My assumption was focusing on the visceral representation as the target of violence. It gives a stronger presence in the words and forces you out of abstraction.
The problem is that type of language is intentional and meant to be paused over, something that is lost with frequent use.
I'm in a book club with a bunch of libs and we're reading How to Be an Antiracist and it's a pretty decent book with a good perspective but it's full of this sort of confusing academic language. I'm honestly not sure what the author means when he makes a distinction between black people and black bodies because it seems like he uses them interchangeably
It predates BLM. It comes out of academia, though I'm not super clear on the intentionality behind it
Its intentionally demeaning, for when you want to highlight that someone else has demeaned some black people, usually in some kind of violent way.
And then white libs see people saying it, and they just... they just say it thinking it's just a woke way to say black people lmao...
My assumption was focusing on the visceral representation as the target of violence. It gives a stronger presence in the words and forces you out of abstraction.
The problem is that type of language is intentional and meant to be paused over, something that is lost with frequent use.
I'm in a book club with a bunch of libs and we're reading How to Be an Antiracist and it's a pretty decent book with a good perspective but it's full of this sort of confusing academic language. I'm honestly not sure what the author means when he makes a distinction between black people and black bodies because it seems like he uses them interchangeably
it's derived from Foucault or someth idk