To the OP, are we talking about equal protection under the law, dealing with our own prejudices, figuring out how to deal with theology that can be both wonderful and terrible in the same moment (and how to decide where that line is) or what?
Are you looking for equality or equity?
I'm familiar with the fence image. It has nothing to do with the questions I was asking. You seem fixated on the word "equal" and have missed the point of my post.
My reference to Equal Protection Under the Law relates to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the U.S. this is a well-known concept, and ought to be rock bottom in jurisprudence. But it is not (see, for example, laws relating to adult qualifications to marry and receive the related legal benefits of marriage in the U.S.) This doesn't even begin to address protected classes, hate speech and hate crimes.
Nor does it begin to address the way we as societies talk about attitudes and resulting behaviors toward people who differ from cultural, social, mythical or social "norms." "Woke" and "safe" are not terms I can apply to myself because of the subjectivity of their meanings, and the hubris it would take to do so, taking them in their best light. I may aspire to be "woke" as I understand it, or "safe" but I have a good long record of failure and honest friends who have made it clear as well as forgiven me.
I have been one of those "smiling faces" the Staples Singers mention.
I was looking for clarification on the OP. While I think @KoF is trying to have an important conversation, the terms are too loaded and loose.
I'm sorry about that, but it perhaps reflects context. We do not have the equivalents of the Amendments to the US Constitution, we don't have an absolute right to Freedom of Speech.
I don't know what to say to explain it; here an employer can mandate training and there is no "get-out" that one doesn't agree with it or is morally against it.
On the general discussion point, as I said above it is fairly easy to identify people who use talking points from very right-wing television as "anti-woke" and it is them who are pulling together quite a range of ideas into the category of "woke".
Some of which make no sense even at first glance. For example the accusation that bringing up the impact of colonialism in the classroom. The "anti-woke" claim this is about white liberals. In reality it isn't. In the UK we have many international students from many parts of the post-colonial world. Some of whom are actually conservative but are concerned about the topic. Just as many of the voices talking about reparations in the global sense are from those post-colonial nations and are actually quite conservative.
This may well be hard to understand from a US context because the way that these things work elsewhere are not necessarily the same even if the same words are used.
Specifically I'm interested to hear if there are any Christian anti-woke positions that stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.
The first one that comes to mind is tradition, which I suspect many of us here would be able to subscribe to. The importance of preserving and conserving the way things have been done - that the familiar religious faith and practices to which we are habituated should persist and continue to reassure us.
In what way is that an "anti-woke" position? Most traditions are neutral with regard to "woke". You could describe the "traditional" position on female priests as anti-woke, I suppose, although I don't think "woke" is a good description of the theology in support of women being priests.
... someone who clearly believes that broadly "anti-woke" positions can be reasoned from a white British Christian viewpoint.
One of the basic white British Christian viewpoints is that tradition should prevail. That the way we've done things in the past is the way they should continue to be done. That churches, congregations and liturgies should continue to look and sound the way that they "always" have. That any attempt to examine critically the privilege and prejudice embodied in these institutions, in our Christian practices and even our articles of faith should be resisted, as this will only undermine them.
Consider, for example, this study (from the USA): Finding and Explaining Discrepancies in Beliefs and Actions: Understanding Implicit Racism in Christianity
Abstract
Homogeneity in Christian congregations provides a unique opportunity to indirectly examine prejudice and color-blind racism. Although Christianity holds progressive beliefs regarding social injustice, persistent beliefs about individual free will offers a potential contradiction in how a practitioner approaches the idea of racial equality.
... Discussion and Conclusions
Second [discussion point], the analysis in this paper shows that Christians are more likely than non-Christians to explain racial inequality through differences in motivation and willpower and less likely to explain racial inequality as a result of racial discrimination. This is likely the result of the values and ideas commonly supported in Christian churches such as individualism, personal responsibility, and free will. In most Christian faiths, it is up to the individual to determine their relationship with God and it is up to them whether they go to heaven or hell. In the Christian faith, everyone is born with equal opportunity to form a relationship with God and is left with personal responsibility in their decisions. When extending this same logic to the socio-economic world, one would likely view an individual’s economic standing as a result of their own decision-making. Christians are more likely to believe that people are born with equal economic opportunity and ignore the structural and systemic factors that go into racial inequality. This finding is in line with the Abstract Liberalism frame of Colorblind Racism presented by BonillaSilva.
That’s weird given that probably 50%+ of all British churches are “modern”, arising from the reformation, from the Civil War period, from Methodism or more recently.
If there is a tendency towards resisting change, for most churches that seems like a contradiction.
Some of which make no sense even at first glance. For example the accusation that bringing up the impact of colonialism in the classroom. The "anti-woke" claim this is about white liberals.
Well in the UK you had some schools teach children about the 'pyramid of white privilege'.
In todays world, where (in the UK) young white working class boys are at the bottom of academic tables. It is political. It is hugely divisive. The end point of this is as happened, where white children were excluded by one school in North London from extra Saturday literacy lessons. That is, racism, dressed up social justice.
It's hard to disentangle the truth from the polemics about this stuff.
People who speak clearly about white privilege do commonly highlight that it only means that white people do not experience discrimination because of their skin colour. It absolutely isn't saying that white people are privileged and avoid other forms of poverty and discrimination.
Specifically I'm interested to hear if there are any Christian anti-woke positions that stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.
The first one that comes to mind is tradition, which I suspect many of us here would be able to subscribe to. The importance of preserving and conserving the way things have been done - that the familiar religious faith and practices to which we are habituated should persist and continue to reassure us.
In what way is that an "anti-woke" position? Most traditions are neutral with regard to "woke". You could describe the "traditional" position on female priests as anti-woke, I suppose, although I don't think "woke" is a good description of the theology in support of women being priests.
... someone who clearly believes that broadly "anti-woke" positions can be reasoned from a white British Christian viewpoint.
One of the basic white British Christian viewpoints is that tradition should prevail. That the way we've done things in the past is the way they should continue to be done. That churches, congregations and liturgies should continue to look and sound the way that they "always" have. That any attempt to examine critically the privilege and prejudice embodied in these institutions, in our Christian practices and even our articles of faith should be resisted, as this will only undermine them.
Consider, for example, this study (from the USA): Finding and Explaining Discrepancies in Beliefs and Actions: Understanding Implicit Racism in Christianity
Abstract
Homogeneity in Christian congregations provides a unique opportunity to indirectly examine prejudice and color-blind racism. Although Christianity holds progressive beliefs regarding social injustice, persistent beliefs about individual free will offers a potential contradiction in how a practitioner approaches the idea of racial equality.
... Discussion and Conclusions
Second [discussion point], the analysis in this paper shows that Christians are more likely than non-Christians to explain racial inequality through differences in motivation and willpower and less likely to explain racial inequality as a result of racial discrimination. This is likely the result of the values and ideas commonly supported in Christian churches such as individualism, personal responsibility, and free will. In most Christian faiths, it is up to the individual to determine their relationship with God and it is up to them whether they go to heaven or hell. In the Christian faith, everyone is born with equal opportunity to form a relationship with God and is left with personal responsibility in their decisions. When extending this same logic to the socio-economic world, one would likely view an individual’s economic standing as a result of their own decision-making. Christians are more likely to believe that people are born with equal economic opportunity and ignore the structural and systemic factors that go into racial inequality. This finding is in line with the Abstract Liberalism frame of Colorblind Racism presented by BonillaSilva.
I just want to note that the Gettysburg Social Sciences Review is an undergraduate publication. Make of that what you will.
On Saturday schools, as far as I know these are voluntary and led by communities themselves. I don't think there is anything stopping people from white working class communities running Saturday schools.
On Saturday schools, as far as I know these are voluntary and led by communities themselves. I don't think there is anything stopping people from white working class communities running Saturday schools.
On Saturday schools, as far as I know these are voluntary and led by communities themselves. I don't think there is anything stopping people from white working class communities running Saturday schools.
* The independent adjudicator says it wasn't discriminatory
* It is designed for underperforming black children to have the "opportunity to learn about black history from a broader perspective than what is often offered in mainstream education"
Presumably it isn't discriminatory in that white children could conceivably attend to learn about black history.
I'm not seeing the part where the children got extra literacy lessons, perhaps you can show this.
In fairness the Telegraph says it is about literacy. Whereas the truth appears to be that it is actually about black history with the expected benefit of improved literacy.
Which is fine. So find something that engages white underperforming children and ask the council to fund it.
A) I'm sorry about that, but it perhaps reflects context. We do not have the equivalents of the Amendments to the US Constitution, we don't have an absolute right to Freedom of Speech.
I don't know what to say to explain it; here an employer can mandate training and there is no "get-out" that one doesn't agree with it or is morally against it.
C) On the general discussion point, as I said above it is fairly easy to identify people who use talking points from very right-wing television as "anti-woke" and it is them who are pulling together quite a range of ideas into the category of "woke".
D) Some of which make no sense even at first glance. For example the accusation that bringing up the impact of colonialism in the classroom. The "anti-woke" claim this is about white liberals. In reality it isn't. In the UK we have many international students from many parts of the post-colonial world. Some of whom are actually conservative but are concerned about the topic. Just as many of the voices talking about reparations in the global sense are from those post-colonial nations and are actually quite conservative.
E) This may well be hard to understand from a US context because the way that these things work elsewhere are not necessarily the same even if the same words are used.
Thanks, @KoF. This was helpful.
A) No, our national legal foundations are constructed differently.
Contrary to the commonly held beliefs, we do not have an absolute right to free speech here, either. I think it's a good deal broader than even in most liberal democracies, but it has limits. Hate speech is one of the limitations. There are others.
The 14th Amendment was the first constitutional attempt to recognize the rights of non-whites to be citizens and therefore posess the rights of citizens.
b)This is possible in the US as well. I have had conversations with people who object the way their employers handle DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) training, or Pride Month (LGBTQ+ focus month; June.
My DEI training has been outstanding. Pride Month could be better. Education, rather than mandated "celebration" seems more valuable to me.
C) We need better, less-charged terms.
D) our different chronology here and our very different demographics affect the way this is playing out here and even views among the "woke",
I think your point about it not being a white-liberal matter is important. The attitudes of more recent immigrants here is similar, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it in exactly this way. It's a valuable insight that goes beyond the usual white/black issues here that push everything else of value off the platform.
E) It's not hard to understand, even for Americans.
Vocab, though, I suspect is charged outside the US as well.
In fairness the Telegraph says it is about literacy. Whereas the truth ...
What's the problem?
Ok you decided which to believe, that's fine. It is nevertheless, like 'critical race theory' incredibly divisive, segregating pupils, if its ok in the schoolroom, is it ok elsewhere? And I got back to my original post:
'Well in the UK you had some schools teach children about the 'pyramid of white privilege'.
In todays world, where (in the UK) young white working class boys are at the bottom of academic tables. It is political. It is hugely divisive. The end point of this is as happened, where white children were excluded by one school in North London from extra Saturday literacy lessons. That is, racism, dressed up social justice.'
I generally think segregation and racism are usually bad. Some won't accept that white children can be subject to it. And that if people bring this up, they get labelled alt-right.
It’s not a choice to believe one thing rather than another though is it. The fact is that the independent adjudicator said it wasn’t discriminatory and the fact is that white children could join the class to learn about black history.
Just like there are various other kinds of Saturday schools with similar aims. Presumably non-Tamils could send their children to a Tamil Saturday school to learn Tamil, dance and other stuff. The fact is that nobody (or nearly nobody) does.
Just like there are various other kinds of Saturday schools with similar aims. Presumably non-Tamils could send their children to a Tamil Saturday school to learn Tamil, dance and other stuff. The fact is that nobody (or nearly nobody) does.
Agree on that, provided tax payers don't directly or indirectly fund segregated classes.
Just like there are various other kinds of Saturday schools with similar aims. Presumably non-Tamils could send their children to a Tamil Saturday school to learn Tamil, dance and other stuff. The fact is that nobody (or nearly nobody) does.
Agree on that, provided tax payers don't directly or indirectly fund segregated classes.
In todays world, where (in the UK) young white working class boys are at the bottom of academic tables.
This oft quoted statistic is a quirk of geographical variation in provision rather than race, caused by the running down of former industrial parts of England and Wales and then exacerbated with more recent funding cuts and the associated problems paying and finding staff willing to settle in such areas.
The marker for disadvantage used for such studies is receipt of free school meals and an ethnically black child is more likely to be in receipt of FSM than an ethnically white child, but the former is more likely to live in a larger city. The article even alludes to this:
"Educational attainment is lower for disadvantaged British pupils who are white than for disadvantaged pupils in other main ethnic groups, an investigation by the Commons’ education select committee in 2021 found.
Haringey Council said that in Haringey, white British pupils significantly outperform black African and black Caribbean pupils in Key Stage 2 reading, writing and maths."
The Council is operating entirely correctly in trying to address the problems in its locality. The problems seen nationally are the result of cuts in universal provision by central government as well as lack of infrastructure and other spending in post-industrial areas.
Just like there are various other kinds of Saturday schools with similar aims. Presumably non-Tamils could send their children to a Tamil Saturday school to learn Tamil, dance and other stuff. The fact is that nobody (or nearly nobody) does.
Agree on that, provided tax payers don't directly or indirectly fund segregated classes.
Which they don't. Maybe not treating the Telegraph as a credible source without corroboration would be appropriate?
This is the wider problem. There is a large chunk of the media and political class that will intentionally make up or misconstrue things to rage at. The bulk of these are from the hard right, and too many people allow confirmation bias to stop them looking too closely at them.
Hello @LewisTheBow
This board is our board for 'marginalised groups and discrimination against marginalised groups and other sensitive matters.' Please read the guidelines for this board.
If you want to discuss race in the UK please do so focusing on the perspective of people other than the white majority. This board is not for that.
On this board as per guidelines 'We'd like folk who don't have personal lived experience of a particular subject to focus on the voices and first-hand experience of those who do.' If you want to discuss how Black history is taught to Black children then you need to focus on what Black people have to say about it and not what the Daily Telegraph has to say.
The Daily Telegraph while not banned is generally not a good source for this board.
Can I ask everyone to be careful with this thread? Because of the nebulous catchment of the now usually-pejorative term 'woke', it means it's easy to detach this discussion from the effects on real people's lives and to forget to centre the voices of the people being attacked under this term because it's so easy to draw in so many topics under this heading.
Contrary to the commonly held beliefs, we do not have an absolute right to free speech here, either. I think it's a good deal broader than even in most liberal democracies, but it has limits. Hate speech is one of the limitations. There are others.
No, hate speech is not one of the limitations. See, for example, Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (in which a rock band that adopted a name that could be seen as racially-disparaging was denied a trademark on the basis of federal law that prohibits registration of trademarks that could be seen as disparaging of people or groups):
It is claimed that the disparagement clause serves two interests. The first is phrased in a variety of ways in the briefs. Echoing language in one of the opinions below, the Government asserts an interest in preventing “‘underrepresented groups’” from being “‘bombarded with demeaning messages in commercial advertising.’” Brief for Petitioner 48 (quoting 808 F. 3d, at 1364 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). An amicus supporting the Government refers to “encouraging racial tolerance and protecting the privacy and welfare of individuals.” Brief for Native American Organizations as Amici Curiae 21. But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
The Court was unanimous on this.
The categories of speech that do not get the protection of the First Amendment include things like obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct.
What is often misunderstood about the First Amendment is that it only prohibits the government—federal, state and local governments—from regulating speech or punishing speech. The First Amendment doesn’t prohibit private schools and colleges or private organizations from regulating speech.
I never use the word 'woke' as I think its meaning has become fuzzy.
The dictionary says -
woke, adjective: Originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice; frequently in 'stay woke'.
Oxford English Dictionary
But I've only ever heard it used as a pejorative, as a stick to beat those who care about equality for marginalised groups.
Some facts would appear to be:
1. Haringey has a large discrepancy between the performance of black students and their peers from other racial backgrounds.
2. Schools targeting particular pupils or groups of pupils who need extra help is normal.
3. These classes tried to get black kids excited about literacy by presenting them with history of black people in the UK, writing by black authors, and so on. That seems to me like a sensible thing to try and do.
Academic freedom does not include the freedom to sexually harass your students. Compulsory training to tell you what things qualify as sexual harassment, how not to put yourself in a compromising position, and things like that do not infringe on academic freedom in any way.
Some things described as "awareness training" could infringe on academic freedom, if faculty were expected to agree with various propositions about gender, for example.
But being asked to have care for the needs of your non-binary students isn't the same as being expected to agree that non-binary gender exists. You can ask someone to use gender-neutral expressions rather than "ladies and gentlemen" when addressing their students without requiring them to take any line at all on gender - they just have to understand that some of their students don't want to be addressed as "ladies and gentlemen". It doesn't matter whether they're "right" or not.
And it should rather go without saying that it shouldn't matter to you what genitals your students have. Nothing that a professor does with a student should involve their genitals in any way.
Re “ But being asked to have care for the needs of your non-binary students isn't the same as being expected to agree that non-binary gender exists. You can ask someone to use gender-neutral expressions rather than "ladies and gentlemen" when addressing their students without requiring them to take any line at all on gender - they just have to understand that some of their students don't want to be addressed as "ladies and gentlemen". It doesn't matter whether they're "right" or not.” — This, this, a thousand times this. One does not have to believe in nonbinary gender—or trans ontology—or anything at all — to be polite and treat people how one would like to be treated. One could even believe in complete gender absolutes, wholly rooted in biological sex, totally binary, etc., and still use the pronouns and names people want to be used, especially if it’s literally part of their job.
... Christians are more likely to believe that people are born with equal economic opportunity and ignore the structural and systemic factors that go into racial inequality. This finding is in line with the Abstract Liberalism frame of Colorblind Racism presented by BonillaSilva.
I just want to note that the Gettysburg Social Sciences Review is an undergraduate publication. Make of that what you will.
I was aware of that. Part of the point is to illustrate the extent to which Christianity is now subject to critical examination.
Meanwhile, in relation to the topic, some traditions within Christianity appear to be promoting a definition of "wokeism" that depends on critical theory, which they take a position against. For example:
My basic argument is that wokeism is hardly an ephemeral ideology that sprang spontaneously forth in the summer of 2020; rather, it has a long and clearly discernible intellectual pedigree. If we are to stand against it—as I do—we must do so in a sophisticated way, understanding where it came from.
If I might begin with a description more than a definition, I would say that wokeism is a popularization of critical theory.
I don't know whether that last citation from the gospel coalition is purely an excerpt, but it's striking that it makes a series of assertions, without any references. Thus, in critical theory, "each individual is seen either as oppressed or as an oppressor". Hang on, who says this? When, where? Anyway, it carries on its merry way, assertion after assertion, unsubstantiated.
Some facts would appear to be:
1. Haringey has a large discrepancy between the performance of black students and their peers from other racial backgrounds.
2. Schools targeting particular pupils or groups of pupils who need extra help is normal.
3. These classes tried to get black kids excited about literacy by presenting them with history of black people in the UK, writing by black authors, and so on. That seems to me like a sensible thing to try and do.
Funny, I was reading that and thinking I'd written it myself.
Then I looked back and saw I did, including the BBC link and most of the points you made here!
I don't know whether that last citation from the gospel coalition is purely an excerpt, but it's striking that it makes a series of assertions, without any references. Thus, in critical theory, "each individual is seen either as oppressed or as an oppressor". Hang on, who says this? When, where? Anyway, it carries on its merry way, assertion after assertion, unsubstantiated.
Indeed it does. The bit I quoted from The Gospel Coalition in turn references https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/ which takes a more ... pointed approach. (And it pointedly reminds the reader that evangelicals shouldn't simply use the phrase "cultural Marxism" to be dismissive of it. Hmm.)
Right, this is a good point. There are some Christians who associate the left (specifically socialists, trade unionists, etc) with Marxism. And therefore think of anything they don't agree with for whatever reason as being part of a Marxist campaign to outcompete Christianity.
I'm not sure there are too many in the UK who think quite like this, but it certainly appears to be an explanation for the phenomena in the USA.
Can I remind people that 'cultural marxism' is an antisemitic term? It's OK to do as pease has done and link to a site criticising its use but please don't post sites if they are using the term uncritically or if you do need them to illustrate an argument, please use spoiler tags and a warning.
Both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have warned about the term as antisemitic
UK gov minister denies that British wealth comes from "white privilege and colonialism"
Which is interesting as a term of phrase but I doubt has much historical truth to it. If the British gained little economically from the Empire, why was did it invest so much in conquering it and why did it last so long?
And why has the UK declined since the end of Empire? Suez is informative here, as the UK was trying to throw its weight around, along with France and Israel, but uncle Sam said no.
Apologies @Louise. For clarification, the last three links I posted are examples of what could be called Christian anti-woke positions: All three articles mention Marx a number of times, as well as the antisemitic term "cultural Marxism".
As to whether any of these do so critically, I was rather more dubious than you took my post to indicate. The second and third articles (sharing an author) both make caveats about the use of the term, but only after introducing it as a popular/common alternative to "critical theory". On the other hand, The Gospel Coalition article does link to another TGC article which examines the term and its antisemitic connotations in more depth. My guess is that their use of the term was overtaken by events of April 2019.
Can I remind people that 'cultural marxism' is an antisemitic term? It's OK to do as pease has done and link to a site criticising its use but please don't post sites if they are using the term uncritically or if you do need them to illustrate an argument, please use spoiler tags and a warning.
Both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have warned about the term as antisemitic
I thought there was a distinction between British individuals and corporation acquiring vast wealth through the Empire (some did) and the overall nation itself acquiring wealth (perhaps less clear).
I knew there were antisemitic things out in the further reaches of the far right, but I thought that a lot less of the right-wing “culture war” stuff was, while wrong in my view, not rooted in that. I’m sure it’s not all rooted in antisemitism, but to know that more of it is than I knew, and apparently has been for some time… ugh.
I thought there was a distinction between British individuals and corporation acquiring vast wealth through the Empire (some did) and the overall nation itself acquiring wealth (perhaps less clear).
Exactly so. The wealth was generated and remained in the pockets of the rich and powerful. Who then, a few generations later, often made lots of money running factories or coal mines.
It's a salutary reminder that for many centuries the whole country was run as a wealth generation vehicle for a minority.
(Of course the weird antisemitism that’s turning up all over the place, not only on the right but some quarters of the left (which really weirds me out), is… jarring. At least to me. I thought we’d overcome a lot more than that…)
I thought there was a distinction between British individuals and corporation acquiring vast wealth through the Empire (some did) and the overall nation itself acquiring wealth (perhaps less clear).
Exactly so. The wealth was generated and remained in the pockets of the rich and powerful. Who then, a few generations later, often made lots of money running factories or coal mines.
It's a salutary reminder that for many centuries the whole country was run as a wealth generation vehicle for a minority.
While this is true; the division between 'British individuals and corporations' and 'the overall nation' is a somewhat artificial one; even if you just restrict it to direct taxation and levies, then obviously some of that wealth flowed to the government where it was used for building national infrastructure (including machines of war to use in further expansion). Furthermore, London as centre of global finance, or massive private industries capable of taxation or takeover by the state are path dependent on - ultimately - the output of some of the industries fuelled by cheap labour (both slavery and indentured labour) and cheap inputs, often at several generations remove.
(Of course the weird antisemitism that’s turning up all over the place, not only on the right but some quarters of the left (which really weirds me out), is… jarring. At least to me. I thought we’d overcome a lot more than that…)
If you've absorbed left wing economics but not been educated in anti-racism it's not hard to see how you could take negative left wing views of finance, cultural stereotypes of Jews being involved in finance, and end up latching on to conspiracy theories of Jewish bankers controlling the world. It's bad, and obviously bullshit, but it's not weird as such.
Left wing horror at Israel's crimes is also prone to tipping over into anti-semitism: for many people their experience of Jews is Israel, which proclaims itself Jewish, and non-Israeli Jews popping up in the media to play apologist for it. You then have the seemingly inexplicable tendency of the centre and right to support Israel regardless, and the bona fide evidence that the Israeli government exerts significant energy not just on diplomacy with foreign governments but interfering clandestinely in the domestic politics of other nations. It takes a decent understanding of history, context and racism to swerve the easy conclusion that Jews=Israel=outsize control over world affairs= Jews control the world.
Comments
I'm sorry about that, but it perhaps reflects context. We do not have the equivalents of the Amendments to the US Constitution, we don't have an absolute right to Freedom of Speech.
I don't know what to say to explain it; here an employer can mandate training and there is no "get-out" that one doesn't agree with it or is morally against it.
On the general discussion point, as I said above it is fairly easy to identify people who use talking points from very right-wing television as "anti-woke" and it is them who are pulling together quite a range of ideas into the category of "woke".
Some of which make no sense even at first glance. For example the accusation that bringing up the impact of colonialism in the classroom. The "anti-woke" claim this is about white liberals. In reality it isn't. In the UK we have many international students from many parts of the post-colonial world. Some of whom are actually conservative but are concerned about the topic. Just as many of the voices talking about reparations in the global sense are from those post-colonial nations and are actually quite conservative.
This may well be hard to understand from a US context because the way that these things work elsewhere are not necessarily the same even if the same words are used.
Consider, for example, this study (from the USA): Finding and Explaining Discrepancies in Beliefs and Actions: Understanding Implicit Racism in Christianity
If there is a tendency towards resisting change, for most churches that seems like a contradiction.
Well in the UK you had some schools teach children about the 'pyramid of white privilege'.
In todays world, where (in the UK) young white working class boys are at the bottom of academic tables. It is political. It is hugely divisive. The end point of this is as happened, where white children were excluded by one school in North London from extra Saturday literacy lessons. That is, racism, dressed up social justice.
It's hard to disentangle the truth from the polemics about this stuff.
People who speak clearly about white privilege do commonly highlight that it only means that white people do not experience discrimination because of their skin colour. It absolutely isn't saying that white people are privileged and avoid other forms of poverty and discrimination.
I just want to note that the Gettysburg Social Sciences Review is an undergraduate publication. Make of that what you will.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/07/london-white-pupils-excluded-saturday-literacy-lessons/
Not quite, see the link.
Ok, well here's another: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66157319
Key points:
* The independent adjudicator says it wasn't discriminatory
* It is designed for underperforming black children to have the "opportunity to learn about black history from a broader perspective than what is often offered in mainstream education"
Presumably it isn't discriminatory in that white children could conceivably attend to learn about black history.
I'm not seeing the part where the children got extra literacy lessons, perhaps you can show this.
Which is fine. So find something that engages white underperforming children and ask the council to fund it.
What's the problem?
Thanks, @KoF. This was helpful.
A) No, our national legal foundations are constructed differently.
Contrary to the commonly held beliefs, we do not have an absolute right to free speech here, either. I think it's a good deal broader than even in most liberal democracies, but it has limits. Hate speech is one of the limitations. There are others.
The 14th Amendment was the first constitutional attempt to recognize the rights of non-whites to be citizens and therefore posess the rights of citizens.
b)This is possible in the US as well. I have had conversations with people who object the way their employers handle DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) training, or Pride Month (LGBTQ+ focus month; June.
My DEI training has been outstanding. Pride Month could be better. Education, rather than mandated "celebration" seems more valuable to me.
C) We need better, less-charged terms.
D) our different chronology here and our very different demographics affect the way this is playing out here and even views among the "woke",
I think your point about it not being a white-liberal matter is important. The attitudes of more recent immigrants here is similar, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it in exactly this way. It's a valuable insight that goes beyond the usual white/black issues here that push everything else of value off the platform.
E) It's not hard to understand, even for Americans.
Vocab, though, I suspect is charged outside the US as well.
Ok you decided which to believe, that's fine. It is nevertheless, like 'critical race theory' incredibly divisive, segregating pupils, if its ok in the schoolroom, is it ok elsewhere? And I got back to my original post:
'Well in the UK you had some schools teach children about the 'pyramid of white privilege'.
In todays world, where (in the UK) young white working class boys are at the bottom of academic tables. It is political. It is hugely divisive. The end point of this is as happened, where white children were excluded by one school in North London from extra Saturday literacy lessons. That is, racism, dressed up social justice.'
I generally think segregation and racism are usually bad. Some won't accept that white children can be subject to it. And that if people bring this up, they get labelled alt-right.
The truth is, that we increasingly see this.
Just like there are various other kinds of Saturday schools with similar aims. Presumably non-Tamils could send their children to a Tamil Saturday school to learn Tamil, dance and other stuff. The fact is that nobody (or nearly nobody) does.
Agree on that, provided tax payers don't directly or indirectly fund segregated classes.
If anyone can attend, it isn’t segregated.
This oft quoted statistic is a quirk of geographical variation in provision rather than race, caused by the running down of former industrial parts of England and Wales and then exacerbated with more recent funding cuts and the associated problems paying and finding staff willing to settle in such areas.
The marker for disadvantage used for such studies is receipt of free school meals and an ethnically black child is more likely to be in receipt of FSM than an ethnically white child, but the former is more likely to live in a larger city. The article even alludes to this:
"Educational attainment is lower for disadvantaged British pupils who are white than for disadvantaged pupils in other main ethnic groups, an investigation by the Commons’ education select committee in 2021 found.
Haringey Council said that in Haringey, white British pupils significantly outperform black African and black Caribbean pupils in Key Stage 2 reading, writing and maths."
The Council is operating entirely correctly in trying to address the problems in its locality. The problems seen nationally are the result of cuts in universal provision by central government as well as lack of infrastructure and other spending in post-industrial areas.
Which they don't. Maybe not treating the Telegraph as a credible source without corroboration would be appropriate?
This is the wider problem. There is a large chunk of the media and political class that will intentionally make up or misconstrue things to rage at. The bulk of these are from the hard right, and too many people allow confirmation bias to stop them looking too closely at them.
This board is our board for 'marginalised groups and discrimination against marginalised groups and other sensitive matters.' Please read the guidelines for this board.
If you want to discuss race in the UK please do so focusing on the perspective of people other than the white majority. This board is not for that.
On this board as per guidelines 'We'd like folk who don't have personal lived experience of a particular subject to focus on the voices and first-hand experience of those who do.' If you want to discuss how Black history is taught to Black children then you need to focus on what Black people have to say about it and not what the Daily Telegraph has to say.
The Daily Telegraph while not banned is generally not a good source for this board.
Can I ask everyone to be careful with this thread? Because of the nebulous catchment of the now usually-pejorative term 'woke', it means it's easy to detach this discussion from the effects on real people's lives and to forget to centre the voices of the people being attacked under this term because it's so easy to draw in so many topics under this heading.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
That is a red herring. I was not discussing 'race in the UK'.
That is a dishonest representation.
Speaking from my own perspective, mixed race marriage, mixed race son etc. So, think I'm well aware of different opinions. Some aren't.
That speaks volumes.
Doublethink, Admin
The categories of speech that do not get the protection of the First Amendment include things like obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct.
What is often misunderstood about the First Amendment is that it only prohibits the government—federal, state and local governments—from regulating speech or punishing speech. The First Amendment doesn’t prohibit private schools and colleges or private organizations from regulating speech.
The dictionary says -
But I've only ever heard it used as a pejorative, as a stick to beat those who care about equality for marginalised groups.
So I don't use it.
Wikipedia has a good article on the history, usage and appropriation of “woke.” @HarryCH quoted that article upthread.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66157319 is a BBC report. Note that "an independent investigator did not uphold the claim."
https://web.archive.org/web/20230716010620/https://haringeyeducationpartnership.co.uk/anti-racism/nia-academy/ is a description of these classes from the Wayback Machine.
Some facts would appear to be:
1. Haringey has a large discrepancy between the performance of black students and their peers from other racial backgrounds.
2. Schools targeting particular pupils or groups of pupils who need extra help is normal.
3. These classes tried to get black kids excited about literacy by presenting them with history of black people in the UK, writing by black authors, and so on. That seems to me like a sensible thing to try and do.
Re “ But being asked to have care for the needs of your non-binary students isn't the same as being expected to agree that non-binary gender exists. You can ask someone to use gender-neutral expressions rather than "ladies and gentlemen" when addressing their students without requiring them to take any line at all on gender - they just have to understand that some of their students don't want to be addressed as "ladies and gentlemen". It doesn't matter whether they're "right" or not.” — This, this, a thousand times this. One does not have to believe in nonbinary gender—or trans ontology—or anything at all — to be polite and treat people how one would like to be treated. One could even believe in complete gender absolutes, wholly rooted in biological sex, totally binary, etc., and still use the pronouns and names people want to be used, especially if it’s literally part of their job.
Meanwhile, in relation to the topic, some traditions within Christianity appear to be promoting a definition of "wokeism" that depends on critical theory, which they take a position against. For example:
https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-34-number-1/philosophical-roots-wokeism
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/
Funny, I was reading that and thinking I'd written it myself.
Then I looked back and saw I did, including the BBC link and most of the points you made here!
I'm not sure there are too many in the UK who think quite like this, but it certainly appears to be an explanation for the phenomena in the USA.
Both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have warned about the term as antisemitic
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching
https://www.thejc.com/news/board-of-deputies-rebuke-conservative-mp-suella-braverman-for-using-antisemitic-trope-nenao3nt
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Which is interesting as a term of phrase but I doubt has much historical truth to it. If the British gained little economically from the Empire, why was did it invest so much in conquering it and why did it last so long?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/18/kemi-badenoch-uk-wealth-not-from-white-privilege-colonialism
https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-34-number-1/philosophical-roots-wokeism
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/
https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/
As to whether any of these do so critically, I was rather more dubious than you took my post to indicate. The second and third articles (sharing an author) both make caveats about the use of the term, but only after introducing it as a popular/common alternative to "critical theory". On the other hand, The Gospel Coalition article does link to another TGC article which examines the term and its antisemitic connotations in more depth. My guess is that their use of the term was overtaken by events of April 2019.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/kinism-cultural-marxism-and-the-synagogue-shooter/
This is the first I’ve heard of this and oh my God.
Is there another term for the things being referred to as “cultural Marxism” without the antisemitism?
I thought there was a distinction between British individuals and corporation acquiring vast wealth through the Empire (some did) and the overall nation itself acquiring wealth (perhaps less clear).
Once again, oh my God.
I knew there were antisemitic things out in the further reaches of the far right, but I thought that a lot less of the right-wing “culture war” stuff was, while wrong in my view, not rooted in that. I’m sure it’s not all rooted in antisemitism, but to know that more of it is than I knew, and apparently has been for some time… ugh.
Exactly so. The wealth was generated and remained in the pockets of the rich and powerful. Who then, a few generations later, often made lots of money running factories or coal mines.
It's a salutary reminder that for many centuries the whole country was run as a wealth generation vehicle for a minority.
While this is true; the division between 'British individuals and corporations' and 'the overall nation' is a somewhat artificial one; even if you just restrict it to direct taxation and levies, then obviously some of that wealth flowed to the government where it was used for building national infrastructure (including machines of war to use in further expansion). Furthermore, London as centre of global finance, or massive private industries capable of taxation or takeover by the state are path dependent on - ultimately - the output of some of the industries fuelled by cheap labour (both slavery and indentured labour) and cheap inputs, often at several generations remove.
If you've absorbed left wing economics but not been educated in anti-racism it's not hard to see how you could take negative left wing views of finance, cultural stereotypes of Jews being involved in finance, and end up latching on to conspiracy theories of Jewish bankers controlling the world. It's bad, and obviously bullshit, but it's not weird as such.
Left wing horror at Israel's crimes is also prone to tipping over into anti-semitism: for many people their experience of Jews is Israel, which proclaims itself Jewish, and non-Israeli Jews popping up in the media to play apologist for it. You then have the seemingly inexplicable tendency of the centre and right to support Israel regardless, and the bona fide evidence that the Israeli government exerts significant energy not just on diplomacy with foreign governments but interfering clandestinely in the domestic politics of other nations. It takes a decent understanding of history, context and racism to swerve the easy conclusion that Jews=Israel=outsize control over world affairs= Jews control the world.