National Museum of black history & culture lists aspects of white culture they dislike. You won't believe....
Hey citizen, did you know that the Smithsonian Institution--often touted as the finest museum complex in the U.S.--built an entirely separate museum called the National Museum of African-American History and Culture? Yep, the white liberals who run the SI decided the country absolutely needed it. Built with your tax dollars, right there on the mall in D.C, across from the National Museum of White History and Culture.
Just kidding. Ain't no such thing as a Museum of White History, just like there's no White History Month. Cuz White Privilege, eh?
So go to their web page, and about a page below a pic of white Robin DiAngelo lecturing you on how to "deconstruct your white privilege," you'll find a long page titled "Aspects and assumptions of Whiteness: White culture in the United States." (If it's wider than the screen, try clicking on it.)
[See Update at bottom: they've deleted it.]
Now, I'm gonna make the assumption that the brain trusts who published the above list didn't bother to include any aspect of White culture they agreed with, cuz what would be the point of that? That is, I think it's a good assumption that they folks who published this screed ONLY bothered to mention "cultural assumptions of whiteness" they claim blacks object to.
Frankly I suspect many black Americans find many of the points of implied objection to White culture listed on that page to be pretty reasonable. And I'd be delighted if blacks would identify any points in the chart that they find reasonable. But I'm not gonna hold my breath--because any black person who disagreed with the points listed would be attacked without pause by the "woke" mob.
So instead I'd like to take the points that seem to me to be prescriptions for failure and see how society would look if blacks--and their liberal white allies--succeed in replacing the points the page complains about with...something different, and presumably more to the taste of the liberals who put this disaster together:
The first section is titled "Rugged Individualism," and its first unsupported assertion about white culture is
Really? Says who? Oh yeah: White liberals in D.C. Makes sense now. But where I come from the primary unit is...the family. When someone puts their own pleasure or well-being before their family, disaster always follows. But I can see how white liberals and their black allies would NEVER want to admit that the most crucial key to white success is a successful family: two great parents raising their kids right. And when anyone loses this--including whites, for whatever reason--a dad killed in combat, or a mom killed in a home invasion, or both killed by an illegal alien drunk driver, the chance of successful outcomes for all their kids drops a LOT.
Next is this:
I'd like some smart, accomplished black people to weigh in on whether they believe their success had nothing to do with their working hard, or if they think there's no correlation at all between self-discipline and success.
Next heading is "Family structure," where we see this:
Next under "Family structure" is this: "Children should have their own rooms." Odd, I've never heard anyone say that. Moreover, white siblings often share a room for years, with no seeming damage at all. I suspect the point was inserted so blacks could blame problems on children having to share a room with a sibling, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that millions of white kids shared rooms with a sib (as I did) with no ill effects at all.
The next point of complaint about White culture by these yahoos is under the heading "Emphasis on Scientific method," and the first complaint is "Objective, rational, linear thinking."
Ah, the brain trusts who created this imply they dislike that and think it's "oppressive," eh? So what do you demand we need to do to IMPROVE the outcomes? Do you suggest SUBjective, IRrational thinking would be better? If not, why did you put the point there, unless you're just trying to fan flames of raaaaacism?
The next point under "Emphasis on Scientific method" is "Cause-and-effect relationships." Keep in mind that all these points are presumably points the Black History Museum is complaining about, implying they're an oppressive trait of the "dominant culture."
So the authors dislike the idea of "cause-and-effect relationships," eh? Sounds like they're implying that predicting that certain actions ("causes") lead to certain effects isn't valid--that there's NO relationship between actions or decisions and the chances of a given outcome. Please tell me if that's not what you meant, cuz it's certainly how any rational person would interpret objecting to that idea.
It's hard to come up with any conceivable rational logic by which someone could seriously claim that there's NO correlation between actions and outcomes. Claiming no correlation implies that a person who studies hard and doesn't do drugs has no better chance of success than a person who drops out of highschool and gets stoned most days. Do the authors really, seriously, believe that's true?
Ah, but you can easily see why believing that actions have consequences would be hated by liberals and socialists, since it provides a rationalization for...dropping out of school and doing drugs.
Two sections down is the heading "Protestant work ethic." Young Americans probably aren't familiar with this term, because the public schools don't mention it. Ever. For those unfamiliar, "work ethic" holds that working improves character, initiative, responsibility, reliability and success. One wonders how the authors can find such outcomes oppressive to blacks--except that complaining about the benefits of working on character, et cetera, provides a faaabulous rationale for refusing to get and hold a job, refusing to do what the employer is paying you to do, and instead sitting around on welfare getting stoned on whatever drugs are on hand.
Ah.
The first point under "work ethic" is "Hard work is the key to success." Again, I'm assuming the authors only included points they find "oppressive," thus objectionable. I don't know anyone who claims that everyone who works hard will succeed, but most people agree that working diligently greatly increases a person's chances of succeeding. Conversely, some people loaf and party all the time, yet luck into success. So again, hard work isn't a guarantee of success, but certainly increases the chances of it.
But even aside from that, do the authors believe work improves character, or ruins it? When people work, does that help the economy and nation, or hurt it? In your experience, are people who don't work more reliable, or less? More successful, or less? We await your reply.
The next entry under "Protestant work ethic" is "Work before play." Again, I'm assuming the authors listed this because they find it objectionable or oppressive. If so, that implies that the authors believe adults should put play before work. One imagines they encourage their kids to eat dessert before vegetables.
Again, this inversion of what most people would consider a rational decision for those wanting to be successful seems...odd. I'd love to hear how the authors claim this is a formula for more success instead of less. And of course if one rejects "work ethic" then play before work is unobjectionable.
Further down the page we see "Future orientation," which has the phrase "Delayed gratification." Again, if the authors bitch about this trait, one assumes they believe in "instant gratification," which is yet another way of rationalizing the belief that work comes last. I'd love to hear the authors explain why "instant gratification"--play before work--is more likely to produce success than delaying gratification. But then, to people who reject the very idea that decisions have consequences ("cause-and-effect relationship"), there's no such thing as a bad decision.
Finally, the last section contains this: "Be polite." Again, the authors--who are listing aspects of White culture--evidently find this oppressive. So what do you people suggest is better? Being rude, loud and obnoxious? Of course. And that works SO well, especially when participants have guns. (That's sarcasm, obviously.)
Conversely, armed people who are polite don't shoot unless shot at or threatened with bodily harm. If you're unclear on that, look at the huge number of shootings committed by armed citizens who demonstrated against lockdowns at state capitols. Oh wait, there weren't any. Not a single shot was fired at any of those demonstrations. Contrast with BLM mobs.
Finally, above the poster on the Museum website is this howler:
Really? With the tens of thousands of white liberal/socialist/Democrat lawyers in this country, does any rational person really believe that a single WORD of "white supremacy" remains hidden anywhere in our legal system, in any form?
Oh wait, is that like terms saying people charged with crimes are often given the chance to bond out of jail while awaiting their trial? Ah, got it. See, it just isn't fair that people with money could post a big chunk of it to guarantee they'd show up for trial, while those without money couldn't. Got it.
Say, ya know what else isn't "fair"? I don't think it's fair that Barack Obama owns two homes--a $14 million oceanfront on Martha's Vinyard and another $10 million townhouse in a posh section of D.C. I demand that the government give me one of those homes. After all, it's just not fair that he can buy two multimillion-dollar homes and I can't.
"But that's different!" I hear liberals saying. Really? Cuz it's exactly the same argument used by New York and D.C. to demand that people charged with serious crimes be released without spending a single day in jail, nor having to post any bond to show up for trial.
Exactly. The. Same. Argument.
Source.
UPDATE: Two days ago the museum staff deleted the outrageous, self-damning chart above. Said it didn't contribute to a "productive conversation" about racial issues. Gee, can't imagine.
The real question--which won't be asked by anyone except me--is, How the hell did this screed get approved by the people who run the Smithsonian? Oh, sure: Got it. Liberal Democrat socialists.
Just kidding. Ain't no such thing as a Museum of White History, just like there's no White History Month. Cuz White Privilege, eh?
So go to their web page, and about a page below a pic of white Robin DiAngelo lecturing you on how to "deconstruct your white privilege," you'll find a long page titled "Aspects and assumptions of Whiteness: White culture in the United States." (If it's wider than the screen, try clicking on it.)
[See Update at bottom: they've deleted it.]
Now, I'm gonna make the assumption that the brain trusts who published the above list didn't bother to include any aspect of White culture they agreed with, cuz what would be the point of that? That is, I think it's a good assumption that they folks who published this screed ONLY bothered to mention "cultural assumptions of whiteness" they claim blacks object to.
Frankly I suspect many black Americans find many of the points of implied objection to White culture listed on that page to be pretty reasonable. And I'd be delighted if blacks would identify any points in the chart that they find reasonable. But I'm not gonna hold my breath--because any black person who disagreed with the points listed would be attacked without pause by the "woke" mob.
So instead I'd like to take the points that seem to me to be prescriptions for failure and see how society would look if blacks--and their liberal white allies--succeed in replacing the points the page complains about with...something different, and presumably more to the taste of the liberals who put this disaster together:
The first section is titled "Rugged Individualism," and its first unsupported assertion about white culture is
"The individual is the primary unit"
Really? Says who? Oh yeah: White liberals in D.C. Makes sense now. But where I come from the primary unit is...the family. When someone puts their own pleasure or well-being before their family, disaster always follows. But I can see how white liberals and their black allies would NEVER want to admit that the most crucial key to white success is a successful family: two great parents raising their kids right. And when anyone loses this--including whites, for whatever reason--a dad killed in combat, or a mom killed in a home invasion, or both killed by an illegal alien drunk driver, the chance of successful outcomes for all their kids drops a LOT.
Next is this:
"Individuals assumed to be in control of their environment; 'you get what you deserve'"I don't know of a single white person who says "I'm in control" or "You get what you deserve." Everyone knows that lots of people--of all races--get far more than they deserve, and others get less. But what we do know is that there's at least a rough correlation between hard work and reward: Most people who study hard and work hard have better outcomes than people who drop out of highschool, do drugs and loaf. But clearly it's not at all a perfect correlation. Sometimes people do all the right things but a natural disaster or health crisis wrecks everything they've worked for.
I'd like some smart, accomplished black people to weigh in on whether they believe their success had nothing to do with their working hard, or if they think there's no correlation at all between self-discipline and success.
Next heading is "Family structure," where we see this:
"The nuclear family (father, mother, 2.3 children) is the ideal social unit"Again, my assumption is that the authors only list this because they claim it's oppressive to blacks. While no one disputes that some children of single-parent families succeed, I'd like the authors to provide their evidence as to why the nuclear family does NOT improve a child's chances of having a succeessful life.
Next under "Family structure" is this: "Children should have their own rooms." Odd, I've never heard anyone say that. Moreover, white siblings often share a room for years, with no seeming damage at all. I suspect the point was inserted so blacks could blame problems on children having to share a room with a sibling, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that millions of white kids shared rooms with a sib (as I did) with no ill effects at all.
The next point of complaint about White culture by these yahoos is under the heading "Emphasis on Scientific method," and the first complaint is "Objective, rational, linear thinking."
Ah, the brain trusts who created this imply they dislike that and think it's "oppressive," eh? So what do you demand we need to do to IMPROVE the outcomes? Do you suggest SUBjective, IRrational thinking would be better? If not, why did you put the point there, unless you're just trying to fan flames of raaaaacism?
The next point under "Emphasis on Scientific method" is "Cause-and-effect relationships." Keep in mind that all these points are presumably points the Black History Museum is complaining about, implying they're an oppressive trait of the "dominant culture."
So the authors dislike the idea of "cause-and-effect relationships," eh? Sounds like they're implying that predicting that certain actions ("causes") lead to certain effects isn't valid--that there's NO relationship between actions or decisions and the chances of a given outcome. Please tell me if that's not what you meant, cuz it's certainly how any rational person would interpret objecting to that idea.
It's hard to come up with any conceivable rational logic by which someone could seriously claim that there's NO correlation between actions and outcomes. Claiming no correlation implies that a person who studies hard and doesn't do drugs has no better chance of success than a person who drops out of highschool and gets stoned most days. Do the authors really, seriously, believe that's true?
Ah, but you can easily see why believing that actions have consequences would be hated by liberals and socialists, since it provides a rationalization for...dropping out of school and doing drugs.
Two sections down is the heading "Protestant work ethic." Young Americans probably aren't familiar with this term, because the public schools don't mention it. Ever. For those unfamiliar, "work ethic" holds that working improves character, initiative, responsibility, reliability and success. One wonders how the authors can find such outcomes oppressive to blacks--except that complaining about the benefits of working on character, et cetera, provides a faaabulous rationale for refusing to get and hold a job, refusing to do what the employer is paying you to do, and instead sitting around on welfare getting stoned on whatever drugs are on hand.
Ah.
The first point under "work ethic" is "Hard work is the key to success." Again, I'm assuming the authors only included points they find "oppressive," thus objectionable. I don't know anyone who claims that everyone who works hard will succeed, but most people agree that working diligently greatly increases a person's chances of succeeding. Conversely, some people loaf and party all the time, yet luck into success. So again, hard work isn't a guarantee of success, but certainly increases the chances of it.
But even aside from that, do the authors believe work improves character, or ruins it? When people work, does that help the economy and nation, or hurt it? In your experience, are people who don't work more reliable, or less? More successful, or less? We await your reply.
The next entry under "Protestant work ethic" is "Work before play." Again, I'm assuming the authors listed this because they find it objectionable or oppressive. If so, that implies that the authors believe adults should put play before work. One imagines they encourage their kids to eat dessert before vegetables.
Again, this inversion of what most people would consider a rational decision for those wanting to be successful seems...odd. I'd love to hear how the authors claim this is a formula for more success instead of less. And of course if one rejects "work ethic" then play before work is unobjectionable.
Further down the page we see "Future orientation," which has the phrase "Delayed gratification." Again, if the authors bitch about this trait, one assumes they believe in "instant gratification," which is yet another way of rationalizing the belief that work comes last. I'd love to hear the authors explain why "instant gratification"--play before work--is more likely to produce success than delaying gratification. But then, to people who reject the very idea that decisions have consequences ("cause-and-effect relationship"), there's no such thing as a bad decision.
Finally, the last section contains this: "Be polite." Again, the authors--who are listing aspects of White culture--evidently find this oppressive. So what do you people suggest is better? Being rude, loud and obnoxious? Of course. And that works SO well, especially when participants have guns. (That's sarcasm, obviously.)
Conversely, armed people who are polite don't shoot unless shot at or threatened with bodily harm. If you're unclear on that, look at the huge number of shootings committed by armed citizens who demonstrated against lockdowns at state capitols. Oh wait, there weren't any. Not a single shot was fired at any of those demonstrations. Contrast with BLM mobs.
Finally, above the poster on the Museum website is this howler:
White supremacy and its legacy can still be found in our legal system and other institutions through coded language...
Really? With the tens of thousands of white liberal/socialist/Democrat lawyers in this country, does any rational person really believe that a single WORD of "white supremacy" remains hidden anywhere in our legal system, in any form?
Oh wait, is that like terms saying people charged with crimes are often given the chance to bond out of jail while awaiting their trial? Ah, got it. See, it just isn't fair that people with money could post a big chunk of it to guarantee they'd show up for trial, while those without money couldn't. Got it.
Say, ya know what else isn't "fair"? I don't think it's fair that Barack Obama owns two homes--a $14 million oceanfront on Martha's Vinyard and another $10 million townhouse in a posh section of D.C. I demand that the government give me one of those homes. After all, it's just not fair that he can buy two multimillion-dollar homes and I can't.
"But that's different!" I hear liberals saying. Really? Cuz it's exactly the same argument used by New York and D.C. to demand that people charged with serious crimes be released without spending a single day in jail, nor having to post any bond to show up for trial.
Exactly. The. Same. Argument.
Source.
UPDATE: Two days ago the museum staff deleted the outrageous, self-damning chart above. Said it didn't contribute to a "productive conversation" about racial issues. Gee, can't imagine.
The real question--which won't be asked by anyone except me--is, How the hell did this screed get approved by the people who run the Smithsonian? Oh, sure: Got it. Liberal Democrat socialists.
posted by SF at
3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home