Smithsonian Group Museum Engages in... White... Supremacy?

[Grimbold]

This incident did not occur in isolation. The chart's foundational ideology is popular within elite liberal circles and among the leftist intelligentsia. The idea of "whiteness" as a dominant and corrupting force is openly supported by a wide variety of institutions and organizations, ranging from universities to Black Lives Matter, to the Democratic Party and national papers like The Guardian and the New York Times. Just this week, Coca Cola is alleged to have compelled employees to undertake training urging them to "be less white", with one of slides equating "whiteness" with oppressiveness, arrogance and ignorance.

To be fair (and suspicious) the Coca Cola situation stinks of one side reinterpreting the event to fit their agenda. While the company state that they're committed to the principles of Diversion, Inclusion & Equity, they also mentioned that it was more about a case of "Here's a list of resources that you can use", amongst which counted Robin D'Angelo's presentation on Linkedin Learning. That then was repackaged by ideological adversaries as "employees being forced to learn how to be less white".

I dislike this nonsense as much as the next person, but one has to be critically fair.

As for the topic of the thread, I stopped scrolling down when I saw a video presentation by - arguably - the most famous proponent of the ideas of "Whiteness" and "White Privilege", and, obviously, critical race theory.

[Lord Thesaurian]

To be fair (and suspicious) the Coca Cola situation stinks of one side reinterpreting the event to fit their agenda. While the company state that they're committed to the principles of Diversion, Inclusion & Equity, they also mentioned that it was more about a case of "Here's a list of resources that you can use", amongst which counted Robin D'Angelo's presentation on Linkedin Learning. That then was repackaged by ideological adversaries as "employees being forced to learn how to be less white".

I dislike this nonsense as much as the next person, but one has to be critically fair.

As for the topic of the thread, I stopped scrolling down when I saw a video presentation by - arguably - the most famous proponent of the ideas of "Whiteness" and "White Privilege", and, obviously, critical race theory.

Whether Coca Cola’s denial that the training was in any way compulsory can be corroborated is yet to be confirmed. What’s certain is the company’s defense amounts to a deflection from, not a defense of, the training itself, optional or not. While I typically loathe these kinds of comparisons, the nature of the defense invites the obvious questions about “optional” trainings to discourage perceived racial characteristics of non-white groups. Explicitly anti-white “trainings” and “curricula” are more than just a double standard. They’re overtly racist. And they’re everywhere, not just at a soda company.

[Grimbold]

Whether Coca Cola’s denial that the training was in any way compulsory can be corroborated is yet to be confirmed. What’s certain is the company’s defense amounts to a deflection from, not a defense of, the training itself, optional or not. While I typically loathe these kinds of comparisons, the nature of the defense invites the obvious questions about “optional” trainings to discourage perceived racial characteristics of non-white groups. Explicitly anti-white “trainings” and “curricula” are more than just a double standard. They’re overtly racist. And they’re everywhere, not just at a soda company.

The issue is that very margin of plausibility, and it is in that space that ideologically loaded speculation thrives. The "forcing" hasn't - and likely won't be - confirmed by official sources because for all the acceptability that CRT allows for, it thrives in this nebulous line of "it's okay because we're fighting for equality", if said forcing were confirmed, then the backlash would be immense and any defense of it only would serve the hypocrisy.

So, given that question mark, I think it is equally ideologically telling for one to frame this as "framing", and only serves to undermine one's position.

On slightly different note, I'm not sure if it's related to my account or the region where I find myself, but I searched for that specific course and it wasn't available to me, or more accurately, the course has been retired.

[Cope]

To be fair (and suspicious) the Coca Cola situation stinks of one side reinterpreting the event to fit their agenda. While the company state that they're committed to the principles of Diversion, Inclusion & Equity, they also mentioned that it was more about a case of "Here's a list of resources that you can use", amongst which counted Robin D'Angelo's presentation on Linkedin Learning. That then was repackaged by ideological adversaries as "employees being forced to learn how to be less white".

I dislike this nonsense as much as the next person, but one has to be critically fair.

As for the topic of the thread, I stopped scrolling down when I saw a video presentation by - arguably - the most famous proponent of the ideas of "Whiteness" and "White Privilege", and, obviously, critical race theory.

Coca Cola's response speaks for itself: the company neither apologized for, nor denounced, the openly racist "resource" which they had been encouraging their staff to use. The incident points to the normalization of anti-white paranoia and resentment in the US (which has become a bedrock of liberal and leftist thought).

[Grimbold]

Coca Cola's response speaks for itself: the company neither apologized for, nor denounced, the openly racist "resource" which they had been encouraging their staff to use. The incident points to the normalization of anti-white paranoia and resentment in the US (which has become a bedrock of liberal and leftist thought).

Good point. It's merely another case, amongst many, of "replace white with X" and there'd be an uproar.

This is an issue I tend to clash with proponents of this subject, because I despise the sense of moral and intelectual superiority inherent to this theory.

With each passing day, I grow convinced that the extreme right - despite the repugnant ideology that it represents and its translation into loss of life - is being weaponized as a smoke screen. Critics of the above theory are mocked and criticized for focusing on the wrong target because, after all, "The far right actually kills people!!", and we're meant to rally under that fight while ignoring how pervasive CRT's influence is and has grown.

So the far-right stormed the capitol, meanwhile public and private institutions who are committed to a worthy cause, bring on board academics turned consultants who then reshape legislations, codes of conduct or what have you, along their theoretical paradigms.

Speaking of academics turned consultants, I find it very ironic that proponents or fans of those IDW personalities were mocked and criticized because the latter were nothing more than conmen peddling entry level philosophy and self-help, trying to score a quick buck by pushing what to them were false narratives.

What is it that we call Robin D'Angelo and the like?

[The spartan]

The incident points to the normalization of anti-white paranoia and resentment in the US (which has become a bedrock of liberal and leftist thought).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cope]

I thought it was clear that I’d prefer liberals to stop thinking so obsessively about white people and/or “whiteness”.

[numerosdecimus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The thing is that, when an opposition to leftist/woke viewpoint is made, it is not with the intention of also rationalize things from the point of view of race, or in other words, it's not about making sure with race or group get on top of the others.

The point of view that is trying to be put forward is the dangers a socio-economic narrative based on race inevitably brings, and the inevitable more violent political landscape it promotes, since we have historical precedents to prove it.

The intention behind those who oppose the leftist/woke narrative is to promote a society based on universal laws where all individual share the same rights, be they of free speech, private property rights or the right to be able to freely express oneself without suffering financial consequences in their lives and have it ruined. Currently, the concept of the rule of law is being gradually eroded, into a race based class system.

It's not about who gets on top, it's about the race based rhetoric used.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The North Thurston Public Schools in Lacey, Wash., made headlines in November when their “equity report” classified Asian-Americans along with whites instead of as “students of color.” Apparently the Asian-Americans were doing too well academically to be students of color. After what the district said was “an overwhelming public response,” it admitted its “category choices” had “racist implications” and dropped the equity report from its website.

To normal Americans, it makes no sense. How are Asian-Americans not “people of color”? But give the North Thurston folks credit for following progressive logic to its conclusion. Modern progressive theory more or less divides the nation between the oppressors, defined as whites, and the oppressed, defined as everyone else. In this framework, achieving success puts you on the side of the oppressors and thus makes you white or “white-adjacent”—even if your family came from China or India.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wok...th-11614035596

WSJ has recently featured a compelling series on the normalization of mediocrity in American society, of which this brief piece appears to be a member. I mentioned earlier the campaign to undermine and dismantle standards in place of addressing undesirable outcomes, and how the “whiteness” narrative is part and parcel of that effort. It’s a narrative not merely used against white people, but against anyone, to enforce political conformity, and race is always at the forefront of the paradigm. To achieve this, race and ethnicity take on a necessarily political context. Terms like “white/brown privilege, allyship, race/class traitor, systemic racism, critical race theory, etc” may seem like concoctions of new or recent sociopolitical thought in society, and ostensibly aim to challenge harmful norms and promote “equality” and “inclusion.”

However, as I mentioned earlier, this repackaging of ordinary political radicalism as a form of benign academic theory or social justice belies its longstanding and deliberate objectives. One is either a member of the white oppressor race, the oppressed race of “people of color,” or aligned with one or the other. As the above article laments, something as simple as material success or independent thought can place anyone, even a member of the “oppressed POC” in league with the white oppressors. Only through correct political thought and expression can one achieve authentic identity. If it sounds familiar, that’s because it is.

More than forty years ago the Combahee River Collective (CRC), a Black lesbian feminist social- ist group in Boston, coined the term “identity politics.” For much of those forty years, it was largely forgotten that identity politics arose as a variety of Marxist politics. Instead, identity politics appeared to us as the ruination of all universal political proj- ects, whether these were to be conducted in the name of the citizen, the proletariat or the human. But both to celebrate identity for its subversion of homogeneity and to lament its corrosion of soli- darity is to reduce identity to difference. For Mao, on the contrary, identity had the dual aspects of particularity and totality, and indeed is the very name for the contradictory relationship that unites them. Mao’s dialectical sense of identity, I will argue here, was also the CRC’s. The CRC’s 1977 statement in which this first use of “identity poli- tics” appeared can be read as a document of US Maoism, registering the moment of the latter’s passing from a phase of a strategic politics to an ideological politics.

The CRC reasoned that since the oppression experienced by Black women was not of one kind but several—they mention specifically racial, sexual (by which they meant what we would now call gender), heterosexual and class oppression— reflection on personal experience would be a means for generating a future theory of how multiple oppressions “interlock” in the “synthesis” that “cre- ate[d] the conditions of our lives” (Taylor 2017: 15). In the Third World revolu- tionary nationalist context of the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, “Black” was understood to be synonymous with “Third World.”3 As such, Black femi- nism was the proposed “logical political movement to combat the simultane- ous oppressions that all women of color face”

Though Mao is not explicitly named, the CRC’s mention of “criticism and self-criticism as an essential aspect of our practice” would have been rec- ognized by readers at the time as an obvious allusion to him. Nor would such an allusion have been exceptional. In alluding to Mao, CRC would have been using a rhetoric common to 70s US feminism many strands of which, far beyond “hard Maoist” circles, drew inspiration from the Chinese communist revolution that subjective work was a primary precondition of wider social transformation. The historiography of the Second Wave has made note of Chinese communist inspirations for 70s feminism’s practice of conscious- ness raising and the idea that personal is political (Echols 1989; Lieberman 1991; Van Houten 2015).13 Meanwhile, scholars of Black Power are taking an interest in the Black Panthers’ uses of the Little Red Book and the travels of several US Black revolutionaries to Mao’s China (see Wu 2013; Mullen 2014; Frazier 2015). Strangely, least researched is global Maoism’s uptake by US Third World feminism even though, arguably, it was in this sector of US social movements that Maoist ideas took deepest root and through which it had the widest theoretical impact (cf. Chow 1993: 10–20; Ross 2005).

Reading the CRC statement in light of (their reading of ) Mao, we can see how identity held out the practical prospect of unity, as a way of linking particularity to totality. As Mao wrote: “It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other hand, they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and inter- dependent, and this character is described as identity” (Mao 1937: 338). Fur- thermore, when we read the CRC statement in light of Mao, we can discern more clearly its Janus-facing historical quality, as a stepping stone or switch point between the New Communism of the early 1970s and the Critical Race Theory of the late 1980s. Traces of the strategic temporality of Beale’s use of contradiction are still present in the CRC statement where “criticism and self-criticism” is offered as the road to revolution. But also present is the pre- sentiment of a process of social change so protracted that the “lifetime of work and struggle” it requires may be historically unnarratable, stranding us at Crenshaw’s violent crossroads where collide “manifold and simultaneous oppressions.” More than ever, the truth value of multiple oppressions’ tem- poral simultaneity in the realm of experience calls for something more than the reflective realism of intersectionality’s analytical simultaneity—though what that is has not yet been born.

https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-at...Self-Criticism

[Muizer]

The intention behind those who oppose the leftist/woke narrative is to promote a society based on universal laws where all individual share the same rights, be they of free speech, private property rights or the right to be able to freely express oneself without suffering financial consequences in their lives and have it ruined.

The problem with this is that more often than not people employing this argument seem to be making the tacit assumption that society as it is already embodies this ideal sufficiently. They do not make it as a call to action, but as an argument to defend the status quo. Those leftist ideologues are trying, in their way, to pinpoint the cause of and possible solutions for a problem. If opponents are content to just dismiss this without offering alternatives then we have to conclude they either don't recognize there's a problem at all, or they're not interested in solving it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The problem with this is that more often than not people employing this argument seem to be making the tacit assumption that society as it is already embodies this ideal sufficiently. They do not make it as a call to action, but as an argument to defend the status quo. Those leftist ideologues are trying, in their way, to pinpoint the cause of and possible solutions for a problem. If opponents are content to just dismiss this without offering alternatives then we have to conclude they either don't recognize there's a problem at all, or they're not interested in solving it.

The problem with this is that more often than not people employing this argument seem to be making the tacit assumption those leftist ideologues are interested in identifying and solving problems in the first place. If these leftist ideologues are content to dismiss critiques of their analyses and alternatives to their alleged solutions, we have to conclude they either don’t recognize the problems of their own making, or they’re not actually interested in solving the problems they claim to analyze.

[numerosdecimus]

I can understand your point of view Muizer, but in my opinion I think Legio_Italica wrote a more accurate view of the current political environment and the general attitude adopted by the left/woke crowd when dealing with concepts and ideas that oppose them.

[Muizer]

The problem with this is that more often than not people employing this argument seem to be making the tacit assumption those leftist ideologues are interested in identifying and solving problems in the first place. If these leftist ideologues are content to dismiss critiques of their analyses and alternatives to their alleged solutions, we have to conclude they either don’t recognize the problems of their own making, or they’re not actually interested in solving the problems they claim to analyze.

I think you sacrificed logic for style there. I am making just one basic assumption: there is a real problem that the 'universal rights' are not fully embodied by society. Nothing new. It's been that way since they were formulated.
The leftist ideologues under consideration here have come up with a way of framing that problem that enables a more aggressive, confrontational style of politics. To critique that is absolutely fine and I actually agree with a lot of that critique. But a caveat is in order. Someone who argues against a proposed way to deal with an issue, but does not provide an alternative, or even acknowledges the problem exists is de facto arguing in favour of the status quo. And I say that when people do so habitually, they are well aware of this and that is their intent. And finally, circling back, if that is what they do, then they cannot be sincere about those 'universal rights' either.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think you sacrificed logic for style there. I am making just one basic assumption: there is a real problem that the 'universal rights' are not fully embodied by society. Nothing new. It's been that way since they were formulated.
The leftist ideologues under consideration here have come up with a way of framing that problem that enables a more aggressive, confrontational style of politics. To critique that is absolutely fine and I actually agree with a lot of that critique. But a caveat is in order. Someone who argues against a proposed way to deal with an issue, but does not provide an alternative, or even acknowledges the problem exists is de facto arguing in favour of the status quo. And I say that when people do so habitually, they are well aware of this and that is their intent. And finally, circling back, if that is what they do, then they cannot be sincere about those 'universal rights' either.

I merely pointed out the “flaw” you’re attempting to address in the alleged logic of certain ideological camps relies on unfalsifiable premises that can be applied in either direction, and therefore your critique doesn’t offer anything meaningful to the discussion.

[The spartan]

I thought it was clear that I’d prefer liberals to stop thinking so obsessively about white people and/or “whiteness”.

Oh, I agree, I would love for everyone to stop so obsessively thinking about white people/whiteness. Not sure why that implies "liberals" are the ones stoking the obsession; I have seen lots of non-liberals obsesses over race, "whiteness" in particular. I should also say, as an actual liberal, the goal is very much deemphasizing of race as any important with equality under law, which often puts us at ends with the more intense supporters of Critical Race Theory.

I was more getting at your implication that this incident alludes to a more substantive problem for "white" people in US society. I can assure you, my "whiteness" feels safe and comfy from those rabid, anti-"white" leftists here in the states.

The thing is that, when an opposition to leftist/woke viewpoint is made, it is not with the intention of also rationalize things from the point of view of race, or in other words, it's not about making sure with race or group get on top of the others.

That depends on who is voicing the opposition, doesn't it? There are certainly those who do view people in racial groups and view those groups as operating competitively.

The point of view that is trying to be put forward is the dangers a socio-economic narrative based on race inevitably brings, and the inevitable more violent political landscape it promotes, since we have historical precedents to prove it.

Unfortunately for US history, socio-economic narratives have been baked into racial groups historically. Complaining about the "dangers" of discussing the effects of that historical, very much socio-economic, narrative seems like a 2nd concern to addressing those issues in the first place.

The intention behind those who oppose the leftist/woke narrative is to promote a society based on universal laws where all individual share the same rights, be they of free speech, private property rights or the right to be able to freely express oneself without suffering financial consequences in their lives and have it ruined.

I mean, see above, the intention of any particular person's for opposing a narrative varies. That sure does sound like a well PRed intention, right there. I don't think any significant number of people actually takes the underlined bit seriously; else see what happens if someone wheels out a non-offending, open-and-out pedophile. Or does freely expressing yourself without consequence only apply to expressions you agree with?

Currently, the concept of the rule of law is being gradually eroded, into a race based class system.

Forgive me, there is a screen between us, I can't tell if you typed this bit with a straight face or not.

It's not about who gets on top, it's about the race based rhetoric used.

I agree that it shouldn't be about who's on top, but what is being argued is that's how it has been with the effects still being felt in current society. I would also agree that there are actors who race bait on this issues way too hard, but let's not pretend that race is currently irrelevant in US society.

[Cope]

Oh, I agree, I would love for everyone to stop so obsessively thinking about white people/whiteness. Not sure why that implies "liberals" are the ones stoking the obsession; I have seen lots of non-liberals obsesses over race, "whiteness" in particular.

The only other people who persistently emphasize "whiteness" (and agree with the Smithsonian that industriousness, forward planning, rationality, literary traditions etc are unique aspects of "white culture") are white supremacists.

I should also say, as an actual liberal, the goal is very much deemphasizing of race as any important with equality under law, which often puts us at ends with the more intense supporters of Critical Race Theory.

Colour blindness is racism. That's the new* liberal orthodoxy. Even mainstream television networks are indoctrinating children to believe it. I don't think you appreciate just how dominate the CRT/Neo-Marxist factions are within elite liberal circles and the left-wing "intelligentsia" (which successfully colonized large swathes of academia years ago).

*Leftist "academics" have been promoting the idea for decades.

[The spartan]

The only other people who persistently emphasize "whiteness" (and agree with the Smithsonian that industriousness, forward planning, rationality, literary traditions etc are unique aspects of "white culture") are white supremacists.

Dunno if you are serious or not: plenty of Americans are worried about "whiteness" in the US without being, what we would typically call, white supremacists. My relatives are this way; I wouldn't call them "white supremacists", but they think that "whites" losing ethnic majority in the US would be a bad thing. For a bunch of different reasons, I am sure.

Colour blindness is racism. That's the new* liberal orthodoxy. Even mainstream television networks are indoctrinating children to believe it. I don't think you appreciate just how dominate the CRT/Neo-Marxist factions are within elite liberal circles and the left-wing "intelligentsia" (which successfully colonized large swathes of academia years ago).

Man, these sure are good soundbites. You could, of course, reframe what you have said to sound way more reasonable, such as trying to ignore the historical effects of official and unofficial racial prejudice in the US can be understood as racism. I am not particularly on board with what you claim is "liberal orthodoxy" given your potential motives for doing so (as well as unironic use of the word "orthodxy"). I mean come on, dude, teaching about race in the US is a form of "indoctrination" in children? Is Sesame Street "indoctrinating" children to be socialists when they produce an episode on sharing? You are just trying to paint as hard as you can with as negative as an interpretation as possible when discussing this topic. Fight the good optics fight, it was interesting to read your posts on the capitol riot.

*Leftist "academics" have been promoting the idea for decades.

They have apparently been anarcho-commies for going on five decades now, yet still they seem to endure.

[Cope]

Dunno if you are serious or not: plenty of Americans are worried about "whiteness" in the US without being, what we would typically call, white supremacists. My relatives are this way; I wouldn't call them "white supremacists", but they think that "whites" losing ethnic majority in the US would be a bad thing. For a bunch of different reasons, I am sure.

Being cognizant of race in specific contexts (i.e. discussions about rapidly changing demographics) is not synonymous with “persistently emphasizing whiteness”. There's a reason why CRT/Neo-Marixst activists claim that white-Americans don't think about race enough.

Man, these sure are good soundbites.

The claim that colour blindness is racist is not my soundbite; it is the standard CRT position.

You could, of course, reframe what you have said to sound way more reasonable, such as trying to ignore the historical effects of official and unofficial racial prejudice in the US can be understood as racism.

The cartoon (which is but a single example of racial propagandizing) attempts to emphasize the importance of race; two posts ago, you stated that as an “actual liberal” your objective was to do the opposite (“deemphasize race”).

I am not particularly on board with what you claim is "liberal orthodoxy" given your potential motives for doing so (as well as unironic use of the word "orthodxy").

Interesting that you claim the cartoon’s message is appropriate, but go on to argue that it cannot be part of the liberal orthodoxy because of my alleged corrupt motives* in claiming it to be part of the liberal orthodoxy.

*asserted without evidence.

On the semantic point:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I mean come on, dude, teaching about race in the US is a form of "indoctrination" in children?

Broadcasting CRT propaganda to children is indoctrination.

Is Sesame Street "indoctrinating" children to be socialists when they produce an episode on sharing?

First, socialism does not have anything approaching a monopoly on the concept of sharing. It would be bizarre to immediately associate a lesson on sharing with socialism (unless, of course, you were leftist ideologue).

Second, the cartoon in question - unlike your comparison - is explicit in its purpose. If Sesame Street produced an episode openly criticizing capitalism and demanding that industry be brought into public ownership, that would be analogous to the CN cartoon.

You are just trying to paint as hard as you can with as negative as an interpretation as possible when discussing this topic. Fight the good optics fight, it was interesting to read your posts on the capitol riot.

There are only two elements of that discussion which could be relevant here:

1. The liberal conspiracy that the Capitol Police had facilitated the riot due to their alleged white supremacist sympathies (a narrative which conveniently disappeared after it was learned that two-dozen officers were wounded, one potentially fatally, during the defence).

2. The liberal establishment’s open hypocrisy in minimizing months of “mostly peaceful” rioting over the summer only to react histrionically to the 1/6 “insurrection”.

They have apparently been anarcho-commies for going on five decades now, yet still they seem to endure.

Flippancy won’t change reality. The leftist takeover over the humanities didn't happen overnight. As mentioned previously, none of this is actually new: the Smithsonian chart (which constitutes the primary topic of this thread) was borrowed from a forty-year-old CRT "anti-racist" handbook.

[Infidel144]

The claim that colour blindness is racist is not my soundbite; it is the standard CRT position.

"For a lot of people their race is really important to them. It is a really important mark of their identity. And for you to be like that doesn't exist you're telling them they don't exist in some ways."

First, socialism does not have anything approaching a monopoly on the concept of sharing. It would be bizarre to immediately associate a lesson on sharing with socialism (unless, of course, you were leftist ideologue).

Indeed, socialism is not sharing, as sharing is not compelled. Leftist ideologues necessarily attempt to conflate the two...

There are only two elements of that discussion which could be relevant here:

1. The liberal conspiracy that the Capitol Police had facilitated the riot due to their alleged white supremacist sympathies (a narrative which conveniently disappeared after it was learned that two-dozen officers were wounded, one potentially fatally, during the defence).

Sicknick, it seems, was not actually injured at the riot. The NYT has had to modify its' initial assertions on the matter.

[Grimbold]

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whi...uIKSljF7_VTKts

This led to an occurrence of the double standard I've come to repudiate and yet expect from some individuals.

Somewhere else, that article prompted a short lived debate. Besides its delegitimizing via accusations of bias by its author, ultimately some people dismissed the whole experience of the person in this story.
Why? In a rather pervasively reductive way, the events as she described them herself were reduced to: boohoo! look at her, all upset cause she had to redo all the work she prepared! Poor white woman became upset because she couldn't get in with the program. or This is simply a case of a white person who ran agaisnt the institution's diversity efforts and now propped up this narrative about being a victim. Boohoo

A single drop on what is - to me - an ocean of examples of intellectual inconsistency and double standards. After getting a very brief introduction to CRT, these people seem to me to be those that refuse the notion that valuable concepts like diversity or inclusion have been coopted, reinterpreted and weaponized along CRT lines. If one says that this is not diversity, the response runs along the lines of "No, this is diversity! You just have something agaisnt having people on that are not white!"

The pedestal on which these people place themselves is rather infuriating