This supposed hierarchy of oppression, based on identity characteristics such as race, gender and sexuality, really is the biggest scam going.
Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. Yet, identarians insist on shoehorning everything into their flawed worldview.
The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.
Another is celebrating people as tokens regardless of their actions. First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this? Rather reminds me of: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co90umqUsAAdgQI?format=jpg
We would all do well to be critical of how identity politics is being used to mask the real root causes of oppression in our society. The so-called left wing of politics is the worst for this too, and I say this as a life-long leftist. Why make everything about identity; where has the traditional focus on class gone?
I recently talked to a mom who visited her adult foster daughter with a different skin tone. Her daughter reminded her to make sure she doesn't forget her ID in the hotel.
The mom was confused. They were just going to take a walk in Munich. Why would she need an ID? She never has an ID on her when she goes for a walk.
The daughter said, because the police, they stop you and ask to see your ID!
Mom couldn't believe it that the police was so different in Munich. Then it dawned on her. Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.
Mom was white and has never ever been stopped by police before.
The police absolutely treat people different because of race.
And a core premise of the Black Lives Matter movement is that Black people are generally an easier target that the police can get away with abusing, and police know this. Police can also typically identify Black people easily on sight, putting them at greater risk. Class is a valuable lens through which to view systems of oppression, but we shouldn't neglect these other dimensions of race, gender, etc... that are clearly a part of our society.
And if you actually stuck around in leftist circles you would see how the "indentarians" as you so called them are in opposition to those, too.
> First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this?
Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!
I think you've essentially misunderstood why there was a push against solely class-based analysis, and why identity-specific systemic oppression was introduced to this concept -- the two are not in opposition. The reason it was brought in was because measures to deconstruct and eliminate class-based oppression, often kept systemic inequality between identity.
For example, the push to eliminate sexism has for the most part only advantaged white women (You'll have to trust me on the proof for this since I'm writing this while on the go -- however look up books like Carceral Capitalism and "Why I Don't Talk To White People About Race" for examples). The introduction of how your identity impacts how class boundaries affect you was necessary to better understand the dynamics and better shed and cast off systems of oppression
There is a very real problem with “oppression olympics” centered on racial identity, in this country.
> Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!
I'm quite skeptical of this claim. For the most part the people pushing race and gender identity narratives in the US had at best mild criticism of Ms. Harris, and were mainly focused on her multi-racial identity and its historical significance. Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.
that's the point of identity politics, to take away that focus by distracting and dividing the working class
Doing things to solve the real issues would run into difficult real-world problems both symbolic and logistical/physical. Overcoming them require having conversations where people
1. Do creative problem-solving
2. Say “well, actually...” about practical implementation details.
3. Speak honestly about the real difficulties and risks of unintended consequences.
4. Admit to failure and error and even inattention.
All of which is blocked by similar social dynamics to the ones discussed in the article.
I’ve never understood why they are so desperate to be oppressed that they have to invent new categories to be part of then claim to be oppressed when literally no one even knows what they are.
You're not wrong about that. But many people face further oppression based on their race, gender, and sexuality, in addition to wealth and class.
This conclusion isn't quite there.
In China, foreigners are notionally required to carry their passport with them. I have never actually obeyed that, because it is a very bad idea. And it's never mattered, because although I'm obligated to produce it on demand, that demand has never been made.
It's not because I blend in. Any idiot can see that I'm not Chinese. "Looking like an immigrant" is not sufficient to be stopped by the police.
> The impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence, and impoverished Black people even more so
is true. But the statement
> Black people of all economic classes are more susceptible to police violence
is also true. There is no logical contradiction between the two. Therefore, when someone responds to the second statement with the first, their response carries the connotation that the first statement is somehow "more true". It implicitly minimizes the struggle of Black people.
Not everyone who makes the first statement in response to the second intends minimize the struggle of Black people, but I think in the majority of cases that is exactly what they intend to do.
There is no contradiction between the two, but only one of them is considered socially acceptable in certain circles, these days, in any context. That's problematic.
The same view shared by myself and my fellow 'intersectional-ists'. I haven't heard of anyone aside from 'centrists' and fascists that adopt a different viewpoint? Perhaps there is a subset of fools on breadtube or facebook, sure, but they are vastly outnumbered.
> Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.
Well then your lenses are vastly, vastly different to mine, and do not match up with both those in modern academic circles (Like, literally just read any new literature covering intersectionality and the introduction of it to communism), those on the ground in protests, and those present in progressive/queer groups (like me). It's worth noting that at the moment there is a huge divide between "progressive" communists, and, well, "regressive" communists (For want of better terms). From what I observed from stalking facebook commie groups, most of the latter are still stuck with 100 year old debates -- and while they have a huge amount of theoretical knowledge, they have no practical contributions to any revolutionary movements thusfar. For example, most of the discussion I observed was focused on rehabilitating Stalin's image, whereas most of the 'on the ground' antifacist-aligned folks are of the mind that that isn't really something modern communism should waste it's time on.
I would suggest at least reading some modern intersectional writing, if only to better understand the thing you're arguing against. The basic focus of intersectionality and how the systemic abuse created by late-stage capitalism impacts specific groups differently (The 'intersection' of those groups and the oppression they face), and how movements (even revolutionary) to improve conditions have backfired have been around for at least 60 years if Tony Cliff's 1978 writing "Why Socialists Should Support Gays" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...) is anything to go by -- at least if you will give me the small leeway of temporarily ignoring how controversial Tony Cliff is as a figure in Communism.
If you are in search of one of the progressive communities I talk of, Something Awful has recently (last 5ish years) turned into a very leftist-heavy place, with frequent debate about neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. You will be able to ask questions there and receive answers and engage in productive discussion.
'Disease and Disaster' (Debate and Discussion): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4...
And 'C-SPAM' (The politics subforum): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2...
Are both good places to talk about this with progressive, mostly-intersectional communists. Just take note a lot of the thread titles are in jest, you should navigate to the last five pages and pick up context as you go (A lot of the threads have been running since 2016!) and espousing neoliberalism in an annoying way is a swift path to a probation :)
Suffice it to say that I don't think you're on as solid intellectual footing as you think you are.
I have stairs in my house, too, by the way. SA has always had a pseudo-leftist bent, even when we were passing around videos of 9/11 set to the tune of Benny Hill. I have a few photoshop friday entries, in fact, if that's still a thing. D&D is the self-absorbed, ego-driven SA analog of stoners marveling over their own hands at 1am at the local Denny's. No thanks.
I've also seen a free Leonard Peltier protest march in Copenhagen, but I'm not sure that the state of Native American rights in Denmark and the U.S is somehow comparable.
This point is universal and it doesn't matter on which side of the Atlantic it happened.