"The trouble is that many left-leaning people feel that they can safely disregard anything published in conservative media, and thus a badly-needed conversation hasn't happened."
Same goes for the right with CNN, MSNBC, etc. This is a huge problem. We live in a Choose Your Own Adventure reality where what is and what isn't is completely up to us, and where there's no shortage of information to support our views.
Just recently read Joshua Bloom's Black Against Empire, which is a history of the Black Panther Party. Your essay is reminding me of it. It's maybe overly charitable to the journalist and pundit classes, but some of the hesitation may be because they don't want to seem to be working with the CIA or FBI to undermine another Black movement. It's been reported that BLM activists are under increased surveillance (easier now than ever!) so media types may just want to ensure they're on the "Right Side of History."
This helps no one, of course, but the professional consequences, as you point out, are real. Is it worth torching your career to criticize an amoebalike movement that is both everything and nothing that one may want out of a social justice project?
Back in 2020, when everyone and their brother was going to mass protests, I made what I thought was a mild and well-reasoned post on Facebook, the gist of which was that if you wanted to make signs and stand around with masses of strangers that you would never see again, fine, but real change would be effected more by getting together with local folks and digging into local matters (what are the hiring/oversight practices of your own city police department etc.), actions which would also have little likelihood of resulting in anyone's home or workplace being burned down...which I argued was a bonus, fool that I was.
Of course, almost instantly a "friend" responded with a post that said, in effect, "Shut the fuck up, White Man."
Is it any surprise that so many decline to have the "conversation on race" that we're always being told we so desperately need - and that we DO need? The current climate traps us in our own very narrow circles, and it's leading us nowhere.
one of the liberal/left internet's most frustrating qualities is a refusal, in certain situations, to believe in the existence of incentives. this reminds me of that weird brief spate of news about white professors who were pretending not to be white (Jessica krug et al.). for some reason it was verboten to acknowledge that it was probably advantageous to a career as an African-American History professor if people assumed you were Black. in the case of BLM, there's this refusal to acknowledge that whenever there's a social cause that's attracting a lot of money and attention, *of course* there's an incentive for someone to pretend to stand for the social cause and then use the money for personal reasons. it would be weird if that didn't happen!
it feels like an overreaction to a perceived overreaction. certain people are afraid that the masses can't comprehend "usually it's better for your career if people don't think you're Black, but in certain incredibly narrow fields, the opposite incentive may exist." or: "it's good to give money to Black political movements, but in this particular case, the money may not have been used ethically." so they insist that the general case is always true and refuse to acknowledge the existence of special cases. acknowledging these incentives doesn't mean we need to stop hiring Black professors or shut down all Black activist organizations! it almost always means a little more thoughtfulness and due diligence all around!
There's a relatively small but well-known organization that claims to help marginalized people that was founded by two mentally ill grifters who embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization and got quietly moved out. None of this got any media attention at all. People don't want to criticize people who claim to be doing good. It sucks.
I’m frustrated by the women whose careers I’ve followed (in my case it is specifically women) who equate waning support for BLM with the “inevitable” white backsliding they expected. I’m like, there’s a difference between supporting (or not) a specific political organization and continuing to support social and political goals. Not anymore, apparently.
As long as we all prefer the strategy of paying indulgences over meaningful action and sacrifice, there will be fraudsters who show up to take advantage. I don't know if corporate media has much incentive to call it out and risk nudging people toward actions that might actually afflict their comfort.
Critical solidarity is a great term. This is so important especially when thinking internationally about left-leaning governments. There's such a tendency on the left to either write them off for their imperfections, or defend them as perfect and dismiss all criticism because they are under attack by the US (militarily, economically, or through propaganda).
Also adding to the mess is the abuse/misuse/overuse of standpoint epistemology. Its too often a conversation ending catch phrase to shutdown anything unwanted. "YOU DONT HAVE MY LIVED EXPERIENCE SO SHUT UP"
Corruption in a major organization... that's generally the kind of thing investigative journalists live for. Except, oops. It's a liberal organization. Gotta stay quiet about that. Can't empower our political opponents.
Presumably they also don’t want to feed into a stereotype. I’ve noticed that a lot of talk about racism is about people using the wrong words. That’s not what it is.
The intimidation into forced silence is a sign of an unhealthy society. I suspect one day we'll look back on this period in America with the same sense of shame as the Blacklist era of the 50s Red Scare
"The trouble is that many left-leaning people feel that they can safely disregard anything published in conservative media, and thus a badly-needed conversation hasn't happened."
Same goes for the right with CNN, MSNBC, etc. This is a huge problem. We live in a Choose Your Own Adventure reality where what is and what isn't is completely up to us, and where there's no shortage of information to support our views.
Just recently read Joshua Bloom's Black Against Empire, which is a history of the Black Panther Party. Your essay is reminding me of it. It's maybe overly charitable to the journalist and pundit classes, but some of the hesitation may be because they don't want to seem to be working with the CIA or FBI to undermine another Black movement. It's been reported that BLM activists are under increased surveillance (easier now than ever!) so media types may just want to ensure they're on the "Right Side of History."
This helps no one, of course, but the professional consequences, as you point out, are real. Is it worth torching your career to criticize an amoebalike movement that is both everything and nothing that one may want out of a social justice project?
Back in 2020, when everyone and their brother was going to mass protests, I made what I thought was a mild and well-reasoned post on Facebook, the gist of which was that if you wanted to make signs and stand around with masses of strangers that you would never see again, fine, but real change would be effected more by getting together with local folks and digging into local matters (what are the hiring/oversight practices of your own city police department etc.), actions which would also have little likelihood of resulting in anyone's home or workplace being burned down...which I argued was a bonus, fool that I was.
Of course, almost instantly a "friend" responded with a post that said, in effect, "Shut the fuck up, White Man."
Is it any surprise that so many decline to have the "conversation on race" that we're always being told we so desperately need - and that we DO need? The current climate traps us in our own very narrow circles, and it's leading us nowhere.
one of the liberal/left internet's most frustrating qualities is a refusal, in certain situations, to believe in the existence of incentives. this reminds me of that weird brief spate of news about white professors who were pretending not to be white (Jessica krug et al.). for some reason it was verboten to acknowledge that it was probably advantageous to a career as an African-American History professor if people assumed you were Black. in the case of BLM, there's this refusal to acknowledge that whenever there's a social cause that's attracting a lot of money and attention, *of course* there's an incentive for someone to pretend to stand for the social cause and then use the money for personal reasons. it would be weird if that didn't happen!
it feels like an overreaction to a perceived overreaction. certain people are afraid that the masses can't comprehend "usually it's better for your career if people don't think you're Black, but in certain incredibly narrow fields, the opposite incentive may exist." or: "it's good to give money to Black political movements, but in this particular case, the money may not have been used ethically." so they insist that the general case is always true and refuse to acknowledge the existence of special cases. acknowledging these incentives doesn't mean we need to stop hiring Black professors or shut down all Black activist organizations! it almost always means a little more thoughtfulness and due diligence all around!
There's a relatively small but well-known organization that claims to help marginalized people that was founded by two mentally ill grifters who embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization and got quietly moved out. None of this got any media attention at all. People don't want to criticize people who claim to be doing good. It sucks.
I’m frustrated by the women whose careers I’ve followed (in my case it is specifically women) who equate waning support for BLM with the “inevitable” white backsliding they expected. I’m like, there’s a difference between supporting (or not) a specific political organization and continuing to support social and political goals. Not anymore, apparently.
As long as we all prefer the strategy of paying indulgences over meaningful action and sacrifice, there will be fraudsters who show up to take advantage. I don't know if corporate media has much incentive to call it out and risk nudging people toward actions that might actually afflict their comfort.
Critical solidarity is a great term. This is so important especially when thinking internationally about left-leaning governments. There's such a tendency on the left to either write them off for their imperfections, or defend them as perfect and dismiss all criticism because they are under attack by the US (militarily, economically, or through propaganda).
Also adding to the mess is the abuse/misuse/overuse of standpoint epistemology. Its too often a conversation ending catch phrase to shutdown anything unwanted. "YOU DONT HAVE MY LIVED EXPERIENCE SO SHUT UP"
Show me the money! The chattering class will lose their jobs if they don’t tow the line. Lying for a good cause is justifiable.
Corruption in a major organization... that's generally the kind of thing investigative journalists live for. Except, oops. It's a liberal organization. Gotta stay quiet about that. Can't empower our political opponents.
Good Lord our binary-thinking culture sucks ass.
Presumably they also don’t want to feed into a stereotype. I’ve noticed that a lot of talk about racism is about people using the wrong words. That’s not what it is.
I'm just glad Patrice Kahn-Cullors and her partner are using the money to buy houses instead of on some program/group that harms white men
:D
The intimidation into forced silence is a sign of an unhealthy society. I suspect one day we'll look back on this period in America with the same sense of shame as the Blacklist era of the 50s Red Scare