Talk:Identity politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Identity politics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Too much mumbo jumbo, particularly in the beginning. The average reader ought to be able to read the first sentence and immediately understand more or less where the article is going and approximately what the subject is. Currently, the first sentence, while correct. is too vague to give any information at all.


Contents

[edit] Karada takes no position

Note: I take no position on who is, or is not, oppressed by or oppressing anyone else. My focus here is: numerous identity-based political groups and movements exist: what have they in common? -- Karada 23:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What they all do have in common is only the desire to maintain and preserve their own separate group identities. What is actually "wrong" with that, as all such behavior actually only ensures "Bio-Diversity" over the long haul.

Kevin Alfred Strom, on the National Alliance's white separatist radio program American Dissident Voices, defined the difference between white separatism and supremacy this way:

"A supremacist—of whatever race—is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races—since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs." [1]

[edit] removal of internal links

Note: someone removed a number of examples of identity politics on the basis of their being "not examples of identity politics, but forms of bigotry". Yes, some forms of identity politics are based on bigotry (and may, indeed, consist entirely of bigotry and hatred in some cases): nevertheless, they are still forms of identity politics. -- Karada 13:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't actual examples of identity politics. No one recognizes them as such, not in any kind of formal or informal studies of the matter. Identity politics has to do with achieving equality due to discrimination based on certain types of identities. White supremacy does not seek equality in any way, shape or form nor does it deal with an oppressed group.
Furthermore, youre specifying specific sub-movements rather than general movements, that serves nothing other than to mislead. Notice how the majority of those are bigoted, even though statistically the non-bigoted groups clearly outnumber them by far. Even if you considered them to be part of identity politics, it's extremely POV to include them. It'd be like including a KKK political party along side the major political parties in a an article about political parties.
Lastly, religion and nationalism don't qualify for identity politics under any standard definition as they are both choices. Identity politics deals with things people are born into, not chosen beliefs. --Nathan J. Yoder 20:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who considers themselves bigoted? I consider feminazis bigots, do they consider themselves such? Thats your opinion about who is bigoted. Racist parties are considered along w other parties BTW, look into Dixiecrat, for example. Religion and nation are often "born into", and your personal distinctions, arbitrary tho they are, should not be determining article content. See NPOV. Sam Spade 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feminazis were never listed and you didn't address anything I actually said. You are strongly POV pushing here. Please don't vandalize the page unless you want to be reported to a wikipedia administrator, thank you. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh and religion and nationalism are not "born into." You can choose what nation you're a part of and what religion you're a part of. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was your 4th revert, so i took the liberty of contacting an admin myself. Sam Spade 22:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted 3 times, not 4. I've made a total of 4 edits and my first one was a major rewrite, not a revert. I await the admin to come here and address this false report you filed against me. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, we discussed why I removed the report, if your still pissed about it feel free to take up a RfC or whatnot. Lets focus on the article here tho. Sam Spade 23:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Product

Let me guess. The end result looks like zig million primitive tribes (each proud to follow its very own corrupt warlord), and plays out like Ruanda '95? --Philopedia 7 July 2005 19:03 (UTC), quickly ducking under flame proof cover.

[edit] Biased

"Such groups are in some way socially or politically disenfranchised, marginalized or disadvantaged relative to the wider society of which they form part." This is a biased statement because that is an opinion. What it should say is "Identity politics tries to create quotas [meanwhile screwing over the average white guy] for such groups which liberals [mistakenly] think are in some way socially or politically disenfranchised, marginalized or disadvantaged relative to the wider society of which they form part."

[edit] A Nation?

Might it be more apt and helpful to describe groups like the Copts and the Ulster-Scots as national, ethnic, sub-cultural, communal or sectarian groups within their respective societies? Which is more precise and neutral? //Big Adamsky 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Nationalism - "Race" not Ethnic

White Nationalism is listed under "Ethnic Nationalisms," yet White Nationalism is a kind of "race" and not ethnic nationalism, yes? --Peer Gynt 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US there's some controversy about the usage of terms ethnicity and race. See the CIA factbook's ethnic section. E.g. for Hungary it mentions Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks, Croatians, Gypses, Jews, for the US it mentions whites, blacks, hispanics, Asians. Is it maybe, beacause a lot of white and black people in the US don't know which ethic their ancestors were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism from 'the Right'

This slants a bit libertarian, no? I can concieve of right-wing objections to identity politics based on things like national unity. --Nydas 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont you mean Liberalism, libertarian != left wing. - UnlimitedAccess 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new def. of identity politics based on my research.

Identity Politics is characterized by how an individual views political issues based on the environment they were raised in. A selection of events and activities one has taken part in over their life develops ones identity. Our opinions on political issues are affected by what has happened to us personally. It does not just pertain to minority groups. Every person is developed over time to see the world through their own eyes, giving every person their own distinct view on each issue. Identity politics also deals with nature vs. nurture, the political opinions we are born with and the opinions we gain by our surroundings.

If your research hasn't been published, it can't go on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research.--Nydas(Talk) 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further effort to define identity politics

I teach a course on the construction of national identity, and it seems to me that many nationalisms are forms of identity politics, not just black nationalism. The term "nationalism" to describe a political program was coined by Maurice Barrès around 1890 to describe the right-wing program of which he was a leader, and became common during the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was accused on being racially incapable of loyalty to France. One still hears the view that European nationalism is based on shared history and ancestry - or graves and altars - which are certainly not chosen by any individual. Indeed, the Right was understood to be nationalist in France and Germany. Until recently, there was really very little distinction made among race, ethnicity and nationality, even in the United States (where eligibility for naturalized citizenship was based on race until after WWII). So I think there are many nationalist groups that qualify for the definition of identity politics; Serbian nationalists spring to mind; but as I noted in my rewrite the term was coined recently and is used primarily to refer to recent political movements on behalf of the oppressed (actual or imaginary). It is not easy to be neutral in talking about politics, but I have tried to avoid lumping liberalism with either the left or the libertarian right, but have used the term expressly to designate the broad center of Western opinion, which derives the legitimacy of governments from the consent of the governed, and the form of the state upon the importance of individual rights. Sheldon Novick 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to eliminate the POV and original research material pointed out by Nydas, bit by bit, but am new to the Wikipedia world and am going slowly, trying to extricate my hopefully more neutral material and tie to published materials. Would be grateful for help and correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheldon Novick (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC).Sheldon Novick 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea to familiarise yourself with various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You might also wish to examine deletion and featured discussions, as these can give you a good idea of how the various rules work in practice.--Nydas(Talk) 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite rationale

I have rewritten the article to eliminate the original research and POV material, which made up the bulk of it, keeping only the referenced passages and links to other entries. It seemed to me that the principal difficulty that previous authors and I were wrestling with was the problem of summarizing the content of such a large and diverse political phenomenon. To make the article manageable I have instead tried just to define and attribute the phrase, without commenting on all the separate groups and movements to which it has been attached. I think it might also make sense to categorize this article as "human rights."Sheldon Novick 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstate rewrite

The anonymous poster removed my version of a definition, which was based on the published sources is cited, and has reinstated his own, which is apparently based on "original research." The problem I have with his/her version is that it is plainly not correct in many instances, as it defines "identity politics" as a movement for self-determination. This is only rarely true in the case of, say, feminism - I think there may be as many men as women who would identify themselves as feminists - or GLBT groups. Those who use the term to describe their own activity use it in the sense that I define. The second problem I have with the earlier posting is that it consists largely of (unsourced) criticisms of these supposed movements for self-determination, which seems a bizarre way to explain or define a term. If the earlier version is reinstated, then the warnings about POV and unsourced materials should be reinstated. Sheldon Novick 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a rewrite, in which I tried to preserve as much of the earlier article as was sourced. The anonymous reversion seems unwarranted, and is not really supported. Please find some basis for the article, especially for the definition limiting "identity politics" to ethnic nationalisms, which seems to exclude most of the women's and GLBT movements. Sheldon Novick 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining criticism of identity politics: not a violation of NPOV

Several older edits, which explain debates surrounding identity politics and criticism of identity politics from the perspective of opposing political viewpoints, have been removed on the grounds that it is not NPOV. I believe this is incorrect. Explaining conflicting views and debates surrounding a topic is not a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, so long as these debates are treated fairly. As the policy states: "The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints . . . Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." I have reverted back to an earlier version which describes opposing views to identity politics.Edelmand 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good to have opposing views, and to have the entry which is little more than a stub enlarged. But there are two problems with the manner in which criticism and discussion were summarized in the original posting, now partly restored. One problem is the characterization of criticisms as Right, Center and Radical Left, terms that are not defined and that in my own view or not coherent, at least in this context. Does the "Right" oppose patriotic, national-identity movements? Men's rights? Who are the "Radical Left" who supposedly criticize identity politics? The Communist Party USA has been a supporter of black civil rights and black liberation since the 1930s, when its organizers went South to develop a racial base there. These right/left labels aren't helpful, at least in this context. A second broad (and related) difficulty is that identity politics is a vague term for a tactic, born in the women's movement but since applied retroactively to all sorts of older and different efforts. Is there really much principled criticism (aside from the universal solidarity argument)of people joining together on the basis of their perceived similarities, or their perceived oppression, and working politically for human rights? Most criticism actually seems to be directed at particular tactics and claims, for instance the dispute whether there is a right to be free from governmental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether homosexuality is an identity, whether the regulation of abortion procedures discriminates in unlawful fashion against women, etc. These are arguments that go to the underlying substantive claim of right or of discrimination, and should be discussed under the headings of human rights, etc. So by all means let's discuss criticisms of "identity politics," but please try not to erect stereotyped identities in the process.Sheldon Novick 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/d/e/Talk%7EIdentity_politics_5d64.html"