Identity politics: the good, the bad, and the hotly contested
video description
Date: 2024-11-25
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
michaelodonnell824
The idea that the Framers of the US Constitution were Colourblind is, frankly, ludicrous.
Not only were they all Male, they were also all White and also all Wealthy and Privileged.
More importantly, from the Affirmative Action position, many of them were Slave Owners and NONE of them believed that Black people (never mind Native Americans, were anywhere close to being the equal of White people.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that after more than fifty years of Race Conscious admissions, Harvard (Alma Mater to some of the Framers) still hasn't matched its admissions rate for Back to the wider US Demographic rate.
But all of this pales into insignificance when we consider that while Classical Liberalism assumes all begin as equal, in reality NONE begin as equal - and in societies that have for centuries been as racially conscious as the US (most State Constitutions in the ante-Bellum South restricted Slavery to Black people and the Jim Crow laws that succeeded the Civil War, Black people were deliberately discriminated against, there needs to be conscious policies to undo the centuries of discrimination. (Those opposed to Affirmative Action might do well to remember that since at least 1690, the US and the colonies it grew out of, was created VERY Race Conscious - it is just that the Race being privileged were Whites. Might such policies have time-limits Possibly - but it is equally possible to argue that, given the period of deliberate discrimination continued for over two centuries of US History, so should the policies that intend to create the more equal society.
reply
The idea that the Framers of the US Constitution were Colourblind is, frankly, ludicrous.
Not only were they all Male, they were also all White and also all Wealthy and Privileged.
More importantly, from the Affirmative Action position, many of them were Slave Owners and NONE of them believed that Black people (never mind Native Americans, were anywhere close to being the equal of White people.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that after more than fifty years of Race Conscious admissions, Harvard (Alma Mater to some of the Framers) still hasn't matched its admissions rate for Back to the wider US Demographic rate.
But all of this pales into insignificance when we consider that while Classical Liberalism assumes all begin as equal, in reality NONE begin as equal - and in societies that have for centuries been as racially conscious as the US (most State Constitutions in the ante-Bellum South restricted Slavery to Black people and the Jim Crow laws that succeeded the Civil War, Black people were deliberately discriminated against, there needs to be conscious policies to undo the centuries of discrimination. (Those opposed to Affirmative Action might do well to remember that since at least 1690, the US and the colonies it grew out of, was created VERY Race Conscious - it is just that the Race being privileged were Whites. Might such policies have time-limits Possibly - but it is equally possible to argue that, given the period of deliberate discrimination continued for over two centuries of US History, so should the policies that intend to create the more equal society.
reply
mntnwzrd66
Nobody complains when the profit motive cuts against the 'common good. ' Whatever rich people want is OK. It's only when poorer people want to be considered that the 'common good' gets brought up. It is not a concept 'they' want discussed much, lest it lead to thinking. When poorer people's Identity Pride blocks them from intersecting with others based on common class interest, that is when it starts being less than a good thing. In a developmental sense we might best see intense tribal affiliation as appropriate for teens up into 20 somethings. For the hegemonic culture this is the local high school sports scene. It's when we have these emotions about something other than high school sports that we are marked as weirdos. As we get past that age (rare for our primitive ancestors) we hopefully recognize the ways our human experience is the same even for those who seem so different. Screen culture does weird things to us, overloading our empathy while actually keeping us isolated. It keeps us reminded that so much is wrong, and that we cannot do anything except click like on wishing someone would.
reply
Nobody complains when the profit motive cuts against the 'common good. ' Whatever rich people want is OK. It's only when poorer people want to be considered that the 'common good' gets brought up. It is not a concept 'they' want discussed much, lest it lead to thinking. When poorer people's Identity Pride blocks them from intersecting with others based on common class interest, that is when it starts being less than a good thing. In a developmental sense we might best see intense tribal affiliation as appropriate for teens up into 20 somethings. For the hegemonic culture this is the local high school sports scene. It's when we have these emotions about something other than high school sports that we are marked as weirdos. As we get past that age (rare for our primitive ancestors) we hopefully recognize the ways our human experience is the same even for those who seem so different. Screen culture does weird things to us, overloading our empathy while actually keeping us isolated. It keeps us reminded that so much is wrong, and that we cannot do anything except click like on wishing someone would.
reply
AtroposFate
I don't get any of these arguments. Let's eliminate bias by creating and forcing bias and using racism to lift someone up. To protect peoples rights does that require us carefully consider or intentional pay no mind. ahh literally the latter. When the government puts their thumb on the scale they crush someone. Perfect way to create divisiveness and anger. The argument the social contract applies only the white men. Where, where does that say that It would be wrong. Literally not what the document says. Was interpreted that way for many years but there are constitutionally amendments to again. literally. forbid that. Governments job is to ensure every citizen is treated and evaluated equally not codifying fairness [equity]. Fairness is to be treated equally not being treated specially. You can argue why fairness isn't a good metric for the government [and fail] but not redefine fairness as treating people unequally.
reply
I don't get any of these arguments. Let's eliminate bias by creating and forcing bias and using racism to lift someone up. To protect peoples rights does that require us carefully consider or intentional pay no mind. ahh literally the latter. When the government puts their thumb on the scale they crush someone. Perfect way to create divisiveness and anger. The argument the social contract applies only the white men. Where, where does that say that It would be wrong. Literally not what the document says. Was interpreted that way for many years but there are constitutionally amendments to again. literally. forbid that. Governments job is to ensure every citizen is treated and evaluated equally not codifying fairness [equity]. Fairness is to be treated equally not being treated specially. You can argue why fairness isn't a good metric for the government [and fail] but not redefine fairness as treating people unequally.
reply
Marco_Onyxheart
I'm white and disadvantaged. I have autism and am not from a rich family. If I'd lived in the US, I would not have been able to attend university, let alone become an engineer in a country where this is a well-respected and protected title. Identity politics can oversimplistically clump some groups together while ignoring other forms of disadvantage. Education is very important, both to an individual student, and to an entire nation, and so help should equally extended across all of society. Knowledge is the greatest of our common assets, and should be shared among all. Good education should be free, and available to all people. The only determining factors in getting a degree should be whether you're smart enough and whether you want a degree. If there is any place where we should apply each to their needs, each to their ability, it's in education.
reply
I'm white and disadvantaged. I have autism and am not from a rich family. If I'd lived in the US, I would not have been able to attend university, let alone become an engineer in a country where this is a well-respected and protected title. Identity politics can oversimplistically clump some groups together while ignoring other forms of disadvantage. Education is very important, both to an individual student, and to an entire nation, and so help should equally extended across all of society. Knowledge is the greatest of our common assets, and should be shared among all. Good education should be free, and available to all people. The only determining factors in getting a degree should be whether you're smart enough and whether you want a degree. If there is any place where we should apply each to their needs, each to their ability, it's in education.
reply
Cythil
Personally, I think there need to be a perspective shift. That we are often stuck in a very narrow mindset. We like to see as it a race to a finish line, and the goal of our society is to make the race fair for everyone. And we get stuck arguing over how to make the race fair. But our society is not a race. Our goal on this journey should not be to finish first. But to make sure everyone can complete the journey. Admissions to schools are such a perfect example. We try to make it fair by claim admission is about merit. And that we can correct small unfair parts of the system. But what I really want to see is that everyone that wish to learn to have the means to do so. I think that if everyone can achieve, we will do a lot better as society as a whole.
reply
Personally, I think there need to be a perspective shift. That we are often stuck in a very narrow mindset. We like to see as it a race to a finish line, and the goal of our society is to make the race fair for everyone. And we get stuck arguing over how to make the race fair. But our society is not a race. Our goal on this journey should not be to finish first. But to make sure everyone can complete the journey. Admissions to schools are such a perfect example. We try to make it fair by claim admission is about merit. And that we can correct small unfair parts of the system. But what I really want to see is that everyone that wish to learn to have the means to do so. I think that if everyone can achieve, we will do a lot better as society as a whole.
reply
olzt100
The Supreme court ruled correctly that race never should have been a factor in any employment or educational situation. But they did not could not go back change the reality of history because what was supposed to be did not happen and skin tone was a real factor in most everything. So all the Supreme Court did was really confirm that US failed to live up to the principles that the founding father's stated for government in the preamble to the US Constitution. And with that acknowledged failing, reparations are owed or the US very well may not be a legitimate government because a legitimate government pays for harming it's own citizens. However, a mafia government does not.
reply
The Supreme court ruled correctly that race never should have been a factor in any employment or educational situation. But they did not could not go back change the reality of history because what was supposed to be did not happen and skin tone was a real factor in most everything. So all the Supreme Court did was really confirm that US failed to live up to the principles that the founding father's stated for government in the preamble to the US Constitution. And with that acknowledged failing, reparations are owed or the US very well may not be a legitimate government because a legitimate government pays for harming it's own citizens. However, a mafia government does not.
reply
evanli421
It is impossible for anybody to be unbiased, so corrective measures are necessary. Perhaps there should be a fair jury system for college admissions and other systematically unfair processes like an independent citizen-run organisation that itself consists of percentage wise representation of the whole country. if we take 2 steps, making corrective decision to from one group (whose rights will not be impacted by the decision, and letting this group decide on if another decision (whose right will be impacted, say college admissions, it may be fairer of course the more layers there are the fairer, but I think 2 is the practical limit
reply
It is impossible for anybody to be unbiased, so corrective measures are necessary. Perhaps there should be a fair jury system for college admissions and other systematically unfair processes like an independent citizen-run organisation that itself consists of percentage wise representation of the whole country. if we take 2 steps, making corrective decision to from one group (whose rights will not be impacted by the decision, and letting this group decide on if another decision (whose right will be impacted, say college admissions, it may be fairer of course the more layers there are the fairer, but I think 2 is the practical limit
reply
osbaldotheVtenman
I personally believe that liberalism where identity is scrubbed off political discourse will always be problematic in any greater social structure/context that fosters dominance hierarchies, because it makes us all intentionally partially blind to entities that un-democratic control our lives because of those very identities. A special brand of liberalism in the USA lead to corporations being treated by law as people just like you and me, but after a little bit of though we can both agree this is ridiculous. How is a limited liability, immortal, hugely powerful entity supposed to be in any way comparable to a single human!
reply
I personally believe that liberalism where identity is scrubbed off political discourse will always be problematic in any greater social structure/context that fosters dominance hierarchies, because it makes us all intentionally partially blind to entities that un-democratic control our lives because of those very identities. A special brand of liberalism in the USA lead to corporations being treated by law as people just like you and me, but after a little bit of though we can both agree this is ridiculous. How is a limited liability, immortal, hugely powerful entity supposed to be in any way comparable to a single human!
reply
zelenisok
Thinking affirmative action is (reverse) discrimination or 'unfair' is like complaining that hospitals are for the sick, soup kitchens are for the poor, and fire departments are only for people whose buildings are on fire.
And BTW international law has an awesome definition of what discrimination is: distinction, exclusion, or restriction of people which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities. So this clearly allows for affirmative actions, and precludes any complaints that such action would be (reverse) discrimination.
reply
Thinking affirmative action is (reverse) discrimination or 'unfair' is like complaining that hospitals are for the sick, soup kitchens are for the poor, and fire departments are only for people whose buildings are on fire.
And BTW international law has an awesome definition of what discrimination is: distinction, exclusion, or restriction of people which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities. So this clearly allows for affirmative actions, and precludes any complaints that such action would be (reverse) discrimination.
reply
crash_course
3: 10 i honestly feel like that sentence PRECISELY answers the overall question, even if it's a little roundabout: the presumption was always rich white men, in most of these philosophical and political discussions, and thus there is the presumption that anyone that deviates from that base assumption, is not included in the discussion of rights. I. e. Non white men, non rich people, and women.
We aren't the target demographic for a right to liberty and the persuit of happiness, and frankly you need not look further than how they treat, and have always treated women in that context.
reply
3: 10 i honestly feel like that sentence PRECISELY answers the overall question, even if it's a little roundabout: the presumption was always rich white men, in most of these philosophical and political discussions, and thus there is the presumption that anyone that deviates from that base assumption, is not included in the discussion of rights. I. e. Non white men, non rich people, and women.
We aren't the target demographic for a right to liberty and the persuit of happiness, and frankly you need not look further than how they treat, and have always treated women in that context.
reply
Kmykzy
I'm not american so I don't have any experience in places with different races and cultures, but from here and other places i've been to it feels like the affirmative action thing is used everywhere, and instead of race or other identities it just targets different levels of household incomes and it seems to be working fine so far. I also have never seen anyone complain about other people getting handouts because of their bad financial situation at home.
Like, there's financial and social inequality all round the world, why does the colour of someone's skin matter so much in america
reply
I'm not american so I don't have any experience in places with different races and cultures, but from here and other places i've been to it feels like the affirmative action thing is used everywhere, and instead of race or other identities it just targets different levels of household incomes and it seems to be working fine so far. I also have never seen anyone complain about other people getting handouts because of their bad financial situation at home.
Like, there's financial and social inequality all round the world, why does the colour of someone's skin matter so much in america
reply
DomyTheMad420
i think it's rather damaging to the entire debate to bring up the constitution so often.
one of the earlier drafts was ACTUALLY color blind and did not leave many grey areas/nuances regarding certain racial issues (slavery amongst others)
but they HAD to make a more vague draft to allow states to read the meaning themselves.
It may be the foundation for your states.
but it's beyond obvious to outsiders the foundation was intentionally built crooked.
Denying this and refusing to fix it.
RIP America.
RIP.
reply
i think it's rather damaging to the entire debate to bring up the constitution so often.
one of the earlier drafts was ACTUALLY color blind and did not leave many grey areas/nuances regarding certain racial issues (slavery amongst others)
but they HAD to make a more vague draft to allow states to read the meaning themselves.
It may be the foundation for your states.
but it's beyond obvious to outsiders the foundation was intentionally built crooked.
Denying this and refusing to fix it.
RIP America.
RIP.
reply
jobnollette1097
I think ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) as a prerequisite to affirmative action benefits could address the need for opportunity for all. Those with low scores (say under 2) would not be eligible, and those over let’s say, 6, are given full benefits Seems like it might help address the race issue in affirmative action while still helping those in the lower class. Generally speaking, there’s a correlation between children with high ACE scores and poverty, mental illness, success in life, etc.
reply
I think ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) as a prerequisite to affirmative action benefits could address the need for opportunity for all. Those with low scores (say under 2) would not be eligible, and those over let’s say, 6, are given full benefits Seems like it might help address the race issue in affirmative action while still helping those in the lower class. Generally speaking, there’s a correlation between children with high ACE scores and poverty, mental illness, success in life, etc.
reply
Ramy-mt8ho
There is underlying assumption that the government can actually do something better than normal social dynamics, I would argue that assumption is wrong, government is structure of power and that how it solve issues with power soft or hard, those usually slow down social progress, but people that love gathering power argue that the slowed down progress is to thier credit not that it was slowed down because of its action.
reply
There is underlying assumption that the government can actually do something better than normal social dynamics, I would argue that assumption is wrong, government is structure of power and that how it solve issues with power soft or hard, those usually slow down social progress, but people that love gathering power argue that the slowed down progress is to thier credit not that it was slowed down because of its action.
reply
dmitriis4075
The assumption that every subset of population (e. g. college students) should have the same proportions as the whole population is just wrong. Why don't we look at prisons for example and do something about gender and racial over representation People are not equal. They should have equal opportunity, but that absolutely doesn't mean that they should be equally successful
reply
The assumption that every subset of population (e. g. college students) should have the same proportions as the whole population is just wrong. Why don't we look at prisons for example and do something about gender and racial over representation People are not equal. They should have equal opportunity, but that absolutely doesn't mean that they should be equally successful
reply
TheLaughingPanda
I don't really understand the Politics of Difference section. I've never heard of this theory before, do you have any concrete examples to explain how the conception of specific social groups within specific contexts is different from identity
reply
I don't really understand the Politics of Difference section. I've never heard of this theory before, do you have any concrete examples to explain how the conception of specific social groups within specific contexts is different from identity
reply
johnford9455
It's really about equality of opportunity. not equality of outcome. We need much better public school education K - 12 for everyone no matter what. We do not need a system of reverse discrimination disadvantaging young white males over anyone.
reply
It's really about equality of opportunity. not equality of outcome. We need much better public school education K - 12 for everyone no matter what. We do not need a system of reverse discrimination disadvantaging young white males over anyone.
reply
siondafydd
If the reason you're looking at identity is to support those who are disadvantaged why don't you just cut out the middle man and just help those who are disadvantaged (not groups who are on average disadvantaged.
reply
If the reason you're looking at identity is to support those who are disadvantaged why don't you just cut out the middle man and just help those who are disadvantaged (not groups who are on average disadvantaged.
reply
David-zi8bk
I can't help but think that if affirmative action were to be a thing it should be targeting class rather than race, poverty rather than identity. Is this a bad take I'm definitely not well versed on the subject
reply
I can't help but think that if affirmative action were to be a thing it should be targeting class rather than race, poverty rather than identity. Is this a bad take I'm definitely not well versed on the subject
reply
Alton7771
I believe that all humans are bias when it comes to race and identity or the times are liberals take you too far yes but I feel like people don’t like it when they’re biases are pointed out
reply
I believe that all humans are bias when it comes to race and identity or the times are liberals take you too far yes but I feel like people don’t like it when they’re biases are pointed out
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
