The fundamental problem is that people have become conditioned to think of themselves as a member of a group first and an individual second. In many cases, the individual identity is completely obscured by the group identity. It doesn't matter if one is black, white, gay, straight, etc. It matters who they are as an individual, how they live their lives, care for their families, and so on. If one doesn't like a joke, a tv show, a book, a statue, or so on, ignore it and find something you do like. A Robert E Lee statue, for example, is not racist. It does not glorify slavery. It's history. The media and politicians stir up controversy and conflict for their own purposes, both in the States and elsewhere. Informed, confident individuals do not allow themselves to be played. The younger one is, the more accustomed they are to accepting group think whether it's about racial identity, sexual identity, and so forth. Older guys, such as myself, who grew up in a very blue collar world, and went on to college, and worked with people from all over the world, know that so much of what the media reports is simply false. Talk to and get to know people from other parts of the world and all of this "cancel culture" and group identity BS looks stupid and petty.
I’ll bring a third perspective to this: as an immigrant from a more collectivist society, I am conditioned to see myself as a member of a group. I recognize the benefits of it, but I just don’t like individuality all that much. I’m inclined to be very deferential to what my sources of authority (parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) say to conform to group norms.
What’s driving me nuts is that “identity politics” is about fake identities. Most of these “identity groups” are fronts for the white progressives who donate to liberal causes. E.g. MacKenzie Scott donated tons of money to “AAPI causes.” https://asamnews.com/2021/06/17/mackenzie-scott-donates-2-7-.... What the heck does she know about Asians or what causes they care about? I asked my dad if he could recognize any of the organizations on the list. Of course he couldn’t. What does that tell you about the incentive structure of these identity activist groups? As a result, the “Asian identity” and the “Muslim identity” that I see in the media seems to be essentially progressivism with window dressing, and has nothing to do with what my parents or aunts and uncles think about our culture. In fact, it’s often overly hostile to our values.
“Identity politics” doesn’t actually reflect what people in these groups want, except incidentally. E.g. “Asian activists” flipped out at Andrew Yang for a taking a more pro-policing stance, but most Asian voters supported him in the primary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. White progressives talk incessantly about “Black and brown people” but they hated Eric Adams, who overwhelmingly won the “Black and brown” vote. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/opinion/nyc-mayor-adams.h.... It’s not groups pursing their own political interests, but the political capital of minority groups being put in service of causes championed mainly by white people.
This is a straw man. I've never been talking about the people who aren't bothered by the jokes in question here because they're not personally carrying the baggage I'm referring to. I've talking about the people who are. Those people exist and are numerous, and they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.
> I've never been talking about the people who aren't bothered by the jokes in question here because they're not personally carrying the baggage I'm referring to. I've talking about the people who are. Those people exist and are numerous
It’s impossible to talk about these groups separately because our norms and policies around race have costs and benefits which must be balanced across all the minorities who will be on the receiving end. Maybe some people will be heartened by their white professors standing up and declaring themselves “gatekeepers of white supremacy” (https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator...) but a lot of other “people of color” are going to find such treatment othering and uncomfortable.
There’s also the very real risk that all this race consciousness holds back the progress of minorities. I know progressives imagine a utopian future where they’ve vanquished racism but people of color have to live in the real world. And looking back at my own life (growing up as a brown guy in Virginia), I don’t think it would have been better if everyone had been super conscious about my skin color versus their’s.
Given the potential costs to all members of minority groups, we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.” If we’re going to change the norms around how white people relate to minorities, we will have to take account of how everybody affected feels about that. Mostly white progressives knocking over tables and demanding extreme policies actually gets in the way of minorities getting to control how society treats them.
> they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.
White “allyship” is problematic and paternalistic: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/15/definition-racist-action... (“Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”)
It’s an agency problem: white “allies” don’t suffer the harms they’re trying to address, and for the most part don’t bear the cost of unintended consequences. For example, as the dad of brown kids, I find that a lot of “anti-racist education” risks putting brown kids in a mindset that their success or failure depends on factors outside their control. By contrast, even if such education makes white kids feel guilty, it simultaneously tells them that they’re the ones with agency and power. The mostly white people advocating these educational policies for the most part don’t have to deal with the consequences to kids that might result.
Likewise, white progressives can freely engage in rhetoric and hostility to other whites and don’t have to suffer the consequences of any backlash. Frankly I’m perplexed why—if progressives think white people are as racist as they say—that they think it’s a good idea to constantly call half the country “white supremacists,” send them to the back of the vaccine line, etc.
I urge you to get out from behind your desk and actually talk to people who are adversely impacted by people's poor behavior on a day-to-day basis. (This will help you determine who these "unspecified" people are for yourself.) Even though you are "brown” it doesn't grant you license to make excuses for jerks.
Others can argue "we don't need your help," and that's fine, but at this point in time, given where we are today as a society, and the damage I see done to people on a frequent basis, I'd rather err on the side of helping in a constructive way, how the impacted people ask us to, and advocating for people to be respectful. Call people like me "paternalistic" and "othering" if you must; it's just a rhetorical smear as far as I'm concerned. Highfalutin' characterizations add as little to this conversation as simpler-sounding ones.
> we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.”
There's nothing extreme whatsoever about adopting a professional demeanor. You are arguing against a position I do not hold. Again, I beg you, check your straw men at the door, and stick to the subject.
