Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That’s where treating everyone the same can begin to run into problems

Sometimes “I treat everyone the same” translates into “I just think about what I want to do and not about what others want or need”.  This happens in other contexts besides race as well. I would be interested to see how those who use “colorblind” to avoid examining how they personally respond in the context of race*** engage in other contexts to see how consistent that is.  
 

***talking about the subset, not everyone who uses the term

[smac97]

Here's an interesting development.  The Smithsonian Institution has a website dedicated to "Whiteness."  Here's a key graphic:

Meanwhile the African American History Museum's website "says being on time is a marker of 'whiteness'":

Quote

The National African American History Museum suggests being on time, self-reliance, avoidance of conflict and intimacy, and rugged individualism are markers of “whiteness.”

In an article titled “Whiteness” in the “Talking About Race” section of the museum’s website, the museum shared an infographic adapted from Judith Katz, the author of White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training.

Katz says that while individuals “might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time.”

Included on Katz's list is an assertion that whiteness includes an appreciation for “steak and potatoes; ‘bland is best.'"The list claims that “whiteness” values the nuclear family in which the husband is the breadwinner and the wife stays at home and is submissive to her husband.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture was opened {} in 2016 and was constructed at the cost of $500 million, half of which were provided by the federal government. Congress funds about 70% of the Smithsonian's operating costs.

In a section covering white supremacy, the Smithsonian says “the belief of white superiority has been part of the United States since its inception,” and “white supremacy and its legacy can still be found in our legal system and other institutions through coded language and targeted practices.”

The museum encourages readers to acknowledge their “white racial identity and its privileges,” because it is “a crucial step to help end racism.”

Some observations:

Quote

Look at this stunning exhibition from the website of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. This is from its web page about the menace of “Whiteness”. Aside from the anti-white stereotypes here, notice the inadvertently anti-black insanity: things like hard work, being on time, cause and effect, “rational thinking,” respect for authority, politeness — all these things, according to the museum, are manifestations of “whiteness.” Did David Duke write this stuff? It’s crazy! If a white man said that black people are lazy, can’t keep to a schedule, have no respect for authority, can’t think straight, are rude, etc. — he would be rightly criticized as racist.

But there it is, at the taxpayer-funded National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Why? Why do we pay for this racist propaganda? The museum itself looks fantastic, but this is disgusting.

The museum teaches black people that being on time for work is racist oppression. Don’t believe me? Look. What kind of country do the museum curators want?

Words fail me.

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting development.  The Smithsonian Institution has a website dedicated to "Whiteness."  Here's a key graphic:

Meanwhile the African American History Museum's website "says being on time is a marker of 'whiteness'":

Some observations:

Words fail me.

-Smac

This made me laugh out loud. I was stunned. Granted, the hypocrisy was noted and added to the humor I found. However, what amazed me most is that all of the characteristics of whiteness are ones almost all successful individuals possess. If the opposite is what Blacks are supposed to be like, please tell why anyone doubts that the reason for their poverty is due to their own actions and not because of Whitey doing it to them.  I am still stunned the more I think that this is actually in a museum for and about Black people. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

being on time is a marker of 'whiteness'":

I am dying of laughter here. 
 

So if being punctual is a quality of whiteness, does that mean nonwhites are not punctual?  Or just not clock obsessed. 

[BlueDreams]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am dying of laughter here. 
 

So if being punctual is a quality of whiteness, does that mean nonwhites are not punctual?  Or just not clock obsessed. 

Actually......several different communities maintain long standing jokes about it. Brown time, CP time, etc are really common banters. In latino communities an event almost never starts on time. It's more like, this is the time we'll get a few things ready so bring stuff then and help set up and then an hour later the real party will get going.  

White people aren't the only ones who focus on punctuality, but different cultures and communities have different expectations around time and dates. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Danzo]

"Whiteness" really only exists when people look others and make a judgment based on their skin color

"Blackness" really only exists when people look at others and make a judgment based on their skin color.

These are labels that we put on ourselves and others.

My wife, whom most of you would label as a "Person of Color" and I am are joint owners of a business.

During the last couple of months many people have been advocating doing business with minority owned businesses.  Me and my wife were talking the other day that our business could qualify as a minority owned business.  We found it funny because we have never really thought about the color of our business. or even thought of it as a having a color.  we talked a bit about having my wife be 51% owner instead of 50%, so we could take advantage of the new "support businesses of color" movement. 

In the end we decided that people choosing our business because of our "color" would be wrong and we would not want the type of clients who judge our business based on our color.  

 

In the end I find people much more interesting based on who they are.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

White people aren't the only ones who focus on punctuality,

Except white people I know don’t. Mormon time is what, ten minutes late or at least it was growing up. Robinson (my extended family) time is half an hour late and stuff takes twice as along as predicted. 
 

I agree businesses and schools function that way, but individuals in my experience don’t if they have a choice (if they won’t get a tardy, lose their appointment or job, etc).  Church meetings didn’t start on time often until we started stacking 3 wards in a building and having meetings end and start a half an hour apart so you caused problems for others if not keeping to the clock. 
 

Be interesting to take a poll and see how others perceive things.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

I guess I don't understand the rules about race-based stereotypes. 

Are they okay as long as they are not derogatory on their face?

Are they okay as long as some portion of the targeted racial group is okay with them?

Are they okay as long as the targets are white?

-Smac

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Actually......several different communities maintain long standing jokes about it. Brown time, CP time, etc are really common banters. In latino communities an event almost never starts on time. It's more like, this is the time we'll get a few things ready so bring stuff then and help set up and then an hour later the real party will get going.  

White people aren't the only ones who focus on punctuality, but different cultures and communities have different expectations around time and dates. 

 

With luv,

BD

Do you look at some ones skin color when scheduling appointments?

Longer appointments for dark people (because they might be late)?

In my business, I really don't find it useful.  

Some Dark skinned people are punctual, some are not

Same with lighter skinned people.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Danzo

[smac97]

This just in:

So race-based hiring criteria are okay when the targets to be discriminated against are white, I guess?

This is not a healthy way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Actually......several different communities maintain long standing jokes about it. Brown time, CP time, etc are really common banters. In latino communities an event almost never starts on time. It's more like, this is the time we'll get a few things ready so bring stuff then and help set up and then an hour later the real party will get going.  

White people aren't the only ones who focus on punctuality, but different cultures and communities have different expectations around time and dates. 

 

With luv,

BD

Are we conflating racial identity with cultural/social identity?

Edited July 15, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

race-based hiring criteria are okay when the targets to be discriminated against are white, I guess?

I would say that it would depend on why it is happening. Promoting one principle doesn’t always mean one is against other principles even if it works out that other principle doesn’t get the time and effort the promoted ones do. 
 

If the principle is to create a balance of POV, creating a community with input and experience from a variety of backgrounds, it is not discriminating against whites, imo, any more than if one wants a fruit salad instead of just eating apples, it is rejecting apples to only use one apple along with grapes, oranges, watermelon, and cherries (trying to think of what else Mom put in it...nectarines too).

It seems strange to me to see whites as the target of a policy intent on creating a varied workforce.  At worst, I can see it as ignoring whites to some extent.  How are they being targeted?  They are still the majority race after all (50% white, other races divide up their 50%).

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

race-based hiring criteria are okay when the targets to be discriminated against are white, I guess?

I would say that it would depend on why it is happening. Promoting one principle doesn’t always mean one is against other principles even if it works out that other principle doesn’t get the time and effort the promoted ones do. 

The "principle" here is to categorically exclude white people from 40% (and, next year, 50%) of writing jobs at CBS based solely on the color of their skin.

Quote

If the principle is to create a balance of POV, creating a community with input and experience from a variety of backgrounds, it is not discriminating against whites, imo, any more than if one wants a fruit salad instead of just eating apples, it is rejecting apples to only use one apple along with grapes, oranges, watermelon, and cherries (trying to think of what else Mom put in it...nectarines too).

But CBS is not speaking of "backgrounds" they are speaking specifically of skin color.

Quote

It seems strange to me to see whites as the target of a policy intent on creating a varied workforce.  

I wonder why that is strange.  Why are we seemingly conditioned to be indifferent to, or even supportive of, discrimination based on race when the person being discriminated against is white?

Quote

At worst, I can see it as ignoring whites to some extent.  How are they being targeted?  

Isn't that fairly self-evident?  They are being excluded from 50% of the writing jobs at CBS based solely on the color of their skin.

Quote

They are still the majority race after all (50% white, other races divide up their 50%).

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I'm trying to figure out how we arrived that these rules.

I'm trying to figure out how to explain this to my kids: "Hey, if you ever want to work as a writer at CBS, you will be at a severe disadvantage right from the outset.  Not because of your skills.  Not because of your background or education.  The disadvantage is based solely and entirely on your skin color.  White people are categorically excluded from half the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin, whereas non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin.  That's the world we live in.  But somehow, it's not 'racism.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 15, 2020 by smac97

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say that it would depend on why it is happening. Promoting one principle doesn’t always mean one is against other principles even if it works out that other principle doesn’t get the time and effort the promoted ones do. 
 

If the principle is to create a balance of POV, creating a community with input and experience from a variety of backgrounds, it is not discriminating against whites, imo, any more than if one wants a fruit salad instead of just eating apples, it is rejecting apples to only use one apple along with grapes, oranges, watermelon, and cherries (trying to think of what else Mom put in it...nectarines too).

It seems strange to me to see whites as the target of a policy intent on creating a varied workforce.  At worst, I can see it as ignoring whites to some extent.  How are they being targeted?  They are still the majority race after all (50% white, other races divide up their 50%).

The problem is how are you going to know if someone is a person of color unless you judge people by the color of their skin?

How do you know if you have reached your goal without being racist in judging your employees?

My children have a light skinned father and a dark skinned mother. Their skin color is about halfway between mine and their mothers skin tone.

Is there going to be some color chart that one uses to see if the person has enough melanin  in their skin to qualify as a POC?

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I think you may be still trying to classify people according to race, when race should be meaningless.

A "majority Race" is only meaningful when one looks at people as a race.

If people stopped looking and categorizing people by their "race", "majority race" would have no meaning.

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a helpful illustration.  Thank you for sharing it.

I agree.  The defensiveness will continue, though, while notions of collective guilt are perpetuated.

Thanks,

-Smac

With some people yes. 

I am finding though that the more I focus first on the other person and what they are feeling the less defensive I feel.   

I have a loved one that hasn't spoken to me for over a year.  Nearly every day I think about the person.  That thinking often centers on how I will react when contact is made again.  When I think of the hurt I have felt I get defensive of the things I imagine this person might say. When I think of the hurt the person might feel I think of smiling when the person arrives and wrapping my arm around them.  I have no doubts at all, considering how reactive this person has been in the past that how I react in that first millisecond will set everything up for the rest of our lives. I choose by reaction upon seeing them how they will start the view whether reconciliation is really possible.

It's no different than any other relationship.  Both people always have choices, but if I want real change I can only change me. If I really look on their heart as the Lord does I no longer need to feel defensive and that can help them feel safe enough (eventually) to drop their defenses as well.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I don’t see promotion of a balanced variety as discrimination against any single part of the variety.

Quote

non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin.

Huh?  50% being white doesn’t translate to 100% nonwhite for me. 
 

 ——

I do think if skin color is the only variable, it is a lazy and not particularly reliable way to get a varied workforce that better represents the desired market/audience, done more for PC appearance than creating a pool of varied experiences. After all, one common micro aggression is the assumption that POC are fundamentally foreign, as in asking a POC without an unusual accent for one’s locale “where are you from” when one doesn’t ask whites the same thing.  Skin color is associated enough with different ethnic and culture groups I see it as a starting place. Interviews that follow can look for other variables such as language knowledge, where they grew up, etc.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[Raskolnikov]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I'm trying to figure out how we arrived that these rules.

I'm trying to figure out how to explain this to my kids: "Hey, if you ever want to work as a writer at CBS, you will be at a severe disadvantage right from the outset.  Not because of your skills.  Not because of your background or education.  The disadvantage is based solely and entirely on your skin color.  White people are categorically excluded from half the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin, whereas non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin.  That's the world we live in.  But somehow, it's not 'racism.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure whether this is a Columbo-type routine or if it is sincere ignorance, but it is borderline offensive. Moreso, it is surprising from someone who went to law school and should have been exposed to basic principals of constitutional law. If you are sincerely trying to figure out how we arrived here (which, from your commentary and questions doesn't seem likely) and even better, why it is necessary, there is no shortage of material to provide you with something to think over. Feel free to take a look at cases and commentaries on race-based hiring, principles of diversity in employment and higher education, etc... Feel free to pick up books by Baldwin, Ellison or others. If these are truly sincere questions, take that wonderment and do try figure it out. It isn't that complicated, but my be somewhat uncomfortable. 

 

[Calm]

 

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

White people are categorically excluded from half the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin, whereas non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin. 

CFR 50% of work slots are designated hiring only POC while the other 50% is hiring white or POC as opposed to quotas that look at percentage of all the work slots. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:55 AM, smac97 said:

the context matters, I think.  And when being chanted by violent, lawless protesters, "No Justice, No Peace" comes across as a threat of violence.

to you.  It never has to me- 

[Stargazer]

I got called a racist on Facebook once solely because I failed to denounce a prominent politician as a racist in a discussion. By a member of this forum, no less. I didn't even mention the politician.

It's just an insult these days and seems to have been weaponized primarily to stifle dissent.

I'm sick to death of the subject.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting development.  The Smithsonian Institution has a website dedicated to "Whiteness."  Here's a key graphic:

Meanwhile the African American History Museum's website "says being on time is a marker of 'whiteness'":

Some observations:

Words fail me.

-Smac

I've seen worse, though not recently, and not in English.

Were these the assumptions you were alluding to a couple of days ago?

Edited July 15, 2020 by USU78

[USU78]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This just in:

So race-based hiring criteria are okay when the targets to be discriminated against are white, I guess?

This is not a healthy way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Some folks still cannot get over a cadre of writers not being hired sixty odd years ago on ideological grounds.

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

to you.  It never has to me- 

I can accept that it wasn't originally meant to be a threat, but some people clearly mean it to be taken as such.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I got called a racist on Facebook once solely because I failed to denounce a prominent politician as a racist in a discussion. By a member of this forum, no less. I didn't even mention the politician.

It's just an insult these days and seems to have been weaponized primarily to stifle dissent.

I'm sick to death of the subject.

I got called a racist on this forum for stating that the Hispanic population in West Valley is a hotspot for Covid.

I agree that people are trigger happy with racism accusations.  If this is the worst I have to suffer for being white however (that, and the occasional sunburn), I count myself lucky.

I am concerned that racism is turning a corner and pointing its ugly nozzle at white people now, and things may get worse in the future, but I hope to follow the example of Daryl Davis in the "Changing the Mind of a Racist" thread, in response. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by pogi