In internet discussions too often do people want to drop the history of hundreds of years of identity based politics, and I think it's because now identity politics are being used in a way that they feel threatened by.
The proper way to fix that, is to become better at applying the principles. That would be a step forward. It would be a step backwards to start saying one group is bad and another group should be elevated due to characteristics.
In internet discussions too often do people want to drop the history of hundreds of years of identity based politics
There are many views of history, and the way that minority groups lift themselves up is not well represented in the public discourse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08
I think it's because now identity politics are being used in a way that they feel threatened by.
If identity politics are being used to divide people and devolve public discourse into toxic in-group/out-group, then I think there is indeed a threat there. If identity politics are being used as a substitute for principles, then there is indeed a threat to society.
I know that's an article of faith in the American civic cult, but it's not at all grounded in fact. The original Constitution is a pile of pragmatic compromises between competing factions faced with an immediate practical crisis, which they approached from radically different viewpoints and sets of principles.
On the contrary, white people are so not okay with white identity politics that the mere accusation of racism is a stain which will taint a public figure for the rest of their life. And actual, documented racism is usually a career ending event.
There were thought leaders in both groups who rose above the crude politics of identity, and were able to promulgate a politics of principles. A problem with leaderless movements is that the philosophy can devolve to a Least Common Denominator of crude identity. Even wholly ideological movements can devolve in this way to become identity politics.