“We live on stolen land.” So we’re told – repeatedly – and so we’re increasingly forced to repeat to ourselves in public-facing “land acknowledgments.” Solidifying this spurious message is one of the primary objectives of the Critical Theory of Postcolonialism. It is echoed in Critical Race Theory, which reminds us ad nauseum of an even more inaccurate claim that the American economy was built on stolen labor through the institution of slavery. To the casual observer, these narratives might spur reflective thought or even a critical consciousness, or they might only induce an eye roll, but they have a far more sinister application that can be seen quite clearly when one understands the subversive method of political activism employed by Critical Theory (“Woke”) activists.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals in our society from illegal search and seizure of property without probable cause and a duly issued warrant consistent with it. It does not apply to stolen property. Suddenly, then, in the instant the popular Woke narrative above is juxtaposed with this idea, the property rights ensured by the Fourth Amendment come crashing down around us even while their guarantor remains fully intact and in precisely the same black and parchment print it has always been. With a narrative about stolen property, the Woke can gut the Fourth Amendment and subject “warranted” search and seizure upon anyone they so choose, if duly empowered. Those who are said to benefit from systemic power dynamics will be the victims of this narrative-writing, and those who are said to be oppressed by them will be their protected beneficiaries so long as the Woke hold power.
Put another way, as the Woke narratives about society and its “true” machinations gain sway, the fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights will increasingly be subverted. They will not be done away with but will be reinterpreted in total according to the usual double standards the Woke so successfully employ for themselves everywhere they gain the power to do so. This will happen without the need to change a single word. This sounds hyperbolic, but consider these words from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s Critical Race Theory: An Introduction:
Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. (p. 3, third edition, emphasis added)
It isn’t just the Fourth Amendment that can be subverted and repurposed to a Critical double standard within the purview of the Woke ideology, then. Equality, legal reasoning, rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law are all on the chopping block. Thus, any policy or contract can be manipulated in similar fashion, either by changing the meaning of the terms used in writing it or by changing the context in which they are to be understood. It is the latter of these that we see able to be employed against Fourth Amendment protections in the United States.
Consider the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against self incrimination and ensures due process of law. To say nothing of the “stolen land” narrative, which will demand proving one’s innocence from a presumption of complicit guilt, the assumption under Critical Race Theory is that systemic racism is the ordinary—not aberrant—state of affairs in society (this can be read five pages later in the same book as above). That is, there is a presumption of guilt in racism and other systemic power dynamics, which could easily be construed as being in violation of the relevant titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—again, without changing the wording of anything. On its own, this subverts due process of law, undermining Fifth Amendment protections, but it gets worse when the context is allowed to shift with Woke narrative-making. “Silence is complicity.” “Silence is violence.” Pleading the Fifth is an admission of guilt for those who find themselves on the “privileged” side of systemic power, as the Woke define it.
Given the context, this could turn the Thirteenth Amendment into a Woke weapon of ferocious power—as wouldn’t a fitting punishment for complicity in a system that enabled and profited from slavery be some involuntary servitude, once one is duly convicted by a Woke court? The Eighth Amendment would offer no protection against this as a “cruel and unusual punishment,” as that idea risks being interpreted under a Woke rubric where one’s privilege mitigates or even eliminates the authenticity of one’s suffering.
There’s no harbor in the Sixth Amendment either, which ensures the right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Under Woke assumptions about power dynamics, there is no such thing as an impartial jury because impartiality, like objectivity, is a myth that those with systemic power have told themselves so that they might maintain that power. The Second Amendment’s controversial clause about a “well-regulated militia” will be interpreted strictly and literally with the definition of “well-regulated” meaning, roughly, “Woke.” The First Amendment’s speech protections could be maintained while protections from mob “accountability” could be gutted—power dynamics determining the actions of district attorneys to charge as they see fit—so that the state is technically not the repressive actor but instead the guarantor of a permanent invitation to an American Hundred Flowers Campaign.
This line of thinking could extend to almost anything, applying to any number of laws, policies, contracts, and even the text of the Constitution and its Amendments—even without changing a word of them (as they are seeking to do in California currently). The Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing no abridgment of suffrage based upon sex, is frequently attacked in Woke circles for being racist because the Suffragettes are charged under Critical Race Theory of failing solidarity to black women, who did not achieve similar levels of legal equality (independent of the voting issue) until 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. None of this makes sense to a fair-minded, impartial observer, but Woke ideology denies such an observer can exist in principle or would even be desirable if it were possible.
That is, even the Constitution offers us uncomfortably little protection against Woke totalitarianism as the Woke gain cultural hegemony and, as a result, control over ever more levers of power. Theirs is a war waged at the levels of interpretation, meaning, and context, and until we stand up firmly against their empowerment, we risk finding out in very disquieting ways just how crucial those can be.
This article was originally published at Roca News.
70 comments
Here’s my land acknowledgment:
We’re here today gathered on land formerly owned by indigenous people, who took it from other indigenous people, who took it from other indigenous people. Finally, it was taken, fair and square, according to the rules at play at the time in the world, by our founders. It’s about time people stop whining about it, especially since nobody is about to give it back. Empty virtue signaling does no good.
We have so many concrete short- and medium-term problems with “Critical” ideology — I’m not sure speculation about how the Woke could one day turn the Bill of Rights on its head is where I’d focus my attention. It’s not going to convince anyone who’s not already critical of Critical Theory, and those of us who are already critics need to fight the battles at hand. If there’s a specific effort to reinterpret the constitution along these lines, let us know about it.
Why are criticizing the article ? While everyday we have big corporations giving in to more and more stupid things that are right in line with wokeness. We have now passed legislation having to do with “equlity” but totally illuminates womens rights in sports and locker rooms……
No one in my family or friends was aware of this new unscientific theory about 100 something genders until i started talking about it!
The bill of rights and constitution are thier goal! And most people arent even conscious of critical race theory so they arent going to percieve that these little moves here and there are leading to a main event. The congress already passed through the house basically giving government control over elections, which is the last thing they need, because God knows the critical race mindset is rampant in government right now. That stuff should all stay in DC because its not part of the real world.
Theres alot thats gotten out of hand that we have to do something about because we see where letting it go has led us, but i dont see where reminding ourselves of the big picture is a problem. It shoukd make us mire vigilant in standing up to this stuff in our daily lives.
“This line of thinking could extend to almost anything, applying to any number of laws, policies, contracts, and even the text of the Constitution and its Amendments—even without changing a word of them (as they are seeking to do in California currently). ”
They’re already doing it. If we wait till it’s blatantly obvious, it will be too late.
This article is 100% on the mark. Once the woke wreck havoc on the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we will be subject to a tyranny of the majority in the worst sense of that term
gmmayo70 and Tars-
Another technique you might think of employing involves the use of various assertiveness skills.
There are many, but the one I really like is called “fogging”. Basically you find one aspect of the critics point/s you can agree with and ignore those points of disagreement.
Since your critic/s, expects an angry disagreement they are surprised and confused when you don’t give it. There are multiple videos on youtube about using “fogging” as well as numerous articles online explaining what it is and how to properly use it. If you want some links, please let me know.
The application of assertiveness skills is not designed to prevent CT ideas at a place of work. They, instead, are an assertive way to control the conversation and avoid discomfort and hostility from your “educator”. Look at it was a self-preservation skill.
I think we may be able to learn something from the conflict between the Russian Bolsheviks (minority) and Mensheviks (Majority). Both were factions in Russian Revolution of 1917. The former was comprised of the radical and elite. The Latter, believed in progressive change and were middle class or bourgeoisie.
The Mensheviks were eventually overwhelmed by the minority Bolsheviks. So, don’t do what the Mensheviks did.
I agree with your point, it is important to understand the beliefs and tactics of the woke before it can be repelled. However, knowledge without action doesn’t make much sense. For example:
if someone knew they had cancer and understood its pathophysiology, but had no treatment interventions against it, the cancer would metastasize.
I also understand the desire to learn about, discuss and vent about issues one finds illogical, threatening, irritations, immoral, etc. This site appears to meet that need. Discussions of solutions would be appreciated though.
Don’t forget, also, the subtle branding that went on during that time. Bolshevik, if I remember correctly, means ‘majority’ while Menshevik is ‘minority.’ Of course in numbers the reverse was true.
I’ve agreed before we need to look at solutions. I think there are a couple of different paths here. I tend to like turning their own tools against them, but that’s in essence only a stalling tactic.
“I tend to like turning their own tools against them, but that’s in essence only a stalling tactic.”
Alinsky knew precisely how effective this tactic was. I’m not sure it’s a stalling tactic so much as it is a ‘stopping the enemy’s advance’ tactic.
Make them live up to their own rules. At very least it forces them to focus inward, rather than outward.
“Make them live up to their own rules. At very least it forces them to focus inward, rather than outward.”
Very much so. And occasionally you hear the ‘snap’ in their heads as they realize what they’re actually doing. Not very often, mind, but it can be really satisfying to see one of them have to admit they’re being an oppressor.
In all of these conversations and elsewhere, I’m beginning to lean much more towards calling them abusers.
Oppressor, bully, narcissist, racist, asshole…all of these terms are applicable, and should probably enter into various exchanges where appropriate. But this is, at its heart, about abuse. You don’t often hear “abuse” used in these discussions or in what passes for debate on the subject, which adds to its usefulness.
“Oppressor” seems a bit too abstract and academic, “narcissist” a little too clinical, “racist” bumps into the marxian redefinition and resistance from the abuser. “Abuser” on the other hand is a simple, evocative term that many people relate to. It doesn’t carry with it the political baggage of the other terms. CT follows all the patterns of abusive behavior, and when leveling the charge of “abuse” towards someone in the throes of a self-righteous fit, it tends to derail them.
I think this fits with the psychological tack that needs more development in this conversation. Having a path to get the conversation out of the ideological realm and into the psychological realm that also turns the focus back onto the accuser strikes me as far more effective than constantly trying to defend oneself from baseless accusations. At some point, you end up losing to the sheer volume.
I use “oppressor” more in the sense of using their own language against them, but I agree abuser is much more descriptive. And given the way narcissist has been spun into a term of praise (almost, at least) I’d never use it to describe them (even if they are, in fact, suffering from that disorder).
I also tend to use their own microaggression tactics against them. “I come from a broken home. Your confrontational tone is very triggering to me, bringing up memories of childhood abuse” for example. That will often generate a pause, at which point I can either follow up or disengage depending on the situation.
I also think the psychological aspects of this are very important, especially since I doubt if many of the “woke folk” have more than a hazy comprehension of the theories they’re espousing. For them it’s personal, and the personal is always psychological in some way. Politics be damned…
Agreed on using their own language. I try to reserve that for the ones I know are at least somewhat versed in the ideology. Using their own tactics and words against them is also very Alinskiian. Blends nicely with “pick a target, freeze it, and polarize it.”
This isn’t how I would prefer to interact with people of differing views, but it’s the world they’ve created. We can adapt, or lose.
If speech/silence is violence, and the state has a monopoly control over violence, wouldn’t that mean the state has monopoly control over speech/silence?
Just another reason why speech/silence cannot be equated with violence.
Mr. Lindsay: Forgive me if you have answered this question; if you have I haven’t seen it and I don’t know where else to ask. The question seem to be unstated in most everything I read and listen to about this subject but it is never asked out loud. Can the Woke and their agenda be stopped without violence? They have already demonstrated they are quite willing to use violence to impose their will. As they gain political and cultural power can they be stopped without the use of force?
I am not Mr. Lindsay, but no, is the answer to your question.
That being the case Mr. Pain, why don’t people come out and say that? If the thought that it may not be possible to stop them without violence runs through my mind and your mind why can’t other people who oppose the woke say it plainly, especially those who have something of a public forum? Mr. Lindsay and others hint around it with phrases like “this won’t end well” but nobody will speak plainly about it. The woke have no hesitation in about speaking of and doing violence. We have seen that over the past year. It would be helpful if people like Mr. Lindsay said something like “If we let this go too long the only way to preserve our freedom will be to physically fight them for it. This is how serious this is.” Phrases like “this can’t go on” are neither stark nor forceful enough.
There is another thing out there. The left and the woke are very well organized. Those who oppose them are not. In internecine conflicts, the side with the best organization wins. Nothing else matters.
The article is incoherent and trying to make some loose relationship ok wokeness to the constitution. I don’t see any real voice saying we need to give back the land or seize property/assets because of slavery. I’m sure there are some on the fringe calling for these things but we shouldn’t cater to the fringe in discourse.
I see the importance should be on adopting better policies for Native American tribes and land as opposed to harping on it being stolen.
I see now we should try to rectify socio-economic inequality as opposed to seizing wealth. We should acknowledge that slavery aided the economy and that for many years, when black people attained wealth, it was actively destroyed by white people. There are still systemic biases affecting PoC.
Lola-Hypothetical here: if a stranger punched your friend in the face, would you apologize for having done it?
Given the fact that many in the mainstream of the Democrat party are indeed calling for slavery reparations, and that is – by definition – seizing wealth, would you care to adjust your position that it’s just the fringe and they shouldn’t be “catered to”?
Hello gmmayo70-
I’d also mention that LBJ’s “Great Society” of the 1960s was in fact all about reparations. The Great Society programs such as Headstart were intended to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. Of course, per the wokeist, racial injustice (systemically even) still exists. Can you imagine government doing something that didn’t work? Impossible!
I think we should also remember that society frequently guides government choices. If you don’t already, I encourage you to contact your elected reps and voice your opinions on legislation.
On the other hand, I continue to see reasons for hope that Woke ideas won’t consume all of America. At least half the country rejects it. Also, don’t forget that the human brain is not fully matured until the age of 25. Sometimes people grow out of ideas they once held.
Oh gosh, we could fill up these comment spaces on Federal redistributive programs that have either exacerbated the perceived problems among the blacks, or done nothing to ameliorate them. But this time, it’s just got to work, right?
As for contacting my elected representatives, I’m beginning to move beyond that. I’m toying around with forming a type of voter association. I’m done calling and writing letters. Politicians listen to two things – money, and voting blocs. I may not have enough of the former, but I can handle the latter. In a tight district, someone who can deliver just 50 voters to the polls speaks far louder than a multi-thousand dollar campaign contribution.
Strike “the” from “the blacks”. Was originally going to be “the black community”, but I despise lumping demographics together based on race as if they all act as one or experience the same outcomes. Editing fail.
gmmayo70-
If you lived in the same state as I, I would join your voters association. I am in the minority (opinion wise) where I live.
Also, I, like you, realized that contacting my rep is only useful if I agree with them.
On a related note, I think government does several things well:
take my tax dollars
spend them frivolously
take a bad situation and make it worse and
create new problems.
It disgusts me that people think critical race theory is an actual thing they should look into the hoax papers. Or just use some critical thinking. It’s racism. And as far as indigenous people people are indigenous they don’t naturally occur. They travel here. they used boats they walked by land. Even got into wars with other Indians they had to fight for their land and they didn’t naturally occur here. Which is the definition of indigenous..
Although you begin your essay with them, you do not address why you think the “stolen land” or “on the backs of slaves” narratives are spurious. You then roll these wishy-washy ideas into one big amorphous idea of “critical theory” and attack it by taking it to an absurd extreme. Questioning the legitimacy of some of our institutions and interrogating a complex history formerly told as a glorious triumph is not even close to the same as saying, “We intend to become the law and we are coming for you, Whitey.” Certainly some on the left believe this, but many of the right are convinced of equally awful ideas. I can’t decide whether it’s worse if you are being disingenuous to stoke fear or if you really believe the things you say.
Do you have any examples of anyone of consequence on the Right who believe “equally awful ideas” to those on the Left?
In the past year alone, we can find numerous examples of elected politicians at the local, state, and national levels proposing ideas and policy which are obscenely illiberal. I’m hard pressed to find anything commensurate on the Right, so until I can find some, I’m going to take your accusations of disingenuousness with a large grain of salt.
JAL, thank you for pontificating and explaining that the even the “Consittution” offers little protection against totalitarianism, especially that “Woke” kind, which of course is the worst kind of totalitarianism, obviosly one more louder, to “11”. Though, until i read this article and realized the dictates of JAL’s volume levels of “totalitariansm”, I was a babe in the woke constitutional woods of debate.
Yet, I think I’ll look to that other learned fella, who may have had a hand in the founding of this Nation, written a few things, and oddly enough was a President of these United States… Here’s the full letter: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/
An the inscrtiption on the SE Panel of the Jefferson Memorial, great place!
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Wokeness in pre infancy???
Wow, how did this rabbit hole to white grievance show up in my feed? I’ve seen deeper (and better written) legalistic mumbo jumbo from high school freshmen. For a “political commentator” he has a shockingly poor grasp of politics and the law.
Care to explain why you hold this opinion; perhaps use some examples to make your argument?
Wait, I don’t care how annoying “wokeness” is; did you just say that our economy being built on slavery was an “inaccurate” statement?
That is a pretty inexcusable lie. It obviously was built irrefutably on slavery – and even if the southern economy suffered after the ending of slavery – other measures were put in place to ensure the continuation of free labor through the prison system. Either you dont know this – which means you should not be trying to explain anything to anyone -or you do know this and you are part of a mission to falsify history and promote an alternate reality.
Considering the state of the world, this is just an unforgivable contribution to the devastating harm to our country that is being done from both the left and right. If it’s not true, don’t say it. Do better.
“Built irrefutably on slavey”? Uh…no. Perhaps in the antebellum Deep South, but the industrial North was built on the backs of Irish and other immigrants, as was the mining West and places like Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (raw materials to drive the Industrial Revolution). The railroad? Chinese and again the Irish and others who would now be lumped into the White rubric without a second thought. There’s historical reality, and then there’s the twaddle peddled by the 1619 project.
Although if you extend your definition of “our economy” in some strange way to include Mexico and wide swaths of South America, the contention of an economy being built on slavery gains more weight. I’ve always found it interesting that the Spanish and Portuguese get a pass for their practices, which in the case of the Spanish predate 1619 by just a bit…
GenXer-I see you are making the same mistake that I used to: attempting to have a good faith discussion based on logic and fact with someone who appears to only understand feelings.
If you’ve ever seen the satirical movie, Idiocracy, you may better be able to understand what logical people face trying to discuss differences with the woke. Keep that image in your mind. It makes it easier.
Oh, no. I understand it’s essentially a waste of time with some individuals. I engage logically mainly in the hope that someone else seeing it might pause and research the stuff on their own. I have a whole arsenal of feelings-based responses I can and have used in in-person discussions like this. Weaponizing their own language, if you will. But I’ve also found that’s more effective in a face-to-face environment (at least in my experience).
“I engage logically mainly in the hope that someone else seeing it might pause and research the stuff on their own.”
^^*that
The insidious problem with redefining terms this article points out establishes why it is so necessary to appoint “originalist” judges to the Supreme Court (and other courts). We need to remember that the Constitution is the primary “contract” on which our nation is founded. When people draft a contract they mean to enforce their “intent” – this is the purpose of the words of the contract. No reasonable person would imagine that they would want their intent to be subverted by redefinition of terms or other mental gymnastics.
Egad, Bob! Insidiousness indeed! Let’s attack a supposed GENERIC “WOKE” concept, subversive methodology as pontificated by JAL (the author of this article). Originalism methodology “at the time it was adopted” concept towards the US Constitution. Is the only way, we can save ‘Murica from them “waking” up people who are fed up with status quo originalism. Trump, Barr, and Supreme Court justices, oh my! (Need to pack those courts to protect ‘Murica from itself!) -3 Supreme Court Justices as well as nearly 200 other judges with lifetime appointments to lower federal courts. Ain’t gonna be “no workeness!” today, twitter that stuff!
Specious arguments, abound. “No reasonable person would imagine that they would want their intent to be subverted by redefinition of terms or other mental gymnastics.” Holy mashugama Batman, wonder why they included that dastardly Article V to the constitution? Woke Fools! https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
Since the Constitution was ratified by a Majority in 1787, and into 1788. Some original originalist, James Madison, not sure who he was. Former President maybe? In 1789 Madison drafted 19 “Amendments” to the US Constitution, (i think he got woke?) which he proposed to Congress on June 8, 1789. The House of Representatives narrowed those down to 17; then the Senate, with the approval of the House, narrowed them down to 12. These 12 were approved on September 25, 1789, and sent to the states for ratification.
Out of the 12, 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, and thus became part of the Constitution. Insidiuosness indeed!
The only real semblance of an argument I can find among low grade snark and general incoherence is that you’re conflating redefining language with changing a law? Do I have that right? I hope not.
I’m not sure what Madison’s pre-ratification proposals have to do with anything, unless your goal was to display a basic knowledge of dates. Did you think one person was responsible for the US constitution and that the republican form of government he advocated for was just for show? That’s kind of what you’re implying, so I want to make sure I’m reading you right before I make the mistake of not taking you seriously.
Don’t get “intent” confused with “meaning.” Even the late Justice Scalia made that distinction, rejecting intent over meaning. But he and his committee of 4 others obviously did not observe “meaning” in the Heller opinion. Your appeal to originalism, which is really nothing more than cherry picking quotes to invent “original” meaning, is not persuasive. I would like to add I feel the same way, of course, about Roe v Wade, Obergefell v Hodgers (2015) and similar revisionist readings of our Constitution.
But there’s another issue embedded in your comment that is no less “constitutional.” Since when does the Supreme Court become the final arbiter on what the Constitution means? That privilege is nowhere to be found anywhere in the Constitution; which says THIS CONSTITUTION shall be the law of the land, NOT “five unelected lawyers” shall be the law of the land.
Wow. Such emotional manipulation to scare and rile up the people who already fear change and knowledge.
Our history is filled with blood and death. Not just slaves. Not just the POC. But hey. Some dudes from 200 years ago who thought women and anyone from somewhere else weren’t really people sure matter.
The government already can and does take away rights as it sees fit. There is an exception to every ‘right’
The ignorant responses, straw men arguments, and logical fallacies speak for themselves.
Oooohhhh scary woke stuff.
Laughable
What’s even more laughable is the straw men arguments used by the leftists POS is what has created wokeness to begin with, not logic, not history, and certainly not truth. Unless your truth is housed in the historical narratives penned by Zinn, which is the only “accurate” history of America.
Of course to read what some dudes 200 years ago thought individually and collectively would take some time on your part. It is by far easier to simply follow the woke crowd so you can maintain friendships with the collective illiterate.
Yes. What a joke.
Did you think an incoherent rant represents your position well?
Does anyone here believe the minds of devout wokists can be swayed away from wokism through historical fact and logic? People generally don’t change unless a behavior provides more risk than benefit.
Some act like the Indians had their pockets picked, it was a war, they lost, they got over it, but the libs can’t.
I couldn’t even make it half way through this dichotomous garbage. Systematic racism does exist that isn’t to say that every single system or person is. Your logic is nothing short of all or nothing and that is never reasonable and your examples are just downright absurd!!!
They can’t handle the truth.
I agree with you Shanonk. People like the man who wrote this article irritate me to no end. Anything to keep their precious privilege that they refuse to acknowledge. It’s disgusting.
You do know that when you say, “…this article irritate(s) me…”, you are also saying that you don’t have the power to control your emotions. If that were the case, you’d say, “I feel irritated by…”.
Your ignorance is disgusting – you will NEVER achieve the woke utopia of your dreams.
But if your cult is allowed to destroy the constitution, you will certainly be responsible for the mass murder of millions of innocent people. But I bet that would make you giddy with glee – to wipe from the face of the earth those who won’t conform. Religious fanatics are all the same.
+1
All or nothing? Kind of like “silence is violence” or the racial stereotyping of an entire group of people who often have nothing in common aside from pigmentation? Or is that somehow reasonable these days?
I’m sorry I must be missing your point? But “silence is violence” is a way of saying if you don’t stand up for the injustice then you’re just as culpable whereas I don’t agree fully it does deserve the point. The only people racial stereotyping an entire group of people are extremists and NO is never reasonable nor rational. Both sides have their points but if you refuse to try to understand the other side there will always be discontent and no middle to start to resolve the problems..As for this article is nothing short of fear-mongering with extremist views
I’d suggest you look closer at the whole “white fragility” idea, then, which is firmly grounded in stereotyping an entire group and is considered mainstream enough to drive corporate training. And “silence is violence” is a slick way to muzzle disagreement. If you don’t agree with the position, you’re a racist. If you say nothing, you’re a racist. Seems like a zero-sum game to me.
Again your missing my point!! The ideology itself is rooted in extremism, however to universally dismiss it on a whole with no points of value is equally as extreme. As for this article it only serves the purpose of promoting the extremist apocalyptic rhetoric that drives fear and keeps people from actually trying to understand the point from the other side. The only way we will ever come together is if both sides can move away from the extremist ideology that’s driving the divide.
And curious what do you think about the 1619 project?
For some reason it’s not letting me reply to shanonk’s comment in the correct location, but this is directed at that post.
The 1619 project is ahistorical drivel intended to promote a specific point of view. It may be an amusing exercise in opinion writing, but as history it’s junk.
LOL! Refuse to understand ‘the other side’ ?? James Lindsay has researched Critical Theory and practically has a PhD in the subject. This website is dedicated to understanding Critical Theory on its own terms. (Check out the Social Justice Encyclopedia!) He’s written over 20 academic papers, had 14 accepted, and 7 published in Critical Theory Journals! He has written books on these topics and knows the Ideology of Critical Theory at a level beyond most Theorists.
Who exactly isn’t putting in the work to understand ‘the other side’ here?
In terms of ‘understanding the other side’ James Lindsay effectively has a PhD in Critical Theory: he has written a social justice encyclopedia defining the terms as scholars use them, in addition to having 7 papers published in CT journals.
This Article is the logical conclusion of Critical Theory scholarship as expressed by CT scholars. If you understand how ideology works, how it is acted out, then this article is a prescient warning.
The thing that disturbs me most about all this is that no centrist-lefties are standing up to Critical Theory madness. I work at a university and people turn a blind eye while good people are squeezed out. They passively stand by and let the ideology spread and creep deeper and deeper into our institutions and laws. Lookup California Senate Bill AB 1460. California is mandating that this be taught as a graduation requirement. Read the proposed Educational Outcomes using the encyclopedia of terms that James has painstakingly created and see for yourself if he is exaggerating.
Seriously, do you know what systemic means? It means it’s part of a system. It does not mean if one or two wayward police officers kill someone it’s part of a system. It’s terribly wrong regardless. But ti’s not an example of systemic racism.
A while back a young Australian woman was tragically killed by American police (or rather one police officer). The double tragedy is she actually phoned the police to protect her and she was shot and killed instead.
If that were systemic racism against Australians, Australians would have rioted in the streets. They would have protested in front of the American embassy in Australia, etc.
None of that happened. (By the way, the Australian woman was white.) Same with a white male who was killed by the police for showing up with a gun at the front door. White people didn’t riot in the streets claiming systemic racism against white people or systemic discrimination against gun owners.
These are complicated issues, and guns have only aggravated the issue. One has to show a little sympathy for a police officer finding a guy with a gun in his hand and there’s only a split second to decide what to do. I’m not sure there are easy answers here.
But the key argument is the meaning of the word “systemic.” To me, systemic racism would mean there would be no African American newspeople. Systemic sexism would mean there would be no newswomen. It would mean children were always awarded to the father in a custody dispute (the truth is the other way).
Language is the last frontier as a Czech writer Franz Kafka wrote. When we lose language we leave our intellectual borders open to all claims.
You are aware that the people who promote the idea that System Racism exists are also the ones promoting the idea that all white people are – by their very nature – racist, right?
Before criticizing this article as dichotomous, you’d be wise to take this salient fact into account, and adjust your argument, such as it is.
I am very interested in any evidence of “systemic racism” you could provide. Particularly if you define “systemic” 1st and “racism” 2nd so I know what you are referring to.
(sorry about multiple posts, bad habit) But if it’s about the indigenous Americans – well, the history between Marxism and tribal societies in Siberia isn’t a happy one, primitive communism or no – so what would be the fate of the indigenous cultures after the revolution ?
I think the wikipedia entry “Gender roles among the indigenous peoples of North America” indicates what would happen – ie there’s not much left except stuff about matriarchy and twin spirits, which is all very nice but isn’t Indian culture a bit more diverse than the ten woke-friendly cultures that survive on wikipedia ? Wonder where the rest of it went ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
‘isn’t Indian culture a bit more diverse than the ten woke-friendly cultures that survive on wikipedia?’
If the woke gain total control of society, there will be only one woke-friendly culture, Indian, white, or whatever. Theirs. Period. All others will be classified as ‘deviant culture’ and be liquidated or at the very least deleted from the knowledge base. The ‘deviants’ will learn too late how thoroughly they were used and abused.
One culture. But isn’t that the standard way of doing things since the days of the first empires and religions, to one degree or other. Basically a new set of commandments is being chiselled onto stone and a new type of idol is to be broken ?
… or like if Canada annexed Montana, and when the USA objected the Canadians just said “Don’t worry we will rule it constitutionally and democratically”. Is that how people see it ?
I’ve always thought the “silence is violence” line was hypocritical since even the police – who they hate – give you the right to remain silent.
Stolen from the Indians ? Thieves and armies have rules for sharing out the spoils, which I guess is how this issue is being seen. Like if your house got burgled and the loot divided up between gang members according to their criminal code, you wouldn’t really see that as a model of justice no matter how fair they were to each other. Going to be hard to get everyone to clear off back to Africa and Europe after all this time, though, I would think. So maybe some sort of rent deal.
Europe doesn’t have the space anyway.
And the Indians stole it from other Indians who stole it from the paleo-Indians who stole it from the Woodland Culture who stole from the Clovis Point people who stole it from the aboriginal populations of mammoths and mastodons and short-faced bears etc. etc. Every bit of ground on earth except for Antarctica has been stolen or conquered repeatedly over the millennia. What the Wokesters are REALLY saying is that YOUR possessions and land were stolen. NOT theirs. Because they are WOKE and have been absolved of all shame and all guilt and all reparations by virtue of having self-acknowledged their WOKENESS. Which also gives them the additional virtue of being entitled to run your lives for you as they see fit.
The purpose of power is power. The Woke know that. And consider Marquis of Queensbury rules are for chumps.
Well I’m in the lucky position of being indigenous British. I could claim that I’m descended from the first arrivals after the ice age, who only had mastodons to steal from, who now live in reservations called Wales and Scotland, and everyone else Celts, Romans, Vikings, Anglo Saxons, Normans – is an invading colonist. At which point I would be called racist. I could also point out that tribal differences are the starting point for social Othering and empire, which seems to be a point lost in the noise somewhere – which is why I’m both skeptical of the woke love of tribes, and well aware of the dangers of tribalism. Sometimes tribal differences are overcome – but you end up with something like the Mongol empire.
I could even go further and claim to be a neanderthal who’s DNA has largely been replaced by invasive Homo Sapiens Sapiens – how about reparations for that ? I could also claim to be interspecies, and if I was born intersex I would be an intersex interspecies and that would be endless fun figuring out what goes on the birth certificate. In fact, yeah, I need a proper Neanderthal/Sapien interspecies pronoun. Not mister, maybe Nister… Neaster… hm.
Spot on. Waves of peoples colonised almost all lands and displaced the original human inhabitants. Competing tribes advanced themselves mostly by brute force in much the same way as raw evolutionary competition has displaced species in niche competition as part of a co-evolvng dynamic billions of years old. Beyond question, the past tribal nature of human expansion has been distorted to promote present day political self-interest. Victim narratives that embrace historical oppression and the original sin of the present day occupants is also often used to promote the existence of a bygone mystical harmony of ‘ancient wisdom’ – virtue vandalised and a paradise lost. We are expected to believe that a greater and more noble morality existed in the past and that the most recent conquest of land was not due to the rise of power via technology, but the overthrow of noble ways and peoples that lived in harmony with the land – those who would never have used similar technology of conquest should they have invented it. Morally, they were superior. But this is a bright shining fantasy. For millennia tribes have lost out to those with better numbers, technology and social organisation. There were no processes of appeal and certainly no courts and international tribunals until the preset day ‘oppressors’ invented them. The ‘Avatar’ like narrative of noble tribal victimhood has been weaponised and distorted by re-inventing history and distorting reality to fit a new tribal politics that depends upon original sin and a glorious past. Notably the Woke don’t seem to be offering up their properties and wealth and leading by example, walking off their lands and into the wilderness. I wonder why?