Narritives of suffering and racism should not be talked about in academic communities
Debate Rounds (4)
Thank you in advance.
My argument here is that, "research" is useful, but only in the sense of not being orientated to suffering. A study was done by Johns Hopkins in which young researches doing anthropology was invited at my school to study us and the human behavior that we had for their anthropology class. I was invited to sit down and talk about my urban life. The subaltern can speak, but is only invited to speak his or her pain for the perpetuation of the academic institution in terms of critical race, class, and, gender studies. When speaking about pain, it places you as the object to commodification and subject to research and profound investigation. The act of being studied upon places other academics to gaze upon you and study you. That act places you again in the place of alleniation and disenfranchisement, regardless of whether it feels that way. All this is made possible by talking about suffering, especially inside educational institutions and risk the bad things that I have outlined above. Con may try to disprove the claims about academic intellectuals being ones who commodify experiences, but still speaking about it that way, risks the things I have outlined above. I have a specific example of this, that talks about how Black females constantly in college university defended the position of the Black woman and instead of producing change and a useful form of scholarship and changing things, a whole bunch of White heterosexual males gathered together and decided that they want to analyze the depiction of the Black female and Black mothers and the popular question in the academic population, was what would I do if I was a Black mother. Not only did this put the Black mother as the depiction of the object, but also had the academy steal the narratives of Black females by pretending that they were the Black mother. The university and academics stole those narratives
My last point is that, an image of suffering creates a narrative of ontology that when a marginalized child views themselves in the context of the law, that she is forever damned because of these negative viewpoints of suffering and victimization that they identify with, that means that there is no hope and no possibility to survive. An article from "Marriot" claims that when we always have these negative view points of death and Black suffering that we destroy the political imagination of little children and other people creating a future with no hope. "Marriot" gives an example of Cameron and Cameron"s son; that Cameron has told these narratives of lynching to his son, and his son begins to fear the lynching itself; even though it hasn"t happened to him. Therefore, that viewpoint encrypts onto his actual political imagination and doesn"t actually allow him to see a world where he can survive and actually make change. His imagination has been killed and the only thing they can remember is the trauma of those narratives that has been narrated and told in the house as well as inside institutions. In short my argument is that presentation of narratives of suffering is disheartening and leas to cmmodification
inside the future and therefore enable them to imagine themselves in the future. This is the nature of the Alternative and the "Tuck and Yang evidence is the explanation of how, which I will get onto later."
Over to you, Pro.
(arguments next round, I need some time)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.