The allegory is very good but true non the less which brings me to the fact that my wife and I are buying the stick available at Canadian Tire for our tv,s the reasons being several. Both of us are tired of the non news or propaganda we are subjected to by mainstream Canadian companies, fed up with the queer and black mostly adds that do not even come close to matching % wise the population and the cost of buying strictly Canadian content.
We are looking forward to paying less for more the news we will watch will be from many other countries ie BBC Al Jazeera, from Australia and many other countries even Fox news is preferable to the C ommunist B roadcasting C lowns. Netflix and others will soon be forced by the goons in ottawa to have mostly Canadian content so we will be tuning in the the US versions . Goodbye canada, cheerio to the small potato and his dictator wishes, ta ta communist idiots at CBC CTV Global et al.
Interesting. I consider the possibility that there is a genuine dichotomy of traditionalist “vs” cosmopolitan. It also translates into conservative “vs” liberal, and a few other splits. All with similar characteristics. Most of us tend one way or the other…. Or somewhere in between! Generally the “identitarians” fall into the traditionalist and conservative camp, which is why those of us who are “traditional leftists” (!) refer to identity politics and wokeism as a reactionary, right wing phenomenon that has infiltrated the “left” via postmodernism. Frances Widdowson has discussed this too. There are a few books coming out now that support this hypothesis (two very recent ones are Finkelstein’s “I’ll Burn that Bridge When I Come to it” and very new: “Woke is Not Left” by Neiman). The dichotomy you describe is also well known from early work on nationalism (see in particular Benedict Anderson’s “imagined community”) and the distinction between ethnic and civic (or cosmopolitan) nationalisms. While you are quite right to argue that traditionalists should not be lumped as xenophobes, there is a correlation that is very well known. Ironic that the conservatives are fighting the woke who see themselves as “progressives” — while the latter (Kendi etc) advocate racialism! I think you will find responses from those of us on the non-woke Left indicating a rejecting of terms like “white” because we see “race” as an arbitrary unscientific concept. I wrote a column on that in Peace Magazine recently that may interest you: https://web.ncf.ca/fs766/Collins_Race_PeaceMagazineJan2023.pdf
Mr. M answered better than I can. And I agree with him. I have seen this approach in a lot of smart people like you and Frances. But I just don't think it makes sense, and any argument I have read in its defense of it seems to me like a lot of changing the meaning of terms. It's like, we don't like what are former comrades are doing so lets call them rightwing reactionaries to disassociate with them. I've heard the argument put forward that because wokeism is irrational / de-enlightenment that it must be reactionary right wing. The left couldn't possibly be irrational, so if we see irrationality we will know its from the right...huh? I haven't seen any coherent explanation equal to what Mr. M has offered, that convinces me why I should believe this reactionary theory.
Robin Collins Again: What you have just shared with WWC stands as an egregious disservice to readers here. The author of one of the books you list "Woke is Not Left," Susan Neiman, self-identifies as a socialist (shocking). We can't be too surprised that she idolizes black nationalist and Marxist Frantz Fanon, who contributed "lived experience" to the wokish catalogue of notions, or that she called him one of the "heroes of postcolonial thinking." (https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-true-left-is-not-woke/).
Neiman's cartoonish contrast between the right (dangerous nationalist tribalists) and the left (universalists who support internationalism) is just sad. The USA, it ought to be remembered, was founded in a nationalist movement (it broke away from an international body) and the meaning of "universalism" does not equate with the socialist drive toward internationalism as Neiman lets on. Were all the leftists during the War for Independence putting up a fuss and crying "oh stay with Britain, stay with Britain, it's more universalist!"? No, those were the loyalists (and they didn't put it that way).
Later in the piece (linked above) Neiman produces an embarrassing commentary on identity politics which she first equates with "tribalism." She then goes on to state that tribalism is an "idea" as old as the Hebrew Bible (really, it's not older? The Old Testament was written down around 550 B.C.). She defines tribalism / identity politics as "civil breakdown that occurs when people, of whatever kind, see the fundamental human difference as that between our kind and everyone else." What is the default human position on race? Anthropologists who study human universals have demonstrated that ethnocentrism, the tendency to favor one’s own group, including in effect one's own racial group, is a norm in human societies across the globe. The exception, to all appearances, would be in a functioning liberal values society which emphasizes civil rights, tolerance and universalism (defined as applicability to all, rather than the socialist impulse to internationalism). So, what is breaking down the liberal values today?
The argument that it is indeed the right that is breaking down liberal values today and is causing the rise of identity politics is one which Neiman makes in this article. Her evidentiary basis for making this claim is notable for it's almost non-existent aspect. She makes two claims i) she has attempted to identify right wingers as tribalists and to conflate identity politics with tribalism; and ii) she also goes on to point out that two nazis are sometimes referenced in identity politics literature: Schmidt and Heidegger — in doing so, she is attempting to make the case that the occurrence of two nazis in identity politics literature should be an indicator that the entire movement is downstream from conservativism. Conspicuous here is Neiman's inability to point to a single American conservative thinker who has ever been favorably cited by the movers and shakers of the identity politics industry, and her need to swap in some nazis instead (which, predictably, she represents as being functional equivalents).
Neiman gets totally eviscerated in the comments section of her own online piece. Effectively, no one in 300+ replies thought that this was a well written or convincing take on wokism. The most popular comment with 289 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down points out the article's upper lack of self-awareness coming as it does from a socialist theorist: "If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none.... For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection."
And why should any of them be convinced? Let's start with the idea that "tribalism" (in the American context) is a phenomenon best encapsulated by the American conservative demographic and that, really, it is this conservative factor that is driving the development of identity politics. Well, in a 2019 pew poll, American black respondents affirmed at a rate of 74% that race was either "extremely important" or "very important" to their identity, while in contradistinction a mere 15% of whites said the same (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/).
Certainly, the sharp emphasis on blackness among black Americans is nothing new, it's been part of their politics for hundreds of years if you deign to study the history of black activism. The term "woke" finds its ultimate origin in the thinking of American black nationalist Marcus Garvey who urged blacks to "stay woke" essentially, to stay racially conscious. Black nationalist activism has since gifted identity politics some of its most distinguishing buzz words -which are also interpretational frameworks not just words!- such as systemic racism, black power, blackness / whiteness and lived experience, anti-imperialism and decolonization (America), intersectionality (in early form), visible minority (Canada only), identity politics (as a term and concept). It actually isn't "ironic" that Kendi is advocating for racialism or targeted discrimination against whites, if you knew much about the history of black social politics, that has been their dominant mode for hundreds of years (excepting i.e. King).
Yes, if you read my pieces seriously, you'd know that "identity politics" as a political metaphor was coined by a black feminist organization in the 1960s which was intended to emphasize the importance of their blackness and their womanhood (see link below). For those who might still take stock of this, the comment which you made above should register as misinformed, ludicrously so: "Generally the “identitarians” fall into the traditionalist and conservative camp, which is why those of us who are “traditional leftists” (!) refer to identity politics and wokeism as a reactionary, right wing phenomenon."
With the activists successful demand that universities create programs that amount to nothing more than institutionalized radical activism (Black Studies departments), pumping out the same identitarian interpretational modes (black identity, black power, systemic racism) and spreading it to other social science departments (who eagerly propagated and disseminated them everywhere) one of the major engines of the subversion of liberal values was installed in our system. I covered all of this in an WWC post: https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/a-moral-chimera#_ftn32 And the same sort of analysis could be applied to the other big players in grievance industry academics, identity-based institutions, women's studies and queer studies and so forth.
By the way, the ratio of leftist to rightists in these social science departments is nothing short of staggering: in sociology, for example, there are 43.8 leftists for every 1 right winger.
Oh right, but this whole thing is driven by the right wing, yes? Right wingers thought it would be a good idea to re-arrange society so that only white men are specially disadvantaged in work place politics and in hiring practices. Oh yes, you've really got it - you've fucking figured it out!
The only way, Robin, that socialists like you and Neiman can attempt to make your argument here is from a position of nescience: from a position that either involves a complete lack of knowledge about the ideological origins and development of woke culture, or that counts on the eventuality that your poor readers will have such a lack.
In my view, such pseudo intellectualism is far worse than the sycophantic identity politics conformists because it burdens the public (like so many socialist driven screeds) not with a serious inquiry after the truth but with an agenda driven ideological piece which is painfully near sighted.
A lot to munch on there. A few points. I wouldn’t have started your argument with the American revolution as an example of identitarianism. You confuse anticolonial revolution with narrow nationalism. If anything the Declaration of Independence was a universalist, not a racialist, document — and one that in part inspired the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of the examples you offer above about the problem of the “woke project” we are in agreement with, so weren’t necessary to repeat. But I think the liberalism that I support (and hopefully you do too) is not racial and exclusionary but the opposite. Your grievance is with “socialism” and that is primarily an economic project, one you don’t address in your comments here. We can discuss that too —why? — however, my version of it is pretty mild and not totalitarian so it might not be worth your ink.
My point is that woke is reactionary and not a variant of progressivism You argue it is. If we agree that identity politics in the modern framing (woke) can be traced to black nationalism (and we do agree that is where the term comes from), then we should agree that black nationalism is (was) a reactionary trend, and unhelpful. This isn’t news to anyone I know. It also shouldn’t shock anyone that Pew polls or “likes” skew this way or that (black Americans are more obsessed with their blackness than others are with their skins; people “eviscerate” Neiman online! :-o)…
I’m interested in the more serious discussion about whether the ideological aspects of “wokeism” align with historically progressive universalism, or reactionary ethnic parochialisms and nationalisms. The serious literature is pretty clear on this. This has less to do with human biological or social inclinations towards “us” over “them”. It has a lot to do with the politics of progressive change versus recidivism and backsliding, xenophobia. The fact that a lot of self-described “leftists” embrace identity politics should not surprise (I certainly don’t deny it, and I am against it). But there’s lazy thinking all over the spectrum.
Robin: No one said that the Declaration of Independence was a "racialist" document, you respond only to your own assumptions: your argument that it is "not a racialist" document could only be inspired by your assumption that nationalism cannot be anything but racist (which is a deluded notion that some radical leftists hold, not a serious political observation).
Secondly although you state that it is not necessary to repeat the tenets of wokism and their ideological origins because we are in agreement, in fact we *are not* in agreement and it *is necessary* to repeat them, incessantly if necessary, for that reason.
"But I think the liberalism that I support (and hopefully you do too) is not racial and exclusionary but the opposite." Nice virtue signal, yes, hopefully you aren't a racist right? Send another weasel signal on an anti-woke substack.
As for your next comment, that I don't address socialism in my comment and that socialism is primarily economic, very misleading. My contributions to WWC are *full* of references to socialism and how socialist thinking of one or another type has contributed to wokism. The real world impact of socialism is not primarily economic (more particularly: not in countries which have resisted economic socialism), the impact of socialist thought, spread far and wide through our universities, is cultural, in the form of cultural subversion.
The argument that woke is "reactionary" because of its deep rooted association with the black nationalist movement is opportunistic on your part but still wrong. If you are defining the "revolution" as the communist dream of uniting the entire world under one government which joins all people together as one great workers conglomerate, and the opposite of this "revolution" is "reactionary" nationalism, the black radical tradition as a whole is neither one nor the other but a perverted and self-contradicting fusion of the two. See the article "Black Nationalists and Confused Marxists" written by Tony Thomas in 1972 which discusses the exact contradiction I've just mentioned, the ideologically self-contradicting nature of radical black activism. The most impacting ideas, which have become woke frameworks for interpreting the world, come to us from thinkers who combine black nationalism, black power and so forth, with black Marxism which sees American blacks as a perpetually colonized people – a perfect example is Stokely Carmichael who was just such an ideologue and who gifted the world the idea/framework of institutional racism (later systemic racism). I've already linked you the WWC article in which I lay this out and since you still haven't read it, there's no point linking it again. But again, for other people: https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/a-moral-chimera
As for your snide remark: "people “eviscerate” Neiman online! :-o" --- is that supposed to be casting doubt on my characterization that people have eviscerated Neiman in the comments section which I linked? Try *reading* the bloody comments, Robin, if you can't fathom that people, en masse, would shit on your socialist hero and her take on woke - read the comments that's all you have to do to figure it out. I gave you the link already.
You say you support liberal thinking, Robin, oh and you *hope* I do to, but you simultaneously frame the world in an "us" the revolutionaries, and "them" the reactionaries. People familiar with the use of revolution / reaction dichotomy, a Marxist way of framing politics, would know this is not the way an actual liberal sees the world.
It's clear that for you, the reactionaries are the nationalists and the racists (to include even the black nationalists, although most of your fellow leftists would be uncomfortable with admitting that black people can be racist or racialist).
As for what the flip side is supposed to be, you describe the flip side of reactionary not as the commie revolutionary (which is the real Marxist dichotomy spelled out plainly), but the flip side of reaction you choose to frame here as "historically progressive universalism." No doubt, this is the same wording which socialist Neiman uses in her book, she chooses to pervert the meaning of enlightenment universalism, to twist its semantics so that universalism carries water for the socialist idea of one world government, one global (worker) conglomerate. For Neiman and probably for Robin, universalism is (wittingly or otherwise) a cipher for the revolution, and universalism is the opposite of reactionary.
Despite your pretense to liberalism, Robin, your sanctimonious pretense even, you read to me much more as a left of liberal.
You seem very sensitive to contrary views but best if you respond without all the juvenile ad hominems. I didn’t say anyone (incl you) said the Declaration of Independence was racialistic but I did connect your claim about the American revolution being (primarily) about nationalism as irrelevant to the way we are discussing nationalism here (ie where a form of tribalism or nativism). No, I didn’t say “that woke is "reactionary" because of its deep rooted association with the black nationalist movement”. I said it is reactionary AND so was the black nationalist movement. Correlation not causation. “Shit on your socialist hero”? Sorry, I have read exactly one chapter of Neiman’s book and listened to one interesting podcast she was on. She made some sense. Doesn’t = hero worship. I am certainly “further left than liberal” but that doesn’t disqualify me from defending liberal principles such as universalism and non-racialism. Let me know if you want to step beyond strawmaning and I’d be willing to continue a more serious exchange.
As Dan Clemens writes (correctly in my opinion) in WWC today: “Call me crazy, I might even add, to this list of words hemorrhaging meaning, Marxists themselves. Where is the concern for the working-poor? I’ve studied some Marxism and always thought there was a core to it that pertained to those who worked their whole lives to make someone else rich – and that there’s a fair point to be made there, as a critique of capitalism. But the new-neo-Marxists [neo-squared] are instead identity-obsessed; yet the working poor all over the world, people with far less than our ‘first world’ identity-activists, people who are objectively exploited or abused or, dare I say, oppressed, don’t seem to factor in. So, what may seem a surprising inversion, the activist neo ‘Marxist’ has a bottomless hatred for the working poor or proletariat.”
Yes, I know of the conservatives Sowell and (the late) Scruton. I suggest, again, that you read my piece on racism. I reference an excellent discussion by other conservative black thinkers who are critical of race-consciousness (Shelby Steele in particular).
I think I address some of your comments under M’s comment. But we will need to agree on certain terms. There is a growing group of (let’s call them) Leftists who have tried to clarify the woke phenomenon as a postmodern insertion into the Left. There is a link between the left and postmodernism which is that some of the ideologues were left wing — but the rejection of “metanarratives” is an important distinction too. Personally I think the rejection of utopias (left or right) was a good contribution; yet the failing was rejection also of progress and Enlightenment. But they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left. This is worth discussing further. But as someone who has been left of centre for about 50 years I can state without equivocation that I’ve oppose this junk for all of that time, in all its variants: affirmative action, wokeism, identity politics, political correctness (which was used by leftists as a self-critical joke, don’t forget), etc. Nothing new except that this time it’s very serious and (I think we can agree) also authoritarian. Most obvious is that the traditional left emphasized social class not essentialism. The woke and the right emphasized race and other born characteristics, and underplay social class. They shift to “nationalism” and away from universalism. Those are pretty clear distinctions.
We will have to disagree about a lot, as we have done before. But it is useful to compare our very different critiques of “woke politics”. Your note that “ethnocentrism, the tendency to favor ones own group, including in effect one's own racial group” is a very right wing view and is rejected by progressives and leftists. What is unclear to me is why you are opposed to wokeism and identity politics if you elevate ethnocentrism and tribalism as worthy frameworks. I’d like to dig deeper to see how deep your “race” viewpoint goes. I am aware of human tendencies towards “in” and “out” groups, of course. I don’t know enough about Neiman’s particular version of socialism or why she likes Fanon, and I don’t really care. That seems to be a red herring. I am certainly left of centre on the economic plane and quite libertarian on the social plane. Labels aren’t always that helpful particularly if their meanings are in dispute. I have Neiman’s book now, have started reading it, and like it so far. Glad to discuss other issues with you also, but we most certainly do not share certain views about human ethnic priorities. My views on this are laid out in articles I’ve written. Have a look at the one on race linked above and see what you agree and disagree with. I’d be interested to know.
As you can see Mr. M is a passionate guy. And really knows his stuff. I admire him on both accounts. I do encourage you to present your arguments, even just so I can understand why you and others are arriving at these perspectives. I am also wondering, if you have looked at the analysis of these issues by thinkers like Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell? Mr. M can list a bunch more.
Robin - don't you bloody well dare insinuate that I am advocating for racism, which is such a weasel-faced leftist thing to do - oh no, don't be offended, I don't mean to say that you are a weasel-faced leftist, I am positively stating that it is a weasel-faced leftist thing to do. I DID NOT ELEVATE TRIBALISM AS A FRAMEWORK, I know this may put a strain on your brain, but recognizing it as a default human condition and advocating it as the desired social norm actually aren't one and the same thought, you poor fellow.
And no, the observation that ethnocentrism is a human default did not come from the left or the right, it isn't something you should choose to "believe" or not. It's simply something you know or don't know. It comes from the field of anthropology (see books linked above). It ought to be pointed out that in the field of anthropology, the ratio of leftists to rightists is 56 to 1.
Your explanation to James above, about why you think woke comes from the right wing, sounds like someone at a spelling B with a mouth full of Marbles - after the postmodernists came along, "...they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left." OH really? I have a feeling you actually have absolutely no idea why it would be a right wing ideology that is driving university identity politics and no matter how many socialist authored books that you read on the topic, the argument will never be much more convincing than "they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left." Oh did they? Under what compulsion? How about identifying a single social justice policy that has its roots in "right wing theory"? Do what I do - actually open the literature from social science courses and read what they say.
As an aside, I actually have 0 interest in corresponding on this or anything with you, you will never alter your perceptions. You won't incorporate 1 iota of the perspective James and I present here which comes replete with documentation most of the time, and you've got no intention of ever doing so. I only make replies here so that readers won't be led too far down your turnip trail.
In a word, racism is wrong but the “anti racists” don’t get that. They rationalize blatant discrimination and degradation of white people. It’s a sick zeitgeist.
Yes, but their degradation isn’t exclusive to “white people”. Kendi in particular is very clear that he thinks everyone is and will be racist. It’s hard to be “anti-racist” if you think everyone is racist. But it sells books.
I agree that our historical understanding needs to be objective. It isn’t only “traditionalists” (definition, please) who yearn for the heroic to more easily set guide posts through the muck. The more we know, the fairer we can approach the evidence, the more heroes and villains we will find. Not only should we not be one-sided in this exploration but neither need we blame the ancestors for their errors nor the descendants for their ancestors’ errors. I think that is the problem with trying to find a single all-encompassing narrative. We end up with them and us, good and bad, nothing in-between. I have two of Bruce Trigger’s books on early Canada, neither of which I’ve read (although one is sitting in front of me). He is one historian who tried to assess fairly, I think. See: Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s ’Heroic Age’ Reconsidered.
I totally agree with this. And I am curious now about Bruce Trigger too.
The "traditionalist" thing, as I use it, comes from Eric Kaufmann. He does cite some psychological research in his explanation (in the book White Shift) - he divides people generally in two categories 1) Cosmopolitans 2) Traditionalists - These categories also come from analysis of demographic survey data - where questions about immigration are asked for example.
The traditionalist is very concerned about unregulated immigration - they want it to be tempered, they want immigrants encultured into the conventions of Western society, they think if immigration is too rapid and people don't enculturate/integrate, then the essence of society will fundamentally and massively change. The traditionalist is most likely conservate politically (although not necessarily). They want to conserve traditions and the systems that order society.
The cosmopolitan is a global citizen who shares none (or very little) of the concerns of traditionalists. Cosmopolitans often mistake traditionalists as xenophobes.
The only image provided for the essay was that of “Champlain”. The irony is over getting the actors to “look right”. Not just about skin colour. My comment was meant to be amusing not accusatory.
But you do bring up a good point. Something I have been thinking about...and I think I've debated with you on a little bit not too long ago. The idea that identity has a harmless fantasy component that is a psychological necessity for people who are wired with traditional values. While I prefer that history be objective and accurate, what I'm getting at is for this psychological need to be met, the truth is irrelevant. In other words, traditional people need to connect with an origin story, and while they don't need to deny the evil bits, they do need to connect with a heroic narrative. In my view Champlain is one of the greatest hero's in Canadian history. If I were to write more about traditionalist origin narratives, it would draw heavily from Eric Kaufmann's work.
There is lovely irony in this statement: “If the actor playing Samuel De Champlain was a black man, it would not only be historically inaccurate, it would be laughably inauthentic...” The image used for this essay is a standard one used for Champlain. It is based on the infamous confusion of Champlain with a French councillor, Michel Particelli d'Emery, drawn by Balthasar Moncornet.* There is no actual known portrait of SdC aside from a cartoonish one of him in battle against the Iroquois.** The famous statue of “Champlain” in Ottawa in fact also shows d’Emery -- but it also shows him holding an astrolabe upside down. I hope Mr Jackson does better research for the casting.
I don't understand why their would be any irony. It is known that Champlain is from France, if he had been a black man, there would have been some mention of it somewhere in the historical record. I think it is historically accurate to say that Champlain was a white skinned European - isn't there historical records of him being described that way? Even if there isn't, it's a fair assumption that he was white because he was from France. If the wrong image of him ended up being used, the mistake was made because Champlain was known to be white...like the person in the mistaken image.
Further, I provided other examples - John A. MacDonald, etc. So it seems a little straw-manish to focus in the one historical figure that existed before photography.
The allegory is very good but true non the less which brings me to the fact that my wife and I are buying the stick available at Canadian Tire for our tv,s the reasons being several. Both of us are tired of the non news or propaganda we are subjected to by mainstream Canadian companies, fed up with the queer and black mostly adds that do not even come close to matching % wise the population and the cost of buying strictly Canadian content.
We are looking forward to paying less for more the news we will watch will be from many other countries ie BBC Al Jazeera, from Australia and many other countries even Fox news is preferable to the C ommunist B roadcasting C lowns. Netflix and others will soon be forced by the goons in ottawa to have mostly Canadian content so we will be tuning in the the US versions . Goodbye canada, cheerio to the small potato and his dictator wishes, ta ta communist idiots at CBC CTV Global et al.
Interesting. I consider the possibility that there is a genuine dichotomy of traditionalist “vs” cosmopolitan. It also translates into conservative “vs” liberal, and a few other splits. All with similar characteristics. Most of us tend one way or the other…. Or somewhere in between! Generally the “identitarians” fall into the traditionalist and conservative camp, which is why those of us who are “traditional leftists” (!) refer to identity politics and wokeism as a reactionary, right wing phenomenon that has infiltrated the “left” via postmodernism. Frances Widdowson has discussed this too. There are a few books coming out now that support this hypothesis (two very recent ones are Finkelstein’s “I’ll Burn that Bridge When I Come to it” and very new: “Woke is Not Left” by Neiman). The dichotomy you describe is also well known from early work on nationalism (see in particular Benedict Anderson’s “imagined community”) and the distinction between ethnic and civic (or cosmopolitan) nationalisms. While you are quite right to argue that traditionalists should not be lumped as xenophobes, there is a correlation that is very well known. Ironic that the conservatives are fighting the woke who see themselves as “progressives” — while the latter (Kendi etc) advocate racialism! I think you will find responses from those of us on the non-woke Left indicating a rejecting of terms like “white” because we see “race” as an arbitrary unscientific concept. I wrote a column on that in Peace Magazine recently that may interest you: https://web.ncf.ca/fs766/Collins_Race_PeaceMagazineJan2023.pdf
Mr. M answered better than I can. And I agree with him. I have seen this approach in a lot of smart people like you and Frances. But I just don't think it makes sense, and any argument I have read in its defense of it seems to me like a lot of changing the meaning of terms. It's like, we don't like what are former comrades are doing so lets call them rightwing reactionaries to disassociate with them. I've heard the argument put forward that because wokeism is irrational / de-enlightenment that it must be reactionary right wing. The left couldn't possibly be irrational, so if we see irrationality we will know its from the right...huh? I haven't seen any coherent explanation equal to what Mr. M has offered, that convinces me why I should believe this reactionary theory.
Robin Collins Again: What you have just shared with WWC stands as an egregious disservice to readers here. The author of one of the books you list "Woke is Not Left," Susan Neiman, self-identifies as a socialist (shocking). We can't be too surprised that she idolizes black nationalist and Marxist Frantz Fanon, who contributed "lived experience" to the wokish catalogue of notions, or that she called him one of the "heroes of postcolonial thinking." (https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-true-left-is-not-woke/).
Neiman's cartoonish contrast between the right (dangerous nationalist tribalists) and the left (universalists who support internationalism) is just sad. The USA, it ought to be remembered, was founded in a nationalist movement (it broke away from an international body) and the meaning of "universalism" does not equate with the socialist drive toward internationalism as Neiman lets on. Were all the leftists during the War for Independence putting up a fuss and crying "oh stay with Britain, stay with Britain, it's more universalist!"? No, those were the loyalists (and they didn't put it that way).
Later in the piece (linked above) Neiman produces an embarrassing commentary on identity politics which she first equates with "tribalism." She then goes on to state that tribalism is an "idea" as old as the Hebrew Bible (really, it's not older? The Old Testament was written down around 550 B.C.). She defines tribalism / identity politics as "civil breakdown that occurs when people, of whatever kind, see the fundamental human difference as that between our kind and everyone else." What is the default human position on race? Anthropologists who study human universals have demonstrated that ethnocentrism, the tendency to favor one’s own group, including in effect one's own racial group, is a norm in human societies across the globe. The exception, to all appearances, would be in a functioning liberal values society which emphasizes civil rights, tolerance and universalism (defined as applicability to all, rather than the socialist impulse to internationalism). So, what is breaking down the liberal values today?
The argument that it is indeed the right that is breaking down liberal values today and is causing the rise of identity politics is one which Neiman makes in this article. Her evidentiary basis for making this claim is notable for it's almost non-existent aspect. She makes two claims i) she has attempted to identify right wingers as tribalists and to conflate identity politics with tribalism; and ii) she also goes on to point out that two nazis are sometimes referenced in identity politics literature: Schmidt and Heidegger — in doing so, she is attempting to make the case that the occurrence of two nazis in identity politics literature should be an indicator that the entire movement is downstream from conservativism. Conspicuous here is Neiman's inability to point to a single American conservative thinker who has ever been favorably cited by the movers and shakers of the identity politics industry, and her need to swap in some nazis instead (which, predictably, she represents as being functional equivalents).
Neiman gets totally eviscerated in the comments section of her own online piece. Effectively, no one in 300+ replies thought that this was a well written or convincing take on wokism. The most popular comment with 289 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down points out the article's upper lack of self-awareness coming as it does from a socialist theorist: "If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none.... For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection."
And why should any of them be convinced? Let's start with the idea that "tribalism" (in the American context) is a phenomenon best encapsulated by the American conservative demographic and that, really, it is this conservative factor that is driving the development of identity politics. Well, in a 2019 pew poll, American black respondents affirmed at a rate of 74% that race was either "extremely important" or "very important" to their identity, while in contradistinction a mere 15% of whites said the same (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/).
Certainly, the sharp emphasis on blackness among black Americans is nothing new, it's been part of their politics for hundreds of years if you deign to study the history of black activism. The term "woke" finds its ultimate origin in the thinking of American black nationalist Marcus Garvey who urged blacks to "stay woke" essentially, to stay racially conscious. Black nationalist activism has since gifted identity politics some of its most distinguishing buzz words -which are also interpretational frameworks not just words!- such as systemic racism, black power, blackness / whiteness and lived experience, anti-imperialism and decolonization (America), intersectionality (in early form), visible minority (Canada only), identity politics (as a term and concept). It actually isn't "ironic" that Kendi is advocating for racialism or targeted discrimination against whites, if you knew much about the history of black social politics, that has been their dominant mode for hundreds of years (excepting i.e. King).
Yes, if you read my pieces seriously, you'd know that "identity politics" as a political metaphor was coined by a black feminist organization in the 1960s which was intended to emphasize the importance of their blackness and their womanhood (see link below). For those who might still take stock of this, the comment which you made above should register as misinformed, ludicrously so: "Generally the “identitarians” fall into the traditionalist and conservative camp, which is why those of us who are “traditional leftists” (!) refer to identity politics and wokeism as a reactionary, right wing phenomenon."
With the activists successful demand that universities create programs that amount to nothing more than institutionalized radical activism (Black Studies departments), pumping out the same identitarian interpretational modes (black identity, black power, systemic racism) and spreading it to other social science departments (who eagerly propagated and disseminated them everywhere) one of the major engines of the subversion of liberal values was installed in our system. I covered all of this in an WWC post: https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/a-moral-chimera#_ftn32 And the same sort of analysis could be applied to the other big players in grievance industry academics, identity-based institutions, women's studies and queer studies and so forth.
By the way, the ratio of leftist to rightists in these social science departments is nothing short of staggering: in sociology, for example, there are 43.8 leftists for every 1 right winger.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty?ref=quillette
Oh right, but this whole thing is driven by the right wing, yes? Right wingers thought it would be a good idea to re-arrange society so that only white men are specially disadvantaged in work place politics and in hiring practices. Oh yes, you've really got it - you've fucking figured it out!
The only way, Robin, that socialists like you and Neiman can attempt to make your argument here is from a position of nescience: from a position that either involves a complete lack of knowledge about the ideological origins and development of woke culture, or that counts on the eventuality that your poor readers will have such a lack.
In my view, such pseudo intellectualism is far worse than the sycophantic identity politics conformists because it burdens the public (like so many socialist driven screeds) not with a serious inquiry after the truth but with an agenda driven ideological piece which is painfully near sighted.
A lot to munch on there. A few points. I wouldn’t have started your argument with the American revolution as an example of identitarianism. You confuse anticolonial revolution with narrow nationalism. If anything the Declaration of Independence was a universalist, not a racialist, document — and one that in part inspired the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of the examples you offer above about the problem of the “woke project” we are in agreement with, so weren’t necessary to repeat. But I think the liberalism that I support (and hopefully you do too) is not racial and exclusionary but the opposite. Your grievance is with “socialism” and that is primarily an economic project, one you don’t address in your comments here. We can discuss that too —why? — however, my version of it is pretty mild and not totalitarian so it might not be worth your ink.
My point is that woke is reactionary and not a variant of progressivism You argue it is. If we agree that identity politics in the modern framing (woke) can be traced to black nationalism (and we do agree that is where the term comes from), then we should agree that black nationalism is (was) a reactionary trend, and unhelpful. This isn’t news to anyone I know. It also shouldn’t shock anyone that Pew polls or “likes” skew this way or that (black Americans are more obsessed with their blackness than others are with their skins; people “eviscerate” Neiman online! :-o)…
I’m interested in the more serious discussion about whether the ideological aspects of “wokeism” align with historically progressive universalism, or reactionary ethnic parochialisms and nationalisms. The serious literature is pretty clear on this. This has less to do with human biological or social inclinations towards “us” over “them”. It has a lot to do with the politics of progressive change versus recidivism and backsliding, xenophobia. The fact that a lot of self-described “leftists” embrace identity politics should not surprise (I certainly don’t deny it, and I am against it). But there’s lazy thinking all over the spectrum.
Robin: No one said that the Declaration of Independence was a "racialist" document, you respond only to your own assumptions: your argument that it is "not a racialist" document could only be inspired by your assumption that nationalism cannot be anything but racist (which is a deluded notion that some radical leftists hold, not a serious political observation).
Secondly although you state that it is not necessary to repeat the tenets of wokism and their ideological origins because we are in agreement, in fact we *are not* in agreement and it *is necessary* to repeat them, incessantly if necessary, for that reason.
"But I think the liberalism that I support (and hopefully you do too) is not racial and exclusionary but the opposite." Nice virtue signal, yes, hopefully you aren't a racist right? Send another weasel signal on an anti-woke substack.
As for your next comment, that I don't address socialism in my comment and that socialism is primarily economic, very misleading. My contributions to WWC are *full* of references to socialism and how socialist thinking of one or another type has contributed to wokism. The real world impact of socialism is not primarily economic (more particularly: not in countries which have resisted economic socialism), the impact of socialist thought, spread far and wide through our universities, is cultural, in the form of cultural subversion.
The argument that woke is "reactionary" because of its deep rooted association with the black nationalist movement is opportunistic on your part but still wrong. If you are defining the "revolution" as the communist dream of uniting the entire world under one government which joins all people together as one great workers conglomerate, and the opposite of this "revolution" is "reactionary" nationalism, the black radical tradition as a whole is neither one nor the other but a perverted and self-contradicting fusion of the two. See the article "Black Nationalists and Confused Marxists" written by Tony Thomas in 1972 which discusses the exact contradiction I've just mentioned, the ideologically self-contradicting nature of radical black activism. The most impacting ideas, which have become woke frameworks for interpreting the world, come to us from thinkers who combine black nationalism, black power and so forth, with black Marxism which sees American blacks as a perpetually colonized people – a perfect example is Stokely Carmichael who was just such an ideologue and who gifted the world the idea/framework of institutional racism (later systemic racism). I've already linked you the WWC article in which I lay this out and since you still haven't read it, there's no point linking it again. But again, for other people: https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/a-moral-chimera
As for your snide remark: "people “eviscerate” Neiman online! :-o" --- is that supposed to be casting doubt on my characterization that people have eviscerated Neiman in the comments section which I linked? Try *reading* the bloody comments, Robin, if you can't fathom that people, en masse, would shit on your socialist hero and her take on woke - read the comments that's all you have to do to figure it out. I gave you the link already.
You say you support liberal thinking, Robin, oh and you *hope* I do to, but you simultaneously frame the world in an "us" the revolutionaries, and "them" the reactionaries. People familiar with the use of revolution / reaction dichotomy, a Marxist way of framing politics, would know this is not the way an actual liberal sees the world.
It's clear that for you, the reactionaries are the nationalists and the racists (to include even the black nationalists, although most of your fellow leftists would be uncomfortable with admitting that black people can be racist or racialist).
As for what the flip side is supposed to be, you describe the flip side of reactionary not as the commie revolutionary (which is the real Marxist dichotomy spelled out plainly), but the flip side of reaction you choose to frame here as "historically progressive universalism." No doubt, this is the same wording which socialist Neiman uses in her book, she chooses to pervert the meaning of enlightenment universalism, to twist its semantics so that universalism carries water for the socialist idea of one world government, one global (worker) conglomerate. For Neiman and probably for Robin, universalism is (wittingly or otherwise) a cipher for the revolution, and universalism is the opposite of reactionary.
Despite your pretense to liberalism, Robin, your sanctimonious pretense even, you read to me much more as a left of liberal.
Neiman on CBC Ideas recently: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23-ideas/clip/15977818-left-is-not-woke-susan-neiman
You seem very sensitive to contrary views but best if you respond without all the juvenile ad hominems. I didn’t say anyone (incl you) said the Declaration of Independence was racialistic but I did connect your claim about the American revolution being (primarily) about nationalism as irrelevant to the way we are discussing nationalism here (ie where a form of tribalism or nativism). No, I didn’t say “that woke is "reactionary" because of its deep rooted association with the black nationalist movement”. I said it is reactionary AND so was the black nationalist movement. Correlation not causation. “Shit on your socialist hero”? Sorry, I have read exactly one chapter of Neiman’s book and listened to one interesting podcast she was on. She made some sense. Doesn’t = hero worship. I am certainly “further left than liberal” but that doesn’t disqualify me from defending liberal principles such as universalism and non-racialism. Let me know if you want to step beyond strawmaning and I’d be willing to continue a more serious exchange.
As Dan Clemens writes (correctly in my opinion) in WWC today: “Call me crazy, I might even add, to this list of words hemorrhaging meaning, Marxists themselves. Where is the concern for the working-poor? I’ve studied some Marxism and always thought there was a core to it that pertained to those who worked their whole lives to make someone else rich – and that there’s a fair point to be made there, as a critique of capitalism. But the new-neo-Marxists [neo-squared] are instead identity-obsessed; yet the working poor all over the world, people with far less than our ‘first world’ identity-activists, people who are objectively exploited or abused or, dare I say, oppressed, don’t seem to factor in. So, what may seem a surprising inversion, the activist neo ‘Marxist’ has a bottomless hatred for the working poor or proletariat.”
Thank you James
Some may enjoy this panel discussion with Steele, Loury and others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hfm4D64Xt4
I’d be happy to engage in a civil discussion but the rhetoric level needs to be dialled down on your side.
Yes, I know of the conservatives Sowell and (the late) Scruton. I suggest, again, that you read my piece on racism. I reference an excellent discussion by other conservative black thinkers who are critical of race-consciousness (Shelby Steele in particular).
I think I address some of your comments under M’s comment. But we will need to agree on certain terms. There is a growing group of (let’s call them) Leftists who have tried to clarify the woke phenomenon as a postmodern insertion into the Left. There is a link between the left and postmodernism which is that some of the ideologues were left wing — but the rejection of “metanarratives” is an important distinction too. Personally I think the rejection of utopias (left or right) was a good contribution; yet the failing was rejection also of progress and Enlightenment. But they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left. This is worth discussing further. But as someone who has been left of centre for about 50 years I can state without equivocation that I’ve oppose this junk for all of that time, in all its variants: affirmative action, wokeism, identity politics, political correctness (which was used by leftists as a self-critical joke, don’t forget), etc. Nothing new except that this time it’s very serious and (I think we can agree) also authoritarian. Most obvious is that the traditional left emphasized social class not essentialism. The woke and the right emphasized race and other born characteristics, and underplay social class. They shift to “nationalism” and away from universalism. Those are pretty clear distinctions.
We will have to disagree about a lot, as we have done before. But it is useful to compare our very different critiques of “woke politics”. Your note that “ethnocentrism, the tendency to favor ones own group, including in effect one's own racial group” is a very right wing view and is rejected by progressives and leftists. What is unclear to me is why you are opposed to wokeism and identity politics if you elevate ethnocentrism and tribalism as worthy frameworks. I’d like to dig deeper to see how deep your “race” viewpoint goes. I am aware of human tendencies towards “in” and “out” groups, of course. I don’t know enough about Neiman’s particular version of socialism or why she likes Fanon, and I don’t really care. That seems to be a red herring. I am certainly left of centre on the economic plane and quite libertarian on the social plane. Labels aren’t always that helpful particularly if their meanings are in dispute. I have Neiman’s book now, have started reading it, and like it so far. Glad to discuss other issues with you also, but we most certainly do not share certain views about human ethnic priorities. My views on this are laid out in articles I’ve written. Have a look at the one on race linked above and see what you agree and disagree with. I’d be interested to know.
As you can see Mr. M is a passionate guy. And really knows his stuff. I admire him on both accounts. I do encourage you to present your arguments, even just so I can understand why you and others are arriving at these perspectives. I am also wondering, if you have looked at the analysis of these issues by thinkers like Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell? Mr. M can list a bunch more.
Robin - don't you bloody well dare insinuate that I am advocating for racism, which is such a weasel-faced leftist thing to do - oh no, don't be offended, I don't mean to say that you are a weasel-faced leftist, I am positively stating that it is a weasel-faced leftist thing to do. I DID NOT ELEVATE TRIBALISM AS A FRAMEWORK, I know this may put a strain on your brain, but recognizing it as a default human condition and advocating it as the desired social norm actually aren't one and the same thought, you poor fellow.
https://www.amazon.ca/Human-Universals-Donald-Brown-ebook/dp/B078NCH8WX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3W2A68N0VQ50X&keywords=human+universal+brown&qid=1680647396&sprefix=human+universal+brown%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.ca/Our-Common-Denominator-Universals-2016-04-30/dp/B01JXYM15U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GH6GNWED0UEZ&keywords=Antweiler+our+common+denominator&qid=1680647478&sprefix=antweiler+our+common+denominator%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1
And no, the observation that ethnocentrism is a human default did not come from the left or the right, it isn't something you should choose to "believe" or not. It's simply something you know or don't know. It comes from the field of anthropology (see books linked above). It ought to be pointed out that in the field of anthropology, the ratio of leftists to rightists is 56 to 1.
Your explanation to James above, about why you think woke comes from the right wing, sounds like someone at a spelling B with a mouth full of Marbles - after the postmodernists came along, "...they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left." OH really? I have a feeling you actually have absolutely no idea why it would be a right wing ideology that is driving university identity politics and no matter how many socialist authored books that you read on the topic, the argument will never be much more convincing than "they imported much non-leftwing theory (ideology) into the left." Oh did they? Under what compulsion? How about identifying a single social justice policy that has its roots in "right wing theory"? Do what I do - actually open the literature from social science courses and read what they say.
As an aside, I actually have 0 interest in corresponding on this or anything with you, you will never alter your perceptions. You won't incorporate 1 iota of the perspective James and I present here which comes replete with documentation most of the time, and you've got no intention of ever doing so. I only make replies here so that readers won't be led too far down your turnip trail.
In a word, racism is wrong but the “anti racists” don’t get that. They rationalize blatant discrimination and degradation of white people. It’s a sick zeitgeist.
Yes, but their degradation isn’t exclusive to “white people”. Kendi in particular is very clear that he thinks everyone is and will be racist. It’s hard to be “anti-racist” if you think everyone is racist. But it sells books.
I agree that our historical understanding needs to be objective. It isn’t only “traditionalists” (definition, please) who yearn for the heroic to more easily set guide posts through the muck. The more we know, the fairer we can approach the evidence, the more heroes and villains we will find. Not only should we not be one-sided in this exploration but neither need we blame the ancestors for their errors nor the descendants for their ancestors’ errors. I think that is the problem with trying to find a single all-encompassing narrative. We end up with them and us, good and bad, nothing in-between. I have two of Bruce Trigger’s books on early Canada, neither of which I’ve read (although one is sitting in front of me). He is one historian who tried to assess fairly, I think. See: Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s ’Heroic Age’ Reconsidered.
I totally agree with this. And I am curious now about Bruce Trigger too.
The "traditionalist" thing, as I use it, comes from Eric Kaufmann. He does cite some psychological research in his explanation (in the book White Shift) - he divides people generally in two categories 1) Cosmopolitans 2) Traditionalists - These categories also come from analysis of demographic survey data - where questions about immigration are asked for example.
The traditionalist is very concerned about unregulated immigration - they want it to be tempered, they want immigrants encultured into the conventions of Western society, they think if immigration is too rapid and people don't enculturate/integrate, then the essence of society will fundamentally and massively change. The traditionalist is most likely conservate politically (although not necessarily). They want to conserve traditions and the systems that order society.
The cosmopolitan is a global citizen who shares none (or very little) of the concerns of traditionalists. Cosmopolitans often mistake traditionalists as xenophobes.
The only image provided for the essay was that of “Champlain”. The irony is over getting the actors to “look right”. Not just about skin colour. My comment was meant to be amusing not accusatory.
Ok fine, I'll let you go this time lol.
But you do bring up a good point. Something I have been thinking about...and I think I've debated with you on a little bit not too long ago. The idea that identity has a harmless fantasy component that is a psychological necessity for people who are wired with traditional values. While I prefer that history be objective and accurate, what I'm getting at is for this psychological need to be met, the truth is irrelevant. In other words, traditional people need to connect with an origin story, and while they don't need to deny the evil bits, they do need to connect with a heroic narrative. In my view Champlain is one of the greatest hero's in Canadian history. If I were to write more about traditionalist origin narratives, it would draw heavily from Eric Kaufmann's work.
There is lovely irony in this statement: “If the actor playing Samuel De Champlain was a black man, it would not only be historically inaccurate, it would be laughably inauthentic...” The image used for this essay is a standard one used for Champlain. It is based on the infamous confusion of Champlain with a French councillor, Michel Particelli d'Emery, drawn by Balthasar Moncornet.* There is no actual known portrait of SdC aside from a cartoonish one of him in battle against the Iroquois.** The famous statue of “Champlain” in Ottawa in fact also shows d’Emery -- but it also shows him holding an astrolabe upside down. I hope Mr Jackson does better research for the casting.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Particelli_d%27Emery
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_War_(1609)
I don't understand why their would be any irony. It is known that Champlain is from France, if he had been a black man, there would have been some mention of it somewhere in the historical record. I think it is historically accurate to say that Champlain was a white skinned European - isn't there historical records of him being described that way? Even if there isn't, it's a fair assumption that he was white because he was from France. If the wrong image of him ended up being used, the mistake was made because Champlain was known to be white...like the person in the mistaken image.
Further, I provided other examples - John A. MacDonald, etc. So it seems a little straw-manish to focus in the one historical figure that existed before photography.