Do you think that those Youtubers, podcast hosts, bloggers, etc. who make strong criticism on the progressive left, white supremacy, critical theories, racism, identity politics, etc. actually don't want these matters/problems to go away, otherwise they will be out of business? Or am I being too cynical?
You are not being cynical. There are people that make suggestions, knowing that neither side will agree, so that they might be seen as the 'only' people capable of dealing with the situation.
Compromise, in a political setting is necessary, but...it can't be unilateral. If I say I'm offended, there is no 'degree', the offense must be addressed completely. Offers to bring together problem-solvers is not part of the solution set.
Washington made his comments at a time when race relations DID NOT exist, there was a race hierarchy. Today, race is used as a political hierarchy characteristic but not determinant....mostly. I would suggest that is the ONLY place race relations lags societal relations....though the last 10-12 years has set back the black community decades...and not because of 'white supremacy'.
I don't think you are being cynical enough. Booker Washington's quote is spot on. A significant portion of the left see themselves as saviors of the poor blacks. If the black community gets prosperous they will have nothing about which to feel superior. Those on the right can confirm their superiority by doing everything they can to show how stupid and inferior the black community is.
The black community in the United States is in a very difficult position. They are up against a concerted effort by a large number of white people to keep them segregated. If you look at it, it must be something black people feel every day of their lives. That makes it difficult for a person to develop a reasonable sense of self esteem, which further magnifies what they are being maligned for (the sin of being black). The black community cannot count on any sustained support from white people. What might benefit is a significant contribution from someone like Bill Gates to set up a pilot project for a community, managed and guided by members of that community, to get rid of drug dealers, setup programs for children (and adults), who would get paid to perform clean up, perform property maintenance for everyone, grow vegetable gardens, act as security guards, etc. to build something they can be proud of and make the whole neighborhood a great place to live. The government should have no hand in administering it.
Thanks everyone for your inputs so far. Very interesting.
It's nearly 1am in England and I'll have to get up early in the morning, so I'm going to bed now. Meanwhile, please feel free to continue with discussions. I'll be back to read all the comments.
As long as there is collectivist authoritarianism, there will be no shortage of misguided hypocricies to rail against.
I think the difference here, is the one-trick pony. If you've made a name for yourself standing up for racial "justice", or any other single issue for that matter, then the worst thing that could happen to your airtime on MSNBC grievance-panels, and consequently to your wallet, is for that issue to actually get resolved. Lucky for them, their insincere posturing has no chance of ever effecting any real change.
Some people are not driven solely by a blind and destructive craving for fame & fortune.
Nanny states like smothering mothers produce crippled people.
All the left"s ideas have been tried and they have all failed. A short list would be aid for dependent children, head start, universal basic income, the war on poverty (somewhat a success but not really a liberal idea), universal health care (somewhat works but is suboptimal and likely to bankrupt some countries), minimum wage, environmentalist (after the 80s especially), regulation (accept for health and safety but again suboptimal), fair housing (the subprime collapse), affirmative action (again post 80s), drug enforcement (see Harris and Biden), communism (socialism as tried in places like Sweden until they went nanny state and the jury is still out on that), feminism (post 80s as can be seen in Swedish employment patterns), the list goes on but you get the idea.
The rights idea of curing racism is to let the "market place" work it out which has also failed.
In other posts I have pointed out how significant portions of racism has it's roots in classism. While the left and the establishment right are busy creating a new class of failures known now as clingers or deplorables these new victims have a lot in common with minorities. For many decades the same pattern of broken families, drug abuse, under employment, low educational achievement, declining job opportunities have effected both goups adversely. Although not a quick fix Trump's opportunity zones, reduced regulation and pulling back on globalism seem like a good start to reverse the pattern. The establishment on both the left and right (the new petite nobility) have fought back viciously against these ideas. Although racism was and may still be a significant problem the larger problem is the class warfare that the corporatist, globalist, banksters, and establishments hacks like Pelosi and McConnell are engaged in everyday.
This is an excellent quote and tells us the race-hustler existed way back when. I would go so far as to say that "certain class of race problem-solvers" are perhaps not racist but are the elitists who see those they are helping as ignorant and incapable of helping themselves. Just as Democrats think of Americans as deporables and ignoramuses. These people will always ensure they maintain their privilege and there is a permanent underclass that will buy they are their only friends and no one else cares. Better that no one else cares than holds you down pretending to give you a helping hand for the rest of your life.
There is a certain addiction to rage that gets peddled, but I don't think 'influencers' would be that influential if they themselves didn't buy in to what they are selling.
Then there is Nancy Pelosi who recently mandated that congressional language be non-gendered and then proceeded to refer to herself as a mother, daughter, grandmother, etc... She is definitely cynical but I do not find her influential except with wielding power.