Example of Identity Politics In the Real World

[Captain Adverse]

I have a major problem with Identity Politics, that is well-known here. But I had no idea I would see an example over this past weekend that makes my point.

Here's the story.

The other day I was having a meal at a fast food restaurant, one of those that still has a kids play area section which means several of the customers were family groups having lunch that day. I'd say that not counting the ten or so employees, there were about 30 customers present.

Among the customers were two men sitting at tables about 2 - 3 feet immediately to my left-front. One appeared to be a 40+ y/o White male (W. from now on) sitting at the table immediately to my left in a chair facing opposite to the direction I was seated, so I could see him clearly. The other, who appeared to be a 60+ y/o Black male (B. from now on), was sitting in a chair immediately behind W. at the next table facing the same direction I was so I was looking at his back.

W. was eating and reading a book, while B. was sitting using a computer with some books around on his table drinking coffee.

At some point, one of the staff who appeared to be a 16 or 17 y/o boy (K. for kid from now on), came up to W. and started a conversation about the Star Wars franchise and the relative merits of the different trilogies in the series.

W. indicated he liked the first three movies to come out, stating he saw the first one back when it came out in 1977, (that was 41 years ago, hence my 40+ estimate). That the next three were merely ok, but that he only saw the first two of the new series and didn't see "Solo" the newest one because he didn't like the "SJW" themes as opposed to the straight adventure story in the first ones.

At that point I saw B. perk up a bit like he was listening, but he didn't attempt to get into the conversation. Turns out W. wasn't talking about the female heavy, or diversity characteristics in the newest movies; he was more concerned about the unrealistic characterizations, which K. seemed to agree with him. (ex. Luke had to go through training with Yoda and in his first light-saber fight with Darth Vader he lost his hand; while in Episode 7 the female character "Rey" who never even held one, was able to fight and defeat Kylo Ren as if she was a highly trained Jedi Master of the light saber).

Enough back-story. At some point W. said he was ready to leave when K. mentioned that he talked to B. who also had some points to make about Star Wars. B. turned around and interjected that he never saw any of the movies, and then started talking about the friendship between George Lukas and Steven Spielberg, bringing up the topic of the "Tuskegee Airmen" movie. W. praised the movie, explaining to K. it was about Black fighter pilots in WWII who earned the most decorations of flight groups in the European theater.

B. then brought up the Navaho "Windtalkers" and this is where things went south fast. W. said he thought it was a great movie and explained what that was about to K. too. At which point B. starting going off about Trump, his meeting to honor the survivors, and how Trump used that meeting to insult a Native American woman. W. asked what he was talking about and B. said Elizabeth Warren.

W. agreed that Trump should not have used the Pocahontas comment, but pointed out Ms. Warren's claims had no merit; that even the tribe she claimed relationship to (Cherokee) denied this to be true. B. got angry and wanted to discuss birth certificates, but W. got up to leave stating "Sir, I don't want to argue with you. I am 1/4 Arawak, I don't believe her story and she is not Native American," then began to walk away.

B. then said "You are a racist!", but W. continued to calmly walk away. B. then started yelling "You are a racist! That man is a racist! That man right there walking away is a racist!" W. paused for a second, looked back, then went on to throw his trash away and calmly left the building.

The reaction of the restaurant was typical, seeing an old man yelling out, seemingly in distress, people came to inquire...and then B. lied through his teeth. He said W. was talking badly about Native Americans and called B. the "N-word."

It never happened. W. never said anything negative about Native Americans, never said the N-word, and in fact remained polite throughout the discussions. I don't know if B. was seeking to make a "moment" out of it, or simply seeking attention. But he raised an issue of racism out of nothing, feeling completely entitled to get loud in public and falsely accuse someone of racism. I walked out in disgust.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Some people are assholes.

 

[TobyOne]

Victim fetishism and typical liberal reaction to pretty much everything. I do agree with W on the whole Star Wars thing.

 

[Xelor]

I don't see identity politics manifested in the anecdote. All I see is a guy, who happens to be black, being a jerk. I wouldn't deign to posit why he behaved as he did; from where I sit, he just did.

 

[Xelor]

I don't see identity politics manifested in the anecdote. All I see is a guy, who happens to be black, being a jerk. I wouldn't deign to posit why he behaved as he did; from where I sit, he just did.

BTW, I think the capacity to be a jerk has no racial constraints. Also, it's not clear to me, given the story and the fact that B was comported himself as an irrational boor and that would be the case regardless of B's race, why informing us of the race of the parties involved was pertinent to the story. But as I wrote above, I don't see identity politics on display in the noted interaction; I see only bad behavior, low integrity and poor cognition.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have a major problem with Identity Politics, that is well-known here. But I had no idea I would see an example over this past weekend that makes my point.

Here's the story.

The other day I was having a meal at a fast food restaurant, one of those that still has a kids play area section which means several of the customers were family groups having lunch that day. I'd say that not counting the ten or so employees, there were about 30 customers present.

Among the customers were two men sitting at tables about 2 - 3 feet immediately to my left-front. One appeared to be a 40+ y/o White male (W. from now on) sitting at the table immediately to my left in a chair facing opposite to the direction I was seated, so I could see him clearly. The other, who appeared to be a 60+ y/o Black male (B. from now on), was sitting in a chair immediately behind W. at the next table facing the same direction I was so I was looking at his back.

W. was eating and reading a book, while B. was sitting using a computer with some books around on his table drinking coffee.

At some point, one of the staff who appeared to be a 16 or 17 y/o boy (K. for kid from now on), came up to W. and started a conversation about the Star Wars franchise and the relative merits of the different trilogies in the series.

W. indicated he liked the first three movies to come out, stating he saw the first one back when it came out in 1977, (that was 41 years ago, hence my 40+ estimate). That the next three were merely ok, but that he only saw the first two of the new series and didn't see "Solo" the newest one because he didn't like the "SJW" themes as opposed to the straight adventure story in the first ones.

At that point I saw B. perk up a bit like he was listening, but he didn't attempt to get into the conversation. Turns out W. wasn't talking about the female heavy, or diversity characteristics in the newest movies; he was more concerned about the unrealistic characterizations, which K. seemed to agree with him. (ex. Luke had to go through training with Yoda and in his first light-saber fight with Darth Vader he lost his hand; while in Episode 7 the female character "Rey" who never even held one, was able to fight and defeat Kylo Ren as if she was a highly trained Jedi Master of the light saber).

Enough back-story. At some point W. said he was ready to leave when K. mentioned that he talked to B. who also had some points to make about Star Wars. B. turned around and interjected that he never saw any of the movies, and then started talking about the friendship between George Lukas and Steven Spielberg, bringing up the topic of the "Tuskegee Airmen" movie. W. praised the movie, explaining to K. it was about Black fighter pilots in WWII who earned the most decorations of flight groups in the European theater.

B. then brought up the Navaho "Windtalkers" and this is where things went south fast. W. said he thought it was a great movie and explained what that was about to K. too. At which point B. starting going off about Trump, his meeting to honor the survivors, and how Trump used that meeting to insult a Native American woman. W. asked what he was talking about and B. said Elizabeth Warren.

W. agreed that Trump should not have used the Pocahontas comment, but pointed out Ms. Warren's claims had no merit; that even the tribe she claimed relationship to (Cherokee) denied this to be true. B. got angry and wanted to discuss birth certificates, but W. got up to leave stating "Sir, I don't want to argue with you. I am 1/4 Arawak, I don't believe her story and she is not Native American," then began to walk away.

B. then said "You are a racist!", but W. continued to calmly walk away. B. then started yelling "You are a racist! That man is a racist! That man right there walking away is a racist!" W. paused for a second, looked back, then went on to throw his trash away and calmly left the building.

The reaction of the restaurant was typical, seeing an old man yelling out, seemingly in distress, people came to inquire...and then B. lied through his teeth. He said W. was talking badly about Native Americans and called B. the "N-word."

It never happened. W. never said anything negative about Native Americans, never said the N-word, and in fact remained polite throughout the discussions. I don't know if B. was seeking to make a "moment" out of it, or simply seeking attention. But he raised an issue of racism out of nothing, feeling completely entitled to get loud in public and falsely accuse someone of racism. I walked out in disgust.

Poisonous behavior. Thank you for exposing it. I suggest a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Some many people now are dim dishonest slaves to their emotions.

WE USED TO BE BETTER

 

[ecofarm]

Is this black people's fault or democrats' fault, and who's playing identity politics?

I think the guy with big bold W and B spammed throughout the post is into identity politics.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't see identity politics manifested in the anecdote. All I see is a guy, who happens to be black, being a jerk. I wouldn't deign to posit why he behaved as he did; from where I sit, he just did.

Hmmmmm, from your citation:

What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal humankind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one's differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

This individual claimed someone else was a racist, simply because he appeared "White" and thus different from both "B." a black male, and the "Native American" woman B. mentioned, making it an issue of identity of the participants. That B. lied and said this man attacked his race by calling him the "N-Word," and also maligned the alleged "Native American" woman simply because he did not agree with her claim to that status, indicates B. was playing "the Race card."

The fact that you choose not to see this...well that's up to you. :shrug:

 

[veritas1]

The reason B felt entitled to such dishonesty is that the default societal response to almost all such claims, is that B is truthful and W isn't. That's where identity politics and PC has led us. Pretty much the same has happened where any woman accuses a man of harassment, a term so broad as to now be unrecognizable.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The reason B felt entitled to such dishonesty is that the default societal response to almost all such claims, is that B is truthful and W isn't. That's where identity politics and PC has led us. Pretty much the same has happened where any woman accuses a man of harassment, a term so broad as to now be unrecognizable.

And the level of proof required before ruining people is now non-existant, because we dont give a damn about justice....justice has been redefined "Getting what the one who claims to be a victim what they what".....AKA the opposite of justice.

There is where Victim Culture has deposited us.

We have to do better.

 

[veritas1]

And the level of proof required before ruining people is now non-existant, because we dont give a damn about justice....justice has been redefined "Getting what the one who claims to be a victim what they what".....AKA the opposite of justice.

There is where Victim Culture has deposited us.

We have to do better.

That is true. BLM, me too and similar movements may have started with good intentions but they quickly got overtaken by ideological zealotry and a spirit of revenge.

 

[Hawkeye10]

That is true. BLM, me too and similar movements may have started with good intentions but they quickly got overtaken by ideological zealotry and a spirit of revenge.

The very first thing that Zen teaches is that all of life is a balancing act. We have become dim sadistic fanatics, very regressive humans, even as these Modern Morons imagine themselves (with absolute faith that their fantasies are reality, to the point that anyone questing their beliefs has committed a grave offense to them) to be the best humans to ever walk the Earth. ,

 

[Redress]

I made it as far as the guy whining about Star Wars. If you can get upset about nonwhite males being in major roles, there is something really ****ing wrong.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I made it as far as the guy whining about Star Wars. If you can get upset about nonwhite males being in major roles, there is something really ****ing wrong.

And because you stopped reading when your assumption bias kicked in, you did not see that he was not "whining about nonwhite males...." and you would have been able to actually respond to the point of this thread.

...Turns out W. wasn't talking about the female heavy, or diversity characteristics in the newest movies; he was more concerned about the unrealistic characterizations, which K. seemed to agree with him. (ex. Luke had to go through training with Yoda and in his first light-saber fight with Darth Vader he lost his hand; while in Episode 7 the female character "Rey" who never even held one, was able to fight and defeat Kylo Ren as if she was a highly trained Jedi Master of the light saber).

 

[Redress]

And because you stopped reading when your assumption bias kicked in, you did not see that he was not "whining about nonwhite males...." and you would have been able to actually respond to the point of this thread.

Sure, sure...

 

[Xelor]

Hmmmmm, from your citation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

This individual claimed someone else was a racist, simply because he appeared "White" and thus different from both "B." a black male, and the "Native American" woman B. mentioned, making it an issue of identity of the participants. That B. lied and said this man attacked his race by calling him the "N-Word," and also maligned the alleged "Native American" woman simply because he did not agree with her claim to that status, indicates B. was playing "the Race card."

The fact that you choose not to see this...well that's up to you. :shrug:

Poli-Sci 101: "Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live." Notice that politics is an activity, in particular is the activity by which are formed and promulged ideas about the formation of policy happens. Substantively, it's no different than marketing; it's merely that we call the marketing of public policy ideas "politics."

To exhibit and/or exercise of identity politics, one must be politicking. Identity politics is to politics what market segmentation strategies are to marketing.

What politicking was either man undertaking? None. What was either customer marketing? Nothing. There thus was no identity politics manifested.

 

[ecofarm]

Poli-Sci 101: "Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live." Notice that politics is an activity, in particular is the activity by which are formed and promulged ideas about the formation of policy happens. Substantively, it's no different than marketing; it's merely that we call the marketing of public policy ideas "politics."

To exhibit and/or exercise of identity politics, one must be politicking. Identity politics is to politics what market segmentation strategies are to marketing.

What politicking was either man undertaking? None. What was either customer marketing? Nothing. There thus was no identity politics manifested.

But the OP's white victim narrative, that's identity politics.

 

[MrPeanut]

Am I the only one more annoyed with the guy that was bitching about how unrealistic something in Star Wars was?

 

[Xelor]

Poli-Sci 101: "Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live." Notice that politics is an activity, in particular is the activity by which are formed and promulged ideas about the formation of policy happens. Substantively, it's no different than marketing; it's merely that we call the marketing of public policy ideas "politics."

To exhibit and/or exercise of identity politics, one must be politicking. Identity politics is to politics what market segmentation strategies are to marketing.

What politicking was either man undertaking? None. What was either customer marketing? Nothing. There thus was no identity politics manifested.

But the OP's white victim narrative, that's identity politics.

In fairness, it too really isn't.

One really has to present and advance or decry a given public policy position by, in part, targeting a specific identity group for the message and tailoring the message so it appeals to them on account of their identity-group membership. It's really a bit of a stretch to claim the remarks that conclude the OP qualify as identity politics and it's clear the third-parties in the anecdote are not depicted as engaging in identity politics.


ETA:

Looking at the rhetorical structure of the OP, it looks like something presented to obtain some sort of affirmation rather than to deliver a political message to a specifically targeted group. One might be able to call the OP-er's post some sort of an attempt at identity politicization, but unless s/he's running for an elected office (holding elected office), even that's a hefty "lift" to cogently argue.

I, for one, wouldn't entreat for such a "round and round" argument that really has nowhere to go regardless of who wins. Then again, my taste for debate topics is far more strategically structured.​