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

[Cope]

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

Dismissiveness is a predictable reaction from CRT apologists (see post #146, #155 & 157 for instance). It's time to put aside the expectation of intellectual consistency - that ship sailed years ago. Most of the activists, organizations and institutions promoting what Weiss refers to as "neo-racism" have absolutely no interest in creating a level playing field.

[numerosdecimus]

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.

There are those yes, but they are just as a minority as the woke left and certainly not as loud as the woke left.

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.

Race based/ethnicity based policies were the rule through out every country's history. In empires throughout history the conquering ethnicities created a narrative of superiority and put themselves in a position of administrative privilege.

It was only the western countries (including the USA) which had created the necessary intellectual and political environment to promote universalism. They were the only ones who voluntarily admited to the moral short comings of slavery and how incompatible they were with both the Christian roots of western civ. and the enlightenment values promoted since the 15th century.

If what I'm saying is not true then you would have seen today any voice descended from slaves (including Irish and Slavs) being brutally silenced nor would you have any narrative of "whiteness" or "white privilege" being even tolerated. The people promoting such narratives would have been being hunted down or most likely the narrative would have not even appeared in the first place because the social environment would have had always been extremely hostile and intolerant towards so such narratives, including a macro social sense of superiority and arrogance openly displayed by the majority groups of the country.


In short, the social activism we see today from the left is a strong evidence of how our society abandoned the race based narratives (at least at a legal/formal level), if it had not, the social justice movement would have never found the opportunity to arise, and had it even tried to appear in the first place in would have been mercilessly crushed down. Remember, no guilt based narrative would have worked, and the reason why such a narrative works today is because of the ideological Christian roots of western civilization, which give great emphasis on the concept of doubt. It is not like the Mohammedan civilization, where an almost absolute certainly, open arrogance and xenophobia if promoted through the primary principles that compose their civilization.

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

100% serious. And if you don't think western civilization is currently on this Earth the society that most approaches and respects the concept of rule of law and universalist value then I suggest you look more carefully and be greateful that such a society exists, for now...

With the race based ideological push the sjw/woke movement is promoting, you should fear that the majority in their respective western countries eventually accept playing by the same ideological rules in an attempt to promote safety over freedom. If that happens, it's the end for the "minority" movement and for the freedoms of actual minorities. Not only that but such a pushback will be used by the governments of each respective country to subtly enact the foundation for a totalitarian regime which, before the majority grasps the big picture, will put everyone under equal misery.

[Lord Thesaurian]

These aren’t just graphics and training manuals, either:

Spoiler for naughty words: 

[Gaidin]

Race based/ethnicity based policies were the rule through out every country's history. In empires throughout history the conquering ethnicities created a narrative of superiority and put themselves in a position of administrative privilege.

It was only the western countries (including the USA) which had created the necessary intellectual and political environment to promote universalism. They were the only ones who voluntarily admited to the moral short comings of slavery and how incompatible they were with both the Christian roots of western civ. and the enlightenment values promoted since the 15th century.

If what I'm saying is not true then you would have seen today any voice descended from slaves (including Irish and Slavs) being brutally silenced nor would you have any narrative of "whiteness" or "white privilege" being even tolerated. The people promoting such narratives would have been being hunted down or most likely the narrative would have not even appeared in the first place because the social environment would have had always been extremely hostile and intolerant towards so such narratives, including a macro social sense of superiority and arrogance openly displayed by the majority groups of the country.

Voluntarily? Just how much do you know about America's history?

[numerosdecimus]

Voluntarily? Just how much do you know about America's history?

More than you it would seem, if the question you're making is anything to go by. If you had a compelling counter argument you would have already wrote it down by now, instead you're directing an empty question at me with no meaning, without contributing anything useful to the thread. If you know more than me about American history, as your question full of authority implies as if you were a reference, then I'm sure you will be more than happy to correct me with objective historical data. Also, I won't accept as a response social justice/woke historical narrative, it is devoid of reason, logic and it's a discombobulated, simplistic narrative, which doesn't hold against the lightest logical scrutiny. Such a narrative is more akin to a dogmatic religious fervor and it's filled with contradictions. My previous point on the voluntary abandonment of slavery by western societies and the current social environment of universalist social/economic rights is more than proof it to dismantle such a narrative.

You either have one reality or you have another, you don't get at your convenience to live in both realities in which you get the to criticize the society you live in for being "oppressive and racist", but at the same time be actually able to criticize it with all freedoms(and even privileges) and place yourselves in a socially privileged position where those wielding such a narrative even get to shape society according to their desires with no opposition, and even get to merciless destroys the livelihood of those who oppose them through "cancel culture", which is just a subtle version of the totalitarian tactics adopted by tyrannical regimes when they wish to destroy all opposition. If the society you criticize was so addicted to slavery by habit and so oppressive, you would have NEVER been able to voice your opinions openly and take then to the political sphere without facing a violent reaction from such an oppressive and racist society, who would find every reason and fallacy in the book to harm those who they would see as "below human" or inferior, devoid of any right and to whom the law of the land does not apply, nor equally protects them.

Sjw/woke people like to demonize our current society but it only takes the most obvious question of them all to crumble down their narrative: "If it's an oppressive society then how are you able to express yourself and have your narrative being so influential in today's society? If the society you criticize were as you described, your narrative would have never found fertile soil. No strategy based on guilt would have worked, and all people promoting such a narrative would have been mercilessly shut down, nor would they have had any social or economic rights to begin with, because there would have been no historical precedent, nor historical will, to provide the same rights to everyone."

I reiterate, it was 100% voluntary, both in America and even more so in Europe. The political movement for abolition in the 18th and 19th centuries all around the western world had a precedent of hundreds of years of ideological and moral promotion. As for the rest the world, no such social reformation ever happened with the exception of the regions of the world which had strong western influence.

If you've got a counter argument or anything useful at all then write it down, don't try to excuse yourself with an empty question devoid of anything useful. Your contribution in your last post is null to me and offers nothing of substance. Your question implies that you know more than me on the subject and is implying that I'm speaking out of ignorance. So go ahead, write something useful and justify why I'm wrong in my analysis.

Dismissiveness is a predictable reaction from CRT apologists (see post #146, #155 & 157 for instance). It's time to put aside the expectation of intellectual consistency - that ship sailed years ago. Most of the activists, organizations and institutions promoting what Weiss refers to as "neo-racism" have absolutely no interest in creating a level playing field.

Logical consistency is not the objective of the woke/sjw crowd. Power and the will to shape society according to their ideology is, and they resort to any methods or narratives to reach it so.

[Gaidin]

More than you it would seem, if the question you're asking is anything to go by. If you had a compelling counter argument you would have already wrote it down by now, instead you're directing an empty question at me with no meaning, without contributing anything useful to the thread. If you know more than me about American history, as your question full of authority implies as if you were a reference, then I'm sure you will be more than happy to correct me with objective historical data. Also, I won't accept as a response social justice/woke historical narrative, it is devoid of reason, logic and it's a discombobulated, simplistic narrative, which doesn't hold against the lightest logical scrutiny. Such as a narrative is more akin to a dogmatic religion and it's filled with contradictions. My point of the voluntary abandonment of slavery by western societies and the current social environment of universalist social/economic rights is more than proof it.

Sjw/woke people like to demonize our current society but it only takes the most obvious question of them all to crumble down their narrative: "If it's an oppressive society then how are you able to express yourself and have your narrative being so influential in today's society? If the society you criticize were as you described, your narrative would have never found fertile soil. No strategy based on guilt would have worked, and all people promoting such a narrative would have been mercilessly shut down, nor would they have had any social or economic rights to begin with, because there would have been no historical precedent, nor historical will, to provide the same rights to everyone."

If you've got a counter argument or anything useful at all then write it down, don't try to excuse yourself with an empty question. Your contribution in your last post is null to me and offers nothing of substance. As for the rest the world, no such social reformation ever happened with the exception of the regions of the world which had strong western influence.

I reiterate, it was 100% voluntary, both in America and even more so in Europe. The political movement for abolition in the 18th and 19th centuries all around the western world had a precedent of hundreds of years of ideological and moral promotion.

1.5 million casualties in the civil war would differ on the definition of "voluntarily" from you. Nevermind the politics of the early to mid 20th Century for the Civil Rights of African Americans and the sheer violence perpetrated against African Americans when they protested.

This was not "voluntarily" accepted. This was literally crammed down the South's throat.

[numerosdecimus]

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

They have weaponized certain words, distorting their meaning. The use of the words inclusion, diversity in their narrative is a brilliant strategic move on their part, they act a smokescreen to hide their intentions and protect themselves from scrutiny.

As we know, the woke/sjw ideology is anything but inclusive or diverse, it is oppressive, obcessed with domination of others and forcing those around them to be shaped in accordance with their goals. It is neo-racism at it’s finest. Such a strategy is not surprising, Marxism, communism and the Frankfurt school have always promote a corruption of the language and the meaning of words, weaponing them and using them as narrative shields, in order to suit their ideologies and agendas.

[numerosdecimus]

1.5 million casualties in the civil war would differ on the definition of "voluntarily" from you. Nevermind the politics of the early to mid 20th Century for the Civil Rights of African Americans and the sheer violence perpetrated against African Americans when they protested.

This was not "voluntarily" accepted. This was literally crammed down the South's throat.

You don't see the logical contradiction in your post? If there was a war, then it means by definition that a side of the nation and its respective legal institution supported the idea of abolition. Otherwise there would have been no conflict at all and slavery would have been openly supported by both.

However, the reality of the situation was different. The "civil war" was neither a civil war as the formal definition of the term gives, nor was it about slavery. The narrative that the "civil war" was about slavery was a convenient political maneuver that was promoted during its occurrence and after it as well, in order to legitimize and embezzle the conflict under of a false narrative of liberation. No side in this war had the liberation of the slaves as a primary purpose for the conflict.

The civil war was in reality a war of secession between parts of the same country which believed in different ruling and social practices. Also, one of the most important reason why the conflict was politically inevitable was because the north was not willing to abide from a substantial portion of taxation income that came with separation of the nation in two. Slavery, when it came to the "civil war" was at most a secondary reason for the conflict.

Also, you seem to be conflicting "racism" with "slavery". Historically slavery was not practiced because of "racism". Its practice was a cultural/economic one. From the Achaemenid Empire, the Hellenic World, the Roman Empire, the millennia wide Muslin African slave trade (which made the trans-Atlantic slave trade seem a mere temporal blip). In fact, the trans-Atlantic slave trade was the result of economic contact and the will to receive manufactured goods from Europe by the several ruling institutions of the numerous sub-Saharan kingdoms and also those in the Gold Coast. And since the only useful commodity the African Kingdoms had at the time was enslaved manpower, they did not hesitate to sell them.

Everyone participated in it and wanted to profit from it. In fact, what enabled the availability of slave manual work in the first place was the cultural precedent from the several African Kingdoms, which went back for millenia, of enslaving neighboring tribes during conflicts, and no second thought was given to the "human rights" of those who were raided, no such concept or set of principles were ever promoted between the African kingdoms. It was a tradition and strong cultural habit of them to frequently enslave one another. The African ruling elites saw their populations and those of competitors as fair game to be sold to slavery. It was this promotion of slavery and its embrace at a societal level that made several African kingdoms readily available to sell their slaves to the western powers without a second thought.

In fact we still see the repercussions of this mindset today in Africa, Slavery is still practiced between competing ethnicities and many ethnicities view neighboring ones as destitute of any human rights, hence why we see many ethnical conflicts and wars within several African nations (such as Congo) which have within them more than one ethnicity. African societies are VERY racist towards other ethnicities within Africa. In fact, you will see no more racist society in existence today, not even China or Japan come close to it.

As for the rest of the western world, no war was needed for the abolition of slavery. The movement was entirely voluntary and devoid of conflict in the VAST majority of the western world, and some western countries never even practiced the trans-Atlantic slave trade to being with. In the 18th century both England and Portugal had made the first steps in order to outlaw slavery in their respective CONTINENTAL territories. The legal precedent was set, although the abolition of slavery in the colonies would still take another century.

Second, as I mentioned before, the social politics until the civil rights act would have NEVER been abandoned if there was not an ideological and political movement, which aimed for all races and ethnicities to be equally protected by the law and have the same rights. This political/ideological movement can have it's roots traced since the foundation of the USA and even before. Had such a movement not happened you would have still seen the same social environment based on race today, nothing would have changed.

Also, there's a logical contradiction in your argument. If you say it was not voluntary and that it had to be "crammed down" or forced, then I ask "who forced it?" Because it wasn't forced out of nowhere and by no one. There had to be an entity applying pressure or a political block within the central government to abolish it, and since "politics is downstream from culture", it would mean that such a political movement had a following in the society, hence it was something that the society of the time was willing to embrace and change into. Thus, we come back to what I said earlier, it was a voluntary adoption and acceptance of the concept of abolition of slavery from the wider society, the and abolition of a society oriented on race based politics.

My argument stands. It makes ZERO sense to criticize the western world for its past, since slavery had been the cultural norm throughout the world, and makes even less sense to use such a narrative as an excuse to criticize it today, when it was the only civilization to promote its abandonment as an institution by precedent of the moral values it nourished over the centuries.

If there's one civilization who should be esteemed and admired it is western civilization. If a reasoning for criticizing it "because of slavery" exists then it puts all other civilizations in an even worse position, and ironically as a consequence, the act of slavery should not be criticized anymore because everyone practiced it, it was the NORM. If practicing slavery is the resting state of things then there's no moral or logical ground to condemn one civilization in specific, because no act of distinction of exceptionality from any civilization existed in the first place when it came to slavery.

(edited)

[Gaidin]

You don't see the logical contradiction in your post? If there was a war, then it means by definition that a side of the nation and its respective legal institution supported the idea of abolition. Otherwise there would have been no conflict at all and slavery would have been openly supported by both.

However, the reality of the situation was different. The "civil war" was neither a civil war as the formal definition of the term gives, nor was it about slavery. The narrative that the "civil war" was about slavery was a convenient political maneuver that was promoted during its occurrence and after it as well, in order to legitimize and embezzle the conflict under of false narrative of liberation. No side in this war had the liberation of the slaves as a primary purpose for the conflict.

As for the rest of the western world, no war was needed for the abolition of slavery. The movement was entirely voluntary and devoid of conflict in VAST majority of the western world. In the 18th century both England and Portugal had made the first steps in order to outlaw slavery in their respective CONTINENTAL territories. The legal precedent was set, although the abolition of slavery in the colonies would still take another centiry.

The civil war was in reality a war of secession between parts of the same country which believed in different ruling and social practices. Also, one of the most important reason why the conflict was politically inevitable was because the north was not willing to abide from a substantial portion of taxation income that came with separation of the nation in two.

Second, as I mentioned before, the social politics until the civil rights act would have NEVER been abandoned if there was not an ideological and political movement, which aimed for all races and ethnicities to be equally protected by the law and have the same rights. This political/ideological movement can have it's roots traced since the foundation of the USA and even before. Had such a movement not happened you would have still seen the same social environment based on race today, nothing would have changed.

My argument stands. It makes ZERO sense to criticize the western world for its past, since slavery had been the cultural norm throughout the world, and makes even less sense to use such a narrative as an excuse to criticize it today, when it was the only civilization to promote its abandonment as an institution by precedent of the moral values it nourished over the centuries.

If there's one civilization who should be esteemed and admired it is western civilization. If a reasoning for criticizing it "because of slavery" exists then it puts all other civilizations in an even worse position, and ironically as a consequence, the act of slavery should not be criticized anymore because everyone practiced it, it was the NORM. If practicing slavery is the resting state of things then there's no moral or logical ground to condemn one civilization in specific, because no act of distinction of exceptionality from any civilization existed in the first place when it came to slavery.

(edited)

Your argument is summed up as "Because the CSA no longer exists you are right" the problem is that because the culture existed for years, and still does in many bitter ways from the statues to the memorials lionizing confederate figures, to the roads named for confederate figures, to the buildings named for confederate figures(frakking god damn Arizona, not even a state during this mess, has a Confederate Memorial for some crazy point...why?), you don't want to admit as to break your point, well, you're wrong.

The South fought a war over it. People died over it. The rights of African Americans literally were shoved unwillingly down their throats. This is literally history. I can literally point to the Charlottesville, Virginia protests where white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. drove a car through a crowd of protestors and is in jail for life for it at this very moment.

This. This argument. It is not one that you will win.

[Knight of Heaven]

He already has.

[numerosdecimus]

Your argument is summed up as "Because the CSA no longer exists you are right" the problem is that because the culture existed for years, and still does in many bitter ways from the statues to the memorials lionizing confederate figures, to the roads named for confederate figures, to the buildings named for confederate figures(frakking god damn Arizona, not even a state during this mess, has a Confederate Memorial for some crazy point...why?), you don't want to admit as to break your point, well, you're wrong.

The South fought a war over it. People died over it. The rights of African Americans literally were shoved unwillingly down their throats. This is literally history. I can literally point to the Charlottesville, Virginia protests where white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. drove a car through a crowd of protestors and is in jail for life for it at this very moment.

This. This argument. It is not one that you will win.

Nothing you wrote in this post is of substance. And you are purposefully ignoring the logic and information I have pointed out in my previous posts which more than cover your reasoning. That's rude in my book.

The only one obcessed with "winning" the argument here is you, as you incorrectly assume about me. You're only reveling your intentions by projecting them onto others.

I don't care about winning arguments, nor narratives. That's your objective. I simply wish to provide context and information to things that happened historically, and to avoid defamation of cultures and societies which do not deserve any such thing. I enjoy providing information simply for information's sake. If the argument has merit then people will voluntarily accept it and value it. "Winning" an argument only demonstrates a will to superimpose one's will onto others, another demonstration of the sjw/woke crowd obcession in dominating others and imposing their opinion.

If "Charlottesville" and "confederated statues/memorials" is the best you can come up with in your empty, soundbite filled post, then is obvious what narrative you're promoting, and it's a lazy, fallacious one. Your "argument", as you desbribed it, is no argument at all, it is simply a hastily gathered group of soundbite ideas, with no correlation all at with what I wrote, nor do they provide any denial of what I wrote. Before you can "win" an argument, you need to have any argument at all. You simply have premade soundbite words, ready to be quickly and lazily used in any debate without requiring much reflection or mental effort.

If you want to solely and obcessively dwell on your sjw/woke/race based narrative then do so, but don't try to sell your crap on me, nor make it seem legitimate. Such a narrative is devoid of any intellectual virtue or consistency.

You're wasting your time with me, if all you write is your inconsistent, religious like narrative.

[Cope]

Your argument is summed up as "Because the CSA no longer exists you are right" the problem is that because the culture existed for years, and still does in many bitter ways from the statues to the memorials lionizing confederate figures, to the roads named for confederate figures, to the buildings named for confederate figures(frakking god damn Arizona, not even a state during this mess, has a Confederate Memorial for some crazy point...why?), you don't want to admit as to break your point, well, you're wrong.

The South fought a war over it. People died over it. The rights of African Americans literally were shoved unwillingly down their throats. This is literally history. I can literally point to the Charlottesville, Virginia protests where white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. drove a car through a crowd of protestors and is in jail for life for it at this very moment.

This. This argument. It is not one that you will win.

The claim was that western countries adopted civil liberties voluntarily. The Confederacy was an unrecognized polity consisting of rebel states, not a country. The Union (i.e. the United States of America) voluntarily took up the task of ending slavery within its domains and succeeded at a significant cost (> 800,000 casualties). The US's abolition of slavery followed the British Empire's ending of the slave trade in its territories 1807 and abolition of the practice in 1834. This means that the most powerful military institution of its day - the Royal Navy - was actively opposed slavery.

Invoking the Charlottesville killer (a bipolar schizophrenic) as evidence against the the US's voluntary adoption of civil liberties is absurd; James Fields Jr. was prosecuted and sentenced to two life sentences precisely because the US does not tolerate attacks against fundamental freedoms.

[Gaidin]

The claim was that western countries adopted civil liberties voluntarily. The Confederacy was an unrecognized polity consisting of rebel states, not a country. The Union (i.e. the United States of America) voluntarily took up the task of ending slavery within its domains and succeeded at a significant cost (> 800,000 casualties). The US's abolition of slavery followed the British Empire's ending of the slave trade in its territories 1807 and abolition of the practice in 1834. This mean that the most powerful military institution of its day - the Royal Navy - was actively opposed slavery.

Invoking the Charlottesville killer (a bipolar schizophrenic) as evidence against the the US's voluntary adoption of civil liberties is absurd; James Fields Jr. was prosecuted and sentenced to two life sentences precisely because the US does not tolerate attacks against fundamental freedoms.

We as a country have some of the highest population that think that racism and nazism is cool. It results in events like Charlottesville, whether you like it or not. We as a country have a political party that think it's a good thing to suppress voting and hide the vote count for months after the election. It results in political parties censuring officials for doing their jobs. Presidents filing 60 lawsuits. And then the states themselves to pass a raft of voting laws to make voting more difficult after their golden calf lost(I guess the Southern Baptists really should read Exodus again, though I am amused the statue of Trump was made in Mexico). Apparently...uhh...giving water to a person waiting in line is...bad? Who knew?

These are things that we do at many levels of the country ranging form the outcast(see Fields) to the elected officials. The states that accept these rights don't pass these bills. Or, they pass bills that shore up these rights. When more people voted, Trump lost by more votes. Solution? Adapt politics? Nah. Make it harder to vote.

America may have amended her Constitution. But her people haven't accepted these rights. They just got creative. Nowhere is this more demonstrable in the past than when Slavery was banned, states just passed Jim Crow laws and made life utter torture for African Americans. Sure...they weren't slaves, but they were less than equal. For 100 years. And arguable still are today. They just got creative.

[Cope]

We as a country have some of the highest population that think that racism and nazism is cool.

This unsubstantiated claim seeks to creates an impossible standard whereby nothing can be said to have been done voluntarily if some portion of the population resists or opposes it (which is always the case).

It results in events like Charlottesville, whether you like it or not.

Only a tiny fraction of murders in the US are linked to terrorism.

We as a country have a political party that think it's a good thing to suppress voting and hide the vote count for months after the election. It results in political parties censuring officials for doing their jobs. Presidents filing 60 lawsuits. And then the states themselves to pass a raft of voting laws to make voting more difficult after their golden calf lost(I guess the Southern Baptists really should read Exodus again, though I am amused the statue of Trump was made in Mexico). Apparently...uhh...giving water to a person waiting in line is...bad? Who knew?

These are things that we do at many levels of the country ranging form the outcast(see Fields) to the elected officials. The states that accept these rights don't pass these bills. Or, they pass bills that shore up these rights. When more people voted, Trump lost by more votes. Solution? Adapt politics? Nah. Make it harder to vote.

The 2020 election is unrelated to the topic being discussed.

America may have amended her Constitution. But her people haven't accepted these rights. They just got creative. Nowhere is this more demonstrable in the past than when Slavery was banned, states just passed Jim Crow laws and made life utter torture for African Americans. Sure...they weren't slaves, but they were less than equal. For 100 years. And arguable still are today. They just got creative.

The claim that civil rights are as limited today as they were during the slave or Crow eras is plainly false.

[The spartan]

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.

I dunno what kind of rhetorical game you are playing here, but Americans are very aware of "whiteness" and will place value on it without being what you would typically call a "white supremacist", is all I am saying.

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

If only that was all I quoted, there.

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 cannot view the video you linked, I have no idea what my opinion in it is. There are indeed people who want race to be reemphasized as means of categorizing people, I think society can both address racial issues (that are made real by society) while moving society in a direction where race is deemphasized. I don't think I have ever received pushback personally from expressing this position, even back on school campus.

Interesting that you claim the cartoon’s message is appropriate

I didn't claim that.

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: 

No, I said I don't trust your usage of vocabulary because you have ulterior motive to do so and use of the word "orthodoxy" because it implies a much more lockstep perspective than the Left has actually ever had. Like, really? Leftist have a strict doctrine they follow and don't quibble and in-fight? Do you know the Left at all? "Eating their own" is almost a meme at this point.

Also, it seems weird you want to go the "semantic" route to justify your vocabulary choice given you expressed discontent at the usage of "cultist" to describe Trump supporters. I mean, do definitions only technically fit on one foot but not the other?

Broadcasting CRT propaganda to children is indoctrination.

Now I am not sure what you think "propaganda" is, because if indoctrination=giving "propaganda" to kids, then boy, you are super selective about what kind of indoctrination outrages you. I would imagine nearly everything we teach especially small children can be understood as "propaganda". How bout we address how we compel children to literally pledge allegiance to our federal government on a daily basis, I feel like that's more, uh, worrisome than teaching kids about race in society.

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).

First, I don't think teaching kids sharing has anything to do with socialism, I am mimicing what such a ridiculous complaint would sound like.

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.

As above, I have not seen it, the link doesn't work for me. It could be problematic to show to kids, I would have to see it first. I am just getting at the idea that you think it is exceptional or noteworthy that "propaganda" is shown to children when we will literally compel them to color in pictures of settlers and natives holding hands and smiling around Thanksgiving. And like, aren't you pretty religious? You really want to give out lectures on indoctrinating kids? Seems like a thread you wouldn't want to pull at.

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).

Wut?

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”.

Well yeah, but specifically your hypocrisy about your comments on summer rioting and your minimizing of the capitol riot. Funny how that can cut both ways, huh?

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.

I am just saying that accusations of extreme leftism controlling academia is hardly new in the US, and kinda tired at this point. I am getting "red scare" vibes with all this trendy "neo-marxism" talk. And of course I will act flippantly, your point is to maximize the negative interpretation of something; I may as well take a teenage atheist's description of theology seriously.

[Ludicus]

slavery had been the cultural norm throughout the world,

We know that, don't we? you know how I like to quote Norman Fiering,"The greatest obstacle to goining a true undertanding of the past is our human tendency to read the present into it"

Historically slavery was not practiced because of "racism"

Yes, but slavery in the ex- or western colonies has led to racism. You know as well as I do Pope Nicholas V's 1452 Papal Bull “Dum Diversas".

Historically speaking,that was not the case of the Arab and intra-Africa slavery, we can talk about this in detail. Nowadays, Arab racism against Black people is rooted in a colonial racial hierarchy. The history of the US is a history of freedom, democracy- and racism and violence. Some people still refuse to accept the reality, denying systemic racism exists in contemporary America (and other countries). As far as systemic racism is concerned,the question is- when did it cease to exist in America?
After 1868, when the 14th Amendament granted citizenship to the blacks?
After the 1924’s Indian Citizenship Act?
After June 1963 when the U.S. government filed suit against George Wallace to prevent him from stopping the admission of African American students to the University of Alabama?
“we have no class or caste system, no ghettos, no master race, except with respect to Negroes?" (Kennedy, 1963)
After 1964 when The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation in public and made employment discrimination illegal?
After 1972, when an amendment toTexas´s constitution made “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin” ?
After January 20, 2020, after nearly a century of debate, when Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

Or... in the uncertain future, given the fact that three conservative states, Alabama, Lousiana and South Dakota are suing to block the ERA ratification?
So, the question is, when will systemic racism end?

[numerosdecimus]

We know that, don't we? you know how I like to quote Norman Fiering,"The greatest obstacle to goining a true undertanding of the past is our human tendency to read the present into it"

Yes, but slavery in the ex- or western colonies has led to racism. You know as well as I do Pope Nicholas V's 1452 Papal Bull “Dum Diversas".

Historically speaking,that was not the case of the Arab and intra-Africa slavery, we can talk about this in detail. Nowadays, Arab racism against Black people is rooted in a colonial racial hierarchy. The history of the US is a history of freedom, democracy- and racism and violence. Some people still refuse to accept the reality, denying systemic racism exists in contemporary America (and other countries). As far as systemic racism is concerned,the question is- when did it cease to exist in America?
After 1868, when the 14th Amendament granted citizenship to the blacks?
After the 1924’s Indian Citizenship Act?
After June 1963 when the U.S. government filed suit against George Wallace to prevent him from stopping the admission of African American students to the University of Alabama?
“we have no class or caste system, no ghettos, no master race, except with respect to Negroes?" (Kennedy, 1963)
After 1964 when The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation in public and made employment discrimination illegal?
After 1972, when an amendment toTexas´s constitution made “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin” ?
After January 20, 2020, after nearly a century of debate, when Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

Or... in the uncertain future, given the fact that three conservative states, Alabama, Lousiana and South Dakota are suing to block the ERA ratification?
So, the question is, when will systemic racism end?

I evaluate things through the results they give. If today in western countries, all sorts of racial minorities enjoy the same legal and formal rights as the "traditional", majority ethnical group, then that is demonstration that a trend towards universalism has been followed through out western history. The same has not been followed in other civilizational templates around the world. Take for instance Saudi Arabia or Qatar, formally and legally defined slave labor is still practiced there.

Also, racial hiearchy is a part of the Mohemmedan civilizational template since its inceptio. Even the Quran has racial undertones concerning what races are superior.

[Abdülmecid I]

None of the above is true, though. The Gulf monarchies have a serious problem with human trafficking, but slavery has been formally abolished in Qatar and Saudi Arabia since the middle of the 20th century. The situation is not idyllic in Western countries either, as minorities, ethnic and religious, are still being discriminated even in EU members. Finally, the Quran has no racial undertones, that would be a bit absurd, since the concept of race is completely foreign to the region. Only in recent years there has been an importation of racial ideologies, mainly due to the dominant influence of American culture and ideas. It's somewhat similar to how contemporary homophobia in the Middle East has been inspired, at a certain extent, from Protestant preaching and Victorian ethics. Anyway, even in tribal and ethnic terms, the Quran confirms equality among Muslims of various backgrounds, a point which caused serious issues for the Ummayad Caliphate, as the Arab aristocracy tried monopolise political power, at the expense of Persian converts, despite the commands to the contrary of the Quran.

[Grimbold]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/05/u...rnd/index.html

How the turntables...

[Ludicus]

...and I forgot to add that a Texas cemetery attempted to defend its whites only policy as recently as 2016.
'Racism from cradle to grave': Texas cemetery sued for 'whites

The alleged rule came to light after Pedro Barrera died aged 70 in February. His wife, Dorothy, a fellow US citizen, who is white, anticipated that one day they would both be interred in San Domingo, on the outskirts of Normanna... when Barrera approached the San Domingo cemetery’s caretaker, Jimmy Bradford, he told her the association had voted against allowing his remains to be placed there “because he’s a Mexican” and that she could “go up the road and bury him with the and Mexicans”.

A fence still separated the “black side” from the “white side” at a large cemetery in Waco less than two years ago, with separate organisations conducting maintenance.

As long as Americans keep electing racist Presidents, systemic racism will certainly grow. Why some many white people deny the existence of systemic racism and white privilege?