I probably am--I tend to be a little narrow in my verbal analyses overall--but it's the "that" which is the very thing that I can't understand. I realized that (argh) a few weeks ago after this very comment of yours illuminated that for me, and I've been trying to define and phrase my argument on this for a few weeks now so I can respond in a way that makes sense to me.
It made so little sense to me for her to claim that other people could take away her experience of having raised her own son (to join the military, or do whatever), that I had to look for something else meaningful in that statement, since people were obviously taking something meaningful away from it.
In that search for a meaning, I came to settle on her emphasis on her son's military service--the value of military service, especially during a long and frustrating war, seems to be a thing that people disagree about regularly, and disagreements often lead to people feeling as if their opinions are under attack, so it would then make a little bit more sense for Palin to then claim that somebody was making her give something up (her opinion about the value of her son's military service).
I chose the word "pride" to describe what I took to be her emphasis on that service, because: a.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in her son being a combat vet b.) it was obvious that Palin's son takes pride in his service c.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in the fact that she raised a son who went into the military.
It is possible that I mis-emphasized what she meant. If we go with your theory of "that" meaning "having raised a combat vet," it literally does not make any sense to me for her to claim that people are trying to take "having raised a combat vet" away from her.
I mean, how would it be possible for anyone to take that experience away from her? I don't understand how other people would be able to take experiences that you have already experienced away from you, short of trying to induce amnesia (in which you would still have the experiences but not remember them), or death (in which you personally would stop having and remembering experiences altogether, presumably, though other people would still remember that there had been a you, and that you had experienced those things). Even if her son were dead, that would not stop her from having had the experience of having raised him, and it would not have stopped him from having had the experience of being a combat vet before his death.
She is not afflicted with amnesia and is not dead, and is recalling her experience in front of a crowd, so I feel that it is safe to claim that she still has the experience. How would anyone be able to remove that experience from her?
Here are some things that might have robbed her of having had the experience of having raised a son who is a combat vet, but none of these things happened, so she already has the experience: - not having a son - having a son but giving him up for adoption - her son deciding to pursue some other career - her son not seeing combat - etc.
I literally cannot see how people could try to take her lived experience away from her, so I cannot see how she can claim that people are trying to take that lived experience away from her.
Even if they deny her lived experience as unimportant or try to make her feel bad about it, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge or validate her lived experience, or even if she recants it or regrets it, or wishes she'd done something else, short of amnesia or death, it's still going to be there.
(This is totally how I feel about being queer, and why I get frustrated when I hear anyone claim that x is trying to take y's experiences away from them, rather than saying "x is trying to tell y that their lived experience doesn't mean anything, or in an extreme case, didn't happen at all, and that's wrong." X might think it's ok to devalue your experiences, they might intimidate you into shutting up about them and pretending that you never had them, in the right kind of cultural climate they might tell you that you never had them and be able to get away with it, but y will know that y had them).
no subject
It made so little sense to me for her to claim that other people could take away her experience of having raised her own son (to join the military, or do whatever), that I had to look for something else meaningful in that statement, since people were obviously taking something meaningful away from it.
In that search for a meaning, I came to settle on her emphasis on her son's military service--the value of military service, especially during a long and frustrating war, seems to be a thing that people disagree about regularly, and disagreements often lead to people feeling as if their opinions are under attack, so it would then make a little bit more sense for Palin to then claim that somebody was making her give something up (her opinion about the value of her son's military service).
I chose the word "pride" to describe what I took to be her emphasis on that service, because:
a.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in her son being a combat vet
b.) it was obvious that Palin's son takes pride in his service
c.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in the fact that she raised a son who went into the military.
It is possible that I mis-emphasized what she meant.
If we go with your theory of "that" meaning "having raised a combat vet," it literally does not make any sense to me for her to claim that people are trying to take "having raised a combat vet" away from her.
I mean, how would it be possible for anyone to take that experience away from her? I don't understand how other people would be able to take experiences that you have already experienced away from you, short of trying to induce amnesia (in which you would still have the experiences but not remember them), or death (in which you personally would stop having and remembering experiences altogether, presumably, though other people would still remember that there had been a you, and that you had experienced those things). Even if her son were dead, that would not stop her from having had the experience of having raised him, and it would not have stopped him from having had the experience of being a combat vet before his death.
She is not afflicted with amnesia and is not dead, and is recalling her experience in front of a crowd, so I feel that it is safe to claim that she still has the experience. How would anyone be able to remove that experience from her?
Here are some things that might have robbed her of having had the experience of having raised a son who is a combat vet, but none of these things happened, so she already has the experience:
- not having a son
- having a son but giving him up for adoption
- her son deciding to pursue some other career
- her son not seeing combat
- etc.
I literally cannot see how people could try to take her lived experience away from her, so I cannot see how she can claim that people are trying to take that lived experience away from her.
Even if they deny her lived experience as unimportant or try to make her feel bad about it, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge or validate her lived experience, or even if she recants it or regrets it, or wishes she'd done something else, short of amnesia or death, it's still going to be there.
(This is totally how I feel about being queer, and why I get frustrated when I hear anyone claim that x is trying to take y's experiences away from them, rather than saying "x is trying to tell y that their lived experience doesn't mean anything, or in an extreme case, didn't happen at all, and that's wrong." X might think it's ok to devalue your experiences, they might intimidate you into shutting up about them and pretending that you never had them, in the right kind of cultural climate they might tell you that you never had them and be able to get away with it, but y will know that y had them).
Does that make sense?