discourse on social matters.
But my favorite bit is this:
I think I hurt something I laughed so hard. This is not coming from a Steve Forbes, this is someone from the Christian right.
Um, Mr. Schoenewolf, I think that the "idealization of the underdog" started a little before Marx. I kinda think is started with JESUS.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that the workers created by the Industrial Revolution were "middle class" doesn't know shit about history.
The really really funny thing about the article is how it framed itself as an anti-PC polemic; throughout the essay Schoenewolf whines that everytime he tries to say anything about race (like that slavery helped blacks) "he is quickly shouted down as though he [were] a complete madman."
I love the way the far right is so deadset against the "victim mentality" (and sure, who isn't?) except when it comes to society's real victims: white men. There, they understand the pain of the victims. This rhetoric pervades right wing speechmaking--even when they control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and most of the wealth in the country, they still want to steal the tears of the poor.
Ok--I've strayed from the point of my post. Which was, I think, that liberals need to stop getting so shocked by all this. Of course the guy who thinks he can turn a Mary into a married is bound to have some slighly off ideas.
Liberals in this country tend to live under the assumption that if they point out how ridiculous something is, then it will help somehow. As though this Shoenewolf's supporters are going to say: "Hey there, I'm all for the gay-bashing, but do you really think that stuff you said about slavery and feminism was really fair?"
Bitch, please. Not gonna happen.
Maybe if we really care about civil rights, we should find some candidates who actually support civil rights. How many Democrats voted for the Marriage Protection Act?
People are getting all worked up over Gerald Schoenewolf, a professional Homo-Changer, wrote an article in which he claimed that we should explore "other ways to look at race in America."
One "other way" that he mentions, is to look at slavery as a favor done to blacks, who got to move from "the jungle" of Africa to Europe or America where they were "in many ways better off."
"Jungle" seems not to be a geographical or ecological term for Schoenewolf, but some kind of a cultural marker. I don't really get that.
But liberals outrage just seems so misplaced. Are we really surprised that a guy who hates fags for a living might also have some other ideas that are a little unsavory? I mean, lots of folks are bigots. Not many of them make a career out of it.
But the essay itself is Hi.Freaking.Larious.
It's got a wonderfully wry pseudo-academic tone. One imagines that Schoenewolf is skewering those East Coast intellectuals that the populist right is always on about (and who the old money right is mostly friends with--it all gets very confusing). The thrust of the argument is that since Marx, we have valorized victimhood and have repressed the rights of non-victims to shape public discourse on social matters.
But my favorite bit is this:
The Industrial Revolution brought along with it a new class, the middle class of worker, and Marx decided that this new class was being victimized. Thus began the idealization of the underdog (oppressed) and the demonization of the top dog (oppressor).
I think I hurt something I laughed so hard. This is not coming from a Steve Forbes, this is someone from the Christian right.
Um, Mr. Schoenewolf, I think that the "idealization of the underdog" started a little before Marx. I kinda think is started with JESUS.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that the workers created by the Industrial Revolution were "middle class" doesn't know shit about history.
The really really funny thing about the article is how it framed itself as an anti-PC polemic; throughout the essay Schoenewolf whines that everytime he tries to say anything about race (like that slavery helped blacks) "he is quickly shouted down as though he [were] a complete madman."
I love the way the far right is so deadset against the "victim mentality" (and sure, who isn't?) except when it comes to society's real victims: white men. There, they understand the pain of the victims. This rhetoric pervades right wing speechmaking--even when they control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and most of the wealth in the country, they still want to steal the tears of the poor.
Ok--I've strayed from the point of my post. Which was, I think, that liberals need to stop getting so shocked by all this. Of course the guy who thinks he can turn a Mary into a married is bound to have some slighly off ideas.
Liberals in this country tend to live under the assumption that if they point out how ridiculous something is, then it will help somehow. As though this Shoenewolf's supporters are going to say: "Hey there, I'm all for the gay-bashing, but do you really think that stuff you said about slavery and feminism was really fair?"
Bitch, please. Not gonna happen.
Maybe if we really care about civil rights, we should find some candidates who actually support civil rights. How many Democrats voted for the Marriage Protection Act?
posted by Feemus at
2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home