Response to Umer (too long for a comment) - Kat Lanzalotto

 I want to push back against your claim that identity politics "caused the subjugation of minorities in the first place; rectifying that cannot be based on the same principle." I believe that a legal and societal foundation of white superiority and black suppression subjugated minorities – not identity politics. So, I want to outline where, using Harris' text for support, minority subjugation stems from and then consider the phenomena of identity politics by its origins, not the sensationalized buzzword depiction we commonly see in the media today. 

While there are numerous examples of the legal and social framework which subjugates black people in Harris' Whiteness as Property, I will choose a few examples which best exemplify that American systems, not identity politics, initially subjugated minorities. Harris asserts that there was a transition for whiteness to become property; the evolution "of whiteness from color to race to status to property as a progression historically rooted in white supremacy" (Harris 1714). The initial subjugation of black and native people in America stemmed from a "racialization of identity… [which] provided the ideological basis for slavery and conquest" (Harris 1715). The racial hierarchy developed as chattel slavery expanded and evolved; being black became a justification for slavery. Often, the subjugation of black people served as an economic benefit. Harris uses the example of Thomas Jefferson, who found it more economical to use enslaved women to give birth to enslaved children and more effectively realize their value. Tenets of white supremacy and slavery linked white privilege to black suppression and legally subjugated black people by defining their legal status as property. The basis of initial minority subjugation was because of the difference in the status of black and white people. Harris puts it more eloquently, "although not all Africans were slaves, virtually all slaves were not white. It was their racial otherness that came to justify the subordinated status of Blacks." So, being white was presumed to be a position of superiority and privilege, while blackness was a condition of slavery and subjugation (as echoed by black slavery and white freedom). Umer may attribute this to othering; because of identity politics and interests in whiteness, white people subjugated minorities. But, we must consider what identity politics is at its core to disprove this assumption authentic identity politics is not the core of black subjugation

I first learned about identity politics and its technical origins in a women's politics course last semester. The term originates from the Combahee River Collective, an organization of black lesbain women in the 1960s and 1970s. Considering the non-sensationalized conception of identity politics, it is evident that, unlike Umer claims, identity politics are not always harmful. It is not controversial to recognize how identity impacts one's life, especially as a subjugated group. Intersectionality and belonging to certain oppressed social groups makes individuals more or less vulnerable to exploitation (legal or societal), stereotyping, etc. The Combahee River Collective coined the term identity politics to recognize common identity, experience, and oppression and consider political agendas to end their systematic oppression. A massive part of identity politics is subjugation and oppression. Correcting and rectifying oppression is a foundation of identity politics. So, when the Combahee River Collective used identity politics to create an intersectional political agenda, their goal was to free black lesbians from the social structures that oppressed them. Identity politics are only bad when considering their modern, sensationalized perception as modern culture wars. It is too common to form identity politics not based on shared identity but on identifying a common enemy – and the latter must be avoided. Politics is based on so many group interests (whether that be race, gender, political values, religion, etc). There is no problem with this kind of identity politics, the kind which the Combahee River Collective utilized. If one finds this type of interest concerning and bad, they must then object to MLK's identity politics when he organized peaceful marches for equality. The issues with identity politics become grave when people form identity politics to unite against a group rather than uniting as a group. When a group uses its identity to unite against a common enemy, identity politics becomes dangerous. Consider the Buffalo mass shooter in recent years who murdered numerous black people because of common-enemy identity politics and his Neo-Nazi "identity." Rather than forming a collective based on identity to fight against injustice, common enemy politics (the real threat to political and general equality within society) pits people against an other. Umer describes the detriments of common-enemy identity politics, not identity politics in its purest form. So, his assertion that all identity politics are bad and that they are the basis of minority subjugation in America is misplaced.

For a short description of common identity versus common enemy politics, I found this video very helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-_yIhW9Ias