But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with. I think part of the reason that there is an emphasis on "positive black voices" is the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks. So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices.
For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?
> But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with
No, it starts from the position that race is not the most important facet of a human being's life.
> So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices.
Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues, except maybe people who specifically work in that field of course, and so very little news would have racial relevance. Going out of your way to use race as a lens on every issue is why it's forced.
> Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues
I can't say race "dominates" my daily life -- but as a matter of politics it probably ranks #2 after issues directly related to income (mostly taxes). And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
Why do you think racial politics works so well? Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important? Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
There are frequently better lenses for examining these issues, like culture and socioeconomics. These explain a larger portion of the variance than race in many circumstances. For example, black immigrants from Africa have a very different outlook than American descendants of slavery [1], with black immigrants having higher educational attainment than any other demographic [2] in the US. A similar finding has been observed in the UK [3]. It's true that systemic racism has disadvantaged African Americans even after the Civil Rights movement, but interestingly the income gap is wider for black men than it is for black women [4] indicating there are more factors at play than racism alone since black women face similar amounts of discrimination as black men [5].
That said, I don't discount the impact that both implicit and explicit racism can have. I just think it's important to take a more holistic view rather than falling back on identity as the main causal factor.
> I can't say race "dominates" my daily life -- but as a matter of politics it probably ranks #2 after issues directly related to income (mostly taxes).
I'm sure it does for many, but the question is why does it rank that high? Is it because it materially affects your life, or because of other qualitative, personal reasons that don't have much material impact? You just said that material impact ranks higher than race (eg. income, taxes), so do you think race has a higher material impact on you than foreign policy, or education policy?
> And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences, all else being equal. You said "almost all", so if we put that at 80%, do you really think white people in your same circumstances (education, socioeconomic status, etc.) have only 20% of the negative interactions you experience? Doesn't that seem a bit implausible?
Isn't it also plausible that at least some of those people were already angry at you for other reasons, and then used racial insults because they knew it would anger you in return? Also a shitty thing to do, but it's meaningfully different to say that you had a negative interaction caused by your race, as opposed to a racist insult caused by a negative interaction.
> Why do you think racial politics works so well?
Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
> Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important?
Yes, most gender issues these days are relatively unimportant compared to historical norms, and shared culture defines in-groups more strongly than gender.
> Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
I think this is a false dichotomy at the core of identity politics. The most significant objective group that materially impacts literally everyone is class, and identity politics is an excellent tool for destroying class unity. Power intentionally amplifies identity politics to play on people's tribal instincts for exactly this reason.
> so do you think race has a higher material impact on you than foreign policy, or education policy?
Probably so. At least more day-to-day. At the extremes I imagine foreign policy could be huge (if we go to war with China, for example), but even the war with Ukraine/Russia has had little impact on my day-to-day life (that I've noticed).
> I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences
Probably not. And to be clear, these aren't small day to day interactions. But major negative interactions I've had in my life. From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
And these are selected examples where race was explicitly noted as the reason. There's also a bunch where race wasn't noted, but I have strong suspicions. And while this makes me cautious, it doesn't make me disengage because most day-to-day interactions with people are tend toward quite positive.
> Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
These tribes are social constructs, as it applies to identity politics. But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups. Whether it was slavery, internment camps, home loans, segregation, medical care, etc... Sure you can say, "their just constructed tribes", but when one tribe has used this construct to great advantage -- it won't go unnoticed. And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
What's an example of a race-based policy that has been or you think can be realistically enacted that has had or should/will have material benefits?
> From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
That all sucks and I don't at all doubt that such people still exist, but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help. To recap, you said that race issues are #2 in your political priorities after material/economic issues, ostensibly because of experiences like this, so what sort of municipal, state or federal policies or laws could be enacted that would help?
> But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups.
If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
> And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
Depends what you mean by "ignored", but to be clear I've been saying a few things:
1. identity politics is a pseudo-zero sum game and divides people who should unite against the people with the actual power.
2. class politics is materially more important than identity politics.
3. groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics, and this has been born out by studies on the economic impacts of class-focused policies vs. identity-focused policies.
You don't have to ignore history to ally with someone against a common foe.
> What's an example of a race-based policy that has been or you think can be realistically enacted that has had or should/will have material benefits?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is an example. Affirmative Action is another example that I have mixed feelings on, but an example nevertheless. Other examples include things like access to voting, typically at a state level.
> but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help.
Those were personal interactions meant to show where the underpinnings for where racial identity comes from. I don't think there's a policy that would fix those things.
> If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
It's been the only thing that has worked so far. Slavery didn't stop because people suddenly forgot about identity. But rather because there were people who fought against it. The "opposite direction" doesn't mean being "equally racist", but rather not being racist AND mitigating against leverage created by past racism.
> groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics,
The problem is that once this association is known the in-group fights these class policies too, even if it would've helped them. Aka, Drained Pool Politics. Welfare is a common example of this. Or even healthcare reform. Public school funding another. And if you're not aware of the underlying reason for this it'll be exceptionally frustrating because it will seem like they're going against their own interest.
>Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues
I won't presume to know your race but many americans do not live with such comfort. Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
> Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day, so even if race was a huge factor in all of them, and "huge" is debatable, this is all besides the point.
But all of those things directly affect their every day lives. Your experience and the assumptions you've drawn are not representative for large swaths of america.
I don't think folks that focus on race would actually disagree with your first point, it is the goal of every minority to have their minority status not be the dominating force in how they're perceived.
The long game has always been to take some contentious minority status and make it boring and commonplace. An example where you can see the success of the LGBT movement in real time is how "coming out" for gay folks is fading away because it's not some big deal most places anymore. Saying you like girls is trending towards the moral gravity of saying you prefer chocolate ice cream.
And how we got to this point is by making sexual orientation a lens on lots of different issues — gay marriage, sodomy laws, public indecency, access to prep, blood donations, aids treatments,... until people just start to consider their existence by default. You stop having to "advocate" for them.
And in an ironic twist of fate one of the largest contributing factors to lgbt acceptance happening so fast was huge amounts of marketing pushing pretty white people, specifically pretty white femme women as the least offensive gays to raise all ships with the tide. Once you see it you can't unsee it, the same playbook is happening with the trans folks with pretty white trans women and afab enbys.
I disagree. For all the criticism color-blindness gets now, there was a lot of progress from the 70s through the early 2000s that seems to have been forgotten in favor of divisive reporting and social media outrage posts. Just because the post-civil rights color-blind era wasn't perfect doesn't meant there wasn't legitimate progress, and that seems under threat now. Some of it is foreign actors, and some of it's coming from both the extreme right and left. They have amplifiers in social media and have managed to get prominent places of power, so they can forment their social revolutions. I count NPR as one of those now, which is a shame because it used to have good and entertaining reporting.
It sounds too much like "So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices" is "you are either for us, or against us", which has caused the world no end to misery.
Desantis is an idiot that I have zero interest in hearing about.
Unless the person has done something worth mentioning that isn't being mentioned only because of their so called "identity" I've zero interest in hearing about it, and would consider such a discussion to be bordering on racist.
As a counterpoint, I listen to The economist’s coverage of US politics. They often interview people involved with the Democrat and Republican campaigns. And I’ve found some of the interviews fascinating - particularly the republican ones because most of my friends and news are left of center.
For example, one interviewee in the trump reelection campaign said they talk a lot internally about obstruction. And so, the campaign has lined up a bunch of politically aligned people ahead of time to take over key departments in the US government if trump gets re-elected, so trump can change a lot of government policies on day 1. I find that fascinating. No matter your politics, it’s interesting to know that the “opposing parties, taking turns governing in different ways” angle seems to be getting stronger.
Hearing from people I don’t have the opportunity to understand in daily life is exactly what I listen to podcasts like this for. I’m glad this coverage exists.
Assuming that the party of the "Democrats" is the "Democrat Party" is a completely understandable mistake to make (doubly so if you're not from the US). Even if you have seen the correct name, it's easy to overlook given that our brains do not scan every letter in a word
And calling it a "right-wing extremist goal" is bizarre. As far as insulting names for political parties go, it's only extreme in being extremely mild. Is colloquially calling the British Conservative and Unionist Party "The Tory Party" also heinous?
I'm familiar with your point, but ignoring the rest of their commentary and assuming they're taking tea with Greg Gutfeld doesn't help anyone either. It's possible to use a term without knowing its dogwhistle side, and it's possible to be critical of the democratic party without being Trumpian.
Yes, thankyou. I had no idea about any of that - I thought “democrat” was just a shortening of “democratic (party)”. And I’m Australian, so I both miss many of the nuances of US politics, and I’m culturally required to use shortened forms of everything.
It's a subtle thing that some blowhard Republicans do. Fox news and talk radio have programmed them into "Democrat" being such a dirty label for a person, "Democrat party" is said with a degree if disdain by them.
You know, I think you might be onto something here. Surely this cannot just be a shorting of "campaign staff of the drmocrats" and "campaign staff of the republicans" that just looks a little weird before you think about it grammatically. No, there's clearly a multimillion dollar right-wing extremist conspiracy afoot to affect a slight change in noun phrases that will have zero impact on any policy or office.
Edit: And my typo of "democrats" as "drmocrats" clearly reveals I'm in on the vicious plot of persecution via zero impact phraseology! Probably getting a check straight from the Kochs, even.
I am well aware of this ongoing persecution complex in wikipedia form. I avoid linking it to anyone who does not cite it themselves to keep from strawmanning them, as in this case where it is not the same as what was said.
>the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks
Well, I disagree with that.
I just said NPR specifically focuses too much on identity politics, and I think Desantis is implementing anti-LGBT, anti-education, anti-freedom and anti-democracy legislation.
I dont support the dichotomy that one must either desire an abundance of identity-based journalism or be blind to the issues minorities face. I think many of the problems this country faces, which may disproportionately affect minorities, can be covered without it being race-based. Poverty, healthcare, education, environment, climate change, foreign policy affect all.
NPR is the voice of white progressives, even if more of the reporters are minorities. NPR’s audience is disproportionately white.
It’s part of the reason polls show some minority voters shifting towards Trump. They don’t see their opinions and beliefs reflected in white progressivism, even with the surface emphasis on DEI.
For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?