The Spectator.co.uk, October 28, 2020: Prince Harry has seen the light. His awokening is complete. Yesterday, in a video chat hosted by GQ magazine, he confessed to the sin of ‘unconscious bias’ and instructed the rest of us — the unwoke throng — to ‘educate yourself’. And there you have it: this duke, sixth in line to the British throne, is now indistinguishable from those irritating campus activists who scream ‘EDUCATE YOURSELF’ at anyone who has the temerity to demur from their worldview.
Harry was having a chat with Patrick Hutchinson, the personal trainer who was photographed carrying a counter-protester to safety during clashes with BLM activists over the summer. Harry trotted out all the woke lines. ‘Ignorance is no longer an excuse’, he said, no doubt to those still in denial about the unwitting hatred that lurks in their hearts (that’s essentially what ‘unconscious bias’ means).
I really don’t think the Duke of Sussex should be pushing divisive ideas like ‘unconscious bias’
He praised this year’s BLM protests as a ‘global movement’, like an unstoppable ‘train’, and everyone must ‘get on it’, he said. That’s easy for him to say from his swanky pad in Santa Barbara. What about the black and white working-class communities in other parts of the US whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed by the excesses of this ‘global movement’? They might wish that this train, which involved riots, the destruction of monuments, and confrontations with diners who refused to raise their fists, would slow down a little, or maybe even come to a halt.
But it was his use of the line ‘educate yourself’ that most clearly illustrated Harry’s capture by the cult of woke. That is the most common cry of the self-elected guardians of correct-think. And don’t be fooled by their use of the term education, which of course is a good thing. They don’t mean ‘educate’ in the sense of going off to read some books and talk to people and make up your mind on an issue. No, they mean ‘get with our programme’. ‘Educate yourself’ is a demand for conformity. Really it means re-educate yourself; submerge yourself in the ways of identity politics.
That’s why Harry’s train metaphor was so revealing, too. ‘The train has left the station, and if you’re not on it now, then get on it’, he said. Leaving to one side the question of how you're supposed to get on a train that has already left, the most important part of this metaphor is its one-way nature. Trains go in one direction only. They can’t be steered somewhere else. What Harry is essentially saying is that there is only one correct way to think about issues like BLM, unconscious bias and identity politics, and if you think a different way… well, you’ll be left behind.
It was hard not to hear his wife Meghan’s voice. Did she write this script, I found myself wondering? Indeed, Harry credits his arrival in the station of correct thought to his experiences with his Meghan. He said he spent ‘many, many years’ unaware that unconscious bias even existed, but his awareness was raised by ‘living a day or a week in my wife’s shoes’. So she gave him his Damascene conversion? She turned him from the bad old Saul who wore Nazi outfits to fancy-dress parties into the Paul of wokeness, a proselytiser for political correctness?
What is striking about this is that Harry, like other royals, has worked with charities and good causes for a long time. But apparently he didn’t become properly socially aware until he spent a day or two in the company of a very wealthy celebrity from Hollywood. There’s an implicit insult in this. Apparently schools, institutions and charities in the UK failed to prise open Harry’s eyes to the problems of the world, but magic Meghan did it in a matter of weeks. Thank God for virtuous celebs, eh?
I really don’t think the Duke of Sussex should be pushing divisive ideas like ‘unconscious bias’. This identitarian ideology, which suggests that most people are racist, even if they don’t realise it, has nothing in common with the old noble cause of anti-racism. Those old struggles were about securing equality for people regardless of their racial backgrounds, whereas today’s BLM outlook encourages division. This obsession with white privilege and black victimhood; the idea that people’s hidden hatreds must be teased out, that must be corrected by a new army of therapeutic race-relations experts; it is all a recipe for suspicion and tension. Harry, get off that train.
"This obsession with white privilege and black victimhood; the idea that people’s hidden hatreds must be teased out, that must be corrected by a new army of therapeutic race-relations experts; it is all a recipe for suspicion and tension."
ReplyDeleteLook at this, CS. You know what this reminds me of? The practices of the Chinese cultural revolution. The reeducation practices which were designed to ferret out anti-social attitudes and remnants of class consciousness (sorry, I mean "false" consciousness) in poor former peasants and proletarian along with, more especially, those who had been "privileged" under the older regimes. (Former teachers or others who had too high a level of formal education under the older regimes.)
Want to see what clenched fists raised into the air looks like? Dig up a picture of Chinese youth from 1966 or so, and that's it. This isn't the Black Panthers, this is Maoism.
In fact, the Cultural Revolution crippled the economy, ruined millions of lives and thrust China into 10 years of turmoil, bloodshed, hunger and stagnation.
Gangs of students and Red Guards attacked people wearing “bourgeois clothes” on the street, “imperialist” signs were torn down and intellectuals and party officials were murdered or driven to suicide.
A fortnight later, on 1 June, the party’s official mouthpiece newspaper urged the masses to “clear away the evil habits of the old society” by launching an all-out assault on “monsters and demons”.
Chinese students sprung into action, setting up Red Guard divisions in classrooms and campuses across the country. By August 1966 - so-called Red August - the mayhem was in full swing as Mao’s allies urged Red Guards to destroy the “four olds” - old ideas, old customs, old habits and old culture.
Schools and universities were closed and churches, shrines, libraries, shops and private homes ransacked or destroyed as the assault on “feudal” traditions began.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/the-cultural-revolution-50-years-on-all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-political-convulsion
It is so striking to me. "I think I'm turning Chinese, I think I'm turning Chinese, I really think so." Except I don't think I can hack it.
Yes, Harry, is promoting a vile ideology. So vile, that, as you point out, even the Gruniard noted the "almost unfathomable brutality" to which it gave rise in China.
DeleteI have generally been in favor of Britain's constitutional Monarchy and its various colonial spin-offs, in Canada, Australia, etc., as it robs the elected politicians -- scoundrels nearly all -- of the pomp and splendor of a palace and the braided and fur-hatted military guards. At the same time it saves the politicians the time and trouble of hosting mostly useless or obnoxious foreign heads of state who may happen to pass through the national capital. But the institution cannot last long mired in controversy and scandal. Harry should be formally relieved of his titles. Likewise Prince Andrew who seems unwilling to go quietly into retirement.
Those are some great reasons for supporting the constitutional Monarchy. Thanks.
DeleteIt is essential that Britain's constitutional monarch is seen to be politically neutral, since partisanship would undermine the public support necessary for the exercise of the monarch's residual powers.
DeleteOf particular importance is the power to refuse assent to legislation deemed unconstitutional. Exactly what is unconstitutional in a country such as Britain which has no written constitution is open to question. In the 1890's, however, Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, asserted that it would be unconstitutional for the government to enact legislation contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people. Unconstitutional legislation thus defined could be negated by the monarch's refusal to grant consent. But in the uproar that would follow such refusal, the survival of the monarch would likely depend on his or her popularity, which in turn would depend on, among other things, the care they had taken to avoid partisanship. That is the why Prince Harry's adventures in the politics of a foreign country and vital British ally are so catastrophic for the monarchy. I think he has to be detached from the institution if it is to survive. Fortunately, it seems that Harry is ready and even anxious to make the break.
Imagine having our own cultural revolution foisted upon us. We should be in a better position to avoid such a ludicrous and disastrous political and social mess because virtually everyone knows the results of the first cultural revolution, in China.
ReplyDeleteWe could learn from those mistakes rather than repeat them here. What the hell is going on?
Maybe what the elites learned from it is that's the perfect recipe for ruining a society and economy and ruining those is their desired result. I keep coming back to that. And after these are ruined, replacing them with what the new China rising from those ashes has become.
ReplyDeleteYes, those failing to admit to being unaware of their unconscious bias (can you be aware of what you are unconscious of?) will be taken out and shot. Those who admit to their unconscious bias will be taken out and shot, along with those who refuse to wear a face mask.
DeleteVery Orwellian 1984ish, there, CS.
DeleteUnfortunately, you're dead on, as you always happen to be.