Whose voice?
From the Epiphanies thread on fascism and philosemitism:
And why did the Styx thread on recent planking / fascism / Nazism that contains over 100 mentions of Nazi, Nazis and Nazism (but excluding neo-Nazi, neo-Nazis and neo-Nazism) not require own-voice content from the people in the 20th Century most affected by Nazi atrocities?
Would it need significantly more own-voice content than a thread predicated on a report about philosemitism (and antisemitism)?I think a working definition of ' indigenous' or defining 'colonialism' are big questions of their own and would need to be a separate thread with a lot of own voice content - what do the people most affected say? How do they define it?
And why did the Styx thread on recent planking / fascism / Nazism that contains over 100 mentions of Nazi, Nazis and Nazism (but excluding neo-Nazi, neo-Nazis and neo-Nazism) not require own-voice content from the people in the 20th Century most affected by Nazi atrocities?
Comments
There's a fair bit of own voice linking in the philosemitism thread to voices from Jewish communities which I'm happy with. So it's not so much 'more' as just making sure that the discussion is indeed making room for how people want to talk about themselves- do the people being discussed call themselves indigenous? Do they prefer that term? Do they regard themselves as being in a colonised/ coloniser situation? Are there other viewpoints and currents in those communities etc. ?
If the idea is to have completely abstract discussion of these terms that could possibly go in Purgatory but it looks like there is a definite context here so I think we'd need to be at least linking to what the peoples being discussed think about these terms.
In my opinion anyway. I'm happy to be corrected by @Doublethink or @Alan Cresswell if they think something different should happen.