I don't believe that's the issue here. I believe the concern is their response is more valid because of the group they're in, not that they're responding as a group or as a member of the group.
Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're labeled as traitors, haters of their own race, or trying to play cool with the other side ("cool girl" within feminism).
This is the problem with identity politics. Because you look a certain way, you must think a certain way.
I really don't think they are. Look at Kanye West. People aren't objecting to him because he "doesn't buy into identity politics", they object to him because he says stupid, ignorant things like "sounds like slavery was a choice".
Black conservatives, even if they're barely conservative, are called Uncle Toms. This really isn't that uncommon.
Edit: Oh look, this thread was flagged. What a surprise.
This is the thing I don't get about this argument. You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says. I don't understand how those two things are supposed to go together.
> You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says.
Not at all.
Fair enough, but what's wrong with criticism? That's an essential part of intellectual debate, and it doesn't exist in an environment where all participants agree on every issue. It's not as if the entirety of criticism against black conservatives amounts to name calling and "identity politics" as TFA identifies it.
Nothing, that's exactly what I want. I want criticism rather than blind outrage that leads to event organizers, colleges, etc caving to their demands.
Alternatives include individualism/bootstrapping, family oriented politics, skill/job oriented (labor used to be a massive political influencer), etc.
I think it plays into the propaganda of the oppressive regime by not asserting individuality. "See, they identify as the group we claimed they were the whole time," the regime would say.
That being said, there is acting as a member of a group and identifying as a member of that group. The former need not entail the latter. For instance, donating money to the ACLU doesn't change your identity to ACLU-er (et simis). No, you are just helping that cause.
I wonder how much of the modern identity politics framework has been influenced by the rise of modern marketing, which has an explicit focus on identity-based advertising ("I'm a toys-r-us kid!")
The kind of tribalism to which such advertising appeals is both millennia older than modern commercial advertising and has been a regular part of religious and political propaganda for millenia, which is where modern commercial advertising got it, not vice versa.
Add in the fact that it comes from complete strangers, and I think even if it's roots are way back in history, the modern environment is very different.
On what evidence did you reach that conclusion, ropans808? And assuming it's true, how is that reaction -- "I resent that you have treated me, not as an individual but as part of a single bloc, and therefore, I am going to espouse certain positions simply because I belong to that bloc" -- a logical reaction?
Not initially, but when it comes to the point where they actively fight against egalitarianism and equality in order to ensure some integrity of separate identity, it is counter-productive and, in my opinion, wrongheaded. It doesn't matter what group you're talking about, equality is the only option apart from warring factions of supremascist organizations.
It seems primarily to be a chicken and egg problem: The IDW insists that identity politics requires people to identify themselves as a group rather than free-thinking individuals. I think the point this misses is that these groups did not start by self-identifying as groups, they were identified as these groups. The black community, LGBTQ, women, religious minorities - they were first treated as a single group of lock-step individuals by those looking to oppress them. Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?
This idea that they are beating down the discussion by applying ideals to an entire group of disparate individuals I really think is backwards. It is a response to being grouped by outside forces in the first place, where these groups do have a single shared problem now - that they are not viewed as individuals and treated as a single bloc.