A common living address is not an identity. I think she's creating a strawman. What is meant by Identity is related to things that you consider as part of WHO YOU ARE. Your sense of self and personhood. So "identity politics" in this vein, is meant to highlight political affiliation around identities that should not be fundamental to who you are as a political actor or person within society. Yes, I'm Mexican (for example), but my politics should be founded on what is the right thing to do. Having a political ideology around truth and justice. Politics based on Truth is not an identity.
"Coalition Politics" and what is called "Identity Politics" are quite different, especially in practice. The strength of Coalition Politics is that people of all, or no, "identities" participate in the same effort.
Wow, I could not disagree with her more about that "all politics is identity politics". I never think about my state, height, or any other of those issues, even party so much since most people don't like the parties, when thinking about politics. I think about policies that benefit everyone. Someone in California is usually voting for additional support to a lower income state.
Thought the same thing. I've always characterized identity politics as disingenuously using one's identity as a crutch to further the political aims of a group.
She does not understand what identity-politics is. Identity-politics is about the politicisation of innate characteristics, it's about pandering to groups based on traits over which they have no choice or control. Being a Republican or Democrat is not identity-politics, that's party politics.
I was going to say the same thing! What she is talking about, and which she so clearly illustrated in her example of the cold showered apt residents, is "coalition politics". She is confusing that with, as you state, is the use of innate and immutable characteristics to build political platforms. The only way that kind of platform is meaningful and useful is when there is an official policy that explicitly targets a group of people with an innate characteristic. This was the case, for the most part, with slavery and later Jim Crow laws in the US which targeted people based on skin color and very little else. Once the explicit targeting has been officially eradicated, the usefulness of identity politics based on the targeted innate characteristic fade away with time as the group is integrated on all levels of the society in question.
Briahna understands what it means. She's deliberately obfuscating (straw manning even) so she doesn't have to engage with the central tenet. She knows that identity politics is a valuable organizing tool and won't give it up.
Yeah that was a heck of a strange way to make the “all politics are identity politics point”. The rest of what she said made sense, but if “identity” means any description of a person including what apartment building they live in I’m not sure how useful that word is… Like sure, all politics are identity politics if by identity you mean politics involving humans. The rest made sense though.
Will you two just do a weekly show because this is incredible. Absolutely incredible. Lucid, clear thinking and articulation of fundamental issues with thoughtfulness and respect.
The only identity that should be involved in politics is that of the living and the human race, and the environment and ecosystems which unite all things.
The “everything is reflective of identity” framing is classic critical theory. For critical theorists, there is no “truth” that can be arrived at by individuals engaging in a constructive project. There are only groups vying for power.
This is an annoying rhetorical trick -- redefining a concept so broadly that it can't be isolated for critique. "Oh, you like apples but don't like oranges? Don't you realize that apples and orange are the same? Apples are a sweet-tasting fruit with a skin and seeds -- that's exactly what oranges are. So you do like oranges after all."
The idea that "all politics is identity politics" is completely ridiculous. Me advocating for nuclear power instead of solar power, has nothing to do with any identity group that I'm a part of. Unless you want to define "human who wants the best overall outcomes for climate and wealth" as an identity, which is just meaningless semantics.
@@jewulo “All politics are identity politics” was her beginning statement. I would rebutt that with “No, politics are not based on identity. That’s why we have this new thing called identity politics.” Identity politics is an absolute disaster. I’m not even sure if the point was ever made in the video, but the weaponizing identity politics, at least by my definition, is how people will assume political values based on one’s identity, appearance, or even a single viewpoint.
@@LexdeAzevedo2 If you are going to ignore the fact that people are brainwashed into left vs right / red vs blue for establishment Democrats and REpublicans then you just dont live in reality.
My only issue with "identity politics" is how it ASSUMES a sort of automatic "in group" agreement among all members of said group. I resent that the LGBTQ+ mafia ASSUMES that I as a gay man I should share ALL their political views to the bullet point. There is an assumption that if you do not conform to their accepted group-think that you are somehow an infidel or heretic that is no longer REALLY part of that identity. They will actually say things like "You are not REALLY gay"... or "...not REALLY black" and so on. So while I have been openly gay and even married to a man over the past 40 years. The fact that I don't support teaching kids below high-school age about trans and gay sexuality (or even heterosexuality for that matter) I am somehow now "homophobic" or "transphobic" or "working against your own best interests"... as if teaching little kids about my sexuality is FOR my interests. Is it really? Anyway, I can't speak for black Americans but I would bet money that MANY feel the exact same way. Its patronizing. It subverts your right to think and act independently. Just because we share certain cultural traits you cant just assume to know WHO I am and what ALL my values are? Its as if each human being is reduced to one singular trait. I'd like to think human beings are far more complex and intelligent than that.
All those characteristics Brianna listed--where you live, height, etc.--may in a small way contribute to who and how you are, but there is no identity politics built around them.
Yeah that's wild that she started saying if you're from West Virginia that's identity politics! There isn't a good faith argument from these people within a thousand miles. It's awful.
@@amirflesher6868 Just because I don't like her definition of identity politics, that also doesn't mean it can be defined in any manner she chooses. The identities she cites are only identities in the most oblique, superficial way, and in no way can they be argued to describe "identity politics" in any meaningful and relevant way. She completely mischaracterizes the term so that she can use this false definition to build an argument around - this tactic is a hallmark of bad faith arguments. I will concede that in the latter part of the clip she makes some very reasonable arguments - not all of which I agree with, but reasonable all the same.
@@robertmacgregor2327 You literally just contradicted yourself with the term "these people" She was making a larger point that there is a tribal nature of manking to belong to groups and that can be weaponized by those in power.
So.. If someone is born in south their identity would not be affected by that? Or if someone live their entire life in gated communities, that would not be a part of their identity? Your argument is that all the small components that contribute to who you are doesn't matter. What matters then?
The example she used is absurd. She says identity politics is when everyone bands together with a shared fight. The problem with this is maybe some people in that building believe (rightly or wrongly) that the utilities provider is primarily responsible for the water loss. And others believe it is the landlord that is at fault. And still others believe it is the accounting firm who has not credited their payments to the account properly. This is EXACTLY why identity politics is wrong. Because there are different opinions on the cause of any problem and with things more complex than her example, it is probably some combination of multiple things that are at the root.
Her example makes more sense, while your scenario could be more focused. Better examples of IP, IMO, are the White Nationalist insurrectionists who stormed the capital in Jan. 2021, and the White citizens who voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016, as he got a plurality of their votes regardless their sex (m/f), educational attainment, and socio-economic status, for instance.
Racial politics necessarily uses class as a measure to justify its grievance, whilst trying to deny that class is the more general category uniting all underprivileged peoples, black or white.
There is a profound difference between those who simply identify themselves as sharing a common belief or perspective in the political arena and those who buy into social construction theory which claims that "personal identity is established within the perception of self as derived from thoughtful reflection on communicative interactions between oneself and others from the societal environment." In the latter case, the concept of identity is intentionally divorced from all natural deterministic elements (e.g. DNA, familial lineage, biology etc.) and reductively redefined as a mere product of ones own mind. And, when one closely examines the philosophical roots of social construction theory, it becomes expressly clear that it endeavors to "replace rational agency with communal rationality, empirical knowledge with social construction, and language as representation with language as action". In short, social construction theory aspires to the goal of undermining the core philosophical tenets of western tradition which are said to be the innately racist product of its "white" progenitors and thus the intrinsically racist core of western systems of government by extension. And, when one examines the burgeoning intersectional relationship between post-Marxist ideology and social construction theory, one comes face-to-face with key elements of Wokeism. So, when one hears groups like Black Lives Matter mindlessly parroting Woke memes that are spoon fed to them by its neoMarxist founders, one can rightly conclude that their collective identity is being fostered with the covert aim of inculcating them with a belief system that, by its very nature, is intended to deprive their members of the linguistic means by which they can correctly analyze and objectively express the essential nature of reality itself.
Great conversation on an important issue. Judging from the comments, I think perhaps too many viewers are getting hung up on how she defined identity politics, which really has very little bearing on her more significant points regarding the deliberate sidelining of class issues by a cynical and superficial emphasis on identity (or "woke") issues, in short, displacing class politics w/ "woke" politics. Her points RE the weaponization of ID politics are spot on.
Maybe the reason that police shootings are rare in neighborhoods with incomes over $200,000 per year is that people in those neighborhoods are more likely to be law-abiding and less likely to initiate violent encounters with police or to resist arrest.
Isn't she conflating identity with group interests? Is there really a reason to confuse the two? Yes, group interests CAN lead to identity and vice versa, but this is absolutely not a given
I think Briahna has redefined identity politics. Critique of identity politics focused on the futility of organising a coalition of people to fight for a cause based on the immutable characteristics of the people being recruited to the cause when organising a coalition of people to fight for a cause that ignores immutable characteristics would be more effective, even if the cause was to address a racial inequity.
I think the biggest problem with identity politics besides race being substituted for class or whatever is that it seems like the enemy is not bad policy or politicians that dont serve you, but rather other groups of people that are likely in similar situations and struggles as yourself. And the answer to every vixtims struggles is for their neighbors to become more woke rather than for governments to change.
Political discussions will shift away from race and the culture wars and start to focus more on economic issues. Our current trajectory will bring hard times to too many people for it to be ignored, and the younger generations are demanding a shift in focus. The culture wars are more for the over 50 crowd. In 1992 the Clintons said, "It's the economy, stupid". It's still the economy; it's always the economy. The 1960's was a rare time when we had both the Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements. However, even those movements were about marginalized peoples being able to fully participate in the economy.
All politics isn’t Identify Politics. The fact that people may organise around particular aspects of their identities doesn’t make it Identity Politics. For starters seeing humans as complex with multiple identities that may have different relevances at different times, is completely different to seeing people as defined by certain aspects of their identities and that these identities are in power contests with each other. There are certain understandings of what it means to be human, what justice looks like, how politics operates that IP rest on the set it apart from any kind of universal humanist understanding of justice and politics. Her claims about what IPs is, are banal and shallow. Whether she just doesn’t understand any of this, or just has thought it through in any depth I don’t know, but with such a fundamental misunderstanding it makes taking anything else she says seriously very difficult.
Two examples of politics: - Advocating laws granting special rights to people of an acceptable racial heritage - Advocating laws requiring car manufacturers to install air-bags According to Joy Gray these are both examples of "identity politics", which would seem to make 'identity' a completely useless term, meaning we still need some term to distinguish these two forms of politics.
Everyone has a multitude of identities and these identities are part of politics as they are part of life in general. But I will not concede that "all politics is identity politics" [1:41]; this assumes a primacy of identity in politics, as if it were necessarily the basis of all political thought and action, the highest value, the foundation for everything in politics. I think this is deeply wrong. Worse than that -- I think it is dangerous and never leads to anything good. Part of it, yes, to some (preferably minor) extent; foundational, no. When the residents of a building get together to resolve some issue, they do that because they have *_an issue_* in common, not because of an identity.
Well done! My problem with identity politics is that it obscures and obfuscates economic inequality. Just another way to say what Ms gray was saying. For example you have the Democratic Party who uses feel your pain language and talks about diversity and identity, and has people with different identities involved in the party itself. But the Democratic Party stops there. Whenever it comes to real economic change then you become a threat. Until there is economic equality identity politics don't make much sense. Another issue in the weaponization of identity politics is what has now become an Orthodoxy of inclusion which ignores larger issues and gains hard one by other movements. I'm specifically speaking of trans rights activists who ignore the hard one gains of the women's movement for women's only spaces Etc. This would be a perfect opportunity for coalitioning and empathy both ways. But instead of having discussion the Orthodoxy of identity politics and inclusion labels anyone who offers a critique as transphobic. Just as if anyone acknowledges that someone on the right has a correct stance on an issue they're immediately labeled a trump supporter. I think one of the reasons that the Democratic party has embraced identity politics so thoroughly, those certainly not the only reason, is that they are absolutely attempting to maintain control on the conversation. They want to keep it in terms of neoliberal and Neo conservative viewpoints. The red blue identities. It works for them because it makes anyone who lies with one or the other party immediately dismiss accused and berate anyone who tries to Coalition with the other.
Globalizing capitalism and wokeness share an interest in removing all the barriers that restrain their fantasies, the hubristic triumph of mind over matter: physical borders; definitions of words; local culture, mores, laws; family as the fundamental social unit; political structures that distribute rather than concentrate power; distinctions between adults/children/men/women; and on and on in a relentless attack on nature and on the wisdom hard won by man's awareness of his place in nature over thousands of years.
Gray's comment that mentioned the income commonality with police shootings, should not just include class and race, but culture as well. The Right speaks of culture all the time, or at least knows when to emphasize it. The Left - the far Left included, rarely addresses the issue, from any angle.
I think she's kinda throwing us off with the whole "all politics is identity politics". When we say identity politics we all know what we're talking about. It's about race and gender. I vote republican which is in line with a white woman who lives in another state because we like lower taxes. I don't think I can say "we share the same identity politics". I guess in her sense both believing in lower taxes is an identity... 😂🤣😂🤣
Yes we are living in the time when Tucker Carlson is the only corporate broadcast news mouthpiece for actual class issues , questioning imperialism and even political corruption
Carlson is fast becoming a loon and quasi unhinged, especially over the Ukraine war and his completely bizarre view of isolationism uber alles and support for authoritarian regimes. He sees war conspiracies everywhere, when there are demonstrably none and confuses military aid and support to a nation under unprovoked attack as somehow actual war and unjustifiable. He in on the cusp of reality.
To the point about Americans recovering from the 2008 recession… There’s an interesting study that recently came out which was able to demonstrate that Americans were in fact able to recover from the 2008 recession, because of the tax cut policies of the previous president.
@@bettinabarr9107 i’m surprised you find that statement controversial. Tax cuts are good. The less money we give to the government, the less money they have to mishandle. Paying taxes is not a virtue.
@@bettinabarr9107 Also, your statement is a perfect example of why identity politics do not work. You assume that because I am for tax cuts, I must be a Republican. Or rather, someone that is for tax cuts, is using a Republican talking point. As if only Republicans are against taxes.
@@LexdeAzevedo2 over the last 60 years personal income tax rates have gone from a high of 90% - yes you read that right - to now an average of about 25%. But it’s no coincidence that 60 years ago, we also lived in a country where a man working a blue-collar job, could support a wife and a family on one income, buy a modest house, send his children to college, and retire with a pension. Over these last 60 years, a succession of governmental policies resulted in busting unions, cutting the corporate and personal tax rates, stagnating wages, while rewarding CEOs with obscene multi million dollar paychecks, as their own workers struggle to keep pace with the rising costs, and ultimately shipping many manufacturing jobs overseas. It wasn’t a coincidence that during the time of our nations highest taxation, that we built our national highway system, and other important infrastructure, as well as funded public education, scientific study, and the space race.
I wonder if when they (you know who I mean) created racial identity, they considered the damage it would do to all regardless of categorization? I wonder if they care now?
One thing, that may be overlooked in addressing many of these social problems, is that these problems need to be analyzed more thoroughly, and more specifically focused, to as many profiles, that may exist. Take the opioid problem for example. Is the government's respond to it, agreeable with the particular assistance Black and low income addicts may need? Do many addicted to opioids, have a better life to return to, when they recover their lives? Do they have better support systems and resources to help them stay clean? If special considerations aren't applied to particular profiles of addicts, does it foretell a higher likelihood of relapse among them? In terms of the legalization of marijuana, is it likely Black people will be more negatively impacted, in any area where there is to be a negative impact - the old, "when America catches a cold, we get pneumonia", if you will - saying? Are Black people applying the principles or theory of CRT, to themselves in this area? One can see students on their way to and from school smoking pot, in many Black communities. The learning environment is already often chaotic. The defiance of authority is considerable, not to mention the already bad eating habits of adolescents, How much more worst can the attitude of young people become, when they act now, as if marijuana is legal to smoke? What is the long term impact of early marijuana use, coupled with poor, inadequate, or ineffective parenting? In many homes, the parents are not the major influence on a child's life, and the age that begins to happen, is getting lower. Their friends and media of all kinds, provide a greater amount of the ideas, they receive. Too many adults aren't responsible with drinking and using other mind altering substances. Can society afford more irresponsibility, from even more immature minds? Shouldn't checks and balance be put into place, to prevent these kinds of worsening problems. Should there be a concerted effort to inform the public and young people especially, of the danger their continued and increased anti-social behavior, will have on the entire society? Don't we in Black communities especially, have enough evidence to show, in our contemporary history, since the Civil Rights era, how things can quickly go down hill? More discussions from contrasting viewpoints, need to take place, but it does no good to just argue these issues, for the sake of it , or to just supplement ones income. Cornell West and Glenn Loury did a video together, early last year. Hopefully we'll see more of these. I would love these four and some others, evaluate the masterclass.com presentation - 'Black History, Freedom, & Love'. It seems with some editing, it could serve the purpose of what is being argued as CRT being taught in schools. We must keep track of where the two sides agree and then lay them all out, in a list, so we can see, to what degree we are in agreement. We should then theoretically, be able to resolve these problematic issues we agree on, more quickly, and use that success to make other areas more easy to resolve. In just accomplishing a small task together, we strengthen our relationship, with each other. I don't know which group is more divided - the country as a whole or Black people particularly. The national divide is more intense, but the Black divide, is of numerous fractions. Many of them are perplexing, when not out-right suspicious. We can't keep operating in this manner.
Identity politics is about tribal politics based on immutable characteristics. Coalescing over shared values, principles, religion, these are not identities in the same way at all.
Think it was adolph Reed who said but may be he was quoting some one else, anyways, corporation’s have two parties, we (the working class) really ought to get one
This gave me much more respect for Briahna Joy Gray. I'm glad that she is willing to speak to Coleman and she represents the left well (not the woke straw person of the left often depicted by the right).
No, not all politics are identity politics. She is warping the entire concept of the term. The vast majority of voters do not vote for politicians because of any of the factors she mentioned. Most people vote for policies which they believe in and or that will benefit the country, state or municipality. It has nothing to do with sexuality, race, height, male or female, etc...She is simply wrong here.
Briahna, with respoect, "all politics is identity politics" - no. The support of ideas, values, philisophy or political ideas is not tied to your personal or group identity - unless politics is all that you are. Your statement needs refinement. For example there is no one running around saying that they are oppressed because of their supoport for state run medical services or small goverment. Where are the people calling for quotas on company baords of libertarians or tyranical authoritarians? Where are the protests for greater representation of sports fans? But certainly there are some people, probably those who spend too much time talking about politics, who's identity is so tied into politics they can't separate the two. Its almost like deliberate political polarisation of the community is the fire that is forging those two together.
Identity politics is necessary, because the structure of government, and the system of justice, are so tenuous, to the end of an individual getting the justice they seek. Everything can be used as a weapon in politics. It is an art of war. The Left approaches it as a sporting event and thus that is why we are always playing to catch up. By nature we have to approach it this way. One side has to be the adult in the room. My biggest complaint is that we don't live day to day lives, that are consistent with liberal values. We have yet to find a way to change the behavior, of those who are our default constituency, who are involved in crimes especially violent crimes. We also have not been able to get more marginalized people, and sadly more financially stable people as well, to become involved in their communities - in the general civil and political processes. As it stands now, they act as a political handicap.
@@jewulo She stated that where a person lives can be identity politics. One reason smaller states want to keep the electoral college is so that their concerns are not over run by the larger ones.
The poor won't beat the rich at politics. Liberty and charity are path forward. Live and let live, and help those you think need help. Otherwise government will always be a game that the rich and powerful control, not the poor or underclass.
Identity politics have always been a weapon, we just have new "Nazis."Full corporate and political by in from the "woke" industrial complex, some are just "useful idiots" and many are more like the rank and file and the SS and the corporatists opportunists will take power however the facade comes. No hyperbole, just a legal tradition and some reasonable people keeping it in check. People have "identities" when they can't handle having a personality.
You're talking to Coleman Hughes? Hmmmmm. That man is part of the problem, not part of the solution. All he does is carp and moans and say no to any change whatsoever.
![Race, Class, & Culture with Briahna Joy Gray [S3 Ep.10]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fo4X8slO6L8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Race, Class, & Culture with Briahna Joy Gray [S3 Ep.10]](/img/tr.png)
A common living address is not an identity. I think she's creating a strawman. What is meant by Identity is related to things that you consider as part of WHO YOU ARE. Your sense of self and personhood. So "identity politics" in this vein, is meant to highlight political affiliation around identities that should not be fundamental to who you are as a political actor or person within society.
Yes, I'm Mexican (for example), but my politics should be founded on what is the right thing to do. Having a political ideology around truth and justice. Politics based on Truth is not an identity.
"Coalition Politics" and what is called "Identity Politics" are quite different, especially in practice. The strength of Coalition Politics is that people of all, or no, "identities" participate in the same effort.
Brianna doesn’t get this point - it is a disservice to Coleman to have her meander and spin.
Wow, I could not disagree with her more about that "all politics is identity politics". I never think about my state, height, or any other of those issues, even party so much since most people don't like the parties, when thinking about politics. I think about policies that benefit everyone. Someone in California is usually voting for additional support to a lower income state.
Yeah this was seriously eye brow raising. More accurate would be “all politics can be looked at through an identity politics lens”
Thought the same thing. I've always characterized identity politics as disingenuously using one's identity as a crutch to further the political aims of a group.
@@driedmango1914 That's actually a pretty accurate rephrasing.
This is basically the opposite of what John Rawls wanted
Agree, she was way off there. She is way off on a lot of things though
She does not understand what identity-politics is. Identity-politics is about the politicisation of innate characteristics, it's about pandering to groups based on traits over which they have no choice or control. Being a Republican or Democrat is not identity-politics, that's party politics.
I was going to say the same thing! What she is talking about, and which she so clearly illustrated in her example of the cold showered apt residents, is "coalition politics". She is confusing that with, as you state, is the use of innate and immutable characteristics to build political platforms. The only way that kind of platform is meaningful and useful is when there is an official policy that explicitly targets a group of people with an innate characteristic. This was the case, for the most part, with slavery and later Jim Crow laws in the US which targeted people based on skin color and very little else. Once the explicit targeting has been officially eradicated, the usefulness of identity politics based on the targeted innate characteristic fade away with time as the group is integrated on all levels of the society in question.
Briahna understands what it means. She's deliberately obfuscating (straw manning even) so she doesn't have to engage with the central tenet. She knows that identity politics is a valuable organizing tool and won't give it up.
Yeah that was a heck of a strange way to make the “all politics are identity politics point”. The rest of what she said made sense, but if “identity” means any description of a person including what apartment building they live in I’m not sure how useful that word is… Like sure, all politics are identity politics if by identity you mean politics involving humans.
The rest made sense though.
Will you two just do a weekly show because this is incredible. Absolutely incredible. Lucid, clear thinking and articulation of fundamental issues with thoughtfulness and respect.
The only identity that should be involved in politics is that of the living and the human race, and the environment and ecosystems which unite all things.
The “everything is reflective of identity” framing is classic critical theory. For critical theorists, there is no “truth” that can be arrived at by individuals engaging in a constructive project. There are only groups vying for power.
Americans spend there time in life crawling over each other like the zombies from world war Z,
not surprising.
This is an annoying rhetorical trick -- redefining a concept so broadly that it can't be isolated for critique. "Oh, you like apples but don't like oranges? Don't you realize that apples and orange are the same? Apples are a sweet-tasting fruit with a skin and seeds -- that's exactly what oranges are. So you do like oranges after all."
nailed it.
Coleman I love the way you communicate. Thanks for what you do!
The idea that "all politics is identity politics" is completely ridiculous. Me advocating for nuclear power instead of solar power, has nothing to do with any identity group that I'm a part of. Unless you want to define "human who wants the best overall outcomes for climate and wealth" as an identity, which is just meaningless semantics.
I absolutely love both of y'all
I’m disappointed that she comes out the gate with a misunderstanding of what identity politics is.
How so? Care to explain. I personally hate identity politics. I think it is actually dangerous. I feel it encapsulates prejudice by appearing not to.
@@jewulo “All politics are identity politics” was her beginning statement. I would rebutt that with “No, politics are not based on identity. That’s why we have this new thing called identity politics.” Identity politics is an absolute disaster.
I’m not even sure if the point was ever made in the video, but the weaponizing identity politics, at least by my definition, is how people will assume political values based on one’s identity, appearance, or even a single viewpoint.
@@LexdeAzevedo2 If you are going to ignore the fact that people are brainwashed into left vs right / red vs blue for establishment Democrats and REpublicans then you just dont live in reality.
My only issue with "identity politics" is how it ASSUMES a sort of automatic "in group" agreement among all members of said group. I resent that the LGBTQ+ mafia ASSUMES that I as a gay man I should share ALL their political views to the bullet point. There is an assumption that if you do not conform to their accepted group-think that you are somehow an infidel or heretic that is no longer REALLY part of that identity. They will actually say things like "You are not REALLY gay"... or "...not REALLY black" and so on. So while I have been openly gay and even married to a man over the past 40 years. The fact that I don't support teaching kids below high-school age about trans and gay sexuality (or even heterosexuality for that matter) I am somehow now "homophobic" or "transphobic" or "working against your own best interests"... as if teaching little kids about my sexuality is FOR my interests. Is it really? Anyway, I can't speak for black Americans but I would bet money that MANY feel the exact same way. Its patronizing. It subverts your right to think and act independently. Just because we share certain cultural traits you cant just assume to know WHO I am and what ALL my values are? Its as if each human being is reduced to one singular trait. I'd like to think human beings are far more complex and intelligent than that.
She had an extremely longwinded and convoluted response to what he is saying.
All those characteristics Brianna listed--where you live, height, etc.--may in a small way contribute to who and how you are, but there is no identity politics built around them.
Yeah that's wild that she started saying if you're from West Virginia that's identity politics! There isn't a good faith argument from these people within a thousand miles. It's awful.
@@amirflesher6868 Just because I don't like her definition of identity politics, that also doesn't mean it can be defined in any manner she chooses. The identities she cites are only identities in the most oblique, superficial way, and in no way can they be argued to describe "identity politics" in any meaningful and relevant way. She completely mischaracterizes the term so that she can use this false definition to build an argument around - this tactic is a hallmark of bad faith arguments.
I will concede that in the latter part of the clip she makes some very reasonable arguments - not all of which I agree with, but reasonable all the same.
@@robertmacgregor2327 You literally just contradicted yourself with the term "these people" She was making a larger point that there is a tribal nature of manking to belong to groups and that can be weaponized by those in power.
@@truthbearer7891 You'll have to explain the contradiction, because I certainly didn't contradict myself in any way there.
So.. If someone is born in south their identity would not be affected by that? Or if someone live their entire life in gated communities, that would not be a part of their identity? Your argument is that all the small components that contribute to who you are doesn't matter. What matters then?
She is confused about what is meant by the phrase "identity politics" by most people who use the term
Really smart interview. Looking forward to the full episode.
More Briahna, good to see her talking here too.
The example she used is absurd. She says identity politics is when everyone bands together with a shared fight. The problem with this is maybe some people in that building believe (rightly or wrongly) that the utilities provider is primarily responsible for the water loss. And others believe it is the landlord that is at fault. And still others believe it is the accounting firm who has not credited their payments to the account properly. This is EXACTLY why identity politics is wrong. Because there are different opinions on the cause of any problem and with things more complex than her example, it is probably some combination of multiple things that are at the root.
Her example makes more sense, while your scenario could be more focused. Better examples of IP, IMO, are the White Nationalist insurrectionists who stormed the capital in Jan. 2021, and the White citizens who voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016, as he got a plurality of their votes regardless their sex (m/f), educational attainment, and socio-economic status, for instance.
Racial politics necessarily uses class as a measure to justify its grievance, whilst trying to deny that class is the more general category uniting all underprivileged peoples, black or white.
There is a profound difference between those who simply identify themselves as sharing a common belief or perspective in the political arena and those who buy into social construction theory which claims that "personal identity is established within the perception of self as derived from thoughtful reflection on communicative interactions between oneself and others from the societal environment." In the latter case, the concept of identity is intentionally divorced from all natural deterministic elements (e.g. DNA, familial lineage, biology etc.) and reductively redefined as a mere product of ones own mind. And, when one closely examines the philosophical roots of social construction theory, it becomes expressly clear that it endeavors to "replace rational agency with communal rationality, empirical knowledge with social construction, and language as representation with language as action". In short, social construction theory aspires to the goal of undermining the core philosophical tenets of western tradition which are said to be the innately racist product of its "white" progenitors and thus the intrinsically racist core of western systems of government by extension. And, when one examines the burgeoning intersectional relationship between post-Marxist ideology and social construction theory, one comes face-to-face with key elements of Wokeism. So, when one hears groups like Black Lives Matter mindlessly parroting Woke memes that are spoon fed to them by its neoMarxist founders, one can rightly conclude that their collective identity is being fostered with the covert aim of inculcating them with a belief system that, by its very nature, is intended to deprive their members of the linguistic means by which they can correctly analyze and objectively express the essential nature of reality itself.
🎯
Great conversation on an important issue. Judging from the comments, I think perhaps too many viewers are getting hung up on how she defined identity politics, which really has very little bearing on her more significant points regarding the deliberate sidelining of class issues by a cynical and superficial emphasis on identity (or "woke") issues, in short, displacing class politics w/ "woke" politics. Her points RE the weaponization of ID politics are spot on.
No, definitions and world views are important.
Maybe the reason that police shootings are rare in neighborhoods with incomes over $200,000 per year is that people in those neighborhoods are more likely to be law-abiding and less likely to initiate violent encounters with police or to resist arrest.
This is good. Two intelligent people having healthy debate.
Omg I love these two
I appreciate most of what BJG is saying, but I would argue that at times in this vid she conflates “identity politics” with “factional politics”.
Yaaay! Love Briahna Joy Gray!
Wow, an intelligent conversation on race and identity politics. Whooda thunk it?
Isn't she conflating identity with group interests? Is there really a reason to confuse the two? Yes, group interests CAN lead to identity and vice versa, but this is absolutely not a given
I think Briahna has redefined identity politics. Critique of identity politics focused on the futility of organising a coalition of people to fight for a cause based on the immutable characteristics of the people being recruited to the cause when organising a coalition of people to fight for a cause that ignores immutable characteristics would be more effective, even if the cause was to address a racial inequity.
I think the biggest problem with identity politics besides race being substituted for class or whatever is that it seems like the enemy is not bad policy or politicians that dont serve you, but rather other groups of people that are likely in similar situations and struggles as yourself. And the answer to every vixtims struggles is for their neighbors to become more woke rather than for governments to change.
Coleman please consider a split screen view. Frustrating not see facial reactions to opposing viewpoints. Thanks x
Political discussions will shift away from race and the culture wars and start to focus more on economic issues. Our current trajectory will bring hard times to too many people for it to be ignored, and the younger generations are demanding a shift in focus. The culture wars are more for the over 50 crowd. In 1992 the Clintons said, "It's the economy, stupid". It's still the economy; it's always the economy. The 1960's was a rare time when we had both the Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements. However, even those movements were about marginalized peoples being able to fully participate in the economy.
All politics isn’t Identify Politics. The fact that people may organise around particular aspects of their identities doesn’t make it Identity Politics. For starters seeing humans as complex with multiple identities that may have different relevances at different times, is completely different to seeing people as defined by certain aspects of their identities and that these identities are in power contests with each other.
There are certain understandings of what it means to be human, what justice looks like, how politics operates that IP rest on the set it apart from any kind of universal humanist understanding of justice and politics.
Her claims about what IPs is, are banal and shallow. Whether she just doesn’t understand any of this, or just has thought it through in any depth I don’t know, but with such a fundamental misunderstanding it makes taking anything else she says seriously very difficult.
All politics is not identity politics. Being attracted to ideas and ideals is not identity politics.
Im working class. Im not squeezed. If it werent for inflation ive never been doing better in my life
Two examples of politics:
- Advocating laws granting special rights to people of an acceptable racial heritage
- Advocating laws requiring car manufacturers to install air-bags
According to Joy Gray these are both examples of "identity politics", which would seem to make 'identity' a completely useless term, meaning we still need some term to distinguish these two forms of politics.
So good
Everyone has a multitude of identities and these identities are part of politics as they are part of life in general. But I will not concede that "all politics is identity politics" [1:41]; this assumes a primacy of identity in politics, as if it were necessarily the basis of all political thought and action, the highest value, the foundation for everything in politics. I think this is deeply wrong. Worse than that -- I think it is dangerous and never leads to anything good. Part of it, yes, to some (preferably minor) extent; foundational, no. When the residents of a building get together to resolve some issue, they do that because they have *_an issue_* in common, not because of an identity.
Well done! My problem with identity politics is that it obscures and obfuscates economic inequality. Just another way to say what Ms gray was saying. For example you have the Democratic Party who uses feel your pain language and talks about diversity and identity, and has people with different identities involved in the party itself. But the Democratic Party stops there. Whenever it comes to real economic change then you become a threat. Until there is economic equality identity politics don't make much sense. Another issue in the weaponization of identity politics is what has now become an Orthodoxy of inclusion which ignores larger issues and gains hard one by other movements. I'm specifically speaking of trans rights activists who ignore the hard one gains of the women's movement for women's only spaces Etc. This would be a perfect opportunity for coalitioning and empathy both ways. But instead of having discussion the Orthodoxy of identity politics and inclusion labels anyone who offers a critique as transphobic. Just as if anyone acknowledges that someone on the right has a correct stance on an issue they're immediately labeled a trump supporter. I think one of the reasons that the Democratic party has embraced identity politics so thoroughly, those certainly not the only reason, is that they are absolutely attempting to maintain control on the conversation. They want to keep it in terms of neoliberal and Neo conservative viewpoints. The red blue identities. It works for them because it makes anyone who lies with one or the other party immediately dismiss accused and berate anyone who tries to Coalition with the other.
Globalizing capitalism and wokeness share an interest in removing all the barriers that restrain their fantasies, the hubristic triumph of mind over matter: physical borders; definitions of words; local culture, mores, laws; family as the fundamental social unit; political structures that distribute rather than concentrate power; distinctions between adults/children/men/women; and on and on in a relentless attack on nature and on the wisdom hard won by man's awareness of his place in nature over thousands of years.
Gray's comment that mentioned the income commonality with police shootings, should not just include class and race, but culture as well. The Right speaks of culture all the time, or at least knows when to emphasize it. The Left - the far Left included, rarely addresses the issue, from any angle.
There’s a good reason the left shies away from culture
I think she's kinda throwing us off with the whole "all politics is identity politics". When we say identity politics we all know what we're talking about. It's about race and gender.
I vote republican which is in line with a white woman who lives in another state because we like lower taxes. I don't think I can say "we share the same identity politics". I guess in her sense both believing in lower taxes is an identity... 😂🤣😂🤣
Yes we are living in the time when Tucker Carlson is the only corporate broadcast news mouthpiece for actual class issues , questioning imperialism and even political corruption
Carlson is fast becoming a loon and quasi unhinged, especially over the Ukraine war and his completely bizarre view of isolationism uber alles and support for authoritarian regimes. He sees war conspiracies everywhere, when there are demonstrably none and confuses military aid and support to a nation under unprovoked attack as somehow actual war and unjustifiable.
He in on the cusp of reality.
To the point about Americans recovering from the 2008 recession… There’s an interesting study that recently came out which was able to demonstrate that Americans were in fact able to recover from the 2008 recession, because of the tax cut policies of the previous president.
Wow, what an old tired GOP talking point. Tax cuts goooooood.
@@bettinabarr9107 i’m surprised you find that statement controversial. Tax cuts are good. The less money we give to the government, the less money they have to mishandle. Paying taxes is not a virtue.
@@bettinabarr9107 Also, your statement is a perfect example of why identity politics do not work. You assume that because I am for tax cuts, I must be a Republican. Or rather, someone that is for tax cuts, is using a Republican talking point. As if only Republicans are against taxes.
@@LexdeAzevedo2 over the last 60 years personal income tax rates have gone from a high of 90% - yes you read that right - to now an average of about 25%. But it’s no coincidence that 60 years ago, we also lived in a country where a man working a blue-collar job, could support a wife and a family on one income, buy a modest house, send his children to college, and retire with a pension. Over these last 60 years, a succession of governmental policies resulted in busting unions, cutting the corporate and personal tax rates, stagnating wages, while rewarding CEOs with obscene multi million dollar paychecks, as their own workers struggle to keep pace with the rising costs, and ultimately shipping many manufacturing jobs overseas. It wasn’t a coincidence that during the time of our nations highest taxation, that we built our national highway system, and other important infrastructure, as well as funded public education, scientific study, and the space race.
I wonder if when they (you know who I mean) created racial identity, they considered the damage it would do to all regardless of categorization? I wonder if they care now?
Categorization of people into different groups has always been done. Nothing new .
Brilliant. Two of the finest minds in the country right now.
He called you both articulate
One thing, that may be overlooked in addressing many of these social problems, is that these problems need to be analyzed more thoroughly, and more specifically focused, to as many profiles, that may exist. Take the opioid problem for example. Is the government's respond to it, agreeable with the particular assistance Black and low income addicts may need? Do many addicted to opioids, have a better life to return to, when they recover their lives? Do they have better support systems and resources to help them stay clean? If special considerations aren't applied to particular profiles of addicts, does it foretell a higher likelihood of relapse among them?
In terms of the legalization of marijuana, is it likely Black people will be more negatively impacted, in any area where there is to be a negative impact - the old, "when America catches a cold, we get pneumonia", if you will - saying? Are Black people applying the principles or theory of CRT, to themselves in this area? One can see students on their way to and from school smoking pot, in many Black communities. The learning environment is already often chaotic. The defiance of authority is considerable, not to mention the already bad eating habits of adolescents, How much more worst can the attitude of young people become, when they act now, as if marijuana is legal to smoke? What is the long term impact of early marijuana use, coupled with poor, inadequate, or ineffective parenting? In many homes, the parents are not the major influence on a child's life, and the age that begins to happen, is getting lower. Their friends and media of all kinds, provide a greater amount of the ideas, they receive. Too many adults aren't responsible with drinking and using other mind altering substances. Can society afford more irresponsibility, from even more immature minds? Shouldn't checks and balance be put into place, to prevent these kinds of worsening problems. Should there be a concerted effort to inform the public and young people especially, of the danger their continued and increased anti-social behavior, will have on the entire society? Don't we in Black communities especially, have enough evidence to show, in our contemporary history, since the Civil Rights era, how things can quickly go down hill?
More discussions from contrasting viewpoints, need to take place, but it does no good to just argue these issues, for the sake of it , or to just supplement ones income. Cornell West and Glenn Loury did a video together, early last year. Hopefully we'll see more of these. I would love these four and some others, evaluate the masterclass.com presentation - 'Black History, Freedom, & Love'. It seems with some editing, it could serve the purpose of what is being argued as CRT being taught in schools.
We must keep track of where the two sides agree and then lay them all out, in a list, so we can see, to what degree we are in agreement. We should then theoretically, be able to resolve these problematic issues we agree on, more quickly, and use that success to make other areas more easy to resolve. In just accomplishing a small task together, we strengthen our relationship, with each other. I don't know which group is more divided - the country as a whole or Black people particularly. The national divide is more intense, but the Black divide, is of numerous fractions. Many of them are perplexing, when not out-right suspicious. We can't keep operating in this manner.
I wish this was only Coleman's commentary. Briahna offered nothing to this topic other than confusion.
Identity politics is about tribal politics based on immutable characteristics.
Coalescing over shared values, principles, religion, these are not identities in the same way at all.
When will you talk to Adolph Reed?!!
Clearly stated.
Think it was adolph Reed who said but may be he was quoting some one else, anyways, corporation’s have two parties, we (the working class) really ought to get one
What a meaningless word salad.
This gave me much more respect for Briahna Joy Gray. I'm glad that she is willing to speak to Coleman and she represents the left well (not the woke straw person of the left often depicted by the right).
Gray says "all politics are identity politics." What about environmental advocacy?
She said identity politics is a neutral reality. 😂
Identity Politics IS a problem. Very divisive.
funny how they didnt bring up the great replacement theory bri Wow
No, not all politics are identity politics. She is warping the entire concept of the term. The vast majority of voters do not vote for politicians because of any of the factors she mentioned. Most people vote for policies which they believe in and or that will benefit the country, state or municipality. It has nothing to do with sexuality, race, height, male or female, etc...She is simply wrong here.
She does not know what identity politics means
Briahna, with respoect, "all politics is identity politics" - no. The support of ideas, values, philisophy or political ideas is not tied to your personal or group identity - unless politics is all that you are. Your statement needs refinement. For example there is no one running around saying that they are oppressed because of their supoport for state run medical services or small goverment. Where are the people calling for quotas on company baords of libertarians or tyranical authoritarians? Where are the protests for greater representation of sports fans? But certainly there are some people, probably those who spend too much time talking about politics, who's identity is so tied into politics they can't separate the two. Its almost like deliberate political polarisation of the community is the fire that is forging those two together.
Couldn't stand her casuistry and speciousness in the conversation with Andrew Sullivan, still can't here.
Even though I agree mostly, "class" politics is much worse than identity politics. It is based on even worse collective assumptions.
@@amirflesher6868 i already said its based on wrong assumptions, leftist class theory , collectivism, faulty economics
Identity politics is necessary, because the structure of government, and the system of justice, are so tenuous, to the end of an individual getting the justice they seek. Everything can be used as a weapon in politics. It is an art of war. The Left approaches it as a sporting event and thus that is why we are always playing to catch up. By nature we have to approach it this way. One side has to be the adult in the room. My biggest complaint is that we don't live day to day lives, that are consistent with liberal values. We have yet to find a way to change the behavior, of those who are our default constituency, who are involved in crimes especially violent crimes. We also have not been able to get more marginalized people, and sadly more financially stable people as well, to become involved in their communities - in the general civil and political processes. As it stands now, they act as a political handicap.
Her description of identity politics just enforced the need to maintain a Republican form of government and electoral college
How so? I don't follow your reasoning or argument. Please do care to explain and elaborate.
@@jewulo She stated that where a person lives can be identity politics. One reason smaller states want to keep the electoral college is so that their concerns are not over run by the larger ones.
coleman parades as a neutral on politics he makes lots of money being a republican puppet
I'm sorry, not all politics is about identity. That's silly.
The poor won't beat the rich at politics. Liberty and charity are path forward. Live and let live, and help those you think need help. Otherwise government will always be a game that the rich and powerful control, not the poor or underclass.
Jk
Identity politics have always been a weapon, we just have new "Nazis."Full corporate and political by in from the "woke" industrial complex, some are just "useful idiots" and many are more like the rank and file and the SS and the corporatists opportunists will take power however the facade comes. No hyperbole, just a legal tradition and some reasonable people keeping it in check. People have "identities" when they can't handle having a personality.
And what are you doing, Coleman Hughes, to change the dynamics?
Answer: Nothing.
You're talking to Coleman Hughes? Hmmmmm. That man is part of the problem, not part of the solution. All he does is carp and moans and say no to any change whatsoever.