the "decolonize Palestine" bullshit is just making this whole thing last longer. you are calling for ethnic cleansing of a native population. you are calling for a destruction of 4000 years of Jewish existence, and most importantly, you are spewing a narrative that leads to the death of thousands. "Decolonize Palestine from Jews" is a fucking bullshit lie.
you are supporting a fucking lie. Delegitimizing the Jewish connection to the land and changing fucking history is causing active harm.
YOU ARE LITERALLY ENCOURAGING AN ETHNIC CLEANSING OF JEWS IN THE GUISE OF OBJECTING AN ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS.
and for the fucking brain dead, the only fucking solution is not eradicating Palestinian presence or making millions of Jewish refugees, it is creating a place where both peoples get to live together in safety.
That piece of "Israel is just a European colonial settler imperialistic state that stole Palestine" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Palestine was never an independent state, the Palestinians never had a fucking state, get it through your fucking mind. Should they get a state? SURE! did they refuse one again and again because the idea that Jews will have their state was considered unreasonable?
YES!
Did Jordan an Egypt prevented Palestine from becoming by annexing land between 1948-1967?
ALSO YES!
is there a fucking imbalance?
YES
are the Palestinians just innocent victims of the big bad Zionists?
NO!
Palestinians are part of this story, and if they will not take accountability for their behavior in the last 106 years, nothing will be solved!
the only fucking solution is for both sides to take accountability! AND I MEAN IT!
This is not a fucking colonizer vs. colonized situation! this is two natives fighting over who gets to live in the fucking house!
Victimhood complex and martyrdom are much stronger forces than heroism. This is not unique to our time, but it’s becoming increasingly clear what a difference in force they are.
Think of all the heroes of the past that have been disgraced in recent years. The statues that have been removed or defaced, and the names of streets that have changed.
Now think of the amount of victimhood monuments that have changed. It seems the only change is that new ones are being built. One of the most important parts of (European) history doesn’t deal with greatness, but with tragedy.
Sadly, people and even countries these days are seemingly vying to be the greatest victim. They do this because they know that while heroism can be taken away, victimhood cannot. Even on a small scale, false accusers are rarely punished, and disproven victims still reap the rewards of their status. Meanwhile, even our greatest heroes can lose their status if even the slightest hint of human fallibility arises.
If I could change any one thing, it would be that we no longer value victims as heroes and heroes as villains. It’s teaching the next generation that it’s better to have something done to you than to do something.
It’s time for us to realise that we want to see heroes and we want to be heroic. That we want to be winners, not losers. We could use a little more winning in our lives.
People who've made their purported victimhood into their entire identity despise people who are further down the intersectional ladder saying they're not oppressed, because it gives their own game away.
When you live in first world countries where the government doesn't just allow but actively promotes awareness and/or celebration days/weeks/months, you're by definition not "oppressed."
My name is Kofi Montzka, I'm an attorney, wife and mom to three boys, two of which are high school.
This bill requires that schools teach ethnic studies starting in kindergarten, and I'm against this.
You might ask why in the world would a black person speak against ethnic studies. Because not everything that sounds good is good.
The definition of ethnic studies right there in the statute says that there's a connection between a person's race and their stratification. The bill tells kids of color that they are stuck in a caste system based on their race.
It also tells kids, and I quote, "that institutions chronically favor white people and disadvantage people of color."
I'm sick of everyone denying the enormous progress we made in this country, acting like it's 1930. We used to have a race-based system. We got rid of it and now you're all trying to bring it back.
This curriculum will not help kids of color succeed. All it does is remove any reason to try. And I repeat that: it removes any reason to try.
And this is not some theoretical crap, this stuff happens, these messages are very harmful.
Just last month in my high schooler's band class, the teacher took 20 minutes at the beginning of class to talk about "antiracism." He told the kids to look around. And then he said the black boys in the school would likely not live to retirement because of racism and the police.
Another furious kid of color recorded this conversation, and so I was able to hear for myself with my own ears.
If this law is passed, teaching this hopelessness to kids of color will be mandated, starting in kindergarten.
And I can see why you white proponents of this bill might support it. It's not your kids being told that they can't succeed. And you get to shed some of your white guilt in the process.
But you legislators of color, how can you? You made it despite the invisible boogeyman of systematic racism. You were voted in by a majority of white people. You hold some of the most powerful positions in this state. Yet you want to tell my kids and other kids of color that they can't succeed?
It's shameful, it's terrible. I ask that you please vote against this bill. Thank you for this opportunity.
==
Aside from the pretentious academic buzzwords, how do you even tell the difference between woke activism and the policies of the KKK any more?
Like everything woke, what's on the package and what's in the box are very different things.
Former president Barack Obama no longer believes that non-white Americans can be successful in the US.
I am being a bit glib, but only a bit. During a podcast interview last week with former Democratic Party apparatchik David Axelrod, Obama criticised Tim Scott, black Republican senator for South Carolina and 2024 presidential candidate. Scott is well-known for his optimism and belief in the American Dream, previously stating that ‘I know America is a land of opportunity, not a land of oppression’. Taking a clear swipe at Scott, Obama said: ‘I think there’s a long history of African American or other minority candidates within the Republican Party who will validate America and say, “Everything’s great, and we can make it”.’
According to Obama, that belief is untrue. Noting several elements of America’s racist past, Obama declared: ‘We can’t just ignore all that and pretend as if everything’s equal and fair. We actually have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.’ Before signing off from the show, he went on to describe black and other ethnic minorities as ‘rightly sceptical’ of positive racial messages like those of Senator Scott.
Beyond the sheer bizarreness of a former national leader describing his own country as a racist hole, Obama is just plain wrong. Evidence shows that it is simply not true that non-white Americans can’t make it in the US.
This claim is quickly disproven by a look at the Census Bureau’s lists of household income by ethnicity. The wealthiest population group in the US is not white Americans, but rather Indian Americans. This group brings in a median household income of $142,000 annually, in comparison to just under $75,000 for Caucasians. The second-richest group is Taiwanese Americans, who pull down $119,000 per year for each household. In fact, most of the top 10 highest-earning groups (and all of those consistently averaging six figures per year) are racial minorities – Indians, the Taiwanese, Filipinos ($101,000), Pakistanis ($102,000), Sri Lankans ($97,000), Iranians ($96,000) and Chinese Americans ($93,000).
In contrast, one of the poorer groups listed is white Appalachian Americans, at $50,000 per home per year. On the other hand, black immigrants tend to do fairly well, with the Guyanese, Ghanaians, Barbadians, Trinidadians and Nigerians all coming in at above the $70,000 per year mark. Jamaicans ($66,000) and other West Indians ($64,000) also come close. Nigerian immigrants are one of the best-educated groups in the US, ahead of both Asian and white Americans.
African Americans do quite a bit worse. However, the median black household income as of 2021 – an Appalachia-like $47,000 – still ranks higher than the median household incomes for the UK, Austria and Italy. In any case, the high earnings of African and Caribbean immigrants demonstrate that African Americans’ low performance cannot be due to racism. Rather, it is largely down to the fact that black households tend to have fewer people in them.
The black single-motherhood / father-absence rate, at least at the time of birth, currently sits at a staggering 77 per cent. Simply put, a family consisting of a single mother and infant will earn less lucre than one that includes a husband, wife and employed teenagers. While this situation is far from ideal, there are still many individual black Americans, whether they come from stable families or not, who are extremely successful by any global or historical standard. Tim Scott was himself born into a poor, single-parent household and yet nonetheless managed to rise to the position of senator.
Obama’s ‘cannot succeed’ claim is strange given the reality of modern America, and given his own background and path through life. Simply put, Obama is not a descendant of American slaves. His mother was an upper-middle-class white woman from Kansas and his father was a prominent Kenyan economist. Obama grew up primarily in well-off enclaves, such as in upscale districts of Hawaii’s Honolulu and Indonesia’s Jakarta. Young Obama was surrounded by other wealthy non-white groups and expats. While this might be a little politically incorrect to say out loud, watching him try to explain the US black experience to Scott, a scion of the Carolina cotton country, borders on the surreal.
Interestingly, attitudes like Obama’s (although he didn’t always talk like this) seem to be getting more common among first- and second-generation minority immigrants to the US. This is despite the fact that most of these people have never had a ‘back of the bus’ experience in their lives. To give one typical example, writer and race activist Saira Rao started a fracas on Twitter last week by saying:
‘White people love to say “not everything is about race”. This from the people who committed genocide of Indigenous people, genocide and enslavement of African people. Those behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, Operation Wetback and the Muslim ban. You made everything about racism.’
The remarkable thing about this claim is that even those events on Rao’s list that did happen (US black genocide and a national ‘Muslim ban’ are simply made up) will not have impacted her in any way. Rao is a second-generation Indian American. Only the Exclusion Act might have been potentially relevant to a legal immigrant from Asia. And even then, the act was passed in 1882 and formally repealed 80 years ago. Attitudes like Rao’s are part of a broader trend of post-1965 migrants making embarrassing attempts to link themselves to historical slavery or Jim Crow.
However silly they may sound, the beliefs held by the likes of Obama and Rao can have serious negative impacts. Imagine being told for almost all your life that you are unlikely to succeed. That every social interaction is rigged against you. That the people who seem like your closest football and lunchroom buddies are likely liars and secret racists. How might this affect you?
Hard data give a clear answer. A 2021 study found that these demoralising takes have a real, measurable impact on people. Simply reading a typical despairing passage about ‘systemic racism’ from woke authors like Ta-Nehisi Coates resulted ‘in a significant, 15-point drop in black respondents’ belief that they have control over their lives’. Worse still, we now teach precisely these ideas in schools, colleges and workplaces across the US, often in mandatory classes or training.
At the heart of this discussion is what Thomas Sowell once called ‘a conflict of visions’. The US faces a choice about what to tell new and aspiring citizens about our society. Are we a flawed but ultimately good country, where people of all colours and persuasions can thrive? Or is the US a genocidal racial-caste state, which should be constantly trying to atone for its historical sins?
Let us sincerely hope that we choose to embrace the first vision over the second.
-
Wilfred Reilly is a spiked columnist and the author of Taboo: 10 Facts You Can’t Talk About, published by Regnery. Follow him on Twitter: @wil_da_beast630
==
Remind me again... in which direction do people migrate, as far as western countries are concerned? To or from? /s
In many social justice circles, especially ones dedicated to racial justice, individualism is considered a negative quality. Those who embra
By: Erec Smith
Published: Jun 13, 2023
In many social justice circles, especially ones dedicated to racial justice, individualism is considered a negative quality. Those who embrace this idea typically understand individualism as diversity, equity and inclusion consultant Tema Okun does: “a toxic denial of our essential interdependence and the reality that we are all in this, literally, together.”
Those who deem race a person’s primary characteristic may, either implicitly or explicitly, embrace and promote race essentialism: the belief that racial groups are monolithic, comprised of people who share the exact same values, beliefs, outlooks, fears and hopes. One’s status as an individual is secondary, tertiary or simply not taken seriously at all.
But Okun’s take on individualism is erroneous. Group identification devoid of true individualism is one of the main obstacles to real social justice because it suggests a dogma that, by definition, does not take into consideration the details and distinctions of an individual life. By extension, such group consciousness hampers our ability, as a society, to have generative conversations across ideological differences.
Fortunately, Okun’s take on this topic is not the only one. Classical liberals also have ideas about individualism. For example, what F.A. Hayek calls “true individualism” also includes the concept of interdependence, or the idea that each individual needs other individuals to some degree. No one can do it all on his or her own. Even a hermit living a reclusive life needs the surrounding ecosystem to survive. However, the fact that one can choose hermetic living over other lifestyles in the first place is a result of individual freedom.
In truth, Okun’s interpretation is the opposite of true individualism. The hyper-individualism she inveighs against is a strawman and not possible, even if people believe, contrary to their lived experience, that it is. Civil society would not work without acknowledging our interdependence.
Importantly, true individualism is not a rejection of group affiliation. It is a rejection of the idea that groups, especially racial groups, are necessarily monolithic and all-encompassing.
The main issue is “group consciousness,” but this concept should not be confused with an all-out dismissal of groups. As Duke University political scientists Paula McClain and her co-authors have written in a 2009 paper, group consciousness “is in-group identification politicized by a set of ideological beliefs about one’s group’s social standing, as well as a view that collective action is the best means by which the group can improve its status and realize interests.”
Most certainly, this is what Nikole Hannah-Jones meant when she tweeted there is a “difference between being politically black and racially black.” Although group consciousness applied to race is often called race consciousness, this is not what is meant by “racially Black.” Specifically, those who are race conscious abide by a particular ideology that involves in-group preference, out-group culpability for the in-group’s problems, and a disapproval of narratives and ideas that do not align with the group’s ideology.
What’s more, group consciousness is so ingrained that anything that happens to an individual in a group has, in effect, also happened to everyone in the group. Slogans like “I am Michael Brown,” for instance, exemplify this.
This is not to say that empathy is a bad thing, but existential identification with someone based on a trait like race is misguided and stifling, leading to what may be the most detrimental and erroneous aspect of group consciousness: linked fate. As McClain et al. explain, linked fate denotes the use of the social standing of a group as a proxy for one’s individual identity, i.e., an individual’s fate is inevitably and intricately linked to that of the group. Any individual that seems to escape this fate is considered an exception.
Sen. Tim Scott recently made headlines when he countered the idea of linked fate during his appearance on the daytime talk show “The View.” When confronted with the idea that successful Black people from downtrodden upbringings are an exception, he stated, “I believe America could do for anyone what she’s done for me: restoring hope, creating opportunities, and defending and protecting the America that we love. It’s such an important combination.” He concluded that the “exception” of Black fulfillment can be made into the norm through education.
“One of the ways that we can restore hope in this country is to focus on our education system. We have too many kids in poor zip codes trapped in failing schools. I want parents to have a choice so kids have a bigger chance.” Scott’s point is that one’s zip code is not one’s life sentence; fates are not existentially linked to such things. Sadly, for having such optimism about the power of individual gumption, he was sardonically labeled “Professor Positive” and someone who “doesn’t get it” by one of the show’s hosts, a well-to-do white woman.
In addition to politicians, like Sen. Scott, who denounce the idea of linked fate, the concept also has been debunked by behavioral science mainly because it relies on the idea that individuals who have the same skin color experience the world in the same ways. Scott’s insistence that Black achievement can be normalized regardless of background, combined with the critique from the behavioral sciences, illuminate the fallacious reasoning behind linked fate and group consciousness in general.
A salient difference between those who do and do not embrace group consciousness is a matter of what psychologists Dolores Albarracin and Amy Mitchell call “defensive confidence.” Individuals who feel they can confidently defend their ideas are less likely to embrace group consciousness strongly, if at all.
Those who do not feel confidence in defending their ideas may see group consciousness as a ready-made shortcut to thinking; the answer to critical inquiry or refutation is always already in some or all of the group’s ideological tenets, maxims and talking points. Those who embrace group consciousness do not have to think of ways to defend their ideas; the group does it for them.
Perhaps most importantly, people with defensive confidence seem more likely to entertain opposing ideas and, therefore, are more likely to understand and even potentially align with those ideas. Perhaps counterintuitively, individuals with the most defensive confidence are more likely to have their minds changed by opposing views simply because they are willing to engage them.
Not surprisingly, individuals who embrace group consciousness and enjoy a kind of group confidence are less likely to entertain opposing viewpoints. This suggests defensive confidence better ensures communication across differences than does group consciousness.
So individualism is not a symptom of a divided society but one of its remedies. It is more conducive to self-actualization (as opposed to group actualization), and it actually fosters communication across differences.
Defensive confidence—aligned with self-efficacy, agency, positive self-regard—is a kind of empowered individualism that, when not beholden to race or some other form of group identity, is more open to exploring possibilities ignored by those who fear scrutiny of their group-oriented outlook.
Such individualism is liberating and empowering, whereas group consciousness—even if it staves off fear and anxiety—is an ideological prison.
Is that progress slow, uneven and often dispiriting? Of course. But that doesn’t make it any less real.
By: John McWhorter
Published: Mar 8, 2023
I have argued recently that a useful and inspiring history of modern Black America need not be dominated by discussions of white racism. And having done so, it seems reasonable for me to explain, to at least a limited degree, what I would envision as a potentially better approach.
Specifically, I wrote about a draft curriculum of the College Board’s Advanced Placement course in African American studies. So what other topics might it have included, to counterbalance topics — clearly worthy, yet incomplete — such as reparations, Amiri Baraka and the Black Lives Matter movement?
Let’s try, for one, the notion of Black power. The good word would seem to be that we never really have any. But that isn’t true, and any valid chronicle of the history of what’s been happening to Black Americans since the 1960s must not pretend otherwise.
We have now had a two-term Black president, two Black secretaries of state, one Black (and South Asian) vice president and a Black secretary of defense. These were all borderline unimaginable goals a generation ago.
Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., was elevated in 2020 to become the Catholic Church’s first Black cardinal. He was the first Black president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as far back as the early 2000s — a time at which Dennis Archer was also the first Black president of the American Bar Association.
Lowe’s and Walgreens, two of the nation’s largest retailers, are run by Black chief executives. The reason you probably didn’t know that is because there are now enough Black chief executives to bypass the notion of firsts. This contrasts with 2000, when there were only two prominent Black chief executives of Fortune 500 companies — Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae and Lloyd Ward at Maytag — although that, too, was awesome progress over what had come before.
Successes of this kind should be held up front and center, not dismissed as footnotes or all but buried in equal coverage of remaining disparities — although those should of course be covered elsewhere in a curriculum. The question is how people like this achieved as much as they did despite the obstacles, largely but not exclusively racial, they all faced. We might ask why there isn’t more focus on that question.
I often sense that we are supposed to think of people like this with a certain formulaic admiration. They are what are sometimes called “Blacks in wax” (after, presumably, the museum in Baltimore): nice to know about but ultimately fluky superstars irrelevant to what some might say Blackness is really about. Is the idea that, because they have not usually dedicated themselves to political protest in deed or gesture, it somehow makes them less impressive or less important? That itself would be a radical proposition.
Something else: A modern history of Black America should include how Black English has become, to a considerable extent, a youth lingua franca since at least the 1990s. It is absolutely a fact that attitudes toward Black English can be influenced by racism. However, this is neither the most important nor even the most interesting thing about the dialect. Beyond its awesome grammatical structures, it is fascinating that such a dialect primarily confined to Black usage just 50 years ago now decorates the speech of countless Americans who are not Black at all. And that is because how Black people talk has become an integral part of how America talks.
In Black English, “I’m going to” can be rendered as the marvelously terse “Ima,” as in, “Ima go downstairs.” Thirty years ago, I overheard a white undergraduate woman use this phrase with Black male friends. Then, white people using it were generally ones especially identified with and situated within Black culture — i.e., with a substantially Black friend group. Today I hear white and Asian young people use “Ima” all the time; it is no longer interesting. A student of South Asian heritage wrote a paper for me recently chronicling how his texting with friends, most of whom are not Black, was couched considerably in Black English, as a default medium with no performance or ridicule entailed.
And dismissing this as cultural appropriation won’t do. It’d be like Jewish people complaining that non-Jewish people say “klutz,” “schmooze” and “shtick.” Black English’s transformation of mainstream English has likewise been inevitable, harmless and cool. It’s something great that has happened since the 1960s.
A true and healthy history of Black America should also cover, with the same ardor that it does the L.A. riots of 1992, the efflorescence of Black film starting in the 1980s and continuing into the 2000s. After the Blaxploitation film flame burned out rather quickly in the 1970s, Black movies came out here and there. But starting with the electrically odd, goofy, plangent and true “She’s Gotta Have It” by Spike Lee in 1986, and Lee’s titanic oeuvre of films in its wake, it started to get hard to see every Black film that was released. (I had to give up around 1999.)
The comedies were often of a kind that both taught and amused (“Barbershop”); the romances gave Black women especially equivalents to movies like “When Harry Met Sally” (“Love Jones”); the dramas gave us our forms of movies like “Terms of Endearment” (“Soul Food”); and the gangster pictures finally gave us our James Cagneys and Lee Marvins (“New Jack City”).
A line one often used to hear in response to the idea of progress in Black film was that there existed no Black producer who could greenlight a movie alone. But that’s no longer true, now that Tyler Perry rules his own filmic empire. Some think Perry does not really count because most of his films appeal more to the gut than to the intellect. But then the vast majority of films always have, and I for one have never seen a film of Perry’s without at least one immortal performance of some kind, including, frequently, his own. And they are indeed often damnably funny.
That Black movies are now ordinary is something our historiography should chart and celebrate, much as it should a two-term Black president. The prospect of a film like “Black Panther” even getting made on such a lavish budget, much less being an international sensation, would have sounded like science fiction as recently as the 1990s. The prospect of a high-budget sequel with a mostly Black cast being made even after the star of the original had died? It beggars imagination.
One last example: From the Florida A.P. draft, one might suppose that the thing most interesting about hip-hop is its usage as protest music, given that in the draft music is so dominatingly associated with social and political purposes, advocacy and empowerment. Certainly, protest is part of what the music is; its confrontational cadence is fundamental to the genre. But as to the idea of a hip-hop revolution whereby the music was always supposedly about to unite Black America into some kind of radical political consciousness: How has that panned out?
Hip-hop has been a glorious revolution, indeed — in music, period. Be it party music, protest music, political music, obscene music or Dr. Octagon, a genre that started as street fun in the Bronx has transformed the musical fabric and sensibility of America — as well as that of the whole world. (I once watched a teen rap in Indonesian in New Guinea.) No one denies this, of course. But it is this basic triumph that should center its coverage in a course and be offered as a topic of engagement to curious young people.
I suspect that the idea that a Black historiography would not just wave at but stare at positive developments will rub some the wrong way. But the idea that our history must elevate protest as the most interesting thing about us is peculiar.
It’s worth noting that not that very long ago, Black American movers and shakers were of a similar mind in celebrating the victories more than the — very real — obstacles. In 1901, an issue of the Black newspaper The Indianapolis Recorder listed all of the city’s businesses owned by Black people and crowed, “If after reading the facts and figures as succinctly presented an inspiration comes to any who may be considering embarking in some business enterprise or renews hope in those who are now struggling to attain success we shall feel gratified.”
If a Black man could write that in the era of Plessy v. Ferguson, surely today our curriculums on Black history can recognize more clearly what Black people have accomplished, continue to accomplish and accomplish more with each passing decade. Just because time moves more slowly than we wish it did doesn’t mean we should not recognize its motion. Relaxing the impulse to hold the spotlight on what white people are doing — or not doing, or should have done — can be, among other things, a way to recognize what Black people have accomplished in a nation that brought them across an ocean as slaves.
The protest-focused perspective is rooted, it seems to me, in a take on being Black that was memorably articulated by the writer Ellis Cose in the 1990s in “The Rage of a Privileged Class,” his widely discussed book about middle-class Black people’s sense of alienation: “Hurtful and seemingly trivial encounters of daily existence are in the end what most of life is,” Cose attested, in what he described as the story of what it’s like to be Black in modern America.
Cose’s Weltanschauung is one especially prevalent among academics, artists and journalists. But most people — and most Black people — are none of those three things. I have lost count of how many Black people told me back in the day that they did not share Cose’s take on what we now call “microaggressions” as the very fabric of our existence. Many do share it, to be sure, but their positions share space with those of the other millions of Black Americans who feel closer to the way I do.
The story of Black people in America is much more than the story of what’s wrong with white people. To pretend that this isn’t true, to downplay or ignore decades of progress and accomplishment and to portray political activism — however important and necessary, and it is both — as Black Americans’ main form of accomplishment, is to suggest that white people have already won.
==
Reminder: Critical Race Theorists believe that progress hasn't been made, that nothing has gotten better, and even that it's only gotten worse. How do they justify such a remarkable claim? Through the religious apologetic of "interest convergence," which they believe operates as a form of plausible deniability.
At bottom, it functions akin to "the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." You can know the racism is even worse, because now you can't see it. "But the US has had a black president, black Supreme Court justices, black military commanders, a long list of black cultural heroes - entertainers, artists, athletes..." See? That's how deeply ingrained it is, that's how concealed, pervasive and permanent it is.
[Critical] movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow.
-- Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, "Is Everyone Really Equal?"
Instead of the endless nihilism of inevitable black hopelessness and inescapable white guilt, why not positivity around progress, success and how people feel about life?
[ Source: Gallup ]
The answers aren't that complicated.
Firstly, a key pillar of Critical Race Theory is a "Critique of Liberalism." That the entire liberal order - and particularly the color-blind, "content of their character" approach espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - has failed. To admit to progress, and especially to admit that black Americans are a world away from where things were 100, or even 50 years ago, undermines the proposition that the liberal order needs to be torn down.
And secondly, wokeness is not capable of creating nor solving problems. Its only function is to deconstruct: to pick, pick, pick, to scrutinize power dynamics, root out hidden oppressions and expose them. The only thing it produces is activism, programs to create more activists (DEI, schools), demands to forcibly redistribute resources (equity), and division through greater paranoia and fixation on differences. Like how those who study "Gender Studies" are unqualified for any vocation other than teaching "Gender Studies." It's not possible to create a society based on wokeness, not only because it has no coherent vision, but also because it will always eat whoever is claimed to be at the top with the most power, through competitive resentment. You therefore can't make progress with it. But you're not supposed to notice or talk about that.
