I agree Woke is not a good description because its a word that already has a different meaning and history. I think its because both the original Woke and todays use of it had the same principle, to be aware of injustices but todays Woke is based on certain assumptions about how that systemic injustice works and how we can reorder society to make it equal.
Woke is actually a braod term for all the aspects of Woke like PC, cancel culture and identity politics and the rise of these can be specifically traced back to Critical Race, Queer and Social Justice theoy. It has its own language, meaning and morality. We can clearly identify this through laws and plicies in our institutions and organisations.
If you have not studies how this movement has evolved and infiltrated modern society then you will see this as some sort of conspiract theory or unfounded. But its not and the evdience is there.
Maybe we can change the name and call it something like identity politics or PC as it use to be called. Its just that its morphed into so many aspects and keeps changing all the time so its hard to determine it by just PC or identity politics. Thats why religion fits so well because it is all inclusive of a worldview, how we see the world and reality.
You're using words like "infiltrate".
Allow me to provide a different perspective: People are becoming aware of how there are some deeply embedded problems in the general narratives of how we have spoken about one another, how we have treated one another. At a systematic level.
It's one thing to say "Racism bad", it's another thing altogether to ask, how did we get here where this thing called "racism" exists. And it's not as simple as "people have always been prejudiced". Well, yeah, there have always been prejudices, but why these specific prejudices. Where did this idea of "white" come from? It didn't exist a thousand years ago, if you went back a thousand years in Europe you won't find "whiteness", you won't find these clear boundaries of "race". People recognized differences, an Ethiopian was dark, for example, and the term "black" could be used. People recognized that there were tribes, nations (ethnicities), and the term "race" could be applied to ethnic groups. But when we look at the history of race and racism, in the context of American history, or in the broader context of Western European history going back a few centuries, we see emerging ideas, emerging concepts. The ways in which dominant peoples excused suppressing, dominating, and subjugating other peoples.
Why, for example, in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church, Catholic organizations (e.g. the Jesuits), condemn mistreatment of indigenous people and advocate for indigenous rights; and even the Spanish crown (for example) employing laws which condemned colonial mistreatment of indigenous people--and yet we still have that subjugation of indigenous people by colonizers? And how have ideas and systems, beginning with colonization, which mistreated native populations, resulted in the shaping of the history of colonial powers.
How did America, beginning as a series of British colonies, come to behave the way it did--at a hierarchal and systematic way--in the mistreatment of certain persons? Why did post-colonial America find forced removal of native populations, and even the systematic murder (genocide) of indigenous American peoples something excusable?
That's where "Critical Race Theory" comes into play: Studying the history, taking a critical look, at the how these things came to be, how it happened. How has "whiteness" as an idea evolved, in the colonial and post-colonial world. Why did, for example, Americans in the mid-19th century regard Irish Catholics (for example) as a racially inferior group. The Irish were not "white", even though, obviously, indigenous Irish people are fair-skinned--it was a lot more than just skin color. So a critical analysis of "whiteness" a critical analysis of "race", and how these--and many other things--have emerged, developed, and affected society not just at the bottom, but at systemic levels are valuable questions to pursue.
If we want to understand why things are as they are, and if we say "being racist is bad", well why is there is this "racism" thing in the first place? Why is there this way of talking about "white people" as opposed to "black people" a thing? How have these concepts of "white" and "black" played a role in the history of the United States? What assumptions have we, because we are living in the culture, simply grown up with uncritically, just accepting as "the way things are".
And then, ask yourself, why are there so many people mad at asking these questions? Why is there such a concerted effort to stomp out honest inquiry, to stomp out the asking of questions, why is the pursuit of critical historical analysis something being so deeply opposed by certain people in power?
Now ask yourself this, if "woke" means becoming aware of the deep and systematic problems of racial injustice; and if "woke" people want to dig deeper, below the surface, to understand history and seeking a critical analysis of this--why are these same people so opposed to genuine, sincere inquiry and the pursuit of understanding wanting to demean, attack, ridicule, and demonize "woke"?
What do you think might be their motivations? What could people in power gain by silencing criticism and inquiry? And if you ask yourself that, and if you are honest with yourself about that, then you'll probably end up becoming "woke" yourself.
Because when people in power have their power challenged the best way to deflect criticism and investigation is to point the finger at a group, and say "those people are dangerous". And if you think that's a far-fetched idea, then perhaps you should spend more time reading history books.
Want to know a famous example of that happening? Just look at the first state-sponsored persecution of Christians under Nero. That's exactly what happened. Nero was hated, despised, how did Nero deflect? He pointed the finger at a new minority religious group: Christians. When Rome burned, he blamed the fire on us; and then he had us put to death, he had us hung on crosses, he had the Apostle Paul beheaded, he had St. Peter crucified, he took us and covered us in tar and lit us on fire to light his imperial gardens.
More recently, just look at the Nazis, and all the different people they scapegoated, especially the Jews, resulting in the extermination of over 6 million Jewish men, women, and children. But also who else did they scapegoat? Communists, socialists, Roma, the handicapped, homosexuals, religious minorities, and anyone who dared to question and speak out against them.
And if you think, "Well, America isn't Nero's Rome or Hitler's Germany", then you're not paying attention to history, nor learning the lessons thereof. Because "
It can't happen here" is ignorance of the dangers which we have seen happen again and again.
Want to understand "woke", then understand this: It could happen here, unless we are vigilant. Otherwise, "When fascism comes to America it will come carrying the flag and a cross".
-CryptoLutheran
