„Woke Culture“ is a child of Neo-liberal capitalism

[Arakan]

26 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Nuance for me and not for thee is a fun game.

LBJ would have lost a few millions but still has a few hundred million on his account. I do have to work at least so that I can pay rent and eat food. Otherwise I would have to sleep on the street and starve. false equivalence. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Arakan said:

LBJ is the wrong person to fight oppression because he supports oppression.

So does  Ozil apparently. But you know at least he’s not “woke” on race issues Germany right? 

12 minutes ago, Arakan said:

But he called the genocidal regime out and lost dozens of millions as a result.

Did he? And his net-worth is still over a hundred million. Jesus.

12 minutes ago, Arakan said:

But money is not everything in life. In this regard he showed backbone. LBJ did not. 

Which makes it far less egregious for him to support a man currently in the midst committing a genocide against other groups.

 

[Arakan]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

17 minutes ago, Arakan said:

 

So does  Ozil apparently. But you know at least he’s not “woke” on race issues Germany right

Özil? which oppression does he support? 
Yes he is calling out the systemic racism in Germany and speaks against islamophobia if that’s what you mean. I support him in this regard. He befriended Erdogan which is wrong but there are many issues behind it. 

[Raja]

5 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Let's be fair: of course Fury's got an agenda. She's not hiding it, she's telling it to us very clearly. Suggesting that she's trying to sneak something by us and others in manipulating labels is very unfair.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Arakan said:

LBJ would have lost a few millions but still has a few hundred million on his account. I do have to work at least so that I can pay rent and eat food. Otherwise I would have to sleep on the street and starve. false equivalence. 

You’re dead wrong here. It’s estimated that a single tweet from a GM cost the NBA $200m. A tweet from someone most people in China probably have never heard of. A full throated response by LeBron and other star players would have cost significantly more and could have permanently damaged the leagues relations with China. The ripple effects of this would have cost billions of dollars. There’s a lot more at play here than one player losing a few million dollars.

You can’t fight every battle. Do I wish he and the NBA took a stronger stance over the China-Hong Kong issue? Yes, but the fact that they didn’t doesn’t diminish the other great work they’ve done.

[TrueMetis]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

The late Russell Means cofounded the American Indian Movement, and to his dying day (2012) he called himself an American Indian, not a Native American. AIM still exists.

The National Council of American Indians still uses it (and led the charge against the Washington Redskins).

Usage within indigenous communities varies widely, but American Indian is still quite common. The American Indian is a award-winning quarterly magazine (it's twice won awards from the Native American Journalists Association)  from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian (opened 2004).

While it's clear that some indigenous people find the term offensive, others use it and find instead alternative terms like Native American offensive instead.

Basically, the actual populace of people it applies to have varied views on it. Regardless, I think it's pretty silly to see it being claimed that it's incontrovertible that anyone uses the term -- a term still in common usage by actual live people who identify as American Indians, and their organizations! -- has some kind of agenda.

The generous takeaway is that the people claiming this are misinformed about the usage of the term.

I mean, "Indian" is still used in certain settings in Canada too, but if you call a First Nations person "Indian" you're asking to get the shit beaten out of you.

The fact that the term East Indian was coined to refer to actual Indians should really tell you everything you need to know about why you shouldn't use the term.

Or the fact that you could have written basically this exact same thing in the past about the word n*gro.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Most recent debate within this thread just demonstrates how communities (for the lack of better world, for I think it's not particularly well-suited here) aren't monolith, and that none of its members can be realistically expected to represent the entire millions-large group. You don't hear terms "Californian" or "Irish community" thrown around, mostly because it's implicitly understood that both of them encompass a variety of individuals with radically different ideas, thoughts and experiences - and not one of them could claim to represent the entire group. I really see no reason to believe Native Americans should be any less diverse. Which is good. 

Also a follow-up question for @Fury Resurrected or anyone else who knows: is there any term by which all of US's indigenous population call themselves? In other words, is there an endonym for "Native Americans" ?

____

As for @Arakan  - for one, I applaud you for making this topic and kicking off this discussion which has since breached into countless more or less related tangents while retaining little of its original idea. So I'll roll back to your original post for a little bit. You obviously dislike "woke" way of thinking - which is fine. You also dislike capitalism and the exploitation it brings - which is also fine. But then you seek to bring these two with some common denominator, which where IMO your argument falls apart, for there's little to nothing tying them together. For example, you correctly posit that neo-liberal capitalism is based on extreme individualism; but fail to notice that lot of modern "progressivism" (I don't know if that's the correct term, but I don't know any better one and I think you'll get the gist) falls into the exact opposite: staunch collectivism, for it posits that the best way to look at people is though lens of group(s) which they belong to, along with said groups' status and historical context. There's no neo-liberal individualism in that, none at all.

Moving on, you claim that both lead to entitlement, which, even if it were true (and I think that's questionable, but will proceed for the sake of argument) really tells little of them. Two different causes leading to the same consequence doesn't speak much of the relation between the causes themselves.  E.g. both coronavirus and long sports' match lead to exhaustion, but that doesn't a priori mean there's any relation between the two. Or maybe it's the other way around - one cause with two different consequence - which, again, has the same problem.

Indigenous North Americans are many groups, not just one group. It’s like having one word for all of the European continent. Like yeah, they are Europeans but they probably don’t identify with that personally. In the case of the US and Canada with indigenous people, the tie is shared experience with colonization and genocide and certain cultural elements that came with sharing that. There are actually a couple hundred distinct nations and cultures and also pretty big generational differences.

For wording, it is always best to refer to someone by their specific nation if you know it. If you don’t, indigenous is best, native is second best- in America. In Canada First Nations is typically preferred. And yeah, there are some people who are fine with being called “Indian” but most are not and of course there are some slang terms that are in group only type of words (“squaw” is absolutely a slur, but many indigenous women will call themselves this and it tends to mean a different thing when you are calling yourself it than calling someone else it- sort of like the word “bitch”. You definitely can’t use this word if you’re not one). 
 

I find the pushback half funny and half sad to people being told that “American Indian” is offensive. Is there a particular number threshold for people it must offend before it’s a good idea to use one of the many other available words? Is it surprising that direct internet sources aren’t easy to find from the demographic least likely to have internet access (or electricity, for that matter), from a group that is very hesitant to put much on the internet because of the number of closed practices within the culture? There is a whole new generation of indigenous activism, particularly surrounding MMIW, police use of force, and pipelines. We don’t need to defer to the leaders of the sixties. We have leaders today.

[TrueMetis]

8 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Indigenous North Americans are many groups, not just one group. It’s like having one word for all of the European continent. Like yeah, they are Europeans but they probably don’t identify with that personally. In the case of the US and Canada with indigenous people, the tie is shared experience with colonization and genocide and certain cultural elements that came with sharing that. There are actually a couple hundred distinct nations and cultures and also pretty big generational differences.

For wording, it is always best to refer to someone by their specific nation if you know it. If you don’t, indigenous is best, native is second best- in America. In Canada First Nations is typically preferred. And yeah, there are some people who are fine with being called “Indian” but most are not and of course there are some slang terms that are in group only type of words (“squaw” is absolutely a slur, but many indigenous women will call themselves this and it tends to mean a different thing when you are calling yourself it than calling someone else it- sort of like the word “bitch”. You definitely can’t use this word if you’re not one).

As an addition, in Canada First Nations is not considered to include the Inuit or the Métis. Those are considered distinct groups. If you were referring to all three you'd either say indigenous, or and more commonly in my experience just list all three.

[mcbigski]

Gulag extermination culture is a child a paleo marxism, but I dont go rubbing your nose in it.  I do wish the lefties spent at least half as much time figuring out how to make their utopia work as they spend figuring out how to trash and destroy our awful current lives so that we'll be ready for the actual really this time it will work we mean it collectivist revolution.

[Fury Resurrected]

I tried to go back and read some of what I missed but upon realizing LBJ in the case was referring to LeBron James and not Lyndon Johnson for some reason it seemed too big a knot to unravel

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I tried to go back and read some of what I missed but upon realizing LBJ in the case was referring to LeBron James and not Lyndon Johnson for some reason it seemed too big a knot to unravel

Yeah, especially in this context, referring to James as LBJ had me thinking of Johnson.  Almost made a smartass joke about it, but restrained myself.

[Fury Resurrected]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, especially in this context, referring to James as LBJ had me thinking of Johnson.  Almost made a smartass joke about it, but restrained myself.

Yeah the slow realization that it was LeBron someone was complaining about caring about the wrong things in their opinion and they meant a basketball player and not a president was just too much. What agenda a president would prioritize (especially LBJ during the civil rights era) makes total sense as an appropriate criticism. But what causes get amplified by a man who throws a ball into a circle????? Better not to delve

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Gulag extermination culture is a child a paleo marxism, but I dont go rubbing your nose in it.  I do wish the lefties spent at least half as much time figuring out how to make their utopia work as they spend figuring out how to trash and destroy our awful current lives so that we'll be ready for the actual really this time it will work we mean it collectivist revolution.

Your concerns seem to be more rooted in authoritarianism than a right left divide. I would highly recommend reading The Aquariums of Pyongyang. Left, right, indifferent to ideology, the problem you're talking about is control, not political theory.

7 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Yeah the slow realization that it was LeBron someone was complaining about caring about the wrong things in their opinion and they meant a basketball player and not a president was just too much. What agenda a president would prioritize (especially LBJ during the civil rights era) makes total sense as an appropriate criticism. But what causes get amplified by a man who throws a ball into a circle????? Better not to delve

This too is a bit simplistic, Kay. LeBron is an economy onto himself and he generates a lot of charitable endeavors I think you would support. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Yeah the slow realization that it was LeBron someone was complaining about caring about the wrong things in their opinion and they meant a basketball player and not a president was just too much. What agenda a president would prioritize (especially LBJ during the civil rights era) makes total sense as an appropriate criticism. But what causes get amplified by a man who throws a ball into a circle????? Better not to delve

So I had the same progress and it was very disconcerting, particularly as I happen to love the sportsball and know that Mr. James’ middle name is Raymone (so would properly be LRJ).  

 

[DanteGabriel]

I think it is possible to think professional sports leagues are terrible, oligarchic, and corrupt, and think that professional athletes' salaries are ridiculous, but also believe that an athlete has made a sincere and generous effort to give back to his community. There are a lot of selfish athletes out there. LeBron has done more than most of his peers for charity and to benefit others. I believe he has made a sincere effort to use his power, wealth, and platform to benefit the less fortunate. He's obviously not flawless and like lots of famous and wealthy people is pretty full of himself, but that seems to be a widespread human frailty. I thought his "Decision" rigmarole was pompous and cringey. I sports-hated him for years after he went to Miami (ironically we used to criticize him for being too nice, not having a killer instinct in the playoffs). I don't think any of that discounts his charitable endeavors.

But let's also be exact about what LeBron is supposed to have done in support of the Chinese government that is so abominable. An NBA team executive, Daryl Morey, tweeted, "fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong." The Chinese government reacted like a scalded cat and threatened the NBA's lucrative ventures there. LeBron commented that Morey had spoken ignorantly and didn't do his research. It was a stupid and ignorant thing to say and he rightfully got blowback for it. At no time did he express admiration for the Chinese government or endorse the Uighur genocide. What a fucked up thing to fabricate out of LeBron criticizing an NBA player executive who tweeted something political.

LeBron has been a charitable powerhouse. He has built schools, homes, and athletic complexes for underprivileged people. He's been doing this for almost twenty years. A dumb, business-motivated decision to criticize Daryl Morey's tweet does not erase all that. And again, I think it's pretty shitty to accuse him of supporting a genocide.

[kiko]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah, especially in this context, referring to James as LBJ had me thinking of Johnson.  Almost made a smartass joke about it, but restrained myself.

The other option would have been to point that out to Arrakan. For all his flaw, he has shown he is able to stand corrected ( up to a point). Not everyone has memorized the acronyms of all the elected heads of state of all foreign countries.

 

On what James has done: he absolutely made a call on what group he supports and he made the fair decision to pick groups where he belongs, like black people, NBA players, people his money supports and of course also himself. He actively decided against a possibility empty token gesture that may or may not have helped HK or the Uguirs. If people feel let down by that it is their right to feel disappointed. But they also should be aware that the fight against the oppression can't rest on the shoulders of one person alone and instead should offer him solidarity. Apart from that it is a bit silly to argue the respective merits of different professional athletes in fighting the system. They are by definition a big part of keeping the system rolling - Panem et circenses obviously.

[Ran]

8 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

The fact that the term East Indian was coined to refer to actual Indians should really tell you everything you need to know about why you shouldn't use the term.

Indigenous Americans who prefer to be called American Indians should be respected regarding their choice, just as those who prefer Native American or indigenous American. 

There's an American Indian Academy, opened 2020, in Denver, founded by Dr. Terri Bissonette who identifies as Gnoozhekaaning Anishinaab. She doesn't look super-old to me, nor do the children in the photos from the school look super-old, yet it seems they are all unaware that they should see their school's name as something they should be unhappy with.

Quote

Or the fact that you could have written basically this exact same thing in the past about the word n*gro.

The difference is that there are very many people who prefer to be called American Indians today, right now, and your feelings about that or your belief about how things will fall out in the future doesn't mean that their preferences don't exist or don't matter today.

And it certainly doesn't mean that a political scientist writing an article for WaPo The Atlantic had any kind of agenda for using one of the two most widely used collective terms in the course of their writing.

[Isalie]

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What left-wing parties are being handicapped significantly for spending too much time on the woke? Like give specifics. Don’t just complain again about the CIA or Amazon trying exploit a socially progressive aesthetic to make themselves look good.

Personally, i feel that the green and left parties in sweden either focus on intentionally or get caught by the opposition on "woke" positions which takes all focus from any class struggle. In some ways we are turning Into a neo liberal hell hole. The most grieveous instance might have been the "januariavtal" where my vote to the left helped enact economical policies that was to the right of the furthest right government weve ever had, all in the name of keeping SD out of power.

[Heartofice]

I mentioned it up thread as well but in terms of ‘woke’ hurting left wing parties I definitely think that Labour in the UK is held back by it’s association to woke policies.

Sure Starmer is no great leader but Boris should be in real trouble given all of the crap thrown his way. One big issue is that the Tories are economically left wing these days whilst being culturally more on the right, which probably fits with the populace outside of the big cities.

Even if Starmer has made an effort to distance him self from that side of the party it doesn’t seem to have worked. 
 

I suspect that the BLM protests and whole debate about pulling down statues helped the Tories quite a bit. Lots of people probably thought they were against racism but still weren’t on board with a lot of the rhetoric coming out from the left and so couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labour.

Really it’s all very well taking those extreme progressive stances but just don’t expect to be in power and be able to actually do anything. It’s the position of the permanently unelected 

[DaveSumm]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mentioned it up thread as well but in terms of ‘woke’ hurting left wing parties I definitely think that Labour in the UK is held back by it’s association to woke policies.

I see it as more of a bandwidth thing, if you talk about policies that don’t connect with a lot of people it’s taking time away to deliver messages that do connect. Labour needs one simple emphasised headline about their party: “Voting Labour Means X”. Things viewed as ‘woke’ policies may not be deal breakers, they just don’t fit that bill.

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

And it certainly doesn't mean that a political scientist writing an article for WaPo had any kind of agenda for using one of the two most widely used collective terms in the course of their writing.

I’ve said this about four times now but it’s not getting through.