It’s a solemn chore to give your sacred principles a proper eulogy. Despite the feigned anguish, praising what they’re burying has become a fairly prolific industry among pseudo-intellectual leftists. I’m mostly referring to the raft of recent pieces wrestling with identity politics on the left. As we all know, any strain of white solidarity is fundamentally evil, just as every non-white tribalism is stroked as if it were a Bond-villain’s cat. Sheepish about increasing awareness of this clanging moral conflict, some libs are attempting to bridge the vast logical chasm. Their attempts are amusingly familiar to any adult who grew up watching a cartoon coyote flapping his arms over a canyon.
Having just slogged through one of these pieces, a few minor observations came to mind. First, I don’t recommend clicking the previous link unless swimming through cement is your idea of recreation. The author faces an impossible chore in trying to establish identity politics as a principle rather than an expedient. Of course it can be a principle, particularly since it will exist until man does not. But it can’t be a principle for thee but not me. And navigating that knot invariably produces deep trenches of rhetorical defecation.
The author, who describes himself as a hispanic, catholic, immigrant, proceeds by cataloguing the groups for whom identity politics is necessary, just, and beneficial.
Fortunately that grants tribalist accommodations to the vast majority of Earth’s human population. Unfortunately, I’m not in that majority.
That’s very unfortunate indeed. Because those of us not granted a waiver are obliged to turn our bodies into asphalt for the smooth travels of those with louder mouths.
That brings me to a long-standing loud complaint of my own. It is extraordinarily off-putting to bang on another man’s door to bitterly complain about the inside of his house. Yet that is the daily exercise in the West, where hispanic immigrants (among many others) beg for shelter on Monday and are offering demands and insults by Tuesday. To which the only polite response is Get the fuck out. I suppose mainstream critics are too cowed to ask brown migrants how the best places on Earth are home to the worst people. As always, tongues tell the lies that camouflage the honesty of man’s feet.
And the progress of white disembowelment enabled by those lies is what principled libs are determined to protect. Here’s an example.
But there is no working our way back, only a lengthy path forward. Identity politics, by underscoring the inconsistencies of our grand national visions, shows how far there is left to travel. “I am grateful for my ancestors’ struggle and their survival,” Austin Channing Brown responds archly when people emphasize that things have gotten better. “But I am not impressed with America’s progress.”
The black female speaker is proud of her own people, but not at all impressed with your meager contributions to the advancement of her people. That is to say, she has entitlements; you have responsibilities. And the difference between obligation and execution is the lengthy path forward.
I wonder how far down this path Ms. Channing Brown would consider Haiti and Rhodesia to be presently.
Though one statement in the article did ring inadvertently true. The author asserts that…
Identity politics, for all its faults, is not opposed to an encompassing national vision. It is a step toward its fulfillment.
That’s exactly right. Because nation and country are not synonyms. Nation is a people, not a state or geography. And identity politics—acknowledging and advancing one’s nation—is a step toward its fulfillment. Left unsaid, as always, is exactly whose nation they are wanting to fulfill.