Identity Politics 101
One of my main themes on Pickled Politics has always been to explore identity politics. The process isn’t always one way – it’s for me to learn about, but also for me to communicate with a white audience that doesn’t always seem to get it. So given that its the raison d’etre of this blog, I’m going to explore it further, given yesterday’s amusing responses.
So here’s another start on Identity Politics 101.
1) People have multiple identities, whether racial, religious, cultural, national, lifestyle, sexual etc. Those identities exist in context. When you’re at home, the cultural and religious side matters more; at a restaurant, your vegetarian side becomes more applicable. It is also true that if you feel one of those identities is under attack, unfairly, then you may decide to drop it or become more attached to it. This is one of the reasons why the media paranoia about Muslim self-identification effectively perpetuates it.
2) When it comes to politics, we usually vote along self-interest. If you’re poor you’re more likely to support a party promising better tax redistribution; feminists will look for women friendly policies; minorities may look towards parties who support immigration or aren’t overtly racist against them. After all, who the hell would vote for a party that goes against their self-interest?
3) Identity politics cannot die unless the state physically stops people having identities. What I’ve always campaigned against is undemocratic organisations claiming to represent religious identities, and that too when they have ulterior motives. I can no more stop Muslims identifying with their religion than you can stop me from caring about animal rights.
4) Identities also don’t go away if inequality exists. So, the existence of racism will always keep alive some sense of victimisation and self-identification with others in the same boat (to varying degrees). Similarly, patriarchy isn’t something dreamt up by feminists – it exists. Which is why feminists self-identify around women issues. Is it wrong for them to do so?
I also made this point in this article on Obama, arguing why its natural he attracts overwhelming black support in America. Neil, if you can handle something nuanced, try reading it.
Part 2 maybe tomorrow…
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: British Identity, Civil liberties
Incompatible:
“People have multiple identities, whether racial, religious, cultural, national, lifestyle, sexual etc.”
And then:
“When it comes to politics, we usually vote along self-interest. If you’re poor you’re more likely to support a party promising better tax redistribution; feminists will look for women friendly policies; minorities may look towards parties who support immigration or aren’t overtly racist against them.”
If people are complex and made up of many identities, how can you be sure that they will privilege one set of identities over others in politics, unless you have a set of assumptions based on their race, gender, sexual preferences, income, immigrant status, etc and then surmise how someone is going to react politically? What about a woman immigrant who is poor and believes in female rights or NOT– which way is she going to vote? Or a rich Desi woman? What if she is a rich Desi immigrant woman? What if she is not?
I don’t think you can easily tag people and then postulate on people’s politics. I think this is the problem that everyone is having with your posts on this brown politics theme– the things you say are way too crude, though you are arguing for complexity. It just doesn’t square away.
And see, this is the problem– boxing and branding individuals, which leads to ideas of the kind expressed above. I am certainly not saying that race, gender, socio-economic status, immigration or citizenship status etc, do not matter— they do. But isn’t the point to get people to aspire and advocate certain ideals that run across the lines that you’ve drawn in the sand?
BTW, Sunny, I think you’d do quite well in the US, politically. If you want, you’re more than welcome to have my citizenship.
“Part 2 maybe tomorrow…”
Well, with three posts on the same topic, I think we get your point, hon.
Desi – I’ve told Sonia, and now I have to tell you – stop speaking sense.
justforfun
As Desi Italiana said, the reason why there was much uproar is because you created this site on the basis that you did not want ‘community leaders’ speaking on behalf of ‘brown’ people. But yesterday, you contradicted yourself by advising brown people to vote tory.
You should have outlined why YOU would vote Tory and not assumed that you could lead ‘brownie’ opinion.
Another example of your generalisations – ‘If you’re poor you’re more likely to support a party promising better tax redistribution’
Actually, if I was poor, I would support a party that creates opportunities for me to work and earn a living.
I want to make-believe that the last three posts on “brown politics’ never took place.
Shall we discuss Bollywood? I recently watched Metro, and that Ahuja ladkha is quite handsome.
For those of you who watched Metro, what did you think about the statements on the social, gender, and sexual mores in those films? Should Shilpa have told her wanky, philandering husband that she went to have coffee with a guy twice, even though she didn’t have sex with him, while her husband was shacking up with a young, vulnerable woman for TWO YEARS????
Do you not think it is stupid to tell your partner that you went to the theatre with a guy, so that your partner can call you a slut, thereby effectively dissipating any culpability of a very real infidelity on his part?
Excellent
That will be covered in Sunny’s 2nd part series of Identity Politics 101. Which goes something like this. While we are all complex and made up of many identities, politicians and activists tend to reduce people to one single identity (like “brown”), reinforce victimisation and fear (“the government will not rest until every brown is in jail”). Once this is achieved, and you feel angry and victimised – you ignore other issues such the economy, environment, poverty, war – because you know, you are foremost brown. And thus, we are ready to support a party or a group that meets our self-interest, you know, the only issue that we now identify with, as in “It is time for browns to switch to Tory”.
I hope I understood how that works.
“feminists will look for women friendly policies;”
What are ‘women friendly policies’?
I ain’t looking for ‘women friendly policies’, I’m looking for RIGHTS for women (I don’t consider myself a ‘feminist’, nor a ‘POC woman’, or a “Woman of Color”, blah blah), as well as social and economic equality for ALL, whether they are within the borders of the US or not, whether they are people within the borders of the US but are not citizens, whether we are talking about the US or the world, etc. In terms of voting, I vote for people who advocate policies that we are directly or indirectly complicit in or have power over (and demand a say, too).
I imagine there are some people in the UK who feel the same way as I do.
Anyway, I really think that the Bollywood film Metro will provide for a fruitful conversation.
v funny Desi/Ravi
You should start a group blog promoting these arguments. Perhaps you could call it Pickled Politics. Or the New Generation Network. I’m sure there are many other people who share this perspective.
Mark – why not try and engage with his argument instead of resorting to crude abuse. I’m sure you can manage that if you’re a civilised human being.
Golam
He has no argument. That’s the point. Read his posts, he contradicts himself on so many levels.
David T:
Resorting to the lowest form of wit are we? Is this because Hundal has pointed out that you advocated voting tory in the London Mayoralty election? or should that be something you didn’t want to hear?
Mark,
“He has no argument. That’s the point. Read his posts, he contradicts himself on so many levels.”
He has no argument…and yet he contradicts himself?
Respectfully,
Ben
Arguments cease to be arguments if they are littered with contradictions.
Regards,
Mark
Mark
“Arguments cease to be arguments if they are littered with contradictions.”
Oh indeed, but one is only deploying the bare assertion fallacy if one brandishes the existence of “contradictions” without identifying them.
Respectfully,
Ben
Desi, thanks for the advice. But if you don’t want to hear me talk about identity politics then you’re welcome to go somewhere else. My blog, I write what I want. Geddit?
But isn’t the point to get people to aspire and advocate certain ideals that run across the lines that you’ve drawn in the sand?
The point isn’t about aspiration, the point is about reality.
But yesterday, you contradicted yourself by advising brown people to vote tory.
I’ll repeat myself.
1) I’m no a community leader neither do I style myself as one. I don’t claim to represent everyone.
2) Of course I’m going advocate policies. In the past I’ve asked people to vote Ken or people to support the HFE Bill. How is that any different? Because its about ethnic minorities? Who’s asking anyone to listen to me?
Ravi – the response to your snarky post is answered in point 1. Thanks.
Sunny:
“Desi, thanks for the advice”
But I didn’t give you advice, I was just pointing out the obvious.
Desi “I don’t consider myself a fminist” Italiana – with respect, go lower the tone somewhere else.
This debate is such a demonstration of how far away we are from an acceptance of racism and how identity politics works in reaction to it. But also how much of what looks like bottom-up ‘wanted’ identity politics is actually imposed from the top down. My 2nd year undergrads understand this but no one here seems to want to accept that.
Last: anyone who really belives voting Tory or Labour will solve anything from any of us is deluded.
Is this because Hundal has pointed out that you advocated voting tory in the London Mayoralty election
I advocated no such thing. I did no more than point out the aspects of Ken Livingstone’s conduct during his second term which resulted in my staying home on polling day.
And none of them were to do with the way that his policies might impact on “brown people” or any particular group.
Rather, I objected to the following:
1. Ken Livingstone spending public money on attacking Peter Tatchell and Trevor Phillips: directly and through the funding of sectarian organisations which were briefed to attack their targets.
2. Ken Livingstone building an alliance with the clerical fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood, which involved putting on conferences, commissioning faux “studies” on islamophobia, greeting and defending Qaradawi, and sacking his staff for refusing to go along with the policy of involving Muslim Brotherhood activists in policing strategy.
3. Ken Livingstone appointing members of a political party, Socialist Action, to run large chunks of his politics.
4. The waste of public money on projects linked to Lee Jasper, and then the lying defence of Jasper.
There’s more.
At no point, however, did I suggest that Boris would be a better Mayor. I expect him to be dismal, but in different ways.
You mean acceptance that racism exists, right? I wish you were more specific as how this debate demonstrates that no one here accepts racism as a reality, or that we do not understand how identity politics work at least at 1st undergraduate level. Otherwise, you sound somewhat condescending.
Alana @ 20
If you don’t want us to vote New Labour or Tory, then, who’d you rather have us vote for?
There’s a un petit je ne sais quoi about condescending women. :=)
David T, I wrote this in the other post but I’ll repeat it here:
David T
Still, it was interesting to discover that you see the world in terms of the International Brotherhood of Brown People. I can promise you, that’s not how the Islamists see things.
I assure you, I don’t always think “how the terrorists think”. Yes I do have a part of my identity that is about being Asian.
Well, I expect that the Tories will not regard themselves as handicapped from taking a broad brush approach to Islamist terrorist, which will impact directly on far more “brown people” than 42 days incidentally might.
This doesn’t answer my question. My question was: Why shouldn’t they then vote Tory? Or would you say its also not logical or right for them to do so?
There’s a distinction between that, though, and arguing that a legal measure which which was introduced in order to protect the population as a whole from murder, and which in no way was intended to punish “brown people”, should be opposed by “brown people” on the basis that “brown people” might be particularly impacted by such a law.
But you’re ok with Melanie Phillips raising and talking about issues which relate to Jews or Israel. None of them affect her directly right? She doesn’t even live in Israel.
So have you ever criticised her and asked her why she’s playing communal politics?
magine it is 1947, and the Irgun is blowing up British targets. The Government introduces a 42 day detention procedure. Do I oppose it because Jews are likely to be disproportionately impacted? No, of course I fucking don’t.
During the time when sus laws were passed against the Irish, there were plenty of non-Irish opposed to them because they felt it targetted the Irish unfairly.
Were they wrong to do so?
You also didn’t respond to my point about Ken / Boris:
But let’s take your own position on Ken / Boris to its logical conclusion. You were activdly writing against Ken and saying a vote for him would be wrong. the logical position is that, given its a two-horse race, then you’re advocating that Boris get in.
Lastly, you say:
I advocated no such thing. I did no more than point out the aspects of Ken Livingstone’s conduct during his second term which resulted in my staying home on polling day.
But staying at home or putting forward a side of the story that criticsed Ken while played down Boris Johnson’s own faults would result in more people supporting Boris. right?
Also:
3. Ken Livingstone appointing members of a political party, Socialist Action, to run large chunks of his politics.
I’m perplexed why you then haven’t said anything about Boris Johnson appointing large numbers of people from Policy Exchange on to his dept…
or bout the halfa million they’ve spent recently on the “transition team” alone. Does that sort of waste not bother you?
I most certainly have. In fact, I have an entire category of posts on Harry’s Place entitled “Boris and the RCP”
My answer to your post above is as follows:
This doesn’t answer my question. My question was: Why shouldn’t they then vote Tory? Or would you say its also not logical or right for them to do so?
I think that “brown people” should vote any way they want to, on the various merits of the various policies.
I know “brown people” who are not just supporters or activists, but are candidates for the Tory Party. They support the Tory Party for all the sorts of reasons that, you know, people support the Tory Party. Because they think that the Tories are better on law and order than Labour. Because they believe that low tax economies are healthier than high tax ones. You know. That sort of thing.
If you’re asking me specifically: should “brown people” vote Tory in the hope that they might pursue a more liberal immigration policy, introduce more anti-discrimination legislation, and will any undo anti-terrorism laws which might indirectly result in more “brown people” being convicted …. well, to be honest, I don’t think that the Tories will do that.
I refer you to my comment on the thread above about Ken. Specifically, I wrote extensively about why I was staying home on polling day. Those reasons were not related to the interests of any cultural group, other than Londoners. I never suggested a vote for any of the other candidates. I did no more than point out what sort of things a politician shouldn’t do, if they weren’t to force a supporter to stay home.
I’m sorry: I miss your point about why the JC exists or Melanie Phillips writes what she writes. The JC is a newspaper which contains a diverse selection of views, and Melanie Phillips is an opinion journalist who ploughs her own furrow.
You, by contrast, are a blogger and political activist, whose main ‘unique selling point’ is that you oppose sectarianism. Yet, here you are, suggesting that “brown people” should vote as a bloc.
During the time when sus laws were passed against the Irish, there were plenty of non-Irish opposed to them because they felt it targetted the Irish unfairly. Were they wrong to do so?
Er.
1. The SUS Laws were not “passed against the Irish”
2. That isn’t even what was being said about them at the time. Rather, it was suggested that they were disproportionately used to stop black people.
3. Was that unfair? I think not. It is clear that the law was being applied in a deliberately racist way.
Do you think that any law is designed or deliberately applied in a racist manner today?
4. There are certain criminal offences which are more likely to be committed by people from one cultural group than another. For example, burglars are usually white, and are rarely “brown”. I don’t think that the mere fact that, at a particular point in time, one group is over-represented among those convicted of that offence is a reason to change the law.
For example, you wouldn’t oppose a law on forced marriages, merely because “brown people” figured disproportionately among those convicted under it.
Where is Harry’s Place…can I please have the address so I can go around for a drink sometime. You fucking bloggers take yourselves far too seriously.
But hang on…I thought this was something to do with identity politics. What a complex, nigtmarish topin…I just can’t be arsed.
//derail
“I most certainly have. In fact, I have an entire category of posts on Harry’s Place entitled “Boris and the RCP”
Far better to keep an eye on Policy Exchange, David.
//derailing to this point of absurdity.
The latest Dave Dudley was funny, though.
I most certainly have. In fact, I have an entire category of posts on Harry’s Place entitled “Boris and the RCP”
I mentioned Policy Exchange, not the RCP. AFAIK, Munira wasn’t even part of the RCP.
…. well, to be honest, I don’t think that the Tories will do that.
The question isn’t whether wthey will do that. The question is, is it wrong for them to vote of they believe a party will do that?
I’m sorry: I miss your point about why the JC exists or Melanie Phillips writes what she writes. The JC is a newspaper which contains a diverse selection of views, and Melanie Phillips is an opinion journalist who ploughs her own furrow.
You’re avoiding the point. My question is: is it wrong for them to raise issues on Israel, which clearly relate to identifying with a specific community bloc. And also, they identify with other Jews, presumably that’s why they write about Jewish issues. Is it wrong for them to do so? Yes or no will do.
Do you think that any law is designed or deliberately applied in a racist manner today?
And what if I did? Sorry, I meant to write black, not Irish, was in a hurry.
SO you don’t think its wrong to complain when the law is being applied unfairly right? Like, say, locking up people simply for printing legal stuff, and then trying to deport them? Or this.
I have to say you’re all on the point of losing the plot. Re-reading Sunny’s original article i can’t see that much to be fussed about, the title of the piece was a little odd, but i can’t find some of the issues people find contentious – Sunny becoming a community leader, giving dictates on whom to vote for etc.
Oh, I don’t think Sunny is becoming a community leader, or giving diktats about anything at all.
What, however, he is doing, is suggesting that “brown people” should vote as a bloc, out of “self interest”.
That seems very odd: for a person who has spent the last few years arguing that we should be moving away for a politics of monolithic cultural categories, and towards nested, overlapping, and complex identities.
AFAIK, Munira wasn’t even part of the RCP.
Well, that goes to show how little you know, then!
(Come on, you’ve joined RCP/Spiked/ManifestoClub/InstituteofIdeas/etc, haven’t you!! This is what the whole “brown people should vote Tory” thing is about. Surely!)
The question isn’t whether wthey will do that. The question is, is it wrong for them to vote of they believe a party will do that?
Um. Yes. I think that it is mistaken to vote for a party, because you misunderstand their likely policies.
To give you an example: I once canvassed a very old lady in the 1990s who told me that she was voting Labour because “the Tories have brought in all the darkies”. I think she probably voted on a misapprehension.
You’re avoiding the point. My question is: is it wrong for them to raise issues on Israel, which clearly relate to identifying with a specific community bloc. And also, they identify with other Jews, presumably that’s why they write about Jewish issues. Is it wrong for them to do so? Yes or no will do.
I’m still not sure what you’re arguing about here? Do I think that newspapers which carry a broad range of views, but which are all focussed on the sort of issues that a particular cultural community are likely to be interested in, should be shut down?
No, of course I don’t.
I’m certainly not a fan of any politics which suggests that individuals should be coralled – politically, culturally or socially – along sectarian lines, and that they should vote as bloc. I rather thought that was your view as well, until yesterday.
But I don’t think that the Jewish Chronicle is such a paper. In fact, it wouldn’t survive were it such a paper: because Jews are hugely disputatious and contrary. Haven’t you read the Bible?
Sunny
I guess one part of your argument is that no party should take for granted votes from a particular constituency . British Asians for a long time voted for political parties that were red – though I think with rising middle classes in Asian communities, they started to vote blue. I’ve always suspected that most British Asians , esp those that are self-employed, are Tory by heart, but tradition of immigration puts them politically in the Labour camp – but this isn’t sustainable for a growing and enterpeurnial business class – whatever their ethnic origins.
Are you saying their votes shouldn’t be taken for granted, that if certain laws impact disporportionately on their rights, they should protest by voting elsewhere. Could be. That’s how political deals are done. Might not be a good strategy over the longer run, but political parties should be more responsive to the expectations of its voters – and if voters don’t challenge, then the parties have no incentives to do things differently.
I tend to agree that identity politics, in particular contexts, are able to ignite political action where otherwise progress hasn’t been possible. I tend to see identity politics in the same way as single issue politics – sometimes, there’s more impact. Yes, in the longer run we’re interested in broad social justice with alliances that cut across all levels of inequality – and we would like to get to a more egalitarian society for all and redistribute wealth more equally – that is the aspirational goal, but in the mean time, we have to get there, get somewhere, have a strategy, building blocks for getting by in this lifetime, and in our generation.
There is nothing wrong with advocating self interest, its the bedrock of democracy. I am given one vote to use as i want, in fact im highly suspicious of anyone who is against voter self interest.
Nor is there anything wrong with highlighting a particular issue that you feel ‘targets’ a certain group of people – or suggesting that because of that issue they should think about voting a particular way. Whilst i take the point that terrorism and all the issues surrounding it including state authoritarianism will have a different face in the future i don’t see anything wrong with suggesting those who feel most affected by it now should vote a particular way.
who the hell would vote for a party that goes against their self-interest?
Erm, I would, and do — I vote for the party that I think will do best for the country as a whole. Which may in some areas coincide with my self-interest, in others not.
And I think this is true of more people than you might imagine.
(Long-time lurker, first-time commenter.)
David, stop talking through your arse. Sunny, or anybody else, could never hope to corall brown people into voting any particular way. We have, within our culture, a thousand mini-cultures and an equal variety of political opinions.
Sunny was simply expressing his own view on this, one with which I totally agree. After listening to David Davis, I am persuaded to vote Tory for the first time in my life. And it is all on this one issue of civil liberties. And, no I don’t think the Tories will be much better, but for me it would be more of a protest vote against Labour.
I guess the broader point is that it shouldn’t just be the groups most disportionately affected by laws that should vote differently – laws are passed with one problem in mind but they affect everyone once passed.
And the other point is that when it comes to tactical voting and protesting – there are other parties other than the conservatives..
I’m certainly not a fan of any politics which suggests that individuals should be coralled – politically, culturally or socially – along sectarian lines, and that they should vote as bloc. I rather thought that was your view as well, until yesterday.
So Melanie Phillips writes about Jewish issues because she identifies with Jewish people around the world. And she gets incensed at any supposed attack on Jews.
Is that wrong? Should she not be writing about Jews, as they’re part of her identity? Should she not identify with Jews from around the world?
Incidentally, you keep coming back to the RCP. You haven’t said anything about Policy Exchange – which has far more influence over Boris.
Um. Yes. I think that it is mistaken to vote for a party, because you misunderstand their likely policies.
Its not about whether they misunderstand the policies. Thats subjective. If they believe that is the party to carry forth those values, are they wrong to vote in that self-interest?
Incidentally, I didn’t say I want all brown people to start voting Tory now. I dont have that much influence neither do I claim it.
But even suggesting that, based on civil liberties and an increasingly authoritarian Labour party, ethnic minorities should consider voting for other parties is that blasphemous?
Wow. I don’t think you understand politics that well.
I’ve never been closely wedded to Labour. I think Labour is far to the right of me. I identify with being on the left.
What’s wrong with sayying people should stop considering to vote Labour on civil liberties? It doesn’t matter if you believe the Tories are more illiberal. Right now, it doesn’t look like that does it?
Or let me try examples relating to Harry’s Place.
Gene writes about Obama making a speech to AIPAC. I’m assuming his viewpoint is that Obama isn’t so bad towards Jewish-American interests since he supports Israel.
If on the other hand, he was anti-Israel, would we not expect Obama to be criticised on HP on that basis?
So is it wrong for someone to highlight the stance of a political party with regards to specific communities, with the intention of saying maybe they should think about someone else to support? I would like a yes or no answer to that ideally, thanks.
Out of curiosity; how many times has that actually worked? If the party you voted for win then the point is mute, but if the party you voted for lose, you are the one who is out of touch with the populous and could be seen to be trying to impose yourself on other people.
To put it another way when you do lose do you just shrug and accept that the winners could potentially be doing something you completely disagree with but its ok because they also voted for what was best for the country as a whole?
I’m trying to understand how you can vote for anyone but yourself when ‘the country’ demonstrably disagrees with you?!
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t vote in their self interest. I’m arguing against the suggestion that the nature of that “self interest” is something which is determined by your ethnicity.
I think your main strategic problem with running an “ethnic bloc” argument (rather than a civil liberties argument) is as follows.
1. The reason that more brown people than white people are likely to be arrested under terrorism legislation is that, at the moment, there are an awful lot of “brown people” engaged in terrorism. That hasn’t always been the case, and may not be so in the future. And not all those involved in terrorism are “brown people”. Nevertheless, this statement is palpably true at the moment.
2. Therefore, any argument which suggests that it is unfair that so many “brown people” are being arrested under anti-terrorist legislation will play very badly, generally. That is because there is a reason, unconnected with racism, that “brown people” (and some white people) have been arrested under anti-terrorism legislation.
3. The argument that “brown people” should vote as a bloc, may appeal to some “brown people”: particularly if you can persuade them that the Government is deliberately victimising them, as part of some global attack on their cultural identity, and that they all have to band together in order to protect themselves and each other.
4. Unfortunately, ethnic minorities are minorities. Therefore, as a model for achieving anything more than an invitation to a consultation exercise, or winning an election in one or two inner city constituencies, it isn’t going to achieve anything at all for members of cultural minority groups.
It will also be a disaster for the many people who don’t see themselves, first and foremost as white, black, or brown
I don’t think the term ‘brown people’ reflects ethnicity though, i took its use to be open ended – if you identify with it so be it, if not doesn’t matter.
The title wasn’t Sikhs should vote a particular way.
jews don’t vote as an ethnic bloc, although everyone seems to think we do. anyone heard of “motivation-hygiene theory”? usually, it’s for work, but it works just as well for politics:
motivators: things which will make you vote for someone and whose delivery will make you feel justified in having done so.
hygiene factors: things which aren’t actually positive contributors, but will prevent you from voting for someone.
ken’s hygiene factors finally caught up with him. however, i cannot say that there are any enormous motivators which made me vote for boris. incidentally, i understand he’s now taking steps to ensure that the rise anti-racism festival (and presumably various other things on the anti-racism gravy train) is no longer a subsidy junket for ken’s mates in the TUC and the cuban propaganda ministry. this can only be a good thing. naturally, all the “progressives” have assumed that “boris is cancelling all live music in london”, which is not, in fact, apparently the case.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I think the notion is that the world divides into two halves: the Brown and the White.
Brown folk must stand together with other Brown folk
Ditto White folk.
Then there will either be race war, or a footie match.
where do the mixed race people go?
I think they should be able to choose where they go.
Halima
Get your mixed race friends to circle the colour on this chart, that most closely matches their own.
Then send the chart to Sunny, enclosing a cheque for £10.
Within 14 days, Sunny will let them know which political party they ought to support.
Where ever we damn well please.
sunny
If on the other hand, he was anti-Israel, would we not expect Obama to be criticised on HP on that basis?
You might, but as someone who bothers to read HP there really isn’t an HP line on these things. Adam Le Bor was very critical of AIPAC in a recent post, for example.
hermes123
After listening to David Davis, I am persuaded to vote Tory for the first time in my life. And it is all on this one issue of civil liberties.
Perhaps you ought to have a look at his voting record on civil liberties issues such as Clause 28 and abortion rights.
He’s a proper Tory arsehole laughing at you and all other gullible liberals willing to lap up his shite.
Noone has made any excuses for his opinions on issues that in some cases are over 10 years old (section 28 is still talked about?); rather its his opinions on certain issues that are currently relevant that we agree on.
People have multiple identities, whether racial, religious, cultural, national, lifestyle, sexual etc.
Which is why the right question is not ‘why identity politics’ but ‘why this identity, now?’ Who do you want in the group? Where does the group stop, and why?
What’s going on here? What does Sunny feel is distinctively useful about ‘brown’ that makes it the right term to use to talk about this particular political issue?
What applies to browns that doesn’t apply to non-brown distinctive cultural/ethnic groups (e.g. jews), non-brown immigrant groups (Poles), non-brown minority racial groups (blacks), …?
Beats me.
And me, frankly.
So as a brown woman, who am I supposed to vote for again?
Mo@37, I’m totally with you, that’s my take too.
Re this: ‘undemocratic organisations claiming to represent religious identities, and that too when they have ulterior motives’ – I know you’ve written about this lots before Sunny, so can understand the temptation to use shorthand, but as it stands this sounds like a lot of puff and not very much logic. Perhaps a link if you can’t be bothered to go through it all again?
On point 1: true.
Point 2: interesting theory, not sure the evidence backs you up. Wouldn’t it be great if we really all were rational actors who maximized our utility function?
Point 3: this really needs some expansion.
Point 4: true.
I share your frustration at having to go through identity politics 101, but think you’ve concentrated too much on the influence of identity on individuals’ politics. For me, the relevant point about identity politics is how identity is mobilized by political groups/organizations for political ends that are meant to serve members who share the identity. Perhaps something for Part 2 (e.g. your ‘undemocratic organisations’)?
By the by, ‘identity politics’ was coined by black women according to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
David T, you avoided my question. I asked this:
My question is: is it wrong for them to raise issues on Israel, which clearly relate to identifying with a specific community bloc. And also, they identify with other Jews, presumably that’s why they write about Jewish issues. Is it wrong for them to do so? Yes or no will do.
Be grateful if you can answer that.
Zohra: So as a brown woman, who am I supposed to vote for again?
Well, it depends what identity appeals strongest to you and if you think there’s any party that appeals to you on the issues you feel strongly about. I didn’t issue a list of diktats. I said brown people may want to think about stop voting Labour. It’s up to them if they listen.
Point 2: interesting theory, not sure the evidence backs you up. Wouldn’t it be great if we really all were rational actors who maximized our utility function?
Here’s the mistake both you and David T make. You assume you know what’s best for the voter or what decision they should be taking. Hence, you think they’re not maximising their interests.
I think they are – but you just don’t get what are hot button issues for them, nor do you understand what information they’re missing in order to make their political decision.
If I knew that, as a policial strategist, I could deliver an election every time.
Sunny @ 58,
Perhaps you could:
I think political strategists are passé. Lets get back to debating what’s best for all of us. I do not, for instance, vote on the exclusive ticket of what’s best for me, I vote on what’s best for all of us. And I do have a conscience. I doubt that I’m unique.
the nazis had the best identity
Zohra said:
“So as a brown woman, who am I supposed to vote for again?”
Sunny responded:
“Well, it depends what identity appeals strongest to you and if you think there’s any party that appeals to you on the issues you feel strongly about.”
Yaar, it’s not always about identity. People vote for different reasons. I may be a ‘brown woman’ in the US, but when I vote, I’m going to have the following on my agenda:
1. universal health care for all
2. easier and more affordable access to education, esp. higher education
3. Iraq war and US foreign policy
4. more socio-economic equality in terms of class, race, gender
5. no to a militarized border police
6. more of a social welfare net for those who are old, injured, etc.
7. Repeal illegal and draconian measures taken place since 9/11 (military tribunals), Patriot Act.
8. Draconian immigration policies which disproportionately target Latin Americans.
Where does my status as a brown woman come in this? And if you point to my caring about immigration issues, it’s about caring what I see take place in my home-state of California. And there are white people who would agree with me on this, and they also care about socio-economic equality that cuts through poverty, race, and gender.
This is what’s confusing and frankly, a superficial and one dimensional view in this post: it looks at politics, assuming that 1) everyone has an identity awareness defined by race and 2) they will vote primarily based on that. For some people, identity MAY very well be a factor, but it’s not for everyone.
soru:
there are plenty of us brown jews out there, you know.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Surely the onus on politicians should be to reduce the role of identity politics? Identity politics involves a degree of separatism and if differences are not resolved they are likely to lead to conflict.
Better to reach consensus.
This is what’s confusing and frankly, a superficial and one dimensional view in this post: it looks at politics, assuming that 1) everyone has an identity awareness defined by race and 2) they will vote primarily based on that. For some people, identity MAY very well be a factor, but it’s not for everyone.
Bloody hell, if this is your narrow view of what I’ve said given the post above, I can’t even be bothered to respond. Please rad properly what I’ve written since then.
Sunny @ 58, you missed the joke. The question about ‘who should I vote for’ was teasing you about issuing the suggestion about my brown vote when you’re also writing about how I have a multiple identity at the same time.
On this: I think they are – but you just don’t get what are hot button issues for them, nor do you understand what information they’re missing in order to make their political decision.
If I knew that, as a policial strategist, I could deliver an election every time.
Well, I am a political strategist, hence why I queried your theory. It is simply a fact that sometimes people vote against their interests by, for instance, voting in someone who is racist when they themselves are brown.
Explaining it, e.g. saying that sometimes they lack the information they need or other interests of theirs are being served by the vote (i.e. other hot buttons that I’m not recognizing are persuading them to take that vote), doesn’t change the fact that they’re voting against their interests at least on some level.
Plus, when you ask people why they voted for someone (e.g. polls at exits), you’d be amazed at the answers – not at all always about self-interest. I think you’re ascribing ’self-interest’ as a motivation where some people wouldn’t claim it for themselves. In fact, I think you’re conflating self-interest with plain old interest. E.g. if I vote for a candidate that I think will, I dunno, be an advocate for debt relief, it sounds like you would call that self-interest, but I wouldn’t because I don’t see myself immediately benefiting from it.