What is the history of identity politics and intersectionality?

Let me add a qualifier: Middle to upper class straight white males. Wealthy blacks are outliers.

It's really brilliant. What a perfect way to shatter a movement, split off one of the biggest demographics by discriminating against them and divide up the rest.

Obama was elected in 2008 cuz he was the only candidate to vocally be against the Iraq war.

Occupy Wallstreet was the last real protest in America. Shame it got crushed.

>the bullshit notion that that privilege makes your opinion invalid

Except that is exactly how it gets played out IRL. Progressives pay lip service to respecting all viewpoints and having a diversity of opinions blah blah blah but what actually happens on the ground is that straight white guys are not welcome on the Left. Why do you think "Bernie Bro" started being used as an insult?

>They're not the ones being shot and killed by police for doing literally nothing.
What are you basing this on? Where are the data on police shootings that have been analyzed to come to this conclusion?

I see people say this, I see them post vaguely related stats, but nothing good enough to say "white people don't get shot for literally doing nothing, but other groups do".

This is a fantasy.

Obama got elected based on his promises to end warhawk behavior, get everyone affordable healthcare and to oppose corruption.
Obama really had a pretty leftist sounding campaign, then was basically just a neo-con.

Racism and sexism are identity politics, too. So you need to be more specific.

Attached: 1343709614788.jpg (500x426, 40K)

I swear that all of this started ramping up after Occupy Wall Street. I was still going through high school, but it felt like there was just a sudden shift after that. It seemed "acceptable" before that point, I hadn't really heard of "privilege" or "intersectionality" or any of this nonsense. It kind of felt like particularly after Obama got reelected that suddenly things started flying off the rails.

>They're not the ones being shot and killed by police for doing literally nothing.

Attached: daniel-shaver-philip-brailsford-shooting-bodycam-video-sandoval-pkg-newday-00000000-exlarge-169.jpg (780x438, 23K)

So a majority group who has either poineered the socio-cultural climate (or at least spent a longer time integrating into it compared to - for instance - late 20th century migrants) is better adapted to benefit from society's norms and power structures, than some minority groups, who must put in extra effort to adapt.

Is this situation morally wrong? It sounds very 'survival of the fittest'

>They're not the ones being shot and killed by police for doing literally nothing.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c7042642ba64

>Anyone with a brain can conclude that in the US, straight white males have largely held all the power
Here's a more pertinent question that I have yet to see a satisfying logical answer for.

Why shouldn't straight white males largely hold all the power in straight white male societies?

It did.

Attached: 1475371937497.jpg (1568x2146, 999K)

>literal DINDU NUFFIN included
Be more subtle. 2/10 I responded.

>But Obama was elected in 2008 based off identity politics

You really have no idea what you're talking about

AKSHUALLY he got voted in because he was the only candidate other than Ron Paul that said "hey maybe we should stop doing wars". Didn't take when he entered office but neither did Trump.

Not really.
So you think that wealthy Asians and wealthy Jews are getting discriminated against more than wealthy white men.
Or could it just be that wealth itself puts anyone above layers of discrimination that the lower classes face? I will not deny that society still exhibits racism and that there is still discrimination, but at this point it is not institutional behavior. In fact I believe a lot of this distracts from the disparaging gap of privilege between the lower classes and the upper classes. Notice how corporations merge and get bigger, how rights of the individuals are being repressed in favor of the corporate state, and yet the far left does nothing to call this behavior out, they focus on the issue of "social justice" as has been perpetuated in this decade. That's not to say the right is innocent, but it really does get me thinking how the issue used to be the economic gap and now suddenly the issues of "feminism," "intersectionalism," and "social justice" are more important than ensuring that America does not degrade into any further of a corporate authoritarian state than it already is.

>we should have universal healthcare
>cans the public option, goes after anyone who mentions it again
>we should stop doing wars
>America goes from being involved in 2 wars to being involved in 7
This is why Commies massacre people.

Attached: 141737c333f3161550472704647785a33b381a036796a5cdc072042eb0164096.png (706x694, 498K)

This picture infuriates me because it's 100% right and I've always been liberal but now all the liberals I know have been devoured by IdPol and it's hopeless... Sometimes I wish the democrats would win a US civil war just so we could stab the IdPol fags in the back the moment the war was won and purge them with firing squads the way Stalin did to the Trotsyisksts. Just a fantasy but seriously how do we combat this??

Because they exploited everyone else in the country to get that power.

Guess.

Attached: 3530616bd61c4986ba0cc75854036a08cc082e230087088e4a8b94bfdcb1c74b.jpg (306x204, 10K)

>cans the public option, goes after anyone who mentions it again
Let's face it, Hillary is the one who blocked that shit. Because ever since she tried it in the 90s and it was seen as political poison to her husband, she's been convnced it can never work ever.

While I'm with you 90% of the way, is killing necesary? Can't we just break their kneecaps or something?

>80% of the people want it
>political poison
More like revenue stream poison to the insurance industry that funds the politicians.

We both know congress never does what the people want.

The Left is not a singular entity.

>wanting to pay for liberals medical bills
No. Liberal IdPol leads directly to Fascist IdPol. Liberals are the root of fascism. Now get fucking rid of them.

Ok fine, white guys are not welcome in the Democratic Party.

As long as they live they are a threat. A traitor must be punished swiftly and with the upmost brutality as an example to the rest.

They are. Tumblr SJWs are a fringe group in the party that the DNC tried to appeal to in 2016.

And a change in skin colour or gender would end this exploitation?

It seems to me like this is in essence an economic issue, not a ethnic/gender identity one.

Obama was never for universal healthcare. He was black Reagan and wanted to shift the burden of healthcare on to individual taxpayers rather than the government, which is why we got the ACA and a focus on preventative care(which is fucking stupid, since the majority of our care costs are from people living long enough to need it.)

>implying

The DNC chair is literally a black Muslim; the Democrats ARE tumblr.

They didn't even do that.

The DNC's problem is that it didn't appeal to anyone at all and ran the only candidate they could find that was less electable than Trump because of backdoor party politics. It was the same thing that let Obama win in '08. Party apathy is what has fucked over our electorate since 9/11.(Trump got about the same number of votes Romney did, but Hillary only got like half of Obama's numbers-the turnout was fucking abysmal)

Yup, the DNC is chaired by a black Muslim. Wait...

Attached: tmp_17552-Official_portrait_of_United_States_Secretary_of_Labor_Tom_Perez-842410270.jpg (665x831, 73K)

Yet they've ignored a dozen women flipping districts for the last year or so. The DNC is a shitshow that couldn't find its own dick with both hands down the front of its pants, which is why it's so infuriating since the GOP got rodeo-clowned by a fucking NY conman known for bankrupting most of his endeavors while over-borrowing for the next one before the first crashes.

I was talking about this guy although it turns out he is only the deputy chair so my mistake but regardless the DNC is doubling down on idpol.

Attached: keith ellison doesnt believe in borders.jpg (1268x688, 71K)

>thread on intersectionality
>no mention of Crenshaw

Do people read anymore or is it all youtube?

Intersectionality started as a legal case study of black women suing a company's racist policy for not hiring black women which was in clear violation of anti-discriminatory law. The company claimed it couldn't be racist because it hired both white women and black men.

The statement was merely a way to show how the justice system failed to protect equal rights for people at the intersection of being women and being black.

SJWs stole this notion and applied it art mediums over the next few decades.. So what was originally about workers rights became "why aren't there retarded trans lesbian black women in video games and movies" hurr durr intersectionality which is clearly a theft and bastardization of the original use and meaning. Anti-discriminatory laws can't force artists to envision stories that include more non-white abominations- that is fucking ridiculous.

Keith Ellison is a LIBERAL Muslim. Did you even read about his political positions, or did you just see that he was a Muslim and assumed he was an Islamic fundamentalist?

>Crenshaw
Give me some recommended readings

Of course he wasn't. But that didn't stop him from being elected on a platform of universal healthcare.

All I said was that he is a black Muslim and he is. My point is that it's not unreasonable for straight white guys to feel like the Democrats don't represent them/care about them when these are the kinds of people the DNC promotes into leadership.

I couldn't agree more. Never read Crenshaw, but this sounds reasonable to me. Companies shouldn't discriminate based on factors a person cannot change like their gender, race, and so on, but art is for the artist to decide, not for the people. Doesn't mean the artist is always right, but they know what they're doing with it more than people whining about it would.
Although intersectionality does apply to a lot more, but I think generally I get the vibe.

The head chairman is a white guy, though.

Here are the proofs.

youtu.be/om5gGBVy_4k?t=62

>Tom Perez
>white guy

dios mio

>Hispanic is one race

Having party leadership be all-white isn't good policy either.

He's white, dude. See . That's a white guy.

It really began in the 80's. Go look at political correctness and other stuff. Listen to some of the ideologues yammer. You'll see that they're talking about pretty much exactly the same shit with different terminology.
thesmartset.com/free-speech-the-modern-campus/
There's a first hand account of this evolution.

>That's a white guy.

Attached: 1510956361580.png (547x626, 18K)

The reason blacks are a) here at all and b) not integrated into society much sooner is because of slavery and Jim Crow laws, so yes, the situation is morally wrong.

No one is advocating for that but the DNC's combination of anti-white rhetoric with the affirmative action leadership communicates a clear message.

Attached: 1400055217852.jpg (837x577, 102K)

>Of course, when Wasserman-Schultz refers to "the wealthiest and most fortunate Americans" she is obviously referring to White people

What a baseless assumption.

This 100%

OWS was the last gasp of a unified push against globalist neoliberal cuckery. It quickly got split by ID politics.

Trumpism is just the Whites they split off.

>No one is advocating for that but the DNC's combination of anti-white rhetoric with the affirmative action leadership communicates a clear message.
Lmao, so black people moving towards equality of opportunity is racism towards white people? Go back to retard

He got elected because the GOP had just been in charge of a disasterous war and the largest recession since the Great Depression, with a full blown bank panic right before people voted.

Whoever won the Democratic nomination, which he only did narrowly, was going to win.

Not what I'm saying bucko. I'm saying that the DNC employs rhetoric that is openly hostile to straight white guys and blocks them out of the highest position of leadership. Do really think Keith Ellison or Tom Perez represent the white working class who were the ones who built the Democratic party in the first place?

Attached: So what your're saying is.jpg (1280x720, 84K)

>he can't hear the dog whistle

I only just now understood what, “dog whistle” means in this context. I thought it had some weird relationship to cat calling for some reason

There's unironically nothing wrong with that

>Sometimes I wish the democrats would win a US civil war just so we could stab the IdPol fags in the back the moment the war was won and purge them with firing squads the way Stalin did to the Trotsyisksts.
>He thinks they won't be the ones purging him when the war is over.
LOL

>Because they exploited everyone else in the country to get that power.
Who is "everyone else"?
Especially in the context of historically majority white countries.

>they exploited everyone else

kindergarten-tier understanding of history. Why are these people such brainlets?

>slavery is not a problem
Slaves?

>Why shouldn't straight white males largely hold all the power in straight white male societies?

If they're around 40% of the population, should they have around 90% of the power?

>The american south is all of the western world

Also, no, slavery really isn't a problem. Pretty much all agrarian societies practiced some form of slavery or serfdom. Who gives a shit? It was bound to be abandoned as soon as the country industrialized anyway

It also really didn't benefit that many people except for a few African slavers and the plantation owners at the time, and its really not like slavery itself built the entire fucking US. It was actually more of a hindrance in some regards

>If they're around 40% of the population, should they have around 90% of the power?

Why not? They're the ones that built the civilization in the first place. Why do women and minorities feel they are entitled to shit they didn't create?

Also, 90% of "the power"? How the fuck did you measure and come up with that statistic?

Are you entitled to shit that other people like you created? Why do white men feel entitled to shit they didn't create?

One could check the percentages on government representatives, property ownership, and so on.

Are white men under-represented among government representatives or in property ownership?

White men happened to create pretty much all of western civilization, sweety. You can have your peanut butter or disposable diapers, and we can have our civilization

You mean white men in history times? Why would white men today be entitled to that?

Do you mean that SOMETIMES people are entitled to shit they didn't create?

So they're allowed to enslave everyone else?

Well, Jews happen to be vastly overrepresented in the academia, in top media positions, overall billionaires worldwide and even top positions in the legal system.If you're talking about over representation, then its not white men, but Jews who would theoretically hold the most power. Why is there no intersectionality campaign against them?

>You mean white men in history times? Why would white men today be entitled to that?

Going by that logic, why are blacks entitled to reparations? That was in "history times".

If we're responsible for the sins of our ancestors, then so too should we be allowed to be responsible for all the great things they built for us too.

>So they're allowed to enslave everyone else?

Yes, genius, thats obviously what I meant. And if you dont like it, sweety, you're free to leave

>da joos

>Going by that logic, why are blacks entitled to reparations? That was in "history times".

The organization that wronged them and admitted fault still exists.

>If we're responsible for the sins of our ancestors, then so too should we be allowed to be responsible for all the great things they built for us too.

Which is it, then? Are white people born after colonialism responsible for the suffering caused by colonialism, and also entitled to the wealth generated for them by colonialism? Or are they not responsible and also not entitled?

>Yes, genius, thats obviously what I meant. And if you dont like it, sweety, you're free to leave

They did enslave people for centuries when they were the only ones who had a say. You're completely certain they won't do that again if they have more political power?

>Da Joos
Epic response comrade. Still true though, go and look it up yourself. Jews really are vastly overrepresented as an ethic group in america when you look at how tiny their population is

The organization that wronged them and admitted fault still exists.

No black today has ever been enslaved.

>Which is it, then? Are white people born after colonialism responsible for the suffering caused by colonialism, and also entitled to the wealth generated for them by colonialism? Or are they not responsible and also not entitled?

If whites are forced to take the blame for the sins of (some, not even all) their ancestors, then yes, we should be entitled to the wealth generated by it. If we are not entitled to that wealth, then we shouldn't take the blame for any perceived wrongdoings either

Overrepresentation of a certain group isn't a rarity my friend

>They did enslave people for centuries when they were the only ones who had a say. You're completely certain they won't do that again if they have more political power?

What kind of fucking tenuous grasp on history do you have? Obviously Yes. Mass chattel slavery in a modern industrialized economy like america would be fucking catastrophic, it was only useful because of the agrarian nature of the south. And it wasn't even that useful to most whites, as most didn't even fucking own slaves to begin with, and because poor white farmers had to compete with this free and endless source of labour. Blacks were enslaved not because whites hated them simply because they were black, but because they happened to be an easy and accessible. Of fucking course we wont bring slavery back, holy shit.

>No black today has ever been enslaved.

Their ancestors weren't compensated. Should organizations be able to get away with wronging people by waiting them out?

>If whites are forced to take the blame for the sins of (some, not even all) their ancestors, then yes, we should be entitled to the wealth generated by it. If we are not entitled to that wealth, then we shouldn't take the blame for any perceived wrongdoings either

So which is it? I'd say they're neither responsible nor entitled.

>Epic response comrade. Still true though, go and look it up yourself. Jews really are vastly overrepresented as an ethic group in america when you look at how tiny their population is
Evidence?

I know, and thats not a problem. I was pointing out the double standard whites faced when they are accused of being over represented in powerful positions when Jews are arguably even more over represented because of their small population

>And it wasn't even that useful to most whites, as most didn't even fucking own slaves to begin with,

It was useful to the white people who ruled the society.

>and because poor white farmers had to compete with this free and endless source of labour.

Sure. Why would you think the people who ruled the society cared about any of these people?

>Blacks were enslaved not because whites hated them simply because they were black, but because they happened to be an easy and accessible.

Well duh. It's more true to say racism was invented to justify slavery than to say black people were enslaved because of racism. White people didn't exist before slavery, because American slavery invented the black/white distinction.

>Of fucking course we wont bring slavery back, holy shit.

Slavery still exists. It might surprise you to know that all forms of slavery aren't identical. If the people who currently rule society and are okay with overseas slavery had even MORE power, they might decide they are okay with more domestic slavery too.

"progressive" stack SJW behavior
is this supposed to be english?

>Their ancestors weren't compensated. Should organizations be able to get away with wronging people by waiting them out?

They're not waiting them out, they're totally different people. It's been a century and a half since slavery ended. No black currently alive in america today was a slave. Why should they be compensated? What did they do to deserve reparations?

>So which is it? I'd say they're neither responsible nor entitled.
I'd say the same too. I dont care about the wealth generated for me by colonialism, but I'm not going to start paying reparations to people ive never met and constantly apologizing for some something I haven't done

I said look it up for yourself, but since you cant be asked: here youtube.com/watch?v=ljMPafQpfDU&ab_channel=TheAlternativeHypothesis

Skip a few mins in if you just want to read charts

Reminder that the movement started with two weeks of a solid and simple message - bail out individuals who are in mortgaged houses, not the mortgaging firm.

The media decided not to report that.

Traitors must be liquidated as well as their families to prevent the spread of treasonous genes