Passing the Parcel of Privilege

Remember the children's party game "pass the parcel"? A much-wrapped gift is passed around a circle of kids sitting on the floor; each one takes a layer of wrapping paper and ribbon off the gift and then passes it on. The person who ends up with the last layer unwraps, and "wins", the gift. S/he is usually meant to share it with the whole group (it's often a box of candy).

Are we playing the Gift of Privilege game, as adults? Who gets to be "privileged" now? It was originally (allegedly) white men, then all white people, all educated people, and eventually all races and nations were vouchsafed "equal rights" according to late-20th century western liberal-humanitarian values. 

But then, some identity groups claimed that this was only window dressing and that some groups were still more privileged than others. Black people, brown people, aboriginals, disabled people, trans-sexuals and a proliferation of other "identities" now clamoured for not equal but special rights. Equal rights were no longer an ideal, and "people" were no longer who we thought they were: they were not ethnic groups but "people of colour", not genders but "birthing persons" not women but "persons with vaginas" (though confusingly, not always ...) People were not physically or mentally handicapped but "differently abled". Then there's Non-binary people, Two-spirit people ... in short, there's no longer any "we" in "we the people".

This Pass the Parcel of Privilege game is the new infantilization, and it's gotten out of hand, as children's games tend to. Children start by agreeing to rules but end up howling "that's not fair" when they don't perceive themselves as winning. Now that attitude has invaded the world of universities (that speaker can't speak here), of government and corporate offices (follow DEI or your DEAD to this employer), and of media (take a look at current Submissions Guidelines of book publishers and magazines). The rules of academic, professional, public and media activities are in constant flux, depending on which participant howls "not fair" the loudest this week.

Remember when some decided that literacy and the existence of the "literati" was elitist? Elitist (from the French) simply means "chosen". Society's always going to make, and disagree about, choices. At present we've chosen a new elite army for the Culture Wars. These are the troops of the culture-cancelati. It looks like this uncivil war will be a long one. The fact that it will soon be fought by out of control Artificial Intelligence will only increase the casualty rate among independent-minded liberal-democratic classically-educated humanitarians.

Combatting Systemic Erase-ism

How can the past be future-proofed, if Systemic Erase-ism blanks it out for current and future generations? Erase-ism doesn't see history as a series of events that have happened, but as an assault on the sensibilities of some people in the present. It re-shapes history as parable ("fictitious narrative or allegory") in defense of dominant attitudes of the present. Once it becomes a creature of ideological opinion-shaping, History as a subject is no longer a scholarly discipline but a branch of identity politics. 

The problem is not only that new parables are written to suit contemporary tastes (every generation does that), but that actual historical evidence in the form of documents, memorial sites, graves, archaeological remains, architecture, letters and memoirs are being erased and destroyed.

In every generation, knowledge of the past must survive depredations of the present. If we (the present) suppress parts of our past story considered discriminatory or "unsafe" for some (e.g. "privileged, dominant, colonialist, white, elitist, etc. ...), what will we be leaving descendants and future scholars? The future, where scholarship is concerned, will be blank.

How is this erase-ism accomplished? With displays of diversity-equity. This takes forms we have become used to: statue destruction, vandalism of buildings, removal of inconvenient documents from public archives and libraries, name changes of cities, streets, schools and universities.

This process is common when one regime or zeitgeist replaces another. It can change names and streetscapes, but not the actual facts of what happened in the past, because the past cannot unhappen. It can be unknown however, to an ignorant populace. This is engineered ignorance.

Removing statues of early explorers, politicians, inventors and philanthropists in Canada doesn't remove the fact of their having been nation-shapers. Changing the name of Ryerson University (for example) to Toronto Metropolitan University, doesn't change the fact that Egerton Ryerson the person had enormous effect on Canadian literacy, education, journalism and free speech. It can only erase public knowledge of the fact.

In the past, churches and polite taste muzzled certain expressions of speech, but speech was loosened up during the 20th century -- only to be re-muzzled today. Today we suppress not profanity but ideas that others say make them feel marginalized. 

Now, scholars with a different take on history than the ideologically correct one are banned from campuses (exactly the arena where they would be speaking, in an open society). It only needs someone to call their theories "hate" for them to be sent the way of statues: de-platformed. 

Next, editors of mainstream media accept submissions only from "disadvantaged" groups. Festivals, conferences and theatres only receive funding if they demonstrate the right kind of "diversity" (i.e. non-diversity). We live in paradoxical times. 

Thought can be erased before it even finds expression -- through self-censorship.  This is about freedom of speech, debate and analysis among citizens, academics, writers, bureaucrats and officials. Only if we preserve open expression can the past and present be held proof against future erase-ism.

“If we lose our freedom, it will not be because of invasion from without, but erosion from within; not because of autocratic dictators looking to do bad, but parochial bureaucrats seeking to do good.”
                     — Alan Borovoy, Canadian Civil Liberties Association