Hope folks realize that a part of the reason the Right pounced on “woke” and now use it as a meaningless catch-all pejorative is because folks on the Left stripped it from its context in the Black experience, and made it mean “excessive social awareness.”
It didn’t mean that.
“Woke” wasn’t actually about virtual signaling, but ironically became virtual signaling because folks farther and farther from its Black social and linguistic root made it mean what they wanted it to me or took it to mean.
“Woke” is just contemporary way to convey the need for Black folk to be aware of their social condition in order to at least survive it, at most change it. When folks distant from the Black experience started using it, they could only take the awareness component of it.
Academic and media elite started to focus on the excesses of social awareness, since the missing (Black) social conditions didn’t match the need for excessiveness. But back at woke’s origin, most Black folk are excessively socially aware (I hope I don’t have to explain why).
This made it easy for many (not only, but especially non-Black) folks to be weary of the excesses of wokeness, and suspect it as irrational and unserious. All of the plausible explanations of wokeness being “excessive virtue-signaling” was served to the Right on a platter.
It has moved so far down the line to the right, now “wokeness” means whatever they need it to mean for negative connotation warfare. No technical meaning, just a word that engenders disgust. It’s like if you combined “Yuck!” with the N-Word (hard R).
This is a cycle of co-option of Black language and I would speculate that it follows a pattern:
-Black Folk
-Real Allies
-Skeptical/Contingent Allies
-Challengers
-Opponents
-Anti-Black Folk
The irony of all this is that since African Americans came into existence, we have always poked fun at the virtual signaling and performance aspect of woke. And yet (mostly, but not only) non-Black folk have taken that as the actual substance of the word.
This leaves Black folk with the work of explaining this stuff so well-meaning folks will stop misusing it, so allies have the language to combat rightwing reactionary virtual-signaling, of reclaiming the word or treating it like mayonnaise. It’s kinda exhausting.
But I don’t really have necessarily complex analysis on why the Right uses “woke” so much and so negatively. That should be more or less obvious.
So when well-meaning academics and journalists define woke as "(excessive) social awareness," you're essentially cutting its definition in half. The Black half.
If you need help trying to conceptualized "woke,", read "If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?" by James Baldwin. archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.co…
In my opinion, this is the essence of "woke":
& I think this encapsulates the reaction to it:
"It is not the black child's language that is in question, it is not his language that is despised: It is his experience...A child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that the child repudiate his experience..."
Also, I use “on the left” very broadly. I understand the distinctions folks make about liberals, progressives, leftists, etc. (sure there are a few more). Humbly but honestly, I’m not as interested in them as it pertains to this topic, cause it kinda lets folks off the hook.
Gentle reminder that “woke” wasn’t always a joke. Think folks are making that claim because the first time they heard it was in a satirical context. This is a logical fallacy.
Also don’t want folks to think Woke is never satirical, cause that’s obviously not the case
I don’t have a mixtape but I write for Colorlines. My work will be there and my Medium. I’m writing a historical fantasy too, so look out for that. I do have a SoundCloud tho! Made this beat awhile back. Feel like @Saweetie or @theestallion would rock this soundcloud.app.goo.gl/ekKyuzPPt6FtJ8…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The dumbest irony in the “the Left is indoctrinating college students” discourse is the thing that pulls them to the Left (of wherever they are) is just explaining the world in a more ideologically neutral way than they are used to.
Example: alotta students are used to getting American history through the prism of exceptionalism and good vs evil dichotomies, not material facts. The average student is likely to move Left (to whatever degree) merely by telling them what happened without those framings.
For the few students who (objectively, not the catchall pejorative) become Marxists, the start is *astoundingly* banal: the student, for the first time in their life, learned about both the good and the bad aspects of capitalism, instead of just “capitalism = good”
Think it's telling that three of the top issues (cancel culture, "wokeness," and CRT) all stem from Black communal, online or academic discourses that got co-opted and then caricatured as they travelled across the political spectrum.
Imo, the most egregious of these co-options is "woke." "Woke" is/was used in the Black community to convey the need to be social aware in order to at least safely navigate, at most dismantle oppressive systems, ideas, etc. An analogy would be like seeing the code in The Matrix.
Woke was also used in the Black community as spiritual, cosmological, or metaphysical discourse. Could be anything from spiritual awakening, aligning your chakras, seeing through earthly lies to reach divine truth, or more charge discourse like not praying to White Jesus.
This push against critical race theory makes more sense if you consider that the premise is also the conclusion; that there is no systemic racism. Conservativism, in its adherence to certain dogmas, starts with the conclusion. So you aren’t allowed to reach different conclusions
There’s a cynical push for balance that also becomes a circular idea that conservative understandings of history, politics, cultural, etc. IS balance.
Since conservatives assert that all the major fact-finding institutions are “liberal,” than they can fight for conservatism as balance, fight for balance as conservatism.
Going to read and live-tweet some theological books every Sunday.
First book will be “Prophesy Deliverance: An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity” by @CornelWest
West writes that “Marxism and Christianity share a similar moral impulse.” Says Marxism appropriated the moral core of Christianity, despite the “numerous brutalities perpetrated by Marxist regimes.”
Want to use these tweets from NYT to explain active vs passive voice and why it matters in news coverage (particularly when covering charged topics at the moment).
A sentence typically has a clear subject and verb. When you write a a sentence, you can write in active or passive voice.
Active voice is subject then verb. An example is "I fixed the car."
Passive is an inversion of this ie. "The car was fixed by me."
There are levels of active and passive voice, particularly relating to the subject and verb. Examples:
Joshua sliced an apple
A man sliced an apple
An apple was sliced by Joshua
An apple was sliced by a man
An apple was sliced
The slicing of an apple was by a man
A major study led by a lifelong Republican finds no evidence that professors are deliberately giving conservative students bad grades. psmag.com/ideas/no-profe…
Wanted to give my thoughts on this as an instructor. The idea of bias towards conservative students from teachers is incredibly overblown. Especially considering institutional dynamics and the ethics of classroom pedagogy.
Concerns of "liberal indoctrination"...let's assume bad faith first. Assuming it in bad faith, for conservatives, teaching from any perspective other than through the lens of conservatism is going to be considered "liberal indoctrination" no matter what.