I've never heard of the the "racialized movement" but it makes sense because it is the natural logical conclusion of the movement to allow people to self-identify social labels as it applies to race.

I'd like to think such a movement would have a much harder time taking roots in the states because, IMHOP, the Black Power, Black is Beautiful Movement, was so powerful in the US that we are ingrained to side eye any effort to not acknowledge and embrace ones blackness. Skin lightner creams? That's some bullshit. Tiger Woods calling himself a Cablinasian? Bullshit. Dating eclusively white? That's some bullshit. It's interesting because you can compare black americans opinions on some of these issues to black people in other parts of the world, Carribean, Europe and even Africa, and you can see we have much different stronger opinions about this stuff because of the Black Power Movement (I beleive).


That's why comparisons between the race politics and transgendered politics are so fraught with minefields because if the transgendered approach was applied to racial politics, people would be horrified with that sort of thinking. That is, if a person felt uncomfortable or dysphoria in their black body, our approach wouldn't be to try to help that person change their race. Instead we would work to get that person comfortable in the black body they have a let them know their race doesn't stop them doing anything they want to do, even stuff considered "white stuff". I don't need to turn white to want to play lacrosse. Compare that to the transgendered movement in which if a young person express the feeling they are in the "wrong body" it seems the progressive approach is to say, "Yep you sure are, let us help you change that". hard to see how that is good for self esteem. Imagine if we treated overweight people or anaroexic people like that.

And I could be all wrong on this but I think we are so early into this discussion and there is so little science or study of these topics that we are left mostly with the application of theory on how to deal with and after years and decades of study we might discover or look back on our current approaches and think they are barbaric and crude like lobotomies. Again, I could be wrong.


I don't know. Movements tend to overreach and if Chappelle's shows and similar stuff get labeled a hate crime their will be a pushback. That I am sure of.





>I used to agree with you about this stuff being
>non-threatening. Not anymore. My SO has been trying to
>convince me for years. I've finally fallen over the edge.
>Canada is currently contemplating an amendment to our Human
>Rights code which would categorize Dave's performance as hate
>speech. It would actually be illegal.
>
>Dave Chappelle has done more to bring awareness to race issues
>than 99.9% of any of these people will do so in their
>lifetimes. And he's done so OUTSIDE an echo-chamber.
>Arguably effecting REAL change albeit subversively.
>
>The reason I am particularly aggressive about this is because
>I've come to learn that people like this don't genuinely wish
>to effect real change. They seek moral authority and nothing
>else. I will NEVER use the term 'racialization' (or
>racialized people which has become the new term as an
>acceptable replacement for supposed 'out-dated' terms like
>visible minorities and people of color) in any way other than
>it's traditional definition. I'm not going to be a mouthpiece
>for their moral authority game and the euphemism treadmill
>that serves as methodology to find new ways of accusing people
>of racism, sexism and trans/homophobia. A racialized person
>is someone who has been categorized into a racial group that
>THEY DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH. The most common example of this in
>my community....is an African immigrant being categorized as a
>'black people' who does not self-identify as a 'black person'.
> If you self-identify as a 'black person'....you cannot be
>'racialized' by someone else (unless they've put you in a
>different category/group). You have already 'racialized'
>yourself.
>
>
>There is nothing logically incoherent in the point Dave made.
>I'm paraphrasing...but how do we define his responsibility in
>accommodating other people's self-image?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"