tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post3185591397649201169..comments2024-03-15T20:25:28.637-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: Trouble on the leftDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-58525264095123699752017-04-26T08:52:46.903-04:002017-04-26T08:52:46.903-04:00Thank you for your comment, Carol. I can't se...Thank you for your comment, Carol. I can't see anything that I said that contradicts what you said. If you can, I'd appreciate it if you would point it out.David Kaiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-35685391387151835282017-04-25T23:32:57.436-04:002017-04-25T23:32:57.436-04:00I received a graduate degree in history in 1978 so...I received a graduate degree in history in 1978 so I have not been involved in academia in a long time so I can't comment on what things are currently like there. I am a Democrat and I do value diversity,perhaps because I am a woman and I remember what things were like before the women's movement. There are so many things people take for granted now. For example, during the 1970's college-educated women started rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women. These women changed the way society views violence against women and I think that is a good thing. I have read that business school studies of decision making show that if a group is diverse in race and gender, the decisions tend to be better. So in practical terms, it is good to give a wide range of people a seat at the table when decisions are made.Carol in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10880089298963817007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-56770190074667758902017-04-24T12:32:37.549-04:002017-04-24T12:32:37.549-04:00Dear Dr. Kaiser,
You mentioned Bannon in the radi...Dear Dr. Kaiser,<br /><br />You mentioned Bannon in the radio segment linked within this post. There's something in the tactics often ascribed to Bannon (religious ban, border wall, immigration crackdown, etc.) that suggests he grasps something from generational theory that I've not heard anyone call out before. <br /><br />In the Revolutionary crisis, we fought our fathers. In the Civil War crisis, we fought our brothers. In the Crisis that ended with WWII, we fought our cousins. These data points suggest that before America will pass through to the First turning--when the rebirth of the vital center you call for will occur--a confrontation is required with an enemy who is greatly related to us. This reading explains why the present war on terror has been insufficient: because the jihadists are almost completely unrelated to us.<br /><br />Bannon's tactics suggest he believes the appropriate enemy today to be our neighbors. Whether he (or we) read generational theory correctly is unclear, but Bannon does seem to grasp the importance of relatedness in the last three confrontations that ushered in Highs in America.<br /><br />Jude HammerleJude Hammerlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00765872893740924266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-19976892279511297132017-04-24T08:05:10.354-04:002017-04-24T08:05:10.354-04:00Steven,
I very much appreciate that comment, w...Steven,<br /><br /> I very much appreciate that comment, which has made me think.<br /><br /> I have been checking definitions, and it does seem that the closely related words norm and normative are generally (normally?) thought to carry with them a moral connotation. Normative behavior, in other words, is defined as correct behavior. That is not how have thought of the word.<br /><br /> Thus, it seems also that the inventors of the term heteronormativity were referring to the idea that everyone should be heterosexual which I think I made clear is not what I think at all.<br /><br /> However, although unfortunately I don't have a citation at hand, I am quite sure that I have seen peopled attacked for "heteronormativity" or "heterosexism" simply for making statements that assumed most people were heterosexuals. Since that remains a statistical fact, I don't see why anyone should be criticized on those grounds.<br /><br /> I will revise the original text accordingly. David Kaiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-70347030721510783102017-04-23T19:03:09.510-04:002017-04-23T19:03:09.510-04:00Although only a small portion of your overall argu...Although only a small portion of your overall argument, I did want to let you know that you actually have an incorrect definition for heteronormativity here.<br /><br />Heteronormativity is not defined as "the assumption that heterosexuality is normal behavior", but "the assumption that heterosexuality is <b>the norm</b>." The terms "norm" and "normal" are not interchangeable here, as "norm" refers to a society's expectation of how a person is <i>supposed</i> to behave - not how a person <i>is most likely</i> to behave. <br /><br />In other words, a more correct definition of heteronormativity for your article would be "the assumption that heterosexuality is the only correct human behavior." <br /><br />As such, an argument against heteronormativity is actually, by definition, an argument specifically against intolerance.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07398281055850954386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-5733154600621864352017-04-21T22:59:26.634-04:002017-04-21T22:59:26.634-04:00Professor
Poignant.
I was struck by your connecti...Professor<br />Poignant. <br />I was struck by your connection of the nation's liberal newsrooms with academic administrations, faculties, and curricula, which both have adopted such views.<br /><br />One can see a similar fragmentation on the right, nevertheless, though less marked perhaps.<br /><br />Certainly no one would want as a vital center a center composed of marginalized groups from both parties, because it would doubtless not seem particularly vital in any recognizable sense, but that is mostly all that is out there, on both sides, it seems. Hate to put it quite that way. <br /><br />There are a lot of reasons why things worked out this way. Can't get into all that here really. <br /><br />We, here, are unfortunately not alone in this disorienting fragmentation.<br /><br />I try to explain its origins on my site, go into some detail, repeat myself quite a lot, but no explanation, or combination of explanations, is very satisfying. I concluded the problems surfacing go back a rather long time, and have deep roots in the Western tradition.<br /><br />All the best Bozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-20789860810899185132017-04-21T21:48:11.907-04:002017-04-21T21:48:11.907-04:00Equality remains a fundamental value of the Left. ...Equality remains a fundamental value of the Left. It is because of that attention is paid to the ways this value is still not being realized. Why do you object to paying attention to the groups who still aren't getting equal rights? Isn't this the only way we can work for equality, which you called a core value? Yes, I agree that there is an objective truth. But white men don't have a patent on that truth. <br /><br />I think the problem with Democrats is not identify politics. It is a craven cowardice that makes these opportunistic politicians unwilling to take a stand for the very oppressed people they are supposed to represent. That is the poor and disenfranchised whatever race or gender. The Occupy movement nailed it by saying the 99%. The ruling class divides the 99% by giving different privileges to some of us. It is unseemly for the more privileged to seek a bogus "unity" which protects those privileges and keeps the less privileged down. Free-Behind-My-Maskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010921155356975543noreply@blogger.com