The Guardian publishes virtual signaling articles with monotonous regularity. The editor needs to offer advice to the virtue signaling authors that the subtle and not so subtle demonising of "white people" is discriminatory because white people is a ridiculous category.
When White isn't White
In the first instance let's get something straight. Not all "white people" are white. Some have tans, some are brown, some are of an olive complexion. So the very use of the term "white people" is a refusal to recognise that white people have different heritages that is not necessarily reflected in the colour of their skin. "White people" is a racist generalization because it is obviously designed to carry pejorative implications for those so categorized. I prefer to be described as a human being.
Race is an Atavistic Concept
The use of atavistic racial terms in itself reflects a refusal to address the biological reality of human beings. From a genetic point of view there is no biological justification in using that frame of reference. Granted my argument here hinges on the rather dubious metric of what constitutes a genetic difference to allow the creation of racial categories but that very ambiguity itself should warn us against using such a problematic frame of reference.
Don't Challenge my Assumptions!
However the abolition of the concept race defeats the purpose of virtue signaling souls. They deem that unless we agree with them with them we are morally inferior and in need of re-education. The Wokes are engaging in a new form of censorship and authoritarianism. The issue of race is one of their weapons. The others are in relation to sexual identity and disability. I get it, their intentions are good but their methods bear all the hallmarks of a dangerous authoritarianism that stifles free speech. Their hypocritical demonisation and ostracism of people who do not accept their moral standards arises from the same inherent biases that are innate in us.
There are neuro-imaging studies which highlight what some refer to as "unconscious bias". It's true, that does exist, but those who frequently invoke that term do not report the whole truth about those studies. Unconscious bias is the immediate response lasting a few seconds but there is an almost immediate inhibitory impulse from neocortical regions in the brain. (A lot more needs to be stated about this but for now brevity is the imperative.) The persistent refusal to mention that important qualification to the concept of unconscious bias is either the result of ignorance or a refusal to be honest with the audience. There is nothing unusual about that bias, many of our potential behaviors have an inherent unconscious impulse that is kept under constant surveillance and inhibition. The fact that unconscious bias exists does not mean bias is exercised.
The Perils of Inference
The author of The Guardian article builds his argument around this:
White person: Where are you from?
Non-white, non-Indigenous person: Melbourne.
White person, confused: No, no. I mean, where do you really come from?
It is a question that very clearly asserts its purpose: “People who look like you don’t come from here. White people come from here. So, where do you really come from?”
A question doesn't assert a purpose. True the implication is that the person does not come from the region . Completely false is the inference "White people come from here."
What is remarkable about Australia is that 30% of the current population was born overseas. That means there is a .3 probability that when the question is asked the response will indicate the person was not born here. If I note the colour of their skin, the accent, that English is a second language for the person, or various other qualities of the person, there is a very high probability I will be speaking to a person from another country.
Did it ever occur to the author that white people will often ask, "Where are you from?", to other white people? Why does author make a generalisation regarding the motivations of people who ask that question? Did the author contemplate the possibility that the question is an ice breaker or that there are people like me who are interested in cultural and historical heritages of peoples from all over the world? An unusual accent say, for example, a New Zealand accent, may tempt me to ask the question. I don't care what colour they are, if I suspect they hail from a different land I might be interested in why they came here, what their home country was like, and if they return there on occasion. What's wrong with that?
This is absurd:
And therein lies the uncomfortable truth. They do not love this country, its land, its waters and its people. They love an imagined white nationalist state called “Australia”.
To be perhaps tediously and pedantically semantic, the country Australia is not just a geographic identification. "Australia" identifies not just the land and its people, it also identifies the form of government, the behaviors of the people, the climate, and the various institutions that exist here. So by definition love of Australia must be nationalist and must refer to a state. Doh!
Before January 1st, 1901 Australia did not exist. If indigenous people wish to refer to Australia in relation to their long history here perhaps they should use the world Sahul. Sahul however is a white man's designation. Did the indigenous people have a specific phrase for this geographic region? Probably not but they certainly do place great store in identifying their tribe and its lands. Which raises an uncomfortable truth.
Which Tribe are you From?
Indigenous spokespeople often invoke the concepts "connection to country" and "spiritual attachment to the land". The sense of belonging to a specific place is not unique to them, many people claim that there is a particular place where they feel at home. I am not one of those people and I suspect the greater majority of people do not feel particularly bound to their geographic origin.
In a documentary Stan Grant made the assertion that when he returns to the country of his tribe he feels a "special connection". That is consistent with the messaging about the importance of tribe and land for indigenous people. What is strange in relation to Stan Grant though is he built a very successful career by spending decades overseas and thereby was far removed from that special connection. That is like someone saying I love my partner but prefer sleeping with other people.
The complaint of the author seems incongruous with the demand of indigenous peoples that their tribe and its geography are an integral part of their identity. Given geographic\national\ethnic\cultural identification is important for many peoples across the world surely demonstrating an interest in their geographic and cultural origins is a mark of respect and demonstrates an interest in developing a deeper understanding of the person?
For the record I often start conversations about asking people about their origins. In my experience most seem to enjoy it.
The Rhetoric and the Reality
I have no idea how much of the rhetoric surrounding indigenous issues reflects the beliefs of all indigenous peoples or only reflects the views of a vocal few. I am very much a person in his small room reading his books, playing computer games, and vainly trying to start thinking again. However my very limited experience to people from across the world and indigenous people in particular causes me to speculate that the indigenous people I have known are more interested in living the good life rather than being political animals. Even more oddly is that I came to recognise some friends as being indigenous only after knowing them for many years.
The rhetoric in this article by Luke Pearson representing IndigenousX is a fairly typical example of how indigenous activists are often hell bent on portraying white people as being universally racist and xenophobic. The problems facing indigenous people are not going to be solved by semantics and accusations that white Australians don't love the country as a whole and are explicitly trying to alienate people by identifying their overseas origin. Red herrings all of it and until such time as spokespeople for the indigenous get down the nitty gritty of addressing the specific challenges of indigenous peoples nothing will change.
Climbing Mount Virtue
The hypocrisy of demonising white people in order promote tolerance and acceptance of non-white people is beyond the pale. Woke is a purportedly a description of people who have woken up to a new level of awareness that enables them to achieve new heights of moral superiority of their peers. A prominent public figure that refuses to subscribe to Woke ideas is at very real risk of being subject to public ridicule through social media and of being ostracised with the claim explicitly being they are somehow morally inferior. It's a remarkable hypocrisy.
Being virtuous is not about holding certain beliefs, attending protests or writing on social media. The virtuous ones are those working day in and day out to help indigenous people live better lives and create a better future for the children. It is the social workers, teachers, medical personnel and many others working at the coalface. I want to hear from those people. I'm not interested in people who engage in the twisted irrational rhetoric as exemplified in this Guardian article because the claims are ridiculous and motivated not by the desire to improve the lot of the indigenous but rather to engender racist attitudes towards white people.
2 comments:
Well argued. Get it widely published!
Does The Gaurdian get a right of reply?
Post a Comment