I don't understand again how this has anything to do with what I said.
I admit fully that I'm ignorant of right wing characterizations of King in his day. But how does that apply?
I do know things about leftists. Perhaps not a lot about academic leftism but I've taken in plenty of actual leftist media*. I used to be a leftist/liberal but that never seems to register with people. But again, what is the relevance here?
*or what counts for it like democracy now

Here is an argument: King's focus settled on broad, systemic issues that transcended race relations and instead focused on the roots of poverty.
Whereas what we see today from our civil rights leaders is more narrowly focused on issues that serve more to divide rather than unite.
How King was perceived--which again the media will have played a large role in I'm sure--is not germane to that argument.
And it's the narrow focus that makes identity politics problematic especially when combined with a media that promotes the worst aspects of it.

Luckily there's no division only unification in class warfare.

Don't you think this is a strawman?

Nope. Any actual movment that would put a dent in reducing poverty is going to get labeled "socialism", "redistribution", "giving to lazy". These are just "divisiveness" in other forms. Nevermind that race and class are intertwined in America. When Obama proposed Obamacare that had nothing to do with race it was called "reparations" because right wingers know changes in the class structure, even with programs completely based on income, like giving more health care to the poorer, inherently upset the racial caste structure. You can't escape one or the other by avoiding them.

I think a basic disagreement I have with you is that I view people's racial identity and conflicts between different racial and ethnic groups as one of the major driving forces of American politics throughout its history. Thus, I don't view political conflict over these issues as a kind of fig leaf over deeper underlying class issues or just as a means for the elite to maintain control over the many. Instead, many white people throughout American really do care about the racial identity of the US as a whole and the special privileges American society has provided white people relative to other racial or ethnic groups. Similarly, many black people have cared a great deal about the discrimination and violence that they have suffered from especially white people because of their racial identity. I don't think these things generally reduce down to more core issues.

That being said, of course it is the case that political opportunists and the powerful use racial issues as a means of getting and keeping power. But this is no different in kind than how they use any of the general desires of the people - including for increased economic wealth or security - to do so.

Identity politics is a derogatory label the privileged throw around the instant they sense the underclass wants a seat at the table. Nothing more.

The GOP uses this a lot as an insult against Democrats. “Oh you Democrats only talk about identity politics!” All the while they themselves deal exclusively in white identity politics and outrage. Give meat and potato outrage politics to the uneducated poor whites while pushing a well-funded shadow corporate agenda for the wealthy donors.

I think this is where your problem is. This is largely a right-wing framing of what is happening. Take this quote from the BLM website for example:

Obviously the movement is largely focused on justice issues for black people, but it is still intended to be done in a manner that is inclusive within society and not divisive.

The reason people are comparing this to MLK is that during the civil rights movement MLK was frequently referred to being divisive and dividing people based on race, while in reality he was fighting for justice for all. In much the same way BLM is called divisive, while in reality the goals are almost identical to those that MLK had, and the ways of going it about it are also very similar (political activism, peaceful protests etc).

It’s interesting reading old op-eds and looking at old political cartoons on MLK. It’s taken for granted that he is well appreciated today by liberals and conservatives alike. He was once a conservative punching bag. He was commonly portrayed as the leader of unruly riots that destroyed communities as he marched through.

This is going to be quite a matter of perspective. There is a difference between the history of American politics vs american history. I don't think you'd argue that racial identity put the proverbial man on the moon, or started the industrial age, modern finance system, etc. So it can still have a role but not play a driving part of economic and technological history in relevant ways.
Here normally I'm constantly hearing that race is a social-construct and this is where that comes into play. Where does the racial identity of white people come from if not from the very sort of elite white people that I'm arguing actually do drive American history. I don't have a problem accepting that white-supremacy explains a lot of phenomena but it's the reduction of all issues to race that is problematic.
Well i won't discount that.


I think while it might look like there is a bigger disagreement, I think really it is just the degree to which we assign the bolded above. It's possible that you believe that racism comes from more psychological factors than I do, and that's an interesting discussion. But we've also really strayed far from the topic too. It's more about where you have the locus-of-power in America vs where I have it in regards to who rules, and whether the identity politics of today is actually attacking at that power structure, which I don't think it does.

Malcolm was murdered before he could even get political. Why not use the original Black Panther Party if you're looking for a juxtaposition?

Nobody thinks the NOI's version of black nationalism is not petty bull****. Farrakhan is just a propaganda boogeyman/talking point/bingo square.

I mean, spoiler alert and all, but people of all stripes still don't think too highly of them assassinating Malcolm.

Labelled by some sure but that misses an awful lot including imo all the people who are correct. I'm against divisiveness, I think it's a disaster but I'm also pretty much a democratic socialist and think king was spot on. The facts many hated him an called him divisive is besides the point.

Most of the left in the UK would agree. It becomes divisive when hatred, dehumanising, wanting to harm others and abandoning reason/understanding rear their ugly heads

Because you posted this the very next post,

and seem to think class v race is some sort of dichotomy!

Isn't it?

No, it's just a more or less refined way of looking at the same thing, depending on your school of thought. They both include each other, especially in USA#1.

What started this whole hijack was you taking issue with Trolly, who said that King was engaged in identity politics. The modern left is accused of the same, thus this thread. You have been trying to argue that King transcended identity politics, but he was accused of as much in the parlance of his time, which was often much harsher. The modern left actually has plenty to say about poverty regardless of race, but somehow kelhus, juan, and to a lesser extent you seem to focus much less on that. Meanwhile, you're eager to dig up King talking about class, but not the modern left continuing the fight. Missile Dog, an actual far left poster in the old forum, opined frequently about how racism was a way for powerful elites to pay both working class whites and working class minorities less than they would have to if all working class people organized and demanded their fair share. Even if this scheme involves paying white people more than black people, he argues that the white people are worse off than they could be, if they weren't so darn focused on being happy about being better off than the black people.

Bottom line, both King and the modern left talk(ed) extensively about race and racism, and they both talk(ed) extensively about poverty and class across racial lines. Both agree that the two are connected! Both g(o/e)t accused of ginning up violent racial tensions. The opposition King faced in his day has largely been scrubbed clean by modern tellers, even if some of the opposition was by people still alive today, but that shouldn't fool the modern thinker into believing that the modern left is completely different from King even if it seems like the opposition to the modern left today says things that are quite different than the fairy tales told about the opposition to King.

If you consider them both the same could you see why for pr value class might be a better sell?

Ah, I see, we must ignore the truth when it is inconvenient.

It would be more pragmatic. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on how exactly race and class break down.

How is that a bigger disagreement? It sounds like you agree with the statement completely. Is it that you'd take a stronger position in thinking it's the ONLY motive for people to evoke race issues?

Do you really think there aren't a large number of people who think it's entirely psychological?

What does it even mean to say that identity politics isn't attacking the power structure? Does that mean you don't think any politicians have successfully catered to different groups to win elections and influence policy, or that you don't think anyone has ever had the intent to?

I think there's a lot of projection going on here.

It's not really a secret that black people are poorer than white people. It's also not really a secret how they got that way. Here's one discussion of one major contributor.

I'll address your other questions but can you elaborate here?

The qustions are just how exaxctly does race stack up to class. We know there are poor white people and rich black people and presumably more poor whites than blacks. So is race really a substitute for class like you and 6ix say? Is most of the black population actually poor or are they fairly well distributed across the spectrum?

No I wouldn't say that. I think it's the bigger disagreement because it is--the degree to which we think racial issues are "organic" and drivers of american (political) history vs more artificial seems to be the debate there.
I'm sure there are but in this case the only thing that matters is what OP thinks and reality.
Mostly I regret wading into this topic at this point. It's never going to go anywhere and I'm left with a whole host of questions like this to address.
I've tried to address the power structure issue by comparing what I called the broad focus of King on poverty vs what i think is the more narrow focus from today's identity politics.
To that argument I've gotten excerpts from BLM about how they are broad focused, and about how the media distorts "the true modern left". I'm left not being able to say that identity politics doesn't attack at the power structure as long as one leftist group somewhere has written about doing so. I need to take a step back and think about how to handle these issues rhetorically.
As far as whether politicians have ever successfully catered to groups--I'm sure they have.