By Ryan Fortune
One of the main effects of oppression is that it creates a group mentality among the oppressed group. If you’re a prisoner for any length of time, you will develop an automatic sympathy towards anyone else who has also been a prisoner.
The same goes for if you’re black, a woman, gay or Jewish.
Individuals in this group will often develop a certain shorthand – a handshake, a nod, a look, even a unique insider language – to acknowledge their common experience of persecution and signal that they can, therefore, trust each other implicitly.
The oppressor groups know this effect very well, and openly use it in order to further their nefarious agendas.
As conscious, progressive people, however, we must always remain vigilant to how it works, its twists, turns and contradictions. In order to do so, let’s look at how it’s being played out in the US political arena, by analysing the lives and careers of three prominent African-American women – Candace Owens, Kamala Harris and Karine Jean-Pierre.
Owens, once heralded as the poster child for black conservatism, has recently taken a surprising turn. Known for her staunch pro-Trump stances and critiques of Black Lives Matter, Owens has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of US support for Israel amidt its military actions in Gaza.
She has boldly labelled the actions as genocide, a stance that has put her at odds with many in her party and led to her departure from The Daily Wire, a platform that traditionally supports pro-Israel narratives. Owens has claimed that the US is being held “hostage” by Israel, suggesting that the pro-Israel lobby wields undue influence over American politics.
The shift raises eyebrows: How did a woman who built her career on right-wing conservatism become a beacon of moral integrity regarding one of the most contentious geopolitical issues of our time?
In stark contrast, Harris and Jean-Pierre embody the latest iteration of black women in high political office who perpetuate US imperialism. Harris, the vice president and Democratic presidential nominee, has been criticised for her unwavering support of Israel, often echoing American Israel Public Affairs Committee talking points about Israel’s right to defend itself, even as civilian casualties mount in Gaza.
The irony is palpable: here we have a woman of colour, positioned as a progressive leader, yet her policies align with a long history of black figures defending US military actions abroad.
And Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, further complicates the narrative. As the first openly LGBT person in her role, she represents a progressive facade that barely masks the imperialist policies of the Biden administration.
Both women are seen as inheritors of the mantle worn by figures like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – black women who have navigated the treacherous waters of US foreign policy while often siding with imperialist agendas.
This historical context begs the question: Can we trust the optics of progressive identity politics when the outcomes often mirror the very systems they claim to oppose? The reality is that identity politics can be a double-edged sword.
The notion that a woman or an LGBTQ+ individual in a position of power automatically champions progressive values is a fallacy.
Just as Margaret Thatcher wielded her femininity to further conservative agendas, so too can women like Harris and Jean-Pierre perpetuate imperialist policies.
The same can be said of LGBTQ+ individuals; Peter Thiel, for instance, is a stark reminder that sexual orientation does not dictate political ideology. As readers, we must remain vigilant against the allure of “Woke-ism” that often obscures the underlying realities of power dynamics.
The narratives constructed around figures like Harris and Jean-Pierre may be enticing, but they can also serve to mask the continuation of harmful policies. The empire will co-opt any identity to further its nefarious missions, and it is crucial to look beyond the surface to understand the implications of their actions.
In the end, the lives and careers of the three women reflect a complex interplay of identity, politics and morality. While Owens may appear to have taken a stand against imperialism, her previous alignment with right-wing ideologies raises questions about her motivations.
Conversely, Harris and Jean-Pierre’s adherence to imperialist policies, despite their progressive identities, serves as a reminder that appearances can be deceiving. The world of politics is rife with such contradictions, and as we navigate these murky waters, it is essential to remain critical and discerning.
Ryan Fortune is the CEO, Ryan Fortune Communications. For more of his writing, visit: https://ryan-fortune.company.site/
Saturday Star