A collection of interconnecting thoughts:
There is a problem between people who believe in Liberal Identities based on a hierachy of identity and actual liberalism, human rights laws and the balancing of rights which isn't fixed and can change based on the situation.
I don't take lectures from people who don't understand the underlying principles of rights and the history of the development of rights. There are lots of them on MN...
Rights are about balancing needs and primarily about preventing harms: firstly physical, then in terms of dignity and then in terms of preventing exploitation and other discrimination. Its not about saying this identity is at the top and this one is more oppressed because of identity. In certain situations the balances of power are different to others and our law within the UK reflects this (with some variations between the four nations but largely very similar).
Balancing the needs of all - key point.
This fluidity needs to be recognised as does the purpose and intent of the law. You don't have a set of rigid rules with English Law for good reason. It creates injustice.
On the subject of injustice.
What we are seeing playing out is a sense of injustice in society and its manifesting in appalling ways. People who are happy don't riot. People who are happy are less likely to be raging racists. People who feel they have a place, a role, a stake in or purpose in their society and community, don't smash shit up. People who smash up their own community, do so because they don't feel part of it even if they are. They don't feel responsibility to their local community.
This goes back to a somewhat circular argument about Identity Politics and where we all fit into them. Identity Politics only works if it reflect injustice well and doesn't ignore crucial things. If you focus on identity politics to the exclusion of social problems, the social problems get neglected and identity politics then becomes the vehicle for exploitation by the far right as part of backlash.
Which takes me to education.
Someone talked upthread about race theory and how its being taught in UK schools - and the notions of liberalism that come from it. The main trouble is that this isn't particular reflective of the average Brit and their history. Its reflective of American History. For history to resonnant it needs to connect, and connect with everyone in someway. When it doesn't it isn't reflecting history and your life experience and who you mix with it doesn't work well. Teaching about slavery and the genocide of native americans is crucial in the US because it reflects that and the development of their nation, not so much here...
We'd be much better to talk about the development of rights from ways that connect to various experiences that relate better to those who live here in the UK and the way OUR laws have developed.
Part of this would include a certain amount of pride for working class communities and northern towns in grass roots protests and rights movements. It would be a much healthy lesson in trying to educate in how to effect change in a healthy and meaningful way. Rather than rioting. How did largely illiterate working class men, really make change and were listened to?
Instead we get 'Liverpool oppressed the world and all white men are oppressors' type narrative which I think is unhelpful. The average working class white bloke from a northern mill town will have a very different personal social history in terms of 'privilege' and benefit to that narrative. The 'privilege' if your ancestors worked in the cotton industry in a mill might extend as far as not starving to death. Thats not really connecting with the idea of being an oppressor is it?
Just how does 'working class bloke from Burnley or St Helens', fit into the narrative of the privileged white bloke in practice? We have to consider this in a better way that actually reflects reality. Trying to educate kids from these areas that they have 'white privilege' is dumb. We are trying to attach guilt and shame to certain identity characteristics. Its not a compelling selling point. People want to feel pride and a sense of connection and value. Its about participation and having value within society. What is your role and your stake in your community?
Indeed Bloke From Burnley might family may well have been involved in events like Peterloo or in movements like the Chartists fighting against the oppression and abuses of power his ancestors faced. Maybe they were were involved in the establishment of the 'Manchester Guardian'. We seem to forget that the Manchester Radicals were key players who supported the Abolition of Slavery - these included men who were effectived by what they witnessed at Peterloo. These white working class men were part of the fight for workers rights and wider suffrage. We seem to get stuck just talking about women's suffrage rather than this wider understanding of the history.
Our history is complex. We HAVE been oppressors and we HAVE benefitted as a nation from slavery and colonialism. We SHOULD talk about this, but also we conscious of the degree to which everyone felt that. And we've also been a key part in the development of worker rights and human rights that have also spread across the world and we want others to have. And how they extend to everyone. I think there's this sense that 'rights are for minorities and not for me' from white working class men. This isn't true. I note that Brexit and Reform is lead by people who seek to remove workers rights. Rights that arguably protect the working class most. Its something we should be conscious of. Why are rights important even to Bloke From Burnley?
We need to work to restore this sense of belonging and being of worth rather than looking down on people shouting 'chav'. Otherwise they will look for others who 'give them respect' (like Nazi scumbags who want to use them).
Equally understanding how our neighbours ancestors was affected by the British Army in India has greater ressonance rather than someone we have no connection to in the US was hurt by slavery by the same people who were exploiting our own ancestors (though to a lesser extent) primarily for their own personal profit. But rather than purely staying 'we were bad' (which we were), there are ways we can frame this into doing better rather to not harm people like our neighbours without the language of historic shame. The average guy who joined the army in the last century was regarded as the lowest of the low. This was desired because he was a ruffian and would be willing to carry out the crimes of the higher ups. The men were taught to follow orders of their superiors. Failure to do this, resulted in harsh punishment. And why we don't do this anymore and how our understanding of how the army should behave and what is role is has changed - in part because of the concept of 'just following orders' not being acceptable and how we have individual responsibilities to everyone and to question certain unacceptable orders. Give power back and actually reflect who was responsible at the time and who would be responsible now. And where men in similar situations have made different decisions which have had much more positive impact. People who are actually relatible. Thats better than the ridicilous jingoistic Two World Wars nonsense too.
Racism is the product of a failure of other policies. If you feel 'at the very bottom', its easy to punch down on those who are obviously different. How do you stop people feeling this sense of being at the bottom, without hope and with nothing to lose? It is the product of poor understanding of cultural differences - not just between those from other countries but internally within 'our own'. Its a failure to recognise the needs of ALL. Because we've failed to balance interests properly.
I dunno. I just think we've got these huge fractures in society and the 'othering' is because we aren't approaching these subjects in a way that everyone can participate and feel they have a positive role to play. Its couched in the language of blame and its deeply unhelpful. Its alienating particularly to certain groups, who we need to think about in different ways.
But perhaps theres a reason we don't look at the history and development of rights in this way too...