His point at the end about the impossibility of the word "un-Danish" is at least thirty years out of date, if not 80. "Udansk" is fairly frequently used, across the political spectrum, usually denoting some variation of intolerance, unwillingness to compromise, and narrowmindedness which are implied almost universally to be antithetical to Danishness.<p>Even on the right, the phrases "Danish culture" and "Danish values" are used much more than any reference to blood or ethnicity. It is very much a fringe view to suggest that people are not able to become like us and assimilate (though a lot less fringe to claim that many foreigners, especially muslims, don't want to do so.)
Now I realise you have to produce many words to fill a book, but a more succinct argument would be appreciated, and this seems to be all over the place, with pat explanations of recent history, which is probably much more complex in reality.<p>And is the argument really about 'identity', or just 'status'?<p>IMHO, economics is flawed at it's core, because people do not just value material wealth, but relative, social wealth, aka status, in fact, almost above all. That also explains twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.
I have no earthly idea how "identity politics" is related to the demise of the arab spring. In as far as it may relate to the rise of authoritarianism in Eastern Europe (Poland and Hungary), it is by being easy foil for Victor Orban and his ilk (cf. "LGBTQ-free zones"). Even if one were to believe these neo-fascists wouldn't just find some other scapegoat, I don't see how it would morally justify a return to 1950s social policies. Throwing some people under a train in support of human rights seems to be the quickest way to defeat your stated purpose.<p>It isn't even obvious that "identity politics" is tethered exclusively to left-wing politics. Plenty has been written about the group of people that invaded the Capitol last year, and the only consistent characteristic of that group was being white. No, it has nothing to do with economics. It included a doctor making $ 650,000 p. a. as well as a group that traveled to DC on a private jet.<p>Hell, the major group of young reactionaries in Europe (until recently) had "Identity" in their name.<p>This text just seems entirely out of place, and I was wondering if I missed the (2008) in the title while reading it. There's nothing new in it, and it wouldn't get much attention if it weren't for the name.
>>Identity politics aims to change culture and behavior in ways that have real material benefits for many people.<p>>>By turning a spotlight on narrower experiences of injustice, identity politics has brought about welcome changes in cultural norms and has produced concrete public policies that have helped many people. The Black Lives Matter movement has made police departments across the United States much more conscious of the way they treat minorities, even though police abuse still persists.<p>This is another false, politically correct account.<p>The impact of the Black Lives Matter movement, on black lives, has been devastating.<p>What this racial justice movement led to is riots, wherein 18 people were murdered in one night in Chicago:<p><a href="https://forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/08/18-people-were-murdered-in-chicago-on-may-31-making-it-the-citys-single-deadliest-day-in-60-years/" rel="nofollow">https://forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/08/18-people-were...</a><p>And massively less aggressive policing, which led to 1,003 homicides in Chicago in 2021, twice that of 2019.<p><a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Report-paints-grim-picture-of-Chicago-area-gun-16746049.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Report-paints-grim-...</a><p>The reason is that police are arresting fewer people, and solving fewer homicides:<p><a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/1/3/22858995/chicago-violence-dangerous-murders-per-capita-2021-2020-surge-garfield-park-police-lori-lightfoot" rel="nofollow">https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/1/3/22858995/chicago...</a><p>“Many of our officers are not arresting people, are letting crimes that happen right in front of them go by because they don’t want to be misconstrued as being racist or being held liable for any kind of misconceived notions of brutality or whatever,” he said."<p>Consequently, revenge killings, where one gang retaliates against another for a previous, unsolved, homicide, have skyrocketed.
This is a moderate essay with an unfortunate title. What it is <i>not</i> is a typical right-wing rant. I would hope people could tell these apart.<p>It presents a middle path and almost plaintively asks people to follow it. I fear this is wishful thinking, but at least he's trying to be conciliatory and constructive.<p>What surprised me was his reference to <i>Snow Crash</i>. I did not expect that in an essay by Francis Fukuyama.
I hate identity politics as much as the next guy, but I think a lot of Fukuyama's takes here are pretty bad. He repeatedly paints massive groups with a large and indiscriminate brush. For instance:<p>"The right seeks to cut off immigration altogether and would like to send immigrants back to their countries of origin."<p>Uh, what? The United States is a nation of immigrants and we all know it. I don't think anyone wants to send immigrants back, it would be illegal and unconstitutional as well as impossible. Now, restricting ILLEGAL immigration on the other hand? Yes, basically everyone on the right supports this. But not wanting illegal immigration is literally on the other side of the map from not wanting any immigration at all and sending back immigrants.<p>I don't lend much credence to this guy anyway, considering that he thought history ended in 1992, as other comments have mentioned. But I think just as important as identity politics is defining the opposing side by the worst ideas of its supporters. For example, defining Democrats by "defund the police", or defining Republicans as the party of "white nationalism". There are tons of people on both sides who don't believe in this crap and are dedicated to the core ideals of economic prosperity for all and expansion of opportunities. Tuning these crazies out would go a long way to calming down the discourse in this country, but I don't think essays like this really help the situation.
Graeber tears this guy’s work apart in his new book and shows his work is incompatible with recent and old anthro research. Hard to take him seriously in other areas
(2018)<p>And yet the future is all about Identity politics. It's an optimization problem really. Recent crises show that liberal democracy can no longer serve the needs of individuals that have increasingly more freedoms (partly thanks to technology) and who are no longer willing to compromise with large groups. The challenge is going to be how to build political systems that simultaneously cater to all the various identity dimensions of citizens, while at the same time avoiding the oppression of 50% by the other 50%, as happens in democracies. This is a technological problem (after all democracy itself was technology), and interestingly many of the decentralized projects aim to solve parts of it. What seems to be lacking is an integrated understanding of all such parts.