In the context of "anti-woke" ideology. Many people currently in power believe that if we do not talk about race, by literally not using the words, that longstanding societal issues will simply disappear. Same too with many scientific principals. In power or not, these people are idiots.
Agreed, but I and obviously you are not and we do not have to pretend to be by becoming enraged at their idiotic behavior if it has no material impact.
Secondly, I do not agree that they think issues will "disappear"; I believe that they simply think this gives them license to impose their will on the groups that identify with said banned terms.
It's an ostrich worldview, it occurs in other contexts well:
Trump on COVID: "If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any"
Or more recently, Trump March EO from March: "Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame"
So they see efforts so shed light on America's dark history as deepinging social devide and fostering national shame. What's the proposed solution? Make everything right? Bring accountability? No, it's ostrich time! The order:
“ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties … do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living … and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people.”
A court-ordered inventory showed that the Park Service had removed at least 51 exhibits from 37 parks and monuments. The removed or targeted material involved slavery, civil rights, Indigenous history, womens rights, Japanese American incarceration, LGBTQ history, and climate change.
They do the opposite as well: saying things and insisting that alone makes them true.
e.g. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Claiming the 2020 election was rigged. Deciding they have the unilateral right to invade countries.
Many people currently in power believe that if we do not talk about race, by literally not using the words, that longstanding societal issues will simply disappear.
Australia used to have a "White Australia Policy". It was introduced in 1901, but began to be progressively relaxed after WW2 before finally being completely abolished in 1973. The policy involved a general ban on non-European immigrants - and even at times Eastern and Southern Europeans too – although it was never exceptionless (e.g. Maori immigration was always allowed, to avoid upsetting New Zealand; originally only Ashkenazi Jews were allowed to immigrate, but in the 1950s they started allowing Middle Eastern Jews as well.)
So, in that respect, Australia does have certain parallels to US history on race; and the dismantling of the White Australia Policy roughly overlaps the US Civil Rights Era, and Australian developments were likely partially influenced by that concurrent struggle in the US.
However, the way post-1973 Australian officialdom responded to the abolition of the White Australian Policy was very different from subsequent developments in the US. The Australian official philosophy was to stop classifying people on the basis of race – the Australian census asks about ancestry, country of birth (for both self and parents), ethnic identity, indigenous status, language, nationality, religion–but never race; all these concepts partially overlap with notions of "race", but none of them can be straightforwardly identified with it. In fact, the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG), groups ethnicities together based on continent of origin, not "race" – so African-Americans and White Americans are grouped together as "peoples of the Americas", while Egyptians and Kenyans and Afrikaners are all "peoples of Africa".
Now, this decision didn't magically solve all issues with inequality and discrimination in Australia – but did it cause harm? My own honest impression is that, overall, its benefits have likely outweighed the downsides. And, due to the influence of US media, there has been a growing subset of Australians – primarily on the left – who have adopted more US-influenced ways of thinking about and speaking about race and ethnicity – and I'm not convinced that has been beneficial.
Of course, whatever Trump and the GOP are doing isn't necessarily the same thing as what Australian politicians and bureaucrats – on both sides of the political aisle – have done. There are significant differences in context and history. But they aren't completely different either. My own impression as an outside observer of the US, is a lot of narratives which Americans tell themselves (on both sides) make the most sense when you avoid looking at other countries as comparators.
Postscript: inevitably some will respond by bringing Indigneous matters into the discussion–but indigeneity and race are fundamentally different things. To quote Australian Indigenous activist Noel Pearson, "If we were in Lapland, we would be blond and blue-eyed and we’d still be Indigenous.” Consider someone like Dr Gordon Reid MP, the federal Member for Robertson – he publicly identifies as a "proud Wiradjuri man", but physically he appears indistinguishable from Anglo-Celtic Australians.
Comments
In the context of "anti-woke" ideology. Many people currently in power believe that if we do not talk about race, by literally not using the words, that longstanding societal issues will simply disappear. Same too with many scientific principals. In power or not, these people are idiots.
No, that's the lie they tell to hide the actual intent of fostering white supremacy without having to say so.
Agreed, but I and obviously you are not and we do not have to pretend to be by becoming enraged at their idiotic behavior if it has no material impact.
Secondly, I do not agree that they think issues will "disappear"; I believe that they simply think this gives them license to impose their will on the groups that identify with said banned terms.
Imposing one's will upon other people is the primary driver of modern politics. Live and let live is gone.
"anti-woke" is also an unhelpful label, given top Dems (who were pushing woke 1.0) are now re-branding to woke 2.0.
It's an ostrich worldview, it occurs in other contexts well:
Trump on COVID: "If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any"
Or more recently, Trump March EO from March: "Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame"
So they see efforts so shed light on America's dark history as deepinging social devide and fostering national shame. What's the proposed solution? Make everything right? Bring accountability? No, it's ostrich time! The order:
“ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties … do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living … and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/rest...
(Also hilarious that these days whitehouse.gov deploys more dark patterns than whitehouse.com)
Here's an incomplete list of what they've done so far:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-administratio...
A court-ordered inventory showed that the Park Service had removed at least 51 exhibits from 37 parks and monuments. The removed or targeted material involved slavery, civil rights, Indigenous history, womens rights, Japanese American incarceration, LGBTQ history, and climate change.
They do the opposite as well: saying things and insisting that alone makes them true.
e.g. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Claiming the 2020 election was rigged. Deciding they have the unilateral right to invade countries.
Australia used to have a "White Australia Policy". It was introduced in 1901, but began to be progressively relaxed after WW2 before finally being completely abolished in 1973. The policy involved a general ban on non-European immigrants - and even at times Eastern and Southern Europeans too – although it was never exceptionless (e.g. Maori immigration was always allowed, to avoid upsetting New Zealand; originally only Ashkenazi Jews were allowed to immigrate, but in the 1950s they started allowing Middle Eastern Jews as well.)
So, in that respect, Australia does have certain parallels to US history on race; and the dismantling of the White Australia Policy roughly overlaps the US Civil Rights Era, and Australian developments were likely partially influenced by that concurrent struggle in the US.
However, the way post-1973 Australian officialdom responded to the abolition of the White Australian Policy was very different from subsequent developments in the US. The Australian official philosophy was to stop classifying people on the basis of race – the Australian census asks about ancestry, country of birth (for both self and parents), ethnic identity, indigenous status, language, nationality, religion–but never race; all these concepts partially overlap with notions of "race", but none of them can be straightforwardly identified with it. In fact, the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG), groups ethnicities together based on continent of origin, not "race" – so African-Americans and White Americans are grouped together as "peoples of the Americas", while Egyptians and Kenyans and Afrikaners are all "peoples of Africa".
Now, this decision didn't magically solve all issues with inequality and discrimination in Australia – but did it cause harm? My own honest impression is that, overall, its benefits have likely outweighed the downsides. And, due to the influence of US media, there has been a growing subset of Australians – primarily on the left – who have adopted more US-influenced ways of thinking about and speaking about race and ethnicity – and I'm not convinced that has been beneficial.
Of course, whatever Trump and the GOP are doing isn't necessarily the same thing as what Australian politicians and bureaucrats – on both sides of the political aisle – have done. There are significant differences in context and history. But they aren't completely different either. My own impression as an outside observer of the US, is a lot of narratives which Americans tell themselves (on both sides) make the most sense when you avoid looking at other countries as comparators.
Postscript: inevitably some will respond by bringing Indigneous matters into the discussion–but indigeneity and race are fundamentally different things. To quote Australian Indigenous activist Noel Pearson, "If we were in Lapland, we would be blond and blue-eyed and we’d still be Indigenous.” Consider someone like Dr Gordon Reid MP, the federal Member for Robertson – he publicly identifies as a "proud Wiradjuri man", but physically he appears indistinguishable from Anglo-Celtic Australians.