I am a mixed race 36 year old male living and working as a professional dancer in Los Angeles. I’ve never really felt oppressed but I have had some instances that could be attributed to my race but also my attitude (I’ve been told I don’t speak well to people and I still don’t know what that is about) nonetheless my talent, dedication and persistence of achieving that which I set out to achieve hasn’t stopped me. I see the good and bad in the New Anti-Racism cultural shift. I for one don’t want or need approval. I think it is a disservice to everyone involved to need approval from. At any rate I am very much enjoying continuing to learn and think, reading your work and listing to your talks especially on Glenn Loury YouTube show Bloggingheads.tv I’m also into Colman Hughes and Sam Harris. I’ve always been a thinker but have struggled in academia especially when I was young which is one reason I sometimes side with Anti-racism on some of the school things I believe brains develop at different speeds. Things I couldn’t get when I was young in school I can understand now and had it not been for my talent as a dancer I would have failed solely because I couldn’t understand the material in the time that it needed to be understood. I don’t think people should be “punished” for that. There definitely needs to be changes and I am a little interested and intrigued by where this all could take us. But I do fear if could be for the worse. Thank you John for your intellect you are incredibly inspiring and I love hearing you speak. It’s so concise and witty and full of intellect. Brilliantly fun to witness!
I watch Fox News AND listen to NPR AND read The Atlantic and read The Claremont Review of Books AND National Review. So I hope, John, I might qualify as one for whom you are writing this book. Yes, I'm a conservative, and I was in college in the late 1960s, so in a sense it doesn't take much to convince me of the wickedness of this new religion of antiracism. But your insights and logic help me to a better understanding of the phenomena. I would encourage you to go on Fox News programs such as Tucker Carlson. It's important that even unsophisticated conservatives achieve some deeper understanding of The Elect, and Tucker will give you that opportunity.
I agree with you on this point. I understand John’s particular desire to reach those with whom he more closely identifies. I also believe there are many conservatives of good will who would do service in the cause of fighting this cancer, particularly in our schools.
Saying “anti” twice in the title just doesn’t work. If the term “neoracist” was taken to mean something the author doesn’t intend, then make your intent known in the title. “How anti racist dogma fosters neoracist action that harms Black people and threatens progressive America.” Idk, that’s terrible too. Titles are hard!!!
Charges of racism pretty much roll off my back. Yes, I "fail" the implicit association test, but I would also fail it if it was about ageism (in both directions), ableism, sexism, fatism and probably a lot of other "isms." I'm an old lady myself, but I often have very uncharitable thoughts about other old women that I pass on the street. I know that if I struck up a conversation with one of these people, I'd quickly start seeing her as an individual person and the stereotypes would melt away. Generally when I notice my implicit associations acting up, I replace them with more realistic and less boring ideas that come from my actual life experience.
What shames me is if I forget myself and say something hurtful and disrespectful to another person. So my stance these days is not to worry about my racism, but instead to try to collect the "micro-aggressions" that I might ignorantly commit‒ in the same way that I collect cultural dos and don'ts before I travel to a new country, or the way that I remember that certain pronouncements might be wounding to a friend. (Thank God I'm retired and not in an academic or work setting where people are walking on eggs every moment. As it is, I'm girding up to return to in-person volunteering amongst the Woke.)
For me, racism is not about all the thoughts and feelings we have roiling around in our brains, because we're all just human and those thoughts are there. It's about what we intentionally choose to believe and what we try to convince others to believe. True racists try to convince others of their viewpoints and to motivate others to act on their racist beliefs.
My path through life includes a well-established habit of self-examination. Since I think in the categories of Christianity ("..for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") I accept my sinful nature and do my best not to live it out. Unfortunately, Christianity began to addresses tribalism only in the last couple of centuries. It appears rarely in the Bible: in a couple of New Testament stories that involve Samaritans, Paul's outreach to the Gentiles, and possibly the story of Ruth. Tribalism didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
This omission may explain to some extent the Right's deep defensiveness about being called racist by the Left. This is a taproot of the polarization that's the most deadly threat to our democracy. (Sorry guys, racism and the Elect are not my ultimate concern, except to the extent that they aggravate the great American schism.) My suspicion is that people who tend to be conservative are aware of their "implicit racial associations" but are placed so deeply on the defensive by the Left that their only response is to get mad, circle the wagons, and tune in to Fox. Their churches haven't gotten around to preaching how to approach one's own racism with repentance, forgiveness, charity and love. In the meantime our immense political and economic systems keep the poor and powerless compliant and distracted by making sure they're afraid of the other "tribe."
I am a biracial (asian and white) woman, grew up in a foreign country, moved here in my teens, and STILL was somehow blissfully unaware that I was “oppressed”, or even that my non-whiteness was supposed to be some sort of “problem”, until I went to my very expensive liberal arts college and was informed by some of my fellow woke students that I was simply “unaware” of my own oppression. When I disagreed, they told me I was, in so many words, stupid and to shut up. That is probably the first time I have ever actually felt oppressed. Not to date myself, but this was back in the 2000s, so I guess that expensive liberal arts school was just a bit ahead of the curve. Oh, and when I argued with one of them about the wisdom and appropriateness her plan to intentionally start a campus “race war” to get attention, she slapped me in the face. An actual slap, with a hand. That was also the first time I’d ever been hit. And this was not an argument about left vs. right, we were (and probably still are) all card-carrying Democrats. That division does not seem to be the salient one, with these people. It was such an odd moment that it laid bare the degree to which performative social justice is possibly a product of a society that has turned having a grievance into a form of currency, and the particular narcissism of obsessing over and nurturing one’s grievances into a virtue. And then, subsequently, social media culture took that narcissism and monetized it by essentially selling us to ourselves.
Is it reasonable to distinguish between the laity and the clergy regarding The Elect? I'm hoping there are many who seem like regular Sunday church attendees that would think more critically if they took time to consider the issue.
There's the high priests spreading the gospel truth, Robin Diangelo, Ta-Nahesi Coates, etc. There are lesser clergy, like Rochelle Guitierrez who want to change math curricula to inject the gospel into math lessons, in charge of spreading the message to the priests who speak to the laity directly in classrooms and offices.
Among the laity I think I've encountered at least two kinds. I've encountered some people that make almost nothing but Elect talking points on social media in their every post. They lament no cancellations and insist either they don't exist, or they are a good thing. There's a heavy "St. George in Retirement Syndrome" in play. It's 1967 and they are fighting the good fight.
Then there's a second kind. They are busy with kids and jobs. They read about some cancellations and assume they were justified, after all what could be wrong with the "antiracists"? Sometimes, though, they think things have gotten out of hand. They know personally critics of the antiracists they respect. To their knowledge the good qualities outnumber the bad, so overall the Elect are a net benefit to society and they are glad to play their part.
We are now being told that only black doctors should treat black patients. The corollary is that only white doctors should treat white patients? That is creepy. Asian cis-gendered female doctors should treat Asian cis-gendered female patients? How will we navigate this? The world appears to be re-apartheiding into multi-tribalism, where is it is not clear if all lives matter (literally in healthcare). Who gets to intubate the gender queer man who identifies as nonspecific? Anybody? Struggle session? This demographic Marxist virtual signaling shallow cult of self-importance is going to kill people for real as it starts seeping into the field of medicine. Very worried. Reference: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/health/black-babies-mortality-rate-doctors-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html (i.e., one's lived experience or poorly run and analyzed self-serving "studies" do not science make). PS. Dear John. I know you are a linguist, so please don't misunderestimate my prose. :-)
Yikes! But that is the logic of the Elect. If they bothered to think just one or two steps ahead and see the terrifying consequences of their ideology. They think if they make the right noises and avoid making the wrong ones, they will be safe. But no one will be safe. There will always be someone looking at you, whether you are white or BIPOC, and thinking, "You are more privileged than I. You are filling up too much space with your voice and body. You need to be removed." After which, in time, the person who felt this righteousness, will be targeted by someone else who feels they are too privileged. And yes, lives will be destroyed, and even lost completely. And the quality of living will be infused with fear and looking over your shoulder at all times. Tribe against tribe and individual against individual.
I don’t think Marx is the problem here. His Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts on his theory of human nature situate him as a humanist, to me. (Some ppl disregard “the young Marx” for that reason.) I think ppl who get deeply involved in this haven’t been exposed to conversations about essentialism - and how fascist rule goes hand in hand with it. On the other hand, many ppl don’t need to learn about essentialism to have a moral barometer. Puzzling.
Isn’t this just Marxist class struggle reworked to be about skin color? The leaders of the movement identify as Marxists or are sympathetic to Marxism. But then, I don’t find a meaningful difference between the end game of fascists and Marxists.
I view Marx as genuinely seeking equity. His work lives most authentically in places such as Iceland and some of the Scandinavian countries. He never spewed hate. I think Marx is an incredibly important thinker. To me, Marx is a direct path to understanding racism: Once humans become commodities "wage slaves," and social stratification is "normal," no horror is off limits.
demographic Marxism in the sense of shallow characteristics as the categorizing of classes of people vs economic levels (something that all people can get around). It isn't even on cultural grounds, since a white person may be Ukrainian, a 5th generation mixed American, etc. A black person could be a Rwandan immigrant, an American child of Jamaican immigrants (e.g., Kmele Foster) or tracing some of one's heritage to slavery. No more individual stories are allowed.
And the beat goes on - local news story: Bay Area restaurant gets death threats after disciplining waitress wearing "BLM" mask for being out of uniform. Waitress claims owner favors uniforms over support for oppressed people. Owner shuts his business down, apologizes - claiming he has a lot to learn. Another victory for "The Elect".
It just crossed my mind this minute, that the thing I like about the title - The Elect, is that it reminds me to consider what I consider with a measure of respect (which is a reasonable starting point in this adventure.) Whether this denotes an actual election, or a self-appointment, it has become obvious that the measure of power and control inflates the sense of importance and purpose. I have always found it a curious thing (considering the Mao's, Pol Pots, Stalins et al - that there is no real leader. As if by design...
"in being ever ready to call you a racist in the public square, the Third Wave Antiracist outguns you on the basis of this one weapon alone." Here is how I have always responded, as a white person, to this accusation/observation: "Of course I am a racist. I was raised in a racist society. I am a product of 1965 - present American society. I am susceptible to implicit/unconscious forms of bias. The best I can do is consciously try to avoid racist actions and behaviors." This immediately disarms the accuser and also has the benefit of being true.
I disagree with your last line. I do not believe the society I was raised in was racist. For one thing, it was pretty much all white. I do not ever remember hearing or learning anything negative about black people.
Also depends on how you define racist. First, it might seem to be binary 0 for racist, 1 for non-racist. Suppose you put it on a ten point scale. 0 being Hitler and 9 being, I dunno, Tim Wise. To call everybody racist seems to me an abuse of language. The white freedom rider then is just as racist as Bull Connor? They both get to be called a racist and have that be true? And also the society of 1859 is no more racist than 1959 or 2009? They are all racist societies? That seems similar to calling everybody selfish and thus drawing no distinction between somebody who robs an old lady and somebody who helps her carry her groceries - they are both just being selfish and trying to make themselves feel good. It makes the concept meaningless, when it is supposed to be a term of approbation.
Well, I will have to take your word for it. I don't know what society you were raised in so I can't comment on your personal experiences. I grew up in NYC and attended public schools with a polyglot of diversity. Although my parents were devoted civil rights advocates, as were many of my friends' parents, I was not raised in a bubble of well-intended people. I had a vast exposure to the culture and vitality of the world all around me. To say that none of this influenced my subconscious attitudes about race is myopic at best. I wonder whether you have ever taken the test that measures implicit racial (and other kinds of) bias. It is an eye-opening experience for all people of good will who believe that racism is wrong, but that we are inescapably influenced by the racism that is all around us.
I’ve taken the implicit bias tests. I think their methodology is faulty. The problem is, in this world of the Elect, I’m not allowed to cite the fact that I have taken it a few times and it always says I have no bias. Well, one time it said I have a slight bias toward black people (I am white). But you aren’t allowed to use the no bias tests results as evidence you aren’t actually racist: only they can use people’s test results that show bias to prove they *are* racist.
I have no experience of NYC either, so I cannot say how racist or non-racist it is. But wonder about a comparison between 1) 1850 Charleston, SC, 2) 1970 NYC, 3) 1960 Alabama. Are all of those "racist" societies? I did a large amount of reading growing up and also watched too much TV, for whatever that is worth. Seems to me that I passed the subconscious test once. As far as I remember it, I was taught to NOT be consciously racist and to live by the golden rule (darned religions).
Back in my day too, the label racist was attached to people who said and did things consciously, and not to people with micro subconscious biases. Since we all would have those biases, it would seem to me that anybody saying j'accuse about my subconscious racism would have just as much of their own - which is probably not how they are thinking about it. They might as well accuse me of being human, all too human.
I think that ironically, you actually have to grow up in a somewhat diverse environment to even have this exposure to racial caste systems. Many white people such as myself grew up in areas that were virtually all white, and what that means is that every poor person, every garbage man, every janitor, everyone who mows lawns or cleans hotel rooms for a living, everyone who is known as a scofflaw always getting arrested, every marginally employed or housed person, and every low status person you knew was white. I can remember my cousins from the south coming to visit and they were amazed that garbage men and people working at McDonald's were white. I was amazed that they were used to anything different. Where I grew up, the handful of non white families tended to be more in the upper class, if anything, as they were transplants who were scientists or college professors, while many of the white long term local families were small farmers or working class.
I truly cannot remember *ever* hearing anything racist or racially stereotyping (other than Polish jokes and my southern cousins' amazement at white people in low status jobs) until I left home for college and traveled to urban areas. I was dismayed to find as an adult that so many cities, while seemingly diverse, have extremely segregated social worlds, with little racial overlap in schooling, employment, nightclubs, neighborhoods, etc. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, my idea of what cities were like was The Cosby Show and Fresh Prince of Belaire. Then I actually visited cities and discovered things were much more socially segregated than was portrayed on TV. Most racial stereotypes had to be explicitly explained to me because I had never heard of such things before. And I can tell you, if you didn't grow up marinating in racial stereotypes in your social world, they are quite head scratching and baffling.
Anyway, it is annoying when people want to project social pathologies that are very culturally specific to particular places as if they are applicable everywhere. Growing up in Vermont versus Alabama versus LA are extremely different and might as well be different countries. No one should assume their own cultural context can be generalized to any other.
It seems to be a bit of a paradox that many of the most supposedly cosmopolitan and diverse areas are also the most segregated, stratified, and unequal. Like the supposedly progressive cities of NY and SF, where hardly any white kids even go to public school. I wonder what research there is regarding how some very diverse places manage not to have these issues (or not to the same extent). There are some extremely diverse US cities that are profoundly less segregated than others, and it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with how liberal or conservative an area is.
Well said. Although actually one of the janitors I knew was Vietnamese. Dad put us to work pretty early, so I do not remember looking down at low status workers either. There are movies of me shoveling snow before I was 10, and for some reason I volunteered to set up the band once a week when I was in 5th grade. Everybody around me cut their own grass, which meant I started that at an early age too - and wanted to, to be a man, like dad.
Dad got promoted to management level government work when I was about 15, but we lived cheap as there were 5 kids and dad was saving to put us all through college. Although I lived there all of my life, we were pretty much outsiders in that little town. When it came to social status, it seems to me, as a geek with mild Asperger's that I was at or near the bottom. So more likely to be oppressed and identify with the oppressed than to be an elite.
Right. We're all racists, no matter what color we are, given what a big deal our society has always made of race. The important thing is not to be a bigot.
Yeah, and the thing is, in a pluralistic society, the only way to ensure freedom of thought is, paradoxically, to allow people to NOT LIKE EACH OTHER if that's how they feel. For whatever reason. I am a truly virulent atheist but I appreciate that in America I share space, infrastructure, and society with people who believe otherwise, and the thing about being here is that we have to engage in an actual dialogue where we both agree on terms that allow each of us to coexist in this grand experiment. So however it irks me to see Jesus fish bumper stickers (or anything else) it is on me to deal with MY discomfort and work, like an adult, with the infrastructure we've all agreed is there to arbitrate what is and isn't ok in the continental US. Just because my neighbor, say, believes things that I think are nonsense, I can only prevent him from trying to get ME to do so as well. I cannot actually reach my fingers into his mind and "fix" him, and I would have to take a hard look at myself if I thought it was appropriate to find ways to punish him (online, for instance, by ruining his business?) until he acquiesced to MY beliefs. Because you know, this same neighbor would tell me if there was an intruder sniffing around my house or hand me back my misdelivered package, and I would do the same. I feel the same way about people who hold, let's say, unfashionable views on race. I know it's weird to say that, but I am biracial and grew up with both sides of the family making off-color jokes about each other to basically the same degree. But they still had each other over for holidays, and sent food home in tupperware, and were fundamentally kind. If we had devolved into fighting about "microagressions" and "cultural appropriation" because, for example, my white grandmother really likes having little porcelain figurines of Chinese girls on her bureau we would have gotten exactly nowhere and had a really rotten time. I think, paradoxically, to maintain a society like this where people cherish their right to be different, our job is to find a way to live together while allowing each other to do so within the bounds of laws that the majority of us agree are fundamentally as fair as we can make them, in flux, in a constantly-changing society. I mean, some of my family is actually quite religious. But because they don't make my life a living hell about it (and, crucially, I DON'T DO SO TO THEM), we can engage in the activity of being a family. This is so much easier in largely homogenous societies, like Nordic countries, where everybody agrees on most fundamental things. That's why people get nationalistic in the first place. But if we, as Americans, want to be the diverse Byzantine Empire/Rome of the modern world, we can't then force each other to conform to a single ideology. Just mutually respectful behavior. Yes, part of me would love to magically banish religion from the minds of everyone, but I'm not sure a society in which that was possible would be a good one.
"In an alternate universe these people would be about as important as the Yippies were back in the day, with marijuana on their “flag,” applying to levitate the Pentagon, and smacking pies in people’s faces. They were a fringe movement good for a peek, and occasionally heightened awareness a tad." Oh, but an important element of the Yippies (and MAD magazine) was humor and satire. Too many of the Neoracists are humorless. I know this used to be said about feminists (and I am one), but humor is still important as a tool of social critique and light-heartedness. In short, I say to the Neoracists: stop taking yourself so seriously (and self-importantly)!
I'm not so sure that your use of "The Elect" with its Calvinist undertone, as pointed out by another commenter, really works with the additional claim that these are largely people who are well meaning but misguided and don't really understand the implications of their beliefs. In my experience they feel their anti-racism right and true because they are materially successful people, much like many people adopted the idea that material prosperity was an identification of Calvinist Predestination. It becomes self-reinforcing circular logic. Their status in the Elect is justified by their (very real) privileges and their privileges are justified by their anti-racism, unlike those other people who aren't anti-racist and either deserve to be poor or don't deserve their material wealth. They aren't just willfully blind to the ways their privileges mean they will pay no price for the implementation of 'equity' but see that as being a positive good since it means the people who are in the wrong are going to be punished.
I am a mixed race 36 year old male living and working as a professional dancer in Los Angeles. I’ve never really felt oppressed but I have had some instances that could be attributed to my race but also my attitude (I’ve been told I don’t speak well to people and I still don’t know what that is about) nonetheless my talent, dedication and persistence of achieving that which I set out to achieve hasn’t stopped me. I see the good and bad in the New Anti-Racism cultural shift. I for one don’t want or need approval. I think it is a disservice to everyone involved to need approval from. At any rate I am very much enjoying continuing to learn and think, reading your work and listing to your talks especially on Glenn Loury YouTube show Bloggingheads.tv I’m also into Colman Hughes and Sam Harris. I’ve always been a thinker but have struggled in academia especially when I was young which is one reason I sometimes side with Anti-racism on some of the school things I believe brains develop at different speeds. Things I couldn’t get when I was young in school I can understand now and had it not been for my talent as a dancer I would have failed solely because I couldn’t understand the material in the time that it needed to be understood. I don’t think people should be “punished” for that. There definitely needs to be changes and I am a little interested and intrigued by where this all could take us. But I do fear if could be for the worse. Thank you John for your intellect you are incredibly inspiring and I love hearing you speak. It’s so concise and witty and full of intellect. Brilliantly fun to witness!
I watch Fox News AND listen to NPR AND read The Atlantic and read The Claremont Review of Books AND National Review. So I hope, John, I might qualify as one for whom you are writing this book. Yes, I'm a conservative, and I was in college in the late 1960s, so in a sense it doesn't take much to convince me of the wickedness of this new religion of antiracism. But your insights and logic help me to a better understanding of the phenomena. I would encourage you to go on Fox News programs such as Tucker Carlson. It's important that even unsophisticated conservatives achieve some deeper understanding of The Elect, and Tucker will give you that opportunity.
I agree with you on this point. I understand John’s particular desire to reach those with whom he more closely identifies. I also believe there are many conservatives of good will who would do service in the cause of fighting this cancer, particularly in our schools.
Saying “anti” twice in the title just doesn’t work. If the term “neoracist” was taken to mean something the author doesn’t intend, then make your intent known in the title. “How anti racist dogma fosters neoracist action that harms Black people and threatens progressive America.” Idk, that’s terrible too. Titles are hard!!!
Charges of racism pretty much roll off my back. Yes, I "fail" the implicit association test, but I would also fail it if it was about ageism (in both directions), ableism, sexism, fatism and probably a lot of other "isms." I'm an old lady myself, but I often have very uncharitable thoughts about other old women that I pass on the street. I know that if I struck up a conversation with one of these people, I'd quickly start seeing her as an individual person and the stereotypes would melt away. Generally when I notice my implicit associations acting up, I replace them with more realistic and less boring ideas that come from my actual life experience.
What shames me is if I forget myself and say something hurtful and disrespectful to another person. So my stance these days is not to worry about my racism, but instead to try to collect the "micro-aggressions" that I might ignorantly commit‒ in the same way that I collect cultural dos and don'ts before I travel to a new country, or the way that I remember that certain pronouncements might be wounding to a friend. (Thank God I'm retired and not in an academic or work setting where people are walking on eggs every moment. As it is, I'm girding up to return to in-person volunteering amongst the Woke.)
For me, racism is not about all the thoughts and feelings we have roiling around in our brains, because we're all just human and those thoughts are there. It's about what we intentionally choose to believe and what we try to convince others to believe. True racists try to convince others of their viewpoints and to motivate others to act on their racist beliefs.
My path through life includes a well-established habit of self-examination. Since I think in the categories of Christianity ("..for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") I accept my sinful nature and do my best not to live it out. Unfortunately, Christianity began to addresses tribalism only in the last couple of centuries. It appears rarely in the Bible: in a couple of New Testament stories that involve Samaritans, Paul's outreach to the Gentiles, and possibly the story of Ruth. Tribalism didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
This omission may explain to some extent the Right's deep defensiveness about being called racist by the Left. This is a taproot of the polarization that's the most deadly threat to our democracy. (Sorry guys, racism and the Elect are not my ultimate concern, except to the extent that they aggravate the great American schism.) My suspicion is that people who tend to be conservative are aware of their "implicit racial associations" but are placed so deeply on the defensive by the Left that their only response is to get mad, circle the wagons, and tune in to Fox. Their churches haven't gotten around to preaching how to approach one's own racism with repentance, forgiveness, charity and love. In the meantime our immense political and economic systems keep the poor and powerless compliant and distracted by making sure they're afraid of the other "tribe."
I am a biracial (asian and white) woman, grew up in a foreign country, moved here in my teens, and STILL was somehow blissfully unaware that I was “oppressed”, or even that my non-whiteness was supposed to be some sort of “problem”, until I went to my very expensive liberal arts college and was informed by some of my fellow woke students that I was simply “unaware” of my own oppression. When I disagreed, they told me I was, in so many words, stupid and to shut up. That is probably the first time I have ever actually felt oppressed. Not to date myself, but this was back in the 2000s, so I guess that expensive liberal arts school was just a bit ahead of the curve. Oh, and when I argued with one of them about the wisdom and appropriateness her plan to intentionally start a campus “race war” to get attention, she slapped me in the face. An actual slap, with a hand. That was also the first time I’d ever been hit. And this was not an argument about left vs. right, we were (and probably still are) all card-carrying Democrats. That division does not seem to be the salient one, with these people. It was such an odd moment that it laid bare the degree to which performative social justice is possibly a product of a society that has turned having a grievance into a form of currency, and the particular narcissism of obsessing over and nurturing one’s grievances into a virtue. And then, subsequently, social media culture took that narcissism and monetized it by essentially selling us to ourselves.
Wow. Those are the types that brought us the recent Summer of Love.
Whew. Yeah that's happening all over now.
Re: the religious undertones, I was reminded of this, from what feels like forever ago. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/01/the-scourge-of-self-flagellating-politics
Thank you, John. Suitably entertaining for such a dismal topic.
Is it reasonable to distinguish between the laity and the clergy regarding The Elect? I'm hoping there are many who seem like regular Sunday church attendees that would think more critically if they took time to consider the issue.
There's the high priests spreading the gospel truth, Robin Diangelo, Ta-Nahesi Coates, etc. There are lesser clergy, like Rochelle Guitierrez who want to change math curricula to inject the gospel into math lessons, in charge of spreading the message to the priests who speak to the laity directly in classrooms and offices.
Among the laity I think I've encountered at least two kinds. I've encountered some people that make almost nothing but Elect talking points on social media in their every post. They lament no cancellations and insist either they don't exist, or they are a good thing. There's a heavy "St. George in Retirement Syndrome" in play. It's 1967 and they are fighting the good fight.
Then there's a second kind. They are busy with kids and jobs. They read about some cancellations and assume they were justified, after all what could be wrong with the "antiracists"? Sometimes, though, they think things have gotten out of hand. They know personally critics of the antiracists they respect. To their knowledge the good qualities outnumber the bad, so overall the Elect are a net benefit to society and they are glad to play their part.
One hopes these last could be reached.
We are now being told that only black doctors should treat black patients. The corollary is that only white doctors should treat white patients? That is creepy. Asian cis-gendered female doctors should treat Asian cis-gendered female patients? How will we navigate this? The world appears to be re-apartheiding into multi-tribalism, where is it is not clear if all lives matter (literally in healthcare). Who gets to intubate the gender queer man who identifies as nonspecific? Anybody? Struggle session? This demographic Marxist virtual signaling shallow cult of self-importance is going to kill people for real as it starts seeping into the field of medicine. Very worried. Reference: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/health/black-babies-mortality-rate-doctors-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html (i.e., one's lived experience or poorly run and analyzed self-serving "studies" do not science make). PS. Dear John. I know you are a linguist, so please don't misunderestimate my prose. :-)
Yikes! But that is the logic of the Elect. If they bothered to think just one or two steps ahead and see the terrifying consequences of their ideology. They think if they make the right noises and avoid making the wrong ones, they will be safe. But no one will be safe. There will always be someone looking at you, whether you are white or BIPOC, and thinking, "You are more privileged than I. You are filling up too much space with your voice and body. You need to be removed." After which, in time, the person who felt this righteousness, will be targeted by someone else who feels they are too privileged. And yes, lives will be destroyed, and even lost completely. And the quality of living will be infused with fear and looking over your shoulder at all times. Tribe against tribe and individual against individual.
I don’t think Marx is the problem here. His Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts on his theory of human nature situate him as a humanist, to me. (Some ppl disregard “the young Marx” for that reason.) I think ppl who get deeply involved in this haven’t been exposed to conversations about essentialism - and how fascist rule goes hand in hand with it. On the other hand, many ppl don’t need to learn about essentialism to have a moral barometer. Puzzling.
Isn’t this just Marxist class struggle reworked to be about skin color? The leaders of the movement identify as Marxists or are sympathetic to Marxism. But then, I don’t find a meaningful difference between the end game of fascists and Marxists.
I view Marx as genuinely seeking equity. His work lives most authentically in places such as Iceland and some of the Scandinavian countries. He never spewed hate. I think Marx is an incredibly important thinker. To me, Marx is a direct path to understanding racism: Once humans become commodities "wage slaves," and social stratification is "normal," no horror is off limits.
demographic Marxism in the sense of shallow characteristics as the categorizing of classes of people vs economic levels (something that all people can get around). It isn't even on cultural grounds, since a white person may be Ukrainian, a 5th generation mixed American, etc. A black person could be a Rwandan immigrant, an American child of Jamaican immigrants (e.g., Kmele Foster) or tracing some of one's heritage to slavery. No more individual stories are allowed.
And the beat goes on - local news story: Bay Area restaurant gets death threats after disciplining waitress wearing "BLM" mask for being out of uniform. Waitress claims owner favors uniforms over support for oppressed people. Owner shuts his business down, apologizes - claiming he has a lot to learn. Another victory for "The Elect".
John, I think we may need to make an alliance with The Elect against a third greater evil, though... racially-colorblind oligarchical totalitarians...
It just crossed my mind this minute, that the thing I like about the title - The Elect, is that it reminds me to consider what I consider with a measure of respect (which is a reasonable starting point in this adventure.) Whether this denotes an actual election, or a self-appointment, it has become obvious that the measure of power and control inflates the sense of importance and purpose. I have always found it a curious thing (considering the Mao's, Pol Pots, Stalins et al - that there is no real leader. As if by design...
"in being ever ready to call you a racist in the public square, the Third Wave Antiracist outguns you on the basis of this one weapon alone." Here is how I have always responded, as a white person, to this accusation/observation: "Of course I am a racist. I was raised in a racist society. I am a product of 1965 - present American society. I am susceptible to implicit/unconscious forms of bias. The best I can do is consciously try to avoid racist actions and behaviors." This immediately disarms the accuser and also has the benefit of being true.
I'm not.
I disagree with your last line. I do not believe the society I was raised in was racist. For one thing, it was pretty much all white. I do not ever remember hearing or learning anything negative about black people.
Also depends on how you define racist. First, it might seem to be binary 0 for racist, 1 for non-racist. Suppose you put it on a ten point scale. 0 being Hitler and 9 being, I dunno, Tim Wise. To call everybody racist seems to me an abuse of language. The white freedom rider then is just as racist as Bull Connor? They both get to be called a racist and have that be true? And also the society of 1859 is no more racist than 1959 or 2009? They are all racist societies? That seems similar to calling everybody selfish and thus drawing no distinction between somebody who robs an old lady and somebody who helps her carry her groceries - they are both just being selfish and trying to make themselves feel good. It makes the concept meaningless, when it is supposed to be a term of approbation.
Well, I will have to take your word for it. I don't know what society you were raised in so I can't comment on your personal experiences. I grew up in NYC and attended public schools with a polyglot of diversity. Although my parents were devoted civil rights advocates, as were many of my friends' parents, I was not raised in a bubble of well-intended people. I had a vast exposure to the culture and vitality of the world all around me. To say that none of this influenced my subconscious attitudes about race is myopic at best. I wonder whether you have ever taken the test that measures implicit racial (and other kinds of) bias. It is an eye-opening experience for all people of good will who believe that racism is wrong, but that we are inescapably influenced by the racism that is all around us.
I’ve taken the implicit bias tests. I think their methodology is faulty. The problem is, in this world of the Elect, I’m not allowed to cite the fact that I have taken it a few times and it always says I have no bias. Well, one time it said I have a slight bias toward black people (I am white). But you aren’t allowed to use the no bias tests results as evidence you aren’t actually racist: only they can use people’s test results that show bias to prove they *are* racist.
I have no experience of NYC either, so I cannot say how racist or non-racist it is. But wonder about a comparison between 1) 1850 Charleston, SC, 2) 1970 NYC, 3) 1960 Alabama. Are all of those "racist" societies? I did a large amount of reading growing up and also watched too much TV, for whatever that is worth. Seems to me that I passed the subconscious test once. As far as I remember it, I was taught to NOT be consciously racist and to live by the golden rule (darned religions).
Back in my day too, the label racist was attached to people who said and did things consciously, and not to people with micro subconscious biases. Since we all would have those biases, it would seem to me that anybody saying j'accuse about my subconscious racism would have just as much of their own - which is probably not how they are thinking about it. They might as well accuse me of being human, all too human.
I think that ironically, you actually have to grow up in a somewhat diverse environment to even have this exposure to racial caste systems. Many white people such as myself grew up in areas that were virtually all white, and what that means is that every poor person, every garbage man, every janitor, everyone who mows lawns or cleans hotel rooms for a living, everyone who is known as a scofflaw always getting arrested, every marginally employed or housed person, and every low status person you knew was white. I can remember my cousins from the south coming to visit and they were amazed that garbage men and people working at McDonald's were white. I was amazed that they were used to anything different. Where I grew up, the handful of non white families tended to be more in the upper class, if anything, as they were transplants who were scientists or college professors, while many of the white long term local families were small farmers or working class.
I truly cannot remember *ever* hearing anything racist or racially stereotyping (other than Polish jokes and my southern cousins' amazement at white people in low status jobs) until I left home for college and traveled to urban areas. I was dismayed to find as an adult that so many cities, while seemingly diverse, have extremely segregated social worlds, with little racial overlap in schooling, employment, nightclubs, neighborhoods, etc. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, my idea of what cities were like was The Cosby Show and Fresh Prince of Belaire. Then I actually visited cities and discovered things were much more socially segregated than was portrayed on TV. Most racial stereotypes had to be explicitly explained to me because I had never heard of such things before. And I can tell you, if you didn't grow up marinating in racial stereotypes in your social world, they are quite head scratching and baffling.
Anyway, it is annoying when people want to project social pathologies that are very culturally specific to particular places as if they are applicable everywhere. Growing up in Vermont versus Alabama versus LA are extremely different and might as well be different countries. No one should assume their own cultural context can be generalized to any other.
It seems to be a bit of a paradox that many of the most supposedly cosmopolitan and diverse areas are also the most segregated, stratified, and unequal. Like the supposedly progressive cities of NY and SF, where hardly any white kids even go to public school. I wonder what research there is regarding how some very diverse places manage not to have these issues (or not to the same extent). There are some extremely diverse US cities that are profoundly less segregated than others, and it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with how liberal or conservative an area is.
Very interesting!
Well said. Although actually one of the janitors I knew was Vietnamese. Dad put us to work pretty early, so I do not remember looking down at low status workers either. There are movies of me shoveling snow before I was 10, and for some reason I volunteered to set up the band once a week when I was in 5th grade. Everybody around me cut their own grass, which meant I started that at an early age too - and wanted to, to be a man, like dad.
Dad got promoted to management level government work when I was about 15, but we lived cheap as there were 5 kids and dad was saving to put us all through college. Although I lived there all of my life, we were pretty much outsiders in that little town. When it came to social status, it seems to me, as a geek with mild Asperger's that I was at or near the bottom. So more likely to be oppressed and identify with the oppressed than to be an elite.
Right. We're all racists, no matter what color we are, given what a big deal our society has always made of race. The important thing is not to be a bigot.
Yeah, and the thing is, in a pluralistic society, the only way to ensure freedom of thought is, paradoxically, to allow people to NOT LIKE EACH OTHER if that's how they feel. For whatever reason. I am a truly virulent atheist but I appreciate that in America I share space, infrastructure, and society with people who believe otherwise, and the thing about being here is that we have to engage in an actual dialogue where we both agree on terms that allow each of us to coexist in this grand experiment. So however it irks me to see Jesus fish bumper stickers (or anything else) it is on me to deal with MY discomfort and work, like an adult, with the infrastructure we've all agreed is there to arbitrate what is and isn't ok in the continental US. Just because my neighbor, say, believes things that I think are nonsense, I can only prevent him from trying to get ME to do so as well. I cannot actually reach my fingers into his mind and "fix" him, and I would have to take a hard look at myself if I thought it was appropriate to find ways to punish him (online, for instance, by ruining his business?) until he acquiesced to MY beliefs. Because you know, this same neighbor would tell me if there was an intruder sniffing around my house or hand me back my misdelivered package, and I would do the same. I feel the same way about people who hold, let's say, unfashionable views on race. I know it's weird to say that, but I am biracial and grew up with both sides of the family making off-color jokes about each other to basically the same degree. But they still had each other over for holidays, and sent food home in tupperware, and were fundamentally kind. If we had devolved into fighting about "microagressions" and "cultural appropriation" because, for example, my white grandmother really likes having little porcelain figurines of Chinese girls on her bureau we would have gotten exactly nowhere and had a really rotten time. I think, paradoxically, to maintain a society like this where people cherish their right to be different, our job is to find a way to live together while allowing each other to do so within the bounds of laws that the majority of us agree are fundamentally as fair as we can make them, in flux, in a constantly-changing society. I mean, some of my family is actually quite religious. But because they don't make my life a living hell about it (and, crucially, I DON'T DO SO TO THEM), we can engage in the activity of being a family. This is so much easier in largely homogenous societies, like Nordic countries, where everybody agrees on most fundamental things. That's why people get nationalistic in the first place. But if we, as Americans, want to be the diverse Byzantine Empire/Rome of the modern world, we can't then force each other to conform to a single ideology. Just mutually respectful behavior. Yes, part of me would love to magically banish religion from the minds of everyone, but I'm not sure a society in which that was possible would be a good one.
"In an alternate universe these people would be about as important as the Yippies were back in the day, with marijuana on their “flag,” applying to levitate the Pentagon, and smacking pies in people’s faces. They were a fringe movement good for a peek, and occasionally heightened awareness a tad." Oh, but an important element of the Yippies (and MAD magazine) was humor and satire. Too many of the Neoracists are humorless. I know this used to be said about feminists (and I am one), but humor is still important as a tool of social critique and light-heartedness. In short, I say to the Neoracists: stop taking yourself so seriously (and self-importantly)!
I'm not so sure that your use of "The Elect" with its Calvinist undertone, as pointed out by another commenter, really works with the additional claim that these are largely people who are well meaning but misguided and don't really understand the implications of their beliefs. In my experience they feel their anti-racism right and true because they are materially successful people, much like many people adopted the idea that material prosperity was an identification of Calvinist Predestination. It becomes self-reinforcing circular logic. Their status in the Elect is justified by their (very real) privileges and their privileges are justified by their anti-racism, unlike those other people who aren't anti-racist and either deserve to be poor or don't deserve their material wealth. They aren't just willfully blind to the ways their privileges mean they will pay no price for the implementation of 'equity' but see that as being a positive good since it means the people who are in the wrong are going to be punished.
mfers gone off that Elect