"It's not so much exclusion (from whiteness, or from another marginalized coalition in the case of queer/trans stuff) that's the issue but theft/withholding/hoarding of resources."
Without having read the book you mention, I can't be sure I'm understanding your comment correctly, but it seems to me that exclusion always has economic consequences. A lot of the fight over gay marriage has had to do with the fact that married couples enjoy certain financial advantages that unmarried couples don't possess. Likewise, the recent rationale given for excluding transfolk from the US military is that their medical needs are too expensive.
In these days of corporate sponsorships of Pride parades, it can be hard to remember that, at one time, a common media image of "homosexuals" was of poor people living in slums.
Today, gay neighborhoods tend to be gentrified, but when I graduated college in the 1980s, there was still a connection between "gay village" and "low rent."
Out of curiosity, I just checked to see what happened to Rochester NY's Italian American neighborhood ("ghetto," was my father's description of it), which my mother grew up in. It turns out that most of the Italian Americans moved out, while black and Latinx people moved in. Now Rochester is trying to "revitalize" the neighborhood by turning it into a Little Italy. I think it's clear which group ended up economically on top.
"We don't undo it by letting more people into whiteness; instead, we decenter whiteness and end white supremacy."
I agree full-heartedly, but will that entirely resolve the Animal Farm problem of formerly oppressed people turning into oppressors? I'd say that you put your finger on it in saying that economics plays an important role in all this. Class systems will still exist, even if we end white supremacy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2019-04-12 06:00 am (UTC)"It's not so much exclusion (from whiteness, or from another marginalized coalition in the case of queer/trans stuff) that's the issue but theft/withholding/hoarding of resources."
Without having read the book you mention, I can't be sure I'm understanding your comment correctly, but it seems to me that exclusion always has economic consequences. A lot of the fight over gay marriage has had to do with the fact that married couples enjoy certain financial advantages that unmarried couples don't possess. Likewise, the recent rationale given for excluding transfolk from the US military is that their medical needs are too expensive.
In these days of corporate sponsorships of Pride parades, it can be hard to remember that, at one time, a common media image of "homosexuals" was of poor people living in slums.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_zkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA93
Today, gay neighborhoods tend to be gentrified, but when I graduated college in the 1980s, there was still a connection between "gay village" and "low rent."
Out of curiosity, I just checked to see what happened to Rochester NY's Italian American neighborhood ("ghetto," was my father's description of it), which my mother grew up in. It turns out that most of the Italian Americans moved out, while black and Latinx people moved in. Now Rochester is trying to "revitalize" the neighborhood by turning it into a Little Italy. I think it's clear which group ended up economically on top.
"We don't undo it by letting more people into whiteness; instead, we decenter whiteness and end white supremacy."
I agree full-heartedly, but will that entirely resolve the Animal Farm problem of formerly oppressed people turning into oppressors? I'd say that you put your finger on it in saying that economics plays an important role in all this. Class systems will still exist, even if we end white supremacy.