Intersubjectivity🎄 :
Well said, but there are some things worth addressing here. Your example of James Baldwin is rhetorically clumsy and introduces too much uncertainty in your position by being vague. It’s also important to consider who you’re addressing, at least rhetorically. To the people you’re calling out it doesn’t matter how long people of colour like the Roma, the “Moors,” colonial subjects, and those they enslaved have been in France, because they can just deny their Frenchness. Then there’s the problem of you pointing to the descendant of the French aristocracy you know, who you set out as a model of Frenchness, thereby playing on their terms arguing who is French and establishing the aristocracy as the most French. Is that really what you want to do? You should instead speak of the arbitrary nature of nationality and point out the absurdity of race and them treating it as if it were natural or biological. And as a point of interest, the case of Baldwin is interesting because he was only treated better than he was in the US because he was an American Black man and he notes himself how Algerians and other Black people from French colonies were treated poorly. Lastly, you shouldn’t use “the color of someone’s skin” as a stand in for race, race is obviously more than that and that reductive formulation obfuscates the dynamics of race relations. Race is also divided by facial features, hair texture, and other qualities and often about perception and how you identify which is how some people can ‘pass’ as white. Many East Asian people have skin tones fairer than those of the whitest white people, so saying skin colour in place of race is just sloppy thinking as well as something that hinders understanding and fighting racism.
2026-10-23 02:41:09