General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon't Stop Arguing, Complaining And Fighting *For* 'Identity Politics'
Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
No one seems to have a satisfying definition of what "identity politics" means, exactly, but the message is clear: Liberals have been paying too much attention to race and gender and sexual orientation or not enough attention to the right variants of those and sensible Americans are rightly saying "no thanks."
The critique is aimed at the astonishingly broad, often fractious, ever-shifting coalition of voices that has been pushing Americans to rethink essentially everything about the way we treat each other. That coalition has been at it in full force for the past few years, on every available platform, from street protests and campus walkouts to tweetstorms and first-person essays; from investigative reports to Hollywood boycotts to a new crop of identity-focused podcasts helmed by prominent writers and thinkers of color.
.............................................................................................................
We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.
Indeed, rewriting our ideas of what it means to be an American has been the point of all this "identity" politicking all along, and there are signs it's working, albeit slowly, unevenly and imperfectly. For one thing, white supremacists are clearly paying attention. I also take heart in the way words like "institutional racism" and "implicit bias" have become commonplace everywhere from the campaign trail to the Wall Street Journal.
...........................................................................................................
That's why it's never been more important to continue talking and arguing, and complaining, and venting about identity in America. To continue interrogating whiteness as a construct, even as we discuss the economic woes of many white Americans. To continue asking why so many of our superheroes are white and male, even as we push to better understand the defeat and humiliation felt by many flesh-and-blood white men in our country. To continue surfacing the science that proves this stuff matters: that the faces we see (or don't see) on TV can change our brains; that housing segregation makes some of us scared of each other; that being seen as "other" can hurt your grades, your income, your friendships, even the way you feel about yourself.
We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.
Let's not make their jobs any easier.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/12/08/504575810/dont-stop-arguing-complaining-and-fighting-for-identity-politics
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
doesn't sound very surprising though....
Me.
(35,454 posts)Frankly, that sounds strangely like DT's message to me
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)And I find it deeply disturbing
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)matter these days. The rest of us, not so much. Bernie says so, so just stop thinking that you are part of the Democracy if you aren't white male.
Me.
(35,454 posts)How did we get here
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Think this is the way to go? If so they are seriously not understanding what just happened. Sad.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)The people I know around here (NW Arkansas) are all, oh well, let's have a cup of tea and enjoy our flowers. We're too busy with our own lives to care about any of this. Besides, what can we do. Ho Hum.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Both can be done successfully.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)White working class men are the only ones that matter. The rest of us, not so much. We're just after thoughts that don't need to have our issues addressed as thoroughly as white men. They are the standard, the rest of us, sub standard.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Our country does well when we have a variety of cultures and minority groups. It would be devestating to focus on just white working families and leave out the rest. If that were to occur, were done as a country.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)so much as white men.
And yes, it will be devastating.
RedWedge
(618 posts)doomed to fail.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It's exactly the same ideology that drives all bigots (KKK, Nazis....). The ideology that says my politics are based on only being concerned with people who look a certain way.
You need to be President for all Americans. Not just the group of your choice.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SubjectiveLife78
(67 posts)What's more diverse; 10 groups of 10 people, or 1 group of those 100 people? Is either more diverse than the other? Does it depend on where you are, or what you're looking at?
We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.
That bold part is where everyone is. Black people? Your problems don't matter. White people? You can't even have any problems, but if they do somehow exist, they don't matter. Women? Stop it. Men? Just shut up.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SubjectiveLife78
(67 posts)I'll ask my simplified question again; if you have 10 different groups of 10 people doing things 10 different ways, and 1 group of those same 100 people doing things 1 way, is one more or less diverse than the other? From within the one large group, it might look like its more diverse. From the outside, it might look like the 10 groups is more diverse. Which is correct? Is either correct? Is there a right type of diversity?
Diversity is necessary. What is it though? As another quick example, that the US doesn't use the metric system, while most of the rest of the world does, that's diverse. Do things work better, are mass systems more efficient, with less diversity?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but have different experiences trying to get it, and they work together honoring their differences, that is the "diversity" we are talking about.
Diversity is a positive attribute in a political organization, because there is diversity of experience in the governed.
When you dismiss the experience/obstacles of someone who is trying to achieve what we all want and need - that is bigotry. And the GOP is is dismissive of the idea that differences in race, gender, religion suffer discrimination because of their differences, and the dominant culture is dominant because is it more deserving to be dominant. Those discriminated against are 'deserving' of their treatment at the hands of the dominant culture (white Christian male straight cisgender). They think that "diversity" is negative.
I think that "respect for other's experiences" is what makes 'diversity' possible. It is more synonymous with "inclusiveness," than "jumbled."
No one said that there is "one kind of diversity." No one said that inconsitency = diversity.
Diversity of ethnic, religious and racial groups in an organization is what we are talking about, not math systems. Although you could certainly say that it is advantageous in terms of investments and genetics.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Response to ehrnst (Reply #7)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Response to bettyellen (Reply #20)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It's the only explaination for you're intentional misrepresentation of my views.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)That's not even close to what the poster said. And he is right, by the way. When we split people into groups, politically, we weaken the whole.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That. If we refuse to acknowledge that, or worse accuse those who do of racism, as they just did- we become as soulless as the GOP. Nope. We have lost too much.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)This must end, or we will be doomed to lose for generations to come. I just can't make it any plainer than that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)you may be in the wrong party, and certainly on the wrong board.
You sound very much like the people who think we are in a "post racial" "post feminist" society.
Do you?
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)If WE, as a party continue to play identity politics, we are going to be losing for a long time to come. That people like YOU, don't recognize it, is what got us where we are today.
Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #32)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And you're telling someone else to "back off?"
I think that YOU are the one who doesn't recognize that white men are not what made the party what it is.
You're thinking of the GOP.
Sounds like somebody had their privilege pointed out to them....
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Bill Clinton era where he understood that identity politics didn't work. Remember "It's the economy stupid?" Well guess what, "It's still the economy stupid." And until we get back to that message, we are going to continue to lose.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)little threat about me needing to find another board.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Just to be precise.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Response to ehrnst (Reply #57)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You seem to be getting very brittle. Careful.
is the magic number where you get to tell people they shouldn't be here?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)is opposite of what the Democratic Party stands for.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If we decide as a party that identity politics don't matter, than people who happen to belong to minorities or woman will suffer. This policy only works if you assume that you are part o the majority and that people should cater to what you think.
We need to acknowledge our differences in perspective and deal with them rather than sweeping them under the carpet in favor of party unity.
Bryant
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I think ignoring these sorts of issues in favor of focusing on the economy is going to create more problems than it solves. We might win a little in the short run, but at the cost of empowering people who already have too much power.
Bryant
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)get solved by themselves.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)issues, you seem to find it off-putting.
Almost as off-putting as being called out on it.
Some "doberman."
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)And the Democratic party better get in tune with the notion that what's good for one is generally good for ALL. Especially when it comes to the economy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Especially when it comes to roadblocks like lack of paid family leave, state laws that don't protect LGBTs from employment discrimination, contraceptive access, voter suppression laws that marginalize the electoral voicd of people of color, a criminal justice system that slaps black men with jail time far more than white men, who then can't get work because of a record.
All of those create problems for people trying to make a living, because all of those issues affect one's econmic choices.
Just not where white straight men are concerned.
So, hey, one economic reform plan that excludes all those 'identity polics" fits all.
Right?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Them's the rules, SlimJimmy.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)I mean, we ALL would like to know that if we work hard, we will at least be able to afford a place to live and food and education for our families.
We ALL would like to be comfortable that we can go to work or school or just walk down the street today and not get fucking shot.
We ALL would like to know that we can get stricken by an accident or illness tomorrow and not have it bankrupt our families and throw them out on the street.
ALL of us consenting adults would like our government to stay OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS and AWAY from our private parts, period.
We ALL want peace in our lives and comfort that we won't get nuked tomorrow.
These are things we ALL want. Even the worst rat bastard Republicans want them. They would just prefer they be for their own perceived class, religion, or skin color.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)from having many of those things we ALL want, and that has to be acknowledged and dealt with by our party, because they sure as hell aren't going to be dealt with by republicans.
Deciding to dismiss those things in the name of "rebooting' the Democratic party to appeal to more straight white men will take us down a path away from everyone being able to live the life we ALL want.
You cannot focus on income inequality without dealing with the fact that women are paid less than men, and POC and LGBTQs are shut out of many opportunities for employment. Dismissing it as "identity politics" is counterproductive.
White people may worry about getting shot, but unless you deal with the fact that if you are black, you are far MORE likely to get shot by police. Dismissing that as "identity politics" is counterproductive.
Women who cannot get access to reproductive health care cannot carry on with their lives or often employment if they become unwillingly pregnant. No one is coming for men's reproductive health, or legislating their bodies.
If 'focusing' is another term for kicking those 'identity politics' on the back burner, then no, I don't think that we should.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you ignore that, you are no progressive, no matter how long you say you have been posting here.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)When the economy is thriving, many problems get resolved on their own. Just ask the guy in my avatar how that works. BTW, I'm a DEMOCRAT, not necessarily a "progressive." There is a difference.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Other than complain and get irritated at the idea that people respond to posts?
My, what a touchy little doberman you are. Guess I didn't hear your mic drop.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And get your hackles up when someone points it out.
You must have some real scar tissue built up.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)To me, Identity politics divides people into groups and pits different groups against each other. Talking about a colorblind society in front of these people is like showing garlic to a vampire.. they react violently (its a good way to ID them)
It is a relatively new idea taken from radical ideologies that only seem to "work" on college campuses.
IMO and IME Not only is identity politics not progressive, but evil and poisonous, also a loser politically. I believe Republicans would be happy for us to keep running on identity politics so they can used it as a weapon against us.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And has just as much validity.
For everyone but white straight cis men, anyway.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...what you wrote should be the future because those concerns are legit for everyone.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Our candidate won the popular vote in the presidential election. We did not win the fraction of a percent (as of the count at this time) in a few key states where one win would have given us the electoral win.
There was voter suppression, and election interference by the FBI and Russia - which was outside of our ability to prevent, which contributed to the loss in those states. Messaging and putting aside the interests and issues of non-white males would not have affected that.
People who are of color and women are seeing setbacks in their rights, due to GOP influence past and present.
Our platform is the thing that increases the quality of life for those who are other than white, straight cisgender males, which is what is included in the term "Win" for our party. Without those issues being addressed, any candidate "win" would pretty much be what the GOP considers a "win," and we would not be different from the GOP.
So the problem with your question is that there are many aspects and definitions to the term a "win," that encompass more than votes.
Is that clearer?
jalan48
(13,798 posts)We lost not only the Presidency but also the Senate, House, State Governorships and State Houses. It's great to be right but that does little good if we have no power. We also need an economic (jobs) message which part of our strategy, something that includes all Americans.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They think that anyone who doesn't meet the very strict manifesto is "selling out," and are some of the whitest, straightest lefties out there.
The notion that we have to keep talking about the issues that concern so many of us right now - discrimination on the job, racial profiling by police, the inability to use the freaking bathroom - to simply address the concerns of the lefty whites - is far more of a handicap to getting elected in an increasingly diverse society than ignoring their issues.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)Do you?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)After this, therefor because of this? That's the real fallacy...
jalan48
(13,798 posts)janx
(24,128 posts)It was a simple question, a legitimate one.