Very illuminating definitions and discourse in both the article and the podcast transcript (as well as the posting by Clever Pseudonym just below where I am typing), which I happen to completely agree with, as an educated and liberal progressive white female personage not having a "person of color"broad ill-fitting cultural label even remotely constraining me from being who I actually am.: an educated and liberal progressive white female personage liking (a lot!) where this all seems to be going!
Being who we actually are is a good jumping off place as opposed to assigning broad, non accurate labels to any human categorization based on lumping all without white caucasian skin to be aggregately the people of color designation for all purposes by the up to now "dominant" culture? I believe that begs, based on reality and actual figures, a revisiting of the word "dominant," and what worldview supports and maintains whites as the dominant culture? Coming to a majority of age in the late 1960s, early 1970s, I cannot believe we are still dealing with this paradigm in 2023, and continuing?
Glenn and John are right inside my head. As a Bangladeshi immigrant that's exactly what I'm thinking. And I'm even a pretty liberal person on criminal justice and welfare issues. But that comes from concerns about "fellow Americans," not because I think of Bangladeshis as belonging to the same coalition of "oppressed people" as Black people in Chicago or Philly.
I think the damaging aspect of this for Democrats, which is implicit in what Glenn and John said but is worth saying expressly, is that emphasizing racial identity is probably going to backfire when it comes to other minority groups. The whole narrative since 2016 has made me a lot more conservative. I can't help but focus more on my Bangladeshi identity, which makes me focus a lot more on what typical Bangladeshis think about meritocracy, law and order, family structure, etc.
Thank you, especially for pointing out the truly dangerous rhetoric of the Elect in encouraging "white identity." There was once a time (not that long ago), when eastern and southern European immigrants and their children were considered non-white. They were seen as non-white by the Anglo-Protestant majority but also by Black Americans. The whole notion of terms like "Asian," "white," or "Latino" representing some coherent group of people with some common traits or characteristics is just silly. To the extent such terms actually create a pseudo-identity they tend to obliterate the real cultural distinctions that make cultures interesting and vital in the first place.
Hiding your head in the sand and ignoring the hard truths will only lead to disaster! America is racist to the core, and white nationalists are breeding hatred daily!
Thank-you both! Really appreciate it. A few points from me; I am one of 10 kids and grew up poor. 5 of us joined the military to get to college on GI Bill. I have had to be be better through whole career because 1964 Affirmative Action put me behind all women and all non-whites for opportunity. I always had to do better in school and work to overcome this racism and sexism. If you discriminate on basis of race then you are a racist. If you discriminate on basis if sex then you are a sexist. If you want all people to have an equal outcome then you are a communist. If you are a racist sexist Communist then own it and introduce yourself as such. Like “hi I am Jane/John and I am a racist sexist Communist, nice to meet you”.
Guys, I think your discussions are wonderful. I was an academic for a couple decades and my most notable publications were on the subject of bureaucratic representation. I have had a long fascination with the issue of how we raise children, primarily boys, of black families -- i.e. do you instill this is what a "man" is and then (so to speak) this is the black variant on that character, or vice versa? I have many black friends from my military experience over 50 years ago, and I recently asked one of my running buddies whose son just graduated from college, and is an outstanding young man, he told he and his wife embedded personal character (truthfulness, honor, respect and so forth) in Andy...and then told him, "but never forget you're black." It reminds me of a college dean at U of Hawaii told me after I told him "take me off your list, I don't want to come here," he said, "There is no gap in human experience that basic human respect will not bridge." So, please keep up the good work.
One day, and I believe soon we will end up with a bunch of white leftists who speak in terms of persons of color lecturing blacks, hispanics and asians on what it means to be a person of color in the USA. It will be farcical and ludicrous and likely the end point for that ideology. The horror is that amount of damage that will happened between now and then.
Whoever introduced "people of color" must have intended to create a minefield. It takes the insipidness of "Latinx" and magnifies it across all minority groups. Worse, it seeks to have it both ways by using the term to describe nonwhites in one breath and as a euphemism for black in the next. And this overlooks how close this phrase tap dances very close to the old "colored people."
How this benefits society is a mystery, which may well be the point. The idea of everyone within a particular group marching to the same beat on all things is patently offensive. No one would ever say that all white people think alike on all things, but for some reason, that is never extended to minorities. Maybe at some point we can stop with the fixation on melanin, but that's just one olive-skinned guy's opinion, a man who probably falls within the realm of the "swarthy horde" or is at worst, horde-adjacent.
All this herding of people is a kind of narcissistic self-flagellation. It's a luxury and demeans both those in the group (black people have to stay on code or they're a "coon") and out of the group ("model minority" is an insult, "white" is an insult now, etc). Typically the 'prosperity gospel' ends such things - when everyone is doing well, there is less scuffling for resources. But in the present climate, what should really end it is need. Huge problems of global technological and intellectual competition with China, enormous resource and energy concerns, food supplies, etc. - Big Crunch coming for America, if not the world. In my opinion, there won't be time to worry about someone's fragility or if you're elevating black or LGBTQIAA++ voices enough when you shop online - we'll urgently need to work together to live. This is why you see less of this bs in sports locker rooms or military teams - the goals are present, clear, and urgent.
Hopefully we are approaching the end of this pendulum swing away from stoicism. I am not for peak stoicism either, but we passed equilibrium a long time ago. I am not sure we can valorize victimhood any more than we do now. The trip out to this extreme has been interesting, and at times entertaining, but I am very much looking forward to the journey back.
This was great. I actually quoted you in my Substack. I have a section called "Food for Thought" where I usually post about challenging social/political subjects, even though I mostly educate about mental health and relationships. https://www.vpetrova.com/p/3-natural-ways-to-treat-anxiety-and?sd=pf
Glenn, religion IS an issue when you're dealing with the politics, the Supreme Court, public office. It's an ideology and while you may be born into a family committed to that ideology, you can choose to reject it as many have, whereas you can't reject your skin colour or your sex (well some do, but they're still limited as to what they can do by their birth biology). Do I think there are 'too many Catholics' on the Supreme Court? Hell yeah, when that misogynist, sexist ideology is held by several Justices who are now about to decide whether women are allowed body autonomy or not! Can there be 'too many Jews'? Maybe, if they're making decisions based on their ideology to the detriment of others (I don't know if that happened or not - I'm not sure when there were 'a lot of Jews' supposedly on the SC). I look closely at religious ideology as a woman, since so many of them are famously misogynist, especially fundamentalist Protestantism and Islam.
Ideology *is* important and I can understand why Americans were afraid that JFK might answer to the Pope before the country. Catholicism was much different back then and yes, that was a real concern. Some might be concerned that a Jewish candidate might be too strongly aligned with support for Israel and blind to their human rights abuses against the Palestinians. That's a valid concern too. Getting off religion for a moment, I looked askance at Jesse Jackson, a lifetime civil rights activist, when he ran for President in the 1980s. While I didn't object to Jackson per se, I wondered: Would he be preoccupied with black rights as President, to the detriment of other problems and injustices in America? It wasn't his blackness (I didn't worry about Obama), it was his *ideology*.
I wrote a few months back about how I liked Ketanji Brown Jackson as a SC nominee because she seemed more liberal than anyone Trump has appointed, and I think there are 'too many conservatives' on the SC right now. I also stated that I didn't want an all-'progressive' SC because I didn't think liberals would do a good job with too much power either. I like a nice mixture of ideologies, I think that's what works best.
The Unified Field Theory of Non-Whiteness
Very illuminating definitions and discourse in both the article and the podcast transcript (as well as the posting by Clever Pseudonym just below where I am typing), which I happen to completely agree with, as an educated and liberal progressive white female personage not having a "person of color"broad ill-fitting cultural label even remotely constraining me from being who I actually am.: an educated and liberal progressive white female personage liking (a lot!) where this all seems to be going!
Being who we actually are is a good jumping off place as opposed to assigning broad, non accurate labels to any human categorization based on lumping all without white caucasian skin to be aggregately the people of color designation for all purposes by the up to now "dominant" culture? I believe that begs, based on reality and actual figures, a revisiting of the word "dominant," and what worldview supports and maintains whites as the dominant culture? Coming to a majority of age in the late 1960s, early 1970s, I cannot believe we are still dealing with this paradigm in 2023, and continuing?
Dear Sir - Keep up the good work
Glenn and John are right inside my head. As a Bangladeshi immigrant that's exactly what I'm thinking. And I'm even a pretty liberal person on criminal justice and welfare issues. But that comes from concerns about "fellow Americans," not because I think of Bangladeshis as belonging to the same coalition of "oppressed people" as Black people in Chicago or Philly.
I think the damaging aspect of this for Democrats, which is implicit in what Glenn and John said but is worth saying expressly, is that emphasizing racial identity is probably going to backfire when it comes to other minority groups. The whole narrative since 2016 has made me a lot more conservative. I can't help but focus more on my Bangladeshi identity, which makes me focus a lot more on what typical Bangladeshis think about meritocracy, law and order, family structure, etc.
The entire nation of Spain , including its king and queen, is Hispanic and thus BIPOC.
Thank you, especially for pointing out the truly dangerous rhetoric of the Elect in encouraging "white identity." There was once a time (not that long ago), when eastern and southern European immigrants and their children were considered non-white. They were seen as non-white by the Anglo-Protestant majority but also by Black Americans. The whole notion of terms like "Asian," "white," or "Latino" representing some coherent group of people with some common traits or characteristics is just silly. To the extent such terms actually create a pseudo-identity they tend to obliterate the real cultural distinctions that make cultures interesting and vital in the first place.
Hiding your head in the sand and ignoring the hard truths will only lead to disaster! America is racist to the core, and white nationalists are breeding hatred daily!
more racist tripe from a democrat party propagandist.
Thank-you both! Really appreciate it. A few points from me; I am one of 10 kids and grew up poor. 5 of us joined the military to get to college on GI Bill. I have had to be be better through whole career because 1964 Affirmative Action put me behind all women and all non-whites for opportunity. I always had to do better in school and work to overcome this racism and sexism. If you discriminate on basis of race then you are a racist. If you discriminate on basis if sex then you are a sexist. If you want all people to have an equal outcome then you are a communist. If you are a racist sexist Communist then own it and introduce yourself as such. Like “hi I am Jane/John and I am a racist sexist Communist, nice to meet you”.
Guys, I think your discussions are wonderful. I was an academic for a couple decades and my most notable publications were on the subject of bureaucratic representation. I have had a long fascination with the issue of how we raise children, primarily boys, of black families -- i.e. do you instill this is what a "man" is and then (so to speak) this is the black variant on that character, or vice versa? I have many black friends from my military experience over 50 years ago, and I recently asked one of my running buddies whose son just graduated from college, and is an outstanding young man, he told he and his wife embedded personal character (truthfulness, honor, respect and so forth) in Andy...and then told him, "but never forget you're black." It reminds me of a college dean at U of Hawaii told me after I told him "take me off your list, I don't want to come here," he said, "There is no gap in human experience that basic human respect will not bridge." So, please keep up the good work.
One day, and I believe soon we will end up with a bunch of white leftists who speak in terms of persons of color lecturing blacks, hispanics and asians on what it means to be a person of color in the USA. It will be farcical and ludicrous and likely the end point for that ideology. The horror is that amount of damage that will happened between now and then.
Whoever introduced "people of color" must have intended to create a minefield. It takes the insipidness of "Latinx" and magnifies it across all minority groups. Worse, it seeks to have it both ways by using the term to describe nonwhites in one breath and as a euphemism for black in the next. And this overlooks how close this phrase tap dances very close to the old "colored people."
How this benefits society is a mystery, which may well be the point. The idea of everyone within a particular group marching to the same beat on all things is patently offensive. No one would ever say that all white people think alike on all things, but for some reason, that is never extended to minorities. Maybe at some point we can stop with the fixation on melanin, but that's just one olive-skinned guy's opinion, a man who probably falls within the realm of the "swarthy horde" or is at worst, horde-adjacent.
Interestingly, Douglas Murray in his THE MADNESS OF CROWDS reminds the reader that LGBT is not a unified field either.
All this herding of people is a kind of narcissistic self-flagellation. It's a luxury and demeans both those in the group (black people have to stay on code or they're a "coon") and out of the group ("model minority" is an insult, "white" is an insult now, etc). Typically the 'prosperity gospel' ends such things - when everyone is doing well, there is less scuffling for resources. But in the present climate, what should really end it is need. Huge problems of global technological and intellectual competition with China, enormous resource and energy concerns, food supplies, etc. - Big Crunch coming for America, if not the world. In my opinion, there won't be time to worry about someone's fragility or if you're elevating black or LGBTQIAA++ voices enough when you shop online - we'll urgently need to work together to live. This is why you see less of this bs in sports locker rooms or military teams - the goals are present, clear, and urgent.
Hopefully we are approaching the end of this pendulum swing away from stoicism. I am not for peak stoicism either, but we passed equilibrium a long time ago. I am not sure we can valorize victimhood any more than we do now. The trip out to this extreme has been interesting, and at times entertaining, but I am very much looking forward to the journey back.
This was great. I actually quoted you in my Substack. I have a section called "Food for Thought" where I usually post about challenging social/political subjects, even though I mostly educate about mental health and relationships. https://www.vpetrova.com/p/3-natural-ways-to-treat-anxiety-and?sd=pf
Glenn, religion IS an issue when you're dealing with the politics, the Supreme Court, public office. It's an ideology and while you may be born into a family committed to that ideology, you can choose to reject it as many have, whereas you can't reject your skin colour or your sex (well some do, but they're still limited as to what they can do by their birth biology). Do I think there are 'too many Catholics' on the Supreme Court? Hell yeah, when that misogynist, sexist ideology is held by several Justices who are now about to decide whether women are allowed body autonomy or not! Can there be 'too many Jews'? Maybe, if they're making decisions based on their ideology to the detriment of others (I don't know if that happened or not - I'm not sure when there were 'a lot of Jews' supposedly on the SC). I look closely at religious ideology as a woman, since so many of them are famously misogynist, especially fundamentalist Protestantism and Islam.
Ideology *is* important and I can understand why Americans were afraid that JFK might answer to the Pope before the country. Catholicism was much different back then and yes, that was a real concern. Some might be concerned that a Jewish candidate might be too strongly aligned with support for Israel and blind to their human rights abuses against the Palestinians. That's a valid concern too. Getting off religion for a moment, I looked askance at Jesse Jackson, a lifetime civil rights activist, when he ran for President in the 1980s. While I didn't object to Jackson per se, I wondered: Would he be preoccupied with black rights as President, to the detriment of other problems and injustices in America? It wasn't his blackness (I didn't worry about Obama), it was his *ideology*.
I wrote a few months back about how I liked Ketanji Brown Jackson as a SC nominee because she seemed more liberal than anyone Trump has appointed, and I think there are 'too many conservatives' on the SC right now. I also stated that I didn't want an all-'progressive' SC because I didn't think liberals would do a good job with too much power either. I like a nice mixture of ideologies, I think that's what works best.