Let’s try a serious discussion about “wokeism”.

[Guitar's Cry]

I think "woke," as a non- perjorative term is meant to refer to being aware of something that desperately needs to be changed in order to progress and improve society. These things can be discussed and debated. For instance, reparations for populations within the United States impacted negatively by past wrongs is often considered "woke," and this is something that is debated and discussed.

As a perjorative term, it is used to describe much of the same, but often also including silly things, likely as a way to minimize and associate it with ridiculous things in order to build red herrings and strawmen. For instance, Legos and M&Ms have been accused of being "woke" for being inclusive. XBox was accused of being "woke" for including energy efficiency.

Of course, climate change and representation of people are important, but associations of these things with "woke" in media or by politicians in accusatory and demeaning ways is a means for weaponizing the word to associate progressive issues with frivolity.

 

[Stevicus]

How does one be "politically correct", exactly?

"I haven't heard you utter a racial slur all day...are you trying to be politically correct?"

I don't see it really like that. There's a difference between hateful, overtly racist speech and politically incorrect speech. A good example would be the statements Jimmy the Greek made to get himself fired. He didn't use any racial slurs, he wasn't hateful, nor was he even unfriendly or nasty. He just said some dumb ignorant things about blacks that offended people, although there didn't appear to be any conscious intent to offend.

It's one thing to attack that which is overtly racist and intentionally offensive, but when it comes to extrapolating and assuming based on vague commentary that could be interpreted in different ways, that may be where political correctness goes too far.

 

[F1fan]

I think that discriminating against someone because of their race is wrong.

That's racism.

I don't think Australia has ever been racist and expecting a country to remain the same is good...it means to love one's own country.

But it's not the white immigrant's country, it is the country of the indigenous people, the indigenous people, the aborigines. The whites came and took the land for themselves, just like in the Americas. Most of this theft was by using better weapons technology and classifying the dark skinned people as subhuman, thus Christian morals did not apply.

 

[F1fan]

The United States has a completely different history: the Africans were abducted from their lands, and taken to the Americas. So they co-colonized America with the Caucasians. So they are both Americans.

Being a citizen of America does not mean all have equality. And the anti-woke agenda by certain republicans is an extension of their long, racist attitudes against minorities. The hostility towards teaching college aged students about the history of racism in America is very much a racist fear these republicans have. They can't openly be racist, but they can appeal to the racism of their voting base by accusing academics teaching about racism as being racist themselves. This attack on teaching about racism is itself a sublte form of vilifying black people and their experiences of racism, and that is racism.

 

[Stevicus]

The United States has a completely different history: the Africans were abducted from their lands, and taken to the Americas. So they co-colonized America with the Caucasians. So they are both Americans.

It's difficult to try to determine what Europeans might have been thinking or planning about America in the 15th and 16th centuries when they first learned of the existence of the so-called "New World." Much of Africa and Asia was still somewhat mysterious to them. The Spanish and Portuguese beat the English and the French when it came to colonizing and moving into the Americas. The English were actually latecomers to the game.

One point that often gets missed or misinterpreted is the tendency to lump all Native American nations into a single category. In fact, the nations were just as diverse and different from each other as the nations of Europe or Asia. Of course, they had contact with each other, communication, cultural exchange, trade, and also wars, conquest, atrocities - as mentioned by others in this thread. The Spanish ostensibly had different intentions and goals in mind when they conquered and destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilizations. The French operated a bit differently, and the English and Dutch started moving in as well. The Pilgrims were just trying to get out of England, which faced its own civil war in the 17th century, while small colonies were being established in America.

A little known event in early America might be considered pivotal in the sense that it set the tone for how the colonies would be governed and the kind of society which would be established and in place by the time of the American Revolution, which was still a century away. (Bacon's Rebellion - Wikipedia)


In order for the Virginia elite to maintain the loyalty of the common planters in order to avert future rebellions, historian Alan Taylor writes, they "needed to lead, rather than oppose, wars meant to dispossess and destroy frontier Indians." According to Taylor, this bonded the elite to the common planter in wars against Indians, their common enemy, and enabled the elites to appease free whites with land. Taylor writes, "To give servants greater hope for the future, in 1705 the assembly revived the headright system by promising each freedman fifty acres of land, a promise that obliged the government to continue taking land from the Indians."[32]

Bacon promised his army tax breaks, predetermined wages, and freedom from indentures, "so long as they should serve under his colors."[33] Indentured servants both black and white had joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.[34] For example, historian Eric Foner writes, "The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia's ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image: for example, restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes, and adoption of a more aggressive American Indian policy."[5] Some of these measures, by appeasing the poor white population, may have hoped to mitigate any future unification with the enslaved black population.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's difficult to try to determine what Europeans might have been thinking or planning about America in the 15th and 16th centuries when they first learned of the existence of the so-called "New World." Much of Africa and Asia was still somewhat mysterious to them. The Spanish and Portuguese beat the English and the French when it came to colonizing and moving into the Americas. The English were actually latecomers to the game.

One point that often gets missed or misinterpreted is the tendency to lump all Native American nations into a single category. In fact, the nations were just as diverse and different from each other as the nations of Europe or Asia. Of course, they had contact with each other, communication, cultural exchange, trade, and also wars, conquest, atrocities - as mentioned by others in this thread. The Spanish ostensibly had different intentions and goals in mind when they conquered and destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilizations. The French operated a bit differently, and the English and Dutch started moving in as well. The Pilgrims were just trying to get out of England, which faced its own civil war in the 17th century, while small colonies were being established in America.

A little known event in early America might be considered pivotal in the sense that it set the tone for how the colonies would be governed and the kind of society which would be established and in place by the time of the American Revolution, which was still a century away. (Bacon's Rebellion - Wikipedia)


In order for the Virginia elite to maintain the loyalty of the common planters in order to avert future rebellions, historian Alan Taylor writes, they "needed to lead, rather than oppose, wars meant to dispossess and destroy frontier Indians." According to Taylor, this bonded the elite to the common planter in wars against Indians, their common enemy, and enabled the elites to appease free whites with land. Taylor writes, "To give servants greater hope for the future, in 1705 the assembly revived the headright system by promising each freedman fifty acres of land, a promise that obliged the government to continue taking land from the Indians."[32]

Bacon promised his army tax breaks, predetermined wages, and freedom from indentures, "so long as they should serve under his colors."[33] Indentured servants both black and white had joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.[34] For example, historian Eric Foner writes, "The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia's ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image: for example, restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes, and adoption of a more aggressive American Indian policy."[5] Some of these measures, by appeasing the poor white population, may have hoped to mitigate any future unification with the enslaved black population.

Just one word pretty sums it up: exploitation.
The European colonizers who later became American citizens after 1776, felt entitled to exploit others. But all Europeans exploited other human beings. Nobody's safe: in the Russia of the XVIII century the serfdom (called krepostnoe pravo) were exploited much more than the black slaves were...if you think of the scandal of Darya Saltykova.
Americans thought that the difference of skin color authorized them to exploit other human beings.
Or in France, there were serfs as well....that were considered inferior because victims of the merciless feudal system that was abolished with the French Revolution.

 

[F1fan]

Just one word pretty sums it up: exploitation.
The European colonizers who later became American citizens after 1776, felt entitled to exploit others. But all Europeans exploited other human beings. Nobody's safe: in the Russia of the XVIII century the serfdom (called krepostnoe pravo) were exploited much more than the black slaves were...if you think of the scandal of Darya Saltykova.
Americans thought that the difference of skin color authorized them to exploit other human beings.
Or in France, there were serfs as well....that were considered inferior because victims of the merciless feudal system that was abolished with the French Revolution.

This illustrates how prevalent racial and cultural differences are used by those in power to dehumanize and exploit other people. Authoritarian leaders are among the worst offenders in the 21st century, including putin calling the democratic government of Ukraine Nazis, the Uyghers in China, the Kurds in Turkey being deemed subhuman, and MAGA republicans, like DeSantis, vilifying liberals and blacks as "woke" implying a negative definition, and then using their authority and government to oppress them. When a government creates an enemy of a class of people that is a clear indication they are tyrants, and opposed to liberty.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Advocating for equal rights is good.
Going about in a way that's sanctimonious, vindictive, hypocritical, and curtails liberty is not.

Also, it's nonsensical to consider environmentalism and vegetarianism/veganism to be "woke" positions.

Like "socialism", "woke" has become a lazy slur used by conservatives to refer to anything they either don't like or don't understand. If used in this context, serious discussion is impossible.

Very well said indeed.

 

[metis]

Wokism is an impressive form of modern indoctrination that teaches the gullible followers who submit to it to obsess over race and oppression, and to actively look for it in every aspect of life- even when there is none- and to leverage it as much as possible to the exclusive benefit of a select few groups… so that they might easily obtain through the pity, guilt and shame of others advantages in life that other demographics must work hard for to earn for themselves and their families.

Maybe you should actually study it, speaking of "gullible".

 

[metis]

I think it is a case of 'in theory' that being '"alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" is something everyone, including Ron DeSantis himself, would support.

Not with so many of his statements as he repeatedly has used "woke" as if it's a pejorative.

 

[metis]

No there is plenty about Australian history that is steeped in racism and there are racist elements in the culture overall.

Ever see the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence", which was based on a true story?

 

[PureX]

As i see it.

Wokeness is a form of extremism. The attempts to force views and perspectives on other people who don't share the same thing.

The key word being , "force".

Ah, you mean like men pushing for anti-abortion laws. Or heterosexuals pushing for laws against any other form of sexual expression. Or rich people pushing for vagrancy laws. Or citizens wanting to ban immigration. Or Christians pushing for theocracy. And governors dictating what kids should not learn in schools. Seems the pot is calling the kettle black, here.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ever see the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence", which was based on a true story?

See it? I had to “study it” both for English and History class. Book and film

 

[George-ananda]

Not with so many of his statements as he repeatedly has used "woke" as if it's a pejorative.

In the pejorative use he's referring to those who make exaggerated and unjustified claims and unfair characterizations of the U.S. that some people self-identifying as 'woke' make.

We know what he means. He's still of course on-board with identifying and combatting legitimate claims of unfair treatment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think that discriminating against someone because of their race is wrong.
I don't think Australia has ever been racist and expecting a country to remain the same is good...it means to love one's own country.

I love my country, but we absolutely have been racist, more than once.
Are you sure you know what you're claiming here?

 

[Viker]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How does one be "politically correct", exactly?

"I haven't heard you utter a racial slur all day...are you trying to be politically correct?"

Heh...made me chuckle.

I think the issue is where people are no longer accurately representing their actual thoughts on issues, but are instead conforming to an assumed 'norm'.

Of course, it's totally normal to do that to a degree, and it's healthy. But where there are large discrepancies between the private thoughts of citizens en masse, and the public discourse, I think it has unintended negative consequences.

That's certainly not a 'left-only' consideration. In fact I think it's a bigger problem on the right. But I think it is a problem, and I tend to think of it as slowly growing. To me, it's one of the causes of increasing polarisation in debate.

 

[metis]

In the pejorative use he's referring to those who make exaggerated and unjustified claims and unfair characterizations of the U.S. that some people self-identifying as 'woke' make.

We know what he means. He's still of course on-board with identifying and combatting legitimate claims of unfair treatment.

He's going about it in the wrong way by putting his assumptions first with what was a political photo-op. If he was serious educationally, the right way would have been to work with the AP team and go into the details of what should be the best course of action or inaction to take that might also include the state department of education. Instead, it was his politicized assumptions first.

IOW, he's not an educator nor even trying to work with educators first. He has also done this in some other areas, so it should be very obvious by now what he's up to and why.

 

[fantome profane]

Excellent video, powerful and informative. Thank you for posting that.


For those who haven’t watched this video you should. I know it is a little long, if you don’t have time now bookmark it somehow, remember it, come back to it when you have time. It is worth it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously you like to demand examples on just about everything on a subject as if you didn't know or something, even if it's already been wildly known and expressed nationwide on just about every media platform.

But OK, here's one example that's already well known, as if you never heard of such a thing in your life.


Forcing pronoun usage is compelled speech

An employer "compelling speech" by their employees is a problem?

Have you ever worked in an actual job?