2 ms·

> You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across a

by danans 6y ago

> You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. The only thing more tribalism will do is strengthen the existing stark tribal groups we have (which are primarily racial, religious, and class). > In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. As important those famous figures are, you (correctly) describe it as a pantheon, AKA the idolization of these individuals more for their surface appearance than what they represent. The amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I agree that having such a pantheon is part of a national identity, but at best it is set of symbols that matter only because of an underlying broadly shared sense of economic well being. > We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” I think this is the example you are presenting as "exclusionary", but I'm not sure what makes it redeeming as a basis of national identity, nor is it as widely shared an object derision as you suggest.

xyzzyz 6y ago
> A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. Worked fine for most of the US history.
- danans 6y ago
  The victims of slavery, Jim Crow, and other tribal institutions of American history might beg to differ.
bhupy 6y ago
> he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I half agree with you, but I think it's the side of the aisle you're probably not talking about that's paying "lip service". MLK's entire philosophy was peaceful civil disobedience as contrasted with Malcolm X's approach of radicalism ("So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise"). Today, I'm afraid that we've lost sight of MLK's philosophy and have decided to try Malcolm X's approach to solving our social problems. Time will tell if that was a wise choice. It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). In some circles today, not judging people "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" and not believing in strictly equal outcomes is insufficiently anti-racist.
- danans 6y ago
  > It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. I think this is itself a straw man, because it ascribes onto any criticism of “equality of outcome” approaches to problem-solving the underlying conception that “equality of opportunity” already exists in the most perfect form. The most good-faith argument against the current rhetoric around racial issues is the following: we have neither equality of outcomes nor equality of opportunities, but the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes rather than attaining equality of opportunities. That’s the steel-man, engage with that. > Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists. You’ll find that a lot of people agree that there exists structural racism (the extent is debatable). Where the disagreement lies is on what the solutions should be. Leaving aside whether this stuff is correct on the merits, when hyper-activists amplify a “my way or the highway” approach to solving these problems, they aren’t just drawing attention to the problems, they’re prescribing a particular solution. Taking several steps back, we’ve found ourselves to be litigating yet again whether it was MLK or Malcolm X that had the right idea about how to combat the very real evils of racism. The point that I’m making is that the political side that’s allegedly the most devoted to rooting out racism has taken ironically the most racialized and segregationist approach to solving those problems — an approach that MLK steadfastly opposed. MLK is a part of the aforementioned American pantheon precisely because his rhetoric was the one that was not only effective, but also had the broadest support. We need more MLK’s today, but unfortunately we have too many Malcolm X’s.

by danans 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

> A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. Worked fine for most of the US history.

danans 6y ago
The victims of slavery, Jim Crow, and other tribal institutions of American history might beg to differ.

bhupy 6y ago

> he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I half agree with you, but I think it's the side of the aisle you're probably not talking about that's paying "lip service". MLK's entire philosophy was peaceful civil disobedience as contrasted with Malcolm X's approach of radicalism ("So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise"). Today, I'm afraid that we've lost sight of MLK's philosophy and have decided to try Malcolm X's approach to solving our social problems. Time will tell if that was a wise choice. It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). In some circles today, not judging people "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" and not believing in strictly equal outcomes is insufficiently anti-racist.

danans 6y ago
> It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. I think this is itself a straw man, because it ascribes onto any criticism of “equality of outcome” approaches to problem-solving the underlying conception that “equality of opportunity” already exists in the most perfect form. The most good-faith argument against the current rhetoric around racial issues is the following: we have neither equality of outcomes nor equality of opportunities, but the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes rather than attaining equality of opportunities. That’s the steel-man, engage with that. > Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists. You’ll find that a lot of people agree that there exists structural racism (the extent is debatable). Where the disagreement lies is on what the solutions should be. Leaving aside whether this stuff is correct on the merits, when hyper-activists amplify a “my way or the highway” approach to solving these problems, they aren’t just drawing attention to the problems, they’re prescribing a particular solution. Taking several steps back, we’ve found ourselves to be litigating yet again whether it was MLK or Malcolm X that had the right idea about how to combat the very real evils of racism. The point that I’m making is that the political side that’s allegedly the most devoted to rooting out racism has taken ironically the most racialized and segregationist approach to solving those problems — an approach that MLK steadfastly opposed. MLK is a part of the aforementioned American pantheon precisely because his rhetoric was the one that was not only effective, but also had the broadest support. We need more MLK’s today, but unfortunately we have too many Malcolm X’s.