It should be possible for us to reach a simple baseline of agreement, that you lack understanding of several essential terms, and that such lack of understanding is an obstacle to your discussing the subject meaningfully.
It seems apparent that if your interest were sincere, then you would begin by seeking to learn the meanings of the terms, before complaining as you have done.
Except that there were only like 2 million people even just 10’000 years ago. And we can be absolutely sure that they smashed their heads in like everyone we actually know did (I am sure we also know it from prehistoric skulls too, but still).
This is extremely black and white and helps absolutely nobody.
People already don’t want to think parst their own premise. Old people that want to defund schools. Absolutely crazy. You need a way to deal with these masses of idiots (let’s say 50%, looking at Trump’s election), you can simply not assume most to be competent humans to deal with such things.
Which is fair; as a black person, I just don’t think that’s feasible in the way that (most forms of) anarchism propose. The history of marginalization I’m familiar with has historically allowed others to slip through and take advantage in detrimental ways.
I think most black people and black theory would fundamentally disagree with that position.
Though I do appreciate (imagine a phrasing that doesn’t feel as…condescending; I kept trying to think of one but couldn’t that also maintained that there’s a genuine appreciation) you bringing it up; I haven’t heard that position so explicitly before (generally implied or assumed but not as, sort of, a central position) so it helps me understand the conclusions you’re drawing better.
I honestly fail to understand the meaning of “black theory”, but I would understand Black liberation as a body of theory generally aligned with my position.
Before colonization, much of Africa was stateless. The expansionist ambitions of European states gave rise to the slave trade. Slavery became entrenched as a foundational element of states established in the New World. Most of the New World also had been stateless, before colonization, and free of slavery.
I don’t mind the comment being removed (it’s your comm and, if it doesn’t fit what’s desired, perfectly reasonable) but it does feel a little weird for mine (specifically and only) to be removed? I didn’t say anything the person I responded to wasn’t already saying and I didn’t think I’d said much of anything that exceeded the scope of what they said.
MULTIVERSE
lumpenproletariat
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
It should be possible for us to reach a simple baseline of agreement, that you lack understanding of several essential terms, and that such lack of understanding is an obstacle to your discussing the subject meaningfully.
It seems apparent that if your interest were sincere, then you would begin by seeking to learn the meanings of the terms, before complaining as you have done.
Except that there were only like 2 million people even just 10’000 years ago. And we can be absolutely sure that they smashed their heads in like everyone we actually know did (I am sure we also know it from prehistoric skulls too, but still).
This is extremely black and white and helps absolutely nobody.
The anthropology on early humans is much more equivocal than you seem to think.
Also, insisting on population growth as a cause begs the question of the processes through which ruling powers became established historically.
People already don’t want to think parst their own premise. Old people that want to defund schools. Absolutely crazy. You need a way to deal with these masses of idiots (let’s say 50%, looking at Trump’s election), you can simply not assume most to be competent humans to deal with such things.
We want everyone to participate fully, not for one narrow and fixed system of domination to be replaced by another such system.
Which is fair; as a black person, I just don’t think that’s feasible in the way that (most forms of) anarchism propose. The history of marginalization I’m familiar with has historically allowed others to slip through and take advantage in detrimental ways.
Marginalization only may occur in state society.
Stateless society lacks the systems of enforcement through which marginalization is sustained.
The marginalization of Black people originated from colonialism and slavery, which develop from states.
I think most black people and black theory would fundamentally disagree with that position.
Though I do appreciate (imagine a phrasing that doesn’t feel as…condescending; I kept trying to think of one but couldn’t that also maintained that there’s a genuine appreciation) you bringing it up; I haven’t heard that position so explicitly before (generally implied or assumed but not as, sort of, a central position) so it helps me understand the conclusions you’re drawing better.
I honestly fail to understand the meaning of “black theory”, but I would understand Black liberation as a body of theory generally aligned with my position.
Before colonization, much of Africa was stateless. The expansionist ambitions of European states gave rise to the slave trade. Slavery became entrenched as a foundational element of states established in the New World. Most of the New World also had been stateless, before colonization, and free of slavery.
I don’t mind the comment being removed (it’s your comm and, if it doesn’t fit what’s desired, perfectly reasonable) but it does feel a little weird for mine (specifically and only) to be removed? I didn’t say anything the person I responded to wasn’t already saying and I didn’t think I’d said much of anything that exceeded the scope of what they said.
The objection disregards the true historical development of states and rests on narrow assumptions about human behavior.
I wouldn’t say narrow, I’d say basic. It removes variables to make the thought experiment a bit easier.
You are describing circular reasoning. The assumptions are preferred that support the conclusion that is preferred.
I’d argue that OPs post must subscribe to a very cherry-picked conceptualization of law.
What is a law? An understood behavioral expectation for which violation carries understood societal consequences? Even primates have that.
Since your example is incompatible with the argument, it is obviously much more general than the intended understanding of the term.
I envy the peace that must come from being able to accept the logical structure of that argument.
Your most immediate obstacle seems to be your unfamiliarity with many of the terms.