![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrixmannThe one big mistake that Identity Politics (short: ID politics) and the principle of Intersectionality are based upon is: Them assume a group identity of people according to a certain body feature (e. g. skin color, sex, physical disability) or personality feature (e. g. religion, sexual orientation, nationality, cultural origin, political stance, mental handicaps), but which don’t exist in this collective manner as the two want to make believe. Even lesser if it comes to the judgment of moral and humanly virtuous behavior, for which the different valuations of identities of ID politics want to lay down the foundation of how somebody and his deeds should be rated.
Pick an example: Is it universally morally so okay to call out all white people as morally rotten, bad and potential evil-doers in areas where 99% of the whole population is just white-skinned? Isn’t that a big risky and morally-questionable supposition? If not to speak: Insulting?
Doing the same with another skin color easily “earns” you the attribute “racism” - because it simply is such. Judgment of people by their skin color (“giving names” is judging) and what myths your brain carries inside of it regarding that particular body feature.
Go on with the tightly-intertwined topics sexism/born sex/reassigned sex.
It’s a popular fashion these days to apply guilt for anything that goes wrong in this world to born males - because there is a small section of males who have significant political power and links to powerful political and economical offices (no matter who’s currently placed in the seat).
Would it be justified to tell the same “all men are trash”-agenda in an orphanage, in a problem school, in a drug rehab ward, in an anger management group or in an industrial facility where mostly males work? Where people (a remarkable share of males probably) are either because they got dumped by their parents, family and society, where they are in need of help, in need of psychical warmth, and admitted it, or brought there by society because they behavior was unendurable - or where they sacrifice a lot of their physical strength daily to produce gizmos for society?
Are these people responsible through the power of only their own will for how bad the world is?
Boys who were dumped, boys who were beaten, boys who flee into drugs and violence to forget?
Men who work their ass off and sacrifice their health for something that society makes use of later?
...Just always remember: They could also give no fucking damn about society and just be the violent, abusive and/or lazy schmocks which don’t contribute anything to the well-being of others, which cause other people only pain, and leave you standing there “Just do my job yourself, if you’re such a smart ass!”.
Putting all caring fathers, loyal workers and troubled boys and men who want to get out of their misery in the same pot with old greedy capitalist geezers which can’t do without superior power over a part of the earth and large amounts of money, with non-remorseful war criminals, rapists, child molesters, thugs, bullies and whatnot - just because they all share the same born sex and a dick -, is the same sexist argumentation chain that reduces women to the cliché of assumed cooking and cleaning abilities and their physical features such as tits, ass, pussy and the ability to bear children. The same sexist argumentation chain that brings you thought patterns like “I know you want it, baby! Don’t be so shy...”, “Grab them by the pussy”, “Women only want one thing - a man’s wallet” and “All women are bad - except for Mom and except for the hoes who shut up and take my dick into whatever orifice I want it to take her into”.
Another note about “sexual orientation” other than the heterosexual one.
Gays, bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals - they all can be intellectually dumb as a bucket of shrimp, be lazy good-for-nothings, intolerant towards people, be biased like a cliché, be assholes, be abusive, violent, ruthless, cowardly, they can refuse to take over responsibility for their wrongdoing and so on.
Their sexual orientation doesn’t automatically make them morally superior people. As one’s sexual preferences are something that you cannot pick at will (remember that?).
So why should that be an indicator for the quality of a person’s moral virtues?
Or a criterion to not criticize a person if it’s factually due?
Another significant delusion included in this assumption of a supposed “group identity” is that people who get sorted or sort themselves to these groups all harbor nearly the same wishes, hopes, feelings, needs, ambitions and thought patterns.
For real: Does every black person (“black” in the sense of an sub-Saharan African) on earth think the same? Does a wealthy black person in America necessarily mind “his black brothers and sisters” in the rest of the country and do something for them to increase their status within the system?
Do black people worldwide harmonize among each other and not lay a finger upon one other?
Body features and preferences don’t negate peoples bad or good character.
Actually, they don’t have much to do with it. They’re just tiny details of the whole person, nothing more.
Sorting people according to such features, which they mostly can’t be held accountable for as they couldn’t choose them at birth, not only does it tear society apart into groups which don’t exist, but also strengthen the assumption in “average” people that black and white are different on the whole, that non-heterosexuals are like aliens from another planet compared to heterosexuals. That one religion is more virtuous or meaningful than the other and they don’t do the same in praying to imaginary creatures which no human eye has seen until today and kill people over the belief that “their God is the right one”.
To be frank and outspoken: Identity Politics is about to tear down every little bit of the thought that human plebs has fought so hard for that all humans shall be treated equally, have equal rights and possibilities to participate and be punished equally for their wrongdoings.
Admittedly, mankind still did not make it to turn this ideal into a full-blown reality, but it seriously doesn’t get any better if you give up on the idea, citing it to be whatever kind of mistake to actually have wanted that because the wrong people wanted or fought for it.
(In fact, these people are long dead by now and ideals can be modified, so that they better suit the modern circumstances, which those long-dead people couldn’t take into account back then.)
According to that principle, no-one of the ID politics die-hard campaigners probably should use a smart phone, a computer, a car, electronic kitchen gadgets of whatever kind or even eat tofu (if they’re vegans).
Because all that either is produced with economic slavery these days or was invented by somebody who was racist, sexist, bigoted or biased in any way towards another specific type of humans which later turned out to be morally wrong and based on nothing but nonsensical belief.
Pick an example: Is it universally morally so okay to call out all white people as morally rotten, bad and potential evil-doers in areas where 99% of the whole population is just white-skinned? Isn’t that a big risky and morally-questionable supposition? If not to speak: Insulting?
Doing the same with another skin color easily “earns” you the attribute “racism” - because it simply is such. Judgment of people by their skin color (“giving names” is judging) and what myths your brain carries inside of it regarding that particular body feature.
Go on with the tightly-intertwined topics sexism/born sex/reassigned sex.
It’s a popular fashion these days to apply guilt for anything that goes wrong in this world to born males - because there is a small section of males who have significant political power and links to powerful political and economical offices (no matter who’s currently placed in the seat).
Would it be justified to tell the same “all men are trash”-agenda in an orphanage, in a problem school, in a drug rehab ward, in an anger management group or in an industrial facility where mostly males work? Where people (a remarkable share of males probably) are either because they got dumped by their parents, family and society, where they are in need of help, in need of psychical warmth, and admitted it, or brought there by society because they behavior was unendurable - or where they sacrifice a lot of their physical strength daily to produce gizmos for society?
Are these people responsible through the power of only their own will for how bad the world is?
Boys who were dumped, boys who were beaten, boys who flee into drugs and violence to forget?
Men who work their ass off and sacrifice their health for something that society makes use of later?
...Just always remember: They could also give no fucking damn about society and just be the violent, abusive and/or lazy schmocks which don’t contribute anything to the well-being of others, which cause other people only pain, and leave you standing there “Just do my job yourself, if you’re such a smart ass!”.
Putting all caring fathers, loyal workers and troubled boys and men who want to get out of their misery in the same pot with old greedy capitalist geezers which can’t do without superior power over a part of the earth and large amounts of money, with non-remorseful war criminals, rapists, child molesters, thugs, bullies and whatnot - just because they all share the same born sex and a dick -, is the same sexist argumentation chain that reduces women to the cliché of assumed cooking and cleaning abilities and their physical features such as tits, ass, pussy and the ability to bear children. The same sexist argumentation chain that brings you thought patterns like “I know you want it, baby! Don’t be so shy...”, “Grab them by the pussy”, “Women only want one thing - a man’s wallet” and “All women are bad - except for Mom and except for the hoes who shut up and take my dick into whatever orifice I want it to take her into”.
Another note about “sexual orientation” other than the heterosexual one.
Gays, bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals - they all can be intellectually dumb as a bucket of shrimp, be lazy good-for-nothings, intolerant towards people, be biased like a cliché, be assholes, be abusive, violent, ruthless, cowardly, they can refuse to take over responsibility for their wrongdoing and so on.
Their sexual orientation doesn’t automatically make them morally superior people. As one’s sexual preferences are something that you cannot pick at will (remember that?).
So why should that be an indicator for the quality of a person’s moral virtues?
Or a criterion to not criticize a person if it’s factually due?
Another significant delusion included in this assumption of a supposed “group identity” is that people who get sorted or sort themselves to these groups all harbor nearly the same wishes, hopes, feelings, needs, ambitions and thought patterns.
For real: Does every black person (“black” in the sense of an sub-Saharan African) on earth think the same? Does a wealthy black person in America necessarily mind “his black brothers and sisters” in the rest of the country and do something for them to increase their status within the system?
Do black people worldwide harmonize among each other and not lay a finger upon one other?
Body features and preferences don’t negate peoples bad or good character.
Actually, they don’t have much to do with it. They’re just tiny details of the whole person, nothing more.
Sorting people according to such features, which they mostly can’t be held accountable for as they couldn’t choose them at birth, not only does it tear society apart into groups which don’t exist, but also strengthen the assumption in “average” people that black and white are different on the whole, that non-heterosexuals are like aliens from another planet compared to heterosexuals. That one religion is more virtuous or meaningful than the other and they don’t do the same in praying to imaginary creatures which no human eye has seen until today and kill people over the belief that “their God is the right one”.
To be frank and outspoken: Identity Politics is about to tear down every little bit of the thought that human plebs has fought so hard for that all humans shall be treated equally, have equal rights and possibilities to participate and be punished equally for their wrongdoings.
Admittedly, mankind still did not make it to turn this ideal into a full-blown reality, but it seriously doesn’t get any better if you give up on the idea, citing it to be whatever kind of mistake to actually have wanted that because the wrong people wanted or fought for it.
(In fact, these people are long dead by now and ideals can be modified, so that they better suit the modern circumstances, which those long-dead people couldn’t take into account back then.)
According to that principle, no-one of the ID politics die-hard campaigners probably should use a smart phone, a computer, a car, electronic kitchen gadgets of whatever kind or even eat tofu (if they’re vegans).
Because all that either is produced with economic slavery these days or was invented by somebody who was racist, sexist, bigoted or biased in any way towards another specific type of humans which later turned out to be morally wrong and based on nothing but nonsensical belief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30 June 2020 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30 June 2020 02:33 pm (UTC)Presentable for everyone without shame.
(no subject)
Date: 30 June 2020 10:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30 June 2020 11:00 pm (UTC)Anyway, the title itself - the slang term "white fragility" - is known to me and I know what it means.
In fact, it is a term as hurtful and insulting as the mockery "male tears" during the #metoo explosion on Twitter. It marginalizes something that exists for the benefit of something else which isn't actually in need of it.
In short: A psychologically narcissistic technique.
(Taking the content of the article as it is without further research, the argumentation chain of DiAngelo reminds me of what critique they formulate about Freud in the modern days: He was obsessed himself with sexuality. So is the author of the "White Fragility" book with skin color, which she calls "race".)
(no subject)
Date: 1 July 2020 07:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4 July 2020 01:25 pm (UTC)Ich finde, Identitätspolitik ja eine unzulässige Reduzierung von Menschen auf ein einzelnes oder eine kleine zusammengehörende Gruppe von Merkmalen. So etwas ist immer gefährlich. Es kann helfen, eine Position zuzuspitzen und zu zum Kern einer Sache vorzustoßen, die Identitätspolitik vergißt aber, daß die Leute nicht nur "White Supremacists" oder "SJW" sind, sondern auch Rollen als Arbeitnehmer, Familienmitglieder, evtl. über Hobbies etc. wahrnehmen und in dieser Mischung kaum noch greifbar sind. Die meisten Charakterzuschreibungen sind dann nur noch Clichées - süß beispielsweise die postmodernen Feministinnen, die Heidis Hungerhaken schauen etc.
Wie Du eben sagst: zu behaupten, ein Merkmal (wie Hautfarbe oder sexuelle Orientierung) definiere die Person ist Quatsch. Es kann so sein - aber das wären dann arme Gestalten und wohl rechte Ausnahmen. Meistens sind das nur "Verkaufsargumente" wie der BMI kleiner 17 bei Heidis Hungerhaken - ein Merkmal unter vielen
(no subject)
Date: 4 July 2020 06:06 pm (UTC)Mir fiel es an Hand von Beispielen wie oben ein wie nichtig und eigentlich auch gefährlich Identitätspolitik ist.
Ich meine - nur mal das Beispiel mit den Heimkindern genommen.
Ist es gut, denen ins Gesicht zu schmettern "ihr seid am Übel dieser Welt schuld!!", wenn sie Jungen sind? Die Kinder sind vom Schicksal selbst gebeutelt. Wie kann so etwas also für das Übel der Welt verantwortlich sein?
Das ist in etwa so wie wenn man jemandem, der schon auf den Boden liegt, noch ins Gesicht tritt. Psychologisch wahrlich Sadismus.
Oder - eben Gegenden, wo halt die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung aus Weißen besteht. Sind die zwingend reich? Haben die zwingend irgendjemandem in ihrem Leben etwas getan, nur weil sie weiß sind? Das ist doch hanebüchener Unsinn.
Erzähle das mal in einem Problemviertel, wo alle nicht mit der goldenen Gabel im Mund geboren wurden... Ich glaube, es braucht nicht lang, bis dich die Löwen dann verspeisen wollen, weil du so einen Mist von dir gibst.
...Und so letztendlich ergibt sich der Kreis, dass Identitätspolitik, ganz besonders, wenn sie alle Gegenden auf der Welt mit einer Gesetzmäßigkeit "abwatschen" will, totaler Unsinn ist, der an der Realität vorbei geht.
Gut und Böse lässt sich nicht entlang von irgendwelchen fleischlichen Eigenschaften entscheiden. (Btw, bei so viel Gerede über das Fleisch, was man ist - ich glaube, solch einen enormen Fetisch damit legte nicht mal Pinhead an den Tag.)
Menschen haben verschiedene Eigenschaften, physisch als auch psychisch. Das als Spezies, als auch als Individuum für sich genommen.
Identitätspolitik macht gerade über den letzten Teil vergessen - und ist deswegen in kaum einem Punkt besser als die Rassenideologie der Nazis. Sie benutzt es nur anders, um ein anderes Wertesystem als die zu schaffen (für sie war es ein Kriterium, wen man umbringt und wen man leben lässt - bei den Identitätspolitikern ist es hingegen Kriterium, wer sollte welche Sonderrechte kriegen und wer sollte ganz besonders mies behandelt werden - siehe den Kampfbegriff "alte, weiße, heterosexuelle Männer").
(no subject)
Date: 5 July 2020 09:03 am (UTC)Wie gesagt: Hautfarbe ist hier ein eigentlich zu vernachlässigendes Problem. Man muß natürlich gegen Diskriminierung wegen der Hautfarbe auch hier vorgehen - aber das Problem als Ableger oder gleich gelagert wie bei den Amis zu sehen ist Schwachsinn - und fordert Nachahmer der Amis heraus (auf beiden Seiten), wodurch das Problem überhaupt erst entsteht.
(no subject)
Date: 5 July 2020 10:21 am (UTC)Also wird letztlich ein Problematik ins Übermaß gezerrt - bei den Amerikanern spielt es eine ganz andere Rolle, den gut die Hälfte deren Bevölkerung ist Schwarz. Und dann kommt noch der Anteil der aus Lateinamerika stammenden Leute, die auch nicht dem Bild eines weißen Mitteleuropäers entsprechen...
Dass die sich über Rassenprobleme und Rassenkämpfe einen Kopf machen, das wäre aus diesem Gesichtspunkt grundlegend einzusehen; diese Basis fehlt hierzulande allerdings.
Man könnte es, beispielsweise, in Frankreich mehr nachvollziehen, wenn es dort ähnliche Punkte auf der Tagesordnung ständen, weil dort wesentlich mehr Menschen aus den ehemaligen Kolonien herumlaufen - und die hatten die Franzosen nun mal in weiten Teilen Afrikas...
Aber das "Wie" ist wie immer entscheidend.
Ich tue der Sache selbst doch keinen Gefallen, indem, dass ich dauernd jedem hellhäutigen Menschen von einer Art Erbschuld oder Erbsünde vorschwadroniere und ihn auffordere Buße zu tun! Wie viele von den heute lebenden Menschen aus dem gewöhnlichen Volke haben mit der damaligen Sklaverei etwas zu tun? Sklaven haben sich ausschließlich die Reichen geleistet, weil man für Sklaven Geld brauchte. Der Großteil der Bevölkerung hatte dies weder heute noch vor 200 Jahren.
Und heute ist es so, dass sichtbar auch ausreichend Weiße dastehen und selbst in prekären Verhältnissen leben. Soll man denen noch erzählen, was für Arschlöcher sie sind und welche Erbsünde sie durch ihre Hautfarbe auf ihren Schultern lasten haben?
Das grenzt schon an sadistischen Hohn. Nur ein Idiot würde das machen. Oder jemand, der für die relationen der Zeit blind ist (also Leute, die aus den einigermaßen begüterten Vorstadtsiedlungen stammen und die gar nicht mal wissen wie Armut aussieht).
Nebenbei, dass man auch erwähnen muss: Wer sagt denn, dass die Menschen immer nur aus Afrika geraubt (wie: entführt) wurden?
Auch in Afrika gab es damals schon Herrschaftssysteme, Stammesfürsten und Könige (man denke nur an Ägypten). Und die benahmen sich nicht anders als die europäischen Königshäuser.
Wenn denen ein Angebot gemacht wurde mit irgendeiner Ware, die sie unbedingt haben wollten, dann haben die dafür auch mal locker 10.000 Menschen ihres eigenen Volkes verkauft, wenn das der Preis dafür war.
Die Sklaverei ist an dieser Stelle auch ein Geben und Nehmen gewesen. Einteilungen in Opfer und Täter laufen hier ebenso nicht entlang von Hautfarben, sondern vielmehr von Herrschaftsstrukturen.