The March of Wokeism, Trevor Phillips in The Times

[Igneococcus]

Have not read it fully yet but Trevor Phillips is always worth reading:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfbee358-2045-11eb-8696-f5d5fcef88fd?shareToken=be75bc761cb78af2c93e38c62b7a0589

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@BolloxtoGender

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.

Ah no worries, it wasn't meant as a reply to you specifically, more a continuation of the same theme. And as you can see, a bit of a hobby-horse of mine

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.

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

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.

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

[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.

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.

Is there potentially a difference in the 'hard-baking' because the concept of 'race' is largely a cultural concept - the 'races' are not actually different types of human, whereas we are dimorphic?

@ErrolTheDragon

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.

Is there potentially a difference in the 'hard-baking' because the concept of 'race' is largely a cultural concept - the 'races' are not actually different types of human, whereas we are dimorphic?

Not the way I interpreted it. I was thinking of society in terms of current and recent culture, the cumulative effect of “typical” portrayals of black (or female) people compared to those of white (or male) people, the impact on the social position of subsequent generations because grandparents suffered explicit prejudice, that sort of thing. Earlier, more explicit prejudices casting a long shadow through cultural norms and structures.

But that’s my interpretation of hard-baked into society, not necessarily the one the author intended. I haven’t read beyond that page yet.

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

I have read part of it and watched various podcasts by the authors and I am not sure they are.
I think the authors say some useful things but they come down too much on the side of underplaying racism.
I feel I am still trying to find a middle ground. As a white person I believe I am privileged and I should be ‘doing the work’ of looking for my unconscious racism and trying to understand the experience of being black in a white-dominated culture, and I don’t think the authors of Cynical Theories would agree with me about that, but equally I think there is a lot wrong with CRT, the way it skips over social class and tells people who lack power and privilege in most areas of their lives they should be feeling shame...

Sex and race are fundamentally different.

Discrimination by race is basically arbitrary - it's a in-group/out-group tribal thing that can equally arise for anything else like religion, nationality, caste, class. Humans have a basic instinct to be tribal, but there's no fundamental need to attach special importance to any particular sort of tribalism - if tribal conflicts are kept in check there's no reason they can't become historical. But the CRT bunch are basically trying to stop race becoming historical. They want to make race a present issue. They're actively racist, and encouraging race-based in-group/out-group conflict. This is not a good idea, as history has repeatedly shown.

But the sexual dimorphism of our species means that women, by virtue of lesser strength, greater sexual vulnerability, and their role in procreation, will always be structurally oppressed. It requires civilisation (law and order), technology (birth control, abortions) and cultural will to maintain their rights as equal people. Women's physical relationship to men can never become historical, barring some sci-fi transhumanism fantasy. It is always in danger of becoming relevant again, if civilisation or access to technology is lost.

(Mind you, I'm thankful there's no significant movement of Critical Sex Theorists going around saying things like "we reject logic and reason as Male colonialist concepts").

But the sexual dimorphism of our species means that women, by virtue of lesser strength, greater sexual vulnerability, and their role in procreation, will always be structurally oppressed. It requires civilisation (law and order), technology (birth control, abortions) and cultural will to maintain their rights as equal people. Women's physical relationship to men can never become historical, barring some sci-fi transhumanism fantasy. It is always in danger of becoming relevant again, if civilisation or access to technology is lost

I agree with all that. But while it may be possible to eradicate racism entirely while sexism is only ever held at bay, within a culture, at a point in time, effective tactics to challenge and eradicate racism and effective tactics to challenge and hold at bay sexism have enough in common to make the comparison valid.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

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

I have read part of it and watched various podcasts by the authors and I am not sure they are.
I think the authors say some useful things but they come down too much on the side of underplaying racism.
I feel I am still trying to find a middle ground. As a white person I believe I am privileged and I should be ‘doing the work’ of looking for my unconscious racism and trying to understand the experience of being black in a white-dominated culture, and I don’t think the authors of Cynical Theories would agree with me about that, but equally I think there is a lot wrong with CRT, the way it skips over social class and tells people who lack power and privilege in most areas of their lives they should be feeling shame...

I think the authors say some useful things but they come down too much on the side of underplaying racism. I feel I am still trying to find a middle ground. As a white person I believe I am privileged and I should be ‘doing the work’ of looking for my unconscious racism and trying to understand the experience of being black in a white-dominated culture, and I don’t think the authors of Cynical Theories would agree with me about that, but equally I think there is a lot wrong with CRT, the way it skips over social class and tells people who lack power and privilege in most areas of their lives they should be feeling shame...

Yes, I feel very similar about feeling both sides have valid points but both also have flaws. I don’t have an answer.

For me personally, every time I think I have a new angle I realise it comes back to first recognising the need for compassion, in the sense of understanding someone’s story of their own experience is true to them even if you believe they are misguided/missing a bigger picture, and that the objective truth can be different over different timescales/context selections. I don’t see a contradiction with simultaneously believing that some races, or women, are systematically disadvantaged and believing that individuals within that group have agency to achieve things judged as great successes within society because one is the macro view and one is the individual human.

Borrowing an idea from Terry Pratchet , I think it comes to down there’s no point in having ideal solutions in theory if they don’t work in reality for people as they actually are.

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.

CRT developed out of academia. There are plenty of academics who have made a life long career out of pushing these ideas, not just within universities, but also outside of it. I view them as the clergy class within the CRT ideology.
There are also people who have published books on this, get lots of airtime on news networks and column spaces in papers and are rarely challenged on their statements because people are fearful of being labelled a racist.
"Diversity" training programmes pop up all over the place to peddle these myths and ideas.

That's what I generally mean by advocates of Critical Race Theory. There is a lot of denouncing of 'cis white heteronormative patriarchal' capitalism, and yet there is plenty of time and effort invested in making money from those white people who relish being made to feel irredeemably guilty.

Various US universities require lower test scores for admission of black students compared to say, white or asian students. This is awful and truly racist under the guise of appearing progressive. The underlying message is that black people are somehow inherently inferior and incapable of being on the same level of intelligence and unable to pass exams like everyone else.

CRT pushes the notion that white people are always the oppressor and people who are not white are always the oppressed. CRT must also never be questioned. It's part of the dogma - you are a racist and if you disagree or question this, it is also a sign of racism. How convenient.

People who believe in CRT (even though they may not term it like that) do seem confused by minorities like Chinese, Indians, Jews etc who, on average, seem to do very well under this evil, white systemic racism. They outperform whites in school and university, and can go on to outearn them as well. Not only that, recent immigrants from Africa also seem to do well. CRT cannot explain this with its simplistic dogma because it insists that all disparities between groups is because of systemic racism. People from these groups who disagree with CRT are labelled all sorts of disparaging labels - being racist themselves, boot licker, white adjacent and worse.

I can't recall the exact video / podcast, but I remember hearing John McWhorter tell of how he was quietly not invited to certain professional events even though his work was relevant because he openly disagreed with CRT.
Here is one such article of his... I can see why they dislike him as he is scathing.
www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion

Now that I think of it, when left/liberal media publish lists of black people as a way of celebrating their achievements, do they ever include black conservatives they might strongly disagree with who might be highly respected and noteworthy? I haven't put much thought into it before, but I don't think I've seen respectful acknowledgement of black people who don't tow the ideological line.

Sorry I'm waffling. Note that many of those who disagree with CRT don't deny that racism exists and that it can impact on people's lives.
This is a good article
areomagazine.com/2020/06/26/is-white-fragility-training-ethical/

There's a lot of info online in this area and it's usually worth listening to podcasts.

'I think the authors say some useful things but they come down too much on the side of underplaying racism.'

I'm cognisant that it is written as an antidote to the toxic and divisive narratives which are epitomised by the high priestess of Robin DiAngelo. There does need to be a reasonable balance between recognising and acting against racism and making everything about race, and I find the talk of White privilege, black people, white supremacy, victims vs oppressors etc etc pretty intellectually corrupt. The irony is there are many people who are projecting their own racism onto others, and making a lot of money off the back of this (and the liberal elite's guilt/superiority complexes), selling books, talks, whole departments in academia while the rest of society pays.

@NonnyMouse1337 Couldn't agree more.

'(Mind you, I'm thankful there's no significant movement of Critical Sex Theorists going around saying things like "we reject logic and reason as Male colonialist concepts").'

@NecessaryScene1...hmmm.. you sure about that?

Thanks @BolloxtoGender, you said it in less words than I did lol
I ramble too much.

Wow thank you so much for this.

A glance at the thread has some excellent analysis that I need to catch up on.

This particularly stood out. I find these tests on social media among left types.

It is two centuries since this country abolished the Test Acts under which people were required to make a pledge of religious observance to qualify for public office or the civil service. But once again employees are being required to sign up to statements of belief or face denunciation, demotion and dismissal.

(And in real life obviously, but it seems to start on SM. And crap diversity training.)