——- in addition to the insanity pointed out by the commentary in this link, The paper itself is so utterly ridiculous because in essence it’s arguing that if we stay in whiteness, then the gradations of skin color will become important to political and economic security.
It is a misconstrual, a misunderstanding, A missed-application of the critical idea of whiteness, to suggest conflict and opposition based on the shade of one’s skinis the way to defeat whiteness.
For race itself goes to the very heart of critical theory. And does not necessarily equate to the shade of one’s skin. For sure, the shade of one skin is what whiteness as a constructrelies upon for its authority and enactment of power through systems. But racial consciousness Is the The manner which by race becomes noticed for what it is, and thus the absolute authority of whiteness becomes compromised. It is not that people of whatever shade of skin will now lose their political and economic security, but that the very fear that is invested in such an idea is what we’re battling against. This is to say, the ideological consciousness which promotes skin color (and other racial identifiers, such as hair) as a predictor and designator of what is good and right and valuable is what racial consciousness rejects.
I was just listening to a story about Covid and religious practice where they talked about Jerusalem and how the three Faith’s all believe that something holy happened in the same place, each to their particular religious history.
This got me thinking: I wonder if the three religious groups, leader ship perhaps of each, could get together and compare each of their theology’s together and find out what is common between them, particularly. And perhaps they could take the word of each of their law, and compare it to the other two and see where it is only the words that are keeping them apart, whereas the spirit of the words is actually the same.
So often and everywhere do I hear the idea “best“ in terms that are generally left assumed.
But in thinking about it, most often people use the word “best“ or “better than“ as meaning “more people have access to“.
Or “has more details“, or “has more options“.
And that just got me to thinking. Is best quantity or quality?
And when we naturally want to side on quality, are we really measuring that quality by quantity?
Is something better, for example, in its educational potential if we can reach more people? Is the quality of educational potential in any item better because now more people can access it?
I wonder if a quality of education which reaches only a few people is actually better than an education which meets tons of people.
And then, if we can answer truthfully those two separated questions. Can we then come to a more real and true understanding of what humanity actually is and what it does, and how to manage it towards its best potential?