The Problem of Identity Politics and Its Solution
A very interesting discussion of one of the major reasons (IMHO) that we are seeing so much dysfunction today. When you isolate and label people as a this or a that, you immediately box them, expect specific loayalties and behavhior, and that is rarely true of the wild American. I do disagree that this is a recent invention, it has been a tool of societies for as long as there has been writing. Any time you set a preference for a group over another, it is a practice of identity politics, so ancient Egypt over Hebrews, Romans over "barbarians" Muslims over Christians (in all the many forms that has taken), English over "continentals" (French, German, Spanish, all at different times). It is recent that it has become such a fractured art, where they have invented a million things you can be, to allow for ever smaller groups to be pulled in and manipulated, that seems to be the truth at hand.
Because it's so much a part of our primitive instincts, manipulating people by relying on the fear motivation is easier than influencing by reason. Whether or not the arguments about how dangerous a particular segment of the population is pass the logical test is less important to our primitive brain than to our higher intellect.
Creating an educational system that emphasizes our victimhood undermines our self confidence, which is a product of logical thinking. That societal tool, convincing the population that they are vulnerable and somewhat helpless is what makes it easy to identify a segment of our neighbors as "dangerous." It also makes it easier to convince the "victims" that their glorious leader is the only one who can save them.
Only by reinforcing a populace's sense of empowerment and confidence can we make them less likely to fall for identity politics. Educating Americans about the strength of individual freedom inherent in American culture can serve that purpose.
perhaps a nationwide boycott of the universities. But who would join such a boycott? Perhaps many young people who see that it is not a good idea to get all indebted, with very little chance of
getting a job out of it.
how "college, college, college" was pushed on me when I was in high school. But when I saw it was not going to get me the career I wanted, I decided not to go.
Ayn Rand seemed to think that people should go to fight the educational establishment "from within", but, excuse me, I did not intend to go just for a crusade, if it was not career-oriented.
But if this country is to be saved, I do not think the educational establishment will be reformed from within.(Not to be religious, but Martin Luther saw he could not reform the Catholic Church from within, so he left and started his own). I think that if this country is to be saved, the home-schooling movement will play a significant part. And then there are private-enterprise schools.
I remember how my classmates in grade school stumbled and stumbled over words in reading; I could read easily, since my mother, a high school drop-out, had taught me phonics before I went to school.
was so bigoted and anti-Semitic; I believe he even
went along with executing Baptists. But I kind of respect him, because he did a lot to break the former near-monopoly, whatever that's worth.
But my point about him was merely: the we have an educational "establishment" in this country, which is another sort of establishment leading to thought control. And I don't think it is going to be reformed from within, but by a sort of exodus from it (that is, if we're lucky).
Thanks Walter, this is the kind of info that I would never hear about but have suspected.
I have passed this on and suggested they do the same.
Identity politics followed your graduation by a decade when Alexander Solzhenitsyn book GULAG ARCHIPELAGO destroyed any cloak of moral authority by communists. To continue the attack on capitalism they needed a new tactic and the answer was identity politics. The lefts tactics morphed into an ethno-racial battle pitting all
minorities as victims of oppression as the result of freedom and capitalism.
your essay is an example of the result of that ideology.
humanities studies of western civilization now ignore reason and judge according to victims viewpoints .
(sarcasm off)
Decent article with one glaring exception.
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."
This Lincoln quote is a fantastic example of Lincoln as consummate politician striving for power at all costs, reminiscent of Hitler-pretending to want peace while refusing to even negotiate with southern leaders. Worst murdering POTUS in history and an early adopter of identity politics to shift blame.
I remember viewing a piece of paper where Lincoln wrote out the arguments that could be made about any one of us in regards to enslavement.
July 1, 1854: Fragment on Slavery
"Lincoln often encountered views supporting slavery. In this fragment, he countered the arguments that slavery was justified based on color and intellect."
"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--"
"You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own."
"You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own."
"But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
I guess the south was too stupid, too corrupt, too narcissistic, too bicameral, to understand the argument.
Killing each other was not the best way to settle the argument but we are back to my original posit...how do you...deal with stupid?
How would an objectivist deal with the problem today...run away to a place called Galt's Gulch?
The winners always write the history books and establish themselves as saints.
How certain are you that Lincoln consistently made the arguments that you have been told he made?
Thomas DiLorenzo did the research and published two books: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.
Yea, I've been hearing: "history is written by the victors", a lot lately.
David Barton's work on lincoln isn't all that glowing either but not to the extent you have read...would be interesting to see where they intersect.
No doubt that our history has been confounded beyond reason. Dan and I discuss often how the timelines in ancient history is a big mess and don't match up to anything.
However, today there are various slavery markets in action, that never seem to get stamped out: children for sex, religious slavery (ISIS was running some pretty miserable slave rings), several underground slavery rings to nations with less "detailed" law enforcement. Yet no direct action comes from the enlightened ones who choose to lecture and yell at us for deeds from 150 years ago....
It is found that in the Philippines the typical patrons of child sex slaves are those in Our Government. (found by Mercury 1), so, here we go again...pointing their fingers at us for what they themselves do.
Don't let your hate of Lincoln get in the way of objectively looking at the Civil War. If one looks at the political history going back to the 1820's leading up to the Missouri Compromise and later the Kansas-Nebraska Act, one can see that slavery was the primary motivator for many political decisions for decades before Lincoln ever got involved in politics. You can look no further than Georgia's letter of secession (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777...) to see that the South's desire to maintain slavery was still the primary cause of their gripes - not tariffs. The truth was that the South had pigeon-holed themselves into a single industry and economic life: cotton raised on slavery. They were getting competed out of business by the North who was technologically superior and had developed machinery and mechanized industry which was far superior and efficient than the hand-labor the South depended on.
No states seceded before the election. None.
I would clarify my words: No state "officially" seceded until after the election, but several had already brought such motions to their States' legislatures for ratification and had published their full intention to secede. The official declaration was merely a formality. Seven states formally announced secession prior to Lincoln's inauguration in March - five of those within a month of the election results. They had made up their minds. Lincoln's election was the last inch on the football field - not a drastic and decisive revolt against oppression and tyranny.
If you go here (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777..., you can read South Carolina's letter, which talks not a word about tariffs, but dwells exclusively on slavery.
Next, the Georgia letter also dwells most heavily on slavery, and curiously even admits that during the signing of the Constitution it was acknowledged that slavery was to be done away with.
Mississippi's letter again spends its time in the historical grievances of slaveholding States towards their anti-slaveholding brothers. Not a hint of economic considerations.
So tell me: what am I missing here that is more important than what the actual people involved in the secession chose to make part of their official declarations?
You have to consider the rest of the story that has been suppressed because it is an embarrassment to the state and that has been published in DiLorenzo's books.
Until you open your mind to that we have nothing to discuss. I won't respond to more of the same. It's a complete waste of time.
Another thing that should be noted is that political influence during the Declaration of Independence and Constitution relied heavily on Virginia. The combined vote of the South - especially Virginia - could block any major legislation. As immigration picked up, however, it was vastly to benefit the Northern States in population - and therefore voters and voting power. The House saw its representation slowly creep toward those favoring Abolition. The trend was indisputable and the 3/5 Compromise was a last-gasp effort to buy time for the South to change while it could. Instead, however, they merely entrenched themselves. They failed to innovate and adapt and more importantly they failed to live up to their own standards in the Declaration of Independence.
I agree that the slaves were an integral part of the economy of the South. That does not ignore the facts however that those in the Southern States persisted in supporting an industry that violated natural rights and they were perfectly aware of this fact. That they had to be forced to change their minds through bloodshed was a product of their own doing. They could have forged a different path, but their ideology was far more important to them than freedom and equity. Even if Jefferson Davis had been elected President of the United States instead of Lincoln, it wouldn't have changed the demographic trends. It would only have stalled the inevitable another four years. Indeed, a census would have taken place in 1860 had not the nation split. Thus the vitriol and hate for Lincoln is sorely misplaced. If not him, it would have been the next abolitionist elected President - likely in 1864.
However, my question below still needs to be answered if at all possible...either way, all possible outcomes sucked as I understand it at this point.
So its the takers vs the makers, and of course they are at loggerheads. The takers want to take, and the makers want to keep what THEY made.