OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Awake to Woke

Entry 2276, on 2023-06-07 at 22:07:00 (Rating 3, Politics)

In my discussions and debates on-line I often accuse people of being too "woke" and am sometimes challenged to define what that word means. This is especially relevant since I generally reject labels being used, yet commonly use that one myself.

I agree that there is a certain amount of inconsistency there, but I think labels can be used if the person using them is able and willing to define exactly what they mean, and justify that definition in some meaningful way.

So let's do that for "woke"...

Originally it meant being aware of social inequalities and wanting those to be corrected. That seems fair doesn't it? After all, almost everyone agrees that inequalities do exist, or at least have existed in the past, with disadvantaged groups being defined by their gender, sexual identity, and race. So what's the real problem here?

Well, if you have read other blog posts here, especially "St George in Retirement" from 2019-10-04, you will know that I accept certain groups were unfairly disadvantaged in the past, but think the current infatuation with it is unfounded. So the "woke" community from today might have had a point in the past, but they are no longer relevant. This is what the "St George in Retirement" phenomenon is all about.

For those of you who can't be bothered reading that post, essentially the phenomenon is that when a group with a strong commitment to an idea find their goals have been achieved, they find it hard to accept that and move on, and instead imagine those goals still exist. The metaphor is that St George, having defeated the dragon, then finds himself with nothing to do and imagines that dragons continue to exist, maintaining his original purpose, and chance of heroism.

So when social justice warriors (who are roughly the same as "woke" people) claim that black Americans are the victims of systemic racism, they would have been right in the past, but that isn't true any more, and that can be demonstrated fairly convincingly through the use of stats and actual facts. And a similar argument applies to so-called disadvantaged groups here in New Zealand.

Note that I am not saying there aren't occasional cases of bias against these groups, because those do exist. But there are also cases of bias against more "dominant" groups, as well as cases of bias in favour of the "disadvantaged" groups.

For example, here is a list of pro-Maori rules, laws, and policies here in New Zealand: Maori focused schools, special Maori content in the education curriculum, Maori-only education scholarships, Maori-only housing projects, Maori-only health initiatives, Maori-only welfare initiatives, Maori-only prisoner programs, Maori-only positions on government agencies, Maori-only consultation rights under the Resource Management Act, Maori-only co-management of parks, rivers, lakes, and the coastline, Maori-only ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed, special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 percent, special Maori-only exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status, Maori language funding, Maori radio and TV, Maori-only seats on local councils, Maori-only appointments onto local government committees, Maori-only local government Statutory Boards, Maori-only local government advisory committees, Maori seats in Parliament.

I haven't verified all of these are fully legitimate, but there is no doubt that they all exist to some extent. So given all of those advantages enjoyed by Maori, what possible cases could the "woke mob" make to say they are systemically disadvantaged?

It is true that Maori (and black people in the US, who enjoy similar benefits) still feature in several real statistics indicating they aren't coping as well as some other groups. For example, they are far more likely to be involved with crime, be imprisoned, they have shorter lives, etc. But if this is still happening despite all the advantages they have been given, maybe there's another reason for it.

The woke mob will generally never agree that there are other possible explanations apart from systemic racism, but there are some possibilities which should be considered. For example, maybe the fault lies partly with the culture of the community in question. Maybe these groups have a poor attitude to education, or stable families, or healthy eating, or sensible financial management. In fact, stats show at least some of these are exactly the case, for both Maori in New Zealand, and black people in the US.

So one side of a woke attitude is the idea that it is always the fault of the dominant parts of a culture when a group within that culture isn't doing as well as they deem is appropriate. Associated with this is the idea that everyone should be the same. The average wage for men and women should be identical, irrespective of hours worked. Black people should be represented in the same numbers as white in positions of power, whether they are elected or not. But there is one inconsistency they are notorious for in this regard: if the allegedly repressed group is doing better than expected, that is to be celebrated. So when there are more women than men in tertiary education that is progress, but if the opposite is true then it must be because of the unfair and bigoted effect of the patriarchy. Consistency and rationality are not strong attributes of the woke mob!

Then there is identity politics. The woke mob see everything in terms of identity. So when a person is successful a rational person would look at that person's real achievements and either celebrate or criticise that person based on that, depending on whether their claimed success is genuine or not. But our opponents would tend to look at the person in terms of their racial, gender, and other sociological classifications.

So a trans, black woman doing a bad job (according to any objective assessment) might be celebrated, but a straight, white man doing a better job will be ignored or criticised. They celebrate identity, not achievement.

Connected to this is policy based on group membership rather than need. For example, if Maori people here in New Zealand are given preferred access to medical treatment, or housing, or representation in politics, why not base that on need instead? If Maori are more likely to need housing why not have that policy based on the actual need (that is for housing) rather than it being based on identity (being Maori)? If a person of any race needs housing, try to find it for them; there are no doubt many white New Zealanders more in need of help in this area than some of the Maori people who have been given it.

I have a very simple test to see if a policy is discriminatory in this way: I simply reverse it. If a policy was created giving white people preferred access to easier housing there would be massive protests. So why is the reverse OK? The answer is, by any rational evaluation, it is not.

And that is the final criticism of I have of woke-ism: it is irrational. This is not (or should not be) controversial, because the major philosophical foundation for it is postmodernism, which is a philosophical ideology which specifically rejects science, rationality, and even maths, because they see these as constructs of dominant Western culture. In fact, the underlying dogma here is that facts only exist within the cultural constructs of the person presenting the facts. Basically, a person's opinion is all that matters, because that is "their truth".

As I have observed in the past, it is very much like a religion, where "truth" is based on faith rather than logic or empiricism, and where people who refuse to accept the faith-based convictions of the group are seen as infidels, and deserve no respect, and are often subject to cancellation (a favourite action of the woke).

So there's my summary of woke-ism. I believe it is the most harmful, regressive, irratonal belief system in the world today, and is largely responsible for the decline of the values the West has built on since the Enlightenment.

Maybe at one time, if you were "woke" that was something to be celebrated. But if it ever was a good thing, it certainly isn't any more. We need to all be awake to the problem of woke.

Comment 1 (7440) by Anonymous on 2023-06-08 at 15:15:04:

Are you still harping on about this? Is it really a big deal. Move on!

Comment 2 (7441) by OJB on 2023-06-08 at 16:37:02:

Err, yes, I am. And I will continue to do so until the evil forces of woke-ism are defeated!

Comment 3 (7442) by OJB on 2023-06-09 at 16:06:33:

I was challenged (off-line) about this post and I would like to make a point here, for anyone who was wondering.

I used to be a very left-focussed person, I voted Labour and Green, I was suspicious of capitalism, etc. All of those common left characteristics. But the left went insane. They went extreme on wokeism, and, exactly as I say in this post, they tried to fix problems (which didn't even exist any more in the form they thought) in ways which make them worse.

So I didn't leave the left, the left left me (that was a confusing sentence). Note that I am most definitely not a conservative and have never voted National (NZ's conservative party). I like a lot of the principles of libertarianism, but am a bit suspicious of some of its economic ideas. So, like many today, no party suits be perfectly, but I will probably vote for Act, NZ's libertarian party, at least until the left recover from their current insanity.

Comment 4 (7445) by Anonymous on 2023-06-13 at 12:24:38:

Didn't realise you were a Jim Andertton fan, that's his quote about leaving Labour...

Comment 5 (7446) by OJB on 2023-06-14 at 14:57:27:

Yes, I know he said that, and I did have a certain admiration for Anderton. He stuck to his beliefs despite that being politically very difficult. Of course, he left Labour for the opposite reason I did. For him, Labour became too right oriented, economically. For me, it became too left oriented, socially.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.