Paragraphs 12-14: Anja Hedji

I think that it is important to note how African Americans within the United States face two different injustices through intersectionality and interlocking systems of oppression that prevents many from moving beyond unskilled labor positions. Regarding the concept of intersectionality, African Americans within the United States will endure negative social experiences because of their intersecting sex, gender and biology that creates their identity. For example, a heterosexual Caucasian male will have a much better advantage socially as opposed to a homosexual African American male. On the other hand, interlocking systems of oppression works similarly but effects the population more economically rather than socially. Interlocking systems of oppression is the various hegemonic systems (such as segregation laws or cultural displacement) that interlock and produce certain effects. I agree with Wilson, that in order to change this, there needs to be fundamental changes in the global economy as well as economic reforms. In order to do this, I believe power structures need to be addressed from outside the margins, by those not already benefiting from the structure(s).

I agree, the systems of oppression that African Americans and other minority groups are facing are complicated and often difficult to identify and address by someone who is benefiting from the system, whether they realize they are or not. However, I appreciated Wilson's comment at the end of his paper that African American communities will also benefit from recognizing the systems of oppression that they share with other Caucasian Americans, as this will increase the likelihood that they can work alongside each other for economic reform. Essentially reminding us that while recognizing differences is extremely important in attempts to achieve social change, recognizing similarities can have profound effects as well.

I think that's a good point and couldn't agree with more that the power structure needs to be addressed from outside of those who are exploited, unprivileged and disadvantaged from the current system. Then only the systemic problem that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer can be interpreted from different angles and be more likely to be solved. Otherwise, the rich would try to keep the system in this way, while the poor still get exploited without even noticing and the circulation of taking more out of the poor to feed the rich goes on.

It's interesting how I just happened to read this the night before stumbling across a Jacobin article (entitled "The Trouble with Anti-anti-racism) by Paul Heideman and Jonah Birch discussing this topic more broadly, as they summarize it: "Movements targeting racial disparities aren’t distracting attention from class inequality — they’re part of a broader radicalization against American capitalism." What I found most interesting was the discussion in the comments (of those much more informed of the historical implication of F.D.R.'s "new deal" (i.e. what it even encompassed), and topics like the civil rights movement, Nixon's election to power, etc. After having read discussions of said topics, and after having read Wilson's essay, it seems to me that while understanding broader economic trends and how they disproportionately affect marginalized communities is crucial, and something that may not receive enough discussion, that in terms of enacting change, it depends in part on the specific goal and message that particular anti-racist movements seek to spread (i.e. how specific or targeted their message is, what issues it tackles, whether it does discuss racism as a mode of creating division among the proletariat, etc.) and the broader context in which the anti-racist movements are taking place (i.e. is there already discussion about inequality in the public sphere? is there the potential to make these larger conceptual connections on their own?).

What's interesting is the difference between the articles in terms of when they were written. Wilson's analysis comes in 1999 (which to be honest I don't know much about), but the Jacobin article was written in 2016. in ~17 years, much has changed in terms communication and the spread of ideas, most notably for this argument, it's ease: the current social justice movement comprises many different facets, with certain people focussing on feminism, queer rights, anti-racism, economic equality, etc. and many (perhaps even most) taking an intersectional look at different layers of oppression. Indeed, Wilson is effectively arguing for a intersectional focus on race and class of poor Black people, while today (indeed, heavily depending on what you follow in your newsfeed, but subject to being "bound to" at least "come across" more nuanced/challenging social justice dialogue), many people take this intersectional approach as almost a "given", and thus any discussion focussing on race will inevitably tied to other forms of oppression in the minds of many facebook newsfeed-scrollers, as many of said newsfeed-scrollers take it upon themselves (from what I've seen) to educate those who have not been exposed to such modes of thinking.

In short, in 2016, you're certainly allowed to, and bound to, come to your own conclusions, but if you have an interest in a particular area of social justice, you're not unlikely to come across discussions about other aspects of social justice, and you may be arguably more likely to make connections (in being sometimes bombarded with social justice articles, if I'm not a unique case) than in, say, 1999.