I wasn't. I only said that the left's identity politics probably helped to alienate an important part of their former voting base.
> My point is that by any reasonable definition, identity politics has been sustained and enforced by the right in the US. For centuries. It is the left that has been trying to tear it down.
I don't see how we can meaningfully refer to "the right" or "the left" across such a large time span, but I'm not interested in debating it, so I'll concede that point if it's important to you. I certainly agree that from the civil rights era until roughly ten or twenty years ago, the right was generally in favor of identity politics and the left was against it. Since then, the right have largely accepted the "no more identity politics" position (with notable exceptions here and there), and the left has largely regressed to a pro-identity politics (likewise, with notable exceptions).
> The move you're making is known technically as "erasure". Instead of admitting that the status quo is the result of energetic pro-white, pro-male, pro-rich stacking of the deck and honestly proceeding from there, you erase the history and treat pro-white-male identity politics as normal. That makes any deviation from or challenge to it supposedly problematic "identity politics". Even though the very identities at stake, like "black", were constructed by white men, you blame the victims.
No, no. You're simply wrong about this. I never said or implied any such thing. I've said repeatedly that white oppression existed throughout history. I'm sure I've been less than clear on other points, but I've been perfectly clear about this one.
> You also conflate "real" oppression with "historical" oppression. Your effective definition of oppression isn't some objective measure of misuse of power. It's "the bad shit in the past that is definitely now over". Which is an incredibly convenient definition for your line of argument.
Again, I never said any such thing. The only statements I made about oppression is much of what is called oppression today (things like women choosing their own careers) are not actually oppression by any reasonable definition, and this abuse of terminology by the left has made it really hard to identify and talk about legitimate oppression. I never said anything that could be interpreted as "legitimate oppression is that which occurs in the past"; there are certainly forms of legitimate oppression that exist against minorities today--intimidation of minority religions and communities, for example. It does no good to conflate actual oppression with different outcomes from freely-made choices.
> These are only plausible rhetorical moves if you don't really understand the history. You are making bold pronouncements on a topic you obviously don't understand. Why? From here it looks like motivated reasoning with a goal of protecting the status quo. Thus my suggestion that you go take a class. Which I still recommend.
I don't appreciate you saying I don't understand this. You've erected blatant strawman after blatant strawman (willfully or accidentally), and you tell me to take a class? Come on, you're not being a good faith participant here. I know there are good, legitimate arguments to be made against my points (and I'm sure you're capable of presenting them). Don't insult me by refuting arguments I never made and then telling me to take a class...
This is at best nominally true, but only because being openly pro-white became socially untenable. But it has been a tacit driver for anybody who cares to look, and has again started coming into the open. E.g., Trump ran a pro-white, pro-male identity politics campaign, called white supremacists "very fine people" and just used the power of the pardon to excuse a racist oppressor of Latinos.
> I've said repeatedly that white oppression existed throughout history.
Except that in your view it vanished when rhetorically convenient for you. (You're getting closer, though. Now your past is only ten years away.) That's not "throughout history" in any useful sense. We're still in history. As Faulkner said, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
> It does no good to conflate actual oppression with different outcomes from freely-made choices.
This is an example of the erasure I'm talking about. "Actual oppression" is what you as a white man are willing to accept as oppression. Everything else is fake. Who gets to decide? Not the people experiencing it. Not the experts in it. You, a random white guy with no particular expertise. And conveniently, the dividing line between "real" and "fake" is the one that lets you off the hook. What a surprise!
> I don't appreciate you saying I don't understand this.
Noted. I don't appreciate you opining like you understand it when you don't.
> you're not being a good faith participant here.
Ah, so you also get to define good faith. Of course.
That I am not accepting your framing is not a sign of bad faith. It is also not my job to make you feel comfortable about this. Your discomfort is a sign that you could heed if you wanted to: http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249
Black culture is a real thing: it is the culture created by kidnapping millions of Africans, stripping them of their names and heritages, and leaving them to their own devices in a new country. (This sounds activist-y, but it's not; it's a simple statement of fact).
"White culture", on the other hand, is not really a thing. Irish people don't share the same songs, eat the same food, tell the same stories or wear the same clothes as southern Italians. And, in fact, at points not too far back in history, neither the Irish or the Italians were considered "white"!
Compare "pro-black" with "pro-Irish" or "pro-German". You'll find that people are out and proud about their Polish or Lithuanian heritage.
The problem with being "pro-white" is that, when you dig into the history of the concept, it's really just a way of being anti-black (or, if you want to generalize, of being "anti the outgroup of races and cultures not currently accepted into the coalition of races and cultures we currently deem "white").
Just a reminder to you that we're supposed to be a color-blind society. What you've written here is quite wicked and racist because most Americans are ignorant about their history.
That cluelessness presents us with an fantastic opportunity! If you observe the average American numbskull, you'll see he'll treat his peers objectively in the here-and-now rather than through historic racial filters. Given people are now like blank slates, it's cruel of you to pigeon-hole everyone into racial and ethnic buckets the way you've done.
By repeating these confusing things to our lovable idiots, "there's race, historic oppression", you continue to divide people.
Oh gosh, you are so abrasive!
First, I think she said she was a black woman, so clearly you haven't been a good faith participant with cracks like that.
Second, your use of the word oppression is too loose. You can't slap that word on practically every interaction between humans and not have it lose meaning!
I'm totally interested an honest discussion. Once you start being honest about how your framing of these things is part of America's historical structure of oppression, we can have one. But as long as you keep pretending without evidence that oppression miraculously ended in "in the 70s", "the 90s", or "roughly ten [...] years ago", we can't have an honest discussion.
We both agree America was founded with oppression built in. We both agree that it carried through until recently. You believe that those structures and attitudes totally ended at some hazy time by undescribed means, a time that just happens to be convenient for your argument. I don't. I believe it has continued, waxing and waning just as before.
Per Occam's Razor, you are making the claim that requires justification. The only reason you can act otherwise is that you hold one of the beliefs necessary to prop up oppression: that the current structure is perfectly fair. Suddenly, identity politics is not what white men have been doing in America since 1619. It's what those other people do. Without you ever catching on that your beef with those uppity other people is the same complaint that's been voiced at least since white people were fretting about slave rebellions.
So if you want honesty, get honest. Go take a class and learn the history. Maybe you'll discover some proof that oppression really did end the day before yesterday. But my bet is you'll realize that your claim is bunk.
You were dumping on "identity politics" as if it were some weird new thing invented by the left. My point is that by any reasonable definition, identity politics has been sustained and enforced by the right in the US. For centuries. It is the left that has been trying to tear it down.
The move you're making is known technically as "erasure". Instead of admitting that the status quo is the result of energetic pro-white, pro-male, pro-rich stacking of the deck and honestly proceeding from there, you erase the history and treat pro-white-male identity politics as normal. That makes any deviation from or challenge to it supposedly problematic "identity politics". Even though the very identities at stake, like "black", were constructed by white men, you blame the victims.
You also conflate "real" oppression with "historical" oppression. Your effective definition of oppression isn't some objective measure of misuse of power. It's "the bad shit in the past that is definitely now over". Which is an incredibly convenient definition for your line of argument.
These are only plausible rhetorical moves if you don't really understand the history. You are making bold pronouncements on a topic you obviously don't understand. Why? From here it looks like motivated reasoning with a goal of protecting the status quo. Thus my suggestion that you go take a class. Which I still recommend.