Smithsonian: You Are Racist If...

[seanD]

As I said, their point was not likely to be to say all those things are bad, but just to define what white culture is.

The implication I got was, this is whiteness and this is what minorities don't represent, and they list a bunch things they consider represent "whiteness." Anyone in their right mind would consider things like -- Rugged individualism, Self-reliance, The nuclear family, Work before play, Respect authority, Plan for the future, Progress is always best, Avoid conflict, Be polite, etc. -- as positives, yet in their view, minorities don't meet these standards and qualities, therefore it's white supremacy.

How could you look at that any other way, unless you're just in denial?

[seer]

How could you look at that any other way, unless you're just in denial?

bingo...

[DivineOb]

What is the alternative to rationality and the scientific method?

Magical thinking, religion over logic, faith etc.

The point is to understand your biases (not meant pejoratively) and how they influence your thinking. I don't see how it can possibly hurt to consider that the "self evident" way of thinking on a particular issue might not actually be self evident and to force yourself to reason out why that is actually the best idea.

[DivineOb]

The implication I got was, this is whiteness and this is what minorities don't represent, and they list a bunch things they consider represent "whiteness." Anyone in their right mind would consider things like -- Rugged individualism, Self-reliance, The nuclear family, Work before play, Respect authority, Plan for the future, Progress is always best, Avoid conflict, Be polite, etc. -- as positives, yet in their view, minorities don't meet these standards and qualities, therefore it's white supremacy.

How could you look at that any other way, unless you're just in denial?

It is not at all obvious to me that *all* of those are self evidently positives.

E.g. MLK Jr. was pretty explicit in his feelings about those two prefer peace over justice (i.e. avoid conflict).

ETA: I also notice you left off ones which you'd have a harder time defending e.g. more money equals better than.

[seanD]

It is not at all obvious to me that *all* of those are self evidently positives.

E.g. MLK Jr. was pretty explicit in his feelings about those two prefer peace over justice (i.e. avoid conflict).

ETA: I also notice you left off ones which you'd have a harder time defending e.g. more money equals better than.

It's called summarizing; what you do when you don't want to put all the things listed because they're too many. You know s-u-m-m-a-r-i-z-i-n-g. Good thing sparko screenshot it, because the liberal racists apparently took it down for some reason. The entire list is here...

[oxmixmudd]

The implication I got was, this is whiteness and this is what minorities don't represent, and they list a bunch things they consider represent "whiteness." Anyone in their right mind would consider things like -- Rugged individualism, Self-reliance, The nuclear family, Work before play, Respect authority, Plan for the future, Progress is always best, Avoid conflict, Be polite, etc. -- as positives, yet in their view, minorities don't meet these standards and qualities, therefore it's white supremacy.

How could you look at that any other way, unless you're just in denial?

You know I have no real idea what their point was, but no one I know would think all those things are bad, or uniquely just part of white culture. So it seems absurd to claim that was their point.

[DivineOb]

It's called summarizing; what you do when you don't want to put all the things listed because they're too many. You know s-u-m-m-a-r-i-z-i-n-g. Good thing sparko screenshot it, because the liberal racists apparently took it down for some reason. The entire list is here...

I know, I looked at Sparko's posting.

So you think you can defend *all* of those traits you listed as self evidently positive?

[seanD]

You know I have no real idea what their point was, but no one I know would think all those things are bad, or uniquely just part of white culture. So it seems absurd to claim that was their point.

That was their point. I know it's hard to accept because it's so absurdly racist and wacky. And she has a doctorate. And she has a best selling book. Like seer said earlier, these are the folks you support. The way you rant and rave about Christians, you seem to fall right in line with a lot of her anti-religious views

[shunyadragon]

If you hold to western values and work ethics. Go to the link to see a larger picture...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46737[/ATTACH]



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

Taken out of context of the message of the whole context of the site's purpose is a blatant racist position in and of itself.

[oxmixmudd]

That was their point. I know it's hard to accept because it's so absurdly racist and wacky. And she has a doctorate. And she has a best selling book. Like seer said earlier, these are the folks you support. The way you rant and rave about Christians, you seem to fall right in line with a lot of her anti-religious views

My comments about Christians violating the basic tenets of their faith are never false seanD.

Are you advocating lying and covering up immoral behavior when those doing it are Christian?

[Ronson]

If you hold to western values and work ethics. Go to the link to see a larger picture...

The only part of that list that I agree with is regarding historical focus. I mean, history that I was taught is essentially accurate and I'm not complaining about that. But it was far too Eurocentric for me - despite all my ancestors came from Europe. I think it's a holdover from the 19th century when 99% of our population was European, possibly with roots and family still living on the other side of the pond. But as late as the second half of the 20th century to still have a European focus applied to everything in history, political science, or even current events was really odd.

The rest of the list is pure carp.

[Leonhard]

I honestly think this was just a misguided chart. I was suggested to look at this yesterday by Rumtumtggr, and I browsed it very quickly. I was a bit familiar with Robin DiAngelo's work, but this part of the Smithsonian NMAAHC was a rather cluttered presentation. I think the intention was good but the way that chart is read by people shows how problematic it was. They've taken it down after the response which I think was a good idea. I'm not sure where to begin with the chart, in terms of communications it does such a horrible bad job I don't know where to begin.

Even if I agree with the main ideas presented to a large extent, this way of presenting it has caused severe confusion.

From my experience of these circles the object isn't to argue that white culture is bad. Self-reliance, or delayed gratification for instance aren't bad traits. The same with many of the other values.

The problem is how it that it has no alternatives to compare it to, and that leaves it as feeling like an attack. It is also difficult for me to extract precisely what their idea is in this infographic. The best guess I could make with it is to show which values and aspects of society that have been dominated by white normativity, or that these particular values are considered the default which can be problematic depending on what it is. However a discussion of individualism contra solidarity is not at all the same as a discussion of whether white people are primarily the ones controlling the goals and values of science (i.e which questions are interesting to have answered), or whether black or native american history is appropriately represented in school books, and so forth...

It's just too different items to be put together like that, we don't have apples here to compare, it's a whole fruit basket!

I can see people are guessing a lot at motives. And here we are bias. I certainly am trying to find the good reasons a person would have in creating a graphic like that, but I find I can't defend its structure. It draws disparate ideas together, it communicates unintentionally that these values are 'bad' or can't be had by other groups, it offers no alternatives to contrast with.

In general its just a mess I can't support, and I think the National Museum of African American History and Culture was good at listening to the incoming criticism and responding. This also comes in the tail of other criticisms of that museum that I'm trying to verify, such as their staff and curators being almost exclusively white. This smells to me of a disconnect between that museum and the local black community, which is ironic.

[seer]

Taken out of context of the message of the whole context of the site's purpose is a blatant racist position in and of itself.

No, their racism has been exposed...

[seer]

Magical thinking, religion over logic, faith etc.

The point is to understand your biases (not meant pejoratively) and how they influence your thinking. I don't see how it can possibly hurt to consider that the "self evident" way of thinking on a particular issue might not actually be self evident and to force yourself to reason out why that is actually the best idea.

Oh please, it is a clear attack against rationality and the scientific method, cause and effect reasoning as being vestiges of "whiteness." Stop trying to cleaning it up. And theism is clearly more rational than atheism since theism offers a rational grounding/source for an intelligible universe.

[seer]

I honestly think this was just a misguided chart. I was suggested to look at this yesterday by Rumtumtggr, and I browsed it very quickly. I was a bit familiar with Robin DiAngelo's work, but this part of the Smithsonian NMAAHC was a rather cluttered presentation. I think the intention was good but the way that chart is read by people shows how problematic it was. They've taken it down after the response which I think was a good idea. I'm not sure where to begin with the chart, in terms of communications it does such a horrible bad job I don't know where to begin.

Really Leonhard, how is the whole page not racist? Just exchange the word whiteness with blackness and see where that leads...