|
|
@@ -3818,37 +3818,31 @@ Of course, a declaration of Indigeneity both without the intention or capability
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### The Birth
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Woman becomes pregnant
|
|
|
- - What is her DNA?
|
|
|
- - How valid is the analysis?
|
|
|
- - What identity category does she belong to?
|
|
|
- - Is it based on her form, construction and composition, or her allegiance?
|
|
|
- - If allyship, her pregnancy de-centers marginalized (white woman tears)
|
|
|
- - What is the most oppressed her child can be assessed to be?
|
|
|
- - The most oppressed her child can be critically reasoned to assert itself to be?
|
|
|
+A woman becomes pregnant. How does this event affect our humanizing struggle? Is it a net positive for liberation from hegemonic oppression? Is this the seed of decolonization? Will she give birth to a new sensibility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Whether she is a true believer or not is inconsequential, even as an ally, as her announcing herself as such is the acknowledgment that the context and meaning of her existence is not her own but made available to the theory of collective transcendence.
|
|
|
+First, we need to understand the DNA, as a proxy to gauge how its person and descendants are likely to be ascertained as likely to be structurally determined to be when made the object of perception in the system. What identity categories does she belong to? Has she maximally traversed the range of identities she has access to in order to present herself as capable of speaking with a proletarian voice? What is her identity based on? Her form, construction and composition? Is she composed in such a way where she looks very much like what is expected of her DNA and cultural or ethnic heritage? If she is merely an ally, then her pregnancy isn't necessarily a good thing. A pregnancy by a white, cis female ally still decenters the marginalized. White woman tears are not a true expression of the oppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-The DNA and identity category of whomsoever impregnated her can override evaluation of her own identity and body.
|
|
|
+What about the child? What is the most oppressed specification of identity set that can theoretically be applied to the child? If the mother is not of an oppressed identity category, then the DNA and identity of whomsoever impregnated her can override the evaluation of her own identity and body, but only so long as the phenotypic expression corresponding to paternal influence is sufficiently pronounced. This is because, as the child of an oppressor mother, and in the case of it bearing a phenotypic expression that is too similar to the mother, the true identity of the child in a critical theoretical worldview will be ascertained as the structurally-determined construction as edified by its perception in society. Again, you are not you, but you are what others perceive you to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Only the particular body types or bodies corresponding to preselected identity designations can be birthed in a particular location, and it is always subject to change.
|
|
|
+And what other options might the mother have for the oppressor child? How could she offer it up to revolutionary praxis or assign a liberatory identity to it in advance, without access to the facility of assigning any oppressed identities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Pregnant? Are you an oppressed identity? If materially-mediated then no declaration is required. Negated if you don't behave according to the cult description of your ontology/axiology. What impregnated you? What will you do with your child? Offer it up? Assign liberatory identity in advance?
|
|
|
-- No assigned gender or gender treatment
|
|
|
-- Abort for tissue/organ harvesting which advances health equity
|
|
|
+She could simply not assign a gender, and even develop a plan for "gender treatment". You might say that she could possibly assign the gender of the opposite sex, or a distinct gender which is not "male" or "female", but we're not quite there yet, so she'll have to settle for simply not assigning one. She could also abort and offer up the body, with its tissues and organs, for the advancement of health equity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Otherwise, not an acceptable course of action: your genes and potential to support hegemonic forces which repress the desired genes / material configurations are forbidden and to be condemned.
|
|
|
+Otherwise, there isn't an acceptable course of action. Your genes and potential to support hegemonic forces which repress the desired genes or material of liberation are forbidden and to be condemned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Again, it ultimately is being forced to matter as a sort of malicious pragmatism in service of pathological processes, and we know this both because original cannot be ascertained and no desire to perform infinite regress and reaction of silencing and erasing any human expression which does not accord with the theory of proletarian revolution and consciousness; that is, those designated a proletarian identity can only hold onto it by virtue of their material body if they are inactive or act without defying, producing friction or vibrating discordantly against the description of their body as per the theory.
|
|
|
+#### Palestinian Indigeneity
|
|
|
|
|
|
-And, indeed, it finally means nothing - this "indigeneity", this "original" human, noble savage and untainted form, as even if we could find the first man to occupy each space, or the first jurisdiction of an area to ever be declared, and we were to trace accurately the precise humans how would most appear as the original men (since we function under structural determinism) there is no good reason to assume they are more deserving of a particular land or space for that reason alone.
|
|
|
+It ultimately is being forced to matter as a sort of malicious pragmatism in service of pathological processes. We know this for many reasons, such as that the original inhabitant (Australopithecus?) cannot be ascertained. There is also no desire to perform an infinite regress to make such a determination whereby one could that this being was the first to claim this land, and what ramifications that has vis-a-vis the beings which exist today. It is, of course, never about the original being, but about making a romantic mold with certain collectivist characteristics, such as communal living, sharing of property, cooperative labour, and the like. Though we see that already in the west with state-supported initiatives driven by narrative focused on the noble savage of the Americas, for example, something not just similar but far more directly collectivist is found not just with western rhetoric surrounding Palestinians, but even within the ideological frameworks in the origins of the Palestinian movement, the PLO , PFLP and DFLP, which include Marxist concepts and critiques, calls for a Socialist state, invocation of Marxist-Leninism, and wide support by entities which proclaim themselves as Communist. Whether someone meets some criteria of being referred to as Indigenous is quickly thrown out the window by those champion decolonization through a reaction of silencing and erasing any human expression which does not accord with the theory of proletarian revolution. Those designated a proletarian identity can only hold onto it by virtue of their material body if they are inactive tokens who can best be objectified by activists, or if they act without vibrating discordantly against the description of their body as per Post Colonial theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-##### What Makes Anyone Deserve Space?
|
|
|
-We deserve space because we all didn't consent to come into existence (to the best of our knowledge), and all are forced to deal with the challenge of life. No single person gets to construct the environment of reality, establish its properties, make available the possibility of it, the fact of humans having come into being, and so forth.
|
|
|
+And, indeed, this indigeneity finally means nothing. This "original" human, noble savage and untainted form, even if we could find the first man to occupy each space or the first jurisdiction of an area to ever be declared, and we were to trace accurately the precise humans who would most appear as the original men, there is no good reason to assume they are more deserving of a particular land or space for that reason alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-One might make a claim about the human body and state that their way of doing and understanding of the world potentiates and facilitates the development of transhuman solutions and that these would finally allow us the sort of control wherein one could make the case that we are finally setting fundamental properties of existence, at least through a human body.
|
|
|
+### What Makes Anyone Deserve Space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-But looking past the fact that we haven't yet developed these solutions, or even an agreement as to what would suffice to have even reached such a level of "transhuman evolution", we must also ask whether anyone would consider it as being an evolution of man, or simply a corporation's evolution in research and development, or manufacturing. Must everyone be compelled to accept a moral argument that indeed this is humanity itself and that simultaneously humanity is the replacement of the non-technologically enhanced human body?
|
|
|
+We deserve space because, to the best of my knowledge, none of us consented to come into existence, and all are forced to deal with the challenge of life. No single person gets to make available the possibility of reality, construct the environment, establish its properties, or the fact of humans having come into being.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+One might make a claim about the human body and state that their way of doing and understanding of the world potentiates and facilitates the development of transhuman solutions and that these would finally allow us the sort of control wherein one could make the case that we are finally setting fundamental properties of existence, at least phenomenologically, but to a point that is so comprehensive as to approach all of reality as a human reality.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+But looking past the fact that we haven't yet developed these solutions, or even an agreement as to what would suffice to have even reached such a level of "transhuman evolution", we must also ask whether anyone would consider it as being an evolution of man, or an evolution in research and development, or manufacturing, by state or corporation, or some abominable combination of the two. Must everyone be compelled to accept a moral argument that indeed this is humanity itself and a more human replacement of the non-technologically enhanced human body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further to this, would a consequence of such evolution be not only the deprecation of the "standard" human body, but the forbidding of lives lived in such a form? It is one thing to suggest that this may happen, be it by defacto or by decree, an quite another to conduct things as though such a plan is our responsibility. But any collectivist or socially contracted commitment to liberation must be that: freedom from oppression of being and that must ultimately come as the replacing of human experience.
|
|
|
|
