Skip navigation

One of the most striking aspects of this week’s discussions reminded me of conversations I have viewed online concerning “polite politics”. This discussion is centered on how marginalized groups attempt to abolish oppression in all forms in hopes of securing fundamental liberties and privileges they have been excluded from. Politene politics tends to argue that to not be oppressed, marginalized groups must act in peaceful, submissive manners to appeal to the oppressive groups. They have to make the oppressors feel unthreatened to prove they are worthy of not being oppressed. This argument was described in Beltran’s essay concerning the DREAM act and how the protestors went about demanding their freedoms. I was in high favor of her criticism of routes to liberation, which rested upon proving the individual’s self worth rather than criticizing those who were oppressing. I think this topic is particularly interesting in the ways it puts the onus on the oppressors rather than the oppressed. The oppressed, I feel, should be shifting the focus of their situation to highlight their stories but to also highlight the fact that majorities are acting incorrectly, independently of the type of person they are oppressing. This harps back to similar ideas another theorist talks about in terms of visibility – if we rely on visibility as the standard of objective knowledge, we also rely on invisibility as a lack of knowledge and the unknown. In the same sense, by demarcating reasons somebody should not be oppressed, the implication is also that there are also reasons that people should be oppressed.