R
RSF Group
Guest
there are two kinds of political consciousness--among many others.
one is identity politics and is mainly victimological. certain
people define their identity as having been wronged and oppressed by
history. there is a sense of alienation between the elite/powerful--
usually but not always the majority--group AND the 'oppressed' or
'victim' group--usually but not always in the minority. since, the
victim group is or feels marginalized it feels a need to create and
maintain a sense of separate identity. this is the case even when
there is no overt oppression in the present. either out of distrust,
in the name of communal empowerment, or to wallow in self-
righteousness, the victim group prefers to preserve its sense of
separateness from the majority community. also, when a people's
historical identity becomes associated with victimhood, they are
likely to cling to victimhoodness even though they don't want to be
victims or are no longer victims. this began in a big way with
christianity; as jesus was about suffering at the hands of brutes,
even when christians gained dominance they bitched and whined on and
on about how they were fed to lions--though it happened long ago.
same is true with jews. though jews are the biggest winners in the
world today, their sense of cultural/historical selfhood is as
victims. this way, you can have the cake and eat it too. when 'noble
losers' become winners, they can deflect criticism by pointing to
their victimhood past. it's as though certain groups have won victim
credits to be victors immune from any criticism. so, even though it
seems strange that blacks in the US cling to victimhood though they
are no longer victims, it makes sense in the context of christianist
culture. blacks don't want to be victimized but they value the
sanctity of victim identity as propagated by christianity.
another kind of political consciousness is 'identification
politics'. this is prevalent among poor, powerless, or
underprivileged people who feel something in common with those with
great power or wealth--whereas 'identity politics' is when the masses
or the poor feel disassociated with those in power. a poor black man
may feel alienated from an america that he sees as dominated and ruled
by rich powerful whites. on the other hand, a poor white american,
while resentful of those who are richer than he, may feel a sense of
identification with rich powerful whites. similarly, a poor black man
may identify with a rich/powerful black man.
in both cases, the poor black or poor white gets nothing from the rich/
powerful black or white. but, sharing the same race, ethnicity, or
culture, the poor guy may feel empowered by identifying with the rich
man of his kind.
this is why china is so frustrating for outsiders pushing for more
human rights. even though most chinese are poor and may feel angry
with certain chinese government policies, the image of rich powerful
nouveau riche and glitzy urban china makes even the poor chinese
masses feel empowered and proud--if only emotionally or 'spiritually'.
most of these poor people may not enjoy the privileges of fancy city
life. they may not enjoy the new airport terminals or live in one of
those luxury skyscrapers. they may not wear fancy clothes or send
their kids to top colleges. but, on tv and posters, in magazines,
and from the radio they hear of china's, rise, china's growing power,
china's new place in the world. while poor chinese may feel angry
when government authorities use force and repression againt them, they
may not necessarily feel upset with the general policy itself on a
national scale if such leads to china's rise in the world. they may
see it as part of china's growing pains, part of progress, part of
what needs to be done.
suppose there are some peasants whose land is about to taken by the
government in the name of building some major project. these peasants
will be bitter and angry. but, will most peasants in china identify
more with the beleaguered peasants or with the government? will they
think the government is doing the right thing--even if it's not
'fair'--because it's ultimately for the good of china as a whole?
similarly, even iranians who don't like the islamic regime support its
program to make nuclear weapons. they identify with National Power.
as china gets ready for the olympics, many chinese feel torn. on the
one hand, they are angry at the brutal tactics used by the government
to clamp down on freedoms and drive people from their homes and
lands. on the other hand, they can't help feeling it's all for the
ultimate glory of china. especially as individualism and rule of law
are not deeply rooted in chinese culture, many chinese still respect
the idea of a strong government doing whatever's necessary for 'making
china strong'. why else would so many chinese still revere mao
zedong? of course, many people are truly ignorant of mao's crimes.
but, many know all about mao's crimes. yet, his countless victims
matter less than the fact that mao made china 'stand up in the
world'. many chinese identify with mao than with his victims.
indeed, his victims are seen as the necessary price china had to pay
to be great in the world. many russians still think this way when it
comes to stalin. putin's revival of the stalin myth is the MOST
disturbing thing about his rule. it would be like germany
rehabilitating adolf hitler in the name of german pride. of course,
stalin was the ultimate victor while hitler was the ultimate loser so
stalin myth is more viable than an hitler myth.
identification politics explains why so many poor whites vote
republican. it's not because they like rich people or have much of a
chance of becoming rich. it's just that when they see rich powerful
people, they see mostly rich powerful WHITE people. so, having
powerful and rich WHITE people make even poor white people feel like
they're in control even if they are not. (indeed, we wonder how red
state poor whites would vote if MOST rich and powerful people who
wanna pay less taxes were black.) many of these poor whites feel
threatened by minorities like hispanics and blacks. with their own
world under assault by blacks and hispanics, they want to support the
idea of rich/power zone where white people still have the grip on
wealth and power.
this also explains why many blacks support crooked black boss
politicians. poor blacks know that many of these politicians are no
good crooks. but, in many big city elections, many blacks often go
with a known black crook than with a decent reform-minded white guy.
poor blacks may actually know, deep in their heart, that the white guy
will do a better job. BUT, the idea of a black guy in power makes them
feel good. poor blacks want some powerful black figure to identify
with, even if he's a lowlife skunk. this also explains why the
majority of blacks even supported the confirmation of clarence thomas.
it didn't matter that clarence uncle thomas was even more conservative
than many whites. what mattered was having a bro in the supreme
court. and, this explains why blacks wanted OJ to go free though they
knew OJ was guilty and hung mostly around white folks. and, the
popularity of obama among blacks is about identification politics than
identity politics. blacks wanna some guy in power to identify with.
and there's don king, loved by many blacks though he's a total skunk
because he's a powerful and rich black guy. of course, there is often
to value to identification politics beyond the psychological but such
matters. detroit run by a black mayor is a rotten place, but the dude
makes blacks FEEL like they are in power thru identification with
him.
of course, things may be changing. as more and more poor whites sense
that the most powerful and richest people in this country are jews--
liberal jews at that--, their may become more and more alienated from
the rich. it's one thing for poor whites to look up to a rich
conservative white guy but to a rich liberal jewish guy? in a way,
huckabee may be tapping into this. his message to poor and working
class whites is, 'those rich people are NOT like us, at least not
anymore'. also, corporations are today more transnational than
national. there was a time when US corporations meant (white)American
power, wealth, opportunities, growth, advantages, pride, prestige,
etc.
but, how many poor white americans really feel this way about
Walmart? they know it's a big rich company owned by rich conservative
whites BUT they see it as an international company that is making all
them chinks mighty rich and powerful while taking jobs away from white
folks.
imelda marcos said she had to look good, live rich, and indulge in
luxury because filippinos looked up to her and identified with her as
their fantasy ideal. she was onto something and understood something
about political consciousness. of course, everything has limits, and
she bought too many expensive shoes and got the boot. still, her
return to philippines and the fondness shown her by many filippinos
even today says something funny about how our minds really work.
evita peron understood this too.
and george w. bush. though born with a silver spoon and a product of
ivy league schools, all them hee haw hillbilly white trash idiots who
voted for him saw dubya as one of their own. even after bush's tax
cuts favored the rich, many poor whites felt, 'that's our man'. they
saw bush empowering the rich powerful WHITES, and hallelujah for
that. when '******s' and 'spicks' are taking over all the poor
neighborhoods, it sure is nice to see that the rich world is still
ruled by big texan oilmen types. that is until enron scandal broke.
also, many poor whites increasingly see a lot of rich and powerful
blacks on tv. for the masses, the only glimpse into wealth is thru
celebrities and most of them top athletes and many of the top
entertainers are black. and any hillbilly who's been to jewwatch.com
may start thinking.. 'looky here lyle, it's them kikes who gots all
the money'. so, it's possible that as the image of the rich man
becomes more jewish or black, more and more whites are gonna identify
less with rich powerful folks.
one is identity politics and is mainly victimological. certain
people define their identity as having been wronged and oppressed by
history. there is a sense of alienation between the elite/powerful--
usually but not always the majority--group AND the 'oppressed' or
'victim' group--usually but not always in the minority. since, the
victim group is or feels marginalized it feels a need to create and
maintain a sense of separate identity. this is the case even when
there is no overt oppression in the present. either out of distrust,
in the name of communal empowerment, or to wallow in self-
righteousness, the victim group prefers to preserve its sense of
separateness from the majority community. also, when a people's
historical identity becomes associated with victimhood, they are
likely to cling to victimhoodness even though they don't want to be
victims or are no longer victims. this began in a big way with
christianity; as jesus was about suffering at the hands of brutes,
even when christians gained dominance they bitched and whined on and
on about how they were fed to lions--though it happened long ago.
same is true with jews. though jews are the biggest winners in the
world today, their sense of cultural/historical selfhood is as
victims. this way, you can have the cake and eat it too. when 'noble
losers' become winners, they can deflect criticism by pointing to
their victimhood past. it's as though certain groups have won victim
credits to be victors immune from any criticism. so, even though it
seems strange that blacks in the US cling to victimhood though they
are no longer victims, it makes sense in the context of christianist
culture. blacks don't want to be victimized but they value the
sanctity of victim identity as propagated by christianity.
another kind of political consciousness is 'identification
politics'. this is prevalent among poor, powerless, or
underprivileged people who feel something in common with those with
great power or wealth--whereas 'identity politics' is when the masses
or the poor feel disassociated with those in power. a poor black man
may feel alienated from an america that he sees as dominated and ruled
by rich powerful whites. on the other hand, a poor white american,
while resentful of those who are richer than he, may feel a sense of
identification with rich powerful whites. similarly, a poor black man
may identify with a rich/powerful black man.
in both cases, the poor black or poor white gets nothing from the rich/
powerful black or white. but, sharing the same race, ethnicity, or
culture, the poor guy may feel empowered by identifying with the rich
man of his kind.
this is why china is so frustrating for outsiders pushing for more
human rights. even though most chinese are poor and may feel angry
with certain chinese government policies, the image of rich powerful
nouveau riche and glitzy urban china makes even the poor chinese
masses feel empowered and proud--if only emotionally or 'spiritually'.
most of these poor people may not enjoy the privileges of fancy city
life. they may not enjoy the new airport terminals or live in one of
those luxury skyscrapers. they may not wear fancy clothes or send
their kids to top colleges. but, on tv and posters, in magazines,
and from the radio they hear of china's, rise, china's growing power,
china's new place in the world. while poor chinese may feel angry
when government authorities use force and repression againt them, they
may not necessarily feel upset with the general policy itself on a
national scale if such leads to china's rise in the world. they may
see it as part of china's growing pains, part of progress, part of
what needs to be done.
suppose there are some peasants whose land is about to taken by the
government in the name of building some major project. these peasants
will be bitter and angry. but, will most peasants in china identify
more with the beleaguered peasants or with the government? will they
think the government is doing the right thing--even if it's not
'fair'--because it's ultimately for the good of china as a whole?
similarly, even iranians who don't like the islamic regime support its
program to make nuclear weapons. they identify with National Power.
as china gets ready for the olympics, many chinese feel torn. on the
one hand, they are angry at the brutal tactics used by the government
to clamp down on freedoms and drive people from their homes and
lands. on the other hand, they can't help feeling it's all for the
ultimate glory of china. especially as individualism and rule of law
are not deeply rooted in chinese culture, many chinese still respect
the idea of a strong government doing whatever's necessary for 'making
china strong'. why else would so many chinese still revere mao
zedong? of course, many people are truly ignorant of mao's crimes.
but, many know all about mao's crimes. yet, his countless victims
matter less than the fact that mao made china 'stand up in the
world'. many chinese identify with mao than with his victims.
indeed, his victims are seen as the necessary price china had to pay
to be great in the world. many russians still think this way when it
comes to stalin. putin's revival of the stalin myth is the MOST
disturbing thing about his rule. it would be like germany
rehabilitating adolf hitler in the name of german pride. of course,
stalin was the ultimate victor while hitler was the ultimate loser so
stalin myth is more viable than an hitler myth.
identification politics explains why so many poor whites vote
republican. it's not because they like rich people or have much of a
chance of becoming rich. it's just that when they see rich powerful
people, they see mostly rich powerful WHITE people. so, having
powerful and rich WHITE people make even poor white people feel like
they're in control even if they are not. (indeed, we wonder how red
state poor whites would vote if MOST rich and powerful people who
wanna pay less taxes were black.) many of these poor whites feel
threatened by minorities like hispanics and blacks. with their own
world under assault by blacks and hispanics, they want to support the
idea of rich/power zone where white people still have the grip on
wealth and power.
this also explains why many blacks support crooked black boss
politicians. poor blacks know that many of these politicians are no
good crooks. but, in many big city elections, many blacks often go
with a known black crook than with a decent reform-minded white guy.
poor blacks may actually know, deep in their heart, that the white guy
will do a better job. BUT, the idea of a black guy in power makes them
feel good. poor blacks want some powerful black figure to identify
with, even if he's a lowlife skunk. this also explains why the
majority of blacks even supported the confirmation of clarence thomas.
it didn't matter that clarence uncle thomas was even more conservative
than many whites. what mattered was having a bro in the supreme
court. and, this explains why blacks wanted OJ to go free though they
knew OJ was guilty and hung mostly around white folks. and, the
popularity of obama among blacks is about identification politics than
identity politics. blacks wanna some guy in power to identify with.
and there's don king, loved by many blacks though he's a total skunk
because he's a powerful and rich black guy. of course, there is often
to value to identification politics beyond the psychological but such
matters. detroit run by a black mayor is a rotten place, but the dude
makes blacks FEEL like they are in power thru identification with
him.
of course, things may be changing. as more and more poor whites sense
that the most powerful and richest people in this country are jews--
liberal jews at that--, their may become more and more alienated from
the rich. it's one thing for poor whites to look up to a rich
conservative white guy but to a rich liberal jewish guy? in a way,
huckabee may be tapping into this. his message to poor and working
class whites is, 'those rich people are NOT like us, at least not
anymore'. also, corporations are today more transnational than
national. there was a time when US corporations meant (white)American
power, wealth, opportunities, growth, advantages, pride, prestige,
etc.
but, how many poor white americans really feel this way about
Walmart? they know it's a big rich company owned by rich conservative
whites BUT they see it as an international company that is making all
them chinks mighty rich and powerful while taking jobs away from white
folks.
imelda marcos said she had to look good, live rich, and indulge in
luxury because filippinos looked up to her and identified with her as
their fantasy ideal. she was onto something and understood something
about political consciousness. of course, everything has limits, and
she bought too many expensive shoes and got the boot. still, her
return to philippines and the fondness shown her by many filippinos
even today says something funny about how our minds really work.
evita peron understood this too.
and george w. bush. though born with a silver spoon and a product of
ivy league schools, all them hee haw hillbilly white trash idiots who
voted for him saw dubya as one of their own. even after bush's tax
cuts favored the rich, many poor whites felt, 'that's our man'. they
saw bush empowering the rich powerful WHITES, and hallelujah for
that. when '******s' and 'spicks' are taking over all the poor
neighborhoods, it sure is nice to see that the rich world is still
ruled by big texan oilmen types. that is until enron scandal broke.
also, many poor whites increasingly see a lot of rich and powerful
blacks on tv. for the masses, the only glimpse into wealth is thru
celebrities and most of them top athletes and many of the top
entertainers are black. and any hillbilly who's been to jewwatch.com
may start thinking.. 'looky here lyle, it's them kikes who gots all
the money'. so, it's possible that as the image of the rich man
becomes more jewish or black, more and more whites are gonna identify
less with rich powerful folks.
