The above excerpt is from “Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education” by Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo. Apparently it has won awards, though I suspect not for what I would give it an award for. Here’s the description:
This is the new edition of the award-winning guide to social justice education. Based on the authors’ extensive experience in a range of settings in the United States and Canada, the book addresses the most common stumbling blocks to understanding social justice. This comprehensive resource includes new features such as a chapter on intersectionality and classism; discussion of contemporary activism (Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and Idle No More); material on White Settler societies and colonialism; pedagogical supports related to “common social patterns” and “vocabulary to practice using”; and extensive updates throughout. Accessible to students from high school through graduate school, Is Everyone Really Equal? is a detailed and engaging textbook and professional development resource presenting the key concepts in social justice education. The text includes many user-friendly features, examples, and vignettes to not just define but illustrate the concepts. Book Features: Definition Boxes that define key terms. Stop Boxes to remind readers of previously explained ideas. Perspective Check Boxes to draw attention to alternative standpoints. Discussion Questions and Extension Activities for using the book in a class, workshop, or study group. A Glossary of terms and guide to language use.
It should be self-evident that the book is an indoctrination tool to undermine the core American concepts of individualism, responsibility and self-determination. The ultimate objective is to program the young with the toxic falsehood that any personal failure or shortcoming, any difficulty or mental discomfort, is a result of oppression and injustice, andthe fault of otherized villains. Those blights on society need to be subjugated and punished for the greater good. The resulting level of dysfunction among the weaker and more impressionable students make them handy pawns in the hoped-for revolution to come.
Anyone whose head doesn’t explode at this junk is already in peril. I wonder how many Americans have had their minds and values so corrupted that they see nothing ominous about that excerpt. I suppose we will soon find out.
Incidentally, some of the parodies in various on-line forums of the example of “naming people by their key social groups” are both apt and hilarious…
________________________
Source and Graphic: David Thompson
Ethics Alarms 
The broad assumption is that non-white, non-straight group experiences are universal with respect to interaction with oppressors (white folks, especially straight males). Because straight white males are the only ones capable of racism and oppressive behavior. The two additional ingredients of oppression are Christianity and capitalism. Deconstructing these oppressive structures are most clearly the goals of social justice warriors.
Of course, much of this is really a sociological methodology to create enough oppressed groups to electorally overwhelm capitalism, Christianity, and sexually binary societal mores.
Look at the current crop of Democrat candidates. This is who and what they are all about. (It helps they currently have an opponent who is a bright orange lightning rod for everything they despise.)
Good morning, Comrade!
You know that I see the *whole problem* as stemming from the idealistic attempt to create a Utopian Multi-Cultural society. Everything — everything! — stems out of ‘dispossession’. That means — so as not to mince words — that when you enact a program of deliberately altering the demographics of your country (a country, any country) you are by that act creating social conditions of discord.
Here is a video-diagram:
In a way this is not the point. Because it should not be taken at a personal level. The idea behind ‘replacement theory’ and ‘replacement’ generally, is that some units are brought in to replace (and displace) other units.
What you are saying is that some of the new demographic, or the old politically active and militant demographic (Blacks, Latinos) do not (yet) have a marked politicized opinion — are not caught up in a specific activism — and so in their *experience* do not have a problem. They are neutral.
But of course this can change.
What I find interesting in tis statement — just 37 words — is how knotty and complex it is. Your statement requires dismantling into its various parts to understand it and to comment on it.
The Democratic Revolutionary Progressivism that is now so evident in America is directly connected with previous political struggles and ideals. The problems that America deals with were all evident in the pre-revolutionary period; during and after the Revolution; and during and after the Constitutional Convention. One can frame that struggle in a similar context as that of the radical northern abolitionist, with an aggressive neo-Christian outlook (a Christian revisionism it might be called), in open opposition to the southern traditionalist who desired to preserve social hierarchy and had the metaphysical stance to do so. These represent two very distinct worldviews. They have very different metaphysical bases and predicates.
In order for Democratic Revolutionary Progressivism to go truly forward, you see, it has to defeat and alienate all metaphysical traditionalism. Unless a ‘Christianity’ express itself as radical egalitarianism, it cannot be seen as ‘valid’ within the ideological structures of our present. If it does not serve radical progressive ends, it must be attacked, undermined, isolated and dismissed.
The ‘structures of white oppression’ are foundational to the individual states and to the united states. They are *part and parcel* of the original colonies and the states. The structures of power, the structures of industrial ownership, are still — quite largely — in the hands of those sectors: the founding sectors.
Therefore, when a whole new demographic is brought in, and when that demographic becomes politicized, it seeks to undermine the existent structures. It certainly must undermine ‘whiteness’ therefore. It is simply inevitable. Can you see an alternative?
The forces and powers that now ally themselves with American Progressive Radicalism, be they academic, social, industrial or governmental, do so because they want to join with the demographic currents that are likely to have success.
Who can oppose any of this? And if they did oppose it, on what basis could they do so?
It’s not surprisingly to me that this brings back some memories of what Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt wrote about in her book “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” and the discussions she had with others with her videoed interviews.
Stripping people of their individuality, pigeon-holing individuals into identity groups, direct and indirect indoctrination and of course intimidation are the primary tactics of progressives and social justice warriors. The problem is that parents are so disconnected as to what their children are being taught and just shrug it off as someone else’s job so the indoctrinating adults are able to infect the education systems across the USA and dumb down the students to emotional tunnel visioned troglodytes that believe shit like this…
This is exactly the kind of dumbing down that Iserbyt warned us about.
And here we are being told Liz Warren used to be a conservative in her youth. I wonder who dug up this photo of her.
Steve writes:
This is true, as far as it goes, but I would ask if this is really what ‘dumbing down’ results in. What does ‘dumbing down’ mean? It could mean many different things. It means to have lost the ability to think. But then What would one think about? So it must also mean ‘reducing the parameters of acceptable thought and conversation’, mustn’t it? It means subtracting from people’s intellectual framework the topics and ideas that comprise intellectual thought, doesn’t it?
But that must involve application of guilt and *blame* when someone thinks a thought that has been made to seem wrong, regressive, reprobate and socially undesirable, mustn’t it? That implies the wielding of guilt and blame as a tool of intellectual engineering, or de-engineering as the case may be.
To render a people *stupid* and *dumbed down* could mean to subtract out of them an individualistic spirit, as you say, but it could also mean to subtract from them the capacity to think in collective & corporate terms, don’t you think? It could mean to interject blame & guilt if a person were to think in terms of ‘their own group or nation’ as being comprised of specific people, or specific types of people.
(You see where I am going naturally!) So you can strip away from people those ‘necessary identifications’ and make them seem blame-worthy when they have them, or when they teach their children them. That also could arise out of projects of ‘dumbing down’, couldn’t it?
Well, to make this genuinely topical: social engineering and concerted public relations made it seem wrong and bad when those parents taught their children certain things that went against the grain of what education-systems began to teach in their stead. There, you might mention the Democratic Progressive Radical and their doctrines & ideology and their project of evolving America, through National policies, into a ‘better nation’ and a ‘good nation’.
You imply that parents must become more active in defining values and ideals to their children. But that seems to indicate turning against ‘the culture at large’, the ‘educational system’ and possibly even the industrial-social complex (business, advertising, public relations, government propaganda) that — it could be argued! — have a pony in the race when it comes to ‘dumbing down’.
If we are being dumbed down, and if we have been dumbed down, what can counteract that? Who is doing this? And what do they propose and what do they teach?
I took a look at both authors. Both appear to be white women whose brand is social (work) justice. Both ladies had prominent photos of them pictured with an obligatory black person smiling (gratefully?).
The funny thing is much these works and programs are essentially created by and for other (guilt-ridden yet smug progressive) whites and aren’t really for the people they claim to advocate for.
One has to wonder, as with the case of Peggy McIntosh and her ilk, why so many progressive whites in academia need to categorize everyone, especially minorities, so much. Isn’t that “othering?”. One also has to wonder what happens – when those who profit from keeping minorities in their categories – to the actual minorities who take in the message from these people that life is terrible for them but great for whites who are in charge of telling them how oppressed they are.
It’s a new plantation for an old problem.
I also wonder if it’s just a living; you know, a lucrative niche like palm reading or any other scam. They know there’s a lot f people who will fall for this stuff, they get good at the lingo, and Voila! An income stream. I have a wild and crazy friend from law school hwo plays a steely eyed, unyielding conservative legal warrior on TV. He’s really good at it, but it bears no resemblance to the guy I know. The image attracts right wing clients and gets him interviews, but it’s role playing.
This is why I mentioned that this is their brand as well as who they appear to create these materials for. It’s not a big sinister plot per se, however the exploitation needs to be addressed.
Here is more on Peggy McIntosh.
http://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack
Here is a passage of what McIntosh claimed was white privilege.
To black people in 1989, almost all who lived through Jim Crow, this would look like a parody.
This book is a spiritual successor to David Duke’s My Awakening, just as Hot Tub Time Machine was a spiritual successor to Back to the Future.
Funny, Mike.
I just tried to share this to my Facebook account and was blocked with Facebook stating it goes against their community standards. Obviously they have very biased community standards. I copied and pasted it. It is up for now. We will see how long it stays up.
My fault Frank: Facebook has been blocking EA since December of 2018, with no explanation. I’ve started adding the Twitter link, which works on Facebook—I didn’t for this post. Here it is: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1216447544756252673
Thank you. Shared on my Twitter account.
Whatever America was, it is no longer needed. Therefore, it is being redefined. Essentially, that is what ‘toppling a monument’ means.
I would offer a contrary assessment: the purpose of such a manual is to define an ideological posture which will allow for the continuing process of ‘replacement-lite’ as it is being undertaken in America. These versions in this book are more Canadian/European.
Replacement Lite is different from the sort of remplacement that Camus describes in his work. Renaud Camus wrote on the topic of The Great Replacement and there is an English version which I ordered and will read: You Will Not Replace Us! I will provide an in-depth analysis, count on me!
The ‘object of the book’ Is Everyone Really Equal? is to program the teachers to program the youths through these linguistic formula. This amounts to ideological refitting. It sometimes is *retrofitting* but mostly their eyes are on the youths and the New Demographic. These *tools* are pretty common in Canada and they work quite well there. Humble Talent has been informed, basically, by this ideology. It is his essential posture I have come to recognize. He also makes it plain that to think differently is evidence of mental illness, and this is another function of these linguistic arrangement: if you don’t use the lingo you are likely ‘retarded’ and have mental problems. You become An Enemy of the State and the state has psychiatric facilities for ‘people like you’).
Biograph of Özlem Sensoy:
Özlem Sensoy is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, the associate director of the Centre for Education, Law, and Society, an associate member of the Dept of Gender Sexuality and Women’s Studies, and an affiliated faculty member with the Centre for the Comparative Muslim Studies at Simon Fraser University (Canada). She teaches courses on social justice education, critical media literacy and popular culture, and multicultural and anti-racism theories. Her research has been published in journals including Radical Pedagogy, Harvard Educational Review, Gender & Education, and Race Ethnicity and Education. She is the co-author (with Robin DiAngelo) of the award winning introductory text to social justice education, Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, 2e (Teachers College Press, 2017).
In Canada, for all that I have been able to see, they have more or less completely installed a Multi-Cultural Ideological System against which no opposition is allowed. Therefore, it is only fitting that their education materials reflect the State and the cultural values being installed.
You have to have an ideological system in order to be able to carry out such a cultural project.
Robin DiAngelo wrote White Fragility. And about that book she writes:
The overall function of this sort of analysis, which is better described as a praxis (Maoist linguistics?), is to soften up the White and the white perspective to a dissolving force: whiteness must be eliminated. It is the source of the problems. All your categories will be challenged.
All of this comes about as a direct result of ‘displacement’ and ‘dispossession’.
One either wakes up and sees it, or hides one’s head in a hole in the ground. I suggest it is really not that difficult! In fact *seeing* is fun!
Here, the professor explains:
As I have been trying to explain, and for which I have earned myself pariah status, if you cannot *see* you cannot act creatively and properly in your present.
If you refuse to *see*, you cannot make recommendations for the proper response.
If you cannot *see* you become either a) powerless or b) limitedly powerful.
Notice please: the Dear Professor shows herself in absolute confidence. She is seated on and situated in absolute metaphysical confidence. She knows.
You-plural (I cheekily and condescendingly assert) have no defense against here view, her certaintly, her ideology, and here rhetoric.
She explains you. She shows you what has happened to you.
Ali, my favorite pariah 😉 Have you encountered the works or blogs of Bruce Charlton? (You may have even mentioned him in one of your comments at some time, and I just missed it.) I ran across him while reading a Crichton novel which he mentions here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/06/my-lame-claim-to-fame-im-featured-in.html , and the particular idea brought up there seems relevant to the current discussion. He appears to have changed his mind after initially considering the condition he describes as a good thing.
Some of his books,& etc. sound like they might be of interest to you. You can link to some from the link I’ve noted above, or google search. He touches on a number of topics that you bring up, including replacement.