The Great Semantic Muddle: Is Complaining About Anti-White Racism "Woke"?

In the current cultural landscape, words change meanings faster than we can update our dictionaries. Two of the most volatile phrases in our modern lexicon are "woke" and "anti-white racism." Lately, a strange new question has begun to circulate in political and social circles: Is complaining about anti-white racism actually a form of, "wokeness"?

At first glance, the question sounds like a paradox. After all, the term "woke" is most commonly used by the right to criticize the left’s focus on identity politics. However, as the "culture war" evolves, the lines are blurring. To answer this question, we have to look at how we define our terms and what we believe the 'rules' of identity politics should be. 

The fallible part of this problem is of course, is the notion that skin tone provides a person with an identity that differs, even greatly, to others. These can even be slight differences in skin tone, and correspond to an arrogant form of social demand.


Defining the Terms

To make sense of this, we first have to define, "woke". We could be cynical here because it has already been widely defined.

• Original meaning: To be 'awake' to systemic racial prejudice and social injustice.
• Modern pejorative meaning: A hyper-focus on identity, grievance culture, and the idea that all social interactions are power struggles between groups.

Then, we have, "anti-White racism".

• To some: This refers to specific instances of prejudice or policy (like certain types of affirmative action) that disadvantage white individuals based on their race.
• To others: This is a logical impossibility because they define racism as "prejudice plus power," arguing that in Western societies, white people hold the systemic power.

The Argument for "Yes": It’s Identity Politics by Another Name

The strongest argument that complaining about anti-white racism is "woke" relies on the idea that identity politics is a circle.

In this view, "wokeness", is characterised by viewing the world through the lens of group identity rather than individual merit. Ironically, social demand views the world by differing skin tones, rather than individual merit, and often, the reason for this demand is to feel safe and powerful as part of a perceived majority grouping.

On the topic of wokeness, if a person spends their time tallying up grievances based on their skin colour, demanding representation for their specific race, and viewing social progress as a zero-sum game between racial groups, they are using the 'woke' playbook—even if the race they are defining and defending is the majority in a shared social construct.

Critics of this, "White grievance", suggest it adopts the same language of victimhood that the right-wing in politics, usually mocks. When people argue that, "White culture", is under attack or that White people are a marginalised group (such as in the arguments of Tommy Robinson), they are operating within the framework of identity-based social justice. From this perspective, it doesn’t matter which race you are championing; the act of prioritising race above all else is the essence of wokeness.


The Argument for "No": It’s a Reaction to Wokeness

On the other hand, most people who complain about anti-White racism see themselves as the anti-thesis of woke.

Their argument is usually rooted in universalism or presenting themselves as not acknowledging differences in skin colour in a divisive way. They argue that the 'woke' movement has created a double standard where it is acceptable—even encouraged—to disparage White people in media, academia, and corporate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) sessions.

To these individuals, pointing out anti-White sentiment isn't, "woke identity politics"; it’s a plea to return to a standard where no one is judged by their race. They argue that if, "racism is wrong", it should be wrong across the board, regardless of the target. In this context, complaining about anti-White racism is seen as a defensive move to stop the pendulum of identity politics from swinging too far in the one direction.


The "Identitarian" Shift

We are currently witnessing a shift in many of the political right-wing entities. For decades, the conservative response to racial politics was, "I don't see colour; I see individuals". However, a newer faction of the right has abandoned this viewpoint in favour of, "right-wing identitarianism".

This groupings often argue that if the left is going to play the game of identity politics, the right must play it too—and play it for their own, "team." If this becomes the dominant mode of thinking, then complaining about anti-White racism does indeed become a mirror image of wokeness: a world defined by tribalism, group loyalty, and a competition for who can be the biggest victim.


The Bottom Line

So, is it woke?

• If by 'woke', you mean the act of using racial identity as a primary political tool and source of grievance, then yes—complaining about anti-White racism can be seen as, "White wokeness".
• If by 'woke', you mean the specific movement(s) aimed at dismantling traditional power structures, then no—complaining about anti-White racism is a direct challenge to that movement. 

However, Tommy Robinson and Unite the Kingdom, contradict this. They aim to dismantle traditional power structures.

Furthermore, Steve Bannon once said that if the Democrats in the USA continue to be focussed on identity politics, the right-wing could crush them. Now though, ironically, right-wing groupings may be somewhat obsessed with identity politics themselves.

Ultimately, the debate about wokeness reveals a deeper tension in our society. Are we trying to move toward a world where perceived race doesn't matter, or are we moving toward a world where everyone is required to pick a side based on the colour of their skin?

If it’s the latter, then we might all end up being accused of being 'woke' at some point or another—just on different sides of the aisle, and the constructs in demand.