Ethiopian News, Current Affairs and Opinion Forum
yaballo
Member
Posts: 2273
Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 02:30

አንድ ማንነት ያላቸው ሰዎች ተሰባስበው ስለማንነት መጥፎነት ሲነግሩህ, መጠርጠር ጥሩ ነው:: ያልጠረጠረ ተመነጠረ ይሆናልና::On Identity Politics in Ethiopia & USA.

Post by yaballo » 08 Feb 2019, 23:47

አንድ ማንነት ያላቸው ሰዎች ተሰባስበው ስለማንነት መጥፎነት ሲነግሩህ, መጠርጠር ጥሩ ነው:: ያልጠረጠረ ተመነጠረ ይሆናልና::On Identity Politics in Ethiopia & the USA.

:roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:

On Identity Politics in Ethiopia ... and the USA - (by Danye Si'a). 9-2-19.

“All progress we have made in the realm of civil rights has been accomplished through identity politics: women’s suffrage, the American with Disabilities Act, Title 9, federal recognition of same-sex marriage.”

From Robin DiAngelo's book: 'White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism' - (June 26, 2018)


====

<<ትናንት ቃል በገባሁት መሰረት ይህን ከሁለቱ አንዱን ከመፅሀፍ መግቢያ የተወሰደ ፅሁፍ አቅርቤያለሁ:: ቀጣዩን ድእግሞ ጠብቁ:: የኢትዮጵያ ፖለቲካ ብዙ ነገሩ ከአሜሪካን ፖለቲካ ጋር ይመሳሰላል:: ነጭ በሚለው ቦታ የኛን ሀገር ጉድ ተኩበትና አስቡት!

ለክቡር ጠቅላይ ሚኒስቴር አብይ አህመድ, ለዶ/ር ብርሀኑ ነጋና ሌሎችም የዜግነት ፖለቲካ ከማንነት ፖለቲካ መላቅ ምለው ለሚገዘቱ አድርሱልኝ:: ይህ ፅሁፍ ስለ አሜሪካ ነጭና የዘር ነገር ሲነሳ ስለሚሰማቸው ሆድ መባስ ይዘግባል:: ባነበብኩት ቁጥር ነጭና ጥቁር የጥቅም ልዩነት መስመር (privilege boundary) እንጂ የቀለም ልዩነት እንዳልሆነና በተለይም በኛ ሀገር ያለውን የሀሳብ ልዩነት (የዜግነት ወይስ የማንነት ፖለቲካ ያዋጣል) የሚለውን ክርክር በእኩል ደረጃ እንድንመረምር እድል ይሰጣል:: የመፅሀፉ ርእስ White Fragility ይላል:: ቀጥታ ትርጉሙን እናንተው ፈልጉ!

የዜግነት ፖለቲካ, ሁላችንም እኩል ነን, ስለመንደር አታንሱብኝ ብሎ የህዝብን ትግል በማጣጣል የምትገነባ ኢትዮጵያ አትኖርም (ወልገገላፋታ ታቲ ማሌ)! አንድ ማንነት ያላቸው ሰዎች ተሰባስበው ስለማንነት መጥፎነት ሲነግሩህ, መጠርጠር ጥሩ ነው:: ያልጠረጠረ ተመነጠረ ይሆናልና::

ለነገሩ የዘርን ፖለቲካ የፈጠሩት በዘር ለይተው ገድለው, ዘርፈው ሀገር ያቀኑት, አሁንም እንደዛው የቀጠሉት ናቸው!

መልእክቱን እነሆ - አንብቡ, አጋሩ, ተነጋገሩበት::

The United States was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. Yet the nation began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, and black women were denied access to that right until 1965. The term refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality. We have yet to achieve our founding principle, but any gains we have made thus far have come through identity politics.

The identities of those sitting at the tables of power in this country have remained remarkably similar: white, male, middle- and upper-class, able-bodied. Acknowledging this fact may be dismissed as political correctness, but it is still a fact. The decisions made at those tables affect the lives of those not at the tables. Exclusion by those at the table doesn’t depend on willful intent; we don’t have to intend to exclude for the results of our actions to be exclusion. While implicit bias is always at play because all humans have bias, inequity can occur simply through [deleted]; if I am not aware of the barriers you face, then I won’t see them, much less be motivated to remove them. Nor will I be motivated to remove the barriers if they provide an advantage to which I feel entitled.

All progress we have made in the realm of civil rights has been accomplished through identity politics: women’s suffrage, the American with Disabilities Act, Title 9, federal recognition of same-sex marriage. A key issue in the 2016 presidential election was the white working class. These are all manifestations of identity politics.

Take women’s suffrage. If being a woman denies you the right to vote, you ipso facto cannot grant it to yourself. And you certainly cannot vote for your right to vote. If men control all the mechanisms that exclude women from voting as well as the mechanisms that can reverse that exclusion, women must call on men for justice. You could not have had a conversation about women’s right to vote and men’s need to grant it without naming women and men. Not naming the groups that face barriers only serves those who already have access; the assumption is that the access enjoyed by the controlling group is universal. For example, although we are taught that women were granted suffrage in 1920, we ignore the fact that it was white women who received full access or that it was white men who granted it. Not until the 1960s, through the Voting Rights Act, were all women—regardless of race—granted full access to suffrage. Naming who has access and who doesn’t guides our efforts in challenging injustice.

This book is unapologetically rooted in identity politics. I am white and am addressing a common white dynamic. I am mainly writing to a white audience; when I use the terms I am referring to the white collective. This usage may be jarring to white readers because we are so rarely asked to think about ourselves or fellow whites in racial terms. But rather than retreat in the face of that discomfort, we can practice building our stamina for the critical examination of white identity—a necessary antidote to white fragility. This raises another issue rooted in identity politics: in speaking as a white person to a primarily white audience, I am yet again centering white people and the white voice. I have not found a way around this dilemma, for as an insider I can speak to the white experience in ways that may be harder to deny. So, though I am centering the white voice, I am also using my insider status to challenge racism. To not use my position this way is to uphold racism, and that is unacceptable; it is a “both/and” that I must live with. I would never suggest that mine is the only voice that should be heard, only that it is one of the many pieces needed to solve the overall puzzle.

Robin DiAngelo -- White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism>>


Meanwhile in ...