Any sense of comparative familial alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.
I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Any sense of comparative familial alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.
I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
This is a gross wave off of centuries of slavery by someone who believes in protecting inherited wealth.
So much hate. And so much love for hate in this post.
Any sense of comparative natal alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.
I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
This is a bad post.
critical theory is not inherently Marxist, sailor. Most of it's not, in fact. But you're right about power structures being central to its critiques.
Why is that a problem for you?
Any sense of comparative natal alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.
I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Just because critical theory grew out of Marxist contexts does not mean that all critical theory is inherently Marxist.
Tell me please how Marxism informed New Criticism? Or the New Bibliography? Or Psychoanalysis? Or Formalism? Or structuralism?
In fact it's largely marxist thinking that pushed back against new criticism (thus, Greenblatt and New Historicism) and structuralism (hence, Althusser and poststructuralism) and semiotics (thus Derrida and deconstruction)
Historical materialism has been useful to, say, disability studies and feminist theory, but to say that these approaches are inherently Marxist would be wrong. The definition and scope of critical theory has broadened beyond its origin in Marxist critiques. (Though again, digging into power structures is central to its goals)
Not only did Critical Theory grow out of Marxism, it was an effort to improve Marxism. Now, that's Marxist.
Psychoanalysis did not grow out of Marxism but the Frankfurt School attempted to combine and blend Freud and Marx.
To what ever extent the New Criticism, the New Bibliography, Formalism, or Structuralism were informed by Critical Theory they were also informed by Marxism.
Perhaps you have noticed that Marxists argue and criticize not just non-Marxists but each other as well. Perhaps not.
Derrida started out as a Marxist. It would be difficult to say that this experience had no influence on his thought. A lot of the founders of post-modernism were Marxists.
Staying with your organic expression "grew out of", think of it like this: the branches of an oak tree are still oak, arent they?