[Discussion] Identity Politics

Singling out individuals, or groups, based on the colour of their skin, their gender, or their religion. Is it acceptable, on these grounds, to victimize some, but not others? Or, it is never acceptable?

Individuals judged by the content of their character. Has that goal, on a broad scale, warped to become selective prejudice to benefit ourselves?

It seems judging people of colour on the colour of their skin is racism. (Which, of course, it is.) Whilst judging white people on the colour of their skin is not. (Which, of course, it also is.) Judging anyone on the colour of their skin is racism. To do so does not correct the imbalance and the suffering people of colour have faced. It helps keep racism alive. It bolsters and invigorates white extremists. Hate begets hate. Darkness begets darkness. Should we not strive through light, through love, to erode segregation at every turn. Not embolden it as it benefit us and ours. All black people being told to stay home. All white people being told to stay home. Same difference.

Yes, it's easier for someone not of the minority in question to say such. It does not, though, make them wrong. They should not be the one to say it? I think that's kind of the issue. Looking at someone and determining where and how they can be.

I do not hail from America. I am not a person of colour. I am (as best I can determine) a cisgenger male. Does this invalidate my opinion? Does this make me unable to contribute? Is that not the very same sort of thinking that allowed prejudice to flourish through racism, and sexism.

Northern Ireland has its own problems concerning hate and segregation. I have experienced suffering. Is my suffering somehow less? Does victimisation and suffering for a, b, and c, somehow carry more worth than for x, y, and z. Can a US citizen person of colour and a catholic/protestant from Northern Ireland not empathise with one another, support one another, from what they've experienced due to skin colour or religious upbringing. I may not know what it's like to be sexually harassed as a woman. I may not know what it's like to be caused bodily harm as a person of colour. I've still experienced both, though. Grading experiences via identity markers, or refuting it altogether, is horrid.

I'd like to see elaboration on what spiralled out of the media thread. I cannot comprehend that we can be so far apart on these issues. Misunderstanding. Sure. Helping each other better understand is surely preferable to, well, other less civilised approaches which we tend to see.

Racism is the systemic inequality and oppression of groups of people based on one’s race. This is a large system issue.

Racial prejudice is the individual attitudes, implicit biases, and/or behaviors directed from one person towards another person or people based on race. This is an individual issue.

Ergo, due to colonial power structures in Western patriarchies, there is no such thing as “racism against white people.”

Good day.

Reaper81 wrote:

Racism is the systemic inequality and oppression of groups of people based on one’s race. This is a large system issue.

Racial prejudice is the individual attitudes, implicit biases, and/or behaviors directed from one person towards another person or people based on race. This is an individual issue.

Ergo, due to colonial power structures in Western patriarchies, there is no such thing as “racism against white people.”

Good day.

That pretty much sums it up.. the OP is really just talking about white people feelings getting hurt.. there is literally zero real world repercussions to some random black people hating white folk. Whereas black people in America basically spend every single moment of their lives worrying about what might happen if they cross the wrong white person on a given day.. a cop.. a doctor.. a loan officer.. all major power and decision making in America is controlled by a white person.

The whole both sides are bad when it comes to racism is complete and utter bullsh*t.

edit

Racists don't care if their racism is met with understanding and peace/love.. that just empowers them to continue to ramp up the racism.

RnRClown wrote:

It seems judging people of colour on the colour of their skin is racism. (Which, of course, it is.) Whilst judging white people on the colour of their skin is not. (Which, of course, it also is.) Judging anyone on the colour of their skin is racism. To do so does not correct the imbalance and the suffering people of colour have faced.

I think there is a conflation of two ideas here: personal racism and systemic racism. A person can be racist; "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". That's neither here nor there - people goan people.

Systemic racism is when that racism is built into societal power structures, and in that case, it's only the people building those power structures that _can_ be racist; you can't implement systemic racism if you aren't in control of the system.

The former is (relatively) minor. The latter is not. When folks say "black people can't be racist", they mean the latter.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The former is (relatively) minor. The latter is not. When folks say "black people can't be racist", they mean the latter.

Never mind the fact that if they DO mean the former, those black folk are rarely the ones wielding the societal power to actually do anything about it, BECAUSE of the latter.

EDIT - Honestly, I've read the OP several times, and I'm struggling to understand what questions are even being asked in it.

RnRClown wrote:

It seems judging people of colour on the colour of their skin is racism. (Which, of course, it is.) Whilst judging white people on the colour of their skin is not. (Which, of course, it also is.) Judging anyone on the colour of their skin is racism. To do so does not correct the imbalance and the suffering people of colour have faced. It helps keep racism alive. It bolsters and invigorates white extremists. Hate begets hate. Darkness begets darkness. Should we not strive through light, through love, to erode segregation at every turn. Not embolden it as it benefit us and ours. All black people being told to stay home. All white people being told to stay home. Same difference.

Yes, it's easier for someone not of the minority in question to say such. It does not, though, make them wrong. They should not be the one to say it? I think that's kind of the issue. Looking at someone and determining where and how they can be.

I do not hail from America. I am not a person of colour. I am (as best I can determine) a cisgenger male. Does this invalidate my opinion? Does this make me unable to contribute? Is that not the very same sort of thinking that allowed prejudice to flourish through racism, and sexism.

I recommend giving the paper White Fragility a read. It helps provide a different framework to think about race in America and spells out why white people are generally ignorant about race and poorly equipped to talk about it.

I couldn't help read your introduction and think about the "Universalism and Individualism" section. That's not to say that what you wrote was bad. Just that it's based on a lot of assumptions about race that are so thoroughly baked into our society that they're largely invisible.

RnRClown wrote:

I do not hail from America. I am not a person of colour. I am (as best I can determine) a cisgenger male. Does this invalidate my opinion? Does this make me unable to contribute? Is that not the very same sort of thinking that allowed prejudice to flourish through racism, and sexism.

I look at it this way--I used to say that parents shouldn't hit their kids. I don't have kids. Parents say that unless you have kids, your opinions on parenting don't matter. Unless you have direct, lived experience of something and skin in the game, your opinion doesn't matter.

It's much the same with someone's race or sex. Unless you share that race or that sex, you don't have direct, lived experience of it and you don't have the same skin in the game.

(edit for tone) So if you want to contribute, ask what people need. If they need your opinion, then give it. If they say they don't and they need something else based on their own opinion, give them that.

I think there is also a difference between racist and racism.

Racist applies to an act where the judgeent is done based on someones race.

Racism also has the idea that there is a very large power imbalance between the person doing the judging and the person gettying judged.

So, whether it is a white person being judged because they are white or a black person because they are black, those are racist acts.

However, white people do not suffer from racism because, in North America/Europe, white folks have the power, and are not systematically punished in all aspects of their life for being white.

edit: removed the McElwaine sig, no longer funny without the spam

I don't really like the term 'identity politics' because it's it's just a way of labeling anything but 'default' groups as special interests. Except for a few really society-wide things, just about everything under 'politics' is going to be pointed at at least of one of those interests. And to be fair, what a lot of those identity groups are asking for is "cut out the systemic discrimination".

EDIT: Nothing to see here...

Mod: Anti-gaslight: there was some conspiracy theory spam going around, which has been nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Also: Glad to see that McElwaine is still remembered. XD

Couple of thoughts. There is a difference between racism and bigotry. Bigotry lacks the systemic component.
Also, all politics is by necessity identity politics. How can you take a political position without identifying with the underlying interests served by that position? Gas-lit fox news viewers are lied to about the underlying interests served by the position they are fed.

Beuks33 wrote:

Also, all politics is by necessity identity politics. How can you take a political position without identifying with the underlying interests served by that position?

In conjunction with OG's link about Individuality, this makes me realize something. You're right that all the politics we're used to is where you identify with the underlying interests served by that position. What's ironic is that Identity Politics does not.

Identity Politics isn't just "hey, this is in my group's interest, this is in your group's interest, let's negotiate and maybe we can both benefit by working together."

Identity Politics is "this is in my group's interest. We cannot negotiate on an even playing field until my interests are served. I must benefit enough that we are closer to being equals before we can fairly negotiate."

Identity Politics isn't the usual negotiation between groups, where you try and find some mutually beneficial arrangement. Identity Politics is one group handing over power to another group, even if it turns out to be a zero-sum game.

Now, the hope is that someday we'll live in an equitable society, but that's a long way off.

I don't think that having a happy, healthy, well educated population that doesn't have to worry about the erosion or total lack of civil rights should infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same. Zero sum game theory is the ruination of all of it.

Beuks33 wrote:

I don't think that having a happy, healthy, well educated population that doesn't have to worry about the erosion or total lack of civil rights should infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same. Zero sum game theory is the ruination of all of it.

Sure, that's why I wrote "Now, the hope is that someday we'll live in an equitable society, but that's a long way off." But I'm also talking about what the path to that happy/healthy/etc. population looks like.

I may be confusing because what you said made me realize something, even if that's not exactly what you said, because I made a mistake. Sorry 'bout that!

So I guess I should first say that "identity politics" is not just "identifying with the underlying interests served by that position." The identity politics that people are talking about is putting the group interests above individual interests.

I thought when you said "all politics is by necessity identity politics" you were referencing how even when people who are members of a privileged identity think they are acting politically as individuals, they are making decisions that benefit their group. My bad.

None of what you just wrote makes any sense or has anything to do with the original post. It’s literally a bunch of word salad.

At best it’s some convoluted attempt to “both sides” identity politics.

TheGameguru wrote:

None of what you just wrote makes any sense or has anything to do with the original post. It’s literally a bunch of word salad.

Try this then, and see if it makes more sense if I start with this: Identity Politics is often criticized as turning our politics into one group against another group.

That criticism is wrong.

(edit) It is wrong because it gets the facts wrong: *most* politics involves groups, and it always has, including plenty of *good* politics.

At best it’s some convoluted attempt to “both sides” identity politics.

Nope, whatever it is, I can promise you it's not that.

I think I'm tracking. A recent You Are Not So Smart ep I was listening to lays it out like this:

By focusing on particular groups when you say "identity politics," you make it sound like there are certain groups of people who don’t have identities. On its face, it’s absurd, if you think about this as just a human psychological process. But also, it reflects this sense of generally white male identity, in American politics, is seen as the baseline. And so anybody who has neither of those identities or is lacking one of them has identity politics; they do identity politics.

It seemed to make sense when the interviewee was talking, at least.

RnRClown wrote:

I do not hail from America. I am not a person of colour. I am (as best I can determine) a cisgenger male. Does this invalidate my opinion? Does this make me unable to contribute? Is that not the very same sort of thinking that allowed prejudice to flourish through racism, and sexism.

Asking someone to support and defend an opinion they present is not prejudice. It's precisely the opposite.

Fear of having their opinion ignored is a huge issue for white cis men. That fear is so pervasive it’s difficult for us to really to really explore how this loss of platform affects us or changes how we see ourselves, so we tend to externalize the issue. I think that’s where the backlash to idpol among cishet white men comes from.

The crucial piece of reality, though, is that the right to have one’s opinion listened to, validated, accepted, and discussed has really only ever existed for cishet white men. We are losing a privilege that has not existed for any other group in our popular narrative. To clarify: it has existed, but the Eurocentric culture I inhabit (the same culture that defines the VAST majority of the culture, history, politics, and institutions that affect me) have written that privilege out. So we exist in a world where our opinions are valued to a degree that literally no one else’s is valued.

Social media is changing that, to a very tiny extent. You can see these changes just by watching the backlash from cishet white men. Gamergate, the Hugo award debacle, kekistan, trump: these are all negative responses driven mainly by white men to the fact that the voices of others are getting louder. The comfortable but false narrative is that we lose our voice when spaces are shared with others.

(There are other idpol clashes - like the clash between TERFs and inclusionary feminism, or the clash between latinx Americans and undocumented people, but I am not qualified to speak on them).

I freely admit that this feeling of losing my voice is a frustration that I have to keep in check. Losing status as World’s Most Privileged isn’t always fun. Look at the commentary here and tell me what you think the percentage of cishet white men adding their opinion to this thread is...in a forum renowned for its progressiveness no less. I have found that the easiest way to celebrate identity politics (and I do celebrate them) - is to listen to everyone and try to withhold your opinion until you at least think you understand things from other points of view.

I’m sure many men consider this a way of saying our opinions are less valid than others. I’m comfortable with their opinion on this topic.

Seth wrote:

Fear of having their opinion ignored is a huge issue for white cis men. That fear is so pervasive it’s difficult for us to really to really explore how this loss of platform affects us or changes how we see ourselves, so we tend to externalize the issue. I think that’s where the backlash to idpol among cishet white men comes from.

True, but what I was getting at was this. Now that we've established that groups looking out for their identity is the norm in politics and that criticism of "idpol" is wrong, what *is* different is that idpol is one group deferring to another until the groups are equal enough so that their political negotiations are on a level playing field.

Now, here's the curious thing about "white cis men" in this--their group should provide them no positive identity. Like, I think we become more and more nervous the closer the words "white" and "pride" get to each other, right? Most of us agree that the further those two words are from each other, the better the world will be?

So whatever the other challenges like the one you've identified, part of it is that what is being asked is for people to join an identity group that will be unlike all the other identity groups. It will be an identity group that does not negotiate with any other group for its own benefit, but only acts as an ally for other groups, asking nothing in return. It is an identity group where the members share no positive connection to each other, only a shared responsibility.

Look at the commentary here and tell me what you think the percentage of cishet white men adding their opinion to this thread is...in a forum renowned for its progressiveness no less.

Probably because this is a fourm even more renowned as an intellectually active retirement community for old farts left over from P&C. : D

There’s a long answer to your concern, cheese, but it’ll take me hours to formulate it. Please accept the below shorthand response for now:

“No one’s stopping white cishet dudes from joining the local Polish hall, Latvian hall, Irish club, German club, or literally any other idpol group in which they fit.”

Seth wrote:

There’s a long answer to your concern, cheese, but it’ll take me hours to formulate it. Please accept the below shorthand response for now:

“No one’s stopping white cishet dudes from joining the local Polish hall, Latvian hall, Irish club, German club, or literally any other idpol group.”

Don't worry Seth, that kind of thing is very much on my mind, and it doesn't work--no one's going to get away with "I'm not white, I'm Polish/Latvian/Irish/German-American." For purposes of idpol, most of those groups--especially the bigger ones--became white when they became Reagan Democrats back in the 80s.

"Oh, Trump is Scottish-American, and I'm of another European ethnicity, so I'm not responsible to come get him" is NOT going to work, right?

You're as white as the system treats you.

So you’re not asking the question “if white cishet dudes can’t be a part of the group White Cishet Dudes and be celebrated, where else can they go,” you’re stating “yeah just because you complain about cultural appropriation on St Patrick’s day doesn’t make you any less white straight cis and male.”

Am I clocking that right?

Seth wrote:

So you’re not asking the question “if white cishet dudes can’t be a part of the group White Cishet Dudes and be celebrated, where else can they go,” you’re stating “yeah just because you complain about cultural appropriation on St Patrick’s day doesn’t make you any less white straight cis and male.”

Am I clocking that right?

Yup!

In fact, the way you put it leads to another question. Is your responsibility the same if they've benefited more from systemic racism? Should rich white people just donate a substantial chunk of change to causes that fight racism but get to stay rich, or should they donate enough that they fall back down the ladder until they're not rich anymore?

Great questions.

I’m not the one to ask since I blame the rich for climate change and would like to see the guillotine rolled back out, but — great questions!

Assault is a crime for anyone to do, but the child shooting me with a pop gun is different than the grown up using a rifle.

Seth wrote:

Great questions.

I’m not the one to ask since I blame the rich for climate change and would like to see the guillotine rolled back out, but — great questions!

OH! and I was looking for the piece that's been in the back of my mind on this issue and couldn't find the original, and now I know why--it's on Facebook. I did find contained in this piece, and actually, the whole thing is relevant so I'll LINK it, too.

“Donald Trump isn't a Republican issue or a rich people issue or a human issue. Donald Trump is a white people issue. Whenever Ben Carson says batsh*t crazy nonsense, Black people rise up, and let him know that he needs to STFU. Whenever Raven-Symone pops off, we put her cap back on. We even handled Rachel Dolezal for you. Yes, we also make jokes and come up with clever memes and hashtags, but at the core of all that is that we are letting these people know that they are embarrassing us as Black people. It is time, white people, for you to finally step up and recognize that you also (even more so) have a responsibility to your race. It is up to you to silence Donald Trump. Don't just insult him and make fun of him. You have to connect it to your race. Recognize that he is embarrassing you as a white person. Simple snark won't win here. You have to feel it. You have to use words like "as a white person" and "he is an embarrassment to my race." Stop acting like Trump isn't the pinnacle and the result of America's history and tradition of white supremacy. And again, P.S.: Simply put, white people, come get your boy.”