>to compare it to the Chinese cultural revolution is an exercise in exaggeration to the point of absurdity
What is HIS context of comparison? He may not be using your comparison. Similarities and differences are contextual. The Earth is big relative to the moon but small relative to Jupiter. And then you must compare his context to yours by
>to compare it to the Chinese cultural revolution is an exercise in exaggeration to the point of absurdity
What is HIS context of comparison? He may not be using your comparison. Similarities and differences are contextual. The Earth is big relative to the moon but small relative to Jupiter. And then you must compare his context to yours by
I think the more appropriate comparison is the Civil Rights Movement itself, as Richard plans to detail in his upcoming book. It's become our folk religion, not just in America, but in the broader Anglo culture. But the only part of it that gets focused on are the heroic parts, like fighting for the right to buy a bus seat or a restaraunt table or a hotel room. The domestic terror campaigns, the sexual abuse scandals, and the Kendiesque beliefs in "equity" -- though the term itself was not used in such times -- sincerely held by many of the religion's apostles, are just not brought up at all.
The issue is that it'll be tempting to merely dismiss all the problematic parts as the work of a few bad actors. It must be emphasized that the movement itself always had fundamental problems. In that respect, I'm at least happy the term "equity" is now popularized in this context. Because now the indefensible parts can be attacked and dismantled while we keep the parts that are worth keeping.
>to compare it to the Chinese cultural revolution is an exercise in exaggeration to the point of absurdity
What is HIS context of comparison? He may not be using your comparison. Similarities and differences are contextual. The Earth is big relative to the moon but small relative to Jupiter. And then you must compare his context to yours by
I think the more appropriate comparison is the Civil Rights Movement itself, as Richard plans to detail in his upcoming book. It's become our folk religion, not just in America, but in the broader Anglo culture. But the only part of it that gets focused on are the heroic parts, like fighting for the right to buy a bus seat or a restaraunt table or a hotel room. The domestic terror campaigns, the sexual abuse scandals, and the Kendiesque beliefs in "equity" -- though the term itself was not used in such times -- sincerely held by many of the religion's apostles, are just not brought up at all.
The issue is that it'll be tempting to merely dismiss all the problematic parts as the work of a few bad actors. It must be emphasized that the movement itself always had fundamental problems. In that respect, I'm at least happy the term "equity" is now popularized in this context. Because now the indefensible parts can be attacked and dismantled while we keep the parts that are worth keeping.