"The Trouble With Diversity"

WV,

Thanks. Have never heard of the author.

He was speaking my language, and echoed my thoughts so well.

The issue is class. Massive class differences create the power needed to implement, support and even extend any kind of apartheid. Economic apartheid, which is what capitalism is, is the engine for all the others. Get rid of economic apartheid, and you make the others all but impossible.

And, yes, I agree with him that, in America especially, liberal elites have often used the issues of race, gender and sexuality to forestall any discussion of economic inequality and class, which means they are essentially “conservatives” with smiling faces. Conservatives are more upfront about their not caring at all about class divisions, but mainstream liberals, at the very least, are complicit with the conservative agenda, which has always been to protect and enhance the ruling class, its power, wealth and privilege.

I think the real difference between them is with the vehicles used to achieve further stratification. For political conservatives, it’s generally business ownership — at least aspirationally. For most liberal Dems, it’s professionalization and education. They strive for elite positions, working for others, in general. Conservative Republicans strive for elite positions, managing or owning companies. In effect, one “side” seeks the 1%; the other the 10-2%. Neither pays any real regard to the vast majority of the nation and has no intention of ending class divisions. They seek various elite levels themselves, and don’t want those to disappear.

Again, the only real way to help racial, gender, sexuality divides in concrete terms is to do away with the class system itself — or, at the very least, radically flatten it. I prefer the former. The left (in general) needs to put class divisions front and center, and end its reliance on, for lack of a better term, “identity politics.” That’s not to say we shouldn’t do everything we can to fight against discrimination in all forms. But we need to do with along with an assertion of alternatives to class structures.

And, yes, I agree with him that, in America especially, liberal elites have often used the issues of race, gender and sexuality to forestall any discussion of economic inequality and class

Just jumping in, I have to say…meaning no offense to anyone…that this is all old. I think it’s important to recognize that…it puts the discussion more in context, IMO.

Liberals who buy into multiculturalism (my preferred term) often, yes, ignore, misunderstand, or don’t get class.

But then the left opposition to that particular construction is old. In fact Michaels was writing in the 80s and 90s.

The left opposition to all that liberal stuff goes way back, and it does not make the corresponding error of ignoring race, gender, and sexuality.

And that has been true for a few decades.

The left is fragmented into pockets, and sometimes, one given section of it has not heard about other sections of it.

What’s interesting to me is that in the last few years, this stuff has gone much more mainstream. That is, access to it and interest in it has gone up.

Billy_T wrote:

I didn’t know about Reed, either, so thanks for that as well. Have bumped into Ben Norton before, over at Salon. But it seems like his writings elsewhere are more “radical,” which I like.

On a slightly different subject, but still relevant. It used to be, on most political forums, race, gender and sexuality discussions were “liberal/progressive” against “conservatives.” And I’d sometimes add my two cents, after letting people know, if necessary, that I’m not a Dem and am waaaay to their left. But with the Sanders/Clinton food fight, I’m seeing something new. I’m seeing a lot of liberals/progressives instantly, automatically attack folks to their left if they say even anything slightly positive about Sanders, and then launch into accusations of misogyny or even racism — which is even weirder, considering Hillary is very “white.”

The whole “Bernie bro” meme and the “Berniesplaing” meme, which once seemed to fit in some cases, now is on autopilot for all too many. Just say anything critical about Clinton and it’s automatically because you’re sexist, even though you have always been an equal opportunity critic on said issues, like neoliberalism. Makes no difference to me if it’s a male neoliberal or a female one, I’m against it, etc. etc.

Anyway . . . . again, good video. I really do think America is a hot mess right now, and I become more and more depressed each time I even think about our politics.

In my experience, liberals are more difficult to speak with than conservatives, in a way, because conservatives more-or-less know who they are. Liberals don’t. Liberals don’t see themselves as part of the establishment. They see themselves as the moral guardians of society, “in it, but not ‘of’ it,” (if I may borrow from Christ for a second).

Consequently, they do not understand Bernie Sanders, or the movement he is currently representing. They see it as immature and impractical, naive and ignorant. This isn’t speculation. This is what they are saying, and what their actions reinforce. Because they can’t imagine themselves as part of the problem. They are the compassionate ones, the evolved ones. So they literally cannot understand that leftist critiques INCLUDE THEM.

So…today…over in the Washington Post Writers Group, some op-ed writer suddenly had the epiphany that Bernie Sanders is not running against Hillary Clinton, he is running against the Democrat Party establishment! Recklessly, of course. But it just startles old Dana that a democrat candidate would criticize the democrat party.

So I just find it hard to talk to liberals. They hear the words, but cannot process the content. At least with conservatives, some of them understand, at least, what they are doing; they just defend it as being in accordance with natural economic and social laws. Conservatives can at least say, “Yeah, I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t care because other people aren’t my problem. I’m in it for me.”

wv wrote:

And to state what i assume is obvious — i am not saying identity politix issues are unimportant. Of course they are important. But when they are used as a diversion from ‘class’ or inequality or what i call ‘poor people issues’ then it sets me off.

I think it simply amounts to the liberal types having their own class interests to protect. Which of course they don’t realize they’re doing.

We;ve already had this discussion, but, I know a lot of people who see through that particular liberal dynamic. But then I know a lot of people who just assume I identify with Hillary, and it’s not even worth it to respond. I smile. Righties expect resistance. Liberals get shocked. Zooey put that all very well. Cultural politics is necessary and important, but if all it does is change the way the powers that be dress and talk, then, it’s not changing anything. As you know (just tossing in my own “preaching to the converted” 2 cents).

This is from 73. Forgive me for posting an annotated version…it’s just for the sake of clarity.

“Who Said It Was Simple” (1973)

By Audre Lorde

There are so many roots to the tree of anger
that sometimes the branches shatter
before they bear.

Sitting in Nedicks*
the women rally before they march*
discussing the problematic girls
they hire to make them free.
An almost white counterman passes
a waiting brother to serve them first*
and the ladies neither notice nor reject
the slighter pleasures of their slavery.

But I who am bound by my mirror
as well as my bed
see causes in colour
as well as sex

and sit here wondering
which me will survive
all these liberations.

==

* Nedicks: popular New York city chain diner
* march: the (obviously white) women are going to a demonstration
* the waiter is being chivalrous by serving the women first

wv wrote:

….was listening to NPR on the car radio and i heard that Bruce Springsteen and Itzak Perlman and a bunch of glittering celebrities were boycotting North Carolina.

Cause of the Identity politix thing. Trans people cant use bathrooms of their choice.
They have to use the other bathroom.

THAT brings about a boycott.

Meanwhile… NC can pass laws the crush the poor every legislative session, and that gets
no reaction from the rich celebs.

And so it goes.

wv grouch

I agree that it would be much better if celebs advocated on behalf of the poor, dealt seriously with class issues, inequality, poverty, hunger, our melting planet, etc. etc. . . . instead of waiting for this kind of bill to come along. Hell, they should really boycott every “right to work” state. Perhaps that would force change. But the bill in question does more than just force the transgendered into going against their gender identity. It’s actually quite sweeping in its discriminatory practices:

HB2 explained

The new law did more than repeal the Charlotte ordinance. It made the state’s law on antidiscrimination — which covers race, religion, national origin, color, age, biological sex and handicaps — the final word. Meaning cities and local governments can’t expand “employment” or “public accommodations” protections to others, such as on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Minimum wage also falls under the state’s antidiscrimination law, so this law means local governments aren’t able to set their own minimum wages beyond the state standard.

This is also pretty much the same exact thing that led to right-wing evangelicals becoming politically active back in the early 1970s. For them, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the ruling against Bob Jones University, on the issue of segregation. Samantha Bee explains:

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

This is also pretty much the same exact thing that led to right-wing evangelicals becoming politically active back in the early 1970s. For them, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the ruling against Bob Jones University, on the issue of segregation. Samantha Bee explains: …

————-

I assume the Religious-evangelicals are still a powerful core faction
of the Rep Party. They may not be quite as visible as they used to be
but I assume they still carry a significant amount of weight on the Right.
Lots of votes out there, among the fundamentalist-christian crowd.

w
v
“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?” ― Mark Twain

“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.” — Robert Anton Wilson

Great quotes, WV. I’ve never gotten a coherent response from Christians who believe the bible literally, when I talk about their god as genocidal madman. The trap is that literal belief. The only way to really get around the fact that the Christian and Jewish god is the most evil father god in all of organized religion is to NOT take the texts literally. Take them poetically, as allegory, myth, legend, etc. etc. . . . and you can avoid that conclusion. But if a person actually sees the bible as the inerrant word of their god, there is no other conclusion. He’s profoundly evil on a colossal scale.

Anyway . . . . if you want to be seriously depressed by the ugliness of right-wing fundamentalists, watch this women ranting in a Target, which is the latest boycott from conservatives — again, due to the transgendered and bathrooms issue.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ~Pat Robertson

That just sounds like a normal american teenager’s high school years.

.

bnw wrote:

Writing this without watching the Youtube I would say that AA exists for politicians to receive political gain from the AA employee.

There are a lot of myths about AA.

A lot of people don’t know, for example, that the prime beneficiaries of AA were white women.

A lot of people mythologize AA in to this minority quota system for the unqualified. Like you can’t find qualified people to hire. Right.

It’s not a quota system, and it was not about minorities per se….and anyone who doesn’t know that, including the writer we’re linked to in this thread, has no idea what the real issues are.

….

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Writing this without watching the Youtube I would say that AA exists for politicians to receive political gain from the AA employee.

There are a lot of myths about AA.

A lot of people don’t know, for example, that the prime beneficiaries of AA were white women.

A lot of people mythologize AA in to this minority quota system for the unqualified. Like you can’t find qualified people to hire. Right.

It’s not a quota system, and it was not about minorities per se….and anyone who doesn’t know that, including the writer we’re linked to in this thread, has no idea what the real issues are.

….

I know very well that white women were included. My wife could talk about this from another angle. She is a qualified engineer. Graduated with very good grades from an ABET accredited program and has her PE. From the beginning she had to fight the perception that she was an unqualified AA hire.