Stop Calling It Identity Politics — Its Civil Rights

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
338,367
Reputation
-35,108
Daps
641,725
Reppin
The Deep State


https://extranewsfeed.com/stop-calling-it-identity-politics-its-civil-rights-50ef9bdfda09#.c9fyy2ofz

Stop Calling It Identity Politics — Its Civil Rights
1*gyrlop19YlVE6ChTUfK6kg.jpeg

This election cycle, “identity politics” has become one of those phrases that joined the political lexicon. Even though it has become widely used, many people are still unsure of what identity politics means. Identity politics refers to the political interests of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups in American politics. These interests are far ranging and include everything from fighting for equal pay for women to fighting against police brutality in minority communities. Typically, identity politics has been used as a put-down by the alt left. By now, almost everyone has heard the insult: “She was engaging in identity politics, and not focusing on the real issues.” But what are the “real issues” which identity politics “distracts” us from? Generally, those who use identity politics as a deriding term want the left to focus on class instead of issues that pertain to the identities of marginalized people. When the alt-left says “identity politics,” what they actually mean is “civil rights.” They want marginalized groups to stop fighting for civil rights because that would upset poor white people who might otherwise vote Democratic, if not for minorities and women pushing their issues. Unequivocally, this is a call for white supremacy. Telling minorities or other marginalized groups that their issues are “distractions,” and that they must be subservient to the issues of white men is a path that leads right back to 1950s America. It certainly isn’t a path that leads to equality or racial justice.

The Far Left Has Begun An All Out Assault On “Identity Politics”

The alt-left has begun an all-out assault on identity politics. It is an assault which started in earnest over a year ago, with Bernie Sanders candidacy. But it has since grown into a larger movement, with far left blogs and even New York Times columnists calling for the Democratic to stop engaging in identity politics. Make no mistake, this is a purposeful push to shut out minority interests in the Democratic Party. It is a call for a kind of racial triangulation that many on the alt-left believe would appease whites. Sanders has led the charge, going as far to lob the insult that “It is not good enough for someone to say, I’m a woman, vote for me.” Not only was that a massive insult to Secretary Clinton, who had dozens of pages of policy proposals and was the most qualified candidate in modern US history, it was also a call to arms for other white people who felt the same way. Sanders is leading a group of white people who feel that the interests of minorities and women have become too prominent in the Democratic Party, and that their interests should be deferential to class interests.

Asking Marginalized People To Renounce Their Identity Is White Supremacy

Let’s be completely honest here: asking marginalized people to renounce their identity, or to make it secondary or tertiary to “class interests,” is white supremacy. White supremacy tells us that only the interests of white people are legitimate, and politics should be about maintaining structures that keep white people and their interests at the top. Asking marginalized people to be subservient and docile, especially in the face of a planned assault on their rights, is white supremacy. Telling marginalized people that it doesn’t matter if they get representatives who look like them (as long as they follow the class doctrine) is white supremacy. Follow the “identity politics are bad” logic to its natural conclusion. What need is there for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? For the Congressional Black Caucus? For women’s rights organizations? Aren’t those just identity politics which divide us and prevent us from focusing on class, which is the “real issue?” And when those institutions are gone, who will be fighting for the rights of marginalized people? Who will be fighting for women’s reproductive rights, affirmative action, equal pay, ending police brutality, voting rights, and civil rights? Certainly not the alt-left, and definitely not the right. And that’s kind of the point. There’s a reason why Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, heaped praise on Bernie Sanders for his assault on identity politics.

When They Say Stop Doing “Identity Politics,” They Mean Stop Fighting For Civil Rights

Opposition to “identity politics” is opposition to civil rights. Period. The opposition to civil rights today is similar to the opposition to civil rights in the 1960s: there are political actors on both sides of the spectrum that want to make sure that the interests of white men of all classes are put first. There are plenty of famous civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Ida B. Wells, who today might be called “identitarians,” because they focused on fighting for the rights of marginalized people instead of using class to recenter whiteness. Notice that they never call Donald Trump’s white ethno-nationalist movement “identity politics.” To those on the alt-left and the right, the politics of putting white people first, regardless of class, is simply “politics.” They reserve the “identity politics that must be stopped” bit for women, minorities, and other marginalized groups. I think what they will find is that marginalized groups and their interests won’t go silently into the night. They will stand up to the alt-left, and they will stand up to Donald Trump. Diversity is something to be championed, not discarded.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,513
Reputation
4,669
Daps
89,805
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
When the alt-left says “identity politics,” what they actually mean is “civil rights.” They want marginalized groups to stop fighting for civil rights because that would upset poor white people who might otherwise vote Democratic, if not for minorities and women pushing their issues. Unequivocally, this is a call for white supremacy. Telling minorities or other marginalized groups that their issues are “distractions,” and that they must be subservient to the issues of white men is a path that leads right back to 1950s America. It certainly isn’t a path that leads to equality or racial justice.

:patrice:
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,647
Reppin
humans
There are plenty of famous civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Ida B. Wells, who today might be called “identitarians,” because they focused on fighting for the rights of marginalized people instead of using class to recenter whiteness.

Don't actually know about the Civil Rights Movement brehs

MLK:
He saw the campaign “uniting all races under the commonality of hardship” to forge a new, interracial, class-based movement of poor people. “I’m not only concerned about the black poor,” he said. “I’m concerned about the white poor. I’m concerned about the Puerto Rican poor, the Indian poor. I’m concerned about the Mexican-American poor. We are going to grapple with the problem of poor people.” And like the Bonus Marchers, the Poor People’s Campaign also planned to descend on the nation’s capital and occupy a makeshift “city” until its demands were met.
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
42,656
Reputation
1,711
Daps
40,586
Reppin
NULL
Stop calling it civil rights - it's a grifting system for black activists!

Again, nap asking people who haven't lived in the black community in years to lead us. This is why liberalism sucks.
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
42,656
Reputation
1,711
Daps
40,586
Reppin
NULL


https://extranewsfeed.com/stop-calling-it-identity-politics-its-civil-rights-50ef9bdfda09#.c9fyy2ofz

Stop Calling It Identity Politics — Its Civil Rights
1*gyrlop19YlVE6ChTUfK6kg.jpeg

This election cycle, “identity politics” has become one of those phrases that joined the political lexicon. Even though it has become widely used, many people are still unsure of what identity politics means. Identity politics refers to the political interests of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups in American politics. These interests are far ranging and include everything from fighting for equal pay for women to fighting against police brutality in minority communities. Typically, identity politics has been used as a put-down by the alt left. By now, almost everyone has heard the insult: “She was engaging in identity politics, and not focusing on the real issues.” But what are the “real issues” which identity politics “distracts” us from? Generally, those who use identity politics as a deriding term want the left to focus on class instead of issues that pertain to the identities of marginalized people. When the alt-left says “identity politics,” what they actually mean is “civil rights.” They want marginalized groups to stop fighting for civil rights because that would upset poor white people who might otherwise vote Democratic, if not for minorities and women pushing their issues. Unequivocally, this is a call for white supremacy. Telling minorities or other marginalized groups that their issues are “distractions,” and that they must be subservient to the issues of white men is a path that leads right back to 1950s America. It certainly isn’t a path that leads to equality or racial justice.

The Far Left Has Begun An All Out Assault On “Identity Politics”

The alt-left has begun an all-out assault on identity politics. It is an assault which started in earnest over a year ago, with Bernie Sanders candidacy. But it has since grown into a larger movement, with far left blogs and even New York Times columnists calling for the Democratic to stop engaging in identity politics. Make no mistake, this is a purposeful push to shut out minority interests in the Democratic Party. It is a call for a kind of racial triangulation that many on the alt-left believe would appease whites. Sanders has led the charge, going as far to lob the insult that “It is not good enough for someone to say, I’m a woman, vote for me.” Not only was that a massive insult to Secretary Clinton, who had dozens of pages of policy proposals and was the most qualified candidate in modern US history, it was also a call to arms for other white people who felt the same way. Sanders is leading a group of white people who feel that the interests of minorities and women have become too prominent in the Democratic Party, and that their interests should be deferential to class interests.

Asking Marginalized People To Renounce Their Identity Is White Supremacy

Let’s be completely honest here: asking marginalized people to renounce their identity, or to make it secondary or tertiary to “class interests,” is white supremacy. White supremacy tells us that only the interests of white people are legitimate, and politics should be about maintaining structures that keep white people and their interests at the top. Asking marginalized people to be subservient and docile, especially in the face of a planned assault on their rights, is white supremacy. Telling marginalized people that it doesn’t matter if they get representatives who look like them (as long as they follow the class doctrine) is white supremacy. Follow the “identity politics are bad” logic to its natural conclusion. What need is there for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? For the Congressional Black Caucus? For women’s rights organizations? Aren’t those just identity politics which divide us and prevent us from focusing on class, which is the “real issue?” And when those institutions are gone, who will be fighting for the rights of marginalized people? Who will be fighting for women’s reproductive rights, affirmative action, equal pay, ending police brutality, voting rights, and civil rights? Certainly not the alt-left, and definitely not the right. And that’s kind of the point. There’s a reason why Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, heaped praise on Bernie Sanders for his assault on identity politics.

When They Say Stop Doing “Identity Politics,” They Mean Stop Fighting For Civil Rights

Opposition to “identity politics” is opposition to civil rights. Period. The opposition to civil rights today is similar to the opposition to civil rights in the 1960s: there are political actors on both sides of the spectrum that want to make sure that the interests of white men of all classes are put first. There are plenty of famous civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Ida B. Wells, who today might be called “identitarians,” because they focused on fighting for the rights of marginalized people instead of using class to recenter whiteness. Notice that they never call Donald Trump’s white ethno-nationalist movement “identity politics.” To those on the alt-left and the right, the politics of putting white people first, regardless of class, is simply “politics.” They reserve the “identity politics that must be stopped” bit for women, minorities, and other marginalized groups. I think what they will find is that marginalized groups and their interests won’t go silently into the night. They will stand up to the alt-left, and they will stand up to Donald Trump. Diversity is something to be championed, not discarded.

The author is married to a white woman. FYI


So much for black power.
 

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,145
Daps
22,343
Reppin
Bronx, NYC
This is the result of Black academics and public intellectuals embracing intersectionality but conveniently trivializing and outright ignoring class. The discussion of internal class dynamics in the Black academic community has been horrible, and so you get a bunch of middle-class Black college grads like the author who are unable to look at class through a nuanced lens.

That is not to say that the skepticism towards the newfound attitudes toward ID politics is completely unwarranted, but the article is filled with strawman's and dude clearly has an ax to grind with the so called "bernie bros. If you want to read a better written, researched, and nuanced article to provide a better context for Black progressives skepticism towards the move away from ID politics, I would suggest Adam Serwer's piece Welcome to the Second Redemption
 

Long Live The Kane

Tyrant Titan
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
17,319
Reputation
5,059
Daps
65,104
Said essentially the same thing in the thread about that garbage ass article last week... of ALL the shyt to be potentially shed from left leaning and Democratic politics, it's "identity politics" that's the most concerning and must go? Oh word? Like simply occasionally advocating for the rights of historically oppressed or marginalized groups of people somehow excludes economic empowerment of the working class or any other excuse people want to plug in it's place

I've yet to hear a single argument for this that doesn't sound like "shut up worrying about your rights before you scare off those good hard working, decent god fearing white folk over there !!!"
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
42,656
Reputation
1,711
Daps
40,586
Reppin
NULL
He makes a good point. :yeshrug:
He doesn't. His entire pov is about appealing to white female hillary fans. He wants to assuage them that their right. And he cares about still dating or, nothing on black women.
This is the result of Black academics and public intellectuals embracing intersectionality but conveniently trivializing and outright ignoring class. The discussion of internal class dynamics in the Black academic community has been horrible, and so you get a bunch of middle-class Black college grads like the author who are unable to look at class through a nuanced lens.

That is not to say that the skepticism towards the newfound attitudes toward ID politics is completely unwarranted, but the article is filled with strawman's and dude clearly has an ax to grind with the so called "bernie bros. If you want to read a better written, researched, and nuanced article to provide a better context for Black progressives skepticism towards the move away from ID politics, I would suggest Adam Serwer's piece Welcome to the Second Redemption
Said essentially the same thing in the thread about that garbage ass article last week... of ALL the shyt to be potentially shed from left leaning and Democratic politics, it's "identity politics" that's the most concerning and must go? Oh word? Like simply occasionally advocating for the rights of historically oppressed or marginalized groups of people somehow excludes economic empowerment of the working class or any other excuse people want to plug in it's place

I've yet to hear a single argument for this that doesn't sound like "shut up worrying about your rights before you scare off those good hard working, decent god fearing white folk over there !!!"
Exactly. And these black intellectuals have no idea as to how to fix the problems in the community they claim to represent.


Also, "identity politics." Has been about the LGBT recently and bathrooms.Some older black folks are still opposed to that. So what does that have to do with keeping black issues front and centre?


These black media type marry out, live in white neighbourhoods, their kids attened white schools. Stop giving them time.
 

Camile.Bidan

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
1,973
Reputation
-1,756
Daps
2,325
Purple-haired fat women and transgendered transformers have nothing to do with civil rights.

Re-defining "curvy" isn't civil rights

What about short broke guys? Can we re-define attractiveness for them?

Was condellezza rice the first female Sos? Wasnt Sarah the first female VP to run in a major party. Funny how identity politics judgementally applied.
 
Top