Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dissenting or single-issue movements within American history are nothing new; and if we exclude the many years of increasing polarization that led up to the Civil War, only the Whiskey, Shays and Dorr "Rebellions" can be characterized as fore-runners to an intended insurrection, armed or otherwise, and all were resolved prior to 1850, with little or no bloodshed, and within a very short time.
But the Social Justice movement appears to represent an entirely new variation of this phenomenon; the term first surfaced in 2011, if its appearance on Twitter is regarded as a watershed, but many of its advocates and detractors alike regard It as a by-product of the disturbances at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, after which a number of prominent demonstrators found themselves certified as delegates four years later. And the tactics found "closest to the street" can be viewed as a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties.
And there's little doubt that the election of Donald Trump came as a complete (and very unpleasant) suprise to a constituency which had invested heavily in continued center-left dominance and movement toward a mild form of a one-party hegemony.
But the Social Justice Advocacy can be differentiated by the point that many of its followers see their role as linked to an emerging global consensus; witness, for example, the lionizing of figures such as Elon Musk and George Soros. And it can also be argued that while the phenomenon of McCarthyism, later repackaged to some degree as a far more secular and ideologically-oriented movement in the symposia of Ayn Rand in the late Fifties, and which fueled the efforts of the late William F Buckley and his magazine National Review, represented a counter-measure, the resentments were neither as great, nor as "earthy'.
It seems certain that regardless of the results, the coming mid-term elections will merely set the stage for another showdown two years beyond.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-25-2018 at 05:10 PM..
As a history major we were always taught that you can only analyze historical events every 25 years (these last couple years I'm surprised there hasn't been more revisiting of WWI since it has been 100 years). So I'll let ya know in 2043. By then I'll be in my 60s and have plenty of time to think about it haha.
Dissenting or single-issue movements within American history are nothing new; and if we exclude the many years of increasing polarization that led up to the Civil War, only the Whiskey, Shays and Dorr "Rebellions" can be characterized as fore-runners to an intended insurrection, armed or otherwise, and all were resolved prior to 1850, with little or no bloodshed, and within a very short time.
But the Social Justice movement appears to represent an entirely new variation of this phenomenon; the term first surfaced in 2011, if its appearance on Twitter is regarded as a watershed, but many of its advocates and detractors alike regard It as a by-product of the disturbances at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, after which a number of prominent demonstrators found themselves certified as delegates four years later. And the tactics found "closest to the street" can be viewed as a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties.
And there's little doubt that the election of Donald Trump came as a complete (and very unpleasant) suprise to a constituency which had invested heavily in continued center-left dominance and movement toward a mild form of a one-party hegemony.
But the Social Justice Advocacy can be differentiated by the point that many of its followers see their role as linked to an emerging global consensus; witness, for example, the lionizing of figures such as Elon Musk and George Soros. And it can also be argued that while the phenomenon of McCarthyism, later repackaged to some degree as a far more secular and ideologically-oriented movement in the symposia of Ayn Rand in the late Fifties, and which fueled the efforts of the late William F Buckley and his magazine National Review, represented a counter-measure, the resentments were neither as great, nor as "earthy'.
It seems certain that regardless of the results, the coming mid-term elections will merely set the stage for another showdown two years beyond.
First of all, well-written post.
I know it's an awfully simple concept...seemingly too simple...but I think part of the answer is the old pendulum-effect. And I think it happens within parties and within the greater political atmosphere. Things will swing more liberal for a while, and then things will swing more conservative for a while. And generally I think that's a good thing (I say generally, but I do not say that is true now). Coupled with that is the tendency of both parties to "over-reach", and that over-reach becomes most severe when there is a strong victory on one side or the other.
I look back at the 1964 debacle on the Republican side of things. What a whooping the Republicans got. And then in 1972 it was the Democrat debacle and the whooping they got. And after Obama's victory the last time, I remember in the press seeing reports of "Will the Republicans ever win again?" And more recently I've seen articles about "Will the Democrats ever win again?"
In your second paragraph you do seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand you see the Social Justice movement as "an entirely new variation of this phenomenon", but then you turn around and see it as "a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties". I don't think it's that different from the Freedom Rides or even abolition of slavery movements. It's just a continuation of the same theme which has evolved over time.
I also think that the whole George Soros thing -- which is really no different than the Koch Brothers on the other side -- is not as big a thing as conservatives make it out to be. He's a rich man who buys influence. Gee, we never heard of that before. Soros and the Koch Brothers have one thing in common...they're on a rather short trail to death. Soros is nearly 90. One of the Koch brothers is reportedly very ill. When they die, other villains to the right and left will take their place.
In your second paragraph you do seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand you see the Social Justice movement as "an entirely new variation of this phenomenon", but then you turn around and see it as "a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties". I don't think it's that different from the Freedom Rides or even abolition of slavery movements. It's just a continuation of the same theme which has evolved over time.
It's a fair observation. but the point I was trying to emphasize was that it hasn't been determined whether the SJW advocacy is more likely to view its mission in internationalist terms, rather than the single issues confined to (within) one nation-state, which was the case for the three (short-lived) movements prior to 1850.
During my undergraduate days, as part of a course on the history of Marxism, I read My Life as a Rebel, by Angelica Balabanoff, a European socialist/Marxist agitator who was very active in the years before and after the October Revolution in 1917. Balabanoff (who was to live until 1965) heavily criticized Lenin for repeated purges of what he termed "petty bourgeois socialists" during those years. It remains to be seen whether the SJW movement of the present day will reman cohesive, and whether it will concentrate on opposition to the Trump Administration, or move on to other issues, possibly on an internationalist basis.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-27-2018 at 08:57 PM..
It's a fair observation. but the point I was trying to emphasize was that it hasn't been determined whether the SJW advocacy is more likely to view its mission in internationalist terms, rather than the single issues confined to (within) one nation-state, which was the case for the three (short-lived) movements prior to 1850.
During my undergraduate days, as part of a course on the history of Marxism, I read My Life as a Rebel, by Angelica Balabanoff, a European socialist/Marxist agitator who was very active in the years before and after the October Revolution in 1917. Balabanoff (who was to live until 1965) heavily criticized Lenin for repeated purges of what he termed "petty bourgeois socialists" during those years. It remains to be seen whether the SJW movement of the present day will reman cohesive, and whether it will concentrate on opposition to the Trump Administration, or move on to other issues, possibly on an internationalist basis.
Dissenting or single-issue movements within American history are nothing new; and if we exclude the many years of increasing polarization that led up to the Civil War, only the Whiskey, Shays and Dorr "Rebellions" can be characterized as fore-runners to an intended insurrection, armed or otherwise, and all were resolved prior to 1850, with little or no bloodshed, and within a very short time.
But the Social Justice movement appears to represent an entirely new variation of this phenomenon; the term first surfaced in 2011, if its appearance on Twitter is regarded as a watershed, but many of its advocates and detractors alike regard It as a by-product of the disturbances at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, after which a number of prominent demonstrators found themselves certified as delegates four years later. And the tactics found "closest to the street" can be viewed as a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties.
And there's little doubt that the election of Donald Trump came as a complete (and very unpleasant) suprise to a constituency which had invested heavily in continued center-left dominance and movement toward a mild form of a one-party hegemony.
But the Social Justice Advocacy can be differentiated by the point that many of its followers see their role as linked to an emerging global consensus; witness, for example, the lionizing of figures such as Elon Musk and George Soros. And it can also be argued that while the phenomenon of McCarthyism, later repackaged to some degree as a far more secular and ideologically-oriented movement in the symposia of Ayn Rand in the late Fifties, and which fueled the efforts of the late William F Buckley and his magazine National Review, represented a counter-measure, the resentments were neither as great, nor as "earthy'.
It seems certain that regardless of the results, the coming mid-term elections will merely set the stage for another showdown two years beyond.
That was a lot of words that weren't particularly clear to me, so I'm not sure I understand the question. But I know for a fact that the phrase "social justice" was used somewhat widely well before 2011.
I know how to understand the question "How should we define the social justice movement?" I also know how to understand the question "How should we describe the social justice movement in an historical context?" I do not know how to define a phrase in an historical context, though. A definition is simply a definition.
I graduated in 1972 and social justice was an old expression then. I don't like it.
It's vague and suffers from the same problem that the word social has wherever it's used: it negates the word immediately following it. Social justice, social work mean not justice and not work. Social studies is another one. People who major in social studies don't study or study nothing. Or sometimes both.
I prefer justice, simply. It's adequate to address the causes the social justice warriors are so agitated about.
Dissenting or single-issue movements within American history are nothing new; and if we exclude the many years of increasing polarization that led up to the Civil War, only the Whiskey, Shays and Dorr "Rebellions" can be characterized as fore-runners to an intended insurrection, armed or otherwise, and all were resolved prior to 1850, with little or no bloodshed, and within a very short time.
But the Social Justice movement appears to represent an entirely new variation of this phenomenon; the term first surfaced in 2011, if its appearance on Twitter is regarded as a watershed, but many of its advocates and detractors alike regard It as a by-product of the disturbances at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, after which a number of prominent demonstrators found themselves certified as delegates four years later. And the tactics found "closest to the street" can be viewed as a refinement of the Freedom Rides and similar actions in the early-and mid-Sixties.
And there's little doubt that the election of Donald Trump came as a complete (and very unpleasant) suprise to a constituency which had invested heavily in continued center-left dominance and movement toward a mild form of a one-party hegemony.
But the Social Justice Advocacy can be differentiated by the point that many of its followers see their role as linked to an emerging global consensus; witness, for example, the lionizing of figures such as Elon Musk and George Soros. And it can also be argued that while the phenomenon of McCarthyism, later repackaged to some degree as a far more secular and ideologically-oriented movement in the symposia of Ayn Rand in the late Fifties, and which fueled the efforts of the late William F Buckley and his magazine National Review, represented a counter-measure, the resentments were neither as great, nor as "earthy'.
It seems certain that regardless of the results, the coming mid-term elections will merely set the stage for another showdown two years beyond.
I'm having trouble with the simple link of George Soros and Elon Musk (two totally different beasts) being used in the same sentence as "SJW lionized figures".
I've never met an SJW or really any liberal who cares about George Soros in the slightest. Soros lives exclusively and rent-free in the imaginations of the reactionary right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Soros and the Koch Brothers have one thing in common...they're on a rather short trail to death. Soros is nearly 90. One of the Koch brothers is reportedly very ill. When they die, other villains to the right and left will take their place.
