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

[Lord Thesaurian]

Human society. Glad I could clear this whole thing up.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Let's see. Black people are self-reliant. Black emphasis on scientific method is objective, rational linear thinking. Black people plan for future. Black people are action oriented. So on and on... Only a racist would be triggered by that. That's no anti-white rhetoric.

Do you understand the implication of that statement is that all of those positive statements apply only to whites and white culture to the exclusion of any other ethnicity? Some of it is facially racist, some of it is racist by inversion. Why are you defending a statement that touts only whites as capable of self reliance?

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you understand the implication of that statement is that all of those positive statements apply only to whites and white culture to the exclusion of any other ethnicity? Some of it is facially racist, some of it is racist by inversion. Why are you defending a statement that touts only whites as capable of self reliance?

What a binary world. Heck no. None of those traits are indicated to be exclusive for that particular group. White people have blue eyes. Does that mean non-whites don't have blue eyes? Not really. So, no, none of those statements tout whites as the only group capable of self-reliance. Just that whites see themselves as self-reliant. Now, you might attack it from a generalization opposition stand point. You'd have merit there, however, that's kinda what they're trying to do as well. Know your biases so that you can overcome them.

[alhoon]

Why the heck are you two lying so blatantly? Nothing in BLM's statement suggests that they want to abolish the nuclear family.

We don't lie, we apparently have much better reading comprehension. I showed you which parts are anti-nuclear family rhetoric.

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?

Who said "these people" want to abolish Western Science? And who do you even mean by "These people"?
Black Lives Matter? The Smithsonian? Black people in general? Us?
I am honestly confused about who you target here. Regardless, none of the groups I mentioned (BLM, black people, Smithsonian or the posters here) want to abolish western science.

The white supremacists behind the poster in the Smithsonian kinda say that Western science* = white science but that's as far as it goes.

*forgetting that in the past decades Indians, Asians and black people have added a lot to Western Science + gunpowder, algebra, steel-making and metallurgy, banknotes, printing, are all parts of Western Science nowdays, that were not discovered by Westerners or Whites.

[Pontifex Maximus]

[QUOTE=PointOfViewGun;15934911]White people have blue eyes. Does that mean non-whites don't have blue eyes? /QUOTE]

yes, yes, let's conflate biology with ethnicity and culture now. That will clear things straight up in a non-controversial way.

[Infidel144]

The white supremacists behind the poster in the Smithsonian kinda say that Western science* = white science but that's as far as it goes.

The white supremacists behind the poster is Judith Katz (i.e. drawn from her work), author of White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training.
http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/abo...d%20States.pdf

[PointOfViewGun]

We don't lie, we apparently have much better reading comprehension than you. I showed you which parts are anti-nuclear family rhetoric.
Who said "these people" want to abolish Western Science? And who do you even mean by "These people"?
Black Lives Matter? The Smithsonian? Black people in general? Us?
I am honestly confused about who you target here. Regardless, none of the groups I mentioned (BLM, black people, Smithsonian or the posters here) want to abolish western science.
The white supremacists behind the poster in the Smithsonian kinda say that Western science* = white science but that's as far as it goes.
*forgetting that in the past decades Indians, Asians and black people have added a lot to Western Science + gunpowder, algebra, steel-making and metallurgy, banknotes, printing, are all parts of Western Science nowdays, that were not discovered by Westerners or Whites.

Yes, you have, and no, you have not showed any part that was anti-nuclear family. Disrupt doesn't mean abolish contrary to what you claimed. Rest of the sentence in the quote further demolishes that claim. Why I'm saying you're lying? Because the information is right there.

Aexodus did say that thing about Western science, quoted in the very same post you're responding to. It helps to read posts you respond to.

yes, yes, let's conflate biology with ethnicity and culture now. That will clear things straight up in a non-controversial way.

Sigh... Nice use of arbitrary criteria. If you were not interested in muddying the waters it would clear things up very nicely. OK. Whites are hard-working. Does it mean any other racial group is not hard-working? No. None of what's been mentioned there is exclusive traits.

[Muizer]

Human society. Glad I could clear this whole thing up.

Lol, and who gets to decide what 'human society' is? Someone has to, otherwise no one can claim to defend it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Lol, and who gets to decide what 'human society' is? Someone has to, otherwise no one can claim to defend it.

There’s this neat trick where we all come together as Americans and vote on the kind of leaders we want periodically, and they are tasked with guiding the nation and the creation/execution of laws. Pretty sure they do exactly the same thing in Holland. In America we also have cool stuff called Founding documents that form the basis of the laws and freedoms we all enjoy.

[Muizer]

Your founding documents didn't prevent the continued existence of slavery and racial segragation after that, but I guess that was all decided democratically, so that's ok.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Your founding documents didn't prevent the continued existence of slavery and racial segragation after that, but I guess that was all decided democratically, so that's ok.

I can continue to teach history and civics free of charge, or we can acknowledge that your strawman troll posts have nothing relevant to offer to the discussion in good faith and move on. What do you say?

[alhoon]

The white supremacists behind the poster is Judith Katz (i.e. drawn from her work), author of White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training.
http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/abo...d%20States.pdf

Oh, sorry. So it's actually a "identify the racist by these traits" poster instead of "our glorious DNA gives us these characteristics" poster ... not much better.

And whether the intention of the actual work, the poster by itself, at least to me, looked clearly as a "Look how awesome white people are compared to the rest". Not "Look out for entitled whites saying the following", or "Characteristics White Supremacists claim for the White people." If it is indeed that, it should say so in the title of the poster, so I could trash it for labeling white people as racists.

There are a ton of positives things in that poster, associated with whites. It even says that people of color have "internalized" aspects of white culture.
But since when "Wealth = worth" is a white-culture trait? Pretty much the norm everywhere. And it was holding true in China and India when Europeans were a bunch of illiterate smelly savages killing each other.
It is wealth and prosperity that brings "wealth = worth". Whites happen to be prosperous for the past 500 years so they are accustomed to that. 600 years ago, it held true for the Indians and Persians.

And that's just one of the countless mislabeling of things as "white culture".
And "hard work is the key to success" :/ Not really. I dare say that whites have this less than other parts of the world nowdays. In the West is quite more "who you know" and "whose child you are" than "hard work is the key to success". Take the PotUS for example. It wasn't hard work that made him a billionaire and it wasn't hard work that made him PotUS.
"Man's attractiveness based on status and wealth" = everywhere for as long as we know. Do you think the Chinese Emperors, Arab Califs and Indian or African kings had problems attracting wives? Was it Attila's comely features that got him in several marriages? Or his status as a conqueror and a "real man"?

Yes, you have, and no, you have not showed any part that was anti-nuclear family. Disrupt doesn't mean abolish contrary to what you claimed. Rest of the sentence in the quote further demolishes that claim. Why I'm saying you're lying? Because the information is right there.

Aexodus did say that thing about Western science, quoted in the very same post you're responding to. It helps to read posts you respond to.

I was not responding to Aex, I was responding to you. And no, "disrupt" pretty much means disrupt. And disrupt is part of abolishment although indeed "abolish" may be a bit too strong, but whether you want to stick in semantics or not, and whether abolish is a slight exaggeration or not, calling it "abolish" pretty much shows what I think of the measures suggested.
The rest of the sentence speaks about communal bringing up of children which yes, targets the nuclear family.
So... some influential BLM guys (the ones that wrote the "What we stand for") want to abolish the nuclear family and they are open about it. Denying they want to abolish the nuclear family is going against what these people wrote and it is effectively similar to burying your head in the sand to not face reality.

Sigh... Nice use of arbitrary criteria. If you were not interested in muddying the waters it would clear things up very nicely. OK. Whites are hard-working. Does it mean any other racial group is not hard-working? No. None of what's been mentioned there is exclusive traits.

1. Whites are not hard-working, a great many of them are pretty lazy and seek comfort instead of advancement. Asians are hard-working. Please get your stereotypes right.
2. Indeed saying "whites are hard working" doesn't literally mean that any other racial or cultural group is not hardworking. But that's what it very very clearly suggests. "Bill is hardworking" wouldn't be used in the context of "Bill is as hardworking like the rest of the employees." That would be conveyed with "All my employees are hardworking."
The actual meaning of "Bill is hardworking" is "Bill is hardworking compared to the rest".


Whatever the intent of this poster, it promotes white supremacy by labeling a ton of good things as "white" when they are actually not. A white supremacist would feel good and validated reading that trash.

[Infidel144]

Oh, sorry. So it's actually a "identify the racist by these traits" poster instead of "our glorious DNA gives us these characteristics" poster ... not much better.

As I noted previously, the "racist" would expect or request black and brown bodies to use 'white cultural traits' such logic and reason and science and hard work etc. Such concepts being alien to the cultures of black and brown bodies...

There are a ton of positives things in that poster, associated with whites. It even says that people of color have "internalized" aspects of white culture.

Because racist white supremacists compel back and brown bodies to do so. When black and brown bodies accept this compulsion then whiteness has been internalized.

And no, "disrupt" pretty much means disrupt. And disrupt is part of abolishment although indeed "abolish" may be a bit too strong, but whether you want to stick in semantics or not, and whether abolish is a slight exaggeration or not, calling it "abolish" pretty much shows what I think of the measures suggested.

Well, being trained Marxists, the authors should surely be familiar with Marx:
"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."

Which brings to mind as well the SDS and Kommune 1:
"Fascism develops from the nuclear family. It is the smallest cell of the state from whose oppressive character all institutions are derived.
Men and women live in dependence on each other so that neither could develop freely as people.
This cell (that is, the small family) had to be shattered."

The rest of the sentence speaks about communal bringing up of children which yes, targets the nuclear family.

"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."
The last portion is intriguing, why is it "mothers, parents and..."?
Are mothers not parents? Are fathers being excluded or minimized?

[alhoon]

@Infidel144, I don't follow the first two parts of your post. How is hard work a trait white supremacists associate with white people, when many make fun of Asians for being workaholic? or reason and science being "concepts" that brown and black people don't have? Do white Supremacists seriously think that their superior genes and culture is what made black people, brown people and Asians more reasonable and scientific? What that even means?
As I said, I don't follow.

Perhaps we have very different experiences with racism, as I don't get your point. It doesn't match my experiences. Our racists simply call people of different race as more violent than us and less refined; some call them more stupid although most racists I know acknowledge that some "bad hombres" can be very smart even if they are "Genetically inferior". In short, they call them savages and barbarians, like we did call foreigners in the past 2500 years.
We don't say they don't like science and we don't say they are unreasonable.

[Infidel144]

@Infidel144, I don't follow the first two parts of your post. How is hard work a trait white supremacists associate with white people, when many make fun of Asians for being workaholic? or reason and science being "concepts" that brown and black people don't have? Do white Supremacists seriously think that their superior genes and culture is what made black people, brown people and Asians more reasonable and scientific? What that even means?
As I said, I don't follow.

The poster is not a ""identify the racist by these traits"", the racist part would be for the white person/culture to expect "people of different race" to adopt those "traits" (which are identified as part of 'white culture').
If the "people of different race" adopt those 'white culture traits', then those people have 'internalized racism'.

[alhoon]

The poster is not a ""identify the racist by these traits"", the racist part would be for the white person/culture to expect "people of different race" to adopt those "traits" (which are identified as part of 'white culture').
If the "people of different race" adopt those 'white culture traits', then those people have 'internalized racism'.

But over half of those are not "white culture traits"!

[Common Soldier]

But over half of those are not "white culture traits"!

Most of the traits listed by the Smithsonian are not eclusive to "white cultural traits" Hsrd work, for example.is not unique to Protestant work ethic. Only a few traits, perhaps rugged individuLism or nuclear familu, and even these ate overstated.


And the American ideal feminine beauty for US culture is not thin, despite what the Smithsonian says. It is the girl next door, who is healthy and trim, rather athletic, but not a super dedicate athlete. Thin, emancipate women have never been the standard of beauty for of most white American men. The fact that the Smithsonian can claim.that thin women are the ideal shows the list was compiled by people who have ni real understanding.of white culture, but by elitist where "thin" is the standard of feminine beauty, but that does not represent the majority of "white culture"

Embracing a standard of feminine beauty that is not a Lindsey West obesity does not mean you mean you embrace "thin" - it means only that you reject clincal obesity as a standaard of beauty as thr Lindsay Wests of the world demand.

[Cyclops]

I am struggling to make sense of this thread. Some one at the Smithsonian put together a (rather hamfisted) "white culture checklist" as a clumsy way of opening up discussion about world views and how different cultures and subcultures approach identity or perceive as fundamentally important issues.

Its a bit cringeworthy and awkward, but it seems a good faith attempt.

Just to be clear does anyone really think this is actually a kill list for anti-white deathsquads? "Have we eradicated slim women and the work ethic yet?"

I mean if you're triggered by this you're making the "male fragility" trolls look like they are on to something. Its a dumbed-down look at culture-specific worldviews.

I mean we can laugh at its simplistic approach: rolling the Jews in with the WASPs, the Irish, and the Greeks, that's a broad definition of whiteness. Are Spanish speakers from Spain "white"? What about Spanish speakers from Mexico City? Iberians settled the Americas first and the English settlements show clear influences from the systems in place in Latin America, as well as British colonisation in Ireland.

[alhoon]

Most of the traits listed by the Smithsonian are not eclusive to "white cultural traits" .

Look, I am not sure I can say what I want without breaching the ToS for speaking against some people based on the color of their skin (bashing whites for being whites is against the ToS), so let's just say that some of the positive traits attributed to the "White Culture" in this poster are not white culture traits at all. It's not "Whites have them and others have them." It's more like "White culture is the OPPOSITE of this". There are traits there, positive traits, that are more rare among white people than people of color.
The "White Culture" especially in USA lacks some of these traits.


I will be crude but let me give you an example.
Black people's candidate: Obama
White people's candidates: Trump, Hillary and now Biden. :-/
Not speaking that much of "reason" does it?

NOTE:
The Smithsonian has taken down the White Supremacy promoting poster mentioned in Legio's post.
They now have these words, admitting the poster was stupid:
"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. "

[Aexodus]

I think this piece sums up a few of my feelings on the whiteness studies racket. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/...ram-kendi.html

This is a business model, that poses as anti-racism ideas and even training for schools and companies, when in fact it is a regressive, racialist ideology.

It posits that racial identity is all encompassing and inescapable, and that we can’t overcome tribal divisions. It robs people of their agency, such as the famous baseball player that ‘broke the colour bar’ as the article put it to be the first black player; Robinson.

The most dangerous element of it, is the influence it has. In their moral panic amidst the rabid anti-racism and anti-police rhetoric at the moment, our heads of schools, executives and other influential persons are turning to anti-racist cranks for ‘bias training’, which teaches these ideas to the populace. The worst part is how it is being taught to out teachers and educators, endangering their political objectivity when their indoctrination then begins to affect their students.