Doubling down on woke throughout history

[billvon 2,400]

Was thinking today about all the time we "doubled down on woke" here in the US, and how conservatives of the time would have seen it.

The first big one that comes to mind is the Civil War.  The northern states had freed their slaves (mostly) but the south did not want new states to be admitted as no-slavery states - so the wokester liberals of the North decided to shove their sick, twisted ideology down everyone's throats by murdering hundreds of thousands of Americans.  Conservatives lamented this travesty of wokeness - the "framers did not anticipate the enfranchisement of an ignorant population of African origin"  and "did not contemplate for their descendants subjection to an inferior race."

Then came suffrage.  Wokesters of the time wanted hysterical women to be able to vote.  Conservatives of the time would explain patiently from the depths of their leather chairs that women were unsuited to the mental task of deciding who to vote for.  Men, who by definition could not be hysterical, were better suited.  Besides, since the man ruled the household, what would giving women the vote do other than double the votes of married couples?  But the libtards again shoved their wokeness down everyone's throat and forced the helpless women to take time away from their important chores to waste time voting.  They really hated women.

Then came interracial marriage.  Conservatives knew that letting black men marry white women was the same as rape, and they valiantly fought to keep women safe from black men.   One conservative noted that "if it needs lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from the ravening human beasts – then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary."  But again woke liberal losers decided that they hated freedom and wanted to shove black rape down everyone's throats.  In 1967, loser lib Robert Kennedy took up the case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court - and resulted in a ruling that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Civil rights was similar.  Conservatives had given blacks their freedom; what else did they want?  Having separate schools, separate buses, separate bathrooms etc was necessary for the sake of children.  No one wanted to have their innocent child in a classroom - or, worse, a bathroom - when a BLACK came into it!  What would happen to the child?  Who would protect them from the human beasts?  When Martin Luther King started his crusade to abolish segregation he was well received by the idiot liberals, but conservatives knew it would end in disaster.  Fortunately for them, MLK was assasinated by a brave hero before he could accomplish all his woke goals.

Then there was the issue of gay rights.  Smart states banned gay marriage and made it illegal to be gay at all.  But the woke states allowed it, and as a result became godless and evil.  Then another activist court made gay marriage legal for everyone and ended morality in America.

And today we have trans rights, which the good conservatives of the time are opposing for all the same reasons. What about the CHILDREN?  Drag queens in your son's SCHOOLS!  Books about trans issues are PORNOGRAPHY and must be BANNED!  Leftist liberals cutting off children's GENITALS!  WOKE MADNESS!

[/s]

Our society has seen a long, unsteady march towards greater civil rights.   From slavery abolition to women's suffrage to civil rights to LGBT rights, each step has seen conservatives fight back as hard as they can against new rights for groups of people.  We are seeing the same fight today over trans rights. 

Sadly, one of the primary reasons we progress as a society is that the older generation dies off, and with them, a lot of the old hatreds and biases die as well. So in one sense progress comes not from enlightenment, but from a failure to propagate the hatreds to the next generation.  Education has always been seen as liberal for this reason, and is a big factor in why today women think nothing about being able to vote, or being able to tell their husbands they don't want to have sex, or being able to marry a black man (or even another woman.)

[wmw999 2,123]

But this time it’s different! Is the refrain

Wendy P. 

[grimmie 173]

I still can’t believe we let women apply for credit cards by themselves without a husband to pay for it all.

We need our country back!!!!

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

2 hours ago, grimmie said:

I still can’t believe we let women apply for credit cards by themselves without a husband to pay for it all.

We need our country back!!!!

Hi Rich,

Whenever I hear something like this, I always wonder:  How far back do you want to go?

There is usually no response.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,400]

15 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rich,

Whenever I hear something like this, I always wonder:  How far back do you want to go?

Why, back when white Christian cis straight men were in charge, of course!  And blacks, gays and women knew their place.  But when we also had modern medical care and light beer and turbocharged trucks and Cracker Barrels and Chick-Fil-As.  And football.

[grimmie 173]

42 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rich,

Whenever I hear something like this, I always wonder:  How far back do you want to go?

There is usually no response.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry, I hope you’re doing great. I always ask the people that want to take our country back, what exactly do they mean.

 

Their reply is usually to get rid of all of the democrats. And to go back to the good old days.

 

clueless.

[wmw999 2,123]

16 minutes ago, grimmie said:

Hi Jerry, I hope you’re doing great. I always ask the people that want to take our country back, what exactly do they mean.

 

Their reply is usually to get rid of all of the democrats. And to go back to the good old days.

 

clueless.

Well, in the 60's in the south, it was the yellow dog democrats who wanted the minority-loving Republicans out of their lives so they could just go on living they way they had.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,400]

26 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, in the 60's in the south, it was the yellow dog democrats who wanted the minority-loving Republicans out of their lives so they could just go on living they way they had.

Yep.  And 100 years before that, it was the ivory-tower out of touch urban coastal elite republicans who wanted to free the slaves, while the rural God-fearing anti-government democrats didn't see the harm.

[brenthutch 383]

The context in which I am using “woke” is on the topics of white privilege, critical race theory, reparations, cultural appropriation and the notion that gender has no connection to biology.

Civil rights are not examples of Wokeism but I give you guys an A for straw man construction.

[wmw999 2,123]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Civil rights are not examples of Wokeism but I give you guys an A for straw man construction.

They were at the time. "Woke" is a social concept, and sits smack dab in the middle of whatever the current society is. If it can't be moved, then it needs a closer definition, because different people use it differently.

BTW, there are few people arguing that gender has NO connection to biology. Just that the connection is sometimes not complete and determinant. Any more than being Asian is determinant of being small or a good student, or being Black means you can sing.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

They were at the time. "Woke" is a social concept, and sits smack dab in the middle of whatever the current society is. If it can't be moved, then it needs a closer definition, because different people use it differently.

BTW, there are few people arguing that gender has NO connection to biology. Just that the connection is sometimes not complete and determinant. Any more than being Asian is determinant of being small or a good student, or being Black means you can sing.

Wendy P.

If analogies were people, you would be guilty of torture.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The context in which I am using “woke” is on the topics of white privilege, critical race theory, reparations, cultural appropriation and the notion that gender has no connection to biology.

Woke means alert to injustice in society.  That includes structural racism (what CRT studies) white privilege (and the lack of privilege that minorities have) and the sort of injustices (including death threats, assault and murder) perpetrated on trans people by anti-woke nuts.

Quote

Civil rights are not examples of Wokeism  . . . .

Civil rights are a result of people being woke enough to see an injustice, and brave enough to do something about it.  They are always opposed by conservatives.   Conservatives opposed every single advance in rights listed above, for example.

[jakee 1,255]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The context in which I am using “woke” is on the topics of white privilege, critical race theory, reparations, cultural appropriation and the notion that gender has no connection to biology.

Civil rights are not examples of Wokeism but I give you guys an A for straw man construction.

But all Disney movies are woke because there was a drag show at Disneyland once? That doesn't fit any of your criteria.

 

But woke doesn't have anything to do with civil rights? White privilege and critical race theory don't have anything to do with civil rights? Hmmmm....

By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware',[13] especially in a political or cultural sense.[8] The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley, describing the appropriation of black slang by white beatniks.[8]

Woke had gained more political connotations by 1971 when the play Garvey Lives! by Barry Beckham included the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon' stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk."

Your boast about being right so much was quite the bit of radical self delusion, wasn't it?

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 the notion that gender has no connection to biology.

A note on this particular comment.

1) No one here has claimed that.

2) That sort of argument - that biology rules over everything else - has been used to deny blacks their freedom ("their race is unsuited to freedom; it's a biological fact!") deny women the vote ("they are hysterical, look at any biology textbook") to justify killing the Jews ("they are poisoning the blood of Germany due to their inferior genetics") deny gays rights ("man was intended to marry woman; otherwise the race would go extinct!  It's a biological fact idiot!") and now being used to deny trans people rights.  You should really get a new argument.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

A note on this particular comment.

1) No one here has claimed that.

2) That sort of argument - that biology rules over everything else - has been used to deny blacks their freedom ("their race is unsuited to freedom; it's a biological fact!") deny women the vote ("they are hysterical, look at any biology textbook") to justify killing the Jews ("they are poisoning the blood of Germany due to their inferior genetics") deny gays rights ("man was intended to marry woman; otherwise the race would go extinct!  It's a biological fact idiot!") and now being used to deny trans people rights.  You should really get a new argument.

Hi Bill,

That is going to be a little tough when it is all that he has.

Jerry Baumchen