You mean, like the terms liberal, progressive, and Democrat?
Touche…!
Good point!
1 Like
Because identity politics is all the rage.
1 Like
Forgive me for saying so, but that’s a pretty flippant response.
It was meant to be. It’s time we gave up identity politics which divide and choose to unite and drop the labels. We can do much more good together.
I’ve done research on identity politics, in era’s like Jim Crow they had valIid greivences and had to unite in identity. But today the political capital and landscape does not favor contiued identity politics. These are not your father’s racial issues. To pretend they are is an insult to those who truly suffered. Calling for all people of all minority and majority together to fight remaining injustices is the right way to go about it. We should all be unite against bigotry and hatred. And I would dare say we aren’t as divided as people would lead us to believe.
How many white people within shouting distance would support the kkk or neo-nazis. I’d say the number would be damn near zero. We don’t need to be measured by how many minorities we know or have to declare fairness publically. Most people aren’t racists so let’s give the majority the vote for unity and stop the blame games.
1 Like
So when one self identifies as such and uses the term to describe themselves, its Ok, but if you call someone one, its somehow offensive?
Sounds familiar.
edited for redundant redundancy.
In order to eliminate the possibilities of privilege and discrimination existing in this country, I think we should decide everything based on statistics. We need to count up the members of each race, sex, gender, color, and religion, and mandate that all admission into all non-compulsory education be divided in a representative manner. When a business exists, we need to mandate that its employees represent the United States in every way-from day one. Nothing should exist, including bodies of government, that does not exactly represent the United States in every way. The total wealth in the country should be likewise divided.
It’s 2017; it’s time we start thinking about fairness. It’s time to stop thinking about individuals and start thinking purely in terms of identity groups. Period.
Of course, when one group(white, Christian men) has wronged every other group repeatedly and unceasingly, it should not get proportionate representation or wealth. Its members should probably be made slaves to the other groups. It’s only fair.
1 Like
Easier said than done, coming together and fighting injustices means finding out what those injustices are. Once you realize some may be related to identity your back in the same boat again. Either that or somehow get people to ignore statistics.
I suppose if we were having this conversation during the Jim Crow era, you would contend that the truly “valid grievances” occurred under chattel slavery, and that to pretend the racial issues during Jim Crow were significant would be ‘an insult to those who truly suffered.’
There is no reason we can’t continue to ameliorate the ongoing sequelae of oppression while also ‘fighting together.’
I’m not sure how many times I have to say it, but the issue is not one of ‘playing the blame game.’
Not at all. the point is, these terms have been intentionally tarnished such that they involuntarily elicit a negative reaction in the listener/reader.
Intentionally or internally?
If the tarnishing was intentional, who did it?
I said intentionally, intentionally.
It has been SOP among Republican political operatives since the late 1970s. They have been masters of linguistic manipulation. The best of the best is probably Frank Luntz.
I question exactly how you measure the so called sequelae, but assuming you can, that still doesn’t entirely answer the question as to precisely how much discrimination is needed and justified in order to counteract historical wrongs.
Did I miss the part in history class where pro-Irish discrimination was needed to counteract historical wrongs, or did the Irish just figure out how to fix it on their own?
Off the top of my head: Disparities in income, wealth, education, housing, employment representation.
That is true. There’s a fine line to be walked in this regard. I’m confident that well-informed, reasonable people can hammer it out.
No, but apparently you did miss the part about AAs’ legacy of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing de facto institutional racism. In short, there are qualitative differences between the oppression experienced by AAs vs other groups. Now, does that mean it wouldn’t eventually work its way out on its own? I suppose not. But that’s not a compelling reason to refrain from targeted interventions to speed up the process.
That’s a false equivocation. To get rid of slavery hundreds of thousands of people died in the Civil War. There was no identity politics in the Civil War because black people had no identity. In ‘Separate but equal’, you had a more empowered group that took matters into their own hands. A Civil War was not required to end Jim Crow and it would have been imprudent for there to have been one when a political solution was on the table.
I would say there should not have been a Civil War to end Jim Crow.
We’ve come along way from 3/5ths of a person. And problems remain, but they are no where near what they were. It’ important to recognize that as well. The identity politics, the marching and resulting is setting things back, not moving them forward. There is no need for violence to be heard.
In as horrific as the white power freak who tried to murder more than just the one woman. Let’s not forget Dallas that was not long ago and that was just as racist, and more deadly. Clearly that was a matter of luck, but it should not be forgotten in this conversation.
Group-think encourages violence in a way in which conversation does not.
Here’s the text: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Not “3/5ths of a person;” “three fifths of all other Persons.”
Thank you for the clarification.
It is not at all clear to me that the current version of identity politics will accomplish it’s intended goals.
There are a growing number of scholars and researchers who believe it’s having a negative effect in it’s current iteration. The US military has taken a very different tack than our universities. I don’t have it in front of me now, but there was a great article a couple year or two ago about how the military has done a better job at building unity and equality, by emphasizing things we have in common as Americans for example, rather than putting an emphasis on differences and various group identities. Also, by mentoring and providing support to individuals who are struggling, regardless of label as part of an identity group. This is how I think of my students.
Really, the only true measure of goodness is looking at something in the light of truth, not through the lens of popular opinion or emotion, and seeing if it has done (or is still doing) what we want or intend it to do. We reassess. It seems to me that a growing number of people think we’re on the wrong track with how we’re handling diversity, particularly in the academy.
1 Like
1 Like
Not at all. In fact, you are making my argument for me. You act as if a civil war was necessary to get rid of slavery, when it wasn’t. It was necessary to get rid of it in a timely fashion, however. I’m sure you can see where this is going.
I have acknowledged as much upthread.
We disagree here.
One madman shooting cops constitutes a hate crime, not systemic, institutional racism.
Identity politics =/= group-think.
1 Like
Gah!! Trump.
The article I was remembering was before the Trump presidency, and I don’t recall if addressed gender at all. I only remember it talking about racial diversity, and the military’s need to form cohesive units of people who need to trust and depend on each other, to see each other as part of the same team or tribe.