What is the problem with “Great Wall of China?” It’s a wall. It’s in China. Great is subjective but one of its meanings is “big.” The wall is certainly big. Also it’s an impressive feat of construction, even if it didn’t keep invaders out. What should it be called?
The woke movement is full of assholes, idiots, self-promoters, and the completely insane.The Conor Friedersdorf article Demon Tree posted is but a single example. That doesn’t mean there aren’t deep divisions in the country, that systemic racism isn’t real, and that a lot of people live in a bubble they aren’t aware of.
I’ve seen no convincing evidence that it’s anything beyond Sturgeon’s law: the Woke movement is no more full of these categories than any other group of people, and possibly less.
I think the core problem comes down to simply this: No one is surprised to find assholes in a white-supremacist movement; There is an expectation that you’ll find far fewer of them in a woke movement.
I don’t know if you read the link provided by Demon_Tree to the Atlantic article. Well worth the read.
Thinking on it, my more “woke” reason for objecting to the term “Chinese wall”, is that the Chinese government is currently creating a virtual wall to try to stop the free flow of information into, out of, and within China.
I can see how the terminology could be seen to minimize the plight of those who are adversely affected by the “compartmentalization” that the Chinese government imposes.
The reason that it is commonly used is because it is probably the most famous wall in the world. However, it is famous specifically because it has had a fair amount of controversy and hardship associated with it.
I guess, I would have to ask, what’s the problem with “Wall”? What does adding the adjective “Chinese” do to make it more clear or create better context?
Are you talking about the actual physical wall here, or are you talking about the metaphorical one that denotes compartmentalization? If you are talking about the actual wall, then I’m not sure that we are having the same conversation. If you are talking about the metaphorical one, then I’m sure that we are not having the same conversation.
Here’s what happened, reading between the lines: this dude dislikes a position held by other council members. They suggest his position is racist. He laughed at them and smirked. They suggested he wasn’t serious about integrating schools. He happened to have a Black friend over at his house, so he said, “My living room is integrated right now,” and he picked up a Black baby at about the same time.
That might not be shitbird behavior. But given his timing–laughing at people who are upset with him, declaring his living room is integrated (wtf?), and picking up a black kid–it’s easily mistaken for shitbird behavior.
And this is one tiny, powerless council we’re talking about with zero power, and this Atlantic reporter is stretching it into a piece of long-form journalism to rend his hair over antiracist culture. Near the end of the article he admits that, even though he’s spent the entire article Cassandraing about how Wrocklage was the subject of antagonism and assumed bad motives, “At times, Wrocklage antagonized others or presumed bad motives.”
This isn’t a story about how anti-racism is tearing people apart. It’s a story about how a tiny, insignificant committee is fully of petty-minded people who hate each other and who aren’t getting anything accomplished.
I suppose it’s equivalent to trying to describe a large project to stem or control flow of and using the analogy of a dam vs. Hoover dam. It speaks to a well known large structure and the scale of effort required.
That was my take away as well, actually. The small mindedness and pettiness far exceeded any reasonable proportional response in the given situation. But it also occurs to me that the woke assholery is unlikely to be limited to this insignificant committee. It likely extends to other walks of life.
I’m on our school’s racial equity committee, and we refer to antiracist materials in our work. There’s none of this nonsense: people listen to one another and encourage one another to speak. I disagree with some of the other folks (I’m very impatient with the “let’s get more professional development” approach and am much more in the “let’s demand material changes from city council and build alliances with community organizations” approach), but the disagreements remain respectful and professional.
Yeah, I’m sure there are shitty dysfunctional anti-racist committees out there. That’s because of the “committees” part, not the “anti-racist” part. A better title for the article would be “Small powerless committees are tearing people apart.”
It seems to me that the committee part worked just fine in that article. They came to some sort of agreement, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t think we’re talking about whether these kinds of PTA committees (or w/e/t/f/t/a) need to be dismantled. I think what we are talking about is whether a certain relatively new social awareness described as “wokeness” is exhibiting some unexpected negative impact and is undermining the very things it is trying to address or fix.
Not sure if it matters, but it sounds like the baby was placed in his lap without him asking. The mother of the baby later said it was signaling wanting to be in his lap.
Right–it looks like unfortunate timing, that he was showing active contempt toward other people in the group right before he was handed the baby. Had he not been laughing at what he considered the absurdity of other people and defending himself against charges of racially insensitive behavior with a “Some of my best friends are Black!” spiel, it wouldn’t have pissed other people off to see him holding that kid.
That really doesn’t come across as a functional committee to me. They don’t have any power, and they’re at each others’ throats, and they’re going viral on Youtube for how they treat one another.
The existence of some instances of stupidity shouldn’t necessarily characterize an entire concept or movement, unless such stupidity is so frequent as to say the movement itself is stupid.
For example, the Flat Earth movements are stupid. The movement itself is dumb.
I have no doubt that there are stories of wokeness gone wrong. Probably quite often with young people. Because young people don’t necessarily have experience (by virtue of being young) and so sometimes do and say silly things. Wokeness is a new concept that is causing societal changes, so talking about it, and figuring it all out is a good thing. That was one thing I agreed with in The Atlantic article:
" I’d offer one rule of thumb: Anti-racism is a contested concept that well-meaning people define and practice differently. Folks who have different ideas about how to combat racism should engage one another. They might even attempt a reciprocal book exchange, in which everyone works to understand how others see the world." (bolding mine)
Just to be fair in the telling: He did seem to be acting smug with respect to members of the group he disagreed with. It does not seem like he intentionally involved the baby. He did joke (arguably ribbed) them about being an integrated household. He only defended himself against accusations of racism AFTER an open letter was issued.
That they continued to fight publicly on YouTube is neither here nor there. Hackles were raised, accusations made, defense arguments issued… it’s w/e.
Yes, that’s a very good point. Perhaps that’s why the bad/counterproductive behaviour stands out so much?
Yes, this. This committee that was working hard to increase inclusion of black and Hispanic kids, had zero black members. And the single Latino member said this:
Irizarry, the council vice president and its only Latino member, later told the Atlantic contributor Yascha Mounk in a podcast interview that he, too, is frustrated by the faction that “insists others view the world as they do.” He doesn’t understand how their focus on introspection addresses the real problems that public schools face. “I am going to vote ‘no’ when I see all of these nonsensical diversity positions that lack substance, that are really cosmetic in nature,” he said. “Leadership is about building coalitions with people you disagree with … It’s not about showboating and white fragility and all this nonsense that doesn’t make a child learn.”
So as far as I can see it’s a bunch of white and Asian people introspecting and stressing and getting offended on behalf of others who may not care, or agree with them.
And the same with the Chinese wall thing. If there’s a substantial group of people who find it offensive then, sure, change it. But I often get the feeling that people are going out looking for stuff to be offended over. Making changes like this does have a cost, even though it’s a small one. We shouldn’t be doing it just because.
Also, re who is allowed an opinion:
I asked Tanikawa about the impasse. Trying to capture why she finds it difficult to work with Maron, she recalled a time when she believed that something was racist, and Maron disagreed, rather than deferring to her perspective. “She thinks she can deny my experience as a person of color, and I don’t want to spend a lot of one-on-one time with somebody who denies my reality,” she said, alleging a “seeming lack of acknowledgment that [Maron] has privilege” as the biggest hurdle.
Disagreeing over whether something is racist or not, becomes ‘denying my reality’. How can you have a sensible discussion with someone who’s operating with that framework?
And this is another issue that seems to be common in the woke movement - a complete lack of charity towards other people and the immediate assumption that they have the worst possible motives. I can understand the incident, happening as you describe it, raising some eyebrows. The letter, signed by 100 parents, stating “imagine the insult and emotional injury any thinking person, especially a person of color, suffered when they witnessed this scene and heard that comment,” and calling for the guy’s resignation, seems… a tad excessive. The committee member insisting that “it hurts people, when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! That makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meetings,” sounds no less ridiculous after learning the context.
But you said that the Chinese Wall thing started a discussion, not that they were offended over it.
It’s fine to have a discussion. Maybe something is offensive in a way that people haven’t thought, and those offended have not been willing to speak up. Discussions are good. We’re having a discussion right now.
As an example, for Halloween, they sometimes have a “Trail of Treats” and I do wonder if that is something that would be offensive to those descended from survivors of the Trail of Tears. I don’t know one way or another, and I wouldn’t get offended, but if I were organizing a fun activity for kids, I’d just avoid that term, as there is no reason to take a chance of offense. IMHO.
Could you find this letter? I couldn’t find a copy of it. Ironically, given your comments, I don’t trust the journalist to be representing it accurately; rather, I suspect he’s presenting the letter-writers as having the “worst possible motives.”
I am reminded of Albert Einstein’s retort to hearing that 100 co-signed a letter criticizing his Theory of Relativity: “Why one hundred? If they are right, one would have been enough.”
My point here is not to raise the importance of this petty committee to the level of the greatest scientific discovery in modern science. My point is that this person, so insecure in her position, felt the need to solicit additional signatures before submitting her complaint.