That is a difficult situation. And I think we hit stuff like that all the time, ie every time an election comes around ("Do I vote for candidate X who does Y I like but is terrible on issue Z? Or candidate A who is bad on Y but pro-active on Z?") I think it's important not to be totally dogmatic in the pursuit of your agenda, and sometimes compromise is necessary because everyone is flawed.
Does that automatically negate their cause for you? ...do bigots also get your support if they are suffering inequality?
No and yes. I don't think it's right to totally boycott an entire social justice movement or organisation on issue X because it does poorly on issue Y unless there is an alternative, the support of which would do just as much for X without doing so badly on Y. And this is definitely a situation where I would follow the lead of people in the intersection. The important thing is to not set up a false dichotomy: in this case, POC and disabled are not mutually exclusive terms, and pursuing the rights of one, done properly, should benefit the rights of the other, not work against them.
In the made up example you give (since I agree, real life ones are by definition fraught) I would probably complain, and see what if any actions disabled POC were suggesting, and if there was a less ableist group pursuing the same goals join that instead. The thing is: either the disabled POC are on my side or they're not, so it either ends up being "POC vs white person" or "Ablebodied people against disabled people". (If there happened not to BE any disabled POC in the discussion, or their opinions were divided that would be more complicated) And in this sort of situation what I think often happens is that the disabled POC would say "Ok, no, disabled people should have access, this community is ableist and we need to fix that. But I think it still overall does good and we shouldn't let ourselves be totally distracted from fighting racism while also fighting ableism."
I'm..not sure I got my point across there, but if I try any harder I think it'll just get longer rather than more clear :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Does that automatically negate their cause for you? ...do bigots also get your support if they are suffering inequality?
No and yes. I don't think it's right to totally boycott an entire social justice movement or organisation on issue X because it does poorly on issue Y unless there is an alternative, the support of which would do just as much for X without doing so badly on Y. And this is definitely a situation where I would follow the lead of people in the intersection. The important thing is to not set up a false dichotomy: in this case, POC and disabled are not mutually exclusive terms, and pursuing the rights of one, done properly, should benefit the rights of the other, not work against them.
In the made up example you give (since I agree, real life ones are by definition fraught) I would probably complain, and see what if any actions disabled POC were suggesting, and if there was a less ableist group pursuing the same goals join that instead. The thing is: either the disabled POC are on my side or they're not, so it either ends up being "POC vs white person" or "Ablebodied people against disabled people". (If there happened not to BE any disabled POC in the discussion, or their opinions were divided that would be more complicated) And in this sort of situation what I think often happens is that the disabled POC would say "Ok, no, disabled people should have access, this community is ableist and we need to fix that. But I think it still overall does good and we shouldn't let ourselves be totally distracted from fighting racism while also fighting ableism."
I'm..not sure I got my point across there, but if I try any harder I think it'll just get longer rather than more clear :)