SJW Identity Politics Are "The Mirror Image Of White Supremacy"
One of a handful of texts that's moved me enormously and acts as a guiding principle for my thinking is Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.
In fact, my love for that text puts it close to the Constitution in my reverence lineup. (I think the Constitution is probably at the top, and the Declaration of Independence is up there, too.)
That's one reason I am continually shocked by what feminists and the SJW crowd call for -- basically, they are screeching that blacks (and others "of color") and women are lesser people and should be judged and privileged in those ways. Not by "the content of their character." Not on their merits.
Telling people they are victims creates victims. And it seems to me to be not only damaging (because of its self-fulfillingness) but most insulting to tell people that they can't get by without a handout not available to others. Not needed by others.
David French at NRO:
Progressives don't like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy -- compressing the extraordinarily rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color. For the white supremacist, white people are natural-born victors. For the identity-politics leftist, white people are natural-born predators.But actual history belies the stereotypes. To take just one hot-button example, the history of slavery since the colonial era is not just a history of Europeans and white Americans enslaving Africans. It's of Africans enslaving Africans, of Africans enslaving Europeans, and of Arabs enslaving Africans (and that's just a partial summary). Yes, brown people enslaved white people by the millions: Should Americans of North African or Turkish descent check their privilege and believe their wealth was built on plunder?
When identity politics rule, racism and polarization thrive. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism -- embodied in the so-called alt-right -- at the same time that America's leftist cultural elite are decisively rejecting Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that Americans be judged by the "content of their character" and not the color of their skin. When one side decides that skin color is a virtue, then -- as sure as the sun rises in the east -- the other side will eagerly agree.
Indeed, race obsession obscures the far more important discussion of culture. If you think, for example, that there's a single monolithic "black" culture, talk to a recent Nigerian immigrant who's experiencing his own culture clash -- even while surrounded by black Americans. If there is one "white" culture, why are there such enduring and profound differences between Germans and Greeks? There is nothing wrong with being white. There is nothing right with being white. And there is something bizarre about being proud of past accomplishments (or repentant of past failures) based merely on sharing a skin tone with unrelated prior generations.
It is far more enriching -- and humbling -- to learn of our own individual histories. When you learn more about the past, you realize how much we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but also how just a single lifetime of decadence and irresponsibility can sweep away the work of generations. I prefer to speak in terms not of pride, but of gratitude. How can I be "proud" that my relatives came over on the Mayflower and stood with Washington at Valley Forge? I had nothing to do with those achievements and would be hard-pressed to demonstrate the same courage. Instead, I'm grateful -- deeply grateful. And I'm grateful also for the history of my nation and culture -- a nation that through great effort and enormous sacrifice cultivated and preserved principles of individual liberty and human freedom that have benefited billions of human souls.
We are divided enough naturally -- by our "us/them" psychology that protected us as early humans.
After a young lifetime of reading, and being my mother's daughter (my mother who talks to everyone and treats a busboy with the same respect as her temple's rabbi), I have always been interested in people. I hated growing up in a white suburb, where everyone was largely the same, and couldn't wait to get out and experience the world.
I love living in California and specifically, Venice, California, because so many people here are from all over the world and all sorts of backgrounds.
I'm going to continue being my mother's daughter -- talking to everyone and treating everyone as humans -- and not take on what the progressive view amounts to, that some people are lesser.
This doesn't mean some aren't in need of our help. But they need our help because they are poor or old or mentally ill, not because they have darker skin. That's insulting and infantilizing.
Also, it helps us ignore one of the big reasons for black kids doing poorly in school -- being the children of impoverished single mothers. That brings no glory for the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world -- our celebrity race hucksters -- to discuss, because there's no evil whitey to blame. There's just telling black women -- as I tell the inner city kids I speak to a couple of times a year at a local school -- that they need to put their careers and lives together first, and then meet somebody and start a family. With someone. An intact family. Because that's the best shot anybody has at raising emotionally healthy children who can do things in this world. Maybe even become somebody and make a difference.
A black man, Paul Beatty, just won the Man Booker Prize for literature. The first American ever. Should we feel sorry for him because he's black -- or excited for him because he did something great?
And by the way, his novel, The Sellout, seems to be a satire about racial politics and racist discrimination. That's what we need to see more of -- shows of how sick and absurd racism is -- not calls to treat people like they're less because of their race. If we do that, how are we any better than the white supremacists?
via @SteveStuWill







It's all part of the politics of division, as played by European monarchies going back centuries. If you can divide the people, you can prevent powerful opposition groups from forming.
Cousin Dave at October 27, 2016 1:50 PM
David French:
It's been my observation that the black SJWs just deny the Barbary slave trade ever happened. In fact, it is so settled that it is complete fiction that the mere mention of it brings out streams of ridicule.
Patrick at October 27, 2016 1:55 PM
"In fact, my love for that text puts it close to the Constitution in my reverence lineup. (I think the Constitution is probably at the top, and the Declaration of Independence is up there, too.)"
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
You should think long and hard about what a *reverence for the constitution* looks like and how you can square that reverence with a vote for a woman who has shown nothing but distain for it, and will do her best to evicerate it, if she is elected.
Isab at October 27, 2016 6:25 PM
To follow King's admonition is to value individual virtues, but there is no way to organize special interests by talking about universal values and virtues. Way back in Roman times, politicians promised the public goodies, and it didn't end well then either.
cc at October 27, 2016 6:31 PM
Which would make her no different from a lot of Presidents.
I think the one who needs a long and hard think is you, to be perfectly blunt. I can't fathom your hatred of Hillary.
Patrick at October 28, 2016 3:01 AM
"Which would make her no different from a lot of Presidents."
Gee, there's an attempt at the "two wrongs" fallacy again. To be clear, this was offered as dismissive of the disdain Ms. Clinton has for the Constitution because other Presidents have had this trait. Amazing how smart people don't have the discipline to avoid this fallacy.
Radwaste at October 28, 2016 7:39 AM
Gee, there's Rad, with his ignorance of logical fallacies and how they work.
If I had said, "Other Presidents have ignored the Constitution; that makes it okay for Hillary to do it," then I would have committed that fallacy, dunce. But I didn't say that, did I?
I was asking why Isab seems to have such hatred for Hillary for ignoring the Constitution when other Presidents have done it, but I don't see her seething hatred directed at them.
Not saying it makes anything okay. Just wondering where the hatred is for George W. Bush, or Andrew Jackson, to give a couple of examples of Presidents who have disdained the Constitution.
If you're going to doggedly follow every comment I make on this blog, looking for shit to pounce on, you might want to learn how logical fallacies work.
Patrick at October 28, 2016 3:07 PM
I think the one who needs a long and hard think is you, to be perfectly blunt. I can't fathom your hatred of Hillary.
Patrick at October 28, 2016 3:01 AM
I dont like people that get away with handling classified information in ways that would have put you and me in Levenworth.
I don't like people who treat people who work for them with contempt like the military and the secret service. There are reports of her being a nasty bitch to them all the way back to her days in Arkansas.
Hillary is not a class act. She is a lazy alchoholic shrew, with no respect for you, me or the Constitution.
She is clearly in poor health,
And she is married to a disbarred impeached rapist.
Isab at October 28, 2016 3:07 PM
"Gee, there's Rad, with his ignorance of logical fallacies and how they work."
I am sure you imagine yourself to be the intelligent, delightful and sensitive mammal here, but your comments represent a disregard for English, logic or both. That's a shame given some other comments of yours.
You have now insisted that
"Other Presidents have ignored the Constitution; that makes it okay for Hillary to do it." is different from "Which would make her no different from a lot of Presidents."
I illustrate your error:
"Which would make her {Hillary} no different from {equivalent in her handling of the subject, observance of the Constitution} a lot of Presidents {other Presidents}.
You have clearly used the observed fallacy and doubled down on it. This is not Animal Farm, you are not more equal than others, and you have not defended your point, much less earned any credit through namecalling.
I, of all people, expect better, and I suspect others here do also.
Radwaste at October 28, 2016 8:38 PM
Andrew Jackson - He is dead and gone. So we don't worry about him too much. We don't worry about Siraj ud-Daulah too much either for the same reason. And he was quite a bit worse than Jackson.
George W. Bush - Quite frankly people on the right don't like him that much. The Tea Party was formed in response to Bush. Obama inherited it but Bush unintentionally started it. Bush is directly responsible for the current GOP civil war between the Tea Party and the Commerce Party. And while he is not dead yet he isn't on the ballot this year.
Though if you aren't hearing the hatred for both the Bushes from the right then you haven't been paying attention. After all, daddy Bush has probably voted for Hillary.
Ben at October 29, 2016 7:27 AM
Thanks for answering, Isab. And you're right. Having once held a top secret clearance myself, I was a little stunned by the cavalier attitude with which Hillary handled classified information.
No, Rad, I did not commit the fallacy. I would have committed the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" if I had said it was okay for Hillary to disdain the Constitution since other presidents have. But I never said that.
Patrick at October 29, 2016 2:33 PM
As I've said before, I'm still trying to figure out why it was okay for Rice and Powell to set up their own servers, but it's a heinous crime for Clinton to have done the exact same thing. Every 'explanation' I've gotten basically boils down to,"It's different when we do it".
I'll believe that the outrage is genuine when any republican excoriates Powell and Rice.
Ironically, it was the State Department server was the one that got hacked, not Clinton's private server.
JoJo at November 2, 2016 9:03 AM
Leave a comment