this might be a dumb question but what type of activism would ‘make redistribution a central goal?’ tldr what should we be doing instead?
tldr? I linked to the paper and it touches on answering your question. Mainstream LGBT activism squanders most of its resources on inclusion in the regulatory politics the state exerts over bodies. This disregards issues of race, class, and institutional violence occurring at the intersections thereof. Resources in queer activism should aim at attacking the loci of power exerted over people affected most: People in prisons, foster care, juvenile justice, people with access to healthcare via Amerigroup or Benefit (other Medicare services), people working low wage jobs or surviving on benefits, people struggling against immigration policies or the intersection of gender discrimination and racism.
tldr, supporting legalization of homonormative marriage renders the issue into one about people who are discriminated mainly on the basis of sexuality. Not gender, not race, not class. It’s not a concession or a short-term so-called pragmatic victory in the face of realpolitik. It’s an investment in and a compromise with the very institutions that harm queer people who face the most discrimination, violence, and poverty.
SO YOU WANT TO WRITE ABOUT CANADA’S ABORIGINALS
Let’s start with spelling and nomenclature. Always use the word ‘aboriginal’ with a small ‘a.’ Use ‘aboriginal’ instead of Indian, Métis or Inuit. If you’re writing a story in the high Arctic, who cares if there isn’t a single, solitary Indian or Métis within a thousand kilometres or more? Similarly, use ‘aboriginal’ if you’re writing about treaty rights on a northern reserve. Nobody cares if there aren’t any Métis or Inuit in the story, or that only Indians signed treaties. Details like this can confuse the reader and audience. Facts and details are to be avoided. Your audience won’t know or care. Most likely, the Inuit in that story about the Arctic won’t complain or raise a fuss. Neither will those Indians in that treaty story. Literacy levels are low. They probably can’t afford to subscribe to your newspaper or news service. Why waste a lot of words when one will do — ‘aboriginal?’ (Don’t forget to use the small ‘a’: no need to suggest any complicated legal significance by using a capital ‘A.’)
Avoid using the term ‘Aboriginal peoples‘ — that pluralizing ‘s’ also has legal complications. It’s like that term older journalists once used — ‘native peoples.’ The ‘s‘ at the end of ‘peoples’ meant something in international law. Why get into any of that? Who cares? Back then, we journalists called them all ‘natives’ with a small ‘n’ and they seemed quite happy. Maybe people in Africa, Asia or Australia didn’t like being called “natives,” but our natives didn’t mind. Our “aboriginals” don’t mind today either.
Make sure you use the possessive, such as “our aboriginals” or “Canada’s aboriginals.” It reminds everyone in your audience who really owns this country and who’s in charge. Don’t encourage minor irritants who cling to notions of self-determination.
Read the rest here and you too may cover Canada’s aboriginals with confidence! http://www.mediaindigena.com/dan-david/arts-and-culture/no-colonialism-here
And if you’re in Toronto, you should attend this
The White Savior Industrial Complex by Teju Cole [The Atlantic]
If Americans want to care about Africa, maybe they should consider evaluating American foreign policy, which they already play a direct role in through elections, before they impose themselves on Africa itself.
There’s no point in quoting the entire piece, just read it.
But I’ll quote it anyway:
"But there’s a place in the political sphere for direct speech and, in the past few years in the U.S., there has been a chilling effect on a certain kind of direct speech pertaining to rights. The president is wary of being seen as the "angry black man." People of color, women, and gays — who now have greater access to the centers of influence that ever before — are under pressure to be well-behaved when talking about their struggles. There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as "racially charged" even in those cases when it would be more honest to say "racist"; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic. One cumulative effect of this policed language is that when someone dares to point out something as obvious as white privilege, it is seen as unduly provocative. Marginalized voices in America have fewer and fewer avenues to speak plainly about what they suffer; the effect of this enforced civility is that those voices are falsified or blocked entirely from the discourse."