The sinister side of 'whites for Kamala'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Saturday Night Live skits practically write themselves. Over the past week, white supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign have gathered on whites-only virtual calls, barely distinguishable from parody, to self-flagellate and virtue-signal en masse.
First, there was the "White Women for Kamala" Zoom call with more than 200,000 attendees, including celebrities such as Megan Rapinoe and Pink. This featured plenty of hilarious moments, such as when one speaker told attendees they will "want to speak to a manager" while doing racial justice work but warned them that none exists, or when one TikToker told hundreds of thousands of adult white women to "put their listening ears on" and shut up when a "BIPOC" person (read: minority) is speaking. The Zoom call's host summed up the event's mood when she said, "I feel like we all just went to collective therapy together."
"Karens for Kamala?"
I will be breaking down the full highlights (er… I guess, lowlights) from the "White Women for Kamala" event on the Brad vs Everyone podcast later today.
Here's a sneak peak. pic.twitter.com/xrtK5oBxb4
— Brad Polumbo ⚽️️ (@brad_polumbo) July 29, 2024
Then came the "White Dudes for Kamala" follow-up event, featuring figures such as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and progressive activist David Hogg. This, too, had plenty of cringe-worthy highlights (lowlights?) such as reflections on their white privilege, observations about the "rainbow of beige" people on the call, and promises to be "educated" by "marginalized communities."
So, on one hand, this new form of "woke" activism is genuinely hilarious. It offers enormous entertainment value if you can overcome the secondhand embarrassment. But there's a sinister side to this new strain of Democratic white identity politics.
Democrats may not realize it, but with this kind of self-segregated, "whites-only" political activism, they are reinforcing racial identitarianism and the divides between racial groups in America, not breaking them down or promoting harmony and coexistence. There is no culture or experience that "white," a vague and nebulous category, people have in common. But this kind of activism nonetheless reinforces the idea of white collective identity, an idea with a dangerous and toxic history in the United States.
It's not a coincidence that the infamous white nationalist Richard Spencer praised the Harris campaign for its whites-only Zoom calls. If that's not a sign that Democrats are astray, what is?
Secondly, this brand of activism perpetuates one of the most toxic ideas of modern progressivism: collective guilt, the idea that individuals bear responsibility for the actions of their broader demography.
This is epitomized by the materials circulated by the "White Dudes for Kamala" organizers. Their talking points included, "We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the role we've played in our nation's history — good and bad."
Excuse me? Neither I nor any of the white men on that call played any role "in our nation's history" beyond our lifetimes. We are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the actions and decisions made by people in the past who look like us.
To understand how absurd this is, imagine a white man today taking credit for the achievements of, say, Albert Einstein, because they check off the same box on the census. And an ideology or movement that actually suggests individuals bear collective blame or responsibility because of their skin pigment and chromosomes is not just a misguided one but a deeply evil one.
This is the logic of the tyrant, of the genocidaire. It's the kind of thinking used to justify some of the greatest injustices in American history, such as when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imprisoned more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including many U.S. citizens, in "internment camps" for the "crime" of sharing heritage with people who were waging war against America.
This act is now rightly viewed as one of the biggest civil rights violations in U.S. history, a deeply immoral act rooted in an evil premise: collective guilt. While the consequences and outcomes are nowhere near on the same scale, of course, the same evil basis underlies modern Democratic white identity politics.
So, yes, we can and should mock these cringe-worthy "whites for Kamala" displays. But we must not lose sight of the fact that at a deeper level, there's nothing funny about them at all.
Yes-- all Democrats are extreme hateful racists-- spawn of the Devil!
While all Republicans are kind, loving, people who totally respect minorities (and in fact especially anyone who is different then them).
So the question is-- why is this so?
(Asking for a friend)
No, the question is why do Republicans have no problem expressing their opinions openly while Democrats feel the need to hide their identities while expressing theirs?
Asking for a friend...
BTW please don't troll my seeds with bs unless you want bs back....
Those folks in comment #2 hadn't known they were "Black"-- they'd been fooled.
(Its only recently, after all these years, that they discovered that they were actually being fooled by those evil Democrats-- and that they "Black" themselves!)
LOL!
I expect that early next year when the postmortems on the MAGA Phenomenon are written the gops bassackwards tone-deafness regarding race, women's reproductive freedom and gay marriage and adoption rights will get a lot of blame. We Will Not Go Back...
Wow. Talk about missing the point of the call and the 'situation at hand.' That is, the reason for which 'we gather here on this call today' . . . .
And, there is this thing going on about "identity politics." Well, if people segregate themselves for a truly, sincere, genuine, public -emphasis on public- relations and community event or set of events. . . who can justifiably criticize such a 'gathering/s'?
Don't be jealous.
So, are you saying white Democrats have to self segregate to make their point to Democrats?...
I will reply to the question this once:
Segregation can be put on a positive < - - - - >negative Spectrum, and being done so for its own sake is not the point. This/these grouping components were intended to EMPHASIZE a larger point about the sum of democrats and democrat-leaning voters: Namely, that segments of this party. . .of all 'colors' can come together category-wise and support a woman - even a black/person of color for president.
So no, white democrats along with many others did not HAVE TO 'do it' to make a point: They did it because they wished to do so in such a manner.
So you think segregation can be a positive? Interesting.....
Thank you for providing a case in point: Identity politics comes in all shapes, sizes, and 'colors.'
Rule: What is true of one thing in one set of circumstances is not necessarily true in another set of circumstances.
These 'events' speak for themselves! They are relatively harmless. (Distinctions do matter.) I would suggest not over-thinking it.
No doubt, thanks for your posts CB...
How can you call this about people willingly segregate themselves for a truly, sincere, genuine, public -emphasis on public- relations and community event or set of events when this happens?
I mean, when the event is titled 'White Women for Kamala" and it's already obvious that everybody is there to support the Democrat nominee, then a racist comes in to put white women in their place? WTF is sincere, genuine public-emphasis there?
Ignorant and 'dangerous' people come in all shapes, sizes, and 'colors.' That "BIPOC" is not representative of a social group. That is, an extreme case, is not characteristic of any whole.
Wow, way to miss the point. What do you call it when a person called out a group of people by their color and tell them to shut up and listen when a person of another color is speaking?
In my corner of the world, we call that racism. But you appear to give it a pass. Why is that? I would have thought, based on comments you have made in the past, that you are well versed in racism. Why do you seem to give it a pass here? Is it ok because it was white women who were told to shut up and listen to a minority? Or is it because this was a Democrat event?
See 3.2.1. Emphatically. In my opinion: "White Women for Harris" is a positive occurrence.
Ok, but that's confirmation of my point. You give it a pass.
Book closed.
I love it... White people are racists for voting for someone that's black. It's too fucking stupid to make it up. Same shit made the rounds when Obama was elected LOL
Who said that?...
That's an interesting observation....
They are self hating mighty mental midgets when the only reason they are voting for her is because she is a black (or is it Indian? So confusing when she can't make up her mind) woman.
You will be far less confused if you adopt the obvious, she is an American woman.