This is an interesting set of observations but I'm going to argue with you on a few things.Firstly, nobody gets giddy about Steve QJ, okay... maybe a bit, but that's because when your world view reads 'only people of a certain skin colour can discuss an issue' - your best bet is to point them at someone with that skin colour. It breaks people out of the idea that there's a homogeny of views across a set of arbitrary characteristics like skin colour
If you think Steve QJ is wrong about racism being a both sides issues stripped of power analysis, then you take that up with him. He'll defend his views because he's reflected very deeply about them. if you can't hold him accountable because your own world view means you dare not question a black guy - that's on you.I care very deeply about equity and equality and I think the current style of discourse is actually harmful to BIPOC overall. There are a certain minority of BIPOC who will get very wealthy and powerful off the back of the current agenda, but the conflation of middle class BIPOC with working class BIPOC is a grevious error that any demagogue can drive a truck through. That is what happened in 2016 and what will happen again. You can find a more nuanced version of that argument here.https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/what-we-all-lose-when-society-plays-identity-politics-397dcb896d5b
I'm not neutral - I'm anti-identity politics. This is often interpreted as being racist - which it isn't. You want to genuinely make the world a better place, consider the wider implications of your arguments. You're currently arguing for a rebalancing of the narrative which would include race prejudice. It's not that I disagree with you - you can write all white people are terrible human beings and oppressive - it's just an unhelpful assertion because focussing on skin colour to resolve the problem of focussing on skin colour is retrograde.
What most people want is to be on the 'good side' - and this is likely the camp you fit into. It's good to be anti-racist, because racist is bad. It's not a huge logical jump to then broaden the definition of racism to include more and more things. This is how ideological creep occurs. Eventually, rather than focussing on how we can move people from poverty and elevate them from financial suffering, we debate whether soap dispensers in college are racist.
As a general rule - I'm strongly against binary thinking which is often articulated against writers who don't toe the line. If you're not 100% with us, and we're the good guys - then you must be 100% against us - and the villain. The article underneath this one is called 'Free Palestine' - which demonstrates very clearly a commitment to being seen to be on the right side of history and is very much on point for a progressive looking for a pat on the head.
As always, it's much easier to write things like this, something cut and dry your peer group will agree with - than explore the sheer complexity of the Israel/Palestine situation and produce a cogent centre ground argument that is nuanced and gives equal consideration to both sides. The world is more complicated than you give it credit for.
