Framing a controversy as racism rather than free speech prevents easy side-taking

Evidence

Rather than keeping it coded as terrorism versus freedom of expression, in Britain the incident recorded itself as fundamentalism against racism, so that you can’t take either side. The only side to take is the British Black women’s, who are against both. It is more complicated for them. You have to create a space for doubters and transgressors; you have to create a space for the way politics uses things. It is productively confused in Britain. It shows up the living dilemmas of politics. — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 202

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘space for doubters and transgressors’ resonates with internal Third World strategic identity and Spivak’s broader insistence that oppressed-group voices are not monolithic. — connects to: The same controversy coded as either free speech or racism yields different political sides — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 201; Liberal free-speech defenses can function as entitlement racism; Debate framing narrows when alternatives are excluded from broadcast

Broader Connections

• Liberal free-speech defenses can function as entitlement racism #complicates (0.75)