Yesterday, on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times posted and deleted an odd tweet:
18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.
The tweet was widely excoriated for its anthropomorphizing of airplanes, as if the vehicles acted of their own volition, apart from the hijackers who took control of them.
One inartful tweet should not be used to make a broad inference, but if it fits a pattern, it certainly can reinforce one.
It does.
The contemporary progressive movement’s focus on identity group politics has long had a dehumanizing effect. Each of us is first considered by outward markers such as skin color and secondary sexual characteristics, and/or “check-box” traits such as sexual orientation, religious beliefs, gender self-specification, and the like. Because identity markers are considered first, everything else is subordinated. It is, however, the totality of those subordinated aspects that are the true makers of an individual.
It is also in those subordinated aspects that we find diversity and dissent, and it is dissent that clashes with contemporary progressivism’s ever-more-strident demand for lockstep thought. In short, modern identity politics dehumanizes all those upon whom it casts its vision.
Since nature abhors a vacuum, people who think this way have apparently become prone to anthropomorphizing everything else. After all, an action requires an actor engaging in willful conduct.
We see this most obviously in the debate about guns and crime, especially as related to mass shootings. Demands to “do something” constrain, from the outset, solutions to guns, whether or not particular guns were actually used in the prompting incident and whether or not the proposed solutions would have any efficacy at all. This is the subject of mockery from pro-rights groups – I’ve seen many social media posts of people noting that they watched their guns for hours, fruitlessly waiting for those guns to shoot someone of their own volition. But, the predilection for doing this has become so pervasive that it has dominated the debate, with all other proposed points of discussion subject to derision and mockery.
We also see it from animal rights groups that seek to apply legal protections that humans enjoy to non-humans ranging from primates to livestock. We haven’t seen it applied, broadly, to cars (yet), but now that the vehicle threshold has been broached (albeit by one ninny), and with the eventual advent of self-driving vehicles, it’s just a matter of time.
And, more and more, we are being told that individualism is a problem, that it can be “excessive,” that it needs to be checked, and that the principles at the core of the Revolution and the nation’s founding should be repudiated. Individualism is itself considered racist by the taste-makers of contemporary progressive thought. Human consciousness is itself individual, but all the fruits of human consciousness, including free will, personal thoughts, preferences, decisions, etc, are (when they don’t conform to the narrative) not only to be subordinated, but treated as negatives to be actively discouraged.
Why dehumanize us in the first place? It is both a natural outcome of the collectivist mindset and a mechanism for muzzling dissent. Socialism-communism-fascism requires that the individual be subjugated and incorporated into the collective to various degrees. Opinions, beliefs, associations, life decisions, career decisions, property, and the fruits of one’s labor are all claimed by collectivist systems, and contemporary progressivism has abandoned all the anti-authoritarian and free-will elements of half a century ago in favor of top-down control and narrative authoring.
This is how someone can draft a tweet that blames airplanes instead of hijackers, especially when the latter belong to a protected identity group. And, it is how so many people can blame a particular format of gun for mass shootings, instead of societal factors that either prompt someone or overlook someone’s intent. The mindset that produces such thinking is (or should be) alien to anyone who comprehends that the nation’s roots are born of individualism and that the nation has been structured to protect individuals rather than groups. It’s toxic and corrosive, and it’s the same as that which produced the horrors of Red China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and Southeast Asia, among many others. The dress-up game played by today’s “democratic socialists” has fooled and suckered many, but the core is just as rotten as it always has been.
Dehumanizing people in such a fashion cannot exist apart from the more overt dehumanizations that were at the core of the political purges of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, and of the jaw-dropping inhumanity of the Holocaust. We see seeds of that inhumanity in Bernie Sanders’ ideas on population control to combat climate change, ideas that eerily echo the progressive movement’s century-old roots in eugenics.
Dehumanizing people can also be traced to social media, both in origin and in execution. By delaying reaction, social media platforms insulate people from the instant feedback that teaches and reinforces civil behavior and the treatment of each other as real people. With Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, it’s much easier to make widely-witnessed statements that one would never even think of uttering face-to-face. And, knowing that one is insulated from immediate response has given rise to “internet muscles,” with people feeling justified in savagely inhuman treatment of fellow members of society.
In blaming things instead of individuals, people are taking steps down a dangerous and destructive path, one that will ultimately lead to a repeat of the human tragedies and atrocities of the 20th century.
The only morally defensible philosophy is one that places primacy in individuality and a premise of equality. No one of us is superior or inferior to another. That is, unfortunately, the opposite of the message of contemporary progressivism, which mirrors the blatant racism of centuries past in its presumption that superficial physical traits define your position in the societal strata.
Great post. I have wondered whether the animal rights people will eventually advocate for freeing dogs and cats. What right do people have to keep them? Pet owners constrain the freedoms of their pets, they keep them locked up in houses, cages, fences or on chains. If a pet wants to wander, why on God’s green earth shouldn’t they be allowed to? Humans actually make medical decisions for their pets without written permission! They have the temerity to call their pets “members of their (human) families” when in truth the pets are not humans nor ever will be, and the very claim is offensively disrespectful to the pet’s true identity and true families. In a word, the identity of dogs and cats is being appropriated, changed, and obscured by human owners. Owners, what a concept. Unbelievable that one species is allowed OWN another species. Where’s PITA on this outrage?
Sylvia Bennion Bennion Education 3689 Racquet Club Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 801-231-0311
‘Entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.” ~Bono
Another superficial trait that is a favorite of progressives, particularly those who aspire to tell the rest of us what’s good for us, is IQ level. I hadn’t thought about that one because I’ve never really cared. One engages with individuals based on what they have to offer and I’ve come across extraordinarily loving people who, thinking about it now because progressives say I should, had a low IQ and yet I’d give an arm and a leg for them. The dehumanizing going on is becoming quite sickening.
“It’s much easier to round people up and put them in re-education camps, or execute them en masse, if you dehumanize them first.” Such a statement can evoke emotions from outrage to mockery in America, but guess where I figured this out as a truism? Not in a book about Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it was while I was guarding open mass graves in Bosnia in the year 2001. (Why guard an open grave? So the perpetrators, who lived near by, could not destroy the evidence.) We can think “it can’t happen here” and “it could not happen in this day and age” to our peril. The same people who are telling you that you must you use new pronouns and that an inanimate object is to blame for a crime is the same person who would be making you take your shoes off in a field before the mass shootings start. Shoes don’t decay fast enough, and can be used for identification purposes.
If history makes anything abundantly clear, it’s that there are no limits to human monstrosity, and that such monstrosity can happen anywhere.
Socialist have the best of intentions and the worst of results