What is Anti-Woke?

[wmw999 2,316]

Anti-woke is simply an unwillingness to consider the possibility that one's choices, one's family's and friends' choices, are possibly colored by the society that they live in, along with an unwillingness to consider that the society might have inherent social biases.

I'll bet that most of us, had we been white and living in the south of the US in the first half of the nineteenth century, would have thought of slavery as perfectly normal. Maybe a little unfair to some because they seemed almost to be like "us," but no more so than the fact that there were poor and starving white people, too. Just as many people who grew up in the first part of the 20th century honestly felt that it was unfair to expect them to treat black people as though they were equal, and even have them in the same institutions!

Some of those people are still alive, and are the respected elders in their communities. Remember "look up to your elders?"

Normal is what the people around you are doing. Anti-woke is simply not being willing to question that "normal."

Wendy P.

[winsor 224]

Anti-Woke is simply the principle of equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

[jakee 1,347]

10 minutes ago, winsor said:

Anti-Woke is simply the principle of equal rights…

It might, if you’re being incredibly charitable, be about equal rights in principle. But Woke is about equal rights in practice and anti-woke absolutely is not.

Edited May 8, 2023 by jakee

[wmw999 2,316]

36 minutes ago, winsor said:

Anti-Woke is simply the principle of equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

Why do you get to define both woke and anti-woke? 

Wendy P. 

[lippy 869]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Why do you get to define both woke and anti-woke? 

Wendy P. 

White privilege? 

[winsor 224]

5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Why do you get to define both woke and anti-woke? 

Wendy P. 

Why not?

[billvon 2,739]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I'll bet that most of us, had we been white and living in the south of the US in the first half of the nineteenth century, would have thought of slavery as perfectly normal. Maybe a little unfair to some because they seemed almost to be like "us," but no more so than the fact that there were poor and starving white people, too.

Indeed, many whites of the time made the argument that blacks were better off enslaved in America than they were free back in Africa, since they got better food, were converted to Christianity, got clothing, were taught morals etc.  And I am sure that this, in their minds, proved they were not racist.

Congressman Henry Hammond in the 1830's:

"Slavery is said to be an evil... But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region... As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth... Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world,... their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care....

Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery regulated as ours is produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."

Amazingly, there are still a few conservatives that make this argument.

[billvon 2,739]

47 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Why do you get to define both woke and anti-woke? 

Easier to define yourself as the protagonist in your own story that way.

[billvon 2,739]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Anti-woke is simply an unwillingness to consider the possibility that one's choices, one's family's and friends' choices, are possibly colored by the society that they live in, along with an unwillingness to consider that the society might have inherent social biases.

I'd go even simpler than that.

Anti-woke is simply a lack of awareness of any injustice in society; a feeling that since there are laws against slavery, there is no remaining injustice towards blacks, and nothing further needs any work (for example.)  Your definition above is one way that could lead one to an anti-woke perspective.  So could pure ignorance, or even studied ignorance.

[GeorgiaDon 355]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Anti-Woke is simply the principle of equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less.

Anti-Woke is also the proposition that history, even history recent enough to be within the memory of people still alive, has absolutely no impact, good or bad, on anyone anywhere today.  Additionally, anti-Woke is the proposition that any statement that history has an impact on people's lives today is un-American and must be censored at a minimum, and ideally punished.

[normiss 723]

4 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Anti-Woke is also the proposition that history, even history recent enough to be within the memory of people still alive, has absolutely no impact, good or bad, on anyone anywhere today.  Additionally, anti-Woke is the proposition that any statement that history has an impact on people's lives today is un-American and must be censored at a minimum, and ideally punished.

That is incorrect, factually untrue. There IS still racist impact on people's lives. Every day, everywhere.

I seem to need some redial reading comprehension, sorry, and thanks guys. I totally mis-read.

Edited May 8, 2023 by normiss

[GeorgiaDon 355]

10 minutes ago, normiss said:

That is incorrect, factually untrue. There IS still racist impact on people's lives. Every day, everywhere.

I think you have misunderstood my comment 180 degrees.  Think about anti-Woke and what it means.

Edited May 8, 2023 by GeorgiaDon

[okalb 96]

38 minutes ago, normiss said:

That is incorrect, factually untrue. There IS still racist impact on people's lives. Every day, everywhere.

Might want to re-read that one Mark :)

[billvon 2,739]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

 Additionally, anti-Woke is the proposition that any statement that history has an impact on people's lives today is un-American and must be censored at a minimum, and ideally punished.

 . . . and that any discussion of racism in America is equivalent to teaching white kids to hate themselves.

[BIGUN 1,230]

31 minutes ago, billvon said:

. . . and that any discussion of racism in America is equivalent to teaching white kids to hate themselves.

Let's expand on this. Too many times, guilt is used as a tool in teaching this subject. Guilt does lead to hate in almost every aspect of social interaction. e.g., Moms use guilt as a compliance-gaining strategy and the daughters will get angry and the result is non-compliance and resistance. 

A much better job of teaching racism could be developed.   

[jakee 1,347]

10 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Let's expand on this. Too many times, guilt is used as a tool in teaching this subject.

I’d love to hear the research you’ve done on this.

[BIGUN 1,230]

15 minutes ago, jakee said:

I’d love to hear the research you’ve done on this

I have a whole fucking degree in communications. Do your own research on compliance-gaining strategies. 

[GeorgiaDon 355]

It is a fact that slavery was legal in much of the country for centuries, and it is a fact that the white population of the former Confederate states reacted to the liberation of the former slaves by enacting draconian Jim Crow laws to limit the freedom, political power, and economic prospects of the non-white (and especially the black) segment of the population.  It is a fact that segregation in education, redlining, and similar practices ensured that black families were greatly limited in their ability to accumulate and pass on generational wealth.  I was shocked, and revolted, to learn how after the Civil War the former Confederate States replaced slavery with a prisonocracy that was in many ways even worse, because no-one had a financial stake in black people, making them even more disposable to their white masters.  It is a fact that black veterans returning from WWII and the Korean War were denied the benefits of the GI Bill, benefits that contributed dramatically to the economic fortunes of white veterans.  Redlining was officially abolished by the Fair Housing Act in 1968, but it persisted unofficially for years and the practice still has marked consequences today.  Properties in formerly redlined neighborhoods are still worth less than former whites-only neighborhoods, and their populations are still disproportionately non-white.  In the US, in 2019, black families on average had only 14.5 percent of the wealth of white households, with an absolute dollar gap of $838,220.

If we cannot teach all children about these facts of American history, what are they to make of the current state of black vs white economic success?  If we cannot teach them about the historical basis for the situation, what are they to conclude?  That black people are, on average, poorer than whites because, well, what exactly? They aren't as smart?  They are lazy? Fuck that noise!  They are poorer because white people stole their labor for centuries, then stepped on them and denied them almost every possible avenue to success.  WWI wasn't ages ago, there are still people alive who fought in WWII.  1968 isn't so long ago, I was alive in 1968 (though too young to be buying a house).

Teach students what really happened to make this country what it is.  That doesn't mean teaching them to be ashamed of their own personal behavior, but maybe they should be ashamed of their ancestors if they are white.  If they are black, or native American, or other non-white ethnicity, they should be allowed to know what their ancestors had to struggle against to gain whatever wealth they were able to build.

When young people, who will build the future, are allowed to know what really happened and the consequences of that, perhaps they will better understand what it takes to build a society where people really have equal opportunity.

Edited May 8, 2023 by GeorgiaDon

[jakee 1,347]

52 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I have a whole fucking degree in communications. 

Did it involve any classes examining how racism is taught in schools? I really fucking doubt it, so again I’d love to hear the research you’ve done on it.

[wmw999 2,316]

He does have a daughter in school right now, and he pays attention to what's being taught. Not every teacher is equally adept at conveying material. Quite frankly, not everyone agrees on every single point, and sometimes they even have a good reason to differ. It's just as wrong among people who are on the left as on the right, and finding something that everyone can live with (even if not ideal) is better than nothing.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,347]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

He does have a daughter in school right now,

Right, and we already know he lies about what goes on in her school - unless you believe every single lesson starts with a 15 minute discussion of gender identity?

Anyway - he said ‘too many times’ it’s taught using guilt, and no matter how much attention he pays to his daughter’s school that’s only going to tell him whether it’s taught that way one time. And sure, just once might still technically be ‘too many’ but I doubt that was the message he was trying to convey, don’t you?

[billvon 2,739]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Let's expand on this. Too many times, guilt is used as a tool in teaching this subject. Guilt does lead to hate in almost every aspect of social interaction. e.g., Moms use guilt as a compliance-gaining strategy and the daughters will get angry and the result is non-compliance and resistance. 

A much better job of teaching racism could be developed.   

Two parts to that.

One is an approach where a teacher says "you should feel guilty because whites like you once owned slaves/early settlers had it a lot worse than you/people like you used to burn witches."  That's a very poor approach.  Fortunately, it is rare (with some very photogenic exceptions.)

The second is an approach that does not use guilt but exposes aspects of racism, segregation etc that give you a better feel for what was actually going on.  The White Declaration of Independence/Wilmington Massacre is one such bit of info.  Redlining is another good one.  The Occupation of Alcatraz is an interesting (and somewhat bizarre) event that gives a lot of insight into Native American issues back then.  (This approach is far more common in my experience.)

The outcome of THAT might well be guilt as well.  But that's a feeling of guilt imposed from within, which to me makes it very different.  Of course if this happens, teachers should make it clear that no one thinks that a 14 year old today is remotely liable for the Wilmington Massacre.

[BIGUN 1,230]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The White Declaration of Independence/Wilmington Massacre is one such bit of info.  Redlining is another good one.  The Occupation of Alcatraz is an interesting (and somewhat bizarre) event that gives a lot of insight into Native American issues back then.  (This approach is far more common in my experience.)

Good thoughts, Bill. I agree about internal guilt vs. using it as a weapon. I "think" my approach might be more of immersion. Do something with other cultures, help other cultures help others. Team-building exercises come to mind. Of course, I'm speaking from the early days of race relations and combat football. The best team-building is having your butt rely on every man on the team no matter what culture. But, that is my frame of reference. 

[billeisele 130]

Where does the rest of history fit in this convo? Blacks owned slaves and there were some "indentured servant" whites.

Slavery peaked in 1860 with 12.6% of the population being slaves. The numbers and statistics are fuzzy on many facts. One argued fact is that about 0.5% of the slaves were owned by blacks. It's unknown how many of those were, most likely, family members being protected. 

Slavery was legal in SC until 1865 and it's estimated that 46% of families had one or more slaves. Blacks were 58% of the population with a large majority being born in SC. Rice, indigo and cotton cultivation required labor and the port of Charleston was an easy import location. We have plenty of history to read, memorials to view and people still alive that remember.

There are plenty of articles on the topic, here's one:

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

 

Does "woke" include the recognition that there are discriminatory practices that negatively impact whites and other groups?

 

[billvon 2,739]

14 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Where does the rest of history fit in this convo? Blacks owned slaves and there were some "indentured servant" whites.

Yep.  And some women rape men.  Still, it's a crime that almost entirely impacts women - and it would be foolish to try to diminish that by that sort of whataboutism.

Quote

Does "woke" include the recognition that there are discriminatory practices that negatively impact whites and other groups?

Of course.  Most women in the US are white, and there is a fair amount of injustice that they experience.  Most Muslims are white - same thing.

If you are aware of that, and notice when it happens, you're woke.  If you think that there is no injustice anywhere in US society, you're not.