Summary: These are historic days, as the Left abandons the long movement to see people as more than their race and gender. A wise voice from the past warns that this could end badly for us.
Here is another example — one of many in recent years — of the Left’s abandonment of the principles that have guided America for centuries. Stephanie McKellop, a graduate teaching assistant for “Sinners, Sex and Slaves: Race and Sex In Early America” at the University of Pennsylvania, tweeted {see above} about a progressive tool widely used but little known to the public. It is called “progressive stacking.”
McKellop describes herself as a “queer disabled feminist.” Nobody has asked if she uses “progressive stacking” to ensure “fairness” when grading.
See her defense below. Anyone disagreeing with her is, of course, a Nazi. This eliminates the need to consider their objections. Apply a stamp to those who disagree with you and — debate over.
The Daily Pennsylvanian reported that Dean Steven J. Fluharty said that Penn is “looking into the current matter involving a graduate student teaching assistant to ensure that our students were not subjected to discriminatory practices in the classroom and to ensure that all of our students feel heard and equally engaged.” He added that Penn knows the “importance of ensuring that students in groups that were historically marginalized have full opportunity to participate in classroom discussions.” McKellop declined requests for comment.
Much of the response from academia supports McKellop’s actions. Inside Higher Ed published a sympathetic account by Colleen Flaherty. It quoted Jessie Daniels, a professor of sociology at the City University of New York, who said that progressive stacking has been used by some at least since she was in graduate school in the 1990s. She also said that Penn should not punish her for trying to “uphold its values. It would be a very misguided step on the part of Penn.”
Update: another example.
“DNC Official Says She Doesn’t Want To Recruit ‘Cisgender Straight White Males’” in The Daily Wire, 30 October 2017. it’s a hat trick! Discrimination by race, gender, and sexual preference. They’re telling us that this is OK to do. White racists, welcome your new allies!
Conclusions
The Left has increasingly come to see the world in terms of race and gender, an oddly similar perspective to that of the Nazis. This is a second great betrayal in post-WWII American history. The Republicans abandoned their party’s principles in the 1960s by embracing racism (details here). Now the Left has betrayed its history. For centuries the West has struggled to transcend the divisions that have led to endless war and strife, and see each other as just people. The decades since WWII saw great progress. Now the Left has not just abandoned the project, but gone to the other side — embracing exclusionary values and a racial (and gender) hierarchy.
The significance of these betrayals is difficult to see, and might be too large to see. Now both Left and Right in America see the world in terms of race. In this, as in so many things, both Left and Right are working against America.
Consider the consequences
From “A Man for All Seasons” by Robert Bolt.
Play 1960; film 1966.
This play describes Sir Thomas More’s (1478 – 1535) last few years of his life, and his clash with Henry VIII. The King had ordered More to take an Oath of Supremacy declaring Henry to be Supreme Head of the Church of England. Alice More is More’s wife. William Roper was an attorney, member of Parliament, and More’s son-in-law.
This passage describes a different kind of law than the principles of equality, but the conclusion might apply to us. It often sounds wise to abandon large values for small victory over one’s foes. The result can be painful.
Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you are just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
For More Information.
If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also see all posts about the far-right, about the far-left, about racism, and especially these…
- 2016 revealed the true nature of America’s left & right. It’s bad news.
- Our Right & Left have lost their way. Saul Alinsky points to a better politics.
- On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, let the GOP remember its great betrayal.
- Racism is the dark side of populism. Will it divide and defeat us?
- About a cause of America’s rising tide of hatred. We can still stop it.
- Left and Right use race as a way to divide America.
A provocative book about Martin Luther King Jr.
I recommend reading I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.
“A private citizen who transformed the world around him, Martin Luther King, Jr. was arguably the greatest American who ever lived. Now, after more than thirty years, few people understand how truly radical he was. In this groundbreaking examination of the man and his legacy, provocative author, lecturer, and professor Michael Eric Dyson restores King’s true vitality and complexity and challenges us to embrace the very contradictions that make King relevant in today’s world.”
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
The Left suffer from severe and chronic oikophobia. That mental disorder predicates their entire platform. Personally, I think they should all be dealt with as a public health issue instead of a political issue.
History is abundantly clear. The Progressives, not the liberal left or conservative right, aren’t hard to understand. They have been working on it incrementally for over 100 years. They have as their singular goal to destroy the concept of individualism and supplant it with collectivism.
To do this they must destroy the basic tenants of America. They must eliminate our border, which will destroy our sovereignty. They must rewrite and deface our history to delegitimize our nation. They must redefine the family, marriage, and other traditional American institution. They must remove all vestiges of individual liberty, especially the right to freedoms of speech, religion, of association and the right to own firearms. They must disrupt respect for our laws and law enforcement. They must punish those who refuse to be part of an “identity”. They must divide us all into groups, then into sub-groups, which will ultimately fracture any residue of national unity.
This is not a theory or conspiracy. It’s happening right before our eyes.
When they have done all of those things, they will place all authority in our growing bureaucratic government, which will ensure their concept of a Progressive Utopia. A Utopia where everyone is equal. Equally subservient to the State without any freedoms the State does not permit.
The elephant in the room here is demographics. Whites will eventually be a minority in a majority minority country. The Left knows this, and has made a calculation that they can own everything if they can buy the votes of nonwhites. That may work out for them eventually, but between now and eventually hating on whitey poses the risk that whitey may notice and vote Right or something. Racial politics are probably the future whether we like it or not. There’s no “Could be” about this. It’s ugly now, and it’s going to get worse.
THe Man,
“The Left knows this, and has made a calculation that they can own everything if they can buy the votes of nonwhites.”
Spot on. Their push for open borders since ~1970 has greatly accelerated this process. But there is another player in this game, that the Left has (as usual, convinced of their super-intelligence) ignores.
The borders were opened beginning in the 1970s by an alliance of Left and Right. The simple explanation is that the 1% wanted — and got — cheap labor to depress wages at all levels. But is that all? What are the effects of an immigrant nation, with such a large fraction of these immigrants coming from non-western societies?
The Left assumes that America is magic, and that America will effortless — even thoughtlessly — assimilate them. The other possibility is that they will assimilate them. These other nations are dominated, even owned, by their 1%. We already see this happening in the southwestern states, evolving towards the client-patron system of Latin America.
Lots of possible futures ahead for America. I wonder how many of them are pleasant.
“The borders were opened beginning in the 1970s by an alliance of Left and Right. The simple explanation is that the 1% wanted — and got — cheap labor to depress wages at all levels. But is that all? What are the effects of an immigrant nation, with such a large fraction of these immigrants coming from non-western societies?”
True beyond dispute. I might not have mentioned the Right, but that’s because I think they’re blameless here. At the moment, both parties assume that the immigrants will end up being their clients, or serfs on their vote farms. They assume the new arrivals will never threaten the planned order of things or have nn agenda of their own that Ol’ Massa (Whichever party or label he wears) doesn’t approve of. It might not work out that way.
The Man,
I agree, but don’t understand this: “that’s because I think they’re blameless here.” What’s the difference between the left and 1% (mainstream Republican leaders being their servants) wrt to open borders. As you say, they both want immigrants — assuming they will meet their needs.
My guess (guess) is that the 1%’s conservative assumptions (patron-client system for America) is more likely. But such predictions are difficult to get right.
I have seen many well to do Europeans vacationing here. In conversations I learn they are scouting out places to live and set up business.
My entire extended family from grandparents immigrated here during late 50s to early 60s. My grandparents and parents have already died here. I believe my grandfather saw the writing on the wall way back then. I believe he would be appalled at what transpires today and in recent times.
As for racism, I feel like I’ve become racist. I’m wondering we’re all racist but some are afraid to accept it. Before, Leftists tried to stifle discourse by accusing the other of racism. Now the accusation is NAZI or Fascist. Is it projection?
William Lind writes about the Social Marxists and the Frankfurt School and how they want to destroy Western Civilization. There are many examples of how English Literature is subsumed in Humanities Departments at major universities. The most recent example at Yale. SpookAnnie is one of then for sure and Nursing Clio is Frankfurter for sure.
Lind writes NAZIism and Fascism are dead. Maybe, but he seems correct Social Marxism is very much alive. It’s progressively growing in Academia and the media.
Longtrail,
“In conversations I learn they are scouting out places to live and set up business.”
Now that’s really interesting, since news tells us only of Americans fleeing Trump. I believe most of those stories are bogus, but had not considered the possibility of immigrants from Europe. That makes sense, since they know quite well how quickly conditions can unwind.
“As for racism, I feel like I’ve become racist.”
I hear that a lot from young people. They tell me, somewhat rhetorically (exaggeration for emphasis) that the left is making Nazis. What do you do when you are under attack — and the only ones willing to help are Nazis? It is one of those deep questions, like the choice offered in the great sci-fi classic “The Cold Equations” by Tom Godwin in August 1954 issue of Astounding Science Fiction.
“Lind writes NAZIism and Fascism are dead”
Nope, neither — as in this excerpt from Len Deighton’s great Cold War novel Funeral in Berlin (1964):
You know, Larry, your really piling up my reading assignments. I’ve currently begun reading a book about the history of smuggling by a local legend here in Santa Cruz County AZ. I Just finished Cet Richard’s If You Can Keep It. Which I found very thought provoking. I want to read Hitler in Hell next. Dyson’s book about MLK will be next.
King’s advice to judge by character is deeply ingrained. Like the blurb states, he is one of our greatest Americans. Booker T. Washington is as well.
King’s assassination was one of our greatest tragedies.
Longtrail,
I completely agree. Although King was losing influence among Black Americans before his death, he was gaining it among Whites. He still had much to teach us, and could have helped lead us through the difficult and violent decade after his death.
Oh dangit! Reading my comment, YOU’RE really piling… LOL!
Longtrail,
Tell me about it! I have seven books for which I’ve promised reviews, and am buried with work.
I agree, but don’t understand this: “that’s because I think they’re blameless here.”
I have a bad habit of omitting words when I type. without realizing that I’ve done it. I meant to say that’s NOT because I think they’re blameless. Sorry about that. I’m not delusional, just a lousy typist, and my proofreading ain’t the best.
The Man,
Me, too. I do that a lot.
Identity politics has become big business. The MSM, on a daily basis, offer the public inequality of the various races as major news. They obsess over it. It brings them viewers as well as website and social media click$.
If you ask any self-proclaimed leader of any racial group what a solution would look like to “resolve” the issue, and how we will know when we’ve achieved resolution, they provide nothing but oft-repeated platitudes that seem to always end up with authoritarian Federal involvement.
I agree with Morgan Freeman. When asked how to solve the racial problem he answered: “Stop talking about it”.
yahtahei,
“It brings them {the news media} viewers as well as website and social media click$.”
Then the news media are doing a good job. Like all businesses, they provide what people want. It’s not their business to decide what we “should want”. But I wonder if this is a good long-term strategy, even if it brings them business today. If their coverage is perceived as unfair to a sufficiently large fraction of their readers, it might erode their trust in the news media. The media’s business relies to a large extent on the trust of its audience — which has been eroding away for several decades, to low level.
Mr. Kummer;
Is the constant reporting of racial issues actually what the public wants to hear/see or is that reporting the driving force? A question that is difficult to answer, and I don’t think profits [click$] is a proper benchmark.
Should the frame of reference for MSM reporting be on the progress of racial equality or to magnify the sporadic incidences of racial strife?
I’ve traveled all around the country and many places around the world and racial matters are normally at the bottom of the list of important issues in the day-to-day lives of most people I’ve met.
If, as many politicians -mainly on the left- proclaim, businesses should be responsible stewards of society, shouldn’t the MSM businesses strive to make the country a better place as well?
yahtahei,
I agree, this is a complex ball of string. All we can do is look at this from multiple perspectives. But “clicks” is certainly a big driver. The news industry is under immense financial pressure. Stories that reduced their audience would be minimized — or blackballed.
That doesn’t mean political bias doesn’t exist. But the layoffs at the major news firms have sharped their awareness that it is a business.
“shouldn’t the MSM businesses strive to make the country a better place as well?”
Similarly, every weekend hears stirring messages from the pulpits of America. How much do their influence what happens during the other five days of the week? Based on my personal experience with the faithful: very often, not much.
Possible duplicate post: difficult on mobile. Edit as needed.
Editor:
Editor often says 1% wants lower wages. Certainly so.
But I see an Iron Triangle at work.
Given: 1% can offshore jobs for cheaper labor. They often do. But that gets increasingly difficult politically. Hmmm.
Given: 1% can export to foreign markets. They often do. But some markets are good targets but have no money, or have a lot of money but are super competitive or protective. Hmmm.
What to do? Import customers.
Alas:
1. The left wants new voters.
2. Poor immigrants want American products.
3. The 1% wants more customers.
The expense line is kind of linear. The welfare state/budget deficit is the definition of leverage.
I’m not YOUR admin by the way. I’m new to this. Sorry.
Admin,
All good points, nicely said!
Pingback: Morning reads - 10/31/17 — 4th and Oak
Pingback: Links 10/31/17 - Daily Economic Buzz
This is not a totally unreasonable response to what can be a real problem: in a given population, in this case the classroom, there are varying degrees of willingness to express opinions or ask questions. This is correlated somewhat with social status but more with individual characteristics. The solution that I used when I taught at a university was to call on people. It helps if you know them as individuals or at least know their names.
Economics,
“This is not a totally unreasonable response to what can be a real problem: in a given population, ”
Yes, racists often give plausible explanations for their racist actions.
“The solution I taught at a university was to call on people.’
That’s what McKellop does. I hope you aren’t doing so with racism as your selection criteria.