Are identity politics dangerous?

Some fear that politics based on protecting race, religion or other minority groups can threaten the rights of others. How did identity politics emerge and has it gone too far?

Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.

[juanolotgn]

The smallest and most oppressed minority is the individual.

[ThethMessenger]

My problem isn't that it's a "Zero Sum", but rather in the political process, people are poisoning the discussion with identity, generalizing and reducing it to how it affects a group than how it affects the population.

MLK had a dream once, that his kids will be judged not by the color of their skins, but the content of their characters. What Identity Politics do is exactly is by the color of their skins, as opposed of the content of their characters.

[battlemode]

Good luck with making "identity politics" more inclusive. Those ideas are designed to divide and segregate. I'm glad people have woken up to this now: good riddance to dangerous rubbish.

[cancelled_user]

Identity politics IS divisive in its nature. You can't make it "inclusive".

[ProjectShitbeam]

Why not just have the same rights for all individuals instead of certain rights for certain groups?

[andrew]

I think you missed the issue. Identity politics is more about dealing with people on the basis of group membership rather than each person as an individual.

[kenbobcorn]

I think this video misses some points. Identity politics isn't about some groups benefiting at the expense of others (i.e. zero sum game), it's about shutting out dissenting points of view because you can't speak on behalf of another protected group. I may be against affirmative action, but because I'm not a visible minority (I'm from portugal), I am immediately a racist and I am lumped into the majority male white camp; even though I'm as much of a minority as other immigrants to the US. If you are a visible minority and you are against affirmative action, then people will say you are a traitor or are against your own interests. The very idea that my opinions and actions aren't judged as an individual, but rather as a collective of my group identity, is the exact reason why identity politics is so dangerous.

We are quick to point out that nationalism is a form of identity politics because it creates a binary between you and the other; but if you even hint at being against illegal immigration, you are immedialtely lumped into the zenophobic camp by identitarians.

[zeifoddd]

Congrats, the Economist. You just lost a subscriber. Identity politics is wrong. Plain and simple. Yes to equal rights, no to equal outcome. As simple as that!

[Arcsecant]

What if we all just got equal protection under the law?

[wendigodeadpatterson]

The problem with identity politics is that it usually gets in the way of substantial class and economic issues that impact all disadvantaged people in America.

[KBparsi]

I thought civil rights movement was about abolishing identity politics, that favored one group, in order to bring equality for all, no matter what.

[plinyelder]

Yes. The answer is: yes, it is dangerous.

[linkjourney]

The problem with identity politics is that there is no such thing as a constructive or destructive identity politics. By it’s own nature identity politics is a subjective experience depending on the group you identify as. In other words where as one group might view the use of identity politics as constructive another group will inevitably find the use of identity politics to be destructive. You usually will find this in groups who oppose each other based off of beliefs.

[jeffreybutcher]

Identify politics will ALWAYS be DESTRUCTIVE. there are literally too many reasons to say in one comment. This kind of subtle approach just makes it even more insidious.

[RyanChand-cb]

Glad to see a lot of commenters noticed they missed the issue

[woodchuck]

The fact that you want a database categorizes people based on race, then you want to make decisions about those people based on that data seems to meet the definition of racism. You are correct that identity has always been apart of politics but your identity is usually based off of ideology, not skin tone. Your identity should be based off changeable ideas not immutable differences like skin tone. Most people probably have no problem giving a poor child a scholarship for school but to give one to a kid because he is black and you have statistics that say black people are poor, that seems a bit bigoted.

[Hedgehog]

I personally abhor identity politics. To me its rather trivial. There shouldnt so much importance on identity....

[sancho]

When i graduated high school i enlisted in the marines and swore an oath to defend americans, not asian americans, not african americans, not white americans. Just americans

[rawprawn]

I remember, years ago, when the Economist was considered one of the go-to mags worldwide. I worked in Embassies for over 20 years during the 80's and 90s and during that time it (the Economist) was probably the most sought after mag when the diplomatic bag came in! That, dear friends, is no longer the case. Sad.
Identity politics is, essentially, a form of intellectual and social apartheid. I am staggered that some have attempted to rebrand such a curse for such nefarious reasons.

[Ahuka]

I would say the term "special treatment" is itself biased. Asking to have the same rights as other people is not "special". It is the opposite.