> What if we didn't encourage a world in which people identified with and advocated for their own race?
Agreed. How on earth did the "Each race only looks out for their own kind" mentality get labeled as progressive?
Agreed. How on earth did the "Each race only looks out for their own kind" mentality get labeled as progressive?
Take for example anti-trust, which sought to destroy the power of big trusts in the Teddy Roosevelt era -- and was itself destroyed by the progressive Watergate Democrats in the 70s, about 60 years later. All these anti-trust rules were considered old fashioned, obsolete, and policies of a discredited generation. They were called bigoted and not with the times.
Or the social hygiene movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hygiene_movement), another great crusading Progressive cause, that sought to make illegal prostitution, alcohol, public nudity, and other attacks on morals. Few remember that the Women's Temperance movement and the Women's Suffrage movement were part of the same movement, and the progressives of those days really wanted to build a virtuous society, in much the same way that the current crop of progressives is obsessed with virtue, or the 60s crop was also inordinately focused on being virtuous, except for them being virtuous required dismantling the laws of the previous virtue movement. All the moral purity laws from the social hygiene movement were dismantled by other progressives in the 60s-70s.
Or the union rights movement which was triumphant during the FDRs period, but was systematically destroyed primarily by Democrats in the 1970s-1990s (Clinton putting the last nail in the coffin). Unions were viewed as bigoted, old fashioned, and not with the times.
Similarly the civil rights movement of the 60s is being systematically dismantled by the culture warriors of the present era, who view color-blind policies as the legacies of a discredited generation, of bigotry, and not being with the times.
The good news is that if our current pro-racism movement triumphs and the nation re-segregates, there is a good chance that grandchildren of the current generation will themselves dismantle that system as being old-fashioned and not-with-the-times.
In either case, Progressivism needs to be viewed as an act of rebellion first, and the policies are whatever they need to be in order to rally the most people to the moral revolution.
To point out making this claim, while also noting that what people consider 'virtue' changes, is implicitly treating relativist ethics as valid; Leaving this assumption unchallenged is a key part in enabling counter-productive 'inclusion' when it occurs; Similarly, it allows one group to define it's ideology as 'virtue' simply by being 'new' or 'modern' without needing to define 'why' it is virtue...
(to note: This is not at all the same as, and I'm absolutely not saying that 'inclusion' is implictly counter-productive)
This part very interesting:
>The good news is that if our current pro-racism movement triumphs and the nation re-segregates, there is a good chance that grandchildren of the current generation will themselves dismantle that system as being old-fashioned and not-with-the-times.
Combine this with the ongoing "Great Sort" where people are more and more moving into areas that best conform to their value systems, it's possible that the country will break apart into smaller pieces before there's an opportunity for a future generation to reject the current obsession with identity labels. It's interesting to see how quickly a large share of the population has adopted the primacy of label collecting when for most of my life the phrase "I'm a person, not a label" was common, especially in progressive circles.
This used to be a role filled by states, when federal policies were kept limited in scope.
It's the same thing with "white male privileges", when you start fighting literal "white males" in general and not "the system which is biased against females/people of color" you already lost, no matter how much energy you put in the fight. I'd even say the more energy you put in the fight the more you'll lose, both politically and humanly
People at the bottom of the ladder are equally fucked no matter if they're white, black, &c. while the people at the top are thriving like never before and doing everything they can to stay in charge. There is an insane amount of hate in a lot of people these days, hate generated by decades, if not centuries, of abusive systems, it should be redirected toward meaningful goals instead of these meaningless token achievements. Reading and learning about modern progressivism feels like a parody of previous civil right movements.
People have all the reasons to be upset, some people more than other, that being said the fight should be vertical, right now it is mostly horizontal. We have to think in term of classes, not races, otherwise we're heading towards self destruction
> "looking out for your own kind" is not racist
If "your own kind" is based on """race""" [0], it is, no matter who's doing it. Words have meaning, either they apply to everyone or they don't apply at all.
[0] aka ethnicity, skin color, &c. because "races" don't exist anywhere on earth other than in the US
> because "races" don't exist anywhere on earth other than in the US
Race doesn't exist, except when it does for BIPOC or when talking about the concept of Blackness or whiteness. You're probably thinking, those aren't races those are ethnicities! But what does it matter? These are terms used to separate people into groups and even if you switch the words the concept remains.
If you're saying I'm using Race/Ethnicity incorrectly just know that on every form I have ever filled out about demographics race was a choice from "African, Asian, Caucasian, etc." and Ethnicity was only two options, "Hispanic/Latino or Non Hispanic/Latino".
Not even one sentence in and we already in a "left vs right" argument... Newspeak isn't a leftist thing, it's a "people who know the power of words" thing
> Remember when ICE was running "concentration camps"?
It's just as despicable when it's coming from one or the other, and that why you shouldn't side with either
> But on every form I have ever filled out race was a choice from "African, Asian, Caucasian, etc."
And this is exactly why we should reappropriate words and their meaning, and not fall into the trap of complete deconstruction of language(s)
To be honest, this captures my frustration perfectly. I have a concept I am trying to communicate but I'm essentially being told "no, you're not using the right term". If I were to go back and change "people on the left" to "Newspeak users" it wouldn't substantially change what I'm trying to get across. And I feel like all we are doing is bickering about word-choice.
> I no longer subscribe to the "words matter" philosophy,
This is your point
> considering how fast and loose people on the left
this is your argument to support your point
Either keep the political side out or use example of both sides. Otherwise people will think you're trying to charge one side for the issue
I won't comment on what's fair (who am I but a drop?). But I think that's the viewpoint.
My "own kind" includes people of all races, religions, genders, and ethnicities. If you separate people based on their race, don't trust people based on their race, etc, you're a racist.
What you would hear from the KKK is that the school board would be 100% white Christian males, and they don't want anyone who isn't one of them.
There is a difference between wanting representation and wanting to exclude all other representation.
There is a difference between men thinking no women deserve a seat on the board, and women demanding equal seats on the board.
Again - I won't comment on what is fair. But I will draw a line between the difference.