Depends on whose history, literature and economics you're studying....
Just because the facts were placed in our textbook by some culturally privileged Caucasian scholar doesn't mean that they are true.
Academia has a history of claiming things as objectively true, and then changing it's mind. It's healthy to question these things from the beginning. If you're doing secondary research then you ought to be asking who wrote what you are reading, what was their outlook on life, and why did they choose to write what they wrote. If you are doing primary research then you ought to be asking the same thing about your methodology.
There surely is such thing as 'objective truth', but it isn't to be found in textbooks written by human beings.
Really? The fact that a textbook was written by a human does not mean it cannot contain facts.
No amount of politics will change the fact that the Normandy landings occurred on June 6, 1944.
there ya go...just what the article is talking about. Sorry to have to clue you in, but nobody buys that weird leftist newspeak.
Plenty of progressive movements (including the original Progressive Era) did not make racial causes central or important.
I do think it's appropriate to think of this ideology primarily in racial terms. Virtually any issue supported by the left today is, in its essence, about stripping white people of power, identity, and autonomy, and giving that power to other groups.
Diversity, equality, multiculturalism, globalism, "one-world"-ism, pro-mass-immigration, all of these terms mean "not white". It's perfectly easy to see that, because all "white" cultures are treated differently in this paradigm, as "oppressor", "colonialist" nations/peoples, "majority/minority", "privileged", etc. These terms don't apply to other groups.
The amorphousness and formlessness of this ideology and its lack of coherent theoretical basis (as opposed to something more rigidly principled like Marxism, libertarianism, etc) is what provides cover for its true aim, which is political power for its adherents.
But see, their ideology is postmodernism, which teaches that all truth claims are not really true in any universal sense, but are only valid within certain sociological groups. It also teaches that all speech is about power, and only that. So they are in fact acting consistently with their ideology.
It certainly is amorphous and formless, and lacks a coherent theoretical basis, though, I'll give you that.
I don't think that the ideology people complain about actually exists; I think its a mélange of different things that the objecting parties don't like, that are held by different people, and not subscribed to as a whole by any coherent group.
> I do think it's appropriate to think of this ideology primarily in racial terms.
I think that's more telling about you than any coherent ideology.
> Virtually any issue supported by the left today is, in its essence, about stripping white people of power, identity, and autonomy, and giving that power to other groups.
Equal pay for women (and women's issues generally)? Raising the minimum wage (and economic justice issues generally)? Voting rights (and political reform generally)? LGBTQ rights and related issues?
If all you see of the left is racial issues, that's says a lot -- but more about how you look at the world, than about the left that actually exists.
> The amorphousness and formlessness of this ideology and its lack of coherent theoretical basis
...is a product of the fact that you are creating something out of things you don't like, and pretending its a single ideology. There's lots of different ideologies, many of which are rigidly principled, but "the Left" (like "the Right") is a big umbrella under which there exists lots of ideologies with a certain degree of commonality, not a single ideology.
lol. F=ma I don't care who wrote it :)
Science experiments like CERN have to go to great lengths to eliminate bias. It's easy to see how bias can influence softer sciences and arts.
The last time I sat in a philosophy lecture thinking about what the smart guys of yore said and whether it makes sense or not was basically all we did.
The fact is that these students are rebelling against the education they are paying for in order to gain more visibility for non-issues. Some of these issues are actually fairly fascist. They asked for a piece of artwork to be taken down because it insulted them. If we extend that argument, no art would be allowed, ever! Coddled is the word that comes to my mind.
I sometimes wonder if rebellion like this can cause another dark age someday if it gains enough support from young people. Or maybe a beginning of "Idiocracy" type dystopia.