wat0n wrote:You don't need to refuse to read a narrative to dismiss it. For instance, someone may want to claim the Irish slaves were the first ones brought by the British in America, I could read and analyze the claim and dismiss it summarily for e.g. providing no primary sources that confirm this idea. Note that this is clearly not based on standpoint theory as this is independent of the identity categories the person making the claim belongs to.
I see. This tangent seems to he no longer relevant to a discussion in CRT. I will ignore it from now on.
Since when are you supposed to be part of the allegedly oppressed group to use standpoint epistemology? It consists on listening to granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to.
This does not address my point at all, but it does bring up something interesting.
Please provide a link to, and an excerpt from, a website showing a CRT scholar arguing that “ standpoint epistemology consists of listening to and granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to”.
Then, why would you say she's wrong and whatever other BIPOC who agrees with your preconceived claim is right? The honest use of standpoint epistemology would be that it means the question has no clear answer because anything else would amount to a denial of their narrative. But then it means it's a pretty bad epistemic approach to rely on, because you are quite evidently leaving other sources of information unused.
You are making several errors here:
1. I did not say Ms. Yumga was wrong.
2. Again, one can assert the presence of systemic racism in the USA while not “denying her narrative”.
3. Your particular choice to only use standpoint epistemic in a very specific way does not say anything about standpoint epistemic in general.
Yet this is not something that would matter under standpoint epistemology. Again, it's an essentialist and subjectivist approach - that's what actually matters.
I doubt you are correct to claim that the different levels of specificity in narratives cannot be considered in standpoint epistemic.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...