I'm the only one not expected to have my perspective on anything which is outside "my" people,
You may recall that this entire thread was spawned by my expectation that adoucette (and others) refrain from voicing opinions on subjects they clearly do not understand on their own terms (as evidenced by, for example, their repeated use of the term "minorities" for blacks in South Africa, even after explicit correction).
And that, moreover, the demand is not for an absence of perspective, but for the cultivation of an intellectually, scientifically defensible perspective, and the derrogation of views stemming from an absence of such. I do not ask that you refrain from forming a perspective on whoever or whatever. I demand that you do such in a good-faith way, rather than as an ideological exercise that reduces Others into tokens. I make similar demands of the myriad other offenders here, and note that a persecution complex is visible in your warped perception of being the sole, or even primary, target of such considerations.
If you pay close attention, you'll see that on this forum that when people talk about limiting narratives, there is only a section of people who are continually advised to do that.
Indeed - it's that section of people pushing ideological, bad-faith narratives. I'm sure that you'll insist that this falls along cultural lines that victimize Islam or Asians or whoever, but that will just be more of your self-serving persecution complex. In point of fact, we're having this discussion because I'm applying this demand to right-wing Americans - the exact people who support the American policies you despise, and exhibit the worst instances of Othering discourse directed at Asians, Muslims, Arabs, etc.
And when people talk about me speaking for this Asian or that Muslim, they tend to forget the exhaustive debates we have had on Maoris or native Americans or the Dalits.
If you're referring to me, I'll assert that I've forgotten nothing of the sort.
The observation that you frequently claim standing to speak for "Asians," "Muslims," etc. is in no way a statement that you are a valid spokesmen for them - quite the opposite - nor an assertion that you never claim to speak for any other groups. I want to be very clear that I reject your standing to speak for these big groups (I don't think anyone can speak for "Asians" in particular). If you want to tell us what, say, Mumbaikars think about something, that's a different story.
Its easier to understand my perspective if you remember two things: one, I support the underdog and two, I am an anti-colonialist.
Nobody has evinced any difficulty in understanding your perspective, that I can see.
But its much easier to frame my discussions in other terms becuase these terms embrace a perspective which is perhaps outside the experience of many people here.
To the former: the reason that I observe you speaking for "Asians," "Muslims," etc. is because you frequently choose to do so. You post things like "Asians think X, westerners think Y" with some frequency. You are in no position to disclaim such speech as an outside imposition on you. You choose to do it, on your own.
To the latter: that's a transparently self-serving premise. A projection, in fact: you're "the underdog" and everyone else is "the Empire," subjecting you to Orientalist misconceptions (which, I'll point out, you have no standing to complain about if you want to give force to your earlier relativist line in this thread).
And to give you a concrete example of the way I think, I've wondered if the civil rights movement for blacks in the US had anything to do with Irish immigrants, because it takes people with an experience of hunger and oppression to recognise its significance in another.
Again: classic projection. You're taking your own psychodrama, and overlaying it on US politics, and reducing the various peoples involved into tokens.
Irish immigration had a big impact on the end of slavery, because the poor Irish immigrant made excellent conscripts to send to the front lines against the South. The influx of cheap labor also guaranteed that the industrial Northern economy would outcompete the Southern slave plantation economy. But I doubt you'll find much direct connection to the Civil Rights era, since the mass of Irish immigration preceded that by like a century.
Moreover, if you contend that Irish identity in the USA represents underdog-consciousness, then you should re-appraise your general perception of Americans as basically lacking in underdog consciousness. Because Irish identity is widely suffused throughout the American polity. The overwhelming majority of Americans have identifiable Irish heritage, including every President going back to, what, JFK IIRC? It's a reasonable assumption that every American you interact with on SciForums has at least some amount of Irish heritage and some level of identification with the struggles and difficulties faced by Irish people. Many are likely to be of majority Irish descent, and it would not shock me to learn that some Americans here are of 100% Irish ancestry. The US population was always the primary source of funding for IRA terrorism against Britain, for example.
There's also the small point that American national identity was formed through revolution against British imperialism in the first place.
So noted.