It's more complicated than that. Look at how many Russians support Putin in Ukraine, all based on false information and a mythical "Russian nation". So the real question here is: IF you forget that a real, stable sense of belonging comes from being entirely connected to your own "inner landscape", in a non-judgmental way, and assume that it has to come from external validation for a moment, what political regime leads to the highest number of people getting that external validation, a democracy or a dictatorship?
My guess (to be verified!): it's still a democracy, but NOT when universities give up truly studying the classics, so give up on their mission of "transmission" and instead focus on telling students that they're okay as they are BECAUSE of what opinions they happen to have and that studying is all about "self-expression"... combined with violent DEI strategies that force especially young white male to shut up rather than being invited at the table and participate in real, respectful debates.
Sure. I'll use a training I personally had to undergo, but many participants in that training (from all over the country) told me later on that they had similar experiences in previous DEI trainings, which shows that it wasn't limited to this one only. To understand why and how progressive "thinking" about social and racial justice became so utterly superficial and violent, see the excellent book "The Coddling of the American Mind" by professor Jonathan Haidt (himself a progressive). Or see the books that Columbia linguistics professor (Black and progressive) wrote about race in America.
So with that, here we go:
- I was presented with a list of ten things not to do
- these "things not to do" were presented as slogans, with no further explanation as to what they meant or why they would lead to more equity and inclusion (let alone scientific studies to back up those claims)
- most of them had to do with words and speech (the "social justice" pillar of second-wave anti-discrimination (MLK Jr.) was entirely gone from the list)
- whenever a white or straight person would use any of these words, we were were told that we were adopting "violent speech", had to apologize to anyone of color or not straight for having had such a violent impact on them, and we're asked to apologize and tell them we'll never do it again
- any attempt to question those rules was also immediately and severely rejected as "violent speech" and questioning the authority of the teacher (authority that, as soon as that teacher self-identifies as belonging to a minority, was assumed to be self-evident)
- words that were censored included the word "we" (in ALL contexts)
- we were asked to only speak in the first person as a way to never ever suggest that what we think or feel MAY be the experience of another person too (suggesting something like that was ALSO "violent" and by definition "excluding" the possibility that some others might have different thoughts or feelings)
- whenever a person belonging to a minority (not mathematically defined... moreover) had a negative emotion after someone who had fewer "minority" identity labels, the training forced people to blame the person who said something that triggered that emotion for the "suffering" inflicted, rather than teaching people to take responsibility for their own emotions (a key dimension of all emotional intelligence training)
- whenever that happened, people were taught to never ever try to explain what they actually meant, after they saw how the other interpreted their words; "good intentions" were considered to be utterly irrelevant, only the "violent impact" on the other is taken into account (obviously, since language is by nature ambiguous, this led to tons of misunderstandings which were never clarified, so - as more and more scientific studies show today - this was just one of the many causes of HIGHER tensions and a higher sense of loneliness and feeling isolated for EACH member of the group)
- whenever teachers blamed someone of "violent speech", the rule that the speaker is responsible for the impact was no longer valid; in other words, whenever a teacher said something that caused negative emotions in a student, the teacher was NOT held accountable for it (especially if you're white and/or straight). In that case, students were asked to do some serious "introspection" and that was it
- the idea of a "common humanity" that creates common ground between all individuals, way beyond no matter what identity label society may put on us, was also rejected as "violent speech".
These are just a few examples. The result was a real reign of terror, with soon no one daring to say anything anymore.
Now keep in mind that I'm a progressive and longtime activist. Imagine how this would impact people who grew up in conservative circles and tend to have real political and moral differences with whatever progressives propose, and you can begin to understand how utterly shocking this approach can be for them. Then compare what what was lying at the very heart of MLK's approach: "love your enemies". It couldn't be more opposite.
In the early 90's I was sent by SSA to attend a diversity program. Had tremendous speakers representing Blacks, Hispanics, women et al. In one of the breakout sessios we were asked to share experiences with diversity. I told them about the Hmong people who I first met in Vietnam and later adjudicated many of their SSA cases after they were relocated by treaty to the US, The didn't have a written language, but we worked out a lexicon....
Although they were completely illiterate, and antisocial, many became wealthy and their grandkids got scholarships to Berkeley, other UC universities.
So sorry to hear that... . Unfortunately, that's exactly my experience too. In one of my groups, we had a few non-Americans who were white but belonging to a historically suppressed minority in their own (Western) countries. Simply because of their color of skin, their experience was violently rejected. When one of them started sharing about the discrimination his people had to undergo in his home country, the teacher replied with a blunt "What are you trying to say?". No empathy AT ALL. Later, another teacher clarified that sharing your OWN experience, as a white person, means suggesting that what you underwent was "as bad" as what certain people of color have to undergo today in the US so... it was once again "violent speech"... .
Today, Elon Musk imagines that Western democracies suffer from "weaponizing empathy". BOTH those "progressive" DEI trainings and the hollowed-out anti-empathy Evangelical and tech billionaire movements show how the exact opposite is going on: America is going through a real empathy crisis (LACK of empathy), not an empathy "surplus"... . And that is precisely what made the installation of neofascism in DC possible, imho.
For more info (aside from the books that I already mentioned) see Susan Neiman's "Left ≠ woke", which shows how DEI is fundamentally going against everything the left has always stood for.
I certain't cant agree with that! There a big difference that most people don't understand about DEI. Affirmative actoin, theoretically only appleies as a remedy when an organization has been adjudicated as discriminatory.
Some people get carried away...
But in some agencies like mine, people were tested, experience was evaluated, and a "best qualified" list of candidates was created through a process that includes background checks, and an examination by a committee. In foreign service only a small percentage pass on the basis of the test.
Most of the objection a pretext because our jobs are offered to party hacks through the spoils sysyem. The spoils system was first addressed in the 1870's -- vial civil service.
“Everyone” will never belong, only the ones these neo-fascists believe deserve to belong. They probably look a lot like SecDef.
It's more complicated than that. Look at how many Russians support Putin in Ukraine, all based on false information and a mythical "Russian nation". So the real question here is: IF you forget that a real, stable sense of belonging comes from being entirely connected to your own "inner landscape", in a non-judgmental way, and assume that it has to come from external validation for a moment, what political regime leads to the highest number of people getting that external validation, a democracy or a dictatorship?
My guess (to be verified!): it's still a democracy, but NOT when universities give up truly studying the classics, so give up on their mission of "transmission" and instead focus on telling students that they're okay as they are BECAUSE of what opinions they happen to have and that studying is all about "self-expression"... combined with violent DEI strategies that force especially young white male to shut up rather than being invited at the table and participate in real, respectful debates.
Can you please provide some concrete examples of violent DEI training? I am serious.
Sure. I'll use a training I personally had to undergo, but many participants in that training (from all over the country) told me later on that they had similar experiences in previous DEI trainings, which shows that it wasn't limited to this one only. To understand why and how progressive "thinking" about social and racial justice became so utterly superficial and violent, see the excellent book "The Coddling of the American Mind" by professor Jonathan Haidt (himself a progressive). Or see the books that Columbia linguistics professor (Black and progressive) wrote about race in America.
So with that, here we go:
- I was presented with a list of ten things not to do
- these "things not to do" were presented as slogans, with no further explanation as to what they meant or why they would lead to more equity and inclusion (let alone scientific studies to back up those claims)
- most of them had to do with words and speech (the "social justice" pillar of second-wave anti-discrimination (MLK Jr.) was entirely gone from the list)
- whenever a white or straight person would use any of these words, we were were told that we were adopting "violent speech", had to apologize to anyone of color or not straight for having had such a violent impact on them, and we're asked to apologize and tell them we'll never do it again
- any attempt to question those rules was also immediately and severely rejected as "violent speech" and questioning the authority of the teacher (authority that, as soon as that teacher self-identifies as belonging to a minority, was assumed to be self-evident)
- words that were censored included the word "we" (in ALL contexts)
- we were asked to only speak in the first person as a way to never ever suggest that what we think or feel MAY be the experience of another person too (suggesting something like that was ALSO "violent" and by definition "excluding" the possibility that some others might have different thoughts or feelings)
- whenever a person belonging to a minority (not mathematically defined... moreover) had a negative emotion after someone who had fewer "minority" identity labels, the training forced people to blame the person who said something that triggered that emotion for the "suffering" inflicted, rather than teaching people to take responsibility for their own emotions (a key dimension of all emotional intelligence training)
- whenever that happened, people were taught to never ever try to explain what they actually meant, after they saw how the other interpreted their words; "good intentions" were considered to be utterly irrelevant, only the "violent impact" on the other is taken into account (obviously, since language is by nature ambiguous, this led to tons of misunderstandings which were never clarified, so - as more and more scientific studies show today - this was just one of the many causes of HIGHER tensions and a higher sense of loneliness and feeling isolated for EACH member of the group)
- whenever teachers blamed someone of "violent speech", the rule that the speaker is responsible for the impact was no longer valid; in other words, whenever a teacher said something that caused negative emotions in a student, the teacher was NOT held accountable for it (especially if you're white and/or straight). In that case, students were asked to do some serious "introspection" and that was it
- the idea of a "common humanity" that creates common ground between all individuals, way beyond no matter what identity label society may put on us, was also rejected as "violent speech".
These are just a few examples. The result was a real reign of terror, with soon no one daring to say anything anymore.
Now keep in mind that I'm a progressive and longtime activist. Imagine how this would impact people who grew up in conservative circles and tend to have real political and moral differences with whatever progressives propose, and you can begin to understand how utterly shocking this approach can be for them. Then compare what what was lying at the very heart of MLK's approach: "love your enemies". It couldn't be more opposite.
In the early 90's I was sent by SSA to attend a diversity program. Had tremendous speakers representing Blacks, Hispanics, women et al. In one of the breakout sessios we were asked to share experiences with diversity. I told them about the Hmong people who I first met in Vietnam and later adjudicated many of their SSA cases after they were relocated by treaty to the US, The didn't have a written language, but we worked out a lexicon....
Although they were completely illiterate, and antisocial, many became wealthy and their grandkids got scholarships to Berkeley, other UC universities.
I was politely told to sit down and shut up.
So sorry to hear that... . Unfortunately, that's exactly my experience too. In one of my groups, we had a few non-Americans who were white but belonging to a historically suppressed minority in their own (Western) countries. Simply because of their color of skin, their experience was violently rejected. When one of them started sharing about the discrimination his people had to undergo in his home country, the teacher replied with a blunt "What are you trying to say?". No empathy AT ALL. Later, another teacher clarified that sharing your OWN experience, as a white person, means suggesting that what you underwent was "as bad" as what certain people of color have to undergo today in the US so... it was once again "violent speech"... .
Today, Elon Musk imagines that Western democracies suffer from "weaponizing empathy". BOTH those "progressive" DEI trainings and the hollowed-out anti-empathy Evangelical and tech billionaire movements show how the exact opposite is going on: America is going through a real empathy crisis (LACK of empathy), not an empathy "surplus"... . And that is precisely what made the installation of neofascism in DC possible, imho.
For more info (aside from the books that I already mentioned) see Susan Neiman's "Left ≠ woke", which shows how DEI is fundamentally going against everything the left has always stood for.
I certain't cant agree with that! There a big difference that most people don't understand about DEI. Affirmative actoin, theoretically only appleies as a remedy when an organization has been adjudicated as discriminatory.
Some people get carried away...
But in some agencies like mine, people were tested, experience was evaluated, and a "best qualified" list of candidates was created through a process that includes background checks, and an examination by a committee. In foreign service only a small percentage pass on the basis of the test.
Most of the objection a pretext because our jobs are offered to party hacks through the spoils sysyem. The spoils system was first addressed in the 1870's -- vial civil service.
You mentioned the Hmong people. I seldom, if ever, see them mentioned. I am worried about them and all the deportations.
Besides a driver's license or DMV identification what papers, if any, should they be carrying around with them just "in case"?
All what you said was mentioned in this article from 2015:
https://thedailybantercom.wpcomstaging.com/2015/03/23/the-world-isnt-a-safe-space/