After yesterday’s discussion on the wokeist agenda of many of Bucknell’s anti-racist resources, it became evidently clear that everything that a university should be promoting is being silenced in the classrooms and on campus in general. We spoke a fair amount about the nature of the language we use today to discuss any sort of controversial topic or difficult topic that requires some debate or analysis. With regards to the Arbery case and Kendi’s article describing the case, he certainly is instilling a sense of predisposed faith-based language into his argument as if all people should already believe that all white people see all black people the same way: in a bad way. As we stated in class, it is almost like he is daring his audience to come back and say “no, that is not the case for me personally”. As soon as someone admits that, they are put on the wrong side of the moral binary and even their contrary thoughts could be harmful to society and people in the black community.
Like Kendi’s article, the Amy Cooper in Central Park piece was extremely similar, in that the writer fears for her life to go bird watching in the woods because she will be racially targeted and threatened. She too, because she had one experience of having the cops called on her believes she knows a) what is going on inside that woman’s mind and the reason she called the police in the first place and b) what is going on in all other white people’s minds when they call the police on others. I am in no way denying that there are racist people in this world that racially profile people and threaten them due to their own preconceived beliefs. However, when speaking of racism and racial stereotyping it can go both ways assuming all white people are the same and think all black people are criminals. Intellectuals should be able to recognize that that is extremely difficult to prove with data, hence the faith-based language that is used to describe it.
I think much of the wokeist agenda is to evoke emotions, especially regarding racism and the treatment of African Americans by police officers and the justice system in general. As we mentioned in class, the George Floyd case and the one body-cam clip that nearly all Americans saw of the officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck. From that one clip riots and protests were started in the streets of the United States stating that police brutality against black Americans is systemic and racism still roams free in our society unchecked. Yet as we talked about in class, many people did not watch or research what had transpired prior to those last few minutes of Floyd’s life. There was no discussion of the struggle between the officer and Floyd in getting him to show him his hands to make sure he was unarmed and Floyd’s unwillingness to cooperate. Not to mention the fact that Floyd was under the influence of pharmaceuticals that may have also impaired his ability to breathe even prior to the incident. The lack of context also plays into an earlier topic we discussed of misleading the public and pushing a narrative that fits their agenda.
3 replies on “Blog 11”
Honestly I am quite surprised that we are able to find so many similarities between wokeism and things we discusses in class earlier, like the New Left, the student movements, the civil rights movements, the communist-favoring intellectuals, and gnosticism. To me, people believing in them were all acting because they BELIEVE that it is the right thing to do. In wokeism, it is often based on emotion and the idea of “the original sin” of racism. I feel that most of these people didn’t even try to find out if what they are believing in is true. This is also why I particularly enjoy Gad Saad’s chapters and the conversations we had with him: because Gad Saad is pointing out that the society got to use science and fact-based thinking to solve problems.
I feel like people like to jump to conclusions based on things that they see on social media, even if they do not know what happened before that clip was taken.
I especially agree that the wokeist agenda can sometimes be used to evoke emotions. I think because their platform can be appealing to young people. This group looks for something to believe in. Young people are particularly vulnerable as this is the first time that we are forming our own opinions. Therefore, an agenda that evokes emotions can be extremely powerful. This provides an outlet for young people to be passionate about something. Additionally, the emotional aspect can make them feel that they are a part of something that is bigger than themselves. Thus, giving them a sense that they are contributing to the greater good of the world. I think that this is why the wokeist agenda can omit parts of the truth. Young people have found a group to believe in, and they will not question it because they often do not know what they don’t know.