âProgressive identity politics âŠ. harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. âŠ. âŠ.. what is desperately needed is a more robust universalism, capable of generating and sustaining solidarity across cultural divides.â
No doubt.
When it comes to the vast majority of those who supported the BLM agenda, Iâm sure it came from a good place. Those individuals who marched, who donated and who promised to âdo betterâ were, Iâm sure, doing so with the best intentions. Sadly, I fear they were duped.
Many seemed unaware of the divisive undertones of BLM, not to mention the naked greed of the people behind the movement, and bought into the simple idea that âBlack Lives Matterâ. Of course Black Lives Matter, but that is so obvious as to be almost a banality.
How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?
I donât for a minute think that the majority of those who reflexively supported BLM actually wanted to see society more divided – but I canât fathom how they thought the separatist attitude of the movement could possibly bring us together.
Just a few years ago we were exhorted as a society to be colour-blind, to accept people simply as people, whatever their background, their lifestyle, their âdifferencesâ.
What the hell happened to that idea?
For many years I lived in London and worked in an industry (Broadcast TV) that was as diverse as one could possibly find anywhere. As far as I was concerned the arguments of Race, Gender, Creed, Orientation had been fought and largely won. We seemed at the time – perhaps naively – to be enjoying the peace.
Maybe those who are inclined to be activists feel they have to keep picking at the scab and reopening old wounds or there is no point to their existence, but it seems incredible that we managed to go so far backwards and quite so quickly.
Self-described âprogressivesâ decry inequality of opportunity and income disparity as the two main evils that are fracturing society. But Iâd suggest their Identity Politics agenda is a far more pernicious way to separate us.
Identity politics is the very antithesis of the principles of universalism â it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common. Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?
How do these people, who claim to speak for racial equality, justify shifting the argument from Martin Luther Kingâs dream of a future where people are judged according to their character rather than the colour of their skin to the point where these activists are calling for PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE? That you are defined as a person, solely by the groups to which you belong? To abandon that call for universalism in favour of separatism is surely a retrograde step? That point seems so incontestable to me that I am utterly baffled how progressives can think their present strategy is advancing the cause of equality.
Identity politics is by its nature divisive and intolerant. It silos people and silences people. Identity Politics tells us what groups we belong to and that our whole identity is defined by that group and dependent on that group, this drives a wedge between people who would previously have felt kinship with one another. It is hard to retain solidarity with your community when parts of that community are being taught that it is ârightâ to mistrust the motives of another.
How many people ever preface a statement with – “Speaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..” unless they believe that belonging to that specific group confers on them special insight, or a ‘right’ to speak, that is denied to those outside the group?
Identity politics means I can’t “really” understand you, I canât really empathise with you, I’m not allowed to because I am not a woman, or I am not black, I am not gay, I am not a Muslim. If I think I do understand you, or if I volunteer an opinion, then I’m mansplaining, I’m arrogantly assuming that my opinion is valid even though I don’t have the lived experience of suffering abuse by belonging to the right victim group.
Such are the grisly politics of grievance.
But not only do such politics of grievance divide us, they make us weaker, by glorifying victimhood and vilifying anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.
The #metoo movement could have been empowering, yet insisting that a clumsy advance, or an unwanted touch of a knee, is somehow equivalent to rape is insane. Who is that empowering? Teaching impressionable young women theyâre likely to become victims, telling every woman theyâre already a victim and that all men are naturally predatory? Does that heal divisions in society or exacerbate them?
Similarly, teaching young black men that theyâre oppressed, that society doesnât value them as much, that the police are not to be trusted. Who does that help? The ID Political agenda is divisive because it breeds a culture of suspicion. Those young men are being fed a world view that makes them suspicious of the people outside their community. Is that view more likely to improve their chance of success in life or does it weigh them down with unnecessary baggage? Does it drive a wedge between communities, between groups? Yes, Iâd say itâs undeniable.
As I’ve written previously, I have a good deal of sympathy with the young in all this – not the activists who are pushing this agenda, but those whoâve grown up in this atmosphere. Theyâve been fed a constant diet of woke totems and âprogressiveâ thought (actually horribly regressive thought) throughout their education and now must navigate a thought-crime minefield â where the slightest miss-step can blow up in their faces.
Some, believing what theyâve been taught â and with the best intentions – try to stick to all the latest approved attitudes and mantras and find themselves saying and doing things that (I can only hope) will make them shudder with embarrassment when they look back on them in years to come.
Iâm still optimistic that these well-intentioned youngsters, these ‘Children of the Quorn’, will be young enough to have the chance of an awakening (from their awokening?), though it is a shame that realising they’ve been manipulated will hasten the wariness (and cynicism) that comes with experience, at the expense of the idealism of youth.
Many such âprogressivesâ would undoubtedly denounce any whoâd think to pigeonhole someone whilst, almost in the same breath, constructing a fairly sturdy pigeonhole themselves and stuffing it with a well-fed pigeon.
You canât win (unless you simply refuse to play their game).
Yes. Thanks for this Paddy. Iâve found these developments deeply troubling over the last five or so years in the arts. We were in the epicentre before it exploded and now more and more of these ideas are filtering in to different sectors. Itâs only going to get worse as the outcomes of these ideas take hold in reality⊠the problem is, as Sohrab points out, that younger and older white people are going to be given no choice but to either firmly stand up for themselves or capitulate entirely. The other problem, that I find very very complex is that I do understand lots of the beginnings of woke thinking and many ideas have grains of validity. Itâs the totality of it all in action which is devastating to society and culture. And it seems to demand totality.
ButâŠ.racism and misogyny DO exist. Both may be social constructs but they have real implications and consequences for all of us. The Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS.
The existence of racism and misogyny in the UK are, at the very least, uncomfortable facts which we have never defeated, despite what we may feel about working in institutions where the effects of such prejudice may have been minimised. To admit as such is not to capitulate to identity politics. Not is it to demand hang wringing guilt from white people/men, both of which have proven quite ineffectual in improving the material lives of men, women and children across the globe. The trick is to recognise the common enemy whilst acknowledging the effect of the constructs of inequality and to fight against them: EVERYONE should be fighting for a living wage, the dismantling of stop and search, vast investment into legal aid, universal childcare and housing and a fair, legal system of migration and asylum into the UK (amongst other things of course!)
Amy,
Yes, of course individual instances of “racism and misogyny DO exist”, but how best to tackle that?
Should we, as a society, treat everyone as equal under the law and with equal respect – which is what we were striving for just a few short years ago, or should we treat people differently, depending on which groups they belong to?
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality – among other “fashionable” ideas – insist that we absolutely should treat people differently, depending on the colour of their skin, or depending on other immutable characteristics and the groups to which they belong …. and where those groups sit on the pyramid of oppression.
Are we better off treating everyone the same, or do you honestly believe that we should be worrying about whether we are the privileged or oppressed person in any encounter? No sane person should want to have to calculate who holds the power in any interpersonal interaction before they know how they should behave. To my mind, that’s lunacy and a clearly retrograde step, yet that is precisely what these activist-academics are calling for.
Such activists might push-back against this fact but, by every metric imaginable, the UK in the C21st is just about the most diverse and tolerant society in all the world, in all of history. Nothing threatens that more than this obsession with race and the blame and guilt associated with these new doctrines.
Paddy, I think we are broadly arguing from the same position, but with a different emphasis on the role of race/racism/misogyny in society:
I disagree that we are faced with âindividual instancesâ of racism and misogyny. Malikâs argument relies on an understanding that race and racism at least are institutional, not the work of âa few bad applesâ but quite literally built into the system in order to create division between poor blacks and whites to ensure social inequality isnât truly challenged (see my later comment on white&black slavery).
I agree that we cannot treat every social interaction from a superficial position of identity, or, as you outline, a sort of âtop trumps game of oppressionâ, because it disadvantages all of us who arenât at the very top of the tree. But white people do need to recognise that racism exists, and to understand it as something we all need to fight against by demanding policies which undermine inequality for all of us. If we all demand mass building of social housing, chances are it will benefit black and brown communities the most, because those groups have historically been most affected by a lack of affordable housing. But such a policy would benefit poor whites as well. Redistribution of wealth would benefit all of us!
Paddy, thanks for the response. I responded but it seems my comment hasâŠdisappeared?
I think weâre arguing from the same position, I agree that ID politics are largely insubstantial and divisive because they donât argue for a material change in the lives of men and women. BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional. To tackle this we canât ignore the unfortunate truth that our economic system has created hierarchies of race and sex to maintain a pretty solid system of inequality across the board. My position is to recognise all divisions as class based and fight for the redistribution of wealth to benefit all. For example, free childcare benefits everyone but implicitly recognised that womenâs labour cannot be take for granted, and the care of children should be paid for if we want a society with kids in it.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
‘BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional.’ Yet to illustrate your claim that they are ‘institutional’ you cite the same 2 names which are used every time. If any case showed ‘institutional’ racism, religious hatred, and misogyny it’s Rotherham, not to mention the more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation perpetrated by the same groups, were – and are being – committed. Ask yourself why these don’t engage your attention rather than those you have chosen.
“..more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation, are being committed”.
Are they? You will have serious evidence for this, not just some internet blog written by nutters who’ve never before given a flying crap about the issue of abuse (never mind ‘misogyny’) before it became a useful racial rallying cry?
You do know that one of the leading accusers has just been prosecuted for malicious false evidence? Using rape as a cynical political tool is dangerous- and misogynist, funnily enough.
There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.
“More than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimes….are being committed.”
“Many convictions” doesn’t constitute evidence for the above claim.
No you didn’t
This is what I posted
“There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.”
And this how you replied”
âMore than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimesâŠ.are being committed.â âMany convictionsâ doesnât constitute evidence for the above claim.
What has that got to do with my comment? I think you have a problem with comprehension.
Goodbye
Hello.
You were defending the comment I was responding to. That post included the phrase about the ‘identical cases in a dozen towns’. That’s the claim I wanted evidence for. You ignored it, and said something else.
If you can’t give evidence for a claim that I was asking evidence for, then fair enough. Don’t blame me, though, for your inability to answer the actual question I was asking.
Cheerio.
Hello.
You were defending the comment I was responding to. That post included the phrase about the ‘identical cases in a dozen towns’. That’s the claim I wanted evidence for. You ignored it, and said something else.
If you can’t give evidence for a claim that I was asking evidence for, then fair enough. Don’t blame me, though, for your inability to answer the actual question I was asking.
Cheerio.
No you didn’t
This is what I posted
“There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.”
And this how you replied”
âMore than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimesâŠ.are being committed.â âMany convictionsâ doesnât constitute evidence for the above claim.
What has that got to do with my comment? I think you have a problem with comprehension.
Goodbye
The claim was “the exact same crimes are being committed…in more than a dozen other towns and cities.”
That’s what you’ve failed to give any evidence for.
The claim was “the exact same crimes are being committed…in more than a dozen other towns and cities.”
That’s what you’ve failed to give any evidence for.
And I’m interested to know how many of those who have leapt on this hideous case have been equally vocally outraged by all the other recent cases of large-scale abuse; private schools and the Catholic Church, for example, don’t seem to feature much in ‘nativist’ tirades about this subject. I’m sure, despite the apparent silence, they care just as deeply when it doesn’t involve Asians.
“More than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimes….are being committed.”
“Many convictions” doesn’t constitute evidence for the above claim.
And I’m interested to know how many of those who have leapt on this hideous case have been equally vocally outraged by all the other recent cases of large-scale abuse; private schools and the Catholic Church, for example, don’t seem to feature much in ‘nativist’ tirades about this subject. I’m sure, despite the apparent silence, they care just as deeply when it doesn’t involve Asians.
There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.
“..more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation, are being committed”.
Are they? You will have serious evidence for this, not just some internet blog written by nutters who’ve never before given a flying crap about the issue of abuse (never mind ‘misogyny’) before it became a useful racial rallying cry?
You do know that one of the leading accusers has just been prosecuted for malicious false evidence? Using rape as a cynical political tool is dangerous- and misogynist, funnily enough.
Amy,
Thanks for your response, I hope Iâm not too late in replying â these threads always seem to have a fairly short shelf life.
Iâve spent a lot of time over the last few years on the Guardian site, on which I often encounter this idea that any racial inequality in society is immediately assumed to be proof of inequity. But that’s worth exploring, rather than merely assuming.
When it comes to educational attainment, to career prospects, to poverty, to crime, to incarceration, to life expectancy, there are countless competing factors that play a part. But just because things âcorrelateâ it does not follow that one âcausesâ the other.
So, why do so many people ALWAYS focus on colour?
For instance: Growing up poor in an urban environment, in a single parent family, with no significant male role model figure is statiscally a far better predictor of contact with the criminal justice system than race. A young white boy growing up in that environment is many times more likely to drift into crime than a young black boy growing up in the suburbs with two working parents in the home.
The correlation with ethnicity only exists because there are distinct cultural differences that lead to absent fathers being more prevalent in one community than another.
These figures are from the UKâs Office of National Statistics:
In the UK 59% of black Caribbean children live in lone-parent households compared with 22% of white children.
Fathers from Asian backgrounds are the least likely to be non-resident whereas Black Caribbean, mixed race and Black African fathers are the most likely. But rather than tackle absentee fathers it appears much simpler just to blame everything on institutional and systemic racism. I donât believe that is an honest assessment of reality â or one that is supported by stats.
I guess blaming the majority for the outcomes faced by a minority is a simpler, and seemingly more âprogressiveâ way to go, but to my mind it helps no one. Yet that view is held almost as fact by most of the people I encounter BTL on the Guardian.
Stop and Search is always held up by Guardian commenters as a blatantly racist policy. But is it? The numbers suggest it is merely an effective, targeted approach to an observable problem.
Look at it another way – The vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by Men. How is it that the liberal left donât accuse the UKâs Criminal Justice System of Institutional Sexism?
Are there individual Police officers that are racist? Iâm sure there are. But it is a huge leap to go from that fairly statistically inevitable fact, to then insist that the Police are âInstitutionally racistâ.
You brought up Stop and Search Policies, earlier on this thread, calling for them to be dismantled, but how would you â if put in charge of trying to police knife crime – go about it?
No race is innately predisposed to be involved in knife crime more than another. However, it is statistically indisputable that some cultures are significantly more likely to be involved in knife crime than others.
For the Police to ignore such obvious and observable correlations just to appease the sensitivities of the liberal media would be entirely self-defeating and, frankly, a gross dereliction of duty.
The overlap with the metric of knife injuries for under 25s shows enormous disproportionality in the way if affects young black men as victims and, I am sorry to say, as perpetrators. The stats make for uncomfortable reading. Nationally â you probably know the figures â you are four times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you are black and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator. Thatâs clearly a pretty good reason to be also over-represented in stop and search statistics then.
If your job was to tackle knife-crime, wouldn’t that be a pretty good reason to continue with a policy that has been shown over and over to reduce the problem.
I appreciate that doesnât really fit with the dominant â apparently the only permissible â broadcast narrative of a community unfairly victimised by racist coppers.
And so the police will be told not to racially profile those they stop and frisk for weapons. Meanwhile young boys get stabbed and attack each other with machetes in broad daylight, but at least we havenât hurt anyoneâs feelings! I ask you, in all sincerity, if you think that would be a better approach?
I fear so much of this comes from the dystopian, relentlessly jaundiced view of the UK that is so prevalent across liberal media outlets.
But for each of the anecdotal instances of intolerance that get wheeled out as “proof” of widespread racism, sexism, homophobia, etc there are a million other instances of just everyday acceptance of people, – regardless of colour, ethnicity or nationality – that are not worthy of anecdote simply because they are so everyday. We can argue about what has caused this desire in some people to claim we are a nasty, xenophobic, intolerant country – but I think anyone honest would agree that it is not in any way an accurate reflection of this country at all – and does us no favours at a time when we should be putting the most positive view of Britain to the rest of the world.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
‘BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional.’ Yet to illustrate your claim that they are ‘institutional’ you cite the same 2 names which are used every time. If any case showed ‘institutional’ racism, religious hatred, and misogyny it’s Rotherham, not to mention the more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation perpetrated by the same groups, were – and are being – committed. Ask yourself why these don’t engage your attention rather than those you have chosen.
Amy,
Thanks for your response, I hope Iâm not too late in replying â these threads always seem to have a fairly short shelf life.
Iâve spent a lot of time over the last few years on the Guardian site, on which I often encounter this idea that any racial inequality in society is immediately assumed to be proof of inequity. But that’s worth exploring, rather than merely assuming.
When it comes to educational attainment, to career prospects, to poverty, to crime, to incarceration, to life expectancy, there are countless competing factors that play a part. But just because things âcorrelateâ it does not follow that one âcausesâ the other.
So, why do so many people ALWAYS focus on colour?
For instance: Growing up poor in an urban environment, in a single parent family, with no significant male role model figure is statiscally a far better predictor of contact with the criminal justice system than race. A young white boy growing up in that environment is many times more likely to drift into crime than a young black boy growing up in the suburbs with two working parents in the home.
The correlation with ethnicity only exists because there are distinct cultural differences that lead to absent fathers being more prevalent in one community than another.
These figures are from the UKâs Office of National Statistics:
In the UK 59% of black Caribbean children live in lone-parent households compared with 22% of white children.
Fathers from Asian backgrounds are the least likely to be non-resident whereas Black Caribbean, mixed race and Black African fathers are the most likely. But rather than tackle absentee fathers it appears much simpler just to blame everything on institutional and systemic racism. I donât believe that is an honest assessment of reality â or one that is supported by stats.
I guess blaming the majority for the outcomes faced by a minority is a simpler, and seemingly more âprogressiveâ way to go, but to my mind it helps no one. Yet that view is held almost as fact by most of the people I encounter BTL on the Guardian.
Stop and Search is always held up by Guardian commenters as a blatantly racist policy. But is it? The numbers suggest it is merely an effective, targeted approach to an observable problem.
Look at it another way – The vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by Men. How is it that the liberal left donât accuse the UKâs Criminal Justice System of Institutional Sexism?
Are there individual Police officers that are racist? Iâm sure there are. But it is a huge leap to go from that fairly statistically inevitable fact, to then insist that the Police are âInstitutionally racistâ.
You brought up Stop and Search Policies, earlier on this thread, calling for them to be dismantled, but how would you â if put in charge of trying to police knife crime – go about it?
No race is innately predisposed to be involved in knife crime more than another. However, it is statistically indisputable that some cultures are significantly more likely to be involved in knife crime than others.
For the Police to ignore such obvious and observable correlations just to appease the sensitivities of the liberal media would be entirely self-defeating and, frankly, a gross dereliction of duty.
The overlap with the metric of knife injuries for under 25s shows enormous disproportionality in the way if affects young black men as victims and, I am sorry to say, as perpetrators. The stats make for uncomfortable reading. Nationally â you probably know the figures â you are four times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you are black and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator. Thatâs clearly a pretty good reason to be also over-represented in stop and search statistics then.
If your job was to tackle knife-crime, wouldn’t that be a pretty good reason to continue with a policy that has been shown over and over to reduce the problem.
I appreciate that doesnât really fit with the dominant â apparently the only permissible â broadcast narrative of a community unfairly victimised by racist coppers.
And so the police will be told not to racially profile those they stop and frisk for weapons. Meanwhile young boys get stabbed and attack each other with machetes in broad daylight, but at least we havenât hurt anyoneâs feelings! I ask you, in all sincerity, if you think that would be a better approach?
I fear so much of this comes from the dystopian, relentlessly jaundiced view of the UK that is so prevalent across liberal media outlets.
But for each of the anecdotal instances of intolerance that get wheeled out as “proof” of widespread racism, sexism, homophobia, etc there are a million other instances of just everyday acceptance of people, – regardless of colour, ethnicity or nationality – that are not worthy of anecdote simply because they are so everyday. We can argue about what has caused this desire in some people to claim we are a nasty, xenophobic, intolerant country – but I think anyone honest would agree that it is not in any way an accurate reflection of this country at all – and does us no favours at a time when we should be putting the most positive view of Britain to the rest of the world.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
Is this bias, or does it reflect the fact that black/stressed economic immigrants are, one assumes, new in the country, less educated, less wealthy less choosy etc? The greatest generational increases in socio-economic position are clearly shown by these same groups – which rather suggests racism is not the key.
Is this bias, or does it reflect the fact that black/stressed economic immigrants are, one assumes, new in the country, less educated, less wealthy less choosy etc? The greatest generational increases in socio-economic position are clearly shown by these same groups – which rather suggests racism is not the key.
Paddy, I think we are broadly arguing from the same position, but with a different emphasis on the role of race/racism/misogyny in society:
I disagree that we are faced with âindividual instancesâ of racism and misogyny. Malikâs argument relies on an understanding that race and racism at least are institutional, not the work of âa few bad applesâ but quite literally built into the system in order to create division between poor blacks and whites to ensure social inequality isnât truly challenged (see my later comment on white&black slavery).
I agree that we cannot treat every social interaction from a superficial position of identity, or, as you outline, a sort of âtop trumps game of oppressionâ, because it disadvantages all of us who arenât at the very top of the tree. But white people do need to recognise that racism exists, and to understand it as something we all need to fight against by demanding policies which undermine inequality for all of us. If we all demand mass building of social housing, chances are it will benefit black and brown communities the most, because those groups have historically been most affected by a lack of affordable housing. But such a policy would benefit poor whites as well. Redistribution of wealth would benefit all of us!
Paddy, thanks for the response. I responded but it seems my comment hasâŠdisappeared?
I think weâre arguing from the same position, I agree that ID politics are largely insubstantial and divisive because they donât argue for a material change in the lives of men and women. BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional. To tackle this we canât ignore the unfortunate truth that our economic system has created hierarchies of race and sex to maintain a pretty solid system of inequality across the board. My position is to recognise all divisions as class based and fight for the redistribution of wealth to benefit all. For example, free childcare benefits everyone but implicitly recognised that womenâs labour cannot be take for granted, and the care of children should be paid for if we want a society with kids in it.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS⊠Nonsense, hyperbole Iâve drunk the kool-aid nonsense⊠Think Cressida d**k gave a pretty fair and informed run down on whatâs what before she was thrown out by the arch grifter Khan. Check it out
Check out a police chief’s defence of herself? Not exactly the impartial, objective and unarguable Truth, is it? It’s one person’s defence of their job.
Perhaps you should “check out” other evidence before coming to your conclusion.
Was it Socrates who invented the philosophical and epistemological heuristic now translated as ‘LMAO’? Or was it a sticky-fingered semi-literate twelve year-old from Idaho- I can’t remember.
Was it Socrates who invented the philosophical and epistemological heuristic now translated as ‘LMAO’? Or was it a sticky-fingered semi-literate twelve year-old from Idaho- I can’t remember.
Check out a police chief’s defence of herself? Not exactly the impartial, objective and unarguable Truth, is it? It’s one person’s defence of their job.
Perhaps you should “check out” other evidence before coming to your conclusion.
Amy,
Yes, of course individual instances of “racism and misogyny DO exist”, but how best to tackle that?
Should we, as a society, treat everyone as equal under the law and with equal respect – which is what we were striving for just a few short years ago, or should we treat people differently, depending on which groups they belong to?
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality – among other “fashionable” ideas – insist that we absolutely should treat people differently, depending on the colour of their skin, or depending on other immutable characteristics and the groups to which they belong …. and where those groups sit on the pyramid of oppression.
Are we better off treating everyone the same, or do you honestly believe that we should be worrying about whether we are the privileged or oppressed person in any encounter? No sane person should want to have to calculate who holds the power in any interpersonal interaction before they know how they should behave. To my mind, that’s lunacy and a clearly retrograde step, yet that is precisely what these activist-academics are calling for.
Such activists might push-back against this fact but, by every metric imaginable, the UK in the C21st is just about the most diverse and tolerant society in all the world, in all of history. Nothing threatens that more than this obsession with race and the blame and guilt associated with these new doctrines.
Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS⊠Nonsense, hyperbole Iâve drunk the kool-aid nonsense⊠Think Cressida d**k gave a pretty fair and informed run down on whatâs what before she was thrown out by the arch grifter Khan. Check it out
Perhaps because in ID politics both are ‘protected characteristics’, though why a reactionary, backward, intolerant, and misogynistic religious belief system should be ‘protected’ is anybody’s guess.
Is the cutting off of Gay men’s hands a ‘protected characteristic’ in the US? No.
Still, never mind- there are plenty of US homegrown followers of a “religious belief system” who condemn homosexuality as evil, who are “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic”, so you don’t need to go to Islamic Saudi Arabia to find them.
Luckily, unlike Saudi Arabia, the US is still a secular state, despite the fury of some Fundamentalist Christians about this.
Is chopping the hands of gay men a “protected characteristic” in the US? I didn’t think so, maybe I’m wrong.
Moreover, there are many “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic” religious people who aren’t Muslim- luckily, the US is still a secular state, unlike Saudi Arabia, so they are limited in how far they can exercise their beliefs.
{an update that no one was awaiting; they posted it about 12 hours later}
My response to the top-rated commenter hasn’t appeared yet, after about 2 hours. (Perhaps because I “played the H card”, but only in response to a “reluctant” apology on behalf of a fan of A.H.’s ideas and those who might reluctantly support him in response to an opposing racist who promotes “antiracism”). Some comments take hours (2, 8, 14) to go through, but typically do at last. On the other hand, some pretty extreme views–if they avoid a few hot-button words–are instantaneously posted, often to a cascade of upvotes.
Yes- it seems as if any comment not conforming to the standard, ranty “anti-Woke” template needs to be carefully considered prior to publishing, whereas some deranged tirade about “negroes” and ‘liberals being worse than German Nazis’ goes straight on as a worthy contribution to the ‘debate’.
Still, you can’t argue with a moderator.
Another little wrinkle: When it’s finally published, the time mark on the comment shows the time the attempt to post is was first made.
I still like the website though! And that’s not (mere) pandering.
Another little wrinkle: When it’s finally published, the time mark on the comment shows the time the attempt to post is was first made.
I still like the website though! And that’s not (mere) pandering.
Yes- it seems as if any comment not conforming to the standard, ranty “anti-Woke” template needs to be carefully considered prior to publishing, whereas some deranged tirade about “negroes” and ‘liberals being worse than German Nazis’ goes straight on as a worthy contribution to the ‘debate’.
Still, you can’t argue with a moderator.
{an update that no one was awaiting; they posted it about 12 hours later}
My response to the top-rated commenter hasn’t appeared yet, after about 2 hours. (Perhaps because I “played the H card”, but only in response to a “reluctant” apology on behalf of a fan of A.H.’s ideas and those who might reluctantly support him in response to an opposing racist who promotes “antiracism”). Some comments take hours (2, 8, 14) to go through, but typically do at last. On the other hand, some pretty extreme views–if they avoid a few hot-button words–are instantaneously posted, often to a cascade of upvotes.
Is the cutting off of Gay men’s hands a ‘protected characteristic’ in the US? No.
Still, never mind- there are plenty of US homegrown followers of a “religious belief system” who condemn homosexuality as evil, who are “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic”, so you don’t need to go to Islamic Saudi Arabia to find them.
Luckily, unlike Saudi Arabia, the US is still a secular state, despite the fury of some Fundamentalist Christians about this.
Is chopping the hands of gay men a “protected characteristic” in the US? I didn’t think so, maybe I’m wrong.
Moreover, there are many “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic” religious people who aren’t Muslim- luckily, the US is still a secular state, unlike Saudi Arabia, so they are limited in how far they can exercise their beliefs.
Perhaps because in ID politics both are ‘protected characteristics’, though why a reactionary, backward, intolerant, and misogynistic religious belief system should be ‘protected’ is anybody’s guess.
Thank you for covering pretty much all of what Iâd wanted to write! Quite agree.
When Dr Kingâs ideas are implicitly (occasionally explicitly) held to be racist, we have a major problem.
Likewise the incessant harping on the single shrill note of âgenderâ – denying the physical (sex) and replacing it with the abstract (gender) is just another stigma of the societal malaise which empowers the right-on at the expense of a socially workable future for our children to inherit.
I personally remember being nonplussed in the 1980s, when the word âblackboardâ was surreptitiously replaced with âchalkboardâ, on the grounds that the former was potentially racist. I asked for a coherent explanation at the time and 30-odd years later, Iâm still awaiting one. All that happened at that point was that I received a suspicious look and a reputation for asking inappropriate questions. I still delight in asking those. Socrates, Epictetus (born a slave, interestingly), et al. have left us lessons in the utility of doing so, and theyâre for all of us to learn from, ethnicity and cultural inheritance notwithstanding. I recall CLR James being quite explicit on that last point, too.
“How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?”
All lives matter.
Yes. Thanks for this Paddy. Iâve found these developments deeply troubling over the last five or so years in the arts. We were in the epicentre before it exploded and now more and more of these ideas are filtering in to different sectors. Itâs only going to get worse as the outcomes of these ideas take hold in reality⊠the problem is, as Sohrab points out, that younger and older white people are going to be given no choice but to either firmly stand up for themselves or capitulate entirely. The other problem, that I find very very complex is that I do understand lots of the beginnings of woke thinking and many ideas have grains of validity. Itâs the totality of it all in action which is devastating to society and culture. And it seems to demand totality.
ButâŠ.racism and misogyny DO exist. Both may be social constructs but they have real implications and consequences for all of us. The Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS.
The existence of racism and misogyny in the UK are, at the very least, uncomfortable facts which we have never defeated, despite what we may feel about working in institutions where the effects of such prejudice may have been minimised. To admit as such is not to capitulate to identity politics. Not is it to demand hang wringing guilt from white people/men, both of which have proven quite ineffectual in improving the material lives of men, women and children across the globe. The trick is to recognise the common enemy whilst acknowledging the effect of the constructs of inequality and to fight against them: EVERYONE should be fighting for a living wage, the dismantling of stop and search, vast investment into legal aid, universal childcare and housing and a fair, legal system of migration and asylum into the UK (amongst other things of course!)
Thank you for covering pretty much all of what Iâd wanted to write! Quite agree.
When Dr Kingâs ideas are implicitly (occasionally explicitly) held to be racist, we have a major problem.
Likewise the incessant harping on the single shrill note of âgenderâ – denying the physical (sex) and replacing it with the abstract (gender) is just another stigma of the societal malaise which empowers the right-on at the expense of a socially workable future for our children to inherit.
I personally remember being nonplussed in the 1980s, when the word âblackboardâ was surreptitiously replaced with âchalkboardâ, on the grounds that the former was potentially racist. I asked for a coherent explanation at the time and 30-odd years later, Iâm still awaiting one. All that happened at that point was that I received a suspicious look and a reputation for asking inappropriate questions. I still delight in asking those. Socrates, Epictetus (born a slave, interestingly), et al. have left us lessons in the utility of doing so, and theyâre for all of us to learn from, ethnicity and cultural inheritance notwithstanding. I recall CLR James being quite explicit on that last point, too.
“How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?”
All lives matter.
One of worst consequences of the âSpeaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..â mania has been all the bad grammar: “As a woman, it’s unfair that …”
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
âProgressive identity politics âŠ. harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. âŠ. âŠ.. what is desperately needed is a more robust universalism, capable of generating and sustaining solidarity across cultural divides.â
No doubt.
When it comes to the vast majority of those who supported the BLM agenda, Iâm sure it came from a good place. Those individuals who marched, who donated and who promised to âdo betterâ were, Iâm sure, doing so with the best intentions. Sadly, I fear they were duped.
Many seemed unaware of the divisive undertones of BLM, not to mention the naked greed of the people behind the movement, and bought into the simple idea that âBlack Lives Matterâ. Of course Black Lives Matter, but that is so obvious as to be almost a banality.
How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?
I donât for a minute think that the majority of those who reflexively supported BLM actually wanted to see society more divided – but I canât fathom how they thought the separatist attitude of the movement could possibly bring us together.
Just a few years ago we were exhorted as a society to be colour-blind, to accept people simply as people, whatever their background, their lifestyle, their âdifferencesâ.
What the hell happened to that idea?
For many years I lived in London and worked in an industry (Broadcast TV) that was as diverse as one could possibly find anywhere. As far as I was concerned the arguments of Race, Gender, Creed, Orientation had been fought and largely won. We seemed at the time – perhaps naively – to be enjoying the peace.
Maybe those who are inclined to be activists feel they have to keep picking at the scab and reopening old wounds or there is no point to their existence, but it seems incredible that we managed to go so far backwards and quite so quickly.
Self-described âprogressivesâ decry inequality of opportunity and income disparity as the two main evils that are fracturing society. But Iâd suggest their Identity Politics agenda is a far more pernicious way to separate us.
Identity politics is the very antithesis of the principles of universalism â it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common. Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?
How do these people, who claim to speak for racial equality, justify shifting the argument from Martin Luther Kingâs dream of a future where people are judged according to their character rather than the colour of their skin to the point where these activists are calling for PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE? That you are defined as a person, solely by the groups to which you belong? To abandon that call for universalism in favour of separatism is surely a retrograde step? That point seems so incontestable to me that I am utterly baffled how progressives can think their present strategy is advancing the cause of equality.
Identity politics is by its nature divisive and intolerant. It silos people and silences people. Identity Politics tells us what groups we belong to and that our whole identity is defined by that group and dependent on that group, this drives a wedge between people who would previously have felt kinship with one another. It is hard to retain solidarity with your community when parts of that community are being taught that it is ârightâ to mistrust the motives of another.
How many people ever preface a statement with – “Speaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..” unless they believe that belonging to that specific group confers on them special insight, or a ‘right’ to speak, that is denied to those outside the group?
Identity politics means I can’t “really” understand you, I canât really empathise with you, I’m not allowed to because I am not a woman, or I am not black, I am not gay, I am not a Muslim. If I think I do understand you, or if I volunteer an opinion, then I’m mansplaining, I’m arrogantly assuming that my opinion is valid even though I don’t have the lived experience of suffering abuse by belonging to the right victim group.
Such are the grisly politics of grievance.
But not only do such politics of grievance divide us, they make us weaker, by glorifying victimhood and vilifying anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.
The #metoo movement could have been empowering, yet insisting that a clumsy advance, or an unwanted touch of a knee, is somehow equivalent to rape is insane. Who is that empowering? Teaching impressionable young women theyâre likely to become victims, telling every woman theyâre already a victim and that all men are naturally predatory? Does that heal divisions in society or exacerbate them?
Similarly, teaching young black men that theyâre oppressed, that society doesnât value them as much, that the police are not to be trusted. Who does that help? The ID Political agenda is divisive because it breeds a culture of suspicion. Those young men are being fed a world view that makes them suspicious of the people outside their community. Is that view more likely to improve their chance of success in life or does it weigh them down with unnecessary baggage? Does it drive a wedge between communities, between groups? Yes, Iâd say itâs undeniable.
As I’ve written previously, I have a good deal of sympathy with the young in all this – not the activists who are pushing this agenda, but those whoâve grown up in this atmosphere. Theyâve been fed a constant diet of woke totems and âprogressiveâ thought (actually horribly regressive thought) throughout their education and now must navigate a thought-crime minefield â where the slightest miss-step can blow up in their faces.
Some, believing what theyâve been taught â and with the best intentions – try to stick to all the latest approved attitudes and mantras and find themselves saying and doing things that (I can only hope) will make them shudder with embarrassment when they look back on them in years to come.
Iâm still optimistic that these well-intentioned youngsters, these ‘Children of the Quorn’, will be young enough to have the chance of an awakening (from their awokening?), though it is a shame that realising they’ve been manipulated will hasten the wariness (and cynicism) that comes with experience, at the expense of the idealism of youth.
Many such âprogressivesâ would undoubtedly denounce any whoâd think to pigeonhole someone whilst, almost in the same breath, constructing a fairly sturdy pigeonhole themselves and stuffing it with a well-fed pigeon.
You canât win (unless you simply refuse to play their game).
Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control. Right now, the only people willing to meet the Left on their own race-essentialist terms are the neo-Nazis, and they are a tiny minority. However if even a double digit percentage of whites re-develop the kind of race-consciousness they had even 3-4 generations ago… the neo-Nazis won’t be tiny anymore. The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.
Richard Spencer and Ibram Kendi both see race first and individuality a distant second. The Left has universally embraced Kendi. Absent a clear and better alternative, the Right will start to (reluctantly) embrace Spencer as the lesser of 2 evils: “sure he’s a racist, but at least my kid won’t get screwed because he’s white” isn’t an entirely unreasonable voting strategy.
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control.
I agree, I’d call them “Liberals” though, and they’re not doing this for the first time.
GOP as a multi-racial working class party seems like a reasonable path to me – and there is leadership pursuing this. As you may agree the way to counter race-essentialism is not reverse-race-essentialism (aka racism).
“GOP as a multi-racial working class party..”
The problem with this is that the GOP is funded by billionaires and big corporations. They don’t give their money to promote the interests of the working class.’ whatever the media schtick might be.
Agreed – âliberalâ is a term co-opted to mean its antithesis. Todayâs âliberalsâ are the proponents of prescription and social control, not any recognisable notions of classical liberalism.
Nor even it’s less-rabid mid-20th versions.
I hate to see classical liberal or libertarian leaning people succumb to roaring authoritarianism that seems safer to them than the threat from the far, far Left–let alone succumb to “reverse” or blood-and-soil identitarian battle mode.
Nor even it’s less-rabid mid-20th versions.
I hate to see classical liberal or libertarian leaning people succumb to roaring authoritarianism that seems safer to them than the threat from the far, far Left–let alone succumb to “reverse” or blood-and-soil identitarian battle mode.
Agreed – âliberalâ is a term co-opted to mean its antithesis. Todayâs âliberalsâ are the proponents of prescription and social control, not any recognisable notions of classical liberalism.
“GOP as a multi-racial working class party..”
The problem with this is that the GOP is funded by billionaires and big corporations. They don’t give their money to promote the interests of the working class.’ whatever the media schtick might be.
Why is it that you think white people need defending? They are at the top of the tree all over the world. If they are low anywhere, it is because other white people shoved them down, in a white country.
In the US, affirmative action and DEI elevate persons of color with special considerations and perks – at the expense of the majority of white people (sometimes at the expense of Asians). And this is being carried out BY GOVERNMENT.
Are you completely unaware?
Weirdly itâs because of a defence of identity politics by white people. Whenever thereâs an article outlining the creation of race as a means to exploit black people, there is a rush to defend whites, either in the guise of âempire was a good thing because we built a few schoolsâ, or âwhy should white people feel guilty for anythingâ, or âwe need to stop seeing raceâ. All this amounts to a defence of being white as a primary identity around which to organise. Itâs unfortunate, and misunderstands the thrust of the article which is to take a deep breath, and recognise that racism has a material and historical effect on perpetuating inequality across the races. Donât hand wring, donât get defensive. Donât retreat to âbeing whiteâ. Fight for class based solidarity.
It isn’t a case of defending a position it is more like repelling persistent attacks. Of course the developed nations have provided more to the modern world and its societies than underdeveloped ones….so far. BUT if you keep getting punched on the nose you eventually punch back no matter how much more privileged you are.
In the US, affirmative action and DEI elevate persons of color with special considerations and perks – at the expense of the majority of white people (sometimes at the expense of Asians). And this is being carried out BY GOVERNMENT.
Are you completely unaware?
Weirdly itâs because of a defence of identity politics by white people. Whenever thereâs an article outlining the creation of race as a means to exploit black people, there is a rush to defend whites, either in the guise of âempire was a good thing because we built a few schoolsâ, or âwhy should white people feel guilty for anythingâ, or âwe need to stop seeing raceâ. All this amounts to a defence of being white as a primary identity around which to organise. Itâs unfortunate, and misunderstands the thrust of the article which is to take a deep breath, and recognise that racism has a material and historical effect on perpetuating inequality across the races. Donât hand wring, donât get defensive. Donât retreat to âbeing whiteâ. Fight for class based solidarity.
It isn’t a case of defending a position it is more like repelling persistent attacks. Of course the developed nations have provided more to the modern world and its societies than underdeveloped ones….so far. BUT if you keep getting punched on the nose you eventually punch back no matter how much more privileged you are.
Do all the authors on ‘Unheard’ write only in the first person;
which implies personal opinions over universal facts .
They use the word ‘I’ as if it is the most important word in the Oxford dictionary.
Do all the authors on ‘Unheard’ write only in the first person;
which implies personal opinions over universal facts .
They use the word ‘I’ as if it is the most important word in the Oxford dictionary.
you are wrong because you have inherent bias…..”white” people all over the world are poor because poor is common. there are all types of ethnicities having a hard time. its astonishing to see grown men make the assumption that all white people are born with the gift of wealth….and yet work right aside them in the same jobs with the same salary
Call me from S. Africa and tell me about how white people are on top everywhere in the world. Or China. Or India. Or Japan (likely the most xenophobic country on the planet.)
Are they, though?
Not in China, Japan, most African countries, India, Pakistan, to name but a few.
I’d like an explanation as to why whites shouldn’t be at the top of the tree in traditionally white, Christian countries. They made their societies, and thousands died to achieve the astonishing level of civilisation they enjoy.
Why, then, do we just have to accept that others can come and enjoy the same, without the suffering undergone by their ancestors?
And why aren’t the same standards applied to genuinely racist societies, which is pretty much the whole rest of the world?
Why do we have to suffer this divisive, damaging theory, and its awful consequences, but no-one else does?
People are not deaf and dumb Chris. We may have resources and some security now, but we hear the Interahamwe rhetoric in the air, we read the CRT proposals in respectable media, we see the brutal destruction of our brothers and distant cousins, by woke institutions, cowardly boards and brutal HR departments in our places of work. We have even begun to see the Justice System corrupt along racial lines, where once OJ Simpson style verdicts were an exception, now these race based verdicts are becoming the norm.
In short we see the violence planned for us and we are acting accordingly. Why wouldn’t we prepare to defend ourselves? Why wouldn’t you prepare to defend yourself? There is no mercy in the social revolutionary’s heart Chris, don’t forget it for a minute.
The Western Left has a choice, drop race as an organizing ontology or perish from using race as an organizing ontology. And for now the ball is in the Left’s court, no matter how much they wish to deny it, all the power is in their hands now and for the near term. Use it wisely.
you are wrong because you have inherent bias…..”white” people all over the world are poor because poor is common. there are all types of ethnicities having a hard time. its astonishing to see grown men make the assumption that all white people are born with the gift of wealth….and yet work right aside them in the same jobs with the same salary
Call me from S. Africa and tell me about how white people are on top everywhere in the world. Or China. Or India. Or Japan (likely the most xenophobic country on the planet.)
Are they, though?
Not in China, Japan, most African countries, India, Pakistan, to name but a few.
I’d like an explanation as to why whites shouldn’t be at the top of the tree in traditionally white, Christian countries. They made their societies, and thousands died to achieve the astonishing level of civilisation they enjoy.
Why, then, do we just have to accept that others can come and enjoy the same, without the suffering undergone by their ancestors?
And why aren’t the same standards applied to genuinely racist societies, which is pretty much the whole rest of the world?
Why do we have to suffer this divisive, damaging theory, and its awful consequences, but no-one else does?
People are not deaf and dumb Chris. We may have resources and some security now, but we hear the Interahamwe rhetoric in the air, we read the CRT proposals in respectable media, we see the brutal destruction of our brothers and distant cousins, by woke institutions, cowardly boards and brutal HR departments in our places of work. We have even begun to see the Justice System corrupt along racial lines, where once OJ Simpson style verdicts were an exception, now these race based verdicts are becoming the norm.
In short we see the violence planned for us and we are acting accordingly. Why wouldn’t we prepare to defend ourselves? Why wouldn’t you prepare to defend yourself? There is no mercy in the social revolutionary’s heart Chris, don’t forget it for a minute.
The Western Left has a choice, drop race as an organizing ontology or perish from using race as an organizing ontology. And for now the ball is in the Left’s court, no matter how much they wish to deny it, all the power is in their hands now and for the near term. Use it wisely.
You’re right about the Left having to “cement its own power”. It’s always been about power. And money–don’t forget money. Adopting people like Spencer, however, is hardly an antidote and probably only makes things worse.
We are all sinners. All of us. The author’s final sentence is ultimately the only solution, but in our world the likelihood that it could ever be employed on the macro level is virtually nil. It can only be achieved on the micro level–one sinner at a time.
Kendi has enjoyed a few seasons as a darling of the many on the far Left, but he is far from “universally embraced”, even by blacks left-of-center. One prominent example of this is self-proclaimed contrarian liberal John McWhorter, whose book Woke Racism is widely read and treated seriously by a lot liberals and some progressives. This is partly due to the fact that he’s black and “gets away with it” but not only I don’t think.
While I despise Kendi’s conclusions, I don’t see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way. Hitler rose to power amid real problems, and I’m sure many Germans joined the Nazi program quite reluctantly, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. I’ve only “played the Hitler card” because you referenced one of his fanboys.
“I donât see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way.”
What’s the difference between a straight-up neo-Nazi attacking Jews or black people, and a straight-up woke racist attacking white people? There isn’t one.
Neither is acceptable, but it’s not a “lesser evil” just because it’s partly a reaction and feels justified. That reactive feeling–not based on nothing at all–is precisely what fed the anti-whiteness of the Black Power movement at its most militant, and its leaders (Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and so on) make a much more fitting mirror image for Spencer and his ilk than some overrated grievance monger like Kendi.
The difference might be that six million Jews were actually murdered by white racial supremacist Nazis, many millions of many black slaves died horribly under white supremacist ideology, and some here think some ‘positive discrimination’ in academia is a far worse ‘anti-white oppression’ than any of this.
Maybe a bit of historical perspective, rather than dribbling racial paranoia, might be useful? Just a suggestion.
When a white person is dragged by “wokists” for five miles behind a pick-up truck, then hung from a tree and set alight, then allowed to get away with it by the local police, there won’t be any difference.
Until then, your equivalence is childish.
I’m glad someone got into this territory, unaddressed in my understated reply. An author who advances something you don’t like, even a pernicious ideology, is not as blameworthy as those who promote actual violence and oppression, like Spencer, who has “advocated for the enslavement of Haitians by whites and for the ethnic cleansing of the racial minorities of the United States” [Wikipedia].
Even a more radical and polarizing figure such as Marx is not responsible for all of Mao’s and Stalin’s murders, nor Nietzsche and Wagner the Nazis’. So, even if Kendi were to inspire millions of organized, violent followers (which I don’t worry about), he wouldn’t be as culpable as an actual Nazi, would he?
I’d actually like to know what violence and oppression individual whites on this site have suffered or are suffering, with corroborating details showing it was because of their race alone. Raise your claims the height of near-incontrovertible racism you’d demand from minorities.
And I mean something more than “not being allowed” to say something they are saying right as they claim they’re being silenced (yeah you can’t get away with saying the worst of it in the office or classroom, nor should you), or the horror of not having their kids get into Stanford, perhaps in the interest of “diversity”.
I’m glad someone got into this territory, unaddressed in my understated reply. An author who advances something you don’t like, even a pernicious ideology, is not as blameworthy as those who promote actual violence and oppression, like Spencer, who has “advocated for the enslavement of Haitians by whites and for the ethnic cleansing of the racial minorities of the United States” [Wikipedia].
Even a more radical and polarizing figure such as Marx is not responsible for all of Mao’s and Stalin’s murders, nor Nietzsche and Wagner the Nazis’. So, even if Kendi were to inspire millions of organized, violent followers (which I don’t worry about), he wouldn’t be as culpable as an actual Nazi, would he?
I’d actually like to know what violence and oppression individual whites on this site have suffered or are suffering, with corroborating details showing it was because of their race alone. Raise your claims the height of near-incontrovertible racism you’d demand from minorities.
And I mean something more than “not being allowed” to say something they are saying right as they claim they’re being silenced (yeah you can’t get away with saying the worst of it in the office or classroom, nor should you), or the horror of not having their kids get into Stanford, perhaps in the interest of “diversity”.
Neither is acceptable, but it’s not a “lesser evil” just because it’s partly a reaction and feels justified. That reactive feeling–not based on nothing at all–is precisely what fed the anti-whiteness of the Black Power movement at its most militant, and its leaders (Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and so on) make a much more fitting mirror image for Spencer and his ilk than some overrated grievance monger like Kendi.
The difference might be that six million Jews were actually murdered by white racial supremacist Nazis, many millions of many black slaves died horribly under white supremacist ideology, and some here think some ‘positive discrimination’ in academia is a far worse ‘anti-white oppression’ than any of this.
Maybe a bit of historical perspective, rather than dribbling racial paranoia, might be useful? Just a suggestion.
When a white person is dragged by “wokists” for five miles behind a pick-up truck, then hung from a tree and set alight, then allowed to get away with it by the local police, there won’t be any difference.
Until then, your equivalence is childish.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “lesser of 2 evils”. My point is that if the only choices are race based — Kendi (for example) who will intentionally hurt white people to benefit blacks and Spencer (an examplar again) will intentionally hurt minorities to benefit whites — only the most educated, economically secure, self-loathing whites will vote for the former choice. And that behavior will be entirely rational.
That’s why we need an alternative. Both of those are terrible choices, but I know which I would make if I had to.
I appreciate that clarification. But I don’t think you will everbe truly forced to choose blood-and-soil nationalism in some zero sum, all-out American race war–I certainly hope not. Since the conversation on race–distinct from shouting and blaming–is almost nonexistent right now in the US, I credit you for speaking out in a way that dozens here agreed with, at least with their digital thumbs.
I appreciate that clarification. But I don’t think you will everbe truly forced to choose blood-and-soil nationalism in some zero sum, all-out American race war–I certainly hope not. Since the conversation on race–distinct from shouting and blaming–is almost nonexistent right now in the US, I credit you for speaking out in a way that dozens here agreed with, at least with their digital thumbs.
“I donât see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way.”
What’s the difference between a straight-up neo-Nazi attacking Jews or black people, and a straight-up woke racist attacking white people? There isn’t one.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “lesser of 2 evils”. My point is that if the only choices are race based — Kendi (for example) who will intentionally hurt white people to benefit blacks and Spencer (an examplar again) will intentionally hurt minorities to benefit whites — only the most educated, economically secure, self-loathing whites will vote for the former choice. And that behavior will be entirely rational.
That’s why we need an alternative. Both of those are terrible choices, but I know which I would make if I had to.
“The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.”
Exactly right. The easiest and best way to do this is to treat woke racists exactly as we treat the KKK, or the National Front or BNP here in the UK.
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control.
I agree, I’d call them “Liberals” though, and they’re not doing this for the first time.
GOP as a multi-racial working class party seems like a reasonable path to me – and there is leadership pursuing this. As you may agree the way to counter race-essentialism is not reverse-race-essentialism (aka racism).
Why is it that you think white people need defending? They are at the top of the tree all over the world. If they are low anywhere, it is because other white people shoved them down, in a white country.
You’re right about the Left having to “cement its own power”. It’s always been about power. And money–don’t forget money. Adopting people like Spencer, however, is hardly an antidote and probably only makes things worse.
We are all sinners. All of us. The author’s final sentence is ultimately the only solution, but in our world the likelihood that it could ever be employed on the macro level is virtually nil. It can only be achieved on the micro level–one sinner at a time.
Kendi has enjoyed a few seasons as a darling of the many on the far Left, but he is far from “universally embraced”, even by blacks left-of-center. One prominent example of this is self-proclaimed contrarian liberal John McWhorter, whose book Woke Racism is widely read and treated seriously by a lot liberals and some progressives. This is partly due to the fact that he’s black and “gets away with it” but not only I don’t think.
While I despise Kendi’s conclusions, I don’t see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way. Hitler rose to power amid real problems, and I’m sure many Germans joined the Nazi program quite reluctantly, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. I’ve only “played the Hitler card” because you referenced one of his fanboys.
“The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.”
Exactly right. The easiest and best way to do this is to treat woke racists exactly as we treat the KKK, or the National Front or BNP here in the UK.
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control. Right now, the only people willing to meet the Left on their own race-essentialist terms are the neo-Nazis, and they are a tiny minority. However if even a double digit percentage of whites re-develop the kind of race-consciousness they had even 3-4 generations ago… the neo-Nazis won’t be tiny anymore. The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.
Richard Spencer and Ibram Kendi both see race first and individuality a distant second. The Left has universally embraced Kendi. Absent a clear and better alternative, the Right will start to (reluctantly) embrace Spencer as the lesser of 2 evils: “sure he’s a racist, but at least my kid won’t get screwed because he’s white” isn’t an entirely unreasonable voting strategy.
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Progressive identity politics, he suggests, obsessed with âcultural appropriationâ and language-policing, harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. It, too, helps forestall class solidarity across skin colour.
I would go so far as to posit that this is perhaps the sole reason CRT and itâs subsequent diversity schemes is being pushed on to the general populace.
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Progressive identity politics, he suggests, obsessed with âcultural appropriationâ and language-policing, harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. It, too, helps forestall class solidarity across skin colour.
I would go so far as to posit that this is perhaps the sole reason CRT and itâs subsequent diversity schemes is being pushed on to the general populace.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Whenever I read articles like this, Iâm struck by the white vs everyone else assertion. Why arenât Asians, Indians, Africans, Arabs – all of whom still practice slavery today – never cited for their racism? There are an estimated 14 million souls enslaved in India today. Have the Portuguese ever atoned for their industrialization of slavery beginning in the 1400s? Do their Arab and African trade partners, who were engaged in such misery centuries before the Europeans, ever admit their guilt? The Chinese enslavement of Uyghurs elicits not so much as a shrug from the communist country, but plenty of Western industries are more than happy to do business there. Can we please get some balance in these pieces?
(Aside: Clairol is a hair, not a makeup, brand.)
I think you’ve failed to grasp what the author is actually saying about the concept (the invention, in fact) of ‘race’. No-one is denying that evil, for want of a better word, exists everywhere and always has done.
Sure. But, invented or not, it always goes in one direction. I don’t see anyone demanding financial reparations from the ethinc groups I cite who began the hideous practice and perpetuate it to this day.
Sure. But, invented or not, it always goes in one direction. I don’t see anyone demanding financial reparations from the ethinc groups I cite who began the hideous practice and perpetuate it to this day.
I think you’ve failed to grasp what the author is actually saying about the concept (the invention, in fact) of ‘race’. No-one is denying that evil, for want of a better word, exists everywhere and always has done.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Whenever I read articles like this, Iâm struck by the white vs everyone else assertion. Why arenât Asians, Indians, Africans, Arabs – all of whom still practice slavery today – never cited for their racism? There are an estimated 14 million souls enslaved in India today. Have the Portuguese ever atoned for their industrialization of slavery beginning in the 1400s? Do their Arab and African trade partners, who were engaged in such misery centuries before the Europeans, ever admit their guilt? The Chinese enslavement of Uyghurs elicits not so much as a shrug from the communist country, but plenty of Western industries are more than happy to do business there. Can we please get some balance in these pieces?
(Aside: Clairol is a hair, not a makeup, brand.)
Max Price
1 year ago
The modern Left just love skimming over the pre-modern (particularly non Western) almost like it didnât exist.
Why blame the left for the attitudes of organisations such as the East India Company that used race, caste and religious differences to destroy a reasonably coherent India to enable it’s exploitation by white thieves for the British Empire for three hundred years? Not to mention the wider Middle East.
The differences were there but people got along until the Colonials used them to divide and conquer and it hasn’t been the same since.
What has that got to do with the modern Left?
These were the doings of the liberal empire. Today’s liberals have thrown their weight to the other end of the political spectrum yet doing a surprisingly similar thing as the article skilfully explores.
That is nothing to do with the Left.
If you think that the British Empire was some liberal entity that elevated the dark uneducated masses to civilization, you really need to read a bit wider beyond the Biggles books that I once enjoyed myself.
Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.
I would never describe it as liberal. You can’t claim to be bringing freedom at the same time you are oppressing millions, but then Perfidious Albion will always find a way.
Read Sashi Tharoor Inglorious Empire.
Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars. Many fought with such courage they were awarded the Indian Order of Merit First Class, VC and GC.
Indians fought at Imphal and Kohima when if they had sided with Japan, they could have invaded India. Few captured Indians went over to the Japanese or Germans.
Indians did not rise up against the British in WW2.
Did Kapoor’s family serve in the ICS, Armed Forces, Forestry, Police or Railways ? The communal slaughter of the 1940s was made worse because Nehru refused British help.
When my Father played cricket in Pakistan in the 1960s, The Captain was a senior army officer and was very proud of having served in the British Army in WW2. In fact he considered The Pakistani Army was maintaining standards which the British had allowed to slip. Indians were proud of their service in Armed forces in WW2 and the ICS. The Senior regiment of the Indian Army is Skinners Horse.
The Mughal Empire collapsed in the 1740s and by the 1750s has asked the EIC to collect tax in Bengal, Orissa and Bihar which was the start of them developing administrative rule.
Between 1000 and 1750s there were 26 invasions by Muslims peoples resulting in the killing of 82M Indians and wiped out Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities. Britain stopped the Muslim invasions of India.
Britain set up medical schools in the 1820s and from then various schools and universities as well. By the 1830s Indians were being knighted and even raised to The Baronetage. The EIC and then British government started selection via exams, such as for ICS, Armed Forces, Police, Forestry and Railways which introduced selection on merit. By 1947 there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Britain built railways, and engineering projects such as Indus Irrigation. Few railways have been built post 1947.
The English language and western technology has enabled India to develop. Where would the Indian computer industry be without the English language?
That’s the exclusively positive case. You’ve ignored everything that doesn’t fit it, so not exactly an A+ for objective history.
Look up the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 for a small start.
Thanks for the advice. As well as the LMAO (whatever that means outside of internet chatrooms) and the useful “dear, dear, dear…(‘men’ emoji). All good stuff.
Can you recommend a book on the subject?
Hira JungKow⊠but why Iâm even offering to (in modern Woke âdumb-asâ parlance) âeducate youâ I dunno, maybe âcos it does at the end of the day matter what the facts and the context are, since itâs just never that simple; however âcarry onâ⊠You should be very proud of yourself, youâre very Woke. What a wonderful little mind you have, very depeche mode.
Hello Jonathan- you’re starting to sound a little unhinged, dear.
Did you want to make an actual rational point at all, or are you now just happy with all this wierd semi-literate “I dunno..woke…carry on…woke…depeche mode…’cos..proud of yourself…woke…etc.,etc. hand waving drivel?
I mean, if that’s your limit, don’t let me stop you. Having your ‘opinions’ questioned seems to be a bit ‘triggering’ for you. Thanks for the reference to your favourite obscure ideological ‘historian’, though- he doesn’t seem to have managed to get anything more than a magazine article published, but he definitely HAS got a Twitter account. So he must be right.
Hello Jonathan- you’re starting to sound a little unhinged, dear.
Did you want to make an actual rational point at all, or are you now just happy with all this wierd semi-literate “I dunno..woke…carry on…woke…depeche mode…’cos..proud of yourself…woke…etc.,etc. hand waving drivel?
I mean, if that’s your limit, don’t let me stop you. Having your ‘opinions’ questioned seems to be a bit ‘triggering’ for you. Thanks for the reference to your favourite obscure ideological ‘historian’, though- he doesn’t seem to have managed to get anything more than a magazine article published, but he definitely HAS got a Twitter account. So he must be right.
Hira JungKow⊠but why Iâm even offering to (in modern Woke âdumb-asâ parlance) âeducate youâ I dunno, maybe âcos it does at the end of the day matter what the facts and the context are, since itâs just never that simple; however âcarry onâ⊠You should be very proud of yourself, youâre very Woke. What a wonderful little mind you have, very depeche mode.
Thanks for the advice. As well as the LMAO (whatever that means outside of internet chatrooms) and the useful “dear, dear, dear…(‘men’ emoji). All good stuff.
Can you recommend a book on the subject?
That’s the exclusively positive case. You’ve ignored everything that doesn’t fit it, so not exactly an A+ for objective history.
Look up the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 for a small start.
“That is nothing to do with the Left.” It has everything to do with what passes for the modern left.
“Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.”
Modern Britain is a nightmare NOW, and many court cases illustrate that fact. You cannot brush this under the carpet with an appeal to historical “whataboutery”
Nothing is a bit of a stretch. Before the Left there was Liberalism and Liberalism was Trade and Empire.
Sahsi Tharoor is a bigoted apologist for his caste, the ruling caste of India. One you understand that his writing take on a new coloration so to speak.
Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars. Many fought with such courage they were awarded the Indian Order of Merit First Class, VC and GC.
Indians fought at Imphal and Kohima when if they had sided with Japan, they could have invaded India. Few captured Indians went over to the Japanese or Germans.
Indians did not rise up against the British in WW2.
Did Kapoor’s family serve in the ICS, Armed Forces, Forestry, Police or Railways ? The communal slaughter of the 1940s was made worse because Nehru refused British help.
When my Father played cricket in Pakistan in the 1960s, The Captain was a senior army officer and was very proud of having served in the British Army in WW2. In fact he considered The Pakistani Army was maintaining standards which the British had allowed to slip. Indians were proud of their service in Armed forces in WW2 and the ICS. The Senior regiment of the Indian Army is Skinners Horse.
The Mughal Empire collapsed in the 1740s and by the 1750s has asked the EIC to collect tax in Bengal, Orissa and Bihar which was the start of them developing administrative rule.
Between 1000 and 1750s there were 26 invasions by Muslims peoples resulting in the killing of 82M Indians and wiped out Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities. Britain stopped the Muslim invasions of India.
Britain set up medical schools in the 1820s and from then various schools and universities as well. By the 1830s Indians were being knighted and even raised to The Baronetage. The EIC and then British government started selection via exams, such as for ICS, Armed Forces, Police, Forestry and Railways which introduced selection on merit. By 1947 there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Britain built railways, and engineering projects such as Indus Irrigation. Few railways have been built post 1947.
The English language and western technology has enabled India to develop. Where would the Indian computer industry be without the English language?
“That is nothing to do with the Left.” It has everything to do with what passes for the modern left.
“Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.”
Modern Britain is a nightmare NOW, and many court cases illustrate that fact. You cannot brush this under the carpet with an appeal to historical “whataboutery”
Nothing is a bit of a stretch. Before the Left there was Liberalism and Liberalism was Trade and Empire.
Sahsi Tharoor is a bigoted apologist for his caste, the ruling caste of India. One you understand that his writing take on a new coloration so to speak.
That is nothing to do with the Left.
If you think that the British Empire was some liberal entity that elevated the dark uneducated masses to civilization, you really need to read a bit wider beyond the Biggles books that I once enjoyed myself.
Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.
I would never describe it as liberal. You can’t claim to be bringing freedom at the same time you are oppressing millions, but then Perfidious Albion will always find a way.
Read Sashi Tharoor Inglorious Empire.
The differences were there but people got along until the Colonials used them to divide and conquer
This is the Noble Savage view – all was peaceful until Westerners came along – that is complete hogwash. Native peoples everywhere fought their neighbors with extreme brutality at times. More technologically Westerners did, of course, take advantage, but violence was not a new development by any means.
I probably agree somewhat re your views on the ‘left’ but I take issue with your views on India. The Indian sub-continent has never been even close to coherent, split into hundreds of states controlled by assorted different invaders etc in different areas. ‘Exploitation by white thieves’ – possible but you would be interested in this article on the subject: https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/did-the-british-loot-india/
Chris, you might want to read up on the Mughal invasion of India. Studying the exploits of Timur (Marlowe’s Tamburlaine) in Asia, or the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the late Ottoman empire, also might shake your faith in the idea that Western man is uniquely evil.
Main Edition
US
FR
âProgressive identity politics âŠ. harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. âŠ. âŠ.. what is desperately needed is a more robust universalism, capable of generating and sustaining solidarity across cultural divides.â
No doubt.
When it comes to the vast majority of those who supported the BLM agenda, Iâm sure it came from a good place. Those individuals who marched, who donated and who promised to âdo betterâ were, Iâm sure, doing so with the best intentions. Sadly, I fear they were duped.
Many seemed unaware of the divisive undertones of BLM, not to mention the naked greed of the people behind the movement, and bought into the simple idea that âBlack Lives Matterâ. Of course Black Lives Matter, but that is so obvious as to be almost a banality.
How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?
I donât for a minute think that the majority of those who reflexively supported BLM actually wanted to see society more divided – but I canât fathom how they thought the separatist attitude of the movement could possibly bring us together.
Just a few years ago we were exhorted as a society to be colour-blind, to accept people simply as people, whatever their background, their lifestyle, their âdifferencesâ.
What the hell happened to that idea?
For many years I lived in London and worked in an industry (Broadcast TV) that was as diverse as one could possibly find anywhere. As far as I was concerned the arguments of Race, Gender, Creed, Orientation had been fought and largely won. We seemed at the time – perhaps naively – to be enjoying the peace.
Maybe those who are inclined to be activists feel they have to keep picking at the scab and reopening old wounds or there is no point to their existence, but it seems incredible that we managed to go so far backwards and quite so quickly.
Self-described âprogressivesâ decry inequality of opportunity and income disparity as the two main evils that are fracturing society. But Iâd suggest their Identity Politics agenda is a far more pernicious way to separate us.
Identity politics is the very antithesis of the principles of universalism â it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common. Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?
How do these people, who claim to speak for racial equality, justify shifting the argument from Martin Luther Kingâs dream of a future where people are judged according to their character rather than the colour of their skin to the point where these activists are calling for PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE? That you are defined as a person, solely by the groups to which you belong? To abandon that call for universalism in favour of separatism is surely a retrograde step? That point seems so incontestable to me that I am utterly baffled how progressives can think their present strategy is advancing the cause of equality.
Identity politics is by its nature divisive and intolerant. It silos people and silences people. Identity Politics tells us what groups we belong to and that our whole identity is defined by that group and dependent on that group, this drives a wedge between people who would previously have felt kinship with one another. It is hard to retain solidarity with your community when parts of that community are being taught that it is ârightâ to mistrust the motives of another.
How many people ever preface a statement with – “Speaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..” unless they believe that belonging to that specific group confers on them special insight, or a ‘right’ to speak, that is denied to those outside the group?
Identity politics means I can’t “really” understand you, I canât really empathise with you, I’m not allowed to because I am not a woman, or I am not black, I am not gay, I am not a Muslim. If I think I do understand you, or if I volunteer an opinion, then I’m mansplaining, I’m arrogantly assuming that my opinion is valid even though I don’t have the lived experience of suffering abuse by belonging to the right victim group.
Such are the grisly politics of grievance.
But not only do such politics of grievance divide us, they make us weaker, by glorifying victimhood and vilifying anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.
The #metoo movement could have been empowering, yet insisting that a clumsy advance, or an unwanted touch of a knee, is somehow equivalent to rape is insane. Who is that empowering? Teaching impressionable young women theyâre likely to become victims, telling every woman theyâre already a victim and that all men are naturally predatory? Does that heal divisions in society or exacerbate them?
Similarly, teaching young black men that theyâre oppressed, that society doesnât value them as much, that the police are not to be trusted. Who does that help? The ID Political agenda is divisive because it breeds a culture of suspicion. Those young men are being fed a world view that makes them suspicious of the people outside their community. Is that view more likely to improve their chance of success in life or does it weigh them down with unnecessary baggage? Does it drive a wedge between communities, between groups? Yes, Iâd say itâs undeniable.
As I’ve written previously, I have a good deal of sympathy with the young in all this – not the activists who are pushing this agenda, but those whoâve grown up in this atmosphere. Theyâve been fed a constant diet of woke totems and âprogressiveâ thought (actually horribly regressive thought) throughout their education and now must navigate a thought-crime minefield â where the slightest miss-step can blow up in their faces.
Some, believing what theyâve been taught â and with the best intentions – try to stick to all the latest approved attitudes and mantras and find themselves saying and doing things that (I can only hope) will make them shudder with embarrassment when they look back on them in years to come.
Iâm still optimistic that these well-intentioned youngsters, these ‘Children of the Quorn’, will be young enough to have the chance of an awakening (from their awokening?), though it is a shame that realising they’ve been manipulated will hasten the wariness (and cynicism) that comes with experience, at the expense of the idealism of youth.
Many such âprogressivesâ would undoubtedly denounce any whoâd think to pigeonhole someone whilst, almost in the same breath, constructing a fairly sturdy pigeonhole themselves and stuffing it with a well-fed pigeon.
You canât win (unless you simply refuse to play their game).
Yes. Thanks for this Paddy. Iâve found these developments deeply troubling over the last five or so years in the arts. We were in the epicentre before it exploded and now more and more of these ideas are filtering in to different sectors. Itâs only going to get worse as the outcomes of these ideas take hold in reality⊠the problem is, as Sohrab points out, that younger and older white people are going to be given no choice but to either firmly stand up for themselves or capitulate entirely. The other problem, that I find very very complex is that I do understand lots of the beginnings of woke thinking and many ideas have grains of validity. Itâs the totality of it all in action which is devastating to society and culture. And it seems to demand totality.
Not ‘almost’ a banality.
Thanks Paddy. Excellent contribution
ButâŠ.racism and misogyny DO exist. Both may be social constructs but they have real implications and consequences for all of us. The Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS.
The existence of racism and misogyny in the UK are, at the very least, uncomfortable facts which we have never defeated, despite what we may feel about working in institutions where the effects of such prejudice may have been minimised. To admit as such is not to capitulate to identity politics. Not is it to demand hang wringing guilt from white people/men, both of which have proven quite ineffectual in improving the material lives of men, women and children across the globe. The trick is to recognise the common enemy whilst acknowledging the effect of the constructs of inequality and to fight against them: EVERYONE should be fighting for a living wage, the dismantling of stop and search, vast investment into legal aid, universal childcare and housing and a fair, legal system of migration and asylum into the UK (amongst other things of course!)
Amy,
Yes, of course individual instances of “racism and misogyny DO exist”, but how best to tackle that?
Should we, as a society, treat everyone as equal under the law and with equal respect – which is what we were striving for just a few short years ago, or should we treat people differently, depending on which groups they belong to?
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality – among other “fashionable” ideas – insist that we absolutely should treat people differently, depending on the colour of their skin, or depending on other immutable characteristics and the groups to which they belong …. and where those groups sit on the pyramid of oppression.
Are we better off treating everyone the same, or do you honestly believe that we should be worrying about whether we are the privileged or oppressed person in any encounter? No sane person should want to have to calculate who holds the power in any interpersonal interaction before they know how they should behave. To my mind, that’s lunacy and a clearly retrograde step, yet that is precisely what these activist-academics are calling for.
Such activists might push-back against this fact but, by every metric imaginable, the UK in the C21st is just about the most diverse and tolerant society in all the world, in all of history. Nothing threatens that more than this obsession with race and the blame and guilt associated with these new doctrines.
Paddy, I think we are broadly arguing from the same position, but with a different emphasis on the role of race/racism/misogyny in society:
I disagree that we are faced with âindividual instancesâ of racism and misogyny. Malikâs argument relies on an understanding that race and racism at least are institutional, not the work of âa few bad applesâ but quite literally built into the system in order to create division between poor blacks and whites to ensure social inequality isnât truly challenged (see my later comment on white&black slavery).
I agree that we cannot treat every social interaction from a superficial position of identity, or, as you outline, a sort of âtop trumps game of oppressionâ, because it disadvantages all of us who arenât at the very top of the tree. But white people do need to recognise that racism exists, and to understand it as something we all need to fight against by demanding policies which undermine inequality for all of us. If we all demand mass building of social housing, chances are it will benefit black and brown communities the most, because those groups have historically been most affected by a lack of affordable housing. But such a policy would benefit poor whites as well. Redistribution of wealth would benefit all of us!
Paddy, thanks for the response. I responded but it seems my comment hasâŠdisappeared?
I think weâre arguing from the same position, I agree that ID politics are largely insubstantial and divisive because they donât argue for a material change in the lives of men and women. BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional. To tackle this we canât ignore the unfortunate truth that our economic system has created hierarchies of race and sex to maintain a pretty solid system of inequality across the board. My position is to recognise all divisions as class based and fight for the redistribution of wealth to benefit all. For example, free childcare benefits everyone but implicitly recognised that womenâs labour cannot be take for granted, and the care of children should be paid for if we want a society with kids in it.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
‘BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional.’ Yet to illustrate your claim that they are ‘institutional’ you cite the same 2 names which are used every time. If any case showed ‘institutional’ racism, religious hatred, and misogyny it’s Rotherham, not to mention the more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation perpetrated by the same groups, were – and are being – committed. Ask yourself why these don’t engage your attention rather than those you have chosen.
“..more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation, are being committed”.
Are they? You will have serious evidence for this, not just some internet blog written by nutters who’ve never before given a flying crap about the issue of abuse (never mind ‘misogyny’) before it became a useful racial rallying cry?
You do know that one of the leading accusers has just been prosecuted for malicious false evidence? Using rape as a cynical political tool is dangerous- and misogynist, funnily enough.
There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.
“More than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimes….are being committed.”
“Many convictions” doesn’t constitute evidence for the above claim.
Read my post and respond to that.
Okay?
I did. Okay?
No you didn’t
This is what I posted
“There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.”
And this how you replied”
âMore than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimesâŠ.are being committed.â âMany convictionsâ doesnât constitute evidence for the above claim.
What has that got to do with my comment? I think you have a problem with comprehension.
Goodbye
Hello.
You were defending the comment I was responding to. That post included the phrase about the ‘identical cases in a dozen towns’. That’s the claim I wanted evidence for. You ignored it, and said something else.
If you can’t give evidence for a claim that I was asking evidence for, then fair enough. Don’t blame me, though, for your inability to answer the actual question I was asking.
Cheerio.
Hello.
You were defending the comment I was responding to. That post included the phrase about the ‘identical cases in a dozen towns’. That’s the claim I wanted evidence for. You ignored it, and said something else.
If you can’t give evidence for a claim that I was asking evidence for, then fair enough. Don’t blame me, though, for your inability to answer the actual question I was asking.
Cheerio.
No you didn’t
This is what I posted
“There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.”
And this how you replied”
âMore than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimesâŠ.are being committed.â âMany convictionsâ doesnât constitute evidence for the above claim.
What has that got to do with my comment? I think you have a problem with comprehension.
Goodbye
I did. Okay?
If legal conviction of these men doesn’t count as evidence I don’t see what does
The claim was “the exact same crimes are being committed…in more than a dozen other towns and cities.”
That’s what you’ve failed to give any evidence for.
The claim was “the exact same crimes are being committed…in more than a dozen other towns and cities.”
That’s what you’ve failed to give any evidence for.
Read my post and respond to that.
Okay?
If legal conviction of these men doesn’t count as evidence I don’t see what does
And I’m interested to know how many of those who have leapt on this hideous case have been equally vocally outraged by all the other recent cases of large-scale abuse; private schools and the Catholic Church, for example, don’t seem to feature much in ‘nativist’ tirades about this subject. I’m sure, despite the apparent silence, they care just as deeply when it doesn’t involve Asians.
Read my post and respond to that.
Okay?
Likewise.
Likewise.
Read my post and respond to that.
Okay?
“More than a dozen other towns and cities, where exactly the same crimes….are being committed.”
“Many convictions” doesn’t constitute evidence for the above claim.
And I’m interested to know how many of those who have leapt on this hideous case have been equally vocally outraged by all the other recent cases of large-scale abuse; private schools and the Catholic Church, for example, don’t seem to feature much in ‘nativist’ tirades about this subject. I’m sure, despite the apparent silence, they care just as deeply when it doesn’t involve Asians.
There have been many convictions involving many girls. Courts convict on the basis of evidence. That one girl has been prosecuted for giving false testimony does not invalidate the many convictions, does it? In fact, if anything, it suggests that the judicial process is robust.
“..more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation, are being committed”.
Are they? You will have serious evidence for this, not just some internet blog written by nutters who’ve never before given a flying crap about the issue of abuse (never mind ‘misogyny’) before it became a useful racial rallying cry?
You do know that one of the leading accusers has just been prosecuted for malicious false evidence? Using rape as a cynical political tool is dangerous- and misogynist, funnily enough.
Amy,
Thanks for your response, I hope Iâm not too late in replying â these threads always seem to have a fairly short shelf life.
Iâve spent a lot of time over the last few years on the Guardian site, on which I often encounter this idea that any racial inequality in society is immediately assumed to be proof of inequity. But that’s worth exploring, rather than merely assuming.
When it comes to educational attainment, to career prospects, to poverty, to crime, to incarceration, to life expectancy, there are countless competing factors that play a part. But just because things âcorrelateâ it does not follow that one âcausesâ the other.
So, why do so many people ALWAYS focus on colour?
For instance: Growing up poor in an urban environment, in a single parent family, with no significant male role model figure is statiscally a far better predictor of contact with the criminal justice system than race. A young white boy growing up in that environment is many times more likely to drift into crime than a young black boy growing up in the suburbs with two working parents in the home.
The correlation with ethnicity only exists because there are distinct cultural differences that lead to absent fathers being more prevalent in one community than another.
These figures are from the UKâs Office of National Statistics:
In the UK 59% of black Caribbean children live in lone-parent households compared with 22% of white children.
Fathers from Asian backgrounds are the least likely to be non-resident whereas Black Caribbean, mixed race and Black African fathers are the most likely. But rather than tackle absentee fathers it appears much simpler just to blame everything on institutional and systemic racism. I donât believe that is an honest assessment of reality â or one that is supported by stats.
I guess blaming the majority for the outcomes faced by a minority is a simpler, and seemingly more âprogressiveâ way to go, but to my mind it helps no one. Yet that view is held almost as fact by most of the people I encounter BTL on the Guardian.
Stop and Search is always held up by Guardian commenters as a blatantly racist policy. But is it? The numbers suggest it is merely an effective, targeted approach to an observable problem.
Look at it another way – The vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by Men. How is it that the liberal left donât accuse the UKâs Criminal Justice System of Institutional Sexism?
Are there individual Police officers that are racist? Iâm sure there are. But it is a huge leap to go from that fairly statistically inevitable fact, to then insist that the Police are âInstitutionally racistâ.
You brought up Stop and Search Policies, earlier on this thread, calling for them to be dismantled, but how would you â if put in charge of trying to police knife crime – go about it?
No race is innately predisposed to be involved in knife crime more than another. However, it is statistically indisputable that some cultures are significantly more likely to be involved in knife crime than others.
For the Police to ignore such obvious and observable correlations just to appease the sensitivities of the liberal media would be entirely self-defeating and, frankly, a gross dereliction of duty.
The overlap with the metric of knife injuries for under 25s shows enormous disproportionality in the way if affects young black men as victims and, I am sorry to say, as perpetrators. The stats make for uncomfortable reading. Nationally â you probably know the figures â you are four times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you are black and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator. Thatâs clearly a pretty good reason to be also over-represented in stop and search statistics then.
If your job was to tackle knife-crime, wouldn’t that be a pretty good reason to continue with a policy that has been shown over and over to reduce the problem.
I appreciate that doesnât really fit with the dominant â apparently the only permissible â broadcast narrative of a community unfairly victimised by racist coppers.
And so the police will be told not to racially profile those they stop and frisk for weapons. Meanwhile young boys get stabbed and attack each other with machetes in broad daylight, but at least we havenât hurt anyoneâs feelings! I ask you, in all sincerity, if you think that would be a better approach?
I fear so much of this comes from the dystopian, relentlessly jaundiced view of the UK that is so prevalent across liberal media outlets.
But for each of the anecdotal instances of intolerance that get wheeled out as “proof” of widespread racism, sexism, homophobia, etc there are a million other instances of just everyday acceptance of people, – regardless of colour, ethnicity or nationality – that are not worthy of anecdote simply because they are so everyday. We can argue about what has caused this desire in some people to claim we are a nasty, xenophobic, intolerant country – but I think anyone honest would agree that it is not in any way an accurate reflection of this country at all – and does us no favours at a time when we should be putting the most positive view of Britain to the rest of the world.
Very well presented thanks Paddy
Very well presented thanks Paddy
You’ve really drunk the kool-aid of this intersectional nonsense. You have my sympathies.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
‘BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional.’ Yet to illustrate your claim that they are ‘institutional’ you cite the same 2 names which are used every time. If any case showed ‘institutional’ racism, religious hatred, and misogyny it’s Rotherham, not to mention the more than a dozen other towns and cities where exactly the same crimes, with the same motivation perpetrated by the same groups, were – and are being – committed. Ask yourself why these don’t engage your attention rather than those you have chosen.
Amy,
Thanks for your response, I hope Iâm not too late in replying â these threads always seem to have a fairly short shelf life.
Iâve spent a lot of time over the last few years on the Guardian site, on which I often encounter this idea that any racial inequality in society is immediately assumed to be proof of inequity. But that’s worth exploring, rather than merely assuming.
When it comes to educational attainment, to career prospects, to poverty, to crime, to incarceration, to life expectancy, there are countless competing factors that play a part. But just because things âcorrelateâ it does not follow that one âcausesâ the other.
So, why do so many people ALWAYS focus on colour?
For instance: Growing up poor in an urban environment, in a single parent family, with no significant male role model figure is statiscally a far better predictor of contact with the criminal justice system than race. A young white boy growing up in that environment is many times more likely to drift into crime than a young black boy growing up in the suburbs with two working parents in the home.
The correlation with ethnicity only exists because there are distinct cultural differences that lead to absent fathers being more prevalent in one community than another.
These figures are from the UKâs Office of National Statistics:
In the UK 59% of black Caribbean children live in lone-parent households compared with 22% of white children.
Fathers from Asian backgrounds are the least likely to be non-resident whereas Black Caribbean, mixed race and Black African fathers are the most likely. But rather than tackle absentee fathers it appears much simpler just to blame everything on institutional and systemic racism. I donât believe that is an honest assessment of reality â or one that is supported by stats.
I guess blaming the majority for the outcomes faced by a minority is a simpler, and seemingly more âprogressiveâ way to go, but to my mind it helps no one. Yet that view is held almost as fact by most of the people I encounter BTL on the Guardian.
Stop and Search is always held up by Guardian commenters as a blatantly racist policy. But is it? The numbers suggest it is merely an effective, targeted approach to an observable problem.
Look at it another way – The vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by Men. How is it that the liberal left donât accuse the UKâs Criminal Justice System of Institutional Sexism?
Are there individual Police officers that are racist? Iâm sure there are. But it is a huge leap to go from that fairly statistically inevitable fact, to then insist that the Police are âInstitutionally racistâ.
You brought up Stop and Search Policies, earlier on this thread, calling for them to be dismantled, but how would you â if put in charge of trying to police knife crime – go about it?
No race is innately predisposed to be involved in knife crime more than another. However, it is statistically indisputable that some cultures are significantly more likely to be involved in knife crime than others.
For the Police to ignore such obvious and observable correlations just to appease the sensitivities of the liberal media would be entirely self-defeating and, frankly, a gross dereliction of duty.
The overlap with the metric of knife injuries for under 25s shows enormous disproportionality in the way if affects young black men as victims and, I am sorry to say, as perpetrators. The stats make for uncomfortable reading. Nationally â you probably know the figures â you are four times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you are black and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator. Thatâs clearly a pretty good reason to be also over-represented in stop and search statistics then.
If your job was to tackle knife-crime, wouldn’t that be a pretty good reason to continue with a policy that has been shown over and over to reduce the problem.
I appreciate that doesnât really fit with the dominant â apparently the only permissible â broadcast narrative of a community unfairly victimised by racist coppers.
And so the police will be told not to racially profile those they stop and frisk for weapons. Meanwhile young boys get stabbed and attack each other with machetes in broad daylight, but at least we havenât hurt anyoneâs feelings! I ask you, in all sincerity, if you think that would be a better approach?
I fear so much of this comes from the dystopian, relentlessly jaundiced view of the UK that is so prevalent across liberal media outlets.
But for each of the anecdotal instances of intolerance that get wheeled out as “proof” of widespread racism, sexism, homophobia, etc there are a million other instances of just everyday acceptance of people, – regardless of colour, ethnicity or nationality – that are not worthy of anecdote simply because they are so everyday. We can argue about what has caused this desire in some people to claim we are a nasty, xenophobic, intolerant country – but I think anyone honest would agree that it is not in any way an accurate reflection of this country at all – and does us no favours at a time when we should be putting the most positive view of Britain to the rest of the world.
You’ve really drunk the kool-aid of this intersectional nonsense. You have my sympathies.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
Is this bias, or does it reflect the fact that black/stressed economic immigrants are, one assumes, new in the country, less educated, less wealthy less choosy etc? The greatest generational increases in socio-economic position are clearly shown by these same groups – which rather suggests racism is not the key.
Is this bias, or does it reflect the fact that black/stressed economic immigrants are, one assumes, new in the country, less educated, less wealthy less choosy etc? The greatest generational increases in socio-economic position are clearly shown by these same groups – which rather suggests racism is not the key.
Paddy, I think we are broadly arguing from the same position, but with a different emphasis on the role of race/racism/misogyny in society:
I disagree that we are faced with âindividual instancesâ of racism and misogyny. Malikâs argument relies on an understanding that race and racism at least are institutional, not the work of âa few bad applesâ but quite literally built into the system in order to create division between poor blacks and whites to ensure social inequality isnât truly challenged (see my later comment on white&black slavery).
I agree that we cannot treat every social interaction from a superficial position of identity, or, as you outline, a sort of âtop trumps game of oppressionâ, because it disadvantages all of us who arenât at the very top of the tree. But white people do need to recognise that racism exists, and to understand it as something we all need to fight against by demanding policies which undermine inequality for all of us. If we all demand mass building of social housing, chances are it will benefit black and brown communities the most, because those groups have historically been most affected by a lack of affordable housing. But such a policy would benefit poor whites as well. Redistribution of wealth would benefit all of us!
Paddy, thanks for the response. I responded but it seems my comment hasâŠdisappeared?
I think weâre arguing from the same position, I agree that ID politics are largely insubstantial and divisive because they donât argue for a material change in the lives of men and women. BUT racism and misogyny arenât âone off instancesâ, theyâre institutional. To tackle this we canât ignore the unfortunate truth that our economic system has created hierarchies of race and sex to maintain a pretty solid system of inequality across the board. My position is to recognise all divisions as class based and fight for the redistribution of wealth to benefit all. For example, free childcare benefits everyone but implicitly recognised that womenâs labour cannot be take for granted, and the care of children should be paid for if we want a society with kids in it.
Housing is another example. After Grenfell data emerged that suggested black and migrant families were more likely to be housed above the 5th floor in high rise social housing. The unofficial bias resulted in greater chance of death for black/brown people in that particular tragedy. Now, Iâm not asking that white people feel guilty, or that black people retreat to demanding black rights. Because Grenfell was primarily about poor people being inadequately housed. We all need to fight for fair social housing which recognises the needs of families by implementing social housing building on a massive scale. Everyone needs wealth redistribution. It improves all our lives regardless of race whilst tackling the social injustices caused by institutional racism.
Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS⊠Nonsense, hyperbole Iâve drunk the kool-aid nonsense⊠Think Cressida d**k gave a pretty fair and informed run down on whatâs what before she was thrown out by the arch grifter Khan. Check it out
Check out a police chief’s defence of herself? Not exactly the impartial, objective and unarguable Truth, is it? It’s one person’s defence of their job.
Perhaps you should “check out” other evidence before coming to your conclusion.
Lmao, yeah right she knows nothing.
That’s not quite grasping the point, is it Socrates?
Was it Socrates who invented the philosophical and epistemological heuristic now translated as ‘LMAO’? Or was it a sticky-fingered semi-literate twelve year-old from Idaho- I can’t remember.
Was it Socrates who invented the philosophical and epistemological heuristic now translated as ‘LMAO’? Or was it a sticky-fingered semi-literate twelve year-old from Idaho- I can’t remember.
That’s not quite grasping the point, is it Socrates?
Lmao, yeah right she knows nothing.
Check out a police chief’s defence of herself? Not exactly the impartial, objective and unarguable Truth, is it? It’s one person’s defence of their job.
Perhaps you should “check out” other evidence before coming to your conclusion.
Amy,
Yes, of course individual instances of “racism and misogyny DO exist”, but how best to tackle that?
Should we, as a society, treat everyone as equal under the law and with equal respect – which is what we were striving for just a few short years ago, or should we treat people differently, depending on which groups they belong to?
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality – among other “fashionable” ideas – insist that we absolutely should treat people differently, depending on the colour of their skin, or depending on other immutable characteristics and the groups to which they belong …. and where those groups sit on the pyramid of oppression.
Are we better off treating everyone the same, or do you honestly believe that we should be worrying about whether we are the privileged or oppressed person in any encounter? No sane person should want to have to calculate who holds the power in any interpersonal interaction before they know how they should behave. To my mind, that’s lunacy and a clearly retrograde step, yet that is precisely what these activist-academics are calling for.
Such activists might push-back against this fact but, by every metric imaginable, the UK in the C21st is just about the most diverse and tolerant society in all the world, in all of history. Nothing threatens that more than this obsession with race and the blame and guilt associated with these new doctrines.
Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS⊠Nonsense, hyperbole Iâve drunk the kool-aid nonsense⊠Think Cressida d**k gave a pretty fair and informed run down on whatâs what before she was thrown out by the arch grifter Khan. Check it out
Lucky you are not a gay muslim, as you might have a problem using your key board, unless you can type with only one hand…
I’m not quite sure why you’re bringing fundamentalist religion into a discussion about race- any idea?
Perhaps because in ID politics both are ‘protected characteristics’, though why a reactionary, backward, intolerant, and misogynistic religious belief system should be ‘protected’ is anybody’s guess.
Is the cutting off of Gay men’s hands a ‘protected characteristic’ in the US? No.
Still, never mind- there are plenty of US homegrown followers of a “religious belief system” who condemn homosexuality as evil, who are “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic”, so you don’t need to go to Islamic Saudi Arabia to find them.
Luckily, unlike Saudi Arabia, the US is still a secular state, despite the fury of some Fundamentalist Christians about this.
Is chopping the hands of gay men a “protected characteristic” in the US? I didn’t think so, maybe I’m wrong.
Moreover, there are many “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic” religious people who aren’t Muslim- luckily, the US is still a secular state, unlike Saudi Arabia, so they are limited in how far they can exercise their beliefs.
I’m intrigued that I’m not being allowed to reply to this. Can I have an explanation?
Ah- they’ve all suddenly appeared after ten minutes, like buses. Sorry.
{an update that no one was awaiting; they posted it about 12 hours later}
My response to the top-rated commenter hasn’t appeared yet, after about 2 hours. (Perhaps because I “played the H card”, but only in response to a “reluctant” apology on behalf of a fan of A.H.’s ideas and those who might reluctantly support him in response to an opposing racist who promotes “antiracism”). Some comments take hours (2, 8, 14) to go through, but typically do at last. On the other hand, some pretty extreme views–if they avoid a few hot-button words–are instantaneously posted, often to a cascade of upvotes.
Yes- it seems as if any comment not conforming to the standard, ranty “anti-Woke” template needs to be carefully considered prior to publishing, whereas some deranged tirade about “negroes” and ‘liberals being worse than German Nazis’ goes straight on as a worthy contribution to the ‘debate’.
Still, you can’t argue with a moderator.
Another little wrinkle: When it’s finally published, the time mark on the comment shows the time the attempt to post is was first made.
I still like the website though! And that’s not (mere) pandering.
Another little wrinkle: When it’s finally published, the time mark on the comment shows the time the attempt to post is was first made.
I still like the website though! And that’s not (mere) pandering.
Yes- it seems as if any comment not conforming to the standard, ranty “anti-Woke” template needs to be carefully considered prior to publishing, whereas some deranged tirade about “negroes” and ‘liberals being worse than German Nazis’ goes straight on as a worthy contribution to the ‘debate’.
Still, you can’t argue with a moderator.
Ah- they’ve all suddenly appeared after ten minutes, like buses. Sorry.
{an update that no one was awaiting; they posted it about 12 hours later}
My response to the top-rated commenter hasn’t appeared yet, after about 2 hours. (Perhaps because I “played the H card”, but only in response to a “reluctant” apology on behalf of a fan of A.H.’s ideas and those who might reluctantly support him in response to an opposing racist who promotes “antiracism”). Some comments take hours (2, 8, 14) to go through, but typically do at last. On the other hand, some pretty extreme views–if they avoid a few hot-button words–are instantaneously posted, often to a cascade of upvotes.
Can we at least agree to condemn ALL “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic religious belief systems”?
Is the cutting off of Gay men’s hands a ‘protected characteristic’ in the US? No.
Still, never mind- there are plenty of US homegrown followers of a “religious belief system” who condemn homosexuality as evil, who are “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic”, so you don’t need to go to Islamic Saudi Arabia to find them.
Luckily, unlike Saudi Arabia, the US is still a secular state, despite the fury of some Fundamentalist Christians about this.
Is chopping the hands of gay men a “protected characteristic” in the US? I didn’t think so, maybe I’m wrong.
Moreover, there are many “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic” religious people who aren’t Muslim- luckily, the US is still a secular state, unlike Saudi Arabia, so they are limited in how far they can exercise their beliefs.
I’m intrigued that I’m not being allowed to reply to this. Can I have an explanation?
Can we at least agree to condemn ALL “reactionary, backward, intolerant and misogynistic religious belief systems”?
Perhaps because in ID politics both are ‘protected characteristics’, though why a reactionary, backward, intolerant, and misogynistic religious belief system should be ‘protected’ is anybody’s guess.
I’m not quite sure why you’re bringing fundamentalist religion into a discussion about race- any idea?
children of The Quorn? Great to hear that they appreciate Hunting in Leicestershire! I love it…
Oh.
Oh.
“it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common.” and those differences are essentially trivial ones.
Thank you for covering pretty much all of what Iâd wanted to write! Quite agree.
When Dr Kingâs ideas are implicitly (occasionally explicitly) held to be racist, we have a major problem.
Likewise the incessant harping on the single shrill note of âgenderâ – denying the physical (sex) and replacing it with the abstract (gender) is just another stigma of the societal malaise which empowers the right-on at the expense of a socially workable future for our children to inherit.
I personally remember being nonplussed in the 1980s, when the word âblackboardâ was surreptitiously replaced with âchalkboardâ, on the grounds that the former was potentially racist. I asked for a coherent explanation at the time and 30-odd years later, Iâm still awaiting one. All that happened at that point was that I received a suspicious look and a reputation for asking inappropriate questions. I still delight in asking those. Socrates, Epictetus (born a slave, interestingly), et al. have left us lessons in the utility of doing so, and theyâre for all of us to learn from, ethnicity and cultural inheritance notwithstanding. I recall CLR James being quite explicit on that last point, too.
“How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?”
All lives matter.
One of worst consequences of the âSpeaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..â mania has been all the bad grammar: “As a woman, it’s unfair that …”
Yes. Thanks for this Paddy. Iâve found these developments deeply troubling over the last five or so years in the arts. We were in the epicentre before it exploded and now more and more of these ideas are filtering in to different sectors. Itâs only going to get worse as the outcomes of these ideas take hold in reality⊠the problem is, as Sohrab points out, that younger and older white people are going to be given no choice but to either firmly stand up for themselves or capitulate entirely. The other problem, that I find very very complex is that I do understand lots of the beginnings of woke thinking and many ideas have grains of validity. Itâs the totality of it all in action which is devastating to society and culture. And it seems to demand totality.
Not ‘almost’ a banality.
Thanks Paddy. Excellent contribution
ButâŠ.racism and misogyny DO exist. Both may be social constructs but they have real implications and consequences for all of us. The Stephen Lawrence case and ensuing McPherson report provided ample evidence that Black people in the UK were subject to elevated levels of violence by the public and the police. The Sarah Everard case and collapse of rape convictions has highlighted the extreme misogyny in the police and CPS.
The existence of racism and misogyny in the UK are, at the very least, uncomfortable facts which we have never defeated, despite what we may feel about working in institutions where the effects of such prejudice may have been minimised. To admit as such is not to capitulate to identity politics. Not is it to demand hang wringing guilt from white people/men, both of which have proven quite ineffectual in improving the material lives of men, women and children across the globe. The trick is to recognise the common enemy whilst acknowledging the effect of the constructs of inequality and to fight against them: EVERYONE should be fighting for a living wage, the dismantling of stop and search, vast investment into legal aid, universal childcare and housing and a fair, legal system of migration and asylum into the UK (amongst other things of course!)
Lucky you are not a gay muslim, as you might have a problem using your key board, unless you can type with only one hand…
children of The Quorn? Great to hear that they appreciate Hunting in Leicestershire! I love it…
“it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common.” and those differences are essentially trivial ones.
Thank you for covering pretty much all of what Iâd wanted to write! Quite agree.
When Dr Kingâs ideas are implicitly (occasionally explicitly) held to be racist, we have a major problem.
Likewise the incessant harping on the single shrill note of âgenderâ – denying the physical (sex) and replacing it with the abstract (gender) is just another stigma of the societal malaise which empowers the right-on at the expense of a socially workable future for our children to inherit.
I personally remember being nonplussed in the 1980s, when the word âblackboardâ was surreptitiously replaced with âchalkboardâ, on the grounds that the former was potentially racist. I asked for a coherent explanation at the time and 30-odd years later, Iâm still awaiting one. All that happened at that point was that I received a suspicious look and a reputation for asking inappropriate questions. I still delight in asking those. Socrates, Epictetus (born a slave, interestingly), et al. have left us lessons in the utility of doing so, and theyâre for all of us to learn from, ethnicity and cultural inheritance notwithstanding. I recall CLR James being quite explicit on that last point, too.
“How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?”
All lives matter.
One of worst consequences of the âSpeaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..â mania has been all the bad grammar: “As a woman, it’s unfair that …”
âProgressive identity politics âŠ. harkens back to old ideas of racial separateness. âŠ. âŠ.. what is desperately needed is a more robust universalism, capable of generating and sustaining solidarity across cultural divides.â
No doubt.
When it comes to the vast majority of those who supported the BLM agenda, Iâm sure it came from a good place. Those individuals who marched, who donated and who promised to âdo betterâ were, Iâm sure, doing so with the best intentions. Sadly, I fear they were duped.
Many seemed unaware of the divisive undertones of BLM, not to mention the naked greed of the people behind the movement, and bought into the simple idea that âBlack Lives Matterâ. Of course Black Lives Matter, but that is so obvious as to be almost a banality.
How, though, do the well-intentioned justify to themselves calling for the cancellation of anyone who dared to suggest that âAll Lives Matterâ?
I donât for a minute think that the majority of those who reflexively supported BLM actually wanted to see society more divided – but I canât fathom how they thought the separatist attitude of the movement could possibly bring us together.
Just a few years ago we were exhorted as a society to be colour-blind, to accept people simply as people, whatever their background, their lifestyle, their âdifferencesâ.
What the hell happened to that idea?
For many years I lived in London and worked in an industry (Broadcast TV) that was as diverse as one could possibly find anywhere. As far as I was concerned the arguments of Race, Gender, Creed, Orientation had been fought and largely won. We seemed at the time – perhaps naively – to be enjoying the peace.
Maybe those who are inclined to be activists feel they have to keep picking at the scab and reopening old wounds or there is no point to their existence, but it seems incredible that we managed to go so far backwards and quite so quickly.
Self-described âprogressivesâ decry inequality of opportunity and income disparity as the two main evils that are fracturing society. But Iâd suggest their Identity Politics agenda is a far more pernicious way to separate us.
Identity politics is the very antithesis of the principles of universalism â it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common. Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?
How do these people, who claim to speak for racial equality, justify shifting the argument from Martin Luther Kingâs dream of a future where people are judged according to their character rather than the colour of their skin to the point where these activists are calling for PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE? That you are defined as a person, solely by the groups to which you belong? To abandon that call for universalism in favour of separatism is surely a retrograde step? That point seems so incontestable to me that I am utterly baffled how progressives can think their present strategy is advancing the cause of equality.
Identity politics is by its nature divisive and intolerant. It silos people and silences people. Identity Politics tells us what groups we belong to and that our whole identity is defined by that group and dependent on that group, this drives a wedge between people who would previously have felt kinship with one another. It is hard to retain solidarity with your community when parts of that community are being taught that it is ârightâ to mistrust the motives of another.
How many people ever preface a statement with – “Speaking as a âŠ.. âŠ..” unless they believe that belonging to that specific group confers on them special insight, or a ‘right’ to speak, that is denied to those outside the group?
Identity politics means I can’t “really” understand you, I canât really empathise with you, I’m not allowed to because I am not a woman, or I am not black, I am not gay, I am not a Muslim. If I think I do understand you, or if I volunteer an opinion, then I’m mansplaining, I’m arrogantly assuming that my opinion is valid even though I don’t have the lived experience of suffering abuse by belonging to the right victim group.
Such are the grisly politics of grievance.
But not only do such politics of grievance divide us, they make us weaker, by glorifying victimhood and vilifying anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.
The #metoo movement could have been empowering, yet insisting that a clumsy advance, or an unwanted touch of a knee, is somehow equivalent to rape is insane. Who is that empowering? Teaching impressionable young women theyâre likely to become victims, telling every woman theyâre already a victim and that all men are naturally predatory? Does that heal divisions in society or exacerbate them?
Similarly, teaching young black men that theyâre oppressed, that society doesnât value them as much, that the police are not to be trusted. Who does that help? The ID Political agenda is divisive because it breeds a culture of suspicion. Those young men are being fed a world view that makes them suspicious of the people outside their community. Is that view more likely to improve their chance of success in life or does it weigh them down with unnecessary baggage? Does it drive a wedge between communities, between groups? Yes, Iâd say itâs undeniable.
As I’ve written previously, I have a good deal of sympathy with the young in all this – not the activists who are pushing this agenda, but those whoâve grown up in this atmosphere. Theyâve been fed a constant diet of woke totems and âprogressiveâ thought (actually horribly regressive thought) throughout their education and now must navigate a thought-crime minefield â where the slightest miss-step can blow up in their faces.
Some, believing what theyâve been taught â and with the best intentions – try to stick to all the latest approved attitudes and mantras and find themselves saying and doing things that (I can only hope) will make them shudder with embarrassment when they look back on them in years to come.
Iâm still optimistic that these well-intentioned youngsters, these ‘Children of the Quorn’, will be young enough to have the chance of an awakening (from their awokening?), though it is a shame that realising they’ve been manipulated will hasten the wariness (and cynicism) that comes with experience, at the expense of the idealism of youth.
Many such âprogressivesâ would undoubtedly denounce any whoâd think to pigeonhole someone whilst, almost in the same breath, constructing a fairly sturdy pigeonhole themselves and stuffing it with a well-fed pigeon.
You canât win (unless you simply refuse to play their game).
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control. Right now, the only people willing to meet the Left on their own race-essentialist terms are the neo-Nazis, and they are a tiny minority. However if even a double digit percentage of whites re-develop the kind of race-consciousness they had even 3-4 generations ago… the neo-Nazis won’t be tiny anymore. The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.
Richard Spencer and Ibram Kendi both see race first and individuality a distant second. The Left has universally embraced Kendi. Absent a clear and better alternative, the Right will start to (reluctantly) embrace Spencer as the lesser of 2 evils: “sure he’s a racist, but at least my kid won’t get screwed because he’s white” isn’t an entirely unreasonable voting strategy.
I agree, I’d call them “Liberals” though, and they’re not doing this for the first time.
GOP as a multi-racial working class party seems like a reasonable path to me – and there is leadership pursuing this. As you may agree the way to counter race-essentialism is not reverse-race-essentialism (aka racism).
“GOP as a multi-racial working class party..”
The problem with this is that the GOP is funded by billionaires and big corporations. They don’t give their money to promote the interests of the working class.’ whatever the media schtick might be.
see my comment above
see my comment above
In what way are they Liberal? Their core motivating belief is a universalist equitarianism and that isn’t Liberalism.
Agreed – âliberalâ is a term co-opted to mean its antithesis. Todayâs âliberalsâ are the proponents of prescription and social control, not any recognisable notions of classical liberalism.
Nor even it’s less-rabid mid-20th versions.
I hate to see classical liberal or libertarian leaning people succumb to roaring authoritarianism that seems safer to them than the threat from the far, far Left–let alone succumb to “reverse” or blood-and-soil identitarian battle mode.
Nor even it’s less-rabid mid-20th versions.
I hate to see classical liberal or libertarian leaning people succumb to roaring authoritarianism that seems safer to them than the threat from the far, far Left–let alone succumb to “reverse” or blood-and-soil identitarian battle mode.
Quite so. Hence my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism.
Agreed – âliberalâ is a term co-opted to mean its antithesis. Todayâs âliberalsâ are the proponents of prescription and social control, not any recognisable notions of classical liberalism.
Quite so. Hence my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism.
“GOP as a multi-racial working class party..”
The problem with this is that the GOP is funded by billionaires and big corporations. They don’t give their money to promote the interests of the working class.’ whatever the media schtick might be.
In what way are they Liberal? Their core motivating belief is a universalist equitarianism and that isn’t Liberalism.
Why is it that you think white people need defending? They are at the top of the tree all over the world. If they are low anywhere, it is because other white people shoved them down, in a white country.
I take those down votes as as something of an honour.
Please explain why I am wrong.
In the US, affirmative action and DEI elevate persons of color with special considerations and perks – at the expense of the majority of white people (sometimes at the expense of Asians). And this is being carried out BY GOVERNMENT.
Are you completely unaware?
Youâre not.
Weirdly itâs because of a defence of identity politics by white people. Whenever thereâs an article outlining the creation of race as a means to exploit black people, there is a rush to defend whites, either in the guise of âempire was a good thing because we built a few schoolsâ, or âwhy should white people feel guilty for anythingâ, or âwe need to stop seeing raceâ. All this amounts to a defence of being white as a primary identity around which to organise. Itâs unfortunate, and misunderstands the thrust of the article which is to take a deep breath, and recognise that racism has a material and historical effect on perpetuating inequality across the races. Donât hand wring, donât get defensive. Donât retreat to âbeing whiteâ. Fight for class based solidarity.
Do one, you woke t**d.
You’re getting all upset again, Dickie- it’s probably not doing your heart any good. Watch something nice like Gone With The Wind, and calm down.
Youâre getting all upset again, Rubber – itâs probably not doing your heart any good. Watch something nice like Gone With The Wind, and calm down.
Youâre getting all upset again, Rubber – itâs probably not doing your heart any good. Watch something nice like Gone With The Wind, and calm down.
You’re getting all upset again, Dickie- it’s probably not doing your heart any good. Watch something nice like Gone With The Wind, and calm down.
It isn’t a case of defending a position it is more like repelling persistent attacks. Of course the developed nations have provided more to the modern world and its societies than underdeveloped ones….so far. BUT if you keep getting punched on the nose you eventually punch back no matter how much more privileged you are.
fair comment !
In the US, affirmative action and DEI elevate persons of color with special considerations and perks – at the expense of the majority of white people (sometimes at the expense of Asians). And this is being carried out BY GOVERNMENT.
Are you completely unaware?
Youâre not.
Weirdly itâs because of a defence of identity politics by white people. Whenever thereâs an article outlining the creation of race as a means to exploit black people, there is a rush to defend whites, either in the guise of âempire was a good thing because we built a few schoolsâ, or âwhy should white people feel guilty for anythingâ, or âwe need to stop seeing raceâ. All this amounts to a defence of being white as a primary identity around which to organise. Itâs unfortunate, and misunderstands the thrust of the article which is to take a deep breath, and recognise that racism has a material and historical effect on perpetuating inequality across the races. Donât hand wring, donât get defensive. Donât retreat to âbeing whiteâ. Fight for class based solidarity.
Do one, you woke t**d.
It isn’t a case of defending a position it is more like repelling persistent attacks. Of course the developed nations have provided more to the modern world and its societies than underdeveloped ones….so far. BUT if you keep getting punched on the nose you eventually punch back no matter how much more privileged you are.
fair comment !
Your response shows you’ve either failed to read, or failed to understand, the original article. Try again.
Do all the authors on ‘Unheard’ write only in the first person;
which implies personal opinions over universal facts .
They use the word ‘I’ as if it is the most important word in the Oxford dictionary.
Too polite. Please be much more unpleasant to the woke scum.
Why don’t you just shoot the f*****s, Rich? Stop p*****g around…
Why don’t you just shoot the f*****s, Rich? Stop p*****g around…
Do all the authors on ‘Unheard’ write only in the first person;
which implies personal opinions over universal facts .
They use the word ‘I’ as if it is the most important word in the Oxford dictionary.
Too polite. Please be much more unpleasant to the woke scum.
White people come from a plethora of different races, as do black and brown people
Because woke racist scum like you are attacking them.
you are wrong because you have inherent bias…..”white” people all over the world are poor because poor is common. there are all types of ethnicities having a hard time. its astonishing to see grown men make the assumption that all white people are born with the gift of wealth….and yet work right aside them in the same jobs with the same salary
Call me from S. Africa and tell me about how white people are on top everywhere in the world. Or China. Or India. Or Japan (likely the most xenophobic country on the planet.)
Are they, though?
Not in China, Japan, most African countries, India, Pakistan, to name but a few.
I’d like an explanation as to why whites shouldn’t be at the top of the tree in traditionally white, Christian countries. They made their societies, and thousands died to achieve the astonishing level of civilisation they enjoy.
Why, then, do we just have to accept that others can come and enjoy the same, without the suffering undergone by their ancestors?
And why aren’t the same standards applied to genuinely racist societies, which is pretty much the whole rest of the world?
Why do we have to suffer this divisive, damaging theory, and its awful consequences, but no-one else does?
People are not deaf and dumb Chris. We may have resources and some security now, but we hear the Interahamwe rhetoric in the air, we read the CRT proposals in respectable media, we see the brutal destruction of our brothers and distant cousins, by woke institutions, cowardly boards and brutal HR departments in our places of work. We have even begun to see the Justice System corrupt along racial lines, where once OJ Simpson style verdicts were an exception, now these race based verdicts are becoming the norm.
In short we see the violence planned for us and we are acting accordingly. Why wouldn’t we prepare to defend ourselves? Why wouldn’t you prepare to defend yourself? There is no mercy in the social revolutionary’s heart Chris, don’t forget it for a minute.
The Western Left has a choice, drop race as an organizing ontology or perish from using race as an organizing ontology. And for now the ball is in the Left’s court, no matter how much they wish to deny it, all the power is in their hands now and for the near term. Use it wisely.
I take those down votes as as something of an honour.
Please explain why I am wrong.
Your response shows you’ve either failed to read, or failed to understand, the original article. Try again.
White people come from a plethora of different races, as do black and brown people
Because woke racist scum like you are attacking them.
you are wrong because you have inherent bias…..”white” people all over the world are poor because poor is common. there are all types of ethnicities having a hard time. its astonishing to see grown men make the assumption that all white people are born with the gift of wealth….and yet work right aside them in the same jobs with the same salary
Call me from S. Africa and tell me about how white people are on top everywhere in the world. Or China. Or India. Or Japan (likely the most xenophobic country on the planet.)
Are they, though?
Not in China, Japan, most African countries, India, Pakistan, to name but a few.
I’d like an explanation as to why whites shouldn’t be at the top of the tree in traditionally white, Christian countries. They made their societies, and thousands died to achieve the astonishing level of civilisation they enjoy.
Why, then, do we just have to accept that others can come and enjoy the same, without the suffering undergone by their ancestors?
And why aren’t the same standards applied to genuinely racist societies, which is pretty much the whole rest of the world?
Why do we have to suffer this divisive, damaging theory, and its awful consequences, but no-one else does?
People are not deaf and dumb Chris. We may have resources and some security now, but we hear the Interahamwe rhetoric in the air, we read the CRT proposals in respectable media, we see the brutal destruction of our brothers and distant cousins, by woke institutions, cowardly boards and brutal HR departments in our places of work. We have even begun to see the Justice System corrupt along racial lines, where once OJ Simpson style verdicts were an exception, now these race based verdicts are becoming the norm.
In short we see the violence planned for us and we are acting accordingly. Why wouldn’t we prepare to defend ourselves? Why wouldn’t you prepare to defend yourself? There is no mercy in the social revolutionary’s heart Chris, don’t forget it for a minute.
The Western Left has a choice, drop race as an organizing ontology or perish from using race as an organizing ontology. And for now the ball is in the Left’s court, no matter how much they wish to deny it, all the power is in their hands now and for the near term. Use it wisely.
You’re right about the Left having to “cement its own power”. It’s always been about power. And money–don’t forget money. Adopting people like Spencer, however, is hardly an antidote and probably only makes things worse.
We are all sinners. All of us. The author’s final sentence is ultimately the only solution, but in our world the likelihood that it could ever be employed on the macro level is virtually nil. It can only be achieved on the micro level–one sinner at a time.
“How to Read Now” by Elaine Castillo makes even liberal whites tremble.
Kendi has enjoyed a few seasons as a darling of the many on the far Left, but he is far from “universally embraced”, even by blacks left-of-center. One prominent example of this is self-proclaimed contrarian liberal John McWhorter, whose book Woke Racism is widely read and treated seriously by a lot liberals and some progressives. This is partly due to the fact that he’s black and “gets away with it” but not only I don’t think.
While I despise Kendi’s conclusions, I don’t see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way. Hitler rose to power amid real problems, and I’m sure many Germans joined the Nazi program quite reluctantly, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. I’ve only “played the Hitler card” because you referenced one of his fanboys.
“I donât see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way.”
What’s the difference between a straight-up neo-Nazi attacking Jews or black people, and a straight-up woke racist attacking white people? There isn’t one.
Neither is acceptable, but it’s not a “lesser evil” just because it’s partly a reaction and feels justified. That reactive feeling–not based on nothing at all–is precisely what fed the anti-whiteness of the Black Power movement at its most militant, and its leaders (Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and so on) make a much more fitting mirror image for Spencer and his ilk than some overrated grievance monger like Kendi.
The difference might be that six million Jews were actually murdered by white racial supremacist Nazis, many millions of many black slaves died horribly under white supremacist ideology, and some here think some ‘positive discrimination’ in academia is a far worse ‘anti-white oppression’ than any of this.
Maybe a bit of historical perspective, rather than dribbling racial paranoia, might be useful? Just a suggestion.
When a white person is dragged by “wokists” for five miles behind a pick-up truck, then hung from a tree and set alight, then allowed to get away with it by the local police, there won’t be any difference.
Until then, your equivalence is childish.
I’m glad someone got into this territory, unaddressed in my understated reply. An author who advances something you don’t like, even a pernicious ideology, is not as blameworthy as those who promote actual violence and oppression, like Spencer, who has “advocated for the enslavement of Haitians by whites and for the ethnic cleansing of the racial minorities of the United States” [Wikipedia].
Even a more radical and polarizing figure such as Marx is not responsible for all of Mao’s and Stalin’s murders, nor Nietzsche and Wagner the Nazis’. So, even if Kendi were to inspire millions of organized, violent followers (which I don’t worry about), he wouldn’t be as culpable as an actual Nazi, would he?
I’d actually like to know what violence and oppression individual whites on this site have suffered or are suffering, with corroborating details showing it was because of their race alone. Raise your claims the height of near-incontrovertible racism you’d demand from minorities.
And I mean something more than “not being allowed” to say something they are saying right as they claim they’re being silenced (yeah you can’t get away with saying the worst of it in the office or classroom, nor should you), or the horror of not having their kids get into Stanford, perhaps in the interest of “diversity”.
I’m glad someone got into this territory, unaddressed in my understated reply. An author who advances something you don’t like, even a pernicious ideology, is not as blameworthy as those who promote actual violence and oppression, like Spencer, who has “advocated for the enslavement of Haitians by whites and for the ethnic cleansing of the racial minorities of the United States” [Wikipedia].
Even a more radical and polarizing figure such as Marx is not responsible for all of Mao’s and Stalin’s murders, nor Nietzsche and Wagner the Nazis’. So, even if Kendi were to inspire millions of organized, violent followers (which I don’t worry about), he wouldn’t be as culpable as an actual Nazi, would he?
I’d actually like to know what violence and oppression individual whites on this site have suffered or are suffering, with corroborating details showing it was because of their race alone. Raise your claims the height of near-incontrovertible racism you’d demand from minorities.
And I mean something more than “not being allowed” to say something they are saying right as they claim they’re being silenced (yeah you can’t get away with saying the worst of it in the office or classroom, nor should you), or the horror of not having their kids get into Stanford, perhaps in the interest of “diversity”.
Neither is acceptable, but it’s not a “lesser evil” just because it’s partly a reaction and feels justified. That reactive feeling–not based on nothing at all–is precisely what fed the anti-whiteness of the Black Power movement at its most militant, and its leaders (Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and so on) make a much more fitting mirror image for Spencer and his ilk than some overrated grievance monger like Kendi.
The difference might be that six million Jews were actually murdered by white racial supremacist Nazis, many millions of many black slaves died horribly under white supremacist ideology, and some here think some ‘positive discrimination’ in academia is a far worse ‘anti-white oppression’ than any of this.
Maybe a bit of historical perspective, rather than dribbling racial paranoia, might be useful? Just a suggestion.
When a white person is dragged by “wokists” for five miles behind a pick-up truck, then hung from a tree and set alight, then allowed to get away with it by the local police, there won’t be any difference.
Until then, your equivalence is childish.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “lesser of 2 evils”. My point is that if the only choices are race based — Kendi (for example) who will intentionally hurt white people to benefit blacks and Spencer (an examplar again) will intentionally hurt minorities to benefit whites — only the most educated, economically secure, self-loathing whites will vote for the former choice. And that behavior will be entirely rational.
That’s why we need an alternative. Both of those are terrible choices, but I know which I would make if I had to.
I appreciate that clarification. But I don’t think you will ever be truly forced to choose blood-and-soil nationalism in some zero sum, all-out American race war–I certainly hope not. Since the conversation on race–distinct from shouting and blaming–is almost nonexistent right now in the US, I credit you for speaking out in a way that dozens here agreed with, at least with their digital thumbs.
I appreciate that clarification. But I don’t think you will ever be truly forced to choose blood-and-soil nationalism in some zero sum, all-out American race war–I certainly hope not. Since the conversation on race–distinct from shouting and blaming–is almost nonexistent right now in the US, I credit you for speaking out in a way that dozens here agreed with, at least with their digital thumbs.
“I donât see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way.”
What’s the difference between a straight-up neo-Nazi attacking Jews or black people, and a straight-up woke racist attacking white people? There isn’t one.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “lesser of 2 evils”. My point is that if the only choices are race based — Kendi (for example) who will intentionally hurt white people to benefit blacks and Spencer (an examplar again) will intentionally hurt minorities to benefit whites — only the most educated, economically secure, self-loathing whites will vote for the former choice. And that behavior will be entirely rational.
That’s why we need an alternative. Both of those are terrible choices, but I know which I would make if I had to.
“The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.”
Exactly right. The easiest and best way to do this is to treat woke racists exactly as we treat the KKK, or the National Front or BNP here in the UK.
I agree, I’d call them “Liberals” though, and they’re not doing this for the first time.
GOP as a multi-racial working class party seems like a reasonable path to me – and there is leadership pursuing this. As you may agree the way to counter race-essentialism is not reverse-race-essentialism (aka racism).
Why is it that you think white people need defending? They are at the top of the tree all over the world. If they are low anywhere, it is because other white people shoved them down, in a white country.
You’re right about the Left having to “cement its own power”. It’s always been about power. And money–don’t forget money. Adopting people like Spencer, however, is hardly an antidote and probably only makes things worse.
We are all sinners. All of us. The author’s final sentence is ultimately the only solution, but in our world the likelihood that it could ever be employed on the macro level is virtually nil. It can only be achieved on the micro level–one sinner at a time.
“How to Read Now” by Elaine Castillo makes even liberal whites tremble.
Kendi has enjoyed a few seasons as a darling of the many on the far Left, but he is far from “universally embraced”, even by blacks left-of-center. One prominent example of this is self-proclaimed contrarian liberal John McWhorter, whose book Woke Racism is widely read and treated seriously by a lot liberals and some progressives. This is partly due to the fact that he’s black and “gets away with it” but not only I don’t think.
While I despise Kendi’s conclusions, I don’t see how a straight-up neo-Nazi can represent the lesser of two evils in some excusable way. Hitler rose to power amid real problems, and I’m sure many Germans joined the Nazi program quite reluctantly, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. I’ve only “played the Hitler card” because you referenced one of his fanboys.
“The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.”
Exactly right. The easiest and best way to do this is to treat woke racists exactly as we treat the KKK, or the National Front or BNP here in the UK.
To cement its own power, the Left is summoning demons it can not control. Right now, the only people willing to meet the Left on their own race-essentialist terms are the neo-Nazis, and they are a tiny minority. However if even a double digit percentage of whites re-develop the kind of race-consciousness they had even 3-4 generations ago… the neo-Nazis won’t be tiny anymore. The mainstream Right (GOP) needs to find an way to defend white people soon; because the Left is openly attacking them (as a group) and thus Pied Piping us into a race war.
Richard Spencer and Ibram Kendi both see race first and individuality a distant second. The Left has universally embraced Kendi. Absent a clear and better alternative, the Right will start to (reluctantly) embrace Spencer as the lesser of 2 evils: “sure he’s a racist, but at least my kid won’t get screwed because he’s white” isn’t an entirely unreasonable voting strategy.
I would go so far as to posit that this is perhaps the sole reason CRT and itâs subsequent diversity schemes is being pushed on to the general populace.
I would go so far as to posit that this is perhaps the sole reason CRT and itâs subsequent diversity schemes is being pushed on to the general populace.
Whenever I read articles like this, Iâm struck by the white vs everyone else assertion. Why arenât Asians, Indians, Africans, Arabs – all of whom still practice slavery today – never cited for their racism? There are an estimated 14 million souls enslaved in India today. Have the Portuguese ever atoned for their industrialization of slavery beginning in the 1400s? Do their Arab and African trade partners, who were engaged in such misery centuries before the Europeans, ever admit their guilt? The Chinese enslavement of Uyghurs elicits not so much as a shrug from the communist country, but plenty of Western industries are more than happy to do business there. Can we please get some balance in these pieces?
(Aside: Clairol is a hair, not a makeup, brand.)
I think you’ve failed to grasp what the author is actually saying about the concept (the invention, in fact) of ‘race’. No-one is denying that evil, for want of a better word, exists everywhere and always has done.
Sure. But, invented or not, it always goes in one direction. I don’t see anyone demanding financial reparations from the ethinc groups I cite who began the hideous practice and perpetuate it to this day.
Racism “always goes in one direction”?
Really? That’s your conclusion after the 20th century? That racism always goes against ‘whites’?
Jesus wept.
Good point about Clairol being a hair product, though.
Good point about Clairol being a hair product, though.
Racism “always goes in one direction”?
Really? That’s your conclusion after the 20th century? That racism always goes against ‘whites’?
Jesus wept.
Sure. But, invented or not, it always goes in one direction. I don’t see anyone demanding financial reparations from the ethinc groups I cite who began the hideous practice and perpetuate it to this day.
I think you’ve failed to grasp what the author is actually saying about the concept (the invention, in fact) of ‘race’. No-one is denying that evil, for want of a better word, exists everywhere and always has done.
Whenever I read articles like this, Iâm struck by the white vs everyone else assertion. Why arenât Asians, Indians, Africans, Arabs – all of whom still practice slavery today – never cited for their racism? There are an estimated 14 million souls enslaved in India today. Have the Portuguese ever atoned for their industrialization of slavery beginning in the 1400s? Do their Arab and African trade partners, who were engaged in such misery centuries before the Europeans, ever admit their guilt? The Chinese enslavement of Uyghurs elicits not so much as a shrug from the communist country, but plenty of Western industries are more than happy to do business there. Can we please get some balance in these pieces?
(Aside: Clairol is a hair, not a makeup, brand.)
The modern Left just love skimming over the pre-modern (particularly non Western) almost like it didnât exist.
Plenty of skimming on the right as well. Skimming is a bipartisan activity.
Why blame the left for the attitudes of organisations such as the East India Company that used race, caste and religious differences to destroy a reasonably coherent India to enable it’s exploitation by white thieves for the British Empire for three hundred years? Not to mention the wider Middle East.
The differences were there but people got along until the Colonials used them to divide and conquer and it hasn’t been the same since.
What has that got to do with the modern Left?
These were the doings of the liberal empire. Today’s liberals have thrown their weight to the other end of the political spectrum yet doing a surprisingly similar thing as the article skilfully explores.
That is nothing to do with the Left.
If you think that the British Empire was some liberal entity that elevated the dark uneducated masses to civilization, you really need to read a bit wider beyond the Biggles books that I once enjoyed myself.
Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.
I would never describe it as liberal. You can’t claim to be bringing freedom at the same time you are oppressing millions, but then Perfidious Albion will always find a way.
Read Sashi Tharoor Inglorious Empire.
Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars. Many fought with such courage they were awarded the Indian Order of Merit First Class, VC and GC.
Indians fought at Imphal and Kohima when if they had sided with Japan, they could have invaded India. Few captured Indians went over to the Japanese or Germans.
Indians did not rise up against the British in WW2.
Did Kapoor’s family serve in the ICS, Armed Forces, Forestry, Police or Railways ? The communal slaughter of the 1940s was made worse because Nehru refused British help.
When my Father played cricket in Pakistan in the 1960s, The Captain was a senior army officer and was very proud of having served in the British Army in WW2. In fact he considered The Pakistani Army was maintaining standards which the British had allowed to slip. Indians were proud of their service in Armed forces in WW2 and the ICS. The Senior regiment of the Indian Army is Skinners Horse.
The Mughal Empire collapsed in the 1740s and by the 1750s has asked the EIC to collect tax in Bengal, Orissa and Bihar which was the start of them developing administrative rule.
Between 1000 and 1750s there were 26 invasions by Muslims peoples resulting in the killing of 82M Indians and wiped out Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities. Britain stopped the Muslim invasions of India.
Britain set up medical schools in the 1820s and from then various schools and universities as well. By the 1830s Indians were being knighted and even raised to The Baronetage. The EIC and then British government started selection via exams, such as for ICS, Armed Forces, Police, Forestry and Railways which introduced selection on merit. By 1947 there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Britain built railways, and engineering projects such as Indus Irrigation. Few railways have been built post 1947.
The English language and western technology has enabled India to develop. Where would the Indian computer industry be without the English language?
That’s the exclusively positive case. You’ve ignored everything that doesn’t fit it, so not exactly an A+ for objective history.
Look up the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 for a small start.
The Bengal Famine LMAO, read some detailed history & not the lousy activist nonsense pushed by the likes of Tharoor. Dear, dear, dear⊠ââïž
Can you recommend a good book on the subject?
Thanks for the advice. As well as the LMAO (whatever that means outside of internet chatrooms) and the useful “dear, dear, dear…(‘men’ emoji). All good stuff.
Can you recommend a book on the subject?
Hira JungKow⊠but why Iâm even offering to (in modern Woke âdumb-asâ parlance) âeducate youâ I dunno, maybe âcos it does at the end of the day matter what the facts and the context are, since itâs just never that simple; however âcarry onâ⊠You should be very proud of yourself, youâre very Woke. What a wonderful little mind you have, very depeche mode.
Hello Jonathan- you’re starting to sound a little unhinged, dear.
Did you want to make an actual rational point at all, or are you now just happy with all this wierd semi-literate “I dunno..woke…carry on…woke…depeche mode…’cos..proud of yourself…woke…etc.,etc. hand waving drivel?
I mean, if that’s your limit, don’t let me stop you. Having your ‘opinions’ questioned seems to be a bit ‘triggering’ for you. Thanks for the reference to your favourite obscure ideological ‘historian’, though- he doesn’t seem to have managed to get anything more than a magazine article published, but he definitely HAS got a Twitter account. So he must be right.
Hello Jonathan- you’re starting to sound a little unhinged, dear.
Did you want to make an actual rational point at all, or are you now just happy with all this wierd semi-literate “I dunno..woke…carry on…woke…depeche mode…’cos..proud of yourself…woke…etc.,etc. hand waving drivel?
I mean, if that’s your limit, don’t let me stop you. Having your ‘opinions’ questioned seems to be a bit ‘triggering’ for you. Thanks for the reference to your favourite obscure ideological ‘historian’, though- he doesn’t seem to have managed to get anything more than a magazine article published, but he definitely HAS got a Twitter account. So he must be right.
Hira JungKow⊠but why Iâm even offering to (in modern Woke âdumb-asâ parlance) âeducate youâ I dunno, maybe âcos it does at the end of the day matter what the facts and the context are, since itâs just never that simple; however âcarry onâ⊠You should be very proud of yourself, youâre very Woke. What a wonderful little mind you have, very depeche mode.
Can you recommend a good book on the subject?
Thanks for the advice. As well as the LMAO (whatever that means outside of internet chatrooms) and the useful “dear, dear, dear…(‘men’ emoji). All good stuff.
Can you recommend a book on the subject?
The Bengal Famine LMAO, read some detailed history & not the lousy activist nonsense pushed by the likes of Tharoor. Dear, dear, dear⊠ââïž
That’s the exclusively positive case. You’ve ignored everything that doesn’t fit it, so not exactly an A+ for objective history.
Look up the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 for a small start.
“That is nothing to do with the Left.” It has everything to do with what passes for the modern left.
“Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.”
Modern Britain is a nightmare NOW, and many court cases illustrate that fact. You cannot brush this under the carpet with an appeal to historical “whataboutery”
Nothing is a bit of a stretch. Before the Left there was Liberalism and Liberalism was Trade and Empire.
Sahsi Tharoor is a bigoted apologist for his caste, the ruling caste of India. One you understand that his writing take on a new coloration so to speak.
Millions of Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars. Many fought with such courage they were awarded the Indian Order of Merit First Class, VC and GC.
Indians fought at Imphal and Kohima when if they had sided with Japan, they could have invaded India. Few captured Indians went over to the Japanese or Germans.
Indians did not rise up against the British in WW2.
Did Kapoor’s family serve in the ICS, Armed Forces, Forestry, Police or Railways ? The communal slaughter of the 1940s was made worse because Nehru refused British help.
When my Father played cricket in Pakistan in the 1960s, The Captain was a senior army officer and was very proud of having served in the British Army in WW2. In fact he considered The Pakistani Army was maintaining standards which the British had allowed to slip. Indians were proud of their service in Armed forces in WW2 and the ICS. The Senior regiment of the Indian Army is Skinners Horse.
The Mughal Empire collapsed in the 1740s and by the 1750s has asked the EIC to collect tax in Bengal, Orissa and Bihar which was the start of them developing administrative rule.
Between 1000 and 1750s there were 26 invasions by Muslims peoples resulting in the killing of 82M Indians and wiped out Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities. Britain stopped the Muslim invasions of India.
Britain set up medical schools in the 1820s and from then various schools and universities as well. By the 1830s Indians were being knighted and even raised to The Baronetage. The EIC and then British government started selection via exams, such as for ICS, Armed Forces, Police, Forestry and Railways which introduced selection on merit. By 1947 there were Indians who were Brigadiers. Britain built railways, and engineering projects such as Indus Irrigation. Few railways have been built post 1947.
The English language and western technology has enabled India to develop. Where would the Indian computer industry be without the English language?
“That is nothing to do with the Left.” It has everything to do with what passes for the modern left.
“Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.”
Modern Britain is a nightmare NOW, and many court cases illustrate that fact. You cannot brush this under the carpet with an appeal to historical “whataboutery”
Nothing is a bit of a stretch. Before the Left there was Liberalism and Liberalism was Trade and Empire.
Sahsi Tharoor is a bigoted apologist for his caste, the ruling caste of India. One you understand that his writing take on a new coloration so to speak.
That is nothing to do with the Left.
If you think that the British Empire was some liberal entity that elevated the dark uneducated masses to civilization, you really need to read a bit wider beyond the Biggles books that I once enjoyed myself.
Britain in that period was a nightmare and Dickens illustrated that fact.
I would never describe it as liberal. You can’t claim to be bringing freedom at the same time you are oppressing millions, but then Perfidious Albion will always find a way.
Read Sashi Tharoor Inglorious Empire.
The differences were there but people got along until the Colonials used them to divide and conquer
This is the Noble Savage view – all was peaceful until Westerners came along – that is complete hogwash. Native peoples everywhere fought their neighbors with extreme brutality at times. More technologically Westerners did, of course, take advantage, but violence was not a new development by any means.
Not to mention ate each other – keeping fodder ‘on the hoof’. At least the whites just shot or stabbed….
Not to mention ate each other – keeping fodder ‘on the hoof’. At least the whites just shot or stabbed….
I probably agree somewhat re your views on the ‘left’ but I take issue with your views on India. The Indian sub-continent has never been even close to coherent, split into hundreds of states controlled by assorted different invaders etc in different areas. ‘Exploitation by white thieves’ – possible but you would be interested in this article on the subject: https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/did-the-british-loot-india/
“people got along until the Colonials …”
Chris, you might want to read up on the Mughal invasion of India. Studying the exploits of Timur (Marlowe’s Tamburlaine) in Asia, or the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the late Ottoman empire, also might shake your faith in the idea that Western man is uniquely evil.