I don't think I'm one of them either. I'm one of mine.

Category: Doing Woke Wrong (Page 3 of 3)

If you’re looking for a Palestinian Nelson Mandela, he won’t be in Hamas

This isn’t a contrarian opinion in the Western mainstream media, but it is contrarian for a leftist: I do not support the Hamas uprising. This is not because I agree with the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians, especially in Gaza—in fact, I find Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians repugnant.

But if Israel is analogous to South Africa, Hamas and its leaders are no Nelson Mandela. Hamas uses civilians, including children and the elderly, to strike fear into the hearts of all Israelis—and Jews generally. Hamas thrives on fear, intimidation, nationalism, chauvinism, hatred, religious dogmatism, obscurantism and authoritarianism. They have included elderly Holocaust survivors among their hostages. Hamas ostensibly fights for freedom, but it restricts the civil rights and liberties of its own people, even absent of Israeli or Egyptian control.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

I am not opposed to the use of violence to defend or agitate for freedom. Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, for example, used both violent and non-violent tactics to topple South Africa’s apartheid regime. The ANC’s goal was to establish legal, social and political equality for Black South Africans. It was not to establish an antisemitic, chauvinistic, religious and ethnic nationalist state. The ANC’s primary targets were government buildings and officials. They did not attack hundreds of revellers at music festivals during religious holidays. Hamas killed more people in one day than the ANC did in ten years. It bears more resemblance to the Nazi-sympathising Ukrainian “freedom fighters” who slaughtered Jews and Poles in the interwar period and World War II—think of the wizened SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka, so recently applauded by Canada’s Parliament and Volodymyr Zelensky.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

Palestine deserves better. But that “better” does not, or should not, include Hamas. I do not and will never support Hamas. Even anti-Zionist leftists should resist supporting a right-wing, ethnic nationalist, fundamentalist religious movement that will bring nothing but more oppression, fear and war. Even the tankies’ beloved Russia hasn’t come out defending Hamas. Movements for liberation should inspire hope. They should lead people to dream of better lives than they or their parents had. They should respect the freedoms of those seeking liberation. Hamas has done none of those things. The government in Gaza is an authoritarian regime that resembles the other Islamist states in the Middle East, and its goal is to terrorise Israelis into leaving and creating yet another Iran or Saudi Arabia in its place. Israel has a lot to answer for, but Hamas is not the solution.

In fact, Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

 

There is no such thing as the “collective West”

If I see the expression “collective West” in English-language articles, I tune out immediately, since I know that I’m going to encounter undiluted Kremlin propaganda, either from Russians or foreign admirers of the Putin regime, including tankies, vatniks, so-called libertarians, and ultraconservatives, and it often comes alongside disparaging attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, feminists and others who challenge the patriarchy. For some, it reflects a hostility towards liberalism—that is, non-authoritarian politics, rather than the European sense of deregulated free markets or the American sense of barely-left-of-centre views. And for others, it is merely a catch-all term for the United States, NATO, the European Union, and possibly Australia and New Zealand alongside them.

But this unity is a myth—and Russian officials and propagandists know full well that there is no singular “Western consensus.”

Here’s why.

Trumpers, Tories, and TERFs—oh my!

Russian propaganda may portray Ukraine’s supporters as libertine, decadent states devoid of conservative “family values,” but this is not in keeping with these countries’ domestic policies. We’ll use four countries as examples: the United States, Poland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Though I’ll be sticking to four countries, we could easily substitute France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, all of which have right-wing governments or nascent far-right movements.

United States

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows about our extreme polarisation. The idea that this country is a free-for-all feminist and LGBTQ+ paradise is easily disproved by the spate of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-woman bills, laws and executive orders pushed through by doctrinaire Republican legislators, Supreme Court “justices” and state governors over the past two years. Our rights may have advanced in more progressive states like California, Massachusetts, and New York, but they have regressed in red states, including Texas, Missouri, and Florida.

Russian officials will find a lot in common with governors like Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida, all of whom have launched crusades against LGBTQ people, Black activists, and anyone else who challenges the established conservative order. And Donald Trump is back on the campaign trail, this time using culture-war issues like trans youth to keep his ultraconservative voters engaged—and ensure that he doesn’t lose support to DeSantis and other Republicans who appeal to Christian fundamentalists.

And although some “America First” Republicans (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene) have questioned the need to provide Kiev with more military support, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives has approved multiple military-aid packages.

Poland

Poland, one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, is an extremely conservative Roman-Catholic-dominated country not known for its LGBTQ+ friendliness or feminist attitudes. It’s probably a hair away from Russia in this regard—the dictatorial repression may not be as extreme, but the conservative environment is still suffocating for queer Poles. The country even has “LGBT-free zones” (mostly in the south-east): something unthinkable even in the reddest of red states, at least not formally. There are liberal and progressive Poles, just there are liberal and progressive Russians and Italians, but they do not control the national government. Poland is considered one of the worst countries in the EU for LGBTQ+ people, and yet it works closely with Kiev in the anti-Putin war effort.

Italy

Italy is an unwavering supporter of Ukraine’s efforts to repel the Russian invasion. It is also led by Giorgia Meloni, who is the furthest-right Italian leader since Benito Mussolini. Her Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party is an outgrowth of old-school fascist movements. Far-right politicians in other countries—for example, the leaders of Germany’s AfD and the French Rassemblement National (National Rally, formerly Front National)—have balked at providing Kiev more support, but Meloni is not among them.

Although Italy is a safer place for LGBTQ+ people than Russia or Hungary, it has the fewest legal protections or rights for LGBTQ+ people in Western Europe; it lags far behind countries like Germany, France, the UK and Spain, which have all legalised same-sex marriage, allow for legal transition, include hate-crimes protection, and more.

United Kingdom

The Conservative-led British government has consistently supported Ukraine throughout the full-scale invasion, but their support for Kiev in no way suggests that the country is as liberal or progressive as Russia claims it is—unless they mean “classical liberal,” rather than “non-authoritarian” or “social libertarian.” Some of the loudest pro-Ukraine media outlets are also some of the most conservative, especially the Daily Mail and Daily Express, along with the more genteel Times and Telegraph.

Although British politicians are comparatively less hostile toward queer and trans people than their Polish, Italian, or Russian counterparts, there has been an alarming rise of homophobic and transphobic rhetoric coming from both Tory and Labour politicians, as well as the press. Some Tories, such as Suella Braverman of the Home Office and the “Equalities” minister Kemi Badenoch, are especially hostile. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were not known for their social progressivism either. The days of David Cameron and Theresa May are long over. The UK, once listed as the most LGBTQ+-friendly country in Europe, no longer has that reputation—it has been slipping in the rankings over the past eight years.

It’s also important to remember that the UK has been the primary exporter of homophobia and transphobia. For example, the “anti-buggery” laws in African and Caribbean countries like Nigeria, Jamaica and Uganda are colonial leftovers that the locals now see as their traditional values. Before “muscular Christianity” arrived on the African continent, many cultures, such as the Igbo of what is now Nigeria, had more fluid views of gender.

Why the “collective West” charge is disingenuous

The Russians’ condemnation of the “collective West” has nothing to do with the political composition of NATO or EU states. It doesn’t have jack shit to do with LGBTQ+ rights or “moral decay.” It is just an excuse to legitimise its attempts to annex the entirety of Ukraine to the Russian state. No self-respecting leftist should use the “collective West” narrative; it’s merely self-serving Kremlin waffle.

In fact, American evangelicals have worked with Russian Orthodox fundamentalists to persecute queer and trans Russians. The media has covered Russia’s exploitation of our internal tensions for its own geostrategic interests—for example, the “Heart of Texas” and “Black Matters” Facebook groups that popped up during the 2016 election.

There is no such thing as the collective West—only countries that aren’t lining up to do Russia’s bidding.

 

Do you even listen to yourselves?

“This is a product of the systemic settler-colonialist imperialist cisheteropatriarchy, and we must engage all key stakeholders to build capacity among our organisers to create lasting, impactful change on Turtle Island.”

(Not a real quote, but it may as well be one.)

I hate sexism, racism, and colonialism too, but stop with the fucking jargon, for god’s sake. It just makes your valid points sound like abstruse academic talking points that everyday people won’t understand. They throw out these terms as though everybody self-evidently knows what they mean. (Turtle Island sounds beautiful and poetic… but nobody outside Indigenous or “””BIPOC””” [Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, an unnecessary acronym] activism knows what it means.)

No wonder idiots like Trump and DeSantis (or Boris Johnson, or any other right-wing “populist” rabble-rouser) get so much fucking traction. They’re full of shit, but they know how to talk like a regular person. Listening to some of this jargon makes my ears bleed, but I feel I have to put up with it because as a Multiply Marginalised Person™, I have to adopt the same bullshit rhetorical style that they all use. I push back against it as much as I can, but I can’t seem to get my colleagues to ditch the woke jargon (not to mention nonprofit and business jargon… if I hear the words “key stakeholders,” “capacity-building,” or “impactful” one more time…).

If you can’t make your valid points sound like anything other than academic waffle, then you are a bad rhetorician and need to learn how to share your ideas outside woke academia or organising circles.

Sensible commentary on social justice, “woke liberalism,” and the left

I’m not a Marxist, much less a Marxist–Leninist or Trotskyist, but the International Bolshevik Tendency published a good piece about the problems with “woke liberalism” without attacking women, black people, Latinos, queer and trans people, immigrants, or anyone else who finds himself on the wrong side of discrimination in American society.

It’s refreshing to see, especially when so many on the left go too far in the woke direction (trying to make their case using abstruse critical theory that almost nobody understands) or in the reactionary anti-woke direction (sounding like far-right conservatives as soon as gender and sexuality come into play). If you are a homophobe, misogynist, or transphobe, stop calling yourself a fucking leftist. Patriarchy—and admit it, all sexism arises from patriarchal thinking—is not a leftist value, since it imposes hierarchical thinking when we should promote equality. I know some Marxists are wary of feminism, since it looks like “identity politics,” but I think it’s common decency to treat women as though they were complex human beings, rather than baby factories. Egalitarianism encompasses feminism.

There is no such thing as an antifeminist leftist. Not in 2023, anyway.

Cancelling “America” is a gift to Trump and other right-wingers

There’s a movement afoot on the woke left to “cancel” the name America. This is asinine performative bullshit, just like land acknowledgments and #KyivNotKiev.

A lot of the objection comes from Latin Americans who do not live in the United States. The last I checked, the inhabitants of a country get to decide what they want to be called in their own language. In this country, people call themselves Americans. Mexicans and Bolivians can call us estadounidenses all they want. I don’t give a shit. But that doesn’t give them the right to dictate what people in this country call themselves in English.

Instead of “America,” the cancellers use “US,” “USian,” and other constructions. But they don’t have the same effect on the reader.

“US” sounds cold, sterile, like a government form. “America” conjures up images of apple pie, baseball, the Stars and Stripes, the valiant troops fighting the Nazis and the colonial British overlords. “Captain United States” wouldn’t have the same ring to it, would it? “Make the US Great Again” wouldn’t stand a chance as a political slogan. It’s too bureaucratic.

I can just imagine Trump making hay of it at one of his fascistic rallies: “Look, everyone. Many people are saying that the woke left is trying to cancel the word America, OK? They say, ‘Sir, they’re telling us not to say America, that it’s not politically correct.’ And I will say this, folks, they’re trying to cancel our entire country. Very sad. But with Trump, you’ll Make America Great Again.”

I’m not an American chauvinist or nationalist fanatic; in fact, I’m a fierce critic of American imperialism, especially in the name of “democracy promotion.” But that criticism can happen without this kind of performative bullshit (see a theme?).

Sad!

 

The Oppression Olympics: The Worst Game Ever

I fucking hate the Oppression Olympics.

As I wrote earlier, the woke and anti-woke movements are obsessed with what someone is: skin colour, sex, weight, health status.

A frustrating pattern I’ve noticed in a lot of social justice circles is this tendency to play the Oppression Olympics. If you’re too low on the oppression hierarchy, your views are less valid and your feelings are less important. “If you’re a black, chronically ill, working-class woman, then your views matter more than those of an East Asian middle-class man,” regardless of their political views, temperament, cultural background, or other characteristics beyond what box they check on a demographic questionnaire.

They’re so focused on categorising people that they forget that they’re dealing with human fucking beings, not a goddamn fucking census box. Are people discriminated against because of their race, sex or gender, class, and other characteristics? Absolutely—and this needs to stop. But this fucking nonsense of acting as though people who “aren’t oppressed enough” don’t have feelings worth considering is absolute horseshit.

Without going into details, I would come close to winning the Oppression Olympics, at least for a professional middle-class person of working-class origins. But I don’t play this game. I refuse to, since the focus shifts from who I am as a person to what I am.

The anti-woke movement offers no solution, since they, too, have the same what-someone-is fixation. It’s just that it’s aimed at racial and gender minorities1 and women, rather than people who have (wrongly) been granted more power.

I agree that we need to question preconceived ideas about power and privilege. But this asinine oppression-ranking exercise is not the way to do it.

I am fucking TERRIFIED to talk about this on my public social media because I don’t want to be excommunicated.

In the Oppression Olympics, no one wins.

  1. As an aside, why is “racial minorities” now off-limits? I prefer it to “people of colour,” which is self-consciously grating.

 

Why I hate both the “woke” and “anti-woke” movements

Both woke and anti-woke activists are tiresome scolds who need to shut the fuck up and stop treating people as census designations rather than complex human beings. All they see is categories: Black, White, Male, Female, Gay, Straight, Trans, Non-Trans.

  • I am fed up with the woke movement. But I hate the anti-woke movement even more, and I think a lot of “wokism” is a reaction against the rise of far-right movements in America, Britain, Europe, and elsewhere.
  • Why do I hate these movements? Because both sides focus on what people are, rather than who they are.
  • Sexists (which includes homophobes and transphobes, not just misogynists) and racists treat their targets as something, rather than somebody. Race is a what; cultural expression is a who. Sex is a what; gender is a who. If you fixate on race and sex, rather than culture or gender, you are likely to make hasty generalisations that flatten the complexity of human experience. I don’t trust anyone who calls himself a “feminist” and uses sex as a way to define the righteous and the damned, and I don’t trust anyone who calls himself an “antiracist” and uses race as a dividing line between the sinners and the saints.
  • TERFs are not feminists by any reasonable definition. They are reactionary fascist-adjacent ideologues who are just as sexist as their conservative counterparts. Their mentality is “penis = evil,” which is just the inverse version of “vagina = irrational hysteric.” Ironically, some woke activists end up sounding like TERFs, though their focus seems to be more on skin colour.
  • You can be antiracist or culturally inclusive without making excuses for oppressive behaviour by marginalised groups. I abhor Islamophobia, but I’m not going to defend Islamism or any other form of religious extremism. Islamists, along with other religious fundamentalists, deserve to be marginalised because their views are incompatible with a functioning civil society. This is why I have no patience for leftists who go out of their way to defend right-wing fundamentalist states like Iran. They’ll rightly criticise evangelical Christian nutjobs but give a free pass to their Islamic fundamentalist counterparts who ban women from being educated or cut people’s heads off for being gay. Just because Muslims, whether liberal, moderate, or extreme, are a minority in Europe and the Americas doesn’t mean that fundamentalist Middle Eastern or African governments are beyond criticism.
  • Sometimes I want to read criticisms of the woke movement, but these criticisms tend to come alongside a heaping dose of racism and sexism, including hostility toward LGBTQ people, a dismissiveness toward people who have real grievances about racial discrimination, and other forms of intolerance. All I can think about is “they are so obsessed with what I am that I don’t think they’d even see me as a who, and they hate me just for that.”
  • When I read woke writing, I come across essentialist bullshit about how if you’re straight, white, male, American, Christian, British, European, or non-trans, you’re the devil. Bullshit. This is the right’s hateful rhetoric inverted as a form of purported self-protection. And all I can think about is “they are so obsessed with what I am that I don’t think they’d see me as a who if I belonged to a ‘privileged’ demographic. And because I’m ‘multiply marginalised,’ they love me just for that.”
  • It is virtually impossible for me to read anything in the media about racism or sexism without my skin crawling.
  • Classism is a common feature in both woke and anti-woke discourses. A lot of it looks like elites playing off each other, though I don’t mean that in a class-reductionist way.
  • Claiming that any group of people, including white people, are inherently evil because of their ancestry or skin colour is counterproductive, essentialist garbage that should be wiped out of any social justice movement.
  • If I excluded everybody but LGBTQ+ non-white people (I hate the expression “people of colour” and will not use it here) from my social circles, I wouldn’t have many people to talk to. Some of the most virulent prejudice I have experienced has come from members of my “own” race, including relatives.
  • Both woke and anti-woke activists make me feel like a what, rather than a who. The problem is that I’m the right what for the woke movement and the wrong what for the anti-woke movement. Either way, I’m something rather than somebody.
  • If I hate something or someone, it’s because of who they are, not what they are. Donald Trump is odious because of his beliefs, not because he’s a white man. Candace Owens is also repugnant, though she’s a black woman. When woke activists say “listen to black women,” do they also mean Candace Owens, or do they mean only those who are ideologically similar to them? When anti-woke activists say that they should be listened to, do they include members of the “wrong” demographics who agree with them, like Caitlyn Jenner or Blaire White?
  • I’m a grudging supporter of affirmative action because of my who-not-what orientation. Although I hate the idea of ranking people based on what they are, I also acknowledge that historical injustices should be combated.
  • Fighting racism and sexism is important. But that fight should be focused on humanising people, rather than using demographic categories as a sign of virtue.
  • I feel I have to be woke to protect myself. But at the same time, I’m sacrificing a lot of my authenticity. I can’t say what I want to say without being told that I’m making excuses for bad actors, even though I have the same goals—that people are treated fairly and kindly. That’s why I’m blogging about this stuff anonymously.
  • If you focus too much on what people are, rather than who people are, I have little respect for you or your movement.

I want to see a fairer, more equitable world. But I want to do that without all the bullshit I see from the woke movement, or the reactionary racism and sexism that have arisen both as a cause and as a consequence of it. I want to be somebody, not something. Is that too much to ask?

(I’ll talk more specifically about sexism and racism later, but this is a good overview of how I feel.)

Newer posts »