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

[Muizer]

Let’s take the second section of the list.

Why then, do anti racist groups usually position themselves as wanting to abolish the nuclear family and stable family structures? It’s because the family is whiteness, and whiteness must be abolished to defeat racism.

No. It is an observation that this nuclear family is not a universal 'truth', but a cultural phenomenon prevalent in western society.

I wonder if your stance is comparable to the one expressed in this polish election image



The 'nulear family' that is (and needs to be) protected by the PiS from the lhbtq community.

Where the message obviously is not that Poland will be subjugated by a tide of lhbtq people or that nuclear families will be a thing of the past, but rather that the morality of the traditional family to the exclusion of all other forms must be defended as a universal truth and that as such even co-existing with a small minority that doesn't subscribe to that is an existential threat.


Is that how I must read these allusions to the 'desctruction of whiteness'? Not so much as a threat of disappearance if anything 'typically white' (whatever that may be), but as disappearance of the unquestioned dominance to the exclusion of everything else (whatever that may be) ?

[Infidel144]

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

[Aexodus]

Never seen anyone wanting to abolish the nuclear and stable family structure. You're just making stuff up to keep this narrative alive.

What the hell are you talking about now? You want to include everything that seems bad to you (antiracism, lgtbi rights, etc) in a single group?

For example, you have Black Lives Matter. There is also a wealth of academic literature identifying two parent families as racist and white, such as the National Museum of African American History.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Note the language used, such as ‘comrades’, ‘the state’, ‘dismantle cisgender privilege’, themes of male centred spaces, social communes, and liberation theology.

This, and what Smithsonian institute is talking about, has nothing to do with racism.

[Mithradates]

Where the message obviously is not that Poland will be subjugated by a tide of lhbtq people or that nuclear families will be a thing of the past, but rather that the morality of the traditional family to the exclusion of all other forms must be defended as a universal truth and that as such even co-existing with a small minority that doesn't subscribe to that is an existential threat

Well, judging by whats happening in the US and the UK...

[PointOfViewGun]

For example, you have Black Lives Matter. There is also a wealth of academic literature identifying two parent families as racist and white, such as the National Museum of African American History.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
Note the language used, such as ‘comrades’, ‘the state’, ‘dismantle cisgender privilege’, themes of male centred spaces, social communes, and liberation theology.
This, and what Smithsonian institute is talking about, has nothing to do with racism.

Nothing in that quote suggests that BLM wants to abolish the nuclear family. They merely want to augment it with mutual trust from the community.Why you alter what people champion like that to keep using them for your narrative?

[Knight of Heaven]

No. It is an observation that this nuclear family is not a universal 'truth', but a cultural phenomenon prevalent in western society.

Im pretty sure it is prevalent in the vast majority of the world societies. i would say right now, in modern day, the typical family unit is probably more dominant in other cultures then the western culture.

They are progressive conservatives.

In a century a wife can go to work...

This hasn't been the norm necessarily in the western world. In fact it was the western world, a pioneer in breaking up this paradigm, when it was found.

Contemporary western world culture doesn't follow what you say at all. I find this criticism, and targeting of western culture oddly unjustified.

[Infidel144]

"Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ur%20education!

[Lord Thesaurian]

For example, you have Black Lives Matter. There is also a wealth of academic literature identifying two parent families as racist and white, such as the National Museum of African American History.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/


Note the language used, such as ‘comrades’, ‘the state’, ‘dismantle cisgender privilege’, themes of male centred spaces, social communes, and liberation theology.

This, and what Smithsonian institute is talking about, has nothing to do with racism.

When any and all evidence, including primary sources, are dismissed off-hand as misrepresentation, there is no basis for reasonable discussion.

[mishkin]

Aexodus, no one says that being part of a traditional family or wanting to form a traditional family is racist, and as someone else has commented, there are tremendously conservative "non-white" societies that do not tolerate non-traditional families (South America, Africa, Asia). Beyond that, the "radical left" does not want to dismantle the traditional family, but to end its privileges (it is considered the norm and the only acceptable thing usually). There are two very different things. It seems that you are as confused as the people who say that those who want to end racism want to annihilate white people.

This, and what Smithsonian institute is talking about, has nothing to do with racism.

Maybe it's a good time to get this discussion back on track / know exactly what the hell you want to talk about. Whether the perceptions (assumptions) we have about white society are white supremacism (???) or whether "white society" defends the nuclear family, who is attacking it or what. I have the feeling now you just want to attack "the radical left", BLM and anti-fascism.

[PointOfViewGun]

When any and all evidence, including primary sources, are dismissed off-hand as misrepresentation, there is no basis for reasonable discussion.

What a convenient cop-out. You just want us to misrepresentation of what people say at face value so that they can keep the narrative alive?

[Gigantus]

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

If memory recalls then the extended family was a fairly common occurrence before the industrial revolution. No one seems to remember anymore that not that long ago it was rather common to have several generations (including families of same generation members) live on one premise. Before the advent of state care it was that extended family that provided care for the elderly, the sick - in other words the able supported the disabled.

If you are looking for extended families then simply look for lack\absence of state care and you will find it. Throughout Africa it is quite prevalent from my own experience, In India the 'Hindu undivided family' actually has a special tax status.

All of this makes the outright rejection of the extended family a rather bizarre affair, I am guessing it's because the state support required for the existence of a nuclear family is taken for granted. Promoting the nuclear family arrangement is a win\win for government anyhow: easy to influence due to it's lack members, badly dependent on state support due to it's lack of members.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It seems that you are as confused as the people who say that those who want to end racism want to annihilate white people.

Nope. The journalists, educators, academics, “trained Marxists,” et al clamoring for the end of “whiteness” and of capitalism in the name of “anti-racism” want to abolish whiteness and capitalism because that’s what they are saying at length and in detail. No inference required. It was always difficult to pinpoint what exactly was meant by “abolishing whiteness” (by design), since there is no such thing. I will say again, there is no such thing as “white culture.” Period. Full stop. The fact this discredited “abolish whiteness” worldview is held by a small number of people offers no consolation or reprieve, since they occupy the positions of institutional power in society and can discredit critics with a word of disapproval and mob-like groupthink enforcement regimen. The resulting ideological quarantining of heretics and rejection of individualistic “rational thought” is common to single party political systems, and that’s what we are all witness to in the making.

Like I said, with the help of this racist chart and web series from the Smithsonian, we can now get an idea of what it is that is to be abolished, including but not limited to, science and rational thought. Since I am not racist, I don’t believe things like science and rational thought are “internalized Whiteness,” because those things are not and never have been the unique prerogative of people who happen to be white. It is racist to claim they are. However, as we are told ad infinitum under the new orthodoxy, not being racist is not enough. One must be anti-racist (ie anti capitalist and anti whiteness) to be acceptable to polite society. Theirs is not a pursuit of a better world. They openly seek to tear down the very means by which a better world for everyone in it has been built and is still possible. Theirs is the politics of vengeance and self loathing, and the power that comes from that narrative; nothing less, nothing more. The boilerplate “meh slippery slope” deflection when confronted with any of this information has lost its luster, since under present, historic societal conditions we are able to see the acceleration of this slide into degeneracy in real time.

[Aexodus]

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-...pics/whiteness

Since yesterday, certain content in the “Talking About Race” portal has been the subject of questions that we have taken seriously. We have listened to public sentiment and have removed a chart that does not contribute to the productive discussion we had intended.

So even the museum has tacitly admitted that they shouldn’t have said what they did. In my opinion, this is not a change of heart, but a case of the mask slipping to much and hastily trying to re-adjust.

Whiteness and the normalization of white racial identity throughout America's history have created a culture where nonwhite persons are seen as inferior or abnormal.

i refuse to be so naive as to think that these academics don’t believe that whiteness is a bad thing when they connect it to oppression, racism, and ‘microagressions’, and in order to be anti racist we must abolish things like Western science, individualism, and the family institution.

Racism is perpetuated by deeming whiteness as superior and other racial and ethnic groups as inferior.

So racism is perpetuated by deeming science, law and justice, holidays, work ethic, individualism, and functional families as superior. Because apparently, these things are all exclusive to whites.

The feelings associated with white fragility often derail conversations about race and serve to support white supremacy. While these feelings are natural human reactions, staying stuck in any of them hurts the process of creating a more equitable society. The defensiveness, guilt, or denial gets in the way of addressing the racism experienced by people of color.

As far as I can tell, this ideology is about abolishing various Western customs and aspects to ‘create a more equitable society’.

For white people doing anti-racist and social justice work, the first meaningful step should be to recognize their fragility around racial issues and build their emotional stamina. “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo breaks it down(link is external).

Here they plug a crank theorist who authored such works as Beyond the Face of Race: Emo-Cognitive Explorations of White Neurosis and Racial Cray- Cray. She and others like her are getting a lot of requests for anti bias and diversity ‘training’, these are the people we’re letting into our workplaces and schools.

As well as this Vox article about ‘sneaky racist language’ https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/1088913...age-thug-bossy.

This is all under the same ideological umbrella that whiteness studies is propagated by.

[alhoon]

Where the message obviously is not that Poland will be subjugated by a tide of lhbtq people or that nuclear families will be a thing of the past, but rather that the morality of the traditional family to the exclusion of all other forms must be defended as a universal truth and that as such even co-existing with a small minority that doesn't subscribe to that is an existential threat.

That is something I agree with. I want that for my country and I will vote towards it. People that don't like it can vote against it or move to countries that have Polygamy (Saudi Arabia) or allow same-sex marriage and adoption. Am I going to move out of my country because we have legalized same-sex unions and paved the way for same-sex couples adopting kids? Nope. But I still disagree with it.

Nothing in that quote suggests that BLM wants to abolish the nuclear family. They merely want to augment it with mutual trust from the community.Why you alter what people champion like that to keep using them for your narrative?

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Nope, there are underlined things in the quote that suggest exactly that. And as mentioned before, I disagree with "augmenting" the nuclear family with communities raising kids, like the Aztecs etc.

On the other hand, the BLM movement does not represent all black people.
And last but not least, the crap BLM says about abolishing the nuclear family, doesn't change that the poster the Smithsonian put up is clear white supremacy and I find it provoking and bad.

If memory recalls then the extended family was a fairly common occurrence before the industrial revolution. No one seems to remember anymore that not that long ago it was rather common to have several generations (including families of same generation members) live on one premise.

And it was bad. It is also still happening.
I am not talking a situation like mine, with my grandfather living above us and while my parents were at work preparing us for school etc. I am talking about uncles, aunts cousins etc living in the same house or near each other.

And then, we have some dubious declarations some grandparents I know made that "we will be the ones to give principles and morals to the kids of our kids. We will be making the decisions." And it's not just one weirdo or two. It's like 10% of grandparents where I live that think they can micromanage the children of their children.
Someone has even clearly stated the arrival of her grandchild as her "chance to do better" than she did when she raised her kids. :/
That's not acceptable.

PS. All those people I mention are Greeks and one (an aunt living with her nephews, her sister and her husband) is Italian. I don't know about black people, but extended families living together during bad times (or just because)or overburdening, meddling grandparents is not a "black" phenomenon.

Another few cases I know of, the husband left \ is away on ships \ divorce settlements and the grandparents, uncles and aunts are raising the kid. Not "lending a hand" mind you, but raising the kid. In a couple of such cases, the mother is also far from blameless and neglects her kid, with uncles and grandparents picking up the slack.
These particular kids, both of them, have both been diagnosed with psychological problems and I am pretty sure bumping them around from "guardian to guardian" some with wildly different values is not helping.
I am not talking minor issues here like "give him a chocolate, it is fine" or "no sugar!"
I am talking things like "Go to church!" \ "Religion is a sham! Be atheist!" etc.

[Muizer]

So much effort expended on discrediting views in this threada. Why not just read the page in the OP and see if there's some validity in it, rather than go in with an 'all or nothing' attitude, going out of your way to group it with views that are easier to ridicule and revile, just so you won't have to consider what's before you. If anything becoming all defensive proves exactly the accusation, such as it is, that's leveled against white people.

[Cope]

>Defending yourself and your society from institutionalized, racist falsehoods only proves the falsehoods right.

This is where dialogue ceases to be fruitful. You can't discuss with this degree of irrationality.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-...pics/whiteness
So even the museum has tacitly admitted that they shouldn’t have said what they did. In my opinion, this is not a change of heart, but a case of the mask slipping to much and hastily trying to re-adjust.
i refuse to be so naive as to think that these academics don’t believe that whiteness is a bad thing when they connect it to oppression, racism, and ‘microagressions’, and in order to be anti racist we must abolish things like Western science, individualism,
So racism is perpetuated by deeming science, law and justice, holidays, work ethic, individualism, and functional families as superior. Because apparently, these things are all exclusive to whites.
As far as I can tell, this ideology is about abolishing various Western customs and aspects to ‘create a more equitable society’.
Here they plug a crank theorist who authored such works as Beyond the Face of Race: Emo-Cognitive Explorations of White Neurosis and Racial Cray- Cray. She and others like her are getting a lot of requests for anti bias and diversity ‘training’, these are the people we’re letting into our workplaces and schools.
As well as this Vox article about ‘sneaky racist language’ https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/1088913...age-thug-bossy.
This is all under the same ideological umbrella that whiteness studies is propagated by.

Nope, there are underlined things in the quote that suggest exactly that. And as mentioned before, I disagree with "augmenting" the nuclear family with communities raising kids, like the Aztecs etc.
On the other hand, the BLM movement does not represent all black people.
And last but not least, the crap BLM says about abolishing the nuclear family, doesn't change that the poster the Smithsonian put up is clear white supremacy and I find it provoking and bad.

Why the heck are you two lying so blatantly? Nothing in BLM's statement suggests that they want to abolish the nuclear family. It's naive to think that these people do not want to abolish Western science? What? Is there no sense of reason that you don't want to forfeit in pursuit of keeping your narrative alive?

>Defending yourself and your society from institutionalized, racist falsehoods only proves the falsehoods right.
This is where dialogue ceases to be fruitful. You can't discuss with this degree of irrationality.

You're confusing defending with trying to muddy the waters. If you wanna defend then do it based on the merits of your position, not based on the failures of a position you try to cook up instead of relying on the reality.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So much effort expended on discrediting views in this threada. Why not just read the page in the OP and see if there's some validity in it, rather than go in with an 'all or nothing' attitude, going out of your way to group it with views that are easier to ridicule and revile, just so you won't have to consider what's before you. If anything becoming all defensive proves exactly the accusation, such as it is, that's leveled against white people.

Thank you for your completely genuine concern, but there’s no more effort required to expose the agenda of self described Marxists, “anti-whiteness” narratives, and anti capitalists and those who enable them than to quote them directly, which is all that has taken place here.

[Infidel144]

>Defending yourself and your society from institutionalized, racist falsehoods only proves the falsehoods right.

This is where dialogue ceases to be fruitful. You can't discuss with this degree of irrationality.

“But I’m not guilty,” said K. “there’s been a mistake. How is it even possible for someone to be guilty? We’re all human beings here, one like the other.”
“That is true” said the priest “but that is how the guilty speak.”

So racism is perpetuated by deeming science, law and justice, holidays, work ethic, individualism, and functional families as superior. Because apparently, these things are all exclusive to whites.

No, not 'exclusive' to whites. Black and Brown bodies can accept those values too, it has a specific name:
"When people of a nondominant group (people of color) are discriminated against, targeted or oppressed over time, they often believe the myths and misinformation about their group. Known as internalized racism, it happens when an oppressed group believes the racial views that society communicates are true, and they act as if they were true."

Thank you for your completely genuine concern, but there’s no more effort required to expose the agenda of self described Marxists, “anti-whiteness” narratives, and anti capitalists and those who enable them than to quote them directly, which is all that has taken place here.

Quoting Marx, as well as the trained Marxists, helps, too.

[Muizer]

>Defending yourself and your society from institutionalized, racist falsehoods only proves the falsehoods right.

This is where dialogue ceases to be fruitful. You can't discuss with this degree of irrationality.

"Your society". Whose society exactly? That's kind of the question here.