There is a lot of discussion emanating primarily from the right about so-called wokeness. While there are some salient arguments about extreme examples of “wokeness” for the most part the discussion about it is spurious at best. Nonetheless the issue has been used quite effectively by political leaders such as Ron DeSantis as fodder to push back against aggrieved communities. Unfortunately whether it’s television host Bill Mahr or even Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson the conversation is usually without context or historical accuracy. The reality is that wokeness is reactionary in nature. In its most simplistic form it is simply being aware about social justice. Like our Jewish compatriots who rightly point out anything that may even remotely reek of anti-semitism, it should not be a surprise that anyone who has experienced discrimination in any form or fashion as a result of who they are would bristle at comments, philosophies or actions that pose a threat to their humanity.
While a discussion can be had on the subject of cancel culture by the left, the right would have you believe that it is solely the purview of the left. The reality is that those on the right have used it for decades and to a greater degree before it even became a buzzword in the American lexicon. Former congressman Steve Israel wrote of encountering cancel culture when in high school a conservative conference posted the following “DO NOT LET THIS MATERIAL FALL INTO THE HANDS OF OUR YOUNGSTERS.” The list included “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.; “The Best Short Stories of Negro Writers,” edited by Langston Hughes; “Go Ask Alice” by an anonymous author; “Black Boy” by Richard Wright; and “Soul on Ice” by Eldridge Cleaver. Several of the books were removed from the school library.” This led to a Supreme Court Board of Education v. Pico decision that opposed the removal of books. According to the free expression organization PEN America there has been over 2500 book challenges between 2021 and 2022 While both sides have engaged in the banning of books, and a preponderance of conservative propaganda an ABC News report stated that “book challenges by liberals is not comparable to the large wave of conservative challenges.” Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott had over 800 books being investigated for possible banning. While I’m sure conservatives will find a way to rationalize it we should never forget what may be the most egregious example of cancel culture namely the so-called era of McCarthyism which led to the blacklisting of many Hollywood actors such as Charlie Chaplin and Lena Horne.
The right would have you believe that it is “wokeness” that has created divisions within society. The historical inaccuracy of this is clear but the right has been quite effective in making “wokeness” a part of the vernacular of people who can’t explain what is.
The reality is that for decades even before the word became commonplace the right has quite successfully used it as a way to explain the difficulties that members of the dominant community is facing. Civil rights was linked to communism and Marxism, women’s rights as a threat to the family, LGBTQ community was connected to mental disorder and immigration is connected to crime.
Communities that have fought to be recognized as equals within society are rightfully concerned at any thing that even remotely reeks of an attempt to reverse their hard earned gains. Nonetheless, the question that needs to be asked is what is at the heart of the matter.
In essence it’s about power, prominence and position perceived and real. For those on the right it’s about their sense, albeit erroneous, of losing intellectual, economic and political predominance within society. While those on the right still maintain predominance within corporate America, the Supreme Court is overly conservative and state courts are now over 50% Republicans have nonetheless used it as part of their electoral strategy to remain in power. For those aggrieved communities it’s about gaining and maintaining their hard earned equality within society.
Within the context of wokeness is also identity politics. What is usually left out of the discussion is how did we get to the place of so-called identity politics. The aggrieved communities who are constantly criticized for the use of identity politics did not create it. Identity politics was created by the predominant community which for the most part consisted of white Protestant males as a way to denigrate the communities which did not look or think like them. Those communities which included the black community, women, LGBTQ, Hispanics among others were assigned attributes that deemed them less capable and deserving to be part of society. Identity politics comes from ideas such as scientific racism which was used to justify racial inferiority. Within the scientific community this became an accepted theory by the mid twentieth century. Every aspect of the political, cultural and economic apparatus by intent or default was used to support this notion.
From political parties to Hollywood which conservatives complain about being liberal was not always that way. Santa Monica College Professor Larry Ceplair who co-authored “The Inquisition in Hollywood,” wrote that “during the ‘20s and ‘30s, most studio heads were conservative Republicans who spent millions of dollars to block union and guild organizing. Likewise, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the Moving Picture Machine Operators, and the Screen Actors Guild were all headed by conservatives, as well.” Even iconic actors such as John Wayne openly espoused their belief in white supremacy as did Walter Brennan who reportedly danced a jig when Martin Luther King was assassinated and whose constant use of the N word was quite well known. If you believe Hollywood was always liberal watch DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” which gave credence to the notion of blacks as a threat to society and was seen by an estimated 200 million Americans including President Woodrow Wilson.
When one reads William F. Buckley’s “Why the South Must Prevail” which reads like a manifesto for white nationalism or The Bell Curve by Charles Murray you begin to understand the angst that many people experience. Even the term black on black crime was created in the 19th century as a way to connect being black with criminality. To those on the right it is not enough to say you have to consider the time we were living in as it only serves as a rationale for the dominant culture. Unfortunately that rationale is always given to the aggrieved parties in an attempt to assuage guilt.
Even today as the nation witnessed the collapse of the Key Bridge in Maryland some on the right such as Utah state Rep. Phil Lyman and Florida congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini attributed the collapse to DEI which led to death threats against Maryland Port Commissioner Karenthia Barber.
In essence what the aggrieved parties have done in their use of wokeness including identity politics is to use what was initiated against them and turned it around for their own good. It is what the Bible says in Genesis 50 “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” While it is right to talk about progress made by aggrieved communities the reality is that it did not happen simply out of altruistic desires but through hard fought battles in the streets and the ballot box. Nonetheless any one who has been on the front lines of social justice is well aware that winning rights is part of the battle as the fight always continues to maintain those victories. The Dobbs decision is a clear example of the need to protect hard won rights.
The right unfortunately has a tendency to dismiss the idea of discrimination and so-called grievances espoused by aggrieved as it lifts up the notion of white grievance. To often the refrain of this is not who we are as nation in response to discrimination when history says otherwise. Even on the left will engage in this rhetoric. Those who have been subjugated by the effects of social conditions are rational in their reaction to pushback against anything that will diminish them. While it should be acknowledged that so-called wokeness can go to the extremes the constant denigration of it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the hard issues that the nation still faces despite the progress that it has made.
If the right is ready to have a serious conversation about the historical grievances of aggrieved communities there is a plethora of academics, activists, legislators, historians and philosophers who are ready to have that conversation. If however the conversation is a form of truth and reconciliation without concrete actions to address the issues, it will simply confirm the notion that the right is more concerned about the electoral benefits of wokeness as a buzzword than addressing the underlying issues.