Yeah, it's kind of ironic that two countries with a communist history (China & Russia) don't have to cater to all the micromanagement bells and whistles of a social justice utopia agenda. Given that Marx's pseudoscientific gibberish facilitated that mindset and eternal fixation with
systemic oppression and victimhood, as a tool for either revolutionary or incremental power takeover. (By the intellectual class, and then their bureaucratic successors and potential individual tyrants [Stalin, Xi Jinping, etc]).
Because those two countries are well past the stage of that "radical egalitarianism" and bogus do-gooder crap revealing what its actual goal was, and beyond. Now, under their veiled state authoritarianism, they can just focus on the basics of survival and winning a war. If you want to be an activist or crusader, you get your butt shipped to rehabilitation camps or whatever current in vogue punishment, like the
Uyghurs.
There's "natural" occurring diversity that just works itself out in terms of local interactions and needs/concerns at the community level. And then there is artificial "woke", which pejoratively today references an agenda engineered at the broad scale by academia and centralized government. That descends downward to gobble-up those practical endeavors in its overarching dogma and frantic melodrama.
In the context of the Hollywood film industry, an example of diversity
might be the "
Fast and Furious" franchise. Whereas an example of woke
might be
Terminator: Dark Fate, or anything that blatantly gets in your face with leftangelical preaching and direct or subtle political soapbox diatribes.
Hard to believe that a mere decade or so ago this would have been referred to as "multiculturalism":
Multiculturalism undermines diversity
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...cal-policy
EXCERPT:
The irony of multiculturalism as a political process is that it undermines much of what is valuable about diversity as lived experience. When we talk about diversity, what we mean is that the world is a messy place, full of clashes and conflicts. That's all for the good, for such clashes and conflicts are the stuff of political and cultural engagement.
But the very thing that's valuable about diversity – the clashes and conflicts that it brings about – is the very thing that worries many multiculturalists. They seek to minimise such conflicts by parcelling people up into neat ethnic boxes, and policing the boundaries of those boxes in the name of tolerance and respect. Far from minimising conflict what this does is generate a new set of more destructive, less resolvable conflicts.
To say that clashes and conflicts can be good does not mean, of course, that every clash and conflict is good. Political conflicts are often useful because they repose social problems in a way that asks: "How can we change society to overcome that problem?" We might disagree on the answer, but the debate itself is a useful one.
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, by reposing political problems in terms of culture or faith, transforms political conflicts into a form that makes them neither useful nor resolvable. Rather than ask, for instance, "What are the social roots of racism and what structural changes are required to combat it?" it demands recognition for one's particular identity, public affirmation of one's cultural difference and respect and tolerance for one's cultural and faith beliefs.
Multicultural policies have come to be seen as a means of empowering minority communities and giving them a voice. In reality such policies have empowered not individuals but "community leaders" who owe their position and influence largely to their relationship with the state. Multicultural policies tend to treat minority communities as homogenous wholes, ignoring class, religious, gender and other differences, and leaving many within those communities feeling misrepresented and, indeed, disenfranchised.
As well as ignoring conflicts within minority communities, multicultural policies have often created conflicts between them. In allocating political power and financial resources according to ethnicity, such policies have forced people to identify themselves in terms of those ethnicities, and those ethnicities alone, inevitably setting off one group against another.
Apr 4, 2023 05:35 PM
