Unthinking bigotries

Written by

in

buttal he thinks it is. Of course a black person is "just as capable of unthinking bigotries" as anyone else. No one's denying that. 

Baddiel makes a number of interesting mistakes here, but I’m going to start with the one I took personally: some Jews aren’t white in any sense of the word. I, for instance, am mixed race, but my skin is closer in colour to my father, who is black. And because not every racist who hates Jews hates black people, and the Jew-hater tends to have a very specific image of a Jew in his head, sometimes my black skin does provide me with security. Do I therefore have “black privilege”?

The answer of course is that in a complicated and interconnected society we all have privilege, and we all suffer disadvantage, depending on the situation. What matters is not what privileges we may have in one situation or another, but the rights we are owed as human beings and the obligations we have to others.

Baddiel’s failure to understand that is the failure that runs through this book. He is so concerned with asserting his own lack of privilege that he forgets his obligations to others: not least to talk and to listen to them. His book’s thesis is twofold: that “progressives” turn a blind eye to and dabble in just one form of racism, and that the experiences he grapples with would not occur if he were black, Asian or from another ethnic minority.

This is just blather. Bush simply hasn't understood the point Baddiel is making. Antisemitism has been acceptable on the left because Jews are supposed to be rich and powerful, and because antisemitism was only something that happened in the past, with people wearing swastikas on their shirts. And because – the Livingstone formulation – it's always assumed to be a bad faith argument used to silence criticism of Israel.

All of which has completely passed the Times reviewer by…

Comments

  1. TDK Avatar
    TDK

    I think you are wrong here.
    Baddiel seems to want it both ways. He doesn’t object to victimhood poker but he’s complaining that his card is not ranked as highly any more.
    But Identity politics doesn’t work that way. It’s a reductionist argument that power is everything, and power manifests itself at the collective identity level. The Palestinian with a bomb about to destroy a crowded bar remains the victim, even though at that moment he is patently the more powerful. It has to be that way because the group identity supersedes individual interactions. That’s the key message behind the invisible rucksack, the assertion that blacks cannot be racist and so on.
    So Identity politics makes Jews the oppressor because they stopped being helpless victims. They defend themselves, they becomes successes. That proves they have power. Palestinians are excused everything because they are weak. Killing people with rockets is fine because they don’t have Jet planes, as Livingstone said. Palestinians win the poker game so they are excused their belief in the Protocols.
    Your point about swastikas is also null. We are talking about a modern left that equates moderate opponents as actual fascists or fascist adjacent. Julie Burchill is a Nazi because she appeared on a platform one time with Milo Yiannopoulos (the gay white supremacist with a black partner). You just posted about Chase Strangio equating white supremacists with J K Rowling. The progressives don’t think Nazi’s are in the past. They think that the Jews are Nazis.
    The key point from Bush is that obviously individuals can have power over another. And they may abuse that power. And that abuse might be motivated by prejudice, and crucially that can work both ways. But Identity politics ignores those individual interactions. Membership of the identity group is the only thing to consider. So it’s not blather. Individualism is the key to understanding why Identity politics is fundamentally wrong. Why it has led us away from an ideal of colour blindness into group ghettos, and why it makes trans rights a toxic movement.
    We are back in the bar. Is the Palestinian with the bomb a victim or an oppressor? Maybe blowing up the bar isn’t a route to justice. Maybe looking at the problem as one of power only, isn’t a useful lens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *