Private Schools Wokeness Over the Top

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

[Anonymous]

Oh and I found this funny too but also related to my critique of this obsession with creating new identities so that we can all compete in the victimhood Olympics. The obsession with identity politics (identities are important but it’s the obsession that is problematic) harms solidarity which in turn is needed to effectuate real change:

https://twitter.com/the_feminist_tm/status/1615903339342073859?s=46&t=cMhxtIFAhjODA16HKGWZ-g

[Anonymous]

Sadly it’s OP again. Also slightly related to our entire discussion is this critique:

https://intellectualtakeout.org/2023/01/academic-writing-nobody-reads/

Academia is in crisis and it’s probably why there is such a focus on inventing new vocabulary words.

Ok that’s enough from me! I keep trying to leave but keep having more thoughts! Good night for real this time.

[Anonymous]

Honestly OP, I know you have a more thoughtful critique of progressive identity politics than the rest of the anti-woke posters on here. But you are landing in the same place as them: completely eliminate any DEI discussion from schools. Why? Does it not give you any pause that you are aligning yourself with the Ron DeSantises of the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly OP, I know you have a more thoughtful critique of progressive identity politics than the rest of the anti-woke posters on here. But you are landing in the same place as them: completely eliminate any DEI discussion from schools. Why? Does it not give you any pause that you are aligning yourself with the Ron DeSantises of the world?

Not OP, but why should it? If you are intellectually honest, you need to follow things to their logical end. The point isn’t to change everything just to disagree with people you don’t like politically—that is the kind of weak mindedness that has gotten us into such a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to everyone who has been pushing back in this discussion and elsewhere. I am not sure how to pierce through the insanity that has captures so much of the education establishment, but it needs to happen. A significant course correction is necessary for the sanity and education of today’s students and society generally.

The left seems to be suffering from some sort of mass psychosis. They need to wakeup or be removed from positions of influence.

Oh, think of the children!

Yes, actually. This is a school forum. Children are actually what the focus is here. The fact that you mock that idea says everything—you are more concerned with pushing some objectionable gender or racial ideology than you are with what is actually good for kids. You shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near kids, including own, if you even have any.

You want to take away people’s kids bc their political views are different from yours? But the progressives are the ones we need to fear.

No, I don’t want to take away people’s kids, and especially not because their political views are different. However, I do think that a parent who scoffs at the idea of giving due concern to the interests of kids needs to do some deep thinking about life, and how they are impacting their family.

Ok fine. I think I’m a better parent than a closed minded bigot like you.

I hope you know that with theses latest posts you have lost the support of the very few who were behind you. Mocking people when it comes to concern about their children is not a winning position ever.

egads! I’ve lost the support of the anti woke circle jerk club? How will I ever survive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

OP here. The critique i posted is Marxist but I’m not a Marxist but of the traditional left. I am simply saying that dividing people in ever so smaller identity groups is neo liberal to its core and undermines actual solidarity. It’s very American and it’s simply not how the rest of the non western world thinks (see the article on China). You don’t believe me lol? I mean that’s your problem. I guess you are so narrow minded that the only critique of DEI culture that could possibly exist comes from the right then I feel sorry for you. Expand your world and get out of your American bubble (i suggest reading the article by the Nation that I posted on the Qatar World Cup)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

OP here. The critique i posted is Marxist but I’m not a Marxist but of the traditional left. I am simply saying that dividing people in ever so smaller identity groups is neo liberal to its core and undermines actual solidarity. It’s very American and it’s simply not how the rest of the non western world thinks (see the article on China). You don’t believe me lol? I mean that’s your problem. I guess you are so narrow minded that the only critique of DEI culture that could possibly exist comes from the right then I feel sorry for you. Expand your world and get out of your American bubble (i suggest reading the article by the Nation that I posted on the Qatar World Cup)

Well if we adopted the China approach, as a Muslim you’d be living a detention camp in the Utah desert. So I wonder why you think this is some great thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly OP, I know you have a more thoughtful critique of progressive identity politics than the rest of the anti-woke posters on here. But you are landing in the same place as them: completely eliminate any DEI discussion from schools. Why? Does it not give you any pause that you are aligning yourself with the Ron DeSantises of the world?

Lol land in the same place how? Because I think all this DEI stuff is BS and is harmful? It is. I am not aligning myself with Ron DeSantis because well we have completely different world views. Seems like we are back in the Bush era where “you are either with us, or against us.” According to you if I criticize DEI culture and it’s influence in schools then I am with Ron DeSanctis? I can’t criticize anymore? That’s just insane. Get out of your America bubble. The rest of the non-western world doesn’t agree with the BS being spewed by the cultural left either. What they say is so bizarre, so absurd, that the US has become a laughing stock around the world (read the article on Qatar and the World Cup as an example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

OP here. The critique i posted is Marxist but I’m not a Marxist but of the traditional left. I am simply saying that dividing people in ever so smaller identity groups is neo liberal to its core and undermines actual solidarity. It’s very American and it’s simply not how the rest of the non western world thinks (see the article on China). You don’t believe me lol? I mean that’s your problem. I guess you are so narrow minded that the only critique of DEI culture that could possibly exist comes from the right then I feel sorry for you. Expand your world and get out of your American bubble (i suggest reading the article by the Nation that I posted on the Qatar World Cup)

Well if we adopted the China approach, as a Muslim you’d be living a detention camp in the Utah desert. So I wonder why you think this is some great thing.

OP here. God you ppl are hilarious. Did you even read the article and understand it? I am not calling for adopting the China approach. I specifically pulled out a quote from the article that resonated with me and criticized the progressive approach. I then specifically said I don’t care about the cultures argument (which is what the entire article is about) and said that dividing ppl into small groups that arent really communities undermines the actual solidarity that is requires change. It seems that you are unable to discuss what I am saying on the merits and so have resorted to “if you disagree with me, the alternative is being thrown into a Chinese concentration camp.” Do you realize how childish that sounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

What exactly do you propose, OP?

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

OP here. The critique i posted is Marxist but I’m not a Marxist but of the traditional left. I am simply saying that dividing people in ever so smaller identity groups is neo liberal to its core and undermines actual solidarity. It’s very American and it’s simply not how the rest of the non western world thinks (see the article on China). You don’t believe me lol? I mean that’s your problem. I guess you are so narrow minded that the only critique of DEI culture that could possibly exist comes from the right then I feel sorry for you. Expand your world and get out of your American bubble (i suggest reading the article by the Nation that I posted on the Qatar World Cup)

Well if we adopted the China approach, as a Muslim you’d be living a detention camp in the Utah desert. So I wonder why you think this is some great thing.

OP here. God you ppl are hilarious. Did you even read the article and understand it? I am not calling for adopting the China approach. I specifically pulled out a quote from the article that resonated with me and criticized the progressive approach. I then specifically said I don’t care about the cultures argument (which is what the entire article is about) and said that dividing ppl into small groups that arent really communities undermines the actual solidarity that is requires change. It seems that you are unable to discuss what I am saying on the merits and so have resorted to “if you disagree with me, the alternative is being thrown into a Chinese concentration camp.” Do you realize how childish that sounds?

What exactly do you propose. OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly it’s OP again. Also slightly related to our entire discussion is this critique:

https://intellectualtakeout.org/2023/01/academic-writing-nobody-reads/

Academia is in crisis and it’s probably why there is such a focus on inventing new vocabulary words.

Ok that’s enough from me! I keep trying to leave but keep having more thoughts! Good night for real this time.

I don't think this has anything to do with CRT or wokeness or anything else other than publish or perish. Everyone in academia right up to associate professors is under enormous pressure to constantly publish. Something ground breaking, or even something mildly influential in their subspecialty would be nice, but even if that's not possible they still need to publish something regularly. Blame university hiring panels and tenure panels not CRT for that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly it’s OP again. Also slightly related to our entire discussion is this critique:

https://intellectualtakeout.org/2023/01/academic-writing-nobody-reads/

Academia is in crisis and it’s probably why there is such a focus on inventing new vocabulary words.

Ok that’s enough from me! I keep trying to leave but keep having more thoughts! Good night for real this time.

I don't think this has anything to do with CRT or wokeness or anything else other than publish or perish. Everyone in academia right up to associate professors is under enormous pressure to constantly publish. Something ground breaking, or even something mildly influential in their subspecialty would be nice, but even if that's not possible they still need to publish something regularly. Blame university hiring panels and tenure panels not CRT for that one.

Not OP. It’s certainly related to the article OP first linked to. All these problems seem to stem from the fact that university professors are intent of coming up with ever so complicated BS that is completely removed from real world issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Oops I’m back! Just read this article in the New Left Review. Helps explain the different I see in the Kendi/DeAngelo DEI types when they talk about let’s say “decolonization” and what decolonization traditionally meant. It’s basically an example of a leftist critique of “wokeness” and yes I realize it’s not the best term to use. I’m linking to the article here - ignore the specifics when it comes to Ukraine/Russia and focus on the general point of the article which can be applied to many contexts :

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii138/articles/volodymyr-ishchenko-ukrainian-voices

Here are some specific parts that stood out to me:

“When the biggest wave of decolonization in modern history took place after the Second World War, the focus was different. At that time, decolonization meant not just the overthrow of the European empires but also, crucially, building new developmentalist states in the ex-colonial countries, with a robust public sector and nationalized industries to replace the imbalances of the colonial economy through import-substitution programmes. The contradictions and failures of such strategies were explored in broadly Marxian terms in theories of under-development, debt-dependency and world-system analysis. Today, ‘decolonization’ is proposed for Ukraine and Russia in a context in which neoliberalism has taken the place of state-developmentalist policies and post-structuralist ‘postcolonial studies’ have displaced theories of neo-imperialist dependency. National liberation is no longer understood as intrinsically linked to social revolution, challenging the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Instead, it happens in the context of the ‘deficient revolutions’ of the Maidan type, which neither achieve the consolidation of liberal democracy nor eradicate corruption. If they succeed in overthrowing authoritarian regimes and ‘empowering’ the ngo representatives of civil society, they are also liable to weaken the public sector and increase crime rates, social inequality and ethnic tensions.footnote1”

“It is not surprising, therefore, that talk of Ukraine’s ‘decolonization’ is so much about symbols and identity, and so little about social transformation.”

“The oppressive situations faced by women, black people and others involve complex social relations, institutions and ideologies, reproduced within the warp and weft of capitalist relations. The black, gay and women’s liberation movements that arose in the 1960s and 70s fought to challenge the oppressive social order as a whole. While those oppressive relations persist, the question of universal emancipation has long since disappeared; instead, contemporary identity politics serve to amplify the particular voices that are deemed to require representation solely on the basis of their particularity. Instead of social redistribution, this politics calls primarily for recognition within the institutions which are not themselves put into question.footnote6 Moreover, because the groups that identity politics tends to essentialize are always internally diverse, it inevitably amplifies the more privileged voices who are legitimated to speak on behalf of the oppressed group that they may not really represent. In this way, it tends to reproduce and even legitimate fundamental social inequalities.”

I hope this helps clarify my beliefs and the clear up confusion that some PPs have when they ask how I can be against racism, colonialism etc but also against this new progressive ideology. Again going back to the quote that I had from the article about China. I am not a fan of Huntington but the quote I put was spot on - except like I said that I don't care that much about culture but the continuous focus on specific identity categories undermines solidarity amongst different identity groups which is necessary if we want to effectuate change. Here is the quote again:

"Progressive liberal ideology seeks to downplay cultural wholes. It envisions the world in universal, globalist terms, while reducing national ­societies to collections of atomized individuals. In its advanced form as identity politics, this version of liberalism views individuals as members of intersecting identity categories—categories that are not real communities and cultures, but rather demographic abstractions such as “Asian American” and “LGBTQIA+.” The word “community” may be added to such abstractions—as in “LGBTQIA+­ ­community”—but it is empty, for none of the identity-­politics categories are concrete communities with shared cultural lives. Indeed, the pseudo-­solidarity of identity politics further atomizes the individual by undermining the legitimacy of inherited cultures. This outcome is not accidental. Progressive liberals seek to weaken the hold of larger cultural collectives by erasing them from their accounts of the social world, accounts they disseminate using their dominance in the West’s humanities and social science departments."

Wow. Super interesting OP! Thanks for sharing!

So your problem with wokeness is that it’s not Marxist enough? Somehow I…don’t believe you

OP here. The critique i posted is Marxist but I’m not a Marxist but of the traditional left. I am simply saying that dividing people in ever so smaller identity groups is neo liberal to its core and undermines actual solidarity. It’s very American and it’s simply not how the rest of the non western world thinks (see the article on China). You don’t believe me lol? I mean that’s your problem. I guess you are so narrow minded that the only critique of DEI culture that could possibly exist comes from the right then I feel sorry for you. Expand your world and get out of your American bubble (i suggest reading the article by the Nation that I posted on the Qatar World Cup)

I have no problem believing that there are critiques of DEI from the left. I agree with some of them. I do not believe that YOU agree with them, I think you are using it as a cover to try to pretend you aren’t as reactionary as you clearly are based on this thread.

To wit: what is the solidarity you think is undermined by identity politics? Towards what end? The critiques you cite are about the fact that identity politics divide the working class, making them less likely to rise up against an oppressive capitalist system. I do not think you would welcome such an uprising given that this thread is about the private schools you send your children to