This sort of analysis bothers me, in a makes-me-want-to-tear-out-what’s-left-of-my-hair-and-scream sort of way: Trump’s ‘Nationalism’: White-Identity Politics with a Brand Name | National Review
Labels like “white” or “black” hinder more than they help. They shape our train of thought. They actively prevent avenues of inquiry and understanding that might otherwise be available and enlightening to us.
In this particular case the people Goldberg is describing happen to be white, but their world view, beliefs, values, moral matrix, have more to do with their common culture and their intellectual/ideological heritage than with their common color. A more accurate label than “white” would be something like “European cultural heritage,” or “the British intellectual tradition.” Their skin color is mere coincidence, a unfortunate trick of fate.
Our fixation on skin color is an example of what I mean when I say the problems highlighted by Heterodox Academy are far more pervasive and far more insidious than we realize. Liberalism’s monopolistic control of the levers of culture (academia, entertainment, and news) set not only the tone of our discussions and analyses but also even the very limits of our social imagination and the hard boundaries of our intellectual universe.
This problem is far worse than even the campus free speech problem. At least the free speech protesters recognizes that there are different ways of seeing things.
But not this problem. This problem sees no other ways. We’ve swallowed the concept of identity politics by skin color so completely that we simply cannot even IMAGINE that any other explanation is even POSSIBLE. Other potential, and in my opinion far more accurate, explanations don’t even exist in our current cultural-intellectual-analytical universe. We see skin color and our thinking simply, automatically, completely, stops.
If it’s true that most important type of diversity is intellectual/ideological/political/cognitive-style (and it is) then THAT should be the primary parameters of our investigations and discussions; we should be thinking and talking in those terms rather than in terms of skin color.
I’m not saying that skin color doesn’t matter at all. Of course it does. But it’s just one of many, MANY different ways implicit bias rears its ugly head.
Thinking and talking only or even primarily in terms of skin color is regressive, anachronistic, quaint, backwards, stuck in the past, flat-earth thinking.
There’s a consensus building in current analyses that the root of the Muslim immigration problem is ASSIMILATION. Previous cultures that immigrated to America and Britain assimilated themselves into their adopted cultures. But sub-factions of Muslim immigrants not only refuse to do that, they actively rebel against the culture of their adopted land, and wish to change it by force into their own.
Well, here’s a thought: That exact same explanation applies equally to Black Lives Matter. BLM is a sub-culture that not only refuses to assimilate into the European cultural heritage or the British intellectual tradition of America, but further, lashes out angrily and violently at it, preferring instead that it change to comply with its own culture. This explains why blacks who HAVE assimilated are referred to as “Uncle Tom,” or “Oreo” or any number of other pejoratives that are used to describe such perceived traitors.
IT’S NOT ABOUT SKIN COLOR!!! ITS ABOUT CULTURE AND VALUES!!!
Here’s a little thought experiment: What if we made the rule that skin color could not be mentioned, and we had to instead use some other term that was not simply a euphemism or proxy for skin color, but instead was an accurate reference to the values, culture, principle, etc. of the faction, sorry, identity group, being referred to?
The debate would COMPLETELY change. The questions asked would change. The explanations would change. The recommendations would change.
The more accurate label would take the emphasis away from skin color and the incorrect implication of racism that comes with it and replace it with an emphasis that is far more accurate from a sociological, psychological, ideological, perspective. It would literally force us to talk about real root causes rather than “stick to our comforting delusions” about skin color that we currently hide behind.
But no, we see frickin EVERYTHING as ultimately about race (or gender, or sexual orientation) when it’s REALLY NOT ABOUT THOSE THINGS AT ALL!!!!
What it’s really about is social capital. But we’re so fixated on skin color that the debate can’t ever even APPRAOCH what it’s really about. Skin color is an intellectual wall far more effective than any physical in Berlin, China, or anywhere else ever was.
It’s not even a problem of failing to see the forest because of all the trees. It’s a problem of being so blinded by our “comforting delusions” about race-based identity politics that we’re NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE of trees, forests, or anything else.