It's true. White liberals are extremists when it comes to race
Have you ever run into someone online who was radically strident on racism, only to learn later that they were white? According to a recent study, that wasn't an exception.
The most liberal flank of the Democratic Party is far whiter than it used to be, and decidedly to the left of many of the party’s blacks and other racial minorities on a wide range of issues. Zach Goldberg (no relation), a PhD candidate at the University of Georgia, wrote a comprehensive survey of the phenomenon for Tablet magazine in June in a piece titled “America’s White Saviors.” He notes that black and Asian liberals are more sympathetic to restrictive immigration policies than their white counterparts. And both black and Latino liberals tend to be more supportive of Israel and less supportive of the identity politics agenda around sexuality and gender.
Some of the more moderate views of many blacks and Latinos may stem from the fact that they tend to be more religious than increasingly secular white liberals, polling has found . Another factor is the age divide: Older voters in all parties and ethnicities tend to be more conservative. And some of it has to do with a sea change in attitudes on race in general. White liberals are the only demographic that says they have more positive views of other ethnicities than their own. As Matt Yglesias of Vox notes, “In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter. This change amounts to a ‘Great Awokening.’ ”
Shouldn't you identify and sympathize with your demographic?
Has there ever been a group in history with open self-hatred?
And see that self-hatred as a virtue?
It's not healthy.
This is why I'm always quick to point out that I'm not a liberal. I'm a socialist.
For once conservatives are right.
Of course conservatives are batsh*t crazy about lots of other stuff, but they have this one right.
And it explains why whites have abandoned the Democratic Party. After all, why would you want to be part of a group that thinks less of you because of your skin color?
[Update: I just thought of a group in history with open self-hatred - religious groups. For instance, Middle Ages Catholicism taught that you were born with the stain of sin, and Gawd was angry at you from birth.
It's interesting that white liberals have adopted this practice.
Comments
And if you don't agree with them
you're a racist.
Meanwhile in a very white state
south dakota
So is this just one more call for "moderation"
of what constitutes the left of the "left" party? Sure seems like it to me. And I'm sorry, but to pin all of the racist pandering on to the "left of the left" smells like one more call to centrism and bad mouthing us "pie in the sky liberals," IMHO. So we all just need to be more pragmatic and make defeating Trump our litmus test? No wonder this country has no viable "left." And yes, I'm a white female with a college education, which just makes me a racist extremist in the eyes of the LA Times....
As for that Congressional Black Caucus being the true "left" I tend to put much more faith in those who call out the hypocrisy of that esteemed body which has not done shit for their "true" constituents, rather than believing in their centrist messages of "moderation" while they themselves make millions and are just one more facet of the neo liberal problem.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Uh, no and no
I'm a socialist, so I'm to the left of liberals on most issues.
And Repubs are generally more racist than Dems by any measure.
That being said, self-hatred is nor normal and its not healthy and it's not a virtue.
Seeing any skin color as a negative is problematic, and seeing your own skin color as a negative is just sick.
This makes me think of how liberals reacted to this news.
And this.
Self-hatred is ugly.
Well stated, gjohnsit.
Oh I do fully understand the
So in that respect I don't think you see my point here at all - I am in no way saying there isn't racism in white elitist positions, but I am saying the spin of this particular article is doing the same damned thing in a different way by painting anyone who doesn't see moderation as the answer as a racist extremist elitist.
As for celebrating white deaths, I for one have never done that ONCE and if that's meant specifically for me I resent the implication.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I never even implied that.
¡Cálmate!
Then why use that as part of your reply?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Because I was referring back to the point of the essay
I was trying to bring the thread back to the original point.
I often do that with my comments. Is that unusual to you?
You seem spot on to me in these comments, Lizzy
The deliberate points made by that author, that somehow the CBC, etc should have truly Left credibility (The Black Agenda Report is an excellent source on the sell out of the CBC, et al, so one doesn't have to believe me to read up on that.) or that moderation and pragmatism is again the "only way to beat Trump" is to me a tell
I am in no way saying there isn't racism in white elitist positions, but I am saying the spin of this particular article is doing the same damned thing in a different way by painting anyone who doesn't see moderation as the answer as a racist extremist elitist.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They're not "liberal" OR "Left"
THEY'RE THE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT.
This sort of thing has been bugging me since long before the current "Awokening" (great, just great - now Democrat voters have their very own counterpart to the Republican "nucular"). It's a fallacy.
When we hear the term "alt-right", we're supposed to think "neo-Nazis" - but they use it as a mask; we shouldn't allow them to get away with it.
These people, these "Wokeies/Wokentologists", by contrast, should not be allowed to escape that selfsame label because it fits them like a glove. They're the right-wing OF A DIFFERENT CULTURE. Same mentality, same role in the political geography, DIFFERENT SIDE.
It all goes back to to that famous line of John McCain's back on the primary trail in 2000, when he denounced "the agents of intolerance, whether it's Pat Robertson on the Far Right, or Louis Farrakhan on the Far Left" - *sound of record scratching to a halt*
Wait. HOW is Louis Farrakhan "Far Left"? I'll admit, I have no idea what his opinions on environmental or economic policy might be, BUT I do know that he's authoritarian, hierarchical, ultra-religious, racist, sexist, homophobic, collectivist/conformist, segregationist, militaristic (which doesn't necessarily mean being "on the same side" as any particular nation-state's military), and so on. How is he "Left" in any way shape or form? Because he's BLACK??? So what?
It's not like McCain was deliberately trying to mislead or race-bait here, I don't think; he just wasn't thinking critically about any of this...just like hardly anyone else has.
I have. I have long a radically different vision of how the geography of politics - and hence, the language - should be. Trouble is, the recent twist of political discourse has made it harder than ever for me to present and publicize my ideas (if anyone could advise me on this, I'm all ears); being an autistic savant, I already have to contend with the fact that my ability to think, envision, and understand far outstrips my ability to communicate, especially when both those faculties relative to humans (no, I don't think of myself as human, never have, Ship of Theseus and all that) go speeding away into ultraviolet and infrared respectively, while most people are comfortably green and have enough trouble perceiving yellow and blue.
Getting back to the subject of the OP, I highly recommend the following:
https://slowtowrite.com/there-are-two-kinds-of-white-supremacists/
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
As I was reading the article
linked to in the essay, I kept wincing every time it said "left" and "liberal".
I came away scratching my head in confusion. The entire article is based on the (faulty) premise that the Democratic party is liberal and leftist, but (as with most political commentators nowadays), it never defines what those terms mean.
Self-identified "Democrats" only comprise 29% of the American public at present. An article that looks at what Democrats say, and extrapolates from that regarding what all white "leftists" or "liberals" think - in my opinion, such an article is pretty much meaningless.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Meaningless and in bad faith
that's my opinion.
EDITED because I misplaced a quote from Vox from another essay into this one. Glad I double-checked.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This is a feature, not a bug
of the current politics:
Trouble is, the recent twist of political discourse has made it harder than ever for me to present and publicize my ideas
In fact, I don't think it's going too far to say that it's the primary intent of current identity politics.
The primary intent sure as hell isn't making life better for black people, Latino people, Latino immigrants, native people, Asian-Americans, or anybody else having serious race-based trouble in this land of ours.
To do that you'd have to have a policy change of some kind.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Starting with Thomas Frank take on democrats
So one take from Thomas Frank is that the democratic party has become the party of "meritocracy" and technocrats. They are very much into their school affliations, graduate schools, SAT scores, salaries, etc. Their earned their priveldges by being smarter than others. Well, they have a problem in that they cannot blame fellow democrat African Americans for their high levels of poverty, discrimination, etc. However, it is politically acceptable to blame poor whites for their condition and hence the disdain they hold due to really class divisions.
I very get that feeling when I go see the latest happenings at TOP. After the election, Markos pretty much kickedout working class whites from his grand coalition. Or remember when Hillary was in India and bragged about how the best people voted for her.
This comment comes closest
IMO, this is about them whitewashing their own neoliberal guilt which is also another form of identity politics. The neoliberals can point to themselves as being very pious on the issue of race because by doing so, they still do no harm to their own individual economic and power standings.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yah race is a virtue signalling diversion from neoliberalism
Well said
I think this nails it. A lot of what sounds like identity politics from the corporate Dem crowd is really just curtains covering over their classism. Once you game it out past the surface you realize that the way the corporate Dems approach identity politics is just about the one identity -- rich folks' identity. They took powerful social narratives grounded in ethics, like various equality movements, hollowed those out, removed all the meaning and decency, filled them up with vitriol and bullshit, then they weaponized them. Yet another thing the rest of us built that they stole and abused.
A good insight
White elite liberals can't do without poor whites
the more conservative the better, just like they can't do without Trump.
Without those people to hate or despise, where would they be?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Immigration and Identity politics are the main issues here?
Since when?
OK. I'll bite. Im my opinion there are enough people in the world and there are enough people in the USA. We should have limited immigration back in the early 1980s when all this nonsense was easily predicable. This issue should have been handled then.
The biggest racists IMO are rural whites and urban blacks. I have lived among both. It's just human nature. I'm toward the. "just let everyone be," but also have some bias. So what.
I'm a Bernie supporter. He talks incessantly about economics. Maybe this is why.
I don't think immigration is the problem.
It's a problem, but not one of the fundamental problems. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that immigration can't be dealt with unless we deal with a couple other more fundamental problems.
With the exception of not ripping families apart and imprisoning them in detention centers/concentration camps. That can be dealt with right now. Pronto. Chop chop. Any time now. If you don't want them here, send them back. That's bad enough, in my opinion, given that the foreign policy of this nation is responsible for most of the reasons they've come here in the first place.
But seriously, the real problems here, in no particular order, are:
Overpopulation
Global warming
Tyranny
War for profit
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, worldwide problems I agree
Cheers. Thanks for responding.
Glad to respond!
I have a hard time prioritizing the list, given that all of them seem to be contributing to our decline like one big horrible cocktail.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We collectively ignore reality with opionated words, a present
tweeting unavoidable ... the worst trappings of enhanced social media driven by writers wanting attention, not journalists. Why give those words more visibility, headlines, clicks, more conversation?
It's a survey
It's not an opinion piece (except my personal opinion at the bottom).
On the same page, gj,
i think? Why throw resources at that which is clearly visible?
How awesome an
accomplishment to have been born {race, gender}. All the planning and work that goes into that. Damned proud I’m a CeltoRusBrit; I’m a little sick of not getting any rewards for that.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Carlin on identity pride
America is and always has been, as a country, completely full of shit. Elected Bill Clinton, who said, "hi, I'm completely full of shit, and haddaya like that?"
The guiding light of his incandescent sagacity still scorches today.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
BS comment redacted -
I am more kaputt than I thought, sorry.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Obviously, the point is not that it's an accomplishment
to be black, white, brown, or whatever. Female, male, what have you.
The fact that you can make that critique shows exactly how debased the discourses of racial justice, gender justice, and other forms of anti-bigotry have become.
What people called "Black Pride" was, as far as I remember, about pushing back against the overwhelming cultural opinion that black people were worthless gutter garbage: the men automatically criminals, the women automatically sluts--or worse, not even sluts, but just a sexual object for the taking, apparently without sentience.
It was about contesting that set of assumptions--and about standing in solidarity with other black people as they contested them.
Gay Pride was similar, with an additional dollop of emerging defiantly into visibility in a culture that had rendered us invisible (even when some of us were literally dying of a plague).
I think I was born a little too late for Woman Pride; maybe somebody else could speak to that. I found it in books and in private little pagan groups, but not much of anywhere else. There was plenty of feminism, better feminism than we have today, but not of the Woman Pride variety, not by the time I was in my late teens.
These forms of identity politics were about standing in solidarity with one another against entrenched cultural conditions that hurt us. Our assumptions and actions were based in an examination of the ideas which created those entrenched conditions. This analysis was, in turn, based in history both past and current.
All this has been debased to the level of "If you're Black, you're right; if you're white you're wrong (unless your name is Cornell West or Glen Ford). "If you're female, you're right; if you're male, you're wrong" (unless your name is Susan Sarandon or Jill Stein). "If you're gay, you're right; if you're straight, you're wrong (unless your name is Glenn Greenwald).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes. James Brown’s
“Say it loud / I’m Black and I’m Proud”
Was intended to be, and succeeded at, destroying the shuffling Negro clown that was a stereotype held by whites and internalized by many Blacks, or at least made people feel ashamed to be Black. And other groupings followed JB’s lead, as you say.
Today... I can’t help noticing that the Mother of Identity Politics is White Supremacy. Which calls to mind “the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Well, personally,
the demographic I most identify and sympathize with is "human".
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Heres what I disagree with,
self hatred and being self aware are two distinctly different things. And in lumping them together and showing disdain for self hatred it might discourage a person from being self aware.
What do I mean by that?
I am impressed with many indigenous cultures that could seemingly last thousands of years without ever committing mass atrocities (in the scale of WW2) against their own kind or going out and victimizing "others".
I am impressed with many cultures that had lifestyles that appear to have been suitable for long term sustainability on this planet. I would suggest that if other cultures had not bulldozed over them that the Native American, Native African and Native Aussies could have lived for 50,000 years more without destroying the planet.
On the other hand, I am not impressed with cultures that run roughshod over other peoples, enslaving, torture and genociding entire civilizations in their quest to build and maintain power. I am not impressed with those same cultures who have members within them that seem to not be able to get their voices heard to rein in the death and destruction. I am not impressed that those same cultures are on a path to destroy the livability of this planet. And again the dissenting voices within those cultures are not able to alter the outcome of that path of destruction.
I am impressed by the ability of oppressed minorities to forgive the oppressors so easily. I am not impressed that the oppressors are so sensitive and at the slightest insult decide they need to bomb someone into submission .
It has been my observation that the heritage, race and skin color that I am affiliated with (my people) has been the group of people that I am least impressed with. Does this make me a self hater or self aware? I don't hate myself because I (as a socialist as well) am always fighting the worst elements of "my people". I am opposed to "my peoples" war like ways, their slave apologizing ways, their exploitive ways, their planet destroying ways. I think I am opposed to inhumane treatment because I love humanity not because I hate it. I don't think that because I recognize that "my people" have been one of the most destructive forces ever put on this planet that I hate ALL of "my people".
To be fair, I don't really care if anyone decides that this makes me a self hater. Define me as you wish. I will keep fighting for more just outcomes in any and all areas. And I will see part of that battle to be to get "my people" to look in the mirror and see our part in the institutionalized injustices that do exist.
History
Unfortunately every heritage, race and skin color group on Earth is guilty of all of the things you describe.
White/Europeans have been on top for the last five centuries, but on the broad spectrum of history every group has done pretty much the same when they managed to gain the upper-hand.
Enslaving, torturing and genociding entire civilizations in a quest to build and maintain power isn't a new thing, and Europeans didn't invent it.
This isn't a case of being self-aware. It's a case of a selective view of history.
Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this.
The only consistent black v. white trend in history is the 1% screwing the 99%.
But, but, but ... what's happening here?
[video:https://youtu.be/0nFvhhCulaw]
I have now a moment of 'Great Aweakening'. Help me out here. Why do people believe that people with different skin pigmentation and ideological pretenses are different human beings with all the same virtues and weaknesses?
Ok, too tired to think, another TTTT.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Answer
Because barring an evolutionary jump, it's true. On average.
I am not sure I understand your answer
to be clear, I believe that all human creatures have the same virtues and failures independent of their pigmentation. So, what do you mean by 'barring an evolutionary jump'? And what is true? My English comprehension is not very fancy when it comes to short answers. Sorry.
https://www.euronews.com/live
It appears I misunderstood
Your double-negative threw me off.