The Best 30-Minute Explanation of Marxism I Have Ever Heard
...and so this is my thesis when we say what is woke is Maoism with American characteristics if I might borrow from Mao himself who said that his philosophy was Marxism Leninism with Chinese characteristics which means woke is Marxism and it's a very provocative statement
This is the best encapsulation of what's currently going on in our country, and why, that I've heard.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Video
Tags
Who is online
533 visitors
This guy sums it up pretty well in a short amount of time.
I am shocked and sadden about how some people think, truly think, of real independence for their fellow marginalized citizens. What I hear in the video is a man saying that anyone who wants inclusion should be treated as persona non-grata in western countries. Also, I hear the voice of a human being telling other human beings (rather manipulatively) that they should shut off compassion for marginalized people by preemptively assigning what they say as "woke" and unworthy of farther 'development' and engagement.
Also, my understanding is communists generally do not have a belief in God. Thus, there is an implication that marginalized people are godless people who want what the people of God have gained from their centuries of service (as servants) to God. To which I will ask this: When is it ever okay for the organized Church to be a congregation of arrogance (haughtiness)?
Maybe you should have looked this guy up before you posted that.
I have, thank you. I did not post the video because I was trying to promote the man. I posted the video because I think it does an excellent job of encapsulating what I came to believe on my own but couldn't quite put into words. Whether it is actually cultural Marxism is debated, obviously. However, whether it is Marxism or not, the methods being used to tear down the west are, in my opinion, most definitely methods Marxists, especially Mao, have used in the past. The similarities between Mao's cultural revolution and what is going on here are unmistakable except what is going on here is currently much less violent. I think that will eventually change, as the public education system seems to be gaining more and more Marxists in its teaching ranks. The largest teachers union in the US is certainly openly Marxist.
In my estimation, this guy is pretty much on the money as far as what is going on. The only question I have is, is the intent to change our society from a constitutionally based capitalistic system to a socialist one or to simply to get us to tear ourselves apart so that other global players can make moves they wish to make but have been prevented by us, historically.
Lastly, I think you calling this guy a conspiracy theorist, even if true, a bit rich, since you are one yourself. All you do is post article after article that everything left of where you stand is a white supremacist plot to keep anyone not white, down. Reading your material leads one to wonder why we don't see two or three lynchings every day on our morning commute to work.
LOL. Thanks for EXPOSING your viewpoints.
No one here can factually name a conspiracy theory I have espoused, because I dont.
Your author here admitted to fraudulently creating academic studies to advance a right wing agenda.
I'm not sure everyone watches the videos that are seeded on this site, but if they are not real long i usually do, and I watched this one. I really felt like he worked backwards, identifying the things about "woke" society and philosophy that he doesnt approve of or despises, and then pasting them on to the idea of a Maoist Marxist ideology. In other words, I seriously doubt that the exact correlations between "wokeism" and Maoist marxism exist. He was , lets say, assuming that they do without proof.
I disagree. The way things are playing out, politically, it is as if the left is using Mao's cultural revolution as a template. One purpose of Mao's cultural revolution was to disassociate China's youth from traditional cultural values and replace them with a form of Marxism with Chinese sensibilities.
That seems to be what is going on here. The only difference is that those trying to eliminate our historic cultural values don't have the power that Mao had and have to move slower. Meaning that they can't yet have youth beating people to death who don't fall in line and parrot the party line.
In my opinion, you are part of that effort. You push the white systemic racism conspiracy theory for all your worth, even though it is patently ridiculous. It is inarguably the go-to Marxist play to make a segment of society the boogie man. Critical theory has only one goal and it isn't truth. It exists simply as a means to attack the existing social structure, whether good or bad, so for the purpose of replacing it with what the attacker desires to put in its place.
An example would be the claim that the United States was founded on slavery or that the US would not exist had it not been for slaves. Anyone who managed to graduate from public schools before CRT started brainwashing kids on the subject knows that this is just bunk. But, for Marxist tactics, that's irrelevant. Keep telling the lie long enough, control the education of the youth, and eventually they will achieve what they want.
And that's just mentioning one point of attack. Things have gotten so bad, and they've made such progress, that we're beginning to see a push to normalize pedophilia. And it's gotten to this point because they've been so successful at disassociating so much of the population from truth and simple common sense. In essence, they're murdering truth and convincing more and more people that whatever they want to be true is true.
The thing is, as I said earlier, I'm not totally sure what the end game is. Is it simply to bring down the US so it is no longer a power in the world or is it to replace it with something socialist? If it is the latter, once they've got all the guns, all these people who supported them in their ignorance are going to be in for a rude surprise.
Not quite the way I see it although, I haven't looked closely at the issue. However, what I gather from the Wiki info on the matter, what Lindsay seems to have done is write a bunch of hoax papers and submitted them to left leaning publications. At the time the works had been exposed, six had been published, six had been rejected and six were still under review.
While the Wiki info doesn't say why Lindsay did it, my guess was to see how many could get published, thereby revealing something about the standards of those publications. For instance, according to Wiki:
As previously stated, it doesn't state why Lindsay did it, but the only reason I could think of would be to see if there was something these publications wouldn't publish. That is, some of them simply seemed to have published the papers simply because they liked what it said, apparently.
I just took the time to see if I could find out info on why Lindsay did this. My suspicion seems to be confirmed by an article in the Atlantic, which you can find here.
What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia
As for your charge of trying to advance a right wing agenda, I see no evidence. You'll have to explain what you mean.
Systemic white racism is not a conspiracy theory, it is American history. With the exception of the two Adamses (John and John Quincy), 10 of the first 12 U.S. presidents owned slaves, and 8 of those 10 owned slaves while they were president of the United States, and never freed them. This is a horrible legacy for our presidency to have.
If one accepts Jamestown (along with Plymouth Rock) as the beginning of "America", slavery has been there from relatively soon after that beginning. Slavery was introduced in 1620 and by 1650 or 1660 had become entrenched in Virginia. Virginia was ,along with Massachusetts, the most important colony during the founding. 7 of the first 11 presidents were Virginians, including 4 of the first 5.
To claim that slavery was not an integral factor in the founding of the country is practically bizarre.
The truth is that there has never been a time, from the mid 17th century on, when the US has not been a racist country. Although things did improve a lot with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society in the mid to late 60's.
Your last sentence is not clear.
And do you feel it necessary to tell people to become conservative JUST LIKE YOU: Are you a FREEDOM LOVER or conservative 'lover'? Because a true freedom lover would listen to both sides and if I dare say it: Give pedophiles their day in court where they can make their case (receive due process) as does every other group of marginalized people, because there they will either prevail or fail. One thing for sure. . . they will have made their case!
And, no, I do not agree with pedophilia, but I can understand the oppression of being born in a world where some people live free and open while working and using their freedoms as a cudgel just as hard to keep other people in tragedy and misery (for their entire lives).
Deny no one their day in court. No matter how hard their request is or how "ugly and ugh" their request may be.
Again, I repeat before anyone can get it twisted, I do not support pedophilia and I do not understand it. But, I can definitely understand how it is to have other people driving the narrative of some other people's existence, freedoms, and opportunities without hearing both sides. I can do that because I, myself, have been and continue to be misunderstood by conservatives to this very day.
Of course, conservatives "poo-pooed" both the Act and the Society as being unnecessary and evil then and now. At the least, conservatives will not give either one the credit properly due. Just listen and watch conservatives today (running for presidential office and soon to run) as they confess and testify to the policies and laws they wish to undo.
Except that wasn't the claim. The claim is that the US is not systemically racist (except as artificially induced by Democrats).That is simply a conspiracy theory you promote.
Um, yeah. Guess if you redefine the word enough anything can seem true. Thing is, the US is one of the least racist countries in the world. Next fact, there is racism all over the world, everywhere. That's because humans aren't all that nice when you get down to it. But here, it's down to individuals, not the system. You are just part of the effort to provide a fake enemy for the purpose of getting policies in place you favor, not actually taking care of a real problem. It's why you never miss an opportunity to label everything you think you can get away with as racism or white supremacy. There's really not much difference between the things you say and the things that some slaveholder might have said about black people in the old south, that I can see.
www.dailydot.com /debug/what-is-cultural-marxism/
What Is Cultural Marxism—and where did the term come from?
Brenden Gallagher 9-11 minutes 7/6/2018
Whenever conservatives see something they don’t like that has the hallmarks of diversity and equality, you will quickly hear cries of “Cultural Marxism!” This phenomenon has only increased as the far-right has gained a foothold in America’s popular and political culture. So, you’ve probably been wondering: What is cultural Marxism?
What is cultural Marxism?
The term “cultural Marxism” is little more than a racist dog whistle. The most recent use of that term in pop culture, in a now-deleted tweet by Ron Paul (or, as he claims, his staff) illustrates this perfectly. The tweet, which purported to explain cultural Marxism, featured caricatures of various races punching Uncle Sam. In the cartoon, their collective fist is adorned with the communist hammer and sickle.
Not only is the cartoon incredibly offensive, it fails to do the thing that political cartoons need to do be effective: illustrate a point. Therein lies the difficulty.
Cultural Marxism definition
It is very hard to explain what cultural Marxism is because the term describes something that doesn’t exist. It refers to a vast conspiracy dating back to the early 20th century in which academics launched a campaign to take over intellectual, cultural, and artistic institutions. Then, they “promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy Christian values and overthrow free enterprise.” What were these ideas? Feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism, to name a few.
The problem is that this never actually happened.
To understand what Marxism is, you ought to read communist theorist Karl Marx. You’ve probably heard of his deeply influential work Das Kapital . To boil it down simply, Marxism is “ a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.” You have heard terms like “bourgeois,” proletariat,” “seize the means of production,” and “ class war.” That stuff is all Marx.
You might be confused. Wait? Isn’t that stuff economic and not cultural? In short, y es.
The Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism
“ Cultural Marxism ” refers to the ideas of a group of Jewish German academics, now known as the Frankfurt School, who fled Nazi Germany for New York City in 1936. Among other things, they concluded that religious and mass culture are barriers to revolution, as they advance counter-revolutionary ideology. They believed that cultural enlightenment and intellectual liberation are essential to creating the circumstances for revolution.
It’s not hard to understand how the Frankfurt School came to this conclusion. If the church tells you that the patriarchal family structure is the ideal, and then the culture you consume—say Duck Dynasty and Last Man Standing— offers the same message, then you likely won’t challenge that particular aspect of the status quo.
The Frankfurt School is best known in academic circles as the incubator for postmodernism. Rather than being a political project, postmodernism is a philosophical movement marked by an incredulity toward any narratives, including political projects. Notable theorists of the Frankfurt School include Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and others. Their work deeply influenced Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, who in turn became deeply influential in philosophy.
Cultural Marxism vs. conservatism
Ultimately, for this conversation, the work and legacy of the Frankfurt School doesn’t particularly matter. As leftist writer Shuja Haider put it in his expert dismantling of Jordan Peterson , whose work often invokes cultural Marxism:
Cultural Marxism, as it is described by today’s right-wing commentators, is just a repackaged version of the age-old conservative complaint about diversity. Whether it’s sexuality, gender, race, religion, or otherwise: it is a threat to Western culture.
The key term here is “Western culture.” When these people talk about Western culture, they mean “white culture.” And when they talk about cultural Marxism, they mean “non-white,” “non-male,” and “non-heteronormative.”
Just look at the people who write about cultural Marxism. The term is used in books like Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West and Jordan Peterson’s recent best-seller. You will find it in the manifesto written by serial killer Anders Brevik and in rants from Infowars . It’s a common phrase in any propaganda put out by alt-right groups. It is not a coincidence that all of these people, groups, and outlets, who are (by varying degrees) white supremacists, love to talk about the preservation of Western culture.
So where does the term “cultural Marxism” come from?
Cultural Marxism as a term only dates back to the 1980s, when an obscure writer named William S. Lind wrote about the need to protect conservative Western values as the Cold War drew to a close. Lind’s work advocates for a return to “traditional” morality.
Usage of the term in pop culture begins around 1999 when a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation named Paul Weyrich launched a more conservative think tank called the Free Congress Foundation. At the same time, he launched a proto-Fox News TV network called National Empowerment Television. There, he aired a documentary called Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School. For the fringe right, this launched the conflation of these postmodern theorists with Marxism.
Cultural Marxism throughout history
That isn’t to say that the term doesn’t have a history. Many critics who have written about cultural Marxism are quick to point out that this is just another iteration of classic conspiracy theories of vast Jewish conspiracy. As with other anti-Semitic theories like those presented in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , the idea reaches back through history and builds a narrative that never existed, centering Jews as history’s villains. The Jewish people have been subject to this kind of treatment for centuries .
While the term has its roots in white supremacy, cultural Marxism has been mainstreamed in recent years. This, simply, is because racism has been mainstreamed in recent years. Take Tea Party rallies, Breitbart, or Steve Bannon. If you listen to any right winger for long enough, their complaints about cultural Marxism will devolve into complaints about the perceived decline of white male patriarchal culture.
For example, take when Infowars correspondent and alt-right celebrity Paul Joseph Watson railed against cultural Marxism :
Cultural Marxism in the news today
Despite its dubious origins as a term for political analysis, cultural Marxism and the concepts behind it have caught on in mainstream political writing. Jonathan Chait, who is about as centrist as they come, wrote an article on political correctness in New York Magazine in which he said “the modern left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.”
Chait declines to use the term “cultural Marxism” here. But it’s exactly what he is defining. Like Chait, New York Times op-ed writers like Bari Weiss and David Brooks have swallowed this right-wing talking point, and regularly produce essays on poisonous “PC campus culture.” Conservatives have successfully rewritten history by retroactively shoehorning an idea that never actually existed into the past, and then claiming that all of Western civilization has been infected with it.
What the right-wing calls cultural Marxism can be explained by far less nefarious means. As oppressed groups—women, minorities, LGBTQ+ folks—gain the tools of liberation, such as the internet and civil rights protections, they will have an influence on culture. The systems that were created to oppress them—the patriarchy, the nuclear family, white supremacy—will then recede.
So what is cultural Marxism? Perhaps the best answer is “a made-up phrase that we shouldn’t let serious thinkers get away with using.”
a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.”
replace class with identity and you have it. That's the point. It's not economic analysis. Cultural Marxists substitute class for race or gender while using the Marxist framework popularized by Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.
The author of the seed is discredited.
He is known to have committed academic hoaxes to push his right wing culture war ideas.
And yet here you are agreeing with him.
go pester someone else
Marxism sounds good in theory but will never work in practice because it ignores human flaws.
The road to Marxism is paved with the bodies of many useful idiots.
The road to Marxism is actually just a road. There isn't an actual Marxist government that has existed in our history, it was but an idea no one has been able to achieve or come close.
The road usually meets a blockade with a totalitarian regime or dictator unwilling to turn power over to the rightful hands, the people.
Marxism is a philosophy that among other things has developed into communism and is most definitely paved with the bodies of useful idiots and many, many, many innocents.
And you are correct. It is almost always forced on people by a select few elites. Much to the detriment of the people they say they are serving.
The record is not pretty for the proletariat.
This would be because Marx was wrong. He did not understand human nature or believed, incorrectly, that human nature could be overcome by human effort. He created a philosophy for people who do not exist.
Exactly. And to believe they do, is simply obtuse.
Pretty much. A true Marxist society would be a utopia where everyone has everything they need, but it can never be because humans are humans. Honestly a social democracy is probably the closest we can get.
Marx is dead ... Hallux
Hallux will soon be dead ... Marx
Marx is correct and I am going to die from boredom if the constant accusations of who is a Marxist and who is a Fascist continue to unfertilize the soil in which libertarian monarchism is attempting to spread its fungal roots.
Fungai might ultimately be responsible for the apocalyptical zombie virus that is to come.
Fungai are nature's A-I.
Wow. That (video) was a bad 'trip' for me. I did watch it through, nevertheless.
"In my opinion, you are part of that effort. You push the white systemic racism conspiracy theory for all your worth, even though it is patently ridiculous."
Very true, but few buy into the lie. There never was such a thing as systemic racism, nor does it exist today. Liberalism goes against basic human nature....family and tribe always come before the wider community or state.
Let me know whenever you are ready to debate the history of racism in the United States. Bring your lunch.
You're not qualified to teach it.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program Oral History Project
Avram Yedidia
History of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program
An Interview Conducted by Ora Huth 1985
VI Designing the Health Plan: The Trial and Error Period, 1945-1950
Excerpt:
. . . .
― 30 ―
Y edidia
From my perspective, perhaps the most important thing that resulted from that experience was what happened with the health plan after the war. The general feeling among some of my friends in the community, those who were not involved in the health plan, was that it was questionable that blacks and whites would get along together in a postwar medical care situation in the same manner as they did during the war years.
As a matter of fact, some liberal physician friends of mine, who were in private practice, found it necessary in 1945 or 1946, to have two [Oakland] offices, one west of Broadway, and one east of Broadway.
Huth
One for blacks, and one for whites.
Yedidia
In their phrasing, it was not "one for blacks, and one for whites," but they were convinced that if they stayed only west of Broadway, the only patients they would ultimately have were blacks, and east of Broadway, the whites would come. The pertinent issue there is that the Kaiser Permanente Hospital, on MacArthur and Broadway, was right there in the middle.
I'm talking now about physicians in private practice, who were not involved in the health plan, but who were essentially forward-looking people. Their opinion, as expressed to me frequently, was that, "You really are not going to get any place. You have a new idea, a new form of medical care organization, and you have a race problem. One problem alone is enough. Two problems would make it practically impossible for you to break through."
These were theoretical considerations. But the facts of life were that the residue of the shipyard workers who remained in the plan--and I should say that by October of 1945, that residue was something like eleven thousand members--were a mixed population, black and white. They continued their membership in the health plan.
Huth
How healthy were these people? Were they generally in good health, since they came from the South, and from all parts of the country?
Yedidia
Generally speaking, the people who came to the shipyards were not the healthiest, with the exception of those who started there before the war and were exempt from military service because they were in essential jobs. As to the people who came after the war started, many of them were in older age groups. Anybody who could walk was hired.
― 31 ―
It would be hard for me to assess what those eleven thousand who remained in the plan after the war were like, but it's very likely that they were not robust and healthy, otherwise medical care wouldn't have been a very important issue. They must have considered it important because they had to voluntarily pay monthly dues out of their pockets every month.
But coming back to the racial issue raised earlier: Whether a biracial program would succeed was a theoretical issue, largely for the people outside Kaiser who were observing a phenomenon. Those of us within the organization were busy making our program work, and the presence of blacks and whites in our membership was a reality.
Nonacceptance of Black Patients by Other Bay Area Hospitals, 1946-1947
Yedidia
After the war, racial tensions in the community increased. Without knowing what the setting was then, it would be very hard for people today to comprehend what really was going on. In 1946, for example, as I recall, there were picket lines protesting racial discrimination around almost every hospital in this area. If you go back to the newspapers of that period, you'll probably find material on it. The blacks, with some white sympathizers, picketed the hospitals because they would not admit blacks, except to private rooms. Well, number one, private rooms were scarce. That was not the style. The style was still large wards. Number two, the few private rooms that were available were expensive; the blacks couldn't afford the price.
It was virtually impossible for many black people to secure hospital care, and that became a very heated issue. But we were different. I'm convinced that the difference was not related to our ideology. Among the people who were in management of the health plan you could find the full spectrum of views on any issue. That was as true then as it is today. We were different because we had learned to care for blacks and whites in the same facilities during the war. Futhermore, we had doctors and facilities, and we needed patients. Also, black physicians who returned from military service needed hospital privileges. They could get them at Kaiser because we had the beds.
Huth
Do you remember about when the first black doctor came? Do you know when that would have been?
Yedidia
I'm not talking now about being on the full-time staff, I'm talking about hospital privileges. The people who were being taken care of in health plan facilities, who had continued their health plan membership after the war, were both black and white. Obviously, under these circumstances they had no problem getting into the hospital.
― 32 ―
In addition to that, the black physicians who needed hospital privileges and found it difficult, if not impossible, to get on the staff at the other hospitals, could get on the courtesy staff of Kaiser because we had the beds. As I recall from discussions with physicians within the organization, we also had the necessary structure to protect the organization and the patients against the charge that some of the black doctors on the courtesy staff did not have the proper credentials.
The full-time physicians within the organization assisted in the care of all inpatients, including those who were not members of the health plan. So without getting involved in any of the ideological issues, the facts of life were that we were an integrated oasis in a segregated universe .
Racial Integration Within the Hospital, and the Two-Bed Room
Huth
In that time period, which was early for integration, did you segregate the patients within the hospital?
Yedidia
No. Sometime around 1947, the issue of racial mix surfaced in an interesting way within the organization. The hospital in Oakland had no wards. Essentially, all of the rooms were two-bed rooms, with the exception of a few private rooms that were used largely for cases requiring isolation.
The question came up because of some complaints, whether we should segregate the blacks and whites. Of course, in any discussion like that, those who raised the issue would say, "Oh, we're not prejudiced; we take care of these people. It's the patients who are prejudiced."
I should add that some of the prospective members raised the issue. For example, I recall one day, probably in 1946, when the chief of police of Oakland, along with his top staff, came to visit the hospital to see what we were doing, with the view that maybe some of them would like to join the health plan. I recall that we were standing on a deck next to the surgical suite looking over MacArthur Boulevard. And the police chief said to me, "You know, when we walked through, I saw that you had some Negroes and whites in the same room. I don't think we like that."
As I can recall, I responded, "Do you know this plan started that way, with blacks and whites in the shipyards, and that's the way it goes. They worked together, and they were sick together." He said, "I don't think my men would like it."
Huth
There were probably no blacks in the police department?
Yedidia
Probably not in 1946. I don't think so. I certainly didn't want to engage him in a philosophical debate. As I recall, my response was, "Those who don't like it shouldn't join the plan."
There were other complaints that were interesting. There was, for example, a complaint that during visiting hours, if you had a black and a white in the same room, the blacks usurped the place. It was interesting because evidently there was among blacks a great tradition, which may persist to this day, of visiting the sick, and there were more blacks who visited their sick relatives or friends than whites.
So again the argument by some whites was, "We can't even get in to see our sick wife, or husband, or child, because the blacks take over the whole place." Well, we coped with that problem by saying, "No one patient can have more than two visitors at a time." In any event, with mounting racial tensions in the community, the issue came up from time to time.
I want to recount something else. I was not present when this was discussed. But the story was told to me almost contemporaneously, so it must have been authentic. At one time the issue was discussed with Mr. Henry Kaiser, Sr. I don't want to attribute to him any particular ideological views on this issue, but this is the way the story goes.
He was asked, "Should we really separate our patients? After all, we only have two beds in each place, and so it would be easy to manage it." He scratched his bald head, so I was told, and he said, "You know, if I were a black man, and you were going to put me along with everybody like me on the right side of the hall, and you had gold carpets there, and there was that miserable tile that I told you not to put in on the left side of the hall where the whites were placed, I still wouldn't believe that you treated me equally." I think it was a remarkable statement.
Huth
Yes, yes.
Yedidia
In any event, there was a policy that was established. It was not necessarily related to that statement. But a policy was established for placement of patients when they were admitted, based on the usual medical needs--a set pattern. For example, in the medical ward, since we had a cross corridor arrangement with the nursing station at the cross of the corridors, the policy was to keep the sickest patients closest to the nurses' station because the nurses had to go most frequently to the sickest patients, and respond to them most promptly. Patients who were not so sick were placed on the periphery.
The same thing happened with the post-surgical cases: The closest ones [to the nursing station] would be those who just came out of surgery. So we continued the same policy. We admitted people without reference to color. The policy was, if the person who is brought into a room objects for any reason to the person already in the room, or vice versa, then the person who objects, white or black, is moved.
To the best of my knowledge, that policy persisted throughout. In looking at it retrospectively, it's interesting that the facts of life can overcome prejudices--ideological differences notwithstanding. In a sense, sometimes they can be overcome more readily in actual life, while the same people would remain with the same prejudices intellectually, and in social relationships.
Whatever do you mean about "tribe" and why do you say tribe matters more in the larger scheme of a mixed society such as our own?
Executive Order 8802: Prohibition of Discrimination in the Defense Industry (1941)
In June of 1941, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, banning discriminatory employment practices by federal agencies and all unions and companies engaged in war-related work. The order also established the Fair Employment Practices Commission to enforce the new policy.
In early 1941, millions of jobs were being created, primarily in urban areas, as the United States prepared for World War II. When large numbers of African Americans moved to cities in the north and west to work in defense industries, they were often met with violence and discrimination.*
In response, A. Philip Randolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and other Black leaders, met with Eleanor Roosevelt and members of the President’s cabinet. Randolph presented a list of grievances regarding the civil rights of African Americans, demanding that an executive order be issued to stop job discrimination in the defense industry. Randolph, with others, threatened that they were prepared to bring "ten, twenty, fifty thousand Negroes on the White House lawn" if their demands were not met.
In reaction to the fear of tens of thousands—if not more—African Americans marching on the nation’s capitol, and after consultation with his advisers, Roosevelt responded to the Black leaders and issued Executive Order 8802 on June 25th. It declared, "There shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries and in Government, because of race, creed, color, or national origin." It was the first Presidential directive on race since Reconstruction. In exchange for Executive Order 8802, Randolph called off the march, though he would be a driving force of the 1963 March on Washington.
To investigate “complaints of discrimination in violation of the provisions of this order” Executive Order 8802 established the “Committee on Fair Employment Practice.” More commonly known as the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC), it has been disregarded by most historians as a powerless and ineffectual agency, especially in the South. After World War II, the FEPC almost became a permanent agency, but a strong voting bloc in Congress prevented it. Shortly after the dismantling of the FEPC, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 banning segregation in the military.
* Bolding CB.
I have listened to the 'lecture' in the seeded content. 99.99 percent of marginalized people are not against "whiteness" in and of itself. What people strive against is whiteness pushed as the standard for humanity. That is, nothing else is proper or accurate unless it is filtered (approved) by a stamping of whiteness. (Otherness = "shithole.")
Throughout the lecture, the speaker is equating equity (the ability to be on an even keel in society at least in the basics of life) as a negative push to demote and supplant capitalism! That is a lie. That is fear-mongering.
Equity in America points out marginalized people have been suppressed in society and setback so far down that fairness should permit them a similar opportunity to compete or catch up as a CLASS -not just as "sketchy" individuals breaking through all the obstacles put in MARGINALIZED people's path who play the "game" according to the rules set by the dominant class - that is, so-called "Gatekeepers."
This lecturer is laboring (overseas) to define "woke" as something to ward against using the cover of socialism. It is fitting that he should do this seeing that marginalized people have confronted whiteness at the level of institutes of higher learning in the United States. But, let's be clear, equity means we can come/sit/hear this lecturer's points of interest. . .it does not mean the listeners must agree to any or all of his statements and conclusions!