You can think of the whole cosmopolitan urban vs salt-of-the-earth rural aspect of American politics as one example. Or southern identity/culture. “As a veteran who served”/“As a parent”, or the cross-denomination “moral majority”— it’s all based around the idea that your lived experience as something shapes your political perspective and is intrinsically valuable to the political conversation.
And even Occupy: was occupy simply making a statement about economic politics or was it the identity of “the 1%” or “Bankers” vs the rest of Americans? These categories were somewhat arbitrary and basically represented which group you identified with.
That's what I mean by defining the phrase so broadly it becomes useless. You can say, "I am, and I have an identity, therefore my politics is identity politics." However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations. It's similar to how islands are not called bodies of water even though soil contains water.
> However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations.
Then the term "identity politics" shouldn't be applied. But even if we accept that extremely narrow view: there are numerous political segments that are notorious for doing what you describe across the political spectrum. Most notable the rural Scotch-Irish, often criticized for routinely voting against their self-interest and instead choosing to vote for pols who simply provide them cultural validation and do nothing to address their material concerns.
Parent should have been more specific: all politics is identity politics in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. The USA of the Vietnam war no longer exists, and isn't comparable to the USA of today.
In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity.
This is very weird comment. Are you saying that the USA was not a multi-ethnic/multi-religious state in the 1960s?
In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity.
There has never been a "nation" where everybody shares an identity in the sense discussed above.
The comment makes sense, but the US isn't best example. Although last century the US was somewhat dominated by one identity (which is now waning and leaving room for others to grow) it has always been multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
A better example would be European nations like Hungary, which have reinforced their national identities in the face of the recent migrant crisis.
We've asked you repeatedly to stop doing ideological flamewar on HN. A crazy number of times actually. Would you please really stop now so we don't have to ban you?
If you define "British origin" to include Irish Protestants, which is reasonable.. But the country was barely 50 years old by the time that cultural hegemony started eroding as German, Dutch, Irish-Catholics, etc poured into the country.
There's even an infamous 1899 political cartoon that asks "Why should I let these freaks cast whole votes when they're only half American?"[1]
The fact is, the US has spent a majority of its existence feeling like there's an immigration and/or integration crisis, starting in the mid-1800s with Irish-Catholics and stretching to the modern day with Latin-American immigrants.
Really? One thing that is starkly contrasted today vs. even 10 years ago.
People used to be able to listen, understand, empathise and compromise with those that they don't agree with. Showing a due amount of respect for people. This has been sorely lost with the tail end of the Millennial generation, and it shouldn't be surprising that nothing of value is being accomplished at all imho.
I may not agree with all politicians, but there are some I feel that I genuinely respect. Those who lean on identitarian tribalism are not in the list.
* Force ever expanding identitarianism view
* Force corporations to align with their views
* Make anti-semetic statements while supporting other religions
* Seek to ignore the foundations of government and the press
* Work to displace government
* Are willing to use physical violence to accomplish their goals
?
This is probably as true today as at any time in the past. What has changed, for the worse, is the definition of "other" identities (those that are not our own).
What did "rural america" mean to "city dwellers" in the 1970s? What does it mean now? I'd guess the definitions most of us carry in our minds have narrowed.
It’s too bitter and now there’s some backlash.