Students at Elizabethtown College this month are capitulating to a push by the Elizabethtown College Democrats, who want white students to wear white pins in the shape of jigsaw puzzle pieces “to remind them of their white privilege.” The racial branding at the small and private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania is supposed to prompt introspection about racial issues.
And it is President Trump who is being called Hitler….
I am fairly certain that my reaction to this racist belittlement and intimidation would be the same at ages 18 to 21 as it is now at age…well, as it is now. I would vocally refuse to wear the damned things, mock any student who did as submissive, addled and cravenly enabling totalitarianism of the left, and wear this myself to make the obvious analogy as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face…
I also might suggest—emphatically and with a bullhorn in the middle of classes and the dining hall—that the racist hypocrites who came up with this idea are obligated to wear prominent badges designating them as assholes. Surprisingly, there are several very nice ones to choose from…
…and I would personally wear every one of them on my forehead for the rest of my life before I would submit to the cultural bullying that wearing one of those puzzle pieces for a single minute represents.
A college on which any significant number of students wear or pressure others to wear symbols based on race and the alleged flaws of that race has allowed a real hostile environment to flourish on campus….unlike, for example, the contrived hostile environment of attending an elite college where a building bears the name of a famous alumnus whose 19th Century sensibilities offend. If Elizabethtown College students there were really being educated in liberal values and American democracy, they would be burning these puzzle pieces, or nicely, pleasantly, advising their advocates on campus on where they should be deposited.
This is your legacy, Democrats. You must be so proud.
Oh yes, my head exploded when I read about this.
And I’m thinking about not putting the pieces back together again.
And wearing one of the pieces as a badge…
KABOOM!
Ethics Alarms 
I couldn’t help but to notice a certain similarity between one of your badges and the Indiana State flag:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Flag_of_Indiana.svg
The flaming asshole state. I knew it!
Makes me think of “The Fusilli Jerry” episode of Seinfeld. “It was a one in a millions shot doc!”
Any chance of singling out the Brain Trust/creative genius behind this and forwarding it to Larry Flynt’s “Asshole of the Month?”
That appropriately depicted emblem left very little to the imagination.
To wit:
At least it’s voluntary. All the liberal students will jump on it, of course, to be seen as on the right side of things. A lot of the guys will either be pressured into wearing them by liberal gfs or wear them in the hopes of getting a leg over on a liberal coed. The similarity to the yellow star is not lost on me, not so much because it is an ethnic identifier, but because it is a mark of stigma, designed to make the wearer feel ashamed.
In the UK everyone pins a red poppy to his lapel in November to remember the fallen of World War One and the wars since. It’s such a thing to do that the one time I visited the UK in November my hotel concierge gave me one for free, telling me to appear in public without it would mark me as either a tourist or a conchy (slang for conscientious objector), and, whatever I did, not to wear a pacifist white poppy if I saw them available (that’s considered a slap in the face to the veterans and might result in you getting attacked). The liberals there decry it as poppy fascism, and they’re probably right. Still, if pushing the wearing of a symbol to honor the fallen is a no-no, pushing one to make white students hang their heads is a no-no-no.
Seinfeld had an episode about that. But this is pressure to wear a self-denigrating badge, and that’s materially different.
Eggg-zactly.
How voluntary will it be once non-wearers start to be ostracized or harassed?
There is no shame in wearing a red poppy on Remberance Day. It was started to commentate the countless British Empire soldiers who died in Flanders Field during WW1. The juxtapose this with fascist administrators who are pressuring white student to wear “white privilege” jigsaw puzzel piece to not so subtly shame them is just plain wrong.
None at all, in fact I own a red poppy “lest we forget” pin I bought in Ypres. My main point is that in the UK there is tremendous social pressure to wear it, and, though it’s for a good cause, that pressure shouldn’t be there. There should absolutely not be any pressure on students to wear a symbol of shame.
Ypres, the place where we discovered we could kill each other via pulmonary edema (drowning on your body’s fluids) with chlorine gas.
Also where Colonel John MacCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields,” and where the local firemen sound the Last Post each day at sunset including Christmas, to thank the British soldiers who fell defending the city.
That is so beautiful!
The juxtapose this with fascist administrators who are pressuring white student to wear “white privilege” jigsaw puzzel piece to not so subtly shame them is just plain wrong.
Where in the article does it say anything about administrators? As I understand it this is a student-led campaign.
I also don’t agree that acknowledging privilege is a mark of shame. (That said, I still oppose this move.)
Typo it should be “wear white pins” not “rear white pins” — I ordinarily would not comment but I actually thought when I first glanced at the article, given all the asshole references, that the kids were putting the pins on their butts!
Why puzzle pieces? I can’t figure that out.
Are the wearers supposed to “puzzle the problem out?” Is white privilege “the missing piece?” If we think about white privilege long enough, will we finally “get the picture?”
White privilege is the missing piece of social justice. As soon as whites understand that justice and fairness requires them to accept cultural and economic hobbling to make up for the inherent advantage they have, everything will be wonderful. Thus reparations, quotas, civil right laws enforced against white but no one else, black criminals guaranteed sealed records and lesser sentences, different discipline for white students than blacks, and so on. And, of course, there is maile privilege, so in practice only white males will really be handicapped…you know, for fairness.
That’s what the pieces signify. Because this solves all the problems.
Okay! I’m woke!
News release from Elizabethtown College dated Sept. 2016: Elizabethtown College moves to U.S. News and World Report’s National Liberal Arts List — ranks 14th among Pennsylvania Liberal Arts Colleges, 115th nationally.
Impressive.
Soooo… the students learn nothing usable and are therefore unemployable, and it is not their fault?
Then the taxpayers are supposed to cover the students’ federally guaranteed student loans. Of course!
Their loans should be rescinded.
One has to wonder, at times, if these people are actually serious. Sometimes I think they get together and just dream up outrageous crap like this just to make the rest of us scatter our brains around the landscape. It’s almost Onion-like in its absurdity — in fact, I’m thinking the Onion may find it too obviously absurd to use. Apparently, not the left-leaning snowflakes this country has recently spawned, though.
I pray that I get to see somebody wearing that badge in person. I may wind up getting arrested, but I’m going to ask them what it’s for, and laugh right at them when they tell me. There are some things that are simply too stupid to let go, and craven self-flagellation over your race is one of them.
This is proof positive that Leftism, at least at this extreme, is now a religion, not a political ideology. At least, I hope this is an extreme, but I may be wrong.
”One has to wonder, at times, if these people are actually serious.”
Madison, WI’s CommonSenseLess Council thinks up some of the goofiest shit you might imagine: Sister Cities, Trollies, edible landscapes, what to do when all the red ‘pedestrian’ flags are on the other side of the street, etc.
And it is believed that they sit in those hallowed chambers, their “Gosh I’m Nice” endorphin levels ramping to DefCon III, and smugly exhort “Don’t you wish you could be here in 100 years to see what we’ve done?”
Scary thing is, they’re serious!
Trouble is, all ‘bad ideas’ start out with people thinking they’re ‘good ideas.’
Some (Disco, Leisure Suits, The Monkees, Earth Shoes, the New Coke) hit the “you gotta be shittin’ me” wall pretty quickly and skulk off to the dustbin of history.
Others (Eugenics, Agent Orange, self-esteem focused public school curricula, the Community Reinvestment Act…Karaoke) linger like syphilitic lepers and leave a LOT of victims in their wake.
IMHO, self-esteem focused public school curricula is part of what’s allowed this to be considered a ‘solution.’
Kids are brought up never hearing the word ”no,” thinking that their every thought (no matter how moronically imbecilic) is valid, and never hearing (as the late great George Carlin hilariously said) “Johnny, ya fucked up!”
When you’re raised thinking you’re always right, you’re never challenged, and any opposition is tantamount to hate speech, to borrow a phrase, you “just dream up outrageous crap like this;” all Id, no Super Ego.
I’m hoping, but not hopeful, sanity will prevail, in the form of white hot rebuke and seething condemnation, assuring this wilts like August lettuce.
Rant of the wee, material, Paul. You get the Participation trophy and a pizza and as many Cokes as you can get at the dispenser. Thanks.
No, you probably wouldn’t get arrested. I almost certainly would, because I don’t see myself being able to resist pulling it off of their lapel and pinning it on their ass. That might be worth a week or two behind bars; barely time to get my stuff unpacked. I could catch up on my reading, too.
Puzzle pieces are traditionally the symbol for Autism Awareness….but let’s put that white privilege to work and co-opt that for “White Privilege Awareness”. I assume we’re supposed to contemplate about how the privilege of white people is diminishing and becoming endangered and what we can do to restore it. Does that about sum it up?
You have completely confused me. Not fair when I have all my brains on the rug…
too much snark…my bad.
Actually, it makes much more sense than what the geniuses behind this intended.
Is there not any support for this well intentioned but probably misguided initiative? There is no compulsion here. Why ridicule it? Why so much aggression? The extent of ‘white’, ‘male’, or ‘rich’, or ‘Anglo’ privilege is quite reasonably debateable, as is the complex issue as to whether such privilege should or could be counterbalanced. Isn’t this just the sort of topic you would want our young to be discussing, and not just at a liberal arts college? Surely, surely it is positive that they seem to care, even if we might see their thinking as unbalanced and their calls to action naive? To my mind ‘not caring’ would be much much worse.
And most depressingly of all, such aggression in response may well be misinterpreted as confirmation of such ‘privilege’ and lack of any concern for those who may (reasonably or not) feel disadvantaged.
Have you never heard of peer pressure? Do you really think this “well intentioned” activity is about choice? History proves otherwise: read up on the rise of the Third Reich, and how “voluntary” behaviors soon became compulsory ones. This is totalitarian stuff — a slippery slope from a bunch of adolescent ignoramuses flexing their muscles to something much,much more deeply disturbing.
E2 – I’m truly flumoxed. Where does the Third Reich fit?. My understanding is that in late 1930s Germany being Aryan meant being privileged; and being Jewish or Romani (gypsy) meant being distinctly disadvantaged. I am sadly unaware of voluntary campaigns by privileged Aryan youth to think about their privilege and others’ disadvantage. Such campaigns must have been rare and only for the brave. What please is your point? Of course, just because you may be paranoid, doesn’t mean they are not out to get you ….
This isn’t hard. “I am a Jew” and responsible for your problems. “I am white, and responsible for your problems.” The main difference is that the students can say “bullshit” and not get arrested.
So far.
Jack Marshall said, “The main difference is that the students can say “bullshit” and not get arrested. So far.”
What do you think the likelihood is that any white person/student caught not wearing one of these puzzle pieces will be labeled a racist by a hoard of illiberal students?
Very high. Which is why it isn’t truly “voluntary.” And will someone please explain to Andrew Wakeling why the scheme isn’t well-intentioned either? And be nicer that I would be?
“Responsible” is just the tip of the iceberg. This is “I am white, and I am ashamed of who I am. I should be ashamed of who I am because of what people who looked like me did to people no longer alive a long time ago. I know I am less than you because of my lack of melanin, my national origin, my faith in a prophet who preached total love, and my conventional sexuality, but I humbly ask for the chance to prove myself worthy of being accepted as a white ally, a Christian ally, a straight ally, though I will never be as cool, as awesome, or as morally superior as the black and brown races, the non-Christians, or the gays.”
Pure projection, Steve. That is not what white privilege is at all.
Chris, just how do YOU define ‘white privilege?’ For the record.
I would define it as the system of advantages given to white people in most white-dominated societies by virtue of their race. This is how it is typically defined, as I understand it.
I feel no shame about this. In fact, the first lesson we were taught in my Sociology of Race class was that shame and “white guilt” are useless emotions. I am not responsible for anything that my forefathers did or did not do. But I do benefit from a system which advantages whites more than others, and denying that just strikes me as silly.
Everyone here seems to think that white privilege is a ridiculous idea that people are brainwashed into in college, but honestly, it was only the nomenclature that I learned there; the idea that the average white person has it better than the average black person in America was never something I even knew was controversial until college. Keep in mind that I was raised in poverty by a fairly conservative single mother. I did not have many financial advantages compared to many of the other white kids I knew. But the idea that being white was in itself an advantage was never something I remember questioning. Once I got to college, I started realizing that other white people didn’t agree that they were in any way advantaged by their race, which I found bizarre.
All this is to say: white privilege exists, and I don’t see anything sinister about recognizing that. That said, this particular method of acknowledgment was always going to be mischaracterized and compared to Stars of David. I think that’s a stupid, unfair, ridiculous comparison, but the College Democrats who started this still should have known it was going to be made, and avoided the issue.
You’ve provided your definition, and I thank you. Now, kindly, could you provide examples of White Privilege in action? And can you do so, without references to equality of outcomes, in situations where opportunity is clearly equal for members of each race?
Also, is it your opinion that only White’s benefit from being privileged? If not, is the issue that they receive more privileges than others? Or, if so, what is your rationalization for Harvard’s SAT “bonus system” (giving a 230 point bonus to the SAT scores of black applicants, so that a 1000 score of a black applicant is viewed as equal to a 1230 score of a white applicant)? Or, of campus demonstrations, where the physical intimidation of whites are excused by the police and campus administrators (like at UC Berkeley, where white students were forced to walk through a creek to get across campus, while blacks were allowed to use the more convenient bridge)? Or simply, how it’s socially acceptable (at least, to a certain, very large, segment of the population) to self segregate on the basis of race, ONLY if the segregators are black (like the many examples of those looking for roommates refusing to considers whites; or those attempting to hold BLM meetings in public facilities attempting to refuse entry to whites)?
Additionally, could you explain why a privilege, held by whites, consistently has them coming in second to Asians in undergrad graduation rates, advanced degree graduation rates, SAT scores, and ACT scores? Why would such a pervasive, apparently-impossible-to-break-through stranglehold be so easily pierced by a different minority, with it’s own sordid history of oppression from the majority?
Lastly, can you give your opinion on why white privilege is considered to such an advantage/handicap, when the privilege of 2 parent households, which clearly has much more to do with determining a person’s future success, gets nary a mention? Why do you suppose there are no 2 parent household privilege pins?
Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/about-whiteness-uc-berkeley-students-segregate-campus-block-bridge-human-wall
Click to access p20-578.pdf
http://theedge.com.hk/ivy-league-sat-scores-for-asians-chinese-and-whites/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/20/acts-annual-score-report-shows-languishing-racial-gaps-mediocre-scores
Sigh…”each race”. As if there are only 2.
Showing my black privilege there, as being a member of one of the 2 that anyone ever wants to talk about. Mea Culpa.
Huh?
Why aren’t you beating yourself up…?
“Each ______” is a perfectly acceptable term for “any one ______ of the many _____s”
Had you said “either”, I think would have implied “one of only two”…
Good point Tex. Writing isn’t one of my strong points, and I often make errors like conflating “each” for “either”.
Chris Bentley:
You’ve provided your definition, and I thank you. Now, kindly, could you provide examples of White Privilege in action? And can you do so, without references to equality of outcomes, in situations where opportunity is clearly equal for members of each race?
Surely you’ve seen the many “privilege lists” floating out there. Here’s one:
Click to access white-privilege.pdf
I don’t agree with everything on the list, but the issues regarding representation resonate with me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “equality of outcomes” vs. equal opportunity–from what I’ve seen, different people define these in different ways. To me, having less of a chance of being followed in a store is clearly an issue of equal opportunity, but I’ve seen some conservatives say that addressing this issue is actually a request for equality of outcomes, and argue that if black people simply commit fewer crimes as a group, this would stop happening. I disagree with that for a number of reasons.
I am largely agnostic on the affirmative action issue, though I lean against it. It’s important to note that the SAT bonus exists for groupings other than those based on race; legacy students get a bump, as do athletes. This indicates that the bonus is not merely a condescending form of helping minority groups, based on the assumption that they naturally have lower scores, as was my initial understanding; rather, a recognition that having a large minority presence is a benefit to a school just like having athletes and legacy students.
This paper examines the SAT bonuses for different groups, though I admit I haven’t read the whole thing yet:
Click to access webOpportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf
I wholeheartedly reject the segregationist tactics that some BLM groups have used on college campuses that you allude to.
The issue of Asian academic success is a complex one, and not one I’m prepared to speak to. I imagine it has a lot to do with culture, but I would not go as far as to say that Asians are privileged in this country, or that they are not disadvantaged in other ways when compared to whites despite their academic success.
Why are there no two-parent household privilege pins? Well, the issue of race is a sexier one to most activists. To my knowledge single parent households haven’t been actively oppressed in the same ways as minorities have, though as someone who grew up in one, we definitely have had disadvantages, and I’d agree that growing up in a two-parent household is a privilege. Maybe you should start such a campaign? I wouldn’t wear the pin because I didn’t grow up in a two-parent household, but I wouldn’t object to anyone who would, presuming the intent is to raise awareness of the hardship of single parent households, and not to demean or stigmatize them.
Nice post, Chris.
Thank you, Jack.
Chris, thank you for taking the time to reply. I don’t have a lot of time to respond at length, but did want to address one part of your post.
You said: “rather, a recognition that having a large minority presence is a benefit to a school just like having athletes and legacy students.”
I dont know enough about legacy students, and lowering admissions standards for athletes provides a giant economic boost to universities, while giving weight to the athletic abilities of potential students, and understanding how those athletic abilities can benefit a university in other ways outside of economics. Blindly boosting the scores for one specific minority, without considering individual achievements (any boost given to an athletes is weighed against the individual athletic benefit that athlete can provide to the university) does not strike me as the same.
And one key question…if the boost is solely to increase the minority presence on campus, why are Asians forced to score higher than their white peers?
From the Economist: “They point to Asians’ soaring academic achievements and to the work of Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford of Princeton, who looked at the data on admissions and concluded that Asian-Americans need 140 SAT points out of 1,600 more than whites to get a place at a private university, and that blacks need 310 fewer points.”
In fact, Asians are encouraged to appear “less Asian” to overcome this bias:
From the Boston Globe: “Brian Taylor is director of Ivy Coach, a Manhattan company that advises families on how to get their students into elite colleges. A number of his clients are Asian American, and Taylor is frank about his strategy for them.
“While it is controversial, this is what we do,’’ he says. “We will make them appear less Asian when they apply.”
If this really is just about a “more diverse” campus, with “diverse” meaning more blacks, no matter the cost, this appears to be a pretty good example of “hard cases making bad law”. Yay, for getting more blacks on campus…and tough s*** for everybody else.
What kind of self respecting human being wants to succeed in that way? I sure as hell don’t; no black that I knew does either. Kid glove treatment is just….so….insulting.
I dont know enough about legacy students, and lowering admissions standards for athletes provides a giant economic boost to universities, while giving weight to the athletic abilities of potential students, and understanding how those athletic abilities can benefit a university in other ways outside of economics. Blindly boosting the scores for one specific minority, without considering individual achievements (any boost given to an athletes is weighed against the individual athletic benefit that athlete can provide to the university) does not strike me as the same.
Very good point, and one of the reasons I lean against affirmative action.
And one key question…if the boost is solely to increase the minority presence on campus, why are Asians forced to score higher than their white peers?
My understanding has always been that due to the traditionally high levels of academic achievement in the Asian-American community, universities are not worried about Asian representation on their campuses. But some of the evidence you provide does indicate that this could be crossing into an anti-Asian bias.
Again, I am not an aggressive defender of affirmative action. But I don’t think the existence of it contradicts the idea of white privilege. AA is designed to counter-balance the advantages that white students already have over others; it wouldn’t exist if those advantages did not exist. And even if these advantages have been eliminated or over-balanced on the college campus level, they still exist on a society-wide level.
Where do these advantages come from?
Yes, and aren’t these advantages counterbalanced by black privilege?
The fact that it is designed to do that doesn’t mean it works, and it doesn’t. Moreover, it exacerbates racial division. I was involved, as a university administrator, in AA. Wealthy black applicants whose parents were bankers, lawyers and surgeons were admitted over middle class whites who had better credentials. Nice.
This is a persistent progressive malady: good intentions are considered sufficient to justify bad policies. This describes the entire Obama administration, in fact. “The hoped-for ends justify the inadequate means.”
Michael:
Where do these advantages come from?
Joe:
Yes, and aren’t these advantages counterbalanced by black privilege?
Sorry, gentlemen. As a teacher, I resolve never to answer stupid questions when posed by my students. When posed by adults, I have no problem pointing out when such questions are really fucking stupid.
Then I would point out to things.
– white privilege in the U.S. is much less prevalent today than in 1915, let alone 1815.
– white privilege is only considered a problem in the U.S., due to the fact that one of the founding principles of America is equal rights. It is not considered a problem, or even controversial, in other places not founded on equal rights nor individual liberty.
Michael, both of those points are too obvious to be worth mentioning, and I don’t see how they are relevant to helping us move forward.
Chris Bentley, you bring up excellent points, and I will try to respond to most of them later.
Sounds good…thanks.
That is EXACTLY what this pin is supposed to represent. Go ahead and rationalize it all you like, but this is just another liberal divide and conquer tactic: blur the line between minority and nonachiever, get those minorities/nonachievers permanently angry and resentful toward the majority/achievers, make them think that as a result of that anger and resentment that they are somehow better than the majority/achievers and that the way to achieve redress of their failures is not to achieve, but instead to pull down, marginalize, otherize, and now BRAND the majority/achievers by pressuring them into wearing a badge that is supposed to acknowledge shame for everything those like them did.
I might add that this is hypocritical. As Desert Shield ramped up into Desert Storm, it suddenly became the thing to do to wear the yellow ribbon, often with a flag attached, to show your support for the soldiers, deploying for the first time in big numbers since Vietnam. After the towers fell it became the thing to wear some kind of flag pin or other support for the War on Terror (pins with “343” for the slain firemen are also popular). As I pointed out above, in the UK every November, and sometimes other times when war observances are celebrated, it’s expected that you’ll have that red poppy with a black center pinned to your lapel, showing your acknowledgment of those who fell defending King/Queen and Country.
Guess who were the ones who refused/refuse to wear these symbols? Exactly, the liberals. What’s more, if anyone questioned or questions the decision not to wear them, the responses vary from “a rude message about sex and travel” to liberal talking points like “I refuse to wear the symbol of a nation that (insert grievance)” or “I’d rather wear a green ribbon in solidarity with my Muslim friends who are going to be treated badly” to the relatively thought-out and benign “I don’t need to wear my beliefs on my sleeve,” or “I don’t need a symbol to prove my patriotism.”
That was it, you were supposed to keep quiet, leave your liberal neighbor be, or even applaud his courage for standing against the popular patriotic tide. I do applaud people having the courage of their convictions. I don’t applaud grandstanding, but that’s a separate discussion.
What’s going to happen to the white students who say “I don’t need to wear a pin to prove my thinking is right” or “I’d rather wear my crossed flag and Italian tricolor to show you can come here legally and make it,” or heaven forbid “No?” Well, I guarantee you no one will say “leave them alone” or “if they are strong in their beliefs that should be respected.” No, they’re going to get grief, be ostracized, maybe even get roughed up by a few brawny black or brown enforcers or white “allies.” It’s going to be like those scenes in “Higher Learning” where the black students force a white student to grovel before a black woman for having rudely called her a “black bitch” earlier on the phone or charge a group of white supremacists roaring with rage to start a huge brawl (of course the blacks, though some of them are pretty out of shape, are MUCH better fighters than the whites). I say let it happen, but don’t look at me when the brawl doesn’t go their way or they end up with a face full of pepper spray or a beating from a security officer’s baton.
Steve-O-in-NJ;
“a rude message about sex and travel”
THAT drew an open guffaw! And like my Dear nearly 92 year-old Father says: “Pauley, a good laugh is better’n a pill!”
May I use that, with proper citation?
Yes you may, with the caveat that I pulled it from a book about the poor handling of the Sudetenland crisis and the Maginot Line.
Steve, you are hysterical on this topic, and I’m not about to argue with your invented boogeymen.
Translation: I got nuttin’.
And what do you have, other than invented persecution fantasies of how whites are being oh-so-mistreated?
What? Come on. Making students go to school is a hostile environment where there is pressure on them to wear “I have no legitimate achievements and have reached my state in life by stepping on black citizens” badges is mistreatment, and there is nothing invented about it.
More than just allegations of hysteria and claims of invented boogeymen. If you’re going to engage, engage, but if you’re out of ammunition, you need to admit it and retire from the field.
Don’t waste your time, Jack. The pigeon has already knocked over the chessmen and shit on the board and is now waddling around like it won.
What? Come on. Making students go to school is a hostile environment
You have not proven a hostile environment, you have merely assumed one.
where there is pressure on them to wear “I have no legitimate achievements and have reached my state in life by stepping on black citizens” badges is mistreatment, and there is nothing invented about it.
You have not proven that “white privilege” means “white people have no legitimate achievements and have reached my state in life by stepping on black citizens,” you have merely assumed it. No scholar who teaches the theory of white privilege would agree with your definition. Nor, in my opinion, would any fair person who has studied the term.
I am a fair person; I have studied the term; that’s what it means. It’s advocates and “scholars” dishonestly cloak it in gibberish, but the fact is that it is a version of anti-white racism, just as my hypothetical black version of the badge would be immediately seen as racist. This is the “you can’t talk about abortion, because you are a man” shut-up tactic as well.
This is a good rabbit hole to continue pushing down. Either the term has meaning, in which case it means precisely as you are characterizing it, or in defense of the term Chris will continue to strip away any actionable definition or moral veneer until it is an empty and meaningless term.
This is the “you can’t talk about abortion, because you are a man” shut-up tactic as well.
Well, I certainly think those who use “you have privilege, therefore shut up” are in the wrong, and I have sparred with those people before. I can’t recall a time this came up with me regarding race, but a few weeks ago I was accused of “cisplaining” trans issues to a trans person, when in fact I had simply asked her to clarify an issue I didn’t fully understand. She engaged in the “you are [insert privilege group], so shut up” tactic you describe here.
I do not see how the pins do that, though; the white people wearing them are speaking out, about race, not shutting up about it. They are trying to show that they are thinking about issues of race, and have a voice in the conversation; to me, that’s a good thing. I still don’t think they should have gone with a badge because of the inevitable Nazi comparisons; even though I find such comparisons shallow, they were still obviously going to be made, and activists should avoid measures that turn off large segments of the general public even if those measures aren’t inherently wrong.
Jack, do you believe that whites have any social advantages relative to other races in America? If so, you believe in white privilege, even if you don’t call it that. That’s all the term means. It isn’t a mark of shame or guilt, it doesn’t mean whites are inferior to other groups, and it doesn’t reduce the achievements of any individual white person.
If you don’t believe whites have any social advantages today, then certainly you can acknowledge that whites had social advantages in the Jim Crow South. Should all individual white people, even anti-racist ones, have felt guilt and shame over their race during that time? Would them pointing out that whites were privileged over others have been an indication that they were racist against white people?
If not, can you see why it is possible to believe that white privilege is a thing today without having any kind of anti-white bias? Can you see why that’s possible even if you believe that such privilege doesn’t really exist?
This isn’t hard. “I am a Jew” and responsible for your problems. “I am white, and responsible for your problems.” The main difference is that the students can say “bullshit” and not get arrested.
There are tons of other differences here.
The first is that this is self-driven by the community that is wearing the badges; the leader of this campaign is white, and it was originated by a white pastor.
Jews, obviously, did not start asking each other to wear Stars of David in order to make them aware of their “Jewish privilege,” because they had none in Nazi Germany.
Jews were forced to wear the badges so that they could be more easily identified and mistreated. What mistreatment are whites who wear this badge in danger of?
I also take issue with your depiction of “white privilege” as meaning “I am white, and responsible for your problems.” I believe that white privilege is real, but that is not what I mean when I use the term, nor is it what most people mean when they use the term.
So far.
Pure paranoia. There is no evidence of pressure being put on anyone to wear the badge. None. You’ve merely invented it.
And you call leftists hysterical?
Granted, some are. But these knee-jerk assumptions and slippery slope arguments (“The end results of whites voluntarily wearing pins to remind them of an academic concept I don’t fully understand is TYRANNY!!!11!!”) is no better than comparing Trump to Hitler.
I repeat: this isn’t hard. Why in the world do you think its useful to point out obvious differences that nobody has asserted weren’t differences? Yes: the Jews were set up and marked be exterminated, and the white students are just being set up to be marginalized and dismissed. And yes, Pennsylvania isn’t Germany. Nor is it a distinction that some of the flaccid and brow-beat, indoctrinated students are happy to wear “My achievements have been entirely at the exploitation of minority students, and nobody should listen to me or respect me” badges.” It’s also irrelevant. A woman who happily accepts spousal abuse does not justify spousal abuse.
I repeat: this isn’t hard. Why in the world do you think its useful to point out obvious differences that nobody has asserted weren’t differences?
Because your entire argument implies that these differences don’t matter, when they obviously do.
Yes: the Jews were set up and marked be exterminated, and the white students are just being set up to be marginalized and dismissed.
The only people I see marginalizing and dismissing the white students wearing these pins are you and the conservative commenters here. You have provided no evidence that this has been the reaction from their peers at the college, their administrators, or anyone else they interact with; you are just assuming that the result will be dismissal and marginalization, with no evidence.
And yes, Pennsylvania isn’t Germany. Nor is it a distinction that some of the flaccid and brow-beat, indoctrinated students are happy to wear “My achievements have been entirely at the exploitation of minority students, and nobody should listen to me or respect me” badges.”
Again, assuming what is not in evidence. The point of the badges, according to the organizers, is to start conversations and promote respect. The leader flat-out said that it’s designed to show that white people can have a place in conversations about race, and are valuable allies. I don’t think this is the best way to do that, but it is the exact opposite of saying “nobody should listen to me or respect me.”
Again, the person saying that nobody should listen to or respect these particular students is you. Your refusal to listen to their actual message and your determination to misconstrue that message adds an extra layer of irony here.
(For one thing, white privilege does not assert that white people’s achievements are “entirely at the exploitation of minority students,” but you say that it does so that you can knock down a convenient strawman argument.)
It’s also irrelevant. A woman who happily accepts spousal abuse does not justify spousal abuse.
Except that you can’t show any evidence that students wearing this pin are being “abused” or even mistreated in any way. If you could show that, you would have done so already. But the premise that liberals are evil tyrants are to persecute Whitey is so self-evident to you that you don’t even feel the need to support it any more.
That is called bias.
(Slickwilly, for the record, that’s what accusing someone of bias looks like.)
I can discharge this lame defense easily, Chris. What would you say about having black students wearing badges that signified that they were handicapped by the burdens of Jim Crow and slavery, and thus unable to compete with other non-black citizens unless every person and institution gave the badge wearers special leniency, sympathy, and help.Would you wear it? What would you think of the students who did? What if the blacks who did wear it received higher grades, kind smiles, gifts and honors?
The puzzle badges are just a cowardly way to make teh same statement, but to bully whites into the humiliating role of billboard for their own diminishment..
“Jews were forced to wear the badges so that they could be more easily identified and mistreated. What mistreatment are whites who wear this badge in danger of? ”
What mistreatment are those who DON’T in danger of?
I can discharge this lame defense easily, Chris. What would you say about having black students wearing badges that signified that they were handicapped by the burdens of Jim Crow and slavery, and thus unable to compete with other non-black citizens unless every person and institution gave the badge wearers special leniency, sympathy, and help.
I’m not following this analogy at all. No one argues that white privilege renders minorities “unable to compete.” Very few are arguing for “special leniancy, sympathy, and help.” These are strawmen, Jack.
Would you wear it?
I’m not black, so…no?
The puzzle badges are just a cowardly way to make teh same statement, but to bully whites into the humiliating role of billboard for their own diminishment.
No. This is paranoid racial resentment, and beneath you.
What’s wrong with not caring about something THAT DOESN’T EXIST?
Thanks E2 and Je 68. I was going to respond but figured someone better than I would.
Well, everyone here seems to care deeply about the mistreatment of whites who don’t wear these badges at Elizabethtown college, even though there’s no evidence that exists.
Andrew said “Is there not any support for this well intentioned but probably misguided initiative?”
There is no reason for people to support this “misguided initiative”. Using the word “misguided” should have been your first clue that is shouldn’t be supported, but that point blew way over your head. Lastly, “well intentioned” is nothing but a nonsensical rationalization.
Andrew said “There is no compulsion here.”
Bull shit Andrew! Just because you don’t understand what the compulsion is doesn’t meant that the compulsion does not exist.
Andrew, please watch the following video in its entirety.
It isn’t well intentioned – it seeks to otherize a group of people. Those doing the otherizing are the very ones seeking to complain about being otherized.
The Left has a penchant for engaging in the exact same monstrosities of the monsters it claims to fight.
Take John Lewis for example: he complains that Russia delegitimized the election when in reality he is delegitimizing the election and undermining faith in our institutions.
The protests claiming Trump is a fascist engage in the very same riotous violence that actually leads to fascist governments.
The suppression of free speech.
The list goes on.
It isn’t well intentioned – it seeks to otherize a group of people.
I don’t think people can “otherize” themselves–this group is led by whites, and is meant to acknowledge privilege. That’s not “otherizing.” They are not saying whites are inherently worse or different than anyone else. They are saying we enjoy social privileges that others do not.
Those doing the otherizing are the very ones seeking to complain about being otherized.
Huh? They do not complain about being otherized–for the most part, the white liberals engaging in this would be more likely to complain about other groups being otherized, not themselves.
The protests claiming Trump is a fascist engage in the very same riotous violence that actually leads to fascist governments.
Certainly those committing or supporting violence are engaging in fascist tactics. The “anti-fascists” who rioted at Berkeley are ironically named.
But what I’m seeing here is people putting “white people voluntarily wearing pins to acknowledge their privilege” on the same level as “rioting,” which…
Well. People say the Left needs to get a sense of proportion, and to some extent they’re right. But if you see this as somehow fascist or tyrannical, maybe you need to get a sense of proportion too.
Of course people otherize themselves…not alone, but in concert with others.
Ok, but acknowledging one’s privilege is not otherizing one’s group. If there were a pin to acknowledge able-bodied privilege, for instance, wearing one would not be “otherizing” of the able-bodied.
The real irony about this is that those who would be bothered about wearing such a pin are those whose ancestors had nothing to do with it. Those whose ancestors were actually involves would wear it with pride and would probably write “pride” on the pin.
Man, I wish I had taken typing at some point in my ejumacashion.
You and me both. I type 5000 words on a typical day, all with two fingers,
You use your fingers? What an idea!
Doesn’t your nose get sore? Mine did.
Yes, but it works well with my myopia.
Are you sure he was referring to his nose?
Well, thanks. Even though I can ride alone in the carpool lane, there is a limit to my talents.
I didn’t want to embarrass him.
…well, I had a friend who had to switch to fingers… and blamed Obamacare, of all things.
Said the Tadalafil bills were breaking him.
Deflection Warning
I actually had one of those little yellow PROUD TO BE AN ASSHOLE buttons that I wore at a new job every day for about three months until the point it was making was learned by everyone.
After the occupation of Denmark by the Germans, a decree was issued requiring all the Jews to wear a yellow Star of David. On the morning that the decree took effect, every single person in Denmark wore such a star. Proclaimed the then Danish King, “We are ALL Jews in Denmark”. The story may be apocryphal, but wouldn’t it be nice if all the black and latino students at Elizabethtown wore the pins and responded “We’re all PEOPLE here”? I know that’ll never happen, of course, but wouldn’t it be nice?
That wouldn’t fit the victim narrative. And I suspect those who did that would be chastised and accused of being self loathing sell outs.”
Among other things. I suspect that ‘Uncle Tom’ and ‘Oreo’ would be more likely than anything starting with ‘self-loathing’ since any statement starting at that level of sophistication would imply at least some modicum of intelligence.
Unfortunately, there’s no Denmark in this case. The college is Germany, and most of them are probably pretty happy about the arrangement.
I’m very much afraid you’re right.
The story IS apocryphal. In fact the Danes were “surrender monkeys” and gave up very quickly on the promise that their internal government would be left alone (given that they shared a common border with Germany I’m not sure there was much of a workable alternative). The symbol of defiance was not the star but four coins totaling 9 ore tied together with red and white strings. What is true is that they worked behind the scenes to arrange for Jews to flee to Sweden, and by the time the Germans actually ordered the arrest of all Jews in the nation (which wasn’t until 1943) the Jews were mostly gone or hidden. Save your applause for the folks who worked behind the scenes and the Danish pilots who fled to the UK and kept flying the Spitfire until they could go home, and while you’re at it, spit on the memory of those Danes who joined the Luftwaffe or volunteered for the locally raised SS units (yuk!).
Putting that aside, even if you told this legend to show how wrong and frankly creepy this campaign is, I’m sure the proponents of this campaign would just get all offended and yell “how dare you compare us to the Nazis! If you want a Nazi comparison look at that orange ape you elected!” They learned the wrong history and took all the wrong lessons from it. $10 says they are the ones with signs that say “First they came for the Muslims…and we said NOT THIS TIME, MOTHERFUCKER!” Of course no one is coming for anyone, and just how would harsh language stop them if they did decide to come for them?
I kind of felt the same way about the Berkeley situation, where the whites were forced to cross the campus creek on the way to class by protesters, while the blacks were permitted to use the bridge.
I don’t know that I would have taken the time to address the protestors, especially knowing my voice (which runs contrary to the narrative) would largely be ignored. But there’s ZERO chance I would have chosen to use the bridge that day, and a 95% chance I would have chosen to take the creek.
I can’t believe that some of the blacks on campus didn’t feel the same. Oh, how I wish those “counter culture” blacks would get more/some/any press.
Showed my husband the article and his comment was “you know they should also give out a whip for self flagellation.”
He’s a new fan of your blog and much smarter than I am. (Or knows history and can retain it much better)
I like the pin at the upper right best – but then, I have been perhaps more successful than most at defeating denial and taking that crucial first step.
Well, here’s a disturbing thought for the day.
After decades of political, social and financial oppression, the majority Hutus of Rwanda were just about sick of the Tutsi minority. National independence and a push for an egalitarian, shared-government solution did not erase the bitter memories. The Hutus wanted retribution, total control of the country, and MORE segregation, even though Hutu and Tutsi are essentially the same race and their original segregation was a product of colonial meddling. The “Hutu Power” movement wanted payback, not equality or healing. Three years before the Rwandan genocide, a Kigali newspaper published the “Hutu Ten Commandments…”
1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, whoever she is, works for the interest of her Tutsi ethnic group. As a result, we shall consider a traitor any Hutu who marries a Tutsi woman, befriends a Tutsi woman, or employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary or a concubine.
2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and conscientious in their role as woman, wife and mother of the family. Are they not beautiful, good secretaries and more honest?
3. Hutu women, be vigilant and try to bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to reason.
4. Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. His only aim is the supremacy of his ethnic group. As a result, any Hutu who does the following is a traitor:
-makes a partnership with Tutsi in business
-invests his money or the government’s money in a Tutsi enterprise
-lends or borrows money from a Tutsi
-gives favours to Tutsi in business (obtaining import licenses, bank loans, construction sites, public markets, etc.).
5. All strategic positions, political, administrative, economic, military and security should be entrusted only to Hutu.
6. The education sector (school pupils, students, teachers) must be majority Hutu.
7. The Rwandan Armed Forces should be exclusively Hutu. The experience of the October 1990 war has taught us a lesson. No member of the military shall marry a Tutsi.
8. The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi.
9. The Hutu, wherever they are, must have unity and solidarity and be concerned with the fate of their Hutu brothers.
The Hutu inside and outside Rwanda must constantly look for friends and allies for the Hutu cause, starting with their Hutu brothers.
They must constantly counteract Tutsi propaganda.
The Hutu must be firm and vigilant against their common Tutsi enemy.
10. The Social Revolution of 1959, the Referendum of 1961, and the Hutu Ideology, must be taught to every Hutu at every level. Every Hutu must spread this ideology widely. Any Hutu who persecutes his brother Hutu for having read, spread, and taught this ideology is a traitor.
There are two ideologies in America who use rhetoric approaching this level of racism. One are white supremacists like the KKK, whose entire U.S. membership could fit in an office building and who basically all hang out on the same three message boards. The other group controls universities and school boards across the country, provides news and opinions to millions of people through mainstream television sources, and receives standing ovations at pop-entertainment awards shows. Just saying.
Oh, and I almost forgot…once it was time for the Hutu to slaughter upwards of a million Tutsis…they began requiring everyone to show their identification cards at road checkpoints, which designated everyone as either Hutu or Tutsi (it was often impossible to tell the two apart.) Which makes me wonder whether a half-white person, like, say, the previous President, would be asked to wear a puzzle piece were he a student at Elizabethtown College. Does being part Black provide automatic oppression status, or does being part white classify you as privileged? These are the kinds of conundrums that racists need to sort out before doling out retribution to the oppressors. And that’s why the puzzle pieces are a great idea if you’re planning a purge. (Should we check to see if non-puzzle-piece wearing students are being given machetes?)
In order for whites in America to be in danger like the Tutsis they would have to first be disarmed. That plan has not gone well so far in most of America. (Oddly enough, those pushing this have disarmed themselves, making themselves a easier target)
On the other hand, if the Tutsis HAD been armed, would the genocide have still happened? Then you have a real civil war, with real risks for the aggressors.
There was a movie my wife and I watched about the UN Peacekeepers in Rwanda, a dramatization of when they were protecting a group of Tutsi in a fenced compound, that was absolutely heartbreaking when the UN pulled out and left them defenseless. I would have had to remain behind, or commit suicide later in life consumed by guilt.
And we (the U.S.) purposefully denied that a genocide was going on and pressured other UN nations to withdraw along with us, so as to avoid having to keep our commitment as part of a UN charter pledging to always intervene against genocides. Not our finest hour.
But what if U.S. troops were killed? That would spark mass protests and claims that the war was really for oil.
Better to just take selfies with sad faces and “bring back our Tutsis” hashtags.
Disgusting. We ignored the plight of the jews too. In one instance, intelligence reports that many people had risked their lives to get to us were discarded by some mid-level anti-semitic bureaucrat.
Yes, joe. We refused to take many Jewish refugees during WWII out of the fear that there could be Nazi spies among them (plus a heap of anti-Semitism). The Frank family was among those who petitioned to be let into the US, but were denied. Most Americans opposed allowing more Jewish refugees in. We all know how that ended.
It’s a good thing we learned our lesson from that and never did anything like that again.
I’m scouring my mind, trying to think of all the European Jew suicide bombers…..
I bet the more ardent Zealots of the 1st century AD might have a go at it if they could.
Ah, I see, joe. So it’s OK to ignore the plight of refugees as long as they happen to be of the same religion as their oppressors (even though their oppressors would say they are not “true” members of their religion).
Somehow, I don’t see how those refugees are going to be any less dead than the Jewish refugees we refused to help.
I’m not going to address your other comments which are doing a good job of defining this “movement” as a meaningless exercise in emotional grandstanding, I this particular response to joed is weak and straw man laden.
Joed’s assertion distinctly contains tbe consideration that potentially dangerous elements amidst refugees should affect the outcome of any solution.
It borders dishonesty to pretend otherwise but I’m not sure how else you can miss something so apparent.
You then respond to his assertion on some sort of tangential religious objection.
Phenomenal.
tex:
Joed’s assertion distinctly contains tbe consideration that potentially dangerous elements amidst refugees should affect the outcome of any solution.
The rejection of Jewish refugees was justified in large part by the fear that Nazi spies could be hiding among them.
Joe calls this “disgusting.” Yet that is exactly the same type of logic he employs to justify the rejection of Syrian refugees.
I thought this was clear, and if you don’t see how it directly counters joe’s actual arguments, I can’t make it any clearer for you.
Pretending like the words you used say something that they don’t and merely asserting such doesn’t change that your counter was off the mark to joed’s comment.
When you do this, you embarrass yourself and make yourself even less credible.
You’re going to have to explain what you mean there, tex. This was my first reply to joe:
Yes, joe. We refused to take many Jewish refugees during WWII out of the fear that there could be Nazi spies among them (plus a heap of anti-Semitism). The Frank family was among those who petitioned to be let into the US, but were denied. Most Americans opposed allowing more Jewish refugees in. We all know how that ended.
It’s a good thing we learned our lesson from that and never did anything like that again.
This says everything I said in my last comment, though much more sarcastically. The point that Americans also believed that Jewish refugees posed a safety risk is there, as is the point that we are doing the same thing today to Jewish refugees (though this is obscured by sarcasm).
What do you see as missing from my original comment?
“What do you see as missing from my original comment?”
Yeah anything at all that explains why you think Joed’s objection to your commentary has anything to do with Syrian refugees being of the same religion as the oppressors they flee.
Which is what you asserted here:
“Ah, I see, joe. So it’s OK to ignore the plight of refugees as long as they happen to be of the same religion as their oppressors”
Which is what I objected to. You tried to divert the discussion and muddy the waters. It’s a rotten trick. I called you on it.
The point of the matter is, all side digressions pushed away, this debate boils down to:
What percentage of *en masse* refugees or immigrants crosses the line out of the realm of “we can accept this risk” into the realm of “we cannot accept this level of risk”.
The debate isn’t even “does a nation have the right to stop refugees or immigrants when a certain level of risk is met”. Of course it does.
No, the debate is what level that risk is and then it’s follow on debate: have we reached that risk.
Even going down the rabbit hole of “we did this to Jewish refugees on an incorrect suspicion” doesn’t even argue against the principle, let alone the weird objection that you raise, that I called out.
Get back on topic.
Ugh. *as is the point that we are doing the same thing today to Syrian refugees
One important consideration, among others being purely pragmatic and having nothing to do with religion (exactly as Tex stated), is that these refugees could be better assisted by providing security, food, and housing on-site. It’s estimated that every dollar spent could go roughly 10 times as far, without incurring the unacceptable risks of allowing so many people to pour in essentially unvetted.
I doubt we could have done this with the Jews, though.
One important consideration, among others being purely pragmatic and having nothing to do with religion (exactly as Tex stated), is that these refugees could be better assisted by providing security, food, and housing on-site. It’s estimated that every dollar spent could go roughly 10 times as far, without incurring the unacceptable risks of allowing so many people to pour in essentially unvetted.
I doubt we could have done this with the Jews, though.
Now that’s an argument. I’m not sure I see why this would be any more effective with the Syrian refugees than it was with the Jews, but I’m open to the possibility.
All the administrators at Elizabethtown College need is a catchy slogan to be displayed at the enterance of the college: Something like “Acknowledging your privilege makes you free!” to convince recalcitrant students.
Erwachte macht frei
Wasn’t there a sign like that above the Nazi death camps. I’m guessing Tex has it in German: “Work shall make your free.” Delightful. Thanks Tex, as always, you’re right on the ball.
“Arbeit macht frei” is the Nazi German death camp slogan.
“Erwachte macht frei” would be your Left wing race grievance mongering intellectual death camp slogan.
Universities as death camps. Apt.
Always loved the term “concentration camps.” Camps. Delightful. Water sports, sun bathing, summer relaxation, archery, musical productions. Wonderful.
I even dislike Holocaust. Makes it sound like a hurricane or some other natural event. A firestorm. Rather than industrial murder. Awful.
Shoah.
I am with you on “Concentration Camps”. Sounds like a place where kids with ADHD go in the summer.
Or a type of meditation with a Western-friendly name.
So true. Factories of death run with meticulous bookkeeping, efficiency, cruelty worked into their very architecture. Even a special division of the SS tasked solely with dealing with corruption. Imagine that. Almost banal in a way, but in a really horrifying way.
The British actually invented the concept, to “concentrate” or keep together the families of the Boer guerillas that were giving them such a hard time in South Africa and keep them out of harm’s way. While conditions were anything but posh, they weren’t places of annihilation, which was a German invention.
Seriously folks, we really don’t need to tamper with the socially accepted meaning of “concentration camps” as being a true place of evil that literally exterminated human beings. This path can lead to an unintentional form of historical airbrushing; be firm in this, don’t go there.
Arbiet macht mude
(no idea how to get an umlaut from my keyboard)
müde. I know there is another way, but the lazy man’s way is to google the word and then use your old friend “copy and paste”.
Vielen dank!
Ich hatte das nicht errineren.
ALT 0223 = ß
ALT 0228 = ä
ALT 0246 = ö
ALT 0252 = ü
ALT 0196 = Ä
ALT 0214 = Ö
ALT 0220 = Ü
Very useful. Especially when one needs to toughen up an image, the most efficient way is by adding umlauts to the word.
What’s scarier-
Fluffy Kitten
Or
Flüffy Kittën
?
Or Tawny Kittaen…
At one time, she was a great reason to watch MTV.
Then she started beating up her MLB pitcher husband, hit the bottle, and fell apart. You know: the old, old tale…
“Tawny the Tiger” or “Brawny Tawny: How the Kitaen became a Tiger.”
Tawny Kittaen, by far.
On my computer, if you go to “Symbols” and pick either English or German, it will give you every appropriate letter that needs an umlaut. FYI. Same as “accent grave,’ “accent aigu,” (French), tildas over the “n” (Spanish) etc. But then that’s my system.
And yet, she could not cite examples.
This does beg the question of why so much attention is being paid to racial discrimination now, in contrast to the 80’s and 90’s. And I suspect that people who attended high school and college in those eras would have heard about the segregation era from their own parents. They would have heard about segregated schools and water fountains. They may have even heard about how the state tried to fight integration (such as redrawing school district lines and attendance zones in a racially discriminatory manner.) thus even, if students of those eras encountered racial segregation, they at least knew living witnesses of an era when racial discrimination was much more widespread, and as such that would deter them from exaggerating these claims.
This is, of course, not to write that there is no need to be eternally vigilant. One does not have to go back even ten years to find examples of racial discrimination But claiming the whole system is racist, claiming that whites have collective racial responsibility for this system, and impugning racist motives for policies one opposes, goes far beyond eternal vigilance.
“Most people of color don’t have a choice but to consider how their race affects their life on a daily basis, this is not true for most white people.”
To which, I say, Bull-f***-s***. The inclusion of “most” is such a weasel word here, as it allows an out for the outliers. But, good freakin’ grief lady, STOP. BEING. A WHITE. PERSON. PURPORTING. TO. SPEAK. FOR. BLACK. PEOPLE.
I harte taking the, “You’re not black, so you don’t know” line of thinking, but…seriously. You literally do not know what most “people of color” (it’s ok to say “black”. We know that we’re black. It’s not a secret) consider on a daily basis.
What an utter crock of s***.
(sorry, I hate cursing, but this mindset infuriates me)
“STOP. BEING. A WHITE. PERSON. PURPORTING. TO. SPEAK. FOR. BLACK. PEOPLE.”
It makes normal white people cringe, believe me.
You literally do not know what most “people of color” (it’s ok to say “black”. We know that we’re black. It’s not a secret) consider on a daily basis.
My understanding is that she’s speaking of all people of color, not just black people.
Point taken.
One more reason why “people of color,” as well as being pompous and vague, is worthless political correctness language blurring.
I don’t know, to me it’s the best term available to describe what it needs to describe. “Minorities” works in a US context, but sometimes we need to talk about non-white people worldwide who are not “minorities” in their own nations. “Non-white” sets up white as the default state. “Colored people” conjures up images of Jim Crow. “People of color” seems best to me.
Of course, we all hope that some day we won’t have to talk about race at all, because this invented social construct just won’t exist any more (though of course other divisions always will, and we’ll invent new ones too). But I don’t think anyone thinks that day will happen in our lifetimes.
“Of course, we all hope that some day we won’t have to talk about race at all, because this invented social construct just won’t exist any more ”
From your lips to God’s (or the deity of your choice’s) ears!
We were well on the way to this state before electing Obama. Now er are back to the 1960’s.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hitler%E2%80%99s-double-was-wandering-around-austria-now-he%E2%80%99s-going-to-jail/ar-AAmVTAM?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Finally, Elizabethtown College really should make a public request that Hillary and other Democrat Party leaders wear the puzzle piece. It would be a nice piece of irony — since they have worked toward this divisive behavior for more than 10 years — and then they’d have to ‘explain’ why they won’t wear it. They are white/rich/privilege personified. And frankly, they’re the only ones who should apologize — not for the actions of their forebears, but for their own actions which created this situation in the first place.
O Canada! Could Elizabethtown College be merely reflecting the truth?
(Which country became, or will become, a nation of assholes FIRST?)
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/black-lives-matter-leader-says-white-people-are-sub-human-and-suffer-from-genetic-defects/?mod=sm_fb_hannity
KABOOM!
WARNING: If you are the sensitive sort, DO NOT listen to this song.
Yes! Sheik Yerbouti is a great album!
It was the first F.Z. album I ever heard all the way through and is still my favorite. It blew my mind again when I realized he was one of the best guitarists who ever lived.
If I ever want to demonstrate his guitar prowess, I just play “Stinkfoot”.
Not to say that’s necessarily his best example, just one of many that readily comes to mind. Did you ever see the old Ed Sullivan episode, where he plays the bicycle. The only time I ever saw him with short-cropped hair, if you can imagine.
Thanks! This is news to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MewcnFl_6Y