This is one of the most moving pieces I have ever read, your best so far, and does a masterful job of tying history to what is happening today. I have been to Auschwitz and seen for myself the grounds, the barracks, and the ovens. We cannot let this happen ever again. The reaction of academics and students here and abroad to October 7 has been appalling and show how little we have learned and how far we must go. My small goal is to do my small part to help dismantle DEI in this country, starting with the American College of Surgeons. Neutrality and inaction are not options. I shared this on my FB page and will make use of it elsewhere.
This is a brilliant summation of the disastrous situation that the so-called ‘intellectual’ cultural elites of the West have allowed themselves to sleepwalk into - summed up in the first paragraph by the statement:
“...successfully transfixed eyes on the rear-view mirror and diverted attention from the dangers 10 feet in front of us”.
I include in these cultural elites many of the global Jewish community who - by virtue of a naïve desire to signal their virtue by encouraging mass ‘immigration’ - have failed to face up to the realities that mass population transfers into Western countries brings with them when the ‘immigrants’ (usually fake refugees) clearly reject the cultural values upon which the Judaeo-Christian West was founded and bring with them their inbred cultural hates and proclivity to tribalism - now being overtly expressed as Jew-hatred.
It is not too late to derail the coming cultural train-wreck (driven by demographics) in order to save the Western concept of the nation-state - but it will take political guts on the part of the largely failing Western political classes. Citizens who want to save their countries need to get off their backsides and start screaming at their useless political representatives.
An excellent piece and I like the term "equitism." But I wonder if the ferocious advocates of equitism really believe in it. Suppose that the US managed to achieve a perfect "representation" of all groups in all aspects of life -- student enrollment, faculty, air traffic controllers, orchestras, NHL teams, hospital staffs, the Marine Corps, etc -- would they be content? Would they say, "Ah, we've accomplished our objective and advocate no further intervention"? I don't think so. The whining about the lack of "equity" is just one of the large bag of excuses that discontented people have for giving the State more power over everything.
My one problem with “equitism” is that few of its champions use it. They would disclaim, most of them, any “ism” and regard it as an insult.
The most political people I know say, “I’m not political. I don’t have any political views. But I’m a decent human being (as opposed to you people, who do have political opinions).”
Since they’re going to regard any noun or noun phrase you use, once it achieves purchase, as an insult, you must either communicate ineffectually (their preferred outcome) or use some label they chose that hasn’t much content, even if they abandon it, like “liberal” or “woke.”
All true. As I noted to another commenter, I have thought of all that, but still favor the term. It is one word. Its construction parallels that of egalitarianism, which its advocates openly oppose through all their little cartoon memes. It is not an attempt to paste a new definition on an old word and, hence, does not present the constant ambiguity that, say, "equity" presents. It is not (for now) susceptible to motte-and-bailey deviousness. And while it is a quasi-neologism, a newcomer to the word can get a pretty good idea of what it means just by looking at it. No, equitists won't like the word, but it's not blatantly insulting or frivolous sounding, so if they whine, it's on them.
I'm trying on the term. I favor the term "collectivism" to cover much of what is meant here. It's a bit too general but catches the critical point of valuing people and actions by groups rather than individuals.
Hi. Good try, but I disagree. "Collectivism" is already a term of art with a long pedigree, and in the instances that come to mind, it's focused on individuals, not groups. Soviet collectivist farms ostensibly aimed to equalize income/consumption/whatever across individuals. Their aim was not to say "The average gay male Kazakh should earn the same as the average straight female Uzbek" or some such. Soviet collectivism was really radical egalitarianism, where the was the achieve equal outcomes across individuals--not across groups. (In practice, of course, the Soviets played all sorts of games with implementation.)
What is common to every manifestation of equitism is that someone in charge devises a taxonomy of mankind, assigns every individual to some cell in that taxonomy, ranks each cell along something like an oppressor/oppressed spectrum. Then, the philosopher-kings in charge of this scheme decide how wealth and/or rights ought to be distributed among these cells. Distribution may or may not aim for equality between the AVERAGE individual in each group. The philosopher-kings may, for example, determine that poor whites must pay wealthy Hispanics money because the former have been deemed oppressors and the latter deemed oppressed. "Collectivism" doesn't begin to reflect these sorts of schemes.
Okay. I don’t object to experimentation. Clearly they’ll ignore it as long as they can, then disparage it. Since they control all the dictionaries (!!) there are difficulties. But I see no reason not to try.
> Unlike “woke,” “equitism” is not an insult or pejorative, and the web shows that a few advocates have used the term to describe themselves.
For the moment. Watch and see; the minute it starts to gain any real ground among the general public, they'll abandon and denounce it as a slur, just as they have in the past with plenty of other terms that clearly identify them. "Woke" used to be their own term for themselves, until they noticed other people attaching it to the terrible things they've done. Same with "social justice warrior" and "politically correct."
Equitism is indefensible on its merits and at some level they realize this, for they never attempt to do so, preferring to attack and bully into submission anyone who dares try to call them anything other than Normal, other than Correct, other than Entirely Accepted Without Question.
One would think that, if every term that uniquely identifies your movement becomes something you recognize as a slur, that that should tell you something about your movement itself. But somehow they never seem capable of this degree of introspection...
I agree fully and have thought of that. But the term "equitism" still has virtues, even if its proponents squawk. It's one word, it's a logical equivalent to egalitarianism, and it's not a familiar word (like "equity" or "inclusion" or "diversity") repurposed to mean something other than its familiar definition. "Woke," "social justice warrior," and "politically correct" all had an in-your-face vibe from their inception. "Equitism" is kind of formal and clinical. Neither a thumb in the eye nor a high-five. Just a term that adequately notes the common factor in all of those movements.
Mr. Frank anticipates my concerns. Notes how the virtue “it’s not a familiar word” is the other side of the drawback “it has no popular meaning or, a fortiori, political purchase.”
Holocaust studies was corrupted at the moment of its creation, before it had that name. The very creation of the category “genocide” as the crime of which the Holocaust was an instance was an establishment of a rhetorical weapon for use against Western democracies at the expense of event’s uniqueness, and when opportunity offered to use it against Israel, it was only the fulfillment of its creators’ hearts’ desire.
In due course “Holocaust studies” came into existence mostly to blame the event on the scholars’ political bugbears—nationalism, it might be, or capitalism, but never Jew-hatred: that would be too “on the nose” and not “useful.”
Holocaust museums and memorials (like the Anne Frank Center in particular), unsatisfied to memorialize an unique event with one particular target, from the beginning generated theories of generalized holocausts, so that they would stay relevant with the news: and did they ever. Although free with political advice over the years, and in particular on Israel’s shortcomings, I believe not one (other than Yad Vashem) condemned the Hamas October 7 attack.
And as to prophylaxis? It only taught, as its critics said from the beginning, that Jews are easy targets, that when push comes to shove they are helpless and nobody else cares. However true that was then, it is not true now.
“Corrosion begins in microscopic proportions” - quite true. Every healthcare worker knows the danger of getting an incurable disease from the smallest needle stick injury. The profession’s integrity is no less vulnerable to corrupt ideas.
Indeed! Another commenter reproduces and discusses a memo from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (CanMEDS)--the national credentialling entity. A key passage says, "A new model of CanMEDS would seek to centre values such as anti-oppression, anti-racism, and social justice, rather than medical expertise." As the commenter notes, what is remarkable is that this group is clearly and proudly proclaiming that medical expertise is now of secondary importance. Read the whole essay. https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/save-the-planet-kill-your-patient
Yeah, collectivism doesn't do it for your purposes, agreed. "Groupism" would be closer. But "equitism" doesn't clearly make the point either. It's part of the DIE ugliness but not all of it, and DIE is not all of the problem. However, no one word is likely to work, so I'm pondering.
BTW, Soviet collectivism did not just try to (officially) equalize across individuals. Certain groups were much targeted, such as the Kulaks. But I do appreciate your point.
That's the point I was aiming at when I said "Soviet collectivism was really radical egalitarianism, where the was the achieve equal outcomes across individuals--not across groups. (In practice, of course, the Soviets played all sorts of games with implementation.)" The Kulaks were exactly whom I was thinking of when I wrote that (as well as the nomenklatura, with their dachas). But those examples are really violations of the alleged philosophy underlying the Soviet vision. In those cases, they were really practicing equitism, and not standard collectivism. It wasn't a philosophy. Rather, it was "Our philosophy is egalitarian, but sometimes we cheat."
"In the early 20th century, eugenics was almost universally accepted by academicians, politicians, doctors, the general public, and celebrities." They Followed the Science.
When you published this I got the usual notice in my inbox. I put it aside to read later, but a month later I can now see that I just didn't want to read it, and my subconscious conspired to help me avoid it.
When I was in 8th grade my social studies teacher brought in a lampshade made with human skin, and soap made from people. She must have explained where they came from, but it's the physical objects I remember, the rest is forgotten.
I'm pretty sure we were all mystified by how the holocaust could happen. I'm certain that she didn't have an answer.
Turns out that the question is not "how", the question is "why". I remember going to the holocaust museum in DC, the one where you have to walk through the whole museum, I don't remember hearing a "why".
And the "why" is more terrifying than a lampshade made of human skin. Because it destroys the self-righteous "It could never happen here."
It seems obvious, once it is presented, that the holocaust had its roots in the eugenics movement. But my question is this: Have historians been aware of this linkage all along?
I don't have a fabulous memory like Wilbur Wright. So the fact that I remember that means it made a real impression. But I don't think I really understood the horror.
Please excuse me for suggesting that the eugenics linkage could be the subject for a good book.
Were it warmer weather today that it might equilibrate the spine-chill your piece induced. 😢
Robert,
This is one of the most moving pieces I have ever read, your best so far, and does a masterful job of tying history to what is happening today. I have been to Auschwitz and seen for myself the grounds, the barracks, and the ovens. We cannot let this happen ever again. The reaction of academics and students here and abroad to October 7 has been appalling and show how little we have learned and how far we must go. My small goal is to do my small part to help dismantle DEI in this country, starting with the American College of Surgeons. Neutrality and inaction are not options. I shared this on my FB page and will make use of it elsewhere.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks, as always, Rick. So glad the piece had that effect on you. Keep up your crucially important work. -- Bob
This is a brilliant summation of the disastrous situation that the so-called ‘intellectual’ cultural elites of the West have allowed themselves to sleepwalk into - summed up in the first paragraph by the statement:
“...successfully transfixed eyes on the rear-view mirror and diverted attention from the dangers 10 feet in front of us”.
I include in these cultural elites many of the global Jewish community who - by virtue of a naïve desire to signal their virtue by encouraging mass ‘immigration’ - have failed to face up to the realities that mass population transfers into Western countries brings with them when the ‘immigrants’ (usually fake refugees) clearly reject the cultural values upon which the Judaeo-Christian West was founded and bring with them their inbred cultural hates and proclivity to tribalism - now being overtly expressed as Jew-hatred.
It is not too late to derail the coming cultural train-wreck (driven by demographics) in order to save the Western concept of the nation-state - but it will take political guts on the part of the largely failing Western political classes. Citizens who want to save their countries need to get off their backsides and start screaming at their useless political representatives.
So glad you found the piece meaningful. Thanks!
An excellent piece and I like the term "equitism." But I wonder if the ferocious advocates of equitism really believe in it. Suppose that the US managed to achieve a perfect "representation" of all groups in all aspects of life -- student enrollment, faculty, air traffic controllers, orchestras, NHL teams, hospital staffs, the Marine Corps, etc -- would they be content? Would they say, "Ah, we've accomplished our objective and advocate no further intervention"? I don't think so. The whining about the lack of "equity" is just one of the large bag of excuses that discontented people have for giving the State more power over everything.
Agree on all counts. The key to understanding the long march through institutions is that they must keep marching.
My one problem with “equitism” is that few of its champions use it. They would disclaim, most of them, any “ism” and regard it as an insult.
The most political people I know say, “I’m not political. I don’t have any political views. But I’m a decent human being (as opposed to you people, who do have political opinions).”
Since they’re going to regard any noun or noun phrase you use, once it achieves purchase, as an insult, you must either communicate ineffectually (their preferred outcome) or use some label they chose that hasn’t much content, even if they abandon it, like “liberal” or “woke.”
All true. As I noted to another commenter, I have thought of all that, but still favor the term. It is one word. Its construction parallels that of egalitarianism, which its advocates openly oppose through all their little cartoon memes. It is not an attempt to paste a new definition on an old word and, hence, does not present the constant ambiguity that, say, "equity" presents. It is not (for now) susceptible to motte-and-bailey deviousness. And while it is a quasi-neologism, a newcomer to the word can get a pretty good idea of what it means just by looking at it. No, equitists won't like the word, but it's not blatantly insulting or frivolous sounding, so if they whine, it's on them.
I'm trying on the term. I favor the term "collectivism" to cover much of what is meant here. It's a bit too general but catches the critical point of valuing people and actions by groups rather than individuals.
Hi. Good try, but I disagree. "Collectivism" is already a term of art with a long pedigree, and in the instances that come to mind, it's focused on individuals, not groups. Soviet collectivist farms ostensibly aimed to equalize income/consumption/whatever across individuals. Their aim was not to say "The average gay male Kazakh should earn the same as the average straight female Uzbek" or some such. Soviet collectivism was really radical egalitarianism, where the was the achieve equal outcomes across individuals--not across groups. (In practice, of course, the Soviets played all sorts of games with implementation.)
What is common to every manifestation of equitism is that someone in charge devises a taxonomy of mankind, assigns every individual to some cell in that taxonomy, ranks each cell along something like an oppressor/oppressed spectrum. Then, the philosopher-kings in charge of this scheme decide how wealth and/or rights ought to be distributed among these cells. Distribution may or may not aim for equality between the AVERAGE individual in each group. The philosopher-kings may, for example, determine that poor whites must pay wealthy Hispanics money because the former have been deemed oppressors and the latter deemed oppressed. "Collectivism" doesn't begin to reflect these sorts of schemes.
Okay. I don’t object to experimentation. Clearly they’ll ignore it as long as they can, then disparage it. Since they control all the dictionaries (!!) there are difficulties. But I see no reason not to try.
> Unlike “woke,” “equitism” is not an insult or pejorative, and the web shows that a few advocates have used the term to describe themselves.
For the moment. Watch and see; the minute it starts to gain any real ground among the general public, they'll abandon and denounce it as a slur, just as they have in the past with plenty of other terms that clearly identify them. "Woke" used to be their own term for themselves, until they noticed other people attaching it to the terrible things they've done. Same with "social justice warrior" and "politically correct."
Equitism is indefensible on its merits and at some level they realize this, for they never attempt to do so, preferring to attack and bully into submission anyone who dares try to call them anything other than Normal, other than Correct, other than Entirely Accepted Without Question.
One would think that, if every term that uniquely identifies your movement becomes something you recognize as a slur, that that should tell you something about your movement itself. But somehow they never seem capable of this degree of introspection...
I agree fully and have thought of that. But the term "equitism" still has virtues, even if its proponents squawk. It's one word, it's a logical equivalent to egalitarianism, and it's not a familiar word (like "equity" or "inclusion" or "diversity") repurposed to mean something other than its familiar definition. "Woke," "social justice warrior," and "politically correct" all had an in-your-face vibe from their inception. "Equitism" is kind of formal and clinical. Neither a thumb in the eye nor a high-five. Just a term that adequately notes the common factor in all of those movements.
Mr. Frank anticipates my concerns. Notes how the virtue “it’s not a familiar word” is the other side of the drawback “it has no popular meaning or, a fortiori, political purchase.”
It's not a familiar word, but one can probably guess its meaning just by looking.
Holocaust studies was corrupted at the moment of its creation, before it had that name. The very creation of the category “genocide” as the crime of which the Holocaust was an instance was an establishment of a rhetorical weapon for use against Western democracies at the expense of event’s uniqueness, and when opportunity offered to use it against Israel, it was only the fulfillment of its creators’ hearts’ desire.
In due course “Holocaust studies” came into existence mostly to blame the event on the scholars’ political bugbears—nationalism, it might be, or capitalism, but never Jew-hatred: that would be too “on the nose” and not “useful.”
Holocaust museums and memorials (like the Anne Frank Center in particular), unsatisfied to memorialize an unique event with one particular target, from the beginning generated theories of generalized holocausts, so that they would stay relevant with the news: and did they ever. Although free with political advice over the years, and in particular on Israel’s shortcomings, I believe not one (other than Yad Vashem) condemned the Hamas October 7 attack.
And as to prophylaxis? It only taught, as its critics said from the beginning, that Jews are easy targets, that when push comes to shove they are helpless and nobody else cares. However true that was then, it is not true now.
“Corrosion begins in microscopic proportions” - quite true. Every healthcare worker knows the danger of getting an incurable disease from the smallest needle stick injury. The profession’s integrity is no less vulnerable to corrupt ideas.
Indeed! Another commenter reproduces and discusses a memo from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (CanMEDS)--the national credentialling entity. A key passage says, "A new model of CanMEDS would seek to centre values such as anti-oppression, anti-racism, and social justice, rather than medical expertise." As the commenter notes, what is remarkable is that this group is clearly and proudly proclaiming that medical expertise is now of secondary importance. Read the whole essay. https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/save-the-planet-kill-your-patient
Yeah, collectivism doesn't do it for your purposes, agreed. "Groupism" would be closer. But "equitism" doesn't clearly make the point either. It's part of the DIE ugliness but not all of it, and DIE is not all of the problem. However, no one word is likely to work, so I'm pondering.
BTW, Soviet collectivism did not just try to (officially) equalize across individuals. Certain groups were much targeted, such as the Kulaks. But I do appreciate your point.
That's the point I was aiming at when I said "Soviet collectivism was really radical egalitarianism, where the was the achieve equal outcomes across individuals--not across groups. (In practice, of course, the Soviets played all sorts of games with implementation.)" The Kulaks were exactly whom I was thinking of when I wrote that (as well as the nomenklatura, with their dachas). But those examples are really violations of the alleged philosophy underlying the Soviet vision. In those cases, they were really practicing equitism, and not standard collectivism. It wasn't a philosophy. Rather, it was "Our philosophy is egalitarian, but sometimes we cheat."
"In the early 20th century, eugenics was almost universally accepted by academicians, politicians, doctors, the general public, and celebrities." They Followed the Science.
You read my mind: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/blessed-skepticism “Eugenicists also believed that science is real.”
There are times when I hate reading an absolutely brilliant essay, because of what that essay is describing. This is one of those times.
Thanks, Beth. Means a lot to me.
When you published this I got the usual notice in my inbox. I put it aside to read later, but a month later I can now see that I just didn't want to read it, and my subconscious conspired to help me avoid it.
When I was in 8th grade my social studies teacher brought in a lampshade made with human skin, and soap made from people. She must have explained where they came from, but it's the physical objects I remember, the rest is forgotten.
I'm pretty sure we were all mystified by how the holocaust could happen. I'm certain that she didn't have an answer.
Turns out that the question is not "how", the question is "why". I remember going to the holocaust museum in DC, the one where you have to walk through the whole museum, I don't remember hearing a "why".
And the "why" is more terrifying than a lampshade made of human skin. Because it destroys the self-righteous "It could never happen here."
It seems obvious, once it is presented, that the holocaust had its roots in the eugenics movement. But my question is this: Have historians been aware of this linkage all along?
That's quite some memories. Some historians have been aware of the eugenics linkage, though I'm not sure how many and whether adequately.
I don't have a fabulous memory like Wilbur Wright. So the fact that I remember that means it made a real impression. But I don't think I really understood the horror.
Please excuse me for suggesting that the eugenics linkage could be the subject for a good book.
If that's a hint, I'll pass. It deserves a more patient scholar than I am. But I agree. I didn't know anything about Wilbur Wright's memory.
I wonder what it would take to find a scholar with the patience and the background to sort it out. I think it is really important.
Wilbur Wright was a unique individual. In his 30's he could remember things he'd read in 3rd grade.