The March of Wokeism, Trevor Phillips in The Times

[quote BolloxtoGender]@Blibbyblobby
newdiscourses.com/2020/06/principled-statement-opposition-critical-race-theory-excerpt-cynical-theories/[/quote]
Thank you. I think I may have recently purchased his book although I haven't read it yet.

Based just on the single page, I tentatively agree but this statement We deny that racism is hard-baked into society via discourses, that it is unavoidable and present in every interaction to be discovered and called out, and that this is part of a ubiquitous systemic problem that is everywhere, always, and all-pervasive makes me uneasy because while as a white person I don't experience racism in any meaningful way, as a woman I do experience sexism and it IS hard-baked into society. That does not mean it can't be challenged and eventually defeated, but it's not a trivial thing to achieve and it does demand society changes.

Similarly, We contend that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so, that racism is declining over time and becoming rarer, that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second, that issues of race are best dealt with by being honest about racialized experiences, while still working towards shared goals and a common vision, and that the principle of not discriminating by race should be universally upheld Again I agree but it feels odd that there is no explicit acknowledgement of the existence of unconscious bias, when to me that is the main reason racism (and sexism) still persist even though most people now would genuinely say they are not racist or sexist. So it's important that individuals who want to choose not to hold racist (or sexist) views accept that they may unwittingly do so and are open to accepting that others may see something in them that they have not have recognised in themselves.

I appreciate this is based on a very superficial reading and perhaps these concerns are well addressed elsewhere.

@Blibbyblobby
newdiscourses.com/2020/06/principled-statement-opposition-critical-race-theory-excerpt-cynical-theories/

Black people who disagree with CRT are often called ‘Oreo’ or ‘coconut’. Hope that’s enough of a clear (racist & hypocritical) example.

I've only ever heard those terms used by other black people, to describe those they consider race traitors. Certainly I've never heard them used by the kind of white Agents Of Wokedom Phillips is referring to.

By examples, I meant specific cases of such things happening that have been reported on. Like this:

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/06/_in_bristol_a_black.html#:~:text=In%20Bristol%2C%20a%20black%20councillor%2C%20Shirley%20Brown%2C%20has,on%20the%20outside%20but%20white%20on%20the%20inside.

Sorry but I know lots of very woke leftists of the kind being described here. I'm very familiar with the type, and there are many things I don't like about them. But I've just never know any of them to hate the fact of black people being successful. I think it's being made up, the way people often make up stereotypes about groups they don't like and then, in a self-reinforcing environment like this, they soon become accepted as fact despite lack of any evidence.

^ by "people with reactionary views" I meant some of the Times commentators, not you!

Behind this is the fact that I agree with a lot of the article but I also worry how thoughtful criticism of specific aspects of the Woke is read by people with reactionary views as a general rejection of anything socially progressive.

Pythonesque disputes about whether men can be women

I love how dismissive this is! A wonderful, almost throwaway line, but this is where we want the Overton Window to be: that the idea a man can be a woman is simply ridiculous.

Black people who disagree with CRT are often called ‘Oreo’ or ‘coconut’. Hope that’s enough of a clear (racist & hypocritical) example.

If CRT advocates are antagonistic towards a black person who disagrees with CRT, then surely the most likely explanation for that is the same as why they're antagonistic towards a white person who disagrees with CRT. Most of us believe we are right and are antagonistic toward people (of whatever race) who contradict our beliefs.

Actual examples might help - specifically of CRT advocates hating the fact of black people being successful, as has been claimed, rather than just disagreeing with them.

OK I have to ask: Who are the "advocates of critical race theory" saying things like this, and how do they demonstrate their "hatred" of black and brown people being successful? Cos I move in pretty woke circles, and I haven't seen it.
You see it all the time, the antagonistic attitude to any successful black person who disagree with CRT or are 'conservative', black academics, politicians and journalists.

It's popular among white middle class kids because it is just a power grab by the middle classes threatened by the expansion of higher education. The main reason working class kids drop out of uni is social exclusion so if you set up the culture to be based around complex, ever changing beliefs which often go directly against clearly observable reality then you are going to exclude those with more varied points of view, experiences or who simply haven't been trained in politeness and telling PC white lies from childhood.

I'd never thought of it like this before. It makes a lot of sense.

Advocates of Critical Race Theory absolutely hate it when black and brown people are successful, and don't feel there's some awful spectre of racism holding them back. CRT doesn't really want black and brown people to genuinely succeed because if they did, it would prove that there isn't such a thing as systemic racism, white supremacy etc that is to blame for all the ills in the world.

OK I have to ask: Who are the "advocates of critical race theory" saying things like this, and how do they demonstrate their "hatred" of black and brown people being successful? Cos I move in pretty woke circles, and I haven't seen it.

As for the article - I think there's an important and valid point in there, but it should win some kind of journalistic prize for combining the greatest number of sweeping generalisations with the smallest amount of corroborating evidence.

I couldn’t agree more.
It’s the most recent form of cultural capital.
We can’t exclude people for using the wrong knife and fork any more because there’s official agreement that snobbishness is wrong- far more effective to mock or punish them for using the wrong language around race and gender.

One of the comments:

It's popular among white middle class kids because it is just a power grab by the middle classes threatened by the expansion of higher education. The main reason working class kids drop out of uni is social exclusion so if you set up the culture to be based around complex, ever changing beliefs which often go directly against clearly observable reality then you are going to exclude those with more varied points of view, experiences or who simply haven't been trained in politeness and telling PC white lies from childhood.

I'm afraid I agree with this completely. It's not conscious at all - but the giddy feeling of being in the right club, and 'on the right side of history' veils the reality, which is espousal of luxury beliefs. That's not to deny that racism exists - but critical race theory centres white people feeling terribly good about how guilty they feel, and not solutions. It's a cost-free movement, in reality, and it entrenches snobbery under a veneer of virtue.

Yes I remember her: “faaack Boraas, I hate him!”

I love Titania

I remEmber, the posh activitist who wished the new PM death by grease 🔥 or something, yes the ‘anti fascist ‘ .

What a great article. I was reminded when reading it of a young woman I saw on the news after the recent UK election. She was a medical student (I think) with an accent that suggested a certain amount of privilege, who had campaigned for Corbyn and was shouting at the interviewer about how fucking stupid (that's a quote) the working class voters were for voting the wrong way. She in turn reminded me of Victorian reformers- happy to do good turns in return for the right kind of behaviour from those they were helping.

Blibby I see what you are trying to say, and I don’t think we disagree (as I didn’t say ‘objectivity’), this is the point where if we take this discussion any further, it’s a philosophical rabbit hole that goes no where very useful for the purposes of this discussion, or at least it will be beyond my skills of language and ability to articulate meaning and for you to receive meaning as i intend.

yes totally agree about the importance of critical thinking , to get to the objective reality or truth...not just subjective ‘lived experience’ or ‘all ways of knowing are valid’, or ‘2+2 = 5, because 2+2=4 is only true in Western/White ideas (said with sneering contempt) of knowledge and language..which are inherently racist, oppressive and used to up held white supremacy etc. etc.’...

I agree with the overall sentiment (and that 2+2 always = 4 unless you redefine the numbers) but I think what's being rejected is not objectivity per se, but rather an illusion of objectivity that actually serves to reinforce the dominant culture.

It may be possible, just about, to make impartial, entirely objective observations, but as soon as any explanation or interpretation is put on the observations, the risk of subjectivity creeps in. And even on the pure observation side, someone first has to make a decision on what is worth observing and that's somewhere that existing values and preconceptions influence the "objective" outcome - as explored in Invisible Women.

There was a really interesting comment by someone recently, I think on FWR, about how blind marking of maths papers improved women's performance, because although the right answer is not subjective, the assessors also make judgements about how elegant or workaday the method chosen is, and they were judging men more favourably than women.

There's also the belief that people emotionally involved in something cannot be objective, and therefore that objectivity requires "no skin in the game". I see it in the debate teams so beloved of public school education, where the ultimate aim is to be able to argue either side without preference or emotion. "This House believes that Hitler was misunderstood". But it's a privilege of the dominant culture to be so insulated from a controversial topic that you can argue either side because neither side hurts you or the people you care about.

This illusion of objectivity benefits the dominant group because their narrative and focus becomes the default, neutral position, so they believe themselves to be genuinely neutral and objective and the fact that their analysis tend to lead to conclusions that are good for the dominant group just justifies that their dominance is deserved, while the people most affected by something are the ones whose voices count the least because they cannot be dispassionate about it.

I'm sure we've all come across blokes who will helpful point out that any particular instance of sexism is "not necessarily sexist actually" with a convoluted non-sexist scenario posited to justify it. The fact that it's experienced not as a one off but as one instance of a repeating pattern makes the non-sexist explanation vanishingly unlikely but that's invisible to someone without "skin in the game", so the very fact that we experience sexism is used as a reason to dismiss our ability to consider it objectively.

So, I do believe in the ideal of objectivity as something to strive for. I think of it as a process where you continually challenge your "objective" conclusions by thinking "if I wasn't me, would I think this? What sort of person would reject this and on what grounds would they challenge it? Are those grounds valid?", and through that you uncover and challenge your own preconceptions and hopefully move closer to an objective analysis.

However, I think if you ever get to a point where you believe you have achieved objectivity, you have almost certainly lost it.

<span class="italic">Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy.</span>

Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) October 26, 2015

It was in response to Germaine Greer

Is this the first time Dawkins has openly stood on the anti TRA side?

I would like to see more from Dawkins. He's had death threats from Christians for years, what's a few more from the TRAs? Sadly I think he will stay out of it - no skin in the game.

RD seems to be picking up negative comments from the wokesters - who I doubt have bothered to actually read TPs article. I suspect quite a lot are Americans who haven't a clue who TP is or about the Cambridge porter story he alludes to.

There was a really good programme on Radio 4 on Wednesday morning about the current situation with race and does the American approach work in the UK. Sorry I don’t know how to link, it was called Across the Red line I believe.

stand on the side of science..