I'm not wont to defend Bernie. But come the fuck on.
"The crotchety old Jewish guy dressed for the cold because it was January in Washington D.C didn't seem excited enough" is not white privilege.
But let's look at how to construct a (very dumb) narrative.
1/
"The crotchety old Jewish guy dressed for the cold because it was January in Washington D.C didn't seem excited enough" is not white privilege.
But let's look at how to construct a (very dumb) narrative.
1/
https://twitter.com/sfc_opinions/status/1356213758826311681
First: deploy recognition of white supremacy not as a matter of real inquiry (analysis of what white supremacists advocate, align themselves with, or portray themselves as), but as akin to Potter Stewart on pornography: "we know it when we see it"
2/
2/
This, then, frames the discussion: if "we" see white supremacy, it is there. The only question left is why *others* can't "see".
Eliding, not subtly, the questions of "why do we think this teacher knows what white supremacy looks like" or "how good is her class's judgment?"
3/
Eliding, not subtly, the questions of "why do we think this teacher knows what white supremacy looks like" or "how good is her class's judgment?"
3/
Lt's not beg the question (unlike the way she framed it for her class in a discussion about racism):
*Is* there something to see? Because if the test for "is this white supremacy" whether her *students* saw it, we'd want to know whether the *students* noticed it unprompted
4/
*Is* there something to see? Because if the test for "is this white supremacy" whether her *students* saw it, we'd want to know whether the *students* noticed it unprompted
4/
Side note: there's a tendency among pretty bad teachers of media literacy to teach symbolic meaning in everything.
Side note 2: odd that she doesn't mention the racial make-up of her class given that their judgment of privilege is the cornerstone of her argument.
5/
Side note 2: odd that she doesn't mention the racial make-up of her class given that their judgment of privilege is the cornerstone of her argument.
5/
This is important, because following this, the author shifts focus to what her students "could" see and then what "they saw".
But she admits, clear as day, she *wanted* them to see it.
But "my students saw what I wanted them to" is not the stuff of op-eds.
6/
But she admits, clear as day, she *wanted* them to see it.
But "my students saw what I wanted them to" is not the stuff of op-eds.
6/
I also don't see many poor, working-class, female, or struggling-to-be-taken-seriously folk writing paeans to themselves for teaching other people to jump at shadows of privilege and excoriating those who didn't see a lack of obsequious enthusiasm as privilege.
7/
7/
Only white people get to write things that profoundly stupid and expect to be taken seriously.
8/8
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
