Mark Greene believes we are ALL under siege by a political system that seeks to pit us against each other.
To quote Joanna Schroeder at The Good Men Project:
“If you’re not familiar with John Derbyshire, he’s a relatively well-respected writer and contributing editor at National Review. He recently published a piece in Taki’s Magazine called “The Talk, Non-Black Version”, in which he shares the advice he has given his children about how to stay safe. From black people.”
Since then, a debate has raged about Derbyshire’s offending article. It first appeared in Taki’s Magazine under the title “The Talk, Non-Black Version”, The most prominent defense of Derbyshire? “He’s just saying what most people are thinking.”
It is rationales like this that quickly and quietly grant racism its power, conjuring images of the oppressed suburban middle class, shuffling along, muttering their endless (valid) fears about race, suppressed from speaking them out by politically-correct muticulturalist censors. With a single sentence, the moral imperative to oppose racism is reduced to yet another shrill example of political correctness.
The apologists who employ the ”he’s just saying what most people are thinking” defense of Derbyshire and others like him, seek to remain one step removed from the racially charged content of his message. They make an oblique case for Derbyshire’s ideas, by framing his work as “keeping a painful but honest dialogue going” or “honesty in a time of political correctness.” It’s a passive endorsement of the sharing of racist ideas by framing it as maintaining a fully inclusive dialogue. They get to defend the messenger without having to take any heat directly on the merit of his arguments.
This brand of strategic push back is the newest front in the ongoing battles surrounding race in America. That the ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement have somehow, half a century later, cost non-minority Americans the right to be heard. The meta message is a simple one: if you are not a minority, you are losing your power. You are being marginalized, even victimized.
Non-minorities (mostly, but not always, white males) now aggressively self-identify as America’s new oppressed victim class. And they do it with a vengeance.
And you know what? They’re right. But not in the way they have been led to believe.
Yes, America’s non-minority middle class is under siege. I heartily agree with that. But not due to their race, sex or religion. White, Black, Latino, Asian and “everybody else America” are ALL under siege, by a political system that, in a myriad of ways, and for a myriad of reasons, seeks to pit us against each other, divide and politically control us all, while systematically funneling all our resources in an ever increasing flow upward to the top.
Our American political system does not reflect a single monolithic agenda but rather many parallel agendas working sometimes in concert, sometimes not, to move the money upward. But the results remain the same.
The middle class is slowly strangling to death. The underclass is growing daily. All our resources are being stripped away from us. We are losing our earning power, even as the price of everything we need—food, transportation, education, housing and health care climbs higher and higher. And those who relax in the corporate boardrooms and the political halls of power aren’t particularly troubled. Because they know that accountability in America will never likely be about the deeper systemic issues of economics or class as long as they can keep us focused on false binary battles about abortion, feminism, religious freedom, homosexuality, guns, gays, and that old tried but true chestnut, race.
These wedge issues are spoon fed to us daily by a media who’s power and profits are driven by encouraging binary political battles. A media tasked with keeping us angry, distracted and ignorant. A media that nurtures the divisions among Americans.
Political leaders have used divide and conquer strategies to consolidate power for thousands of years. The British Empire raised it to a high art in places like Ireland, pitting Catholics against Protestants. You’d think by now we would recognize it for what it is.
But Americans continue to fall for the binary bait. We continue to see the other half of our own nation as the enemy. We continue to allow ourselves to be manipulated into conflicts that make losers of us all.
Amidst all this, we are still trying to come to terms with Martin Luther King’s legacy. We are still arguing about race in America. Some say racism no longer exists. Meanwhile, others are demanding space in the public square for work like Derbyshire’s. Because its ”what everybody is thinking…”
But at what point does sharing your frank and honest opinion about race become yelling “fire” in a crowded theater? It seems to me, we have been down the “honest talk about race differences” road before. For example, in the 1930′s. In Germany.
People who suggest that “honest” (sic: racist) talk should have its place in the American dialogue, are (consciously or not) supporting a very dangerous agenda. Encouraging tolerance for racist ideas in our public discourse is, in fact, a path to chaos. It makes people ripe for political manipulation, division, and conquest.
And for the people in power, that’s just good business. But for the rest of us, it will be our downfall.
Photo courtesy DonkeyHotey
About Mark Greene
This is really, really good, Mark.
they know that accountability in America will never likely be about the deeper systemic issues of economics or class as long as they can keep us focused on false binary battles about abortion, feminism, religious freedom, homosexuality, guns, gays, and that old tried but true chestnut, race.
Spot on. Similarly, I’ve been re-reading (not really by choice, it’s a long story) Warren Farrell’s Myth of Male Power in recent days. It’s a dreadful book in many ways, but one of the whopping great failures is that it completely ignores the role of economics and class in the causal analysis of men’s issues, and consequently identifies a shedload of genuine, serious injustices facing men, but falsely attributes their origins to women and feminism, when it is almost entirely about macroeconomics .
By the end I just wanted to thwock him over the head with a heavy volume of Das Kapital or something.
This has been a healing experience, thanks!
“but falsely attributes their origins to women and feminism, when it is almost entirely about macroeconomics .”
I didn’t get that from it, it seemed more to me that he was trying to establish that the problems exist rather than suggesting causes or solutions.
Unfortunately, I read the Derbyshire article, and I’m pretty sure my IQ went down about 5%. Granted, it wasn’t too high to begin with, but still! I can’t believe someone actually wrote that. I only hope African Americans understand that Derbyshire’s “Talk” is NOT what Caucasian parents tell their children. Unless, apparently, the parent is named Derbyshire and writes insipid articles about race.
Yes, America’s non-minority middle class is under siege. I heartily agree with that. But not due to their race, sex or religion. White, Black, Latino, Asian and “everybody else America” are ALL under siege, by a political system that, in a myriad of ways, and for a myriad of reasons, seeks to pit us against each other, divide and politically control us all, while systematically funneling all our resources in an ever increasing flow upward to the top.
I think this may be a part of what sets people of certain groups off. For example in the gender discourse its mostly been about women, women, women, and that’s fine. But when men started speaking up some folks started insisting that its not because we’re men but its something that affects “everybody”. There is a feeling that its fine to speak specifically about certain groups but when speaking about other groups all of sudden such talk is divisive and it should be about everyone. Something of a, “where was this talk of ‘everyone’ when I was being silenced? now that I’ve found my own voice I’m supposed to use it in a specific way that, if I expected that same way of other, would be considered wrong?”
It seems to me, we have been down the “honest talk about race differences” road before. For example, in the 1930′s. In Germany.
Nazi comparison aside there is a big difference between talking about this stuff (with the hopeful goal of changing such thoughts) and giving those voices political power to do things anywhere near what happened in 1930s Germany.
Political leaders have used divide and conquer strategies to consolidate power for thousands of years. The British Empire raised it to a high art in places like Ireland, pitting Catholics against Protestants. You’d think by now we would recognize it for what it is.
I think one reason it keeps happening is because each time some new entity comes into power they either maliciously want to keep people divided for the sake of maintaining their power or they truly think that keeping themselves in power is what’s best for the people they lead/rule over. The former are just messed up in the head and the latter are the equivalent of Boromir from LotR, using darkness to fight darkness.
Thanks for your comments, Danny.
I’d like to respond briefly.
“I think this may be a part of what sets people of certain groups off.”
I want to say, for the record, that being “set off” is not an inalienable right. Some people are “set off” twenty four/seven on all sides of any issue, and it sucks to deal with their blowback. BECAUSE we, as men, have suffered abuse, then its up to us to stop passing it on. That said, your tone has always been respectful of others and I want to personally thank you for that. It is what makes dialogue and learning possible.
You go on to comment:
“For example in the gender discourse its mostly been about women, women, women, and that’s fine. But when men started speaking up some folks started insisting that its not because we’re men but its something that affects “everybody”. There is a feeling that its fine to speak specifically about certain groups but when speaking about other groups all of sudden such talk is divisive and it should be about everyone. Something of a, “where was this talk of ‘everyone’ when I was being silenced? now that I’ve found my own voice I’m supposed to use it in a specific way that, if I expected that same way of other, would be considered wrong?”
As a member of the “silenced males” on a range is issues, including gender, I can tell you that I do not oppose a male point of view on issues. But I will say that too many men have been convinced that ONLY the male perspective is fully valid because it has been suppressed wholesale, and suppressed specifically by non-male interest groups. I hold this as a manufactured division, created by forces who seek to foster a divide and conquer strategy.
“These wedge issues are spoon fed to us daily by a media who’s power and profits are driven by encouraging binary political battles. A media tasked with keeping us angry, distracted and ignorant. A media that nurtures the divisions among Americans.”
You are right about the problme, wrong about the solution. In Europe, racist speech and/or writing is often illegal, and usually results in loss of employment (under the guidelines set by the European commission against racism and intolerance). This approach does not work. Europe has far worse race problems than the US does (even though they are far less racially non-homogenous).
It has become fashionable in America to fear blacks, and to dislike Hispanics. I can not speak about the fear, because I am not black. As to the dislike, this is exactly how I want it. Let people make fun of my food, my looks, my accent, my intellect, and most of all my children (you can stock a petting zoo with the final word of the phrase “they breed like ____ “).
It is water off a duck’s back, just harmless snickering.
If government steps in to “protect” me and my family, this “dislike” will become “anger”, and then “rage.” No thanks. Spare me your “special protection.” Words hurt, but not as bad as sticks and stones.
“Europe has far worse race problems than the US does (even though they are far less racially non-homogenous).”
I’d argue that a lot of Europe’s racial issues stem from the fact that they are relatively racially homogeneous.
Many European countries did have a habit of tearing across the known world and enslaving, looting, claiming, and “civilizing” non-European people a several centuries ago…
The U.S. pretty much did the same thing, albeit the U.S. stopped once it hit the Pacific Ocean.
Certainly did but I think one reason it might be (at least seen as) worse is in the Europe is because some of those did it for longer than the US has even existed. Counting from 1776 the US is 236 years old. 236 years is a drop in the bucket compared to European history. They did it longer and harder, and you could even argue that we learned it from them.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. But so, that was still taking over countries/regions that were far away. The ‘homeland,’ so to speak, still remained largely homogeneous. Then we’ve got people from former colonies moving to these previously homogeneous regions, and it causes tension. I’m mostly thinking about the racism in Thatcher’s Britain, with this.
I’m not really arguing with you, by the way…I’m just spouting out ideas and thoughts. I don’t really have a point I’m trying to make, exactly.
Yeah no arguemnt, just an exchange.
Didn’t think that was possible online.
I know right? Nah I’m enjoying my exchange with Mark right now to start arguing with someone.
“Europe has far worse race problems than the US does (even though they are far less racially non-homogenous).”
Can I ask what you are basing that on?
Obviously Europe has the history of Nazi Germany, but then the USA was built upon slavery.
In recent / current years, I’m not at all sure it is self-evident that Europe has bigger problems than the US. Sure, Europe has overtly racist political parties, but that’s largely a product of multi-party systems, whereas in the US they mostly congregate (and find a welcome home) in the GOP.
There are racist crimes on both sides of the Atlantic. There are controversies around racist policing on both sides. There are sporadic riots with elements of racial tension on both sides.
I’m not particularly flying a flag for Europe, god knows we’ve got our share of problems over here and racism is a big one, but in all honesty I look at some of the stuff that goes on Stateside and I’m thankful that I don’t think it could happen here.
I want to say, for the record, that being “set off” is not an inalienable right.
Oh I wasn’t trying to say that it was. Only trying to get into where some of this hatred comes from.
As a member of the “silence males” on a range is issues, including gender, I can tell you that I do not oppose a male “point of view” on issues.
I’m glad you don’t. But there are those who do. It may not be as a direct as saying the male POV should be ignored (even though that can happen). It may come in the form of “oh here come ANOTHER male…” said with a condescending declaration that since we share gender are must all think, feel, and do the same therefore hearing from a small portion means that they have already heard from all of us. AKA Guilty by gender association.
But I will say that too many men have been convinced that ONLY the male perspective is fully valid because it has been suppressed wholesale, and suppressed specifically by non-male interest groups.
I certainly agree that this has happened with some men. But bear in mind that some of them come from repeated experiences of being told that their male perspective is ABSOLUTELY invalid for the sole reason that their perspective is male (or “shut up! you’re privileged!” if you will). And this is sometimes happening at the hands (or mouths) of non-male interest groups (as well as other entities as well).
I hold this as a manufactured division, created by forces who seek to foster a divide and conquer strategy.
Regardless of who created this division (and I think you’re right by the way) there is still the matter of other groups that while they did not create it, have no problem using it to their advantage when it suits them, sometimes even as they say such divisions and problems are wrong and should be done away with. Some of those non-male interest groups have a hand in maintaining this division as well in this manner.
I’ll agree that there are a lot of guys going too far and some of them are not thinking right but honestly as someone who has fought off milder versions of these thoughts, sometimes I don’t blame them for thinking some of them. For those on the mild end, or for any that can be saved from that hateful path, shutting them up while demanding they change probably won’t work, trust me on this.
Hey Danny,
I’m totally with you on the “milder versions” of these thoughts thing. Some of these ideas we all share are actually valid when not expressed through a hateful lens. And as for the men and women on the hateful path, in my experience they can’t be “shut up”. Not until they themselves understand how utterly tragically self destructive that path is. (Been there myself. Know that path well.) When they see that they’re just continuing the work of their absent (and possibly long gone) abusers, they’ll take themselves off that path.
Some of these ideas we all share are actually valid when not expressed through a hateful lens.
Agreed. I think what happens is that some people, when silenced to a breaking point, the hateful lenses come out.
And as for the men and women on the hateful path, in my experience they can’t be “shut up”. Not until they themselves understand how utterly tragically self destructive that path is.
By “shut up” I was talking about the silencing that went on before they started that hateful path. In other words for some of these folks the “shutting up”, “shutting out”, and silencing didn’t just start when the Lens of Hate was applied, no it started before that. You could even say those things may be why said lens was applied in the first place.
Not until they themselves understand how utterly tragically self destructive that path is. (Been there myself. Know that path well.) When they see that they’re just continuing the work of their absent (and possibly long gone) abusers, they’ll take themselves off that path.
I can agree with that. To me a key part of understanding the self destructive nature of this path was coming across people that actually acknowledged my pain in the first place. I think that if someone on that path can come across such an acknowledging person in time the chances of them coming around are much better.
(And for the record acknowledgement is not things like “I know you were hurt but so and so has it worse”, “I know what happened to you but what happened to you doesn’t compare to….”, “…but we’re not all like that”, “I know….but….was it really that bad?”, “I know….but….you’re privileged and they aren’t.”.
The reason it took me so long to start working my way off this path is because this is what I was constantly getting. Statements like this aren’t acknowledgement, they are attempt at, “There I said something about it so will you please shut about it now?” I had heard that so many times I had even began seeing in places when it wasn’t really there. Did I take it too far? I certainly did but at the same time there is a big difference between taking something too far and creating something from nothing.
Its my belief that some of these folks have taken real pain too far, just as I believe that some of them actually did create their pain from nothing. How to separate the two is beyond me.
When they see that they’re just continuing the work of their absent (and possibly long gone) abusers, they’ll take themselves off that path.
I think an extra obstacle is when the people that hurt them are not only not long gone, but are still in the spot light being praised as if they did nothing wrong or even having the pain they caused being praised as if it was the right thing to do. But I get your point.
And I yours. Yeah, my “assholes” are gone. Or more accurately, I’m gone. Lucky me. But if I had to watch them continue to carry on in public, I would probably go apeshit pretty quickly.
AND I definitely get your point about qualified empathy. Half ass empathy is no empathy at all.
And I yours. Yeah, my “assholes” are gone. Or more accurately, I’m gone.
Lucky you. The ones that hurt me are still actively pissing about that they are a necessary part of the solution (so necessary in fact that if you don’t align with them its proof you’re a bigot).
But if I had to watch them continue to carry on in public, I would probably go apeshit pretty quickly.
And indeed I do.
Actually I’ve been thinking about something.
As we’ve said people who turn to hate sometimes do it because before hand they were actively silenced when they shouldn’t have been. Do you think this is where (at least some) trolls come from? It makes sense. They were silenced and denied attention to the point that they decided that they will do whatever it takes to get attention, even if its the wrong attention.
I’m asking this because for the most part people just write trolls off as attention hogs and stick to the idea that they became a troll solely for the attention and that that desire for attention was always based in bad faith and ill will. But what if that desire for attention wasn’t always based on that? What if they had good reason to have been trying to speak up earlier but were silenced for so long they gave in to hate and went troll and now don’t care where the attention comes from?
If I could draw, I’d create a cartoon of a pack of tiny, squabbling mice in the corner of a room, each labeled Race, Religion, Gender, Sexuality, Ethnicity… and the vast majority of the room taken up by an enormous elephant they’re all studiously ignoring, wearing a banner that says “CLASS.”
I like this, Copyleft.
Use of the elephant in the room adage?
I see what you did there.
I’m not sure I’ll ever buy that class is the overwhelming social label that dictates these societal oppressions we talk about. 1) It’s too simple, leaving out a lot of the complexities that go into making up “class”. 2) It fails to explain why Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and many other wealthy People of Color do not suddenly stop experiencing racism. 3) Same thing, only insert sexism.
Actually, there’s a great article that talks about this kind of point: http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/activism/tragedy-token-occupy-white-liberalsradicals/
As we’ve seen race and gender are not “tiny little mice” but incredibly huge issues that affect us all. Comparing race to class or gender or whatever combination you put is like comparing one person’s suffering to another. It’s an Oppression Olympics to find out which is the “most important” label we need to worry about. “What’s more important, race, religion, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity?”
Answer: all of them.
And this is a problem for White liberals ESPECIALLY, because in movements like Occupy, like Slutwalk, and other protests, the message fails to include the lived experience and unique challenges of entire groups of people, who are subsequently dismissed and marginalized for another label seen as the “more important issue”. This kind of action — like saying class is more important than race — is yet another function of racism. Same thing when talking about sexism.
Anyhoo, just my two cents. Spend it how you will!
I would suggest that Obama’s experience of the world, including racism is SIGNIFICANTLY cushioned by his class position. He can say things like, “arrest that man” or “make that guy the Secretary of the Treasury.”
Wealth informs every other human struggle, because it insures you have at the power, influence, authority, space and time to deal with an event that is challenging. You don’t have to “roll with the punches”. You can punch back.
Although we might need to worry about race, religion, gender, class, sexuality and ethnicity, Rupert Murdoch does not.
Add to that the fact that if the Rupert Murdoch’s of the world pull all the world’s resources into their own bank accounts, the rest of us have less resources with which to cushion ourselves from the challenges of the list above. Economics underscores EVERYTHING.
Exactly, Mark. When you’re poor or even middle-class, race and gender and ethnicity can be huge obstacles. But wealth somehow makes all those problems shrink down to trivial nuisances.
Mark,
No doubt Obama has some class privilege. But that’s not the issue. The point is that despite his privilege he still experiences racism, and so clearly class is not the only factor which we need to address. I hazard a guess that if suddenly everyone was wealthy enough to live a comfortable life that wouldn’t stop racism or sexism. Indeed, I think these would become bigger problems than they already are since we’re now no longer focused on one issue to the exclusion of others.
Another example would be explaining how wealthy, and otherwise talented Black or Hispanic actors/actresses are only cast as racial stereotypes. (See, The Help.) Or how about how Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign for comments that turned out not to be racist, yet Rick Perry is still governor of Texas? Moreover, when we compare people from the same class, there are still stark differences which are clearly demarcated along racial categories, as well as gender categories too. It’s pretty established that race is just as important as class, in addition to numerous other labels.
But I understand how difficult it can be for people to take a kyriarchal approach, and really look at things like intersectionality, like globalization, and like multi-facteted oppression. Sometimes we can only process one specific way that people are oppressed, as opposed to the many intersecting factors that affect our lives. It gets too complex, and I’ve personally witnessed otherwise intelligent people just shutdown from the overload of trying to understand how race, class, gender, as well as other factors operate in mutually reinforcing and often contradicting ways which greatly affect our lives. Instead they focus only on those they’ve personally experienced.
And this inability to fully grasp this concept is something more common with White people, who *generally* don’t have to deal with the worst forms of racism, religious intolerance, hegemony, globalization, and other such systems — especially White people who “should know better”, AKA liberal Whites.
Well….. I’d say we’re talking past each other a bit here. I guess my point is that class and economics are overarching issues that intersect with all these other issues. I certainly don’t mean to imply they function in a way that is exclusive of other issues. What I said was, it’s a lot easier to be gender confused and rich then it is to be gender confused and poor.
To suggest that we are not impacted by a multiplicity of issues would be to deny the most basic processes of what it is to be human. (So, you won’t find me doing THAT… LOL.) We humans are nothing if not holders of the both/and. We just try and simplify things when it gets to be too much. Then we have a martini.
Let’s just say I’m speaking for the part of the equation that up until recently was most suppressed in American political dialogue. Although, I have to hand it to the Occupy folks, they sure got the issue of the 1% out into the public discourse…