Saturday, I noted the inconsistencies, the absence of nuances and the political project that is often hidden behind the notion of “systemic” racism.
It is interesting to observe the reactions of young people when you poke holes in this notion.
They do not answer you on the substance. They change ground and go on that of morals.
For them, refusing to recognize the “systemic” nature of racism is to refuse to recognize the seriousness of the problem, and therefore to minimize it.
You are wrong not to be outraged enough, to delay “progress”, to maintain the status quo.
We are there in the heart of what is now called the woke culture, which comes to us from American campuses.
Basically, when it comes to racism, the only morally acceptable position is maximalism.
As Richard Martineau said, you have to have the “piton” of indignation stuck to the bottom.
Since racism is bad (obviously) and is everywhere and “systemic” (much less obvious), nuance and moderation become suspect.
You have to buy everything in full and only sing with the choir.
In the New York Times, David Brooks explained everything that is wrong with this moral posture.
Before this woke culture hit, he said, we were trying to pin down a problem objectively.
Then we proposed a daring or prudent solution, left or right, and the debate was about the quality of your solution.
Finished ! Now we first judge the level of your indignation.
We are doing even worse than mixing your perception of the problem with your proposed solution.
We highlight the perception, therefore the indignation, more than what you propose as a remedy.
The virtuous person, who is truly woke, will be the one who perceives the full extent of injustice.
In this state of mind, one is never indignant enough.
The more woke you are, the more indignant you are, the better, the better you are.
In this one-upmanship, necessarily, everything goes: institutions, television series, school books, language, statues, everything.
Is this the best way to make real change? No.
The woke, says Brooks, takes center stage. He parades. He flaunts his virtue.
This is his main contribution, like those people who, after a school massacre, put a peace sign on their Facebook page, light a candle and sing Imagine.
Big social commitment, champion!
When we present a problem as massive, generalized, encrusted, universal and largely unconscious, we encourage more anger and frustration than the search for concrete, necessarily pragmatic and targeted solutions.
But in history, lasting reforms have been made by people who can see shades of gray.
The indignant, him, is often a color blind with two colors: black and white.
His “big” fight is that Legault spits out the word “systemic”.
Afterwards, he will be proud of himself: his “job” will be done. Words, words, only words …
But that doesn’t matter to him, because it’s an excellent media strategy to cultivate his beautiful image of moral purity.