i think for me personally, those two analogies connect to the advocate cover because when ever i’ve seen them used, it’s always been by people who have *no* idea what the experience is like that they are claiming to have. though i think many have good intention, i don’t think rich white gay folks, rich white disabled folks, anyone who hasn’t have that experience for that matter, can really ever begin to do work that includes and speaks to people of color as long as they are claiming to have had the same experiences. we know how figures like dr. king and others have been turned into symbols that represent freedom to everyone (and that is important) but if used, must not take out who these people actually were and stood for (i.e. quotes by audre lorde used by racists). in that way i feel things like the n-word, backdoor, etc are cultural appropriation in the sense that it is taking another community’s experience for oneself and then changing the meaning.

i don’t know about the UK but here where i live (United States’ South), the n-word is more than a epithet. it has so much history, history of lynchings, rapes, violence, fear, dehumanization, destruction that i know as a non-black person i will never understand. to say the r-word is the same without recognizing that history of the word is wrong and divisive. i think the pain and horror of the r-word, exclusion through lack of access, being relegated to certain sectors of society, etc. are bad enough that we don’t have to say it’s exactly like the n-word and other experiences that we have no idea about.

of course of course of course i believe in the connection of these experiences and that liberation can only happen through multi-issue work but don’t believe that liberation can happen when folks are assuming that they know another’s experience w/ oppression and so quick to claim that they have experienced it as well.

at the same time, analogies are powerful tools in arguments. i just think we need to put more thought into how these arguments are framed because issues are way way way complicated and only people who have experienced both pieces can really speak to the full complexities of it all.

those are my thoughts though. i really like what eli clare had to say: http://eliclare.com/2008/09/03/thinking-about-the-word-retard/

again, glad you are here and that we have a friendship where you can trust me and tell me you completely disagree with me.

OK, i completely understand what’s wrong with the “last civil rights frontier”, “last acceptable prejudice”, etc rhetoric, don’t use it, and call out other people for using it.

But why are the first 2 things you mention not valid comparisons? I can’t see anything inaccurate or inappropriate about either of them – they are not claiming priority of one oppression over another, they are analogies that (as far as i can see, anyway) go equally well both ways.

I dunno, maybe some of these things look different from a US to a UK perspective – but it disturbs me that you are deeming these comparisons invalid – that just seems like *reverse* Oppression Olympics.

Or do you think there actually is a material difference between excluding or segregating people based on physical access needs and excluding or segregating people based on something like race or ethnicity? I can sort of see that there are some arguable differences – like one requiring money and/or labour to physically achieve, and the other not – but i think it’s an incredibly radical and challenging position to take that one is just as bad as the other, in fact that they’re basically the same thing – in fact, i think that’s right at the core of my politics, that all these exclusions and oppressions are forms of the same thing, and that all diversity is part of one struggle…

Sorry to disagree with you in my first comment on your new blog (which is awesome, btw, and i still need to update my blogroll), but this just… troubles me. Maybe it is something i can’t see, because of where i’m situated either neurologically or geopolitically. But i would like to ask you to expand on that, if you can…