The goal of the WALE (White and Liberal Entitled) community seems to be to divide society up into ever more specific categories. This attempt to divide is based on a hierarchy of sympathy. At the top of this hierarchy is the black, trans-gender, gay, disabled, working-class person- (I may have missed out some elements of this ever evolving system of categorisation). At the bottom is the white, middle-upper-class, heterosexual male. Between these two categories exists all of the rest of society, their positions being dependent on how many or few of the qualifying elements can be assigned to them. The aspiration to create a society where people interact with each other based on the ‘content of their character’ terrifies the WALE ‘condescenti’*. Such a society will leave them with no one to be the recipients of their sympathy. 

The WALE community claim that their motivation is to promote diversity and inclusion in all areas of society and this seems to be a reasonable aspiration. However, the practicalities of this are problematic as character, the only true definition of an individual, is omitted from the system they use to categorise humanity. Diversity of view-points are trumped by mere physical appearance. I suggest that the WALE community do not see this as a problem as they expect political view-points, character, and values to be defined by appearance. 

One cannot physically see these aspects of a person, only by engaging with someone can they be known. Thus when WALE talk of ‘diversity’, they are describing people who look different from one another, but think the same. For example, I recently heard an opinion from a WALE ‘diversity warrior’ that those who organise conferences should carefully consider the ‘diversity’ of the participants, again this seems quite reasonable. Consider, however, why participants in a conference on a particular subject could not be invited from the various strands of opinion on that subject. Surely, this would ensure genuine discussion. The WALE conference organiser does not seek true diversity which is based on diverse opinions as they regard the physical characteristics of a person, such as skin colour or gender to be the determinant of their views. This leads to the absurd situation in which a WALE person who meets someone who is not white and is not left wing, for example, regards them as not representing the right kind of diversity. To define diversity is their privilege. 

Another revealing characteristic of the condescenti can be seen in their interaction with non-white people and often disabled people. They speak to them in a similar way that adults speak to young children. They use exaggerated praise and insincere, overblown compliments. This is as a result of the ‘lesser’ individual not being capable of accepting the objective judgement they apply to their equals. Ironically, this might be described as a form of ‘unconscious bias’. How many times have you heard WALE media presenters reassuring black guests that they are “incredibly articulate, fantastic, and amazing”. WALE people should really reserve this behaviour for when they display their five year old’s art work on the fridge! 

An area of academic life where the condescenti most clearly express their sense of inherent superiority is in anthropology. When Western anthropologists want to learn about ‘developed’ societies they visit them, read the literature, examine the history and ask the people about themselves. When they want to learn about ‘developing’ societies they treat them as David Attenborough treats wildlife. They want to observe them in their ‘natural habitat’. They try to not influence the subjects’ behaviour by their presence. Can you imagine how WALE individuals would feel if African tribespeople arrived in London and wanted them to ‘carry on as if we were not here’, so that their actions could be objectively interpreted, rather than simply interacting as equals who are capable of understanding each other? 

Human history is a story of tribalism. The modern age has created the opportunity for the dissolving of tribalistic definitions and allegiances. This can be seen in many modern dynamic multi-ethnic, multi-faith, and multicultural (in the widest sense of the term) societies around the world. The WALE community’s attack on their own history requires them to exploit and encourage divisiveness and a form of modern tribalism. 

One stark example of this is in their assertion that politicians who are white cannot fairly consider legislation around ‘black issues’. I can accept that any politician, considering legislation on any issue, would be wise to hear a wide range of views from a wide range of people, particularly from outside of their immediate field of experience. However, the WALE position seeks to obscure the fact that all people are inherently connected and that most people are capable of recognising the plight of others. Take, for example, the issue of abortion; males who have a view on the subject do not live in a male vacuum. They have mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and friends. Simply not being female does not render someone unable to consider such matters any more than not owning a car removes a person from a discussion about the setting of speed limits. 

Surely, our aim should be to never consider any issue ‘off limits’ to sections of society. I cannot think of any topic in which a black person must not have a view by virtue of it being a ‘white issue’. People are capable, indeed even inclined, to want the wellbeing of others. The WALE warriors, like their right wing counterparts, are determined to divide. Overt racists are easier to deal with, as they express their true feelings and agenda. The WALE condescenti hide their sense of superiority behind a wall of ‘love’, a love which is not required, not sincere, and was not requested. If we all treat each other the same, regardless of category, we would surely find that alliances based on genuine mutual respect will follow and societies could be transformed. 

*condescenti = pseudo-intellectual

By Ajantha Ratnayaka