Response to Kyra's Bonus 9 - Kenneth Butcher

I was in a similar position whilst thinking about the question of "who has the right?". I've always thought about it in passing but I was never really able to nail down a solid position as to how I felt about it, or at least one I could commit to that held up to all matter of scrutiny. So I figured I'd be lazy cop out of it for this post and do a little goal post shifting in order to come at it from a different perspective.

First I want to start off by saying that I mostly agree with the stance you arrived at of the reason who having the right to write and or talk about being the people with first hand experience and if people want to write about it second hand that it would be important for them to approach the topic with reverence. However I think there should be a place at the table for people who don't want to come at a topic they have second hand information with reverence even come at it with malice if they want, and that place should be at a (proverbial) seat shackled with a need to uphold the tenants of the burden of proof. And this is where I'd like to pivot the responsibility from the person commenting on something as a Secondary source to the individual(s) reading said secondary source. I think in there case, as an assumed, attentive reader they should approach secondary sources (and even some primary sources depending on the situation) with a health does of skepticism.

That being said, specific examples like the ones you stated involving skewed social dynamics of power on a larger scale i.e things like oppressor and victim dynamics or institutional racism should be approached a little bit differently because of the added factor of social power. In that case remedys, not short of uplifting the first hand accounts of marginalized people in situations where said accounts might be consciously or subconsciously suppressed is important and could lead to some very good and well needed insight. While I like the Sherman Alexie example too, although it is slightly predicated on the notion that given the opportunity to approach a topic from a place of reverence and just general inquisition to acquire information, that most people will choose to do that. Which I personally don't find to be true. So I believe the most intuitive way to account for these people would be the aforementioned; saddling them with the burden of proof coupled with a health dose of skepticism from all of the readers in order to see if their claims and account can stand up to scrutiny. I believe this method this method is the most conducive to health discourse and will be better for general relations in the long run.