This redacted (renaming) routes is out of control!

T Legowrote:

It's gaslighting. He's absolutely trolling and knows for certain he could not find racist posts in my entire history. 

 Have at it, anyone who is believing that guy.

Congratulations T-LEGO for being the Wokest poster of 2020!

Maybe buy the guidebook, the names don't change there. 

Or start your own MP, hook up some servers and host it yourself if ya can do better. 

Or as the tough guy who isn't offended by names maybe don't get offended by everything that happens on the internet. 

Its not that i disagree or agree i just don't care, yet here I am, posting away anyway... Meh. 

Dave K wrote:

Excellent point. Without providing specific evidence we shouldn't suggest anyone is a racist. I don't know why others have implied that there were any racists posts. I haven't seen them, but yet these threads are often full of insinuations. Why would someone bring up racism without context or specifics? If you believe someone is a racist, call them a racist, and back it up!

However I don't understand why a person would  "not give a shit" about a bestselling anti-racism book White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. The very theme of the book is that certain people are not able or willing to discuss a topic because of their unconscious bias. It's a powerful message. (I read it on Amazon Kindle, only $10, less than the cost of a couple of carabiners.)

The book has been suggested many times on these forums. I don't understand why anyone would label best-selling and culturally relevant book suggestions as trolling.

Sadly, we have another person dismissing the book outright. "Not giving a shit" and receiving support from other forum members. I don't know how we are going to make progress against stupid, offensive, and shitty beliefs if people refuse to educate themselves about how they may part of the problem.

Hello, I read this one really awesome book and it totally changed my life forever! Do you have a few minutes to hear my Testimony!?!

****Shoves flyer into my hand****

Try some of these:

Critical Theory Now!

More Critical Theory!

Critical Theory For Dummies

Dave K wrote:

Sadly we often get dismissive responses from people who are not willing or able to understand their unconscious bias. Instead of looking inward when constructive criticism is offered, they simply laugh it off.

I suggest you read Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. It is a helpful tool that can help one see the world from a different perspective. This perspective may help you understand why others may view some words as racist and hurtful. Although your intentions may be good, your past experiences may limit your ability to relate to others that do not share your identity. Reading this book and understanding it's meaning would be a great start to a new year and help disrupt negative patterns as well as develop strategies that will allow you to be a more significant part of the solution.

Happy New Year!

"The worst book ever written."

https://youtu.be/GfsH3AaoqYM

I'm just surprised how many people on this thread have read "White Fragility." No wonder it's a best seller! A well read lot ya'all are, I hadn't even heard of it.

Tony C wrote:

Critical race theory, which is the very basis of these books you are pushing, openly advocates for DISCRIMINATION AGAINST people based solely on the color of their skin and/or their sexual organs. Critical Race Theory also says that people with a certain skin color/sex are racist/sexist, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SUPERIORITY OF CERTAIN RACES/SEXES or DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CERTAIN RACES/SEXES. It is no wonder the younger generation is so messed up in their head about racism/sexism and thinks everyone is racist and all heterosexual men are sexist. Get a grip on reality. 

Censorship is a power-play that will not change people.

Could you include some quotes from that book where they say these racist things? That seems crazy that they're saying them, but I haven't read the book. Thanks.

JonasMRwrote:

Could you include some quotes from that book where they say these racist things? That seems crazy that they're saying them, but I haven't read the book. Thanks.

It isn't just a single book. It's a paradigm entrenched into the educational system. It's foundation is based in Marxism. 

Here's a critique of it from the Communists POV

https://libcom.org/library/10-most-popular-dogmas-critical-theory-marxistische-gruppe

Jamila W wrote:

I haven't read Robin DiAngelo's book but I had to attend a “White fragility” training workshop for my job where the slides were pulled directly from her work and the presenter worked for her nonprofit.  Nothing is 100% good or bad and the seminar wasn't any different.  There were valuable takeaways but there were also multiple points that I as a Black person (or just a person) found very problematic.

In no particular order:

1) If you are White and claiming that you are not racist (even if true) this isn't sufficiently anti-racist and is therefore proof that you are in fact a racist.  This is an assertion that makes be think back to reading Catch-22.  At best it alienates many White allies from even talking about legitimate instances of racism and at worst it’s used as a personal attack to dismiss the social viewpoints of anyone that you don’t agree with.  It also isn’t a rationale we’d use anywhere else.  I promise you I’m not a murderer.  Does that mean I actually AM a murderer?

2) Whites by the very virtue of the color of their skin are "complicit White supremacists."  This is just a worse version of the above.  Again I’d say that any sweeping generalization based on color is itself racist.  I wouldn’t want someone to say that by the very virtue of my skin color I’m xxxxxxx so I’m not at all okay with it being used the other way around.

3) Certain phrasing of historical events from a "White perspective" is racist.  The example given was of a White person talking about Jackie Robinson.  Saying he was the first Black person to play in the Major League ignores the racist history behind that event and is therefore a racist perspective.  Instead people should say he was the first Black person allowed to play major league baseball.  This seems like a “gotcha” tactic.  Okay so if I say that RFK never became President and leave it at that does that mean I’m somehow on the side of Sirhan Sirhan?

4) Certain numbers can interpreted as coded racist messages and their use even when unintentional amounts to racism.  14 and 88 were two of the numbers mentioned and the "takeaway" potion of the slide showed some little league White kid wearing a #14 jersey and said that this was an insensitive picture because it could be interpreted negatively by POC.  Personally I don’t suffer from “Black fragility” and I don’t need the world to be censored and have anything that could be taken in a negative light hidden from me.  This part of the training seemed like it was designed to convince me that racism is lurking everywhere and when I voiced my thoughts that I wrote above the group leader told me with a straight face that I needed to be more attune to how I was subconsciously accepting my own victimhood.

Thanks for the synopsis and I agree with every bit of your commentary and analysis! This is an absurd, divisive and (truly) racist way of thinking. A little boy wearing a #14 little league uniform! I have no idea what significance that number has.

People often use the false "logic" of #1 often. For example they insist denial of being an alcoholic (or narcissit, or whatever they believe you are) is proof of being an alcoholic. But agreeing you are an alcoholic is also admitting to being an alcoholic. There is no answer that would confirm to the listener of that logic that you are not an alcoholic (if you are not). It's maddening.

I'm horrified people are spreading this clever technique to stir up anger, shame and invalidate others.

Jamila W wrote:

I haven't read Robin DiAngelo's book but I had to attend a “White fragility” training workshop for my job where the slides were pulled directly from her work and the presenter worked for her nonprofit.  Nothing is 100% good or bad and the seminar wasn't any different.  There were valuable takeaways but there were also multiple points that I as a Black person (or just a person) found very problematic.

In no particular order:

1) If you are White and claiming that you are not racist (even if true) this isn't sufficiently anti-racist and is therefore proof that you are in fact a racist.  This is an assertion that makes be think back to reading Catch-22.  At best it alienates many White allies from even talking about legitimate instances of racism and at worst it’s used as a personal attack to dismiss the social viewpoints of anyone that you don’t agree with.  It also isn’t a rationale we’d use anywhere else.  I promise you I’m not a murderer.  Does that mean I actually AM a murderer?

2) Whites by the very virtue of the color of their skin are "complicit White supremacists."  This is just a worse version of the above.  Again I’d say that any sweeping generalization based on color is itself racist.  I wouldn’t want someone to say that by the very virtue of my skin color I’m xxxxxxx so I’m not at all okay with it being used the other way around.

3) Certain phrasing of historical events from a "White perspective" is racist.  The example given was of a White person talking about Jackie Robinson.  Saying he was the first Black person to play in the Major League ignores the racist history behind that event and is therefore a racist perspective.  Instead people should say he was the first Black person allowed to play major league baseball.  This seems like a “gotcha” tactic.  Okay so if I say that RFK never became President and leave it at that does that mean I’m somehow on the side of Sirhan Sirhan?

4) Certain numbers can interpreted as coded racist messages and their use even when unintentional amounts to racism.  14 and 88 were two of the numbers mentioned and the "takeaway" potion of the slide showed some little league White kid wearing a #14 jersey and said that this was an insensitive picture because it could be interpreted negatively by POC.  Personally I don’t suffer from “Black fragility” and I don’t need the world to be censored and have anything that could be taken in a negative light hidden from me.  This part of the training seemed like it was designed to convince me that racism is lurking everywhere and when I voiced my thoughts that I wrote above the group leader told me with a straight face that I needed to be more attune to how I was subconsciously accepting my own victimhood.

Wow. I can't believe people even buy into this line of thinking. Guess I should give up my #23 signed Jordan jersey. I would hate to be thought of as a Latino/Ute racist for admiring a man and his accomplishments.

sherbwrote:

Thanks for the synopsis and I agree with every bit of your commentary and analysis! This is an absurd, divisive and (truly) racist way of thinking. A little boy wearing a #14 little league uniform! I have no idea what significance that number has. I'm horrified people are spreading this clever technique to stir up anger, shame and invalidate others...

This is such a great post. Thanks.

As a white person raised by a hard core civil rights activist, I grew up in an environment keenly aware of the civil rights issues of the time.

I say this not to pride myself in some way, but for perspective. I'm deeply concerned about the new racial divisions developing today. Are we weaponizing race?

Anyway, we might or might not see eye to eye on everything, but I've never seen my own concerns so well articulated.

Kristian Solemwrote:

I'm deeply concerned about the new racial divisions developing today. Are we weaponizing race?

Politicizing for sure. Every politician’s dream. Divided we are easier to control. They sure have turned it up to 11 recently.  I’d like to hope we’re smarter than to fall for their Jedi mind tricks.
To quote Public Enemy, “Don’t Believe the Hype!”

Jamila W wrote:

I haven't read Robin DiAngelo's book but I had to attend a “White fragility” training workshop for my job where the slides were pulled directly from her work and the presenter worked for her nonprofit.  Nothing is 100% good or bad and the seminar wasn't any different.  There were valuable takeaways but there were also multiple points that I as a Black person (or just a person) found very problematic.

Oh, gotcha. But if someone who HAD read the book in question has something to add, that'd still be great. I'm not big into someone's interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation. I think we can all agree that calling someone a racist based on 3rd hand accounts isn't too cool.

In no particular order:

1) If you are White and claiming that you are not racist (even if true) this isn't sufficiently anti-racist and is therefore proof that you are in fact a racist.  This is an assertion that makes be think back to reading Catch-22.  At best it alienates many White allies from even talking about legitimate instances of racism and at worst it’s used as a personal attack to dismiss the social viewpoints of anyone that you don’t agree with.  It also isn’t a rationale we’d use anywhere else.  I promise you I’m not a murderer.  Does that mean I actually AM a murderer?

If you tell me you're not a murder apropos of nothing, then yes, I probably will think you're a murderer. Wouldn't you in the same situation? 

More to the point, who isn't at all racist? Surely not being a Nazi doesn't mean that I am free of racial bias. And if we all have a little racial bias, why would it be bad to ask people to acknowledge that? I mean, the dood at the gym that says they could "totally climb a 5.13" if they wanted to is almost always a worse climber than the one that says they project 12b. Isn't claiming something that is true of only a very few people usually a sign the person could do with some more introspection?

2) Whites by the very virtue of the color of their skin are "complicit White supremacists."  This is just a worse version of the above.  Again I’d say that any sweeping generalization based on color is itself racist.  I wouldn’t want someone to say that by the very virtue of my skin color I’m xxxxxxx so I’m not at all okay with it being used the other way around.

What if the thing someone said was that some people treat you differently because of your skin color? Is that a racist thing to say, or is that just a statement of the society we live in? Let's say every time I went to the supermarket I got a free lollipop, but other people didn't. I didn't ask for this gift, so I can't be blamed for it, right? But if I kept accepting the lollipop and didn't say anything about it, can I really claim I'm innocent? Wouldn't I only be "non-complicit" if I didn't notice the injustice?

3) Certain phrasing of historical events from a "White perspective" is racist.  The example given was of a White person talking about Jackie Robinson.  Saying he was the first Black person to play in the Major League ignores the racist history behind that event and is therefore a racist perspective.  Instead people should say he was the first Black person allowed to play major league baseball.  This seems like a “gotcha” tactic.  Okay so if I say that RFK never became President and leave it at that does that mean I’m somehow on the side of Sirhan Sirhan?

I get the fear that people are trying to squash your voice, or tell you you're bad for the way you say things. I think we are getting to a dangerous place with that. But is the solution to ignore innuendo?

 I mean, if I think of great baseball players, I think of Jackie Robinson. But we're there players just as good, or even better, that never got to play in the majors? I don't know. And when I say Jackie Robinson was the first, I do tend to assume that it is all about him, and maybe he could have still been first ten or fifty years earlier. But is that right? I don't know enough about baseball history to say. I'm not convinced I'm being attacked if someone points out implications of the way I say things. If they're wrong they're wrong, if they're right they're helping me sew something about myself.

4) Certain numbers can interpreted as coded racist messages and their use even when unintentional amounts to racism.  14 and 88 were two of the numbers mentioned and the "takeaway" potion of the slide showed some little league White kid wearing a #14 jersey and said that this was an insensitive picture because it could be interpreted negatively by POC.  Personally I don’t suffer from “Black fragility” and I don’t need the world to be censored and have anything that could be taken in a negative light hidden from me.  This part of the training seemed like it was designed to convince me that racism is lurking everywhere and when I voiced my thoughts that I wrote above the group leader told me with a straight face that I needed to be more attune to how I was subconsciously accepting my own victimhood.

I'm sorry to hear you felt attacked. That's never fun. 

As far as "numbers CAN have other meanings," is that part wrong? I mean, it sucks that 88 can be interpreted to mean something else. But that's one of the bad things about serious racists, they ruin perfectly nice things. Charlie Chaplin ' mustache is fine, but if I shaved my beard that way, all anyone would see is a Hitler stache. And if I didn't know about Adolf, and was about to go rock my new facial hair, I hope you'd let me know how people are going to see it.  I didn't know about 14, still don't, but I'll google it. Is learning more about how people might react to things really a racist attack against me?

I get that none of this addresses your experience with the speaker you heard. Maybe they're terribly bigoted, I don't know. But I'm not convinced that anything you mentioned here justifies condemning them, let alone a whole branch of thought.

If you tell me you're not a murder apropos of nothing, then yes, I probably will think you're a murderer. Wouldn't you in the same situation?

Who would ever walk up to a stranger and say "I'm not a racist" or "I'm not a murderer" apropos of nothing? It's a response to being called a racist, be it individually or collectively. I wish I had the time to address your post line by line. If the thread is still on the subject later I'll try. I'm fine with condemning critical race theory, and even more so the growing practice of inserting it into the workplace. It's a theory, far from proven. I think it's a weak, nasty, and divisive theory at that.

Here's a thought. The time from the Civil War until today can be spanned by the lives of two people living to 80 years old, back to back. During that blink of an eye we've gone from enslaving black people to having blacks in high office; Secretaries of State, Attorney's General, Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Representatives, and even President and First Lady. It's amazing really. A history achieved by no other nation. But now, instead of moving forward, continuing to better ourselves as a nation, it seems we must engage in racism to fight it?

Not knowing, I’ll take the liberty of using the pronoun “she.” If I’m wrong let me know.

“Oh, gotcha. But if someone who HAD read the book in question has something to add, that'd still be great. I'm not big into someone's interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation. I think we can all agree that calling someone a racist based on 3rd hand accounts isn't too cool.”

She makes it perfectly clear that it’s about the seminar not the book. It’s a firsthand account, she was at the seminar.

“More to the point, who isn't at all racist? Surely not being a Nazi doesn't mean that I am free of racial bias. And if we all have a little racial bias, why would it be bad to ask people to acknowledge that? I mean, the dood at the gym that says they could "totally climb a 5.13" if they wanted to is almost always a worse climber than the one that says they project 12b. Isn't claiming something that is true of only a very few people usually a sign the person could do with some more introspection?”

That there is some word salad. Is it racist to notice a black person in a room full of white people? How could one not? So, to that point I’m racist. Would I be curious about that person? Probably. Am I a racist? What do you mean by “who isn’t at all racist?” I’d sure as hell notice a white person in a predominantly black Baptist Church congregation. As would everyone else there. It is actions, not observations impossible to avoid, that are racist. 

“What if the thing someone said was that some people treat you differently because of your skin color? Is that a racist thing to say, or is that just a statement of the society we live in? Let's say every time I went to the supermarket I got a free lollipop, but other people didn't. I didn't ask for this gift, so I can't be blamed for it, right? But if I kept accepting the lollipop and didn't say anything about it, can I really claim I'm innocent? Wouldn't I only be "non-complicit" if I didn't notice the injustice?”

You make a point here, especially after a few readings. But since it’s in my nature, I must raise a question. Does progress, and its best result, momentum in the direction of further progress, stand for anything? The point I tried to make in my previous post is that we have a history of progress with respect to racist practices unmatched by any other country. I say practices because a person’s private thoughts are their own business so long as they don’t act out on immoral one’s. I say momentum because this idea that we fight racism with racist practices pushes against any momentum we carry forward based on historical accomplishments. 

Am I advantaged because I’m born into our society white, not black? I’ll buy into that, to a point. Each of us is advantaged, or the opposite, in many ways. Some of us are more attractive than others. That’s a big advantage, black, white or otherwise, especially if you know how to leverage it. Is prejudice based on appearance less significant than by race in this country today (as opposed to 50 years ago)? Ask the person with a weirdly proportioned body and an ugly face standing in line next to a beautiful black man. My point? We have ground to cover as concerns racism, but eventually it will become a Zeno’s Paradox. While we’re moving forward, as we have been in fits and starts from the beginning, we’re a long way from that. Critical Race Theory threatens to impede that progress.

Hopefully that ramble makes some sort of sense.

“ I mean, if I think of great baseball players, I think of Jackie Robinson. But we're there players just as good, or even better, that never got to play in the majors? I don't know. And when I say Jackie Robinson was the first, I do tend to assume that it is all about him, and maybe he could have still been first ten or fifty years earlier. But is that right? I don't know enough about baseball history to say. I'm not convinced I'm being attacked if someone points out implications of the way I say things. If they're wrong they're wrong, if they're right they're helping me sew something about myself.”

Good enough, but we both know that 50 years earlier he would have been unrecognized. Again, this points to our progress.

“As far as ‘numbers CAN have other meanings,’ is that part wrong..?”

Yes. A number is not a Hitler Mustache, I don’t accept your comparison. A person assuming that someone wearing one number or another is sending a message is way to easily triggered. Maybe it’s some sort of message, maybe not. I’ve never heard about this stuff. Is my Wayne Gretzgy jersey, #99, a signal? If it is, I couldn’t care less.

Be well, K

The biggest problem with all this nonsense is that it relies upon collectivist thinking and postmodern roots.  The perpetual and unrelenting scrutiny of "power dynamics" and the push to completely eradicate agency or individualism does nothing to inspire a sense of hope or agency in an individual.  And so long as individual agency and self reliance is a thing (I assure you, it is) and it can be leveraged to better one's own quality of life (I assure you, it can) then the philosophy that is counter to this idea and erodes it is destructive.  Particularly to people that truly are marginalized.  The worst thing for people or groups that have been marginalized is some illogical, self-contradictory upper echelon academic theory like CRT (and the other modes of thinking that accompany it in higher education).  Essentially, we've let a few "out of the box" thinkers over the past 60 years gain ground in elite education institutions like Ivy League schools and now this dystopian postmodern drivel has gained traction and a relatively small but very highly privileged subset of society are now telling the rest of us A) if you're black or anything other than hetero white male born XY, that you're doomed to a life of oppression because the cards of history are stacked against you, and that oppression is built into the very tenets that hold social society together.  It inspires in people a false sense of hopelessness and demands utter ignorance of history and the strides that collectively humans have made to become more accepting and more egalitarian.  The CRTers would have us all believe that to be black, hispanic, gay, trans, queer or anything other than the group makeup aforementioned renders you with the same fate as an apostate in Saudi Arabia.  It just isn't true and spreading this popular lie is exponentially increasing the erosion of the social fabric not only of this country but others also.  or... B) that if you're white CIS male that likely unbeknownst to you and through no fault of your own, you're engaging in racism and oppression of anyone that's not exactly like you, and there's nothing you can do about it.  If you say this isn't true, you're racist and irredeemable, but if you admit it, whether or not it is true, there is some redemption possible, but only if one self-flagellates for the remainder of their existence on the planet.  

The reason why people listen to this inane drivel and why it's gaining momentum as a popular topic in social scenes across the country is because of the long existing education problem and because of herd mentality.  People too lazy to study history and to dive into ALL academic sources of knowledge and indeed into the very epistemological roots of what knowledge is, what data is, what evidence is, why all of them matter and how all of them fit with one another to arrive at a universal objective truth (another thing that CRT, Theory in general and postmodernism seek to eradicate entirely) and the current cultural trend to let those with political, social and financial clout spoon-feed you beliefs that can stratify or destroy you socially,   

So, we can either keep watching fucking Honey Boo Boo, electing megalomaniac sociopaths like Trump, glorifying criminals and violence, rejecting individualism and universal objective truth (you know, things like the sky is blue because of the molecular makeup of the atmosphere and how that interacts with the light from the Sun), and playing speech police and investigating social media accounts for any perceived misstep that might give us power over another person and the ability to decide fates, or we can abandon this shit and get on with getting along, being educated, being compassionate, abandoning wanton and destructive personality, etc. etc.  Right now it seems like the CRTers and postmodernists are winning.  This can be evidenced by what a sheer joy it is to exist in society right now and the great fun of viewing everything through a racialized lens of oppression and/or guilt, and of course rage.

And if you think I'm just full of shit and the first thing that comes to your mind is "he's racist" then you're part of the problem (and you've probably also assumed my gender and race, as well, which is a supreme faux pas if you're "woke"- so maybe reconsider).  I recommend everyone read White Fragility.  Also read Te Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me.  Read Al Sharpton.  Read Ibram X. Kendi.  Read Black Power by Charles Hamilton.  I have.  I've also read Bayard Rustin, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., W.E.B Dubois, George Washington Carver, Glen Loury (both liberal and conservative iterations of his written expression and economic theories and discoveries), Thomas Sowell, Coleman Hughes, etc. See which side of the discussion you TRULY reside in. Also, read Judith Butler.  Read Michel Foucault, Derrida, etc. Then read James Lindsay.  Anything short of diving intellectually into both sides of this issue means you're just succumbing to confirmation bias and only seeking out things that will fly out of your mouth, bounce off the inner wall of your own personal echo chamber, right back into your own ears as you nod approvingly and with confidence.  That's how we got here in the first place.

The current race cult is so similar to the Christian Evangelical push that occurred through the late seventies through the early nineties and bears so many of the same beliefs, tenets, and rules (bad words, taboo topics, decrying comedy, and the list goes on and on) that it is hardly believable and dripping with irony.  

The world need not revolve around race or any other group identity.  Those trying to make that happen are simply engaging in a power grab.  It has infiltrated every facet of modern life. Car insurance commercials.  Rock climbing.  Furniture sales.  You name it.  That's not the world I want to live in.

And if you find yourself dismissing others as "Nazis" or "racists" or "white supremacists" with no idea of what their background is, what their education is, or even their identity at all, then you can just as easily dismiss yourself as an ideological zealot that is intellectually and academically inept and uninterested in making our existence better.  The person that screams "PROBLEM!!!" all day without so much as a hint at a solution is a waste of time.  I'd avoid them entirely, even if it's yourself.

Tony C wrote:

Quotes from Robin DiAngelo's book, White Fragility:

Thank you! Soooooo much pontificating on this thread about what these totally bad "them" are saying. It's great to see someone that is basing their criticism on what those "them" are actually saying. Pretty easy to hate what a group of folks is saying if you're not actually basing that on what they're saying.

“All white people are invested in and collude with racism” Dangerous ideology? I think so!

Dangerous or wrong? I'm assuming we're on the same side that dangerous would be fine if it's not wrong.

So is it wrong? Is there someone who has never accepted that free lollipop, even once? No little thing, no taking a brake you need but only got cause you look like the person giving out brakes? And once we found those people that were always looking the gift horses in the mouths, and were meticulous their whole lives about turning them down, were they equally careful to make sure all their friends and relatives did the same, and they never got some advantage? Would it be possible to live like that?

So if we've all taken the free leg up, is that not collusion? If I put my money in Bank of America, and they invest in some shady shit, aren't I invested in some shady shit? I mean, I might be MORE innocent than the BofA funky handing over the money, but I'm surely not completely innocent, right?

“The white collective fundamentally hates blackness for what it reminds us of: that we are guilty of perpetrating immeasurable harm and that our gains come through the subjugation of others.” 

I don't know who the white collective is. Is that the average white person? A plurality of white people? Many white people, but subconsciously? I mean, at least some of those are probably true, aren't they? If I said the driving collective hates traffic, even though we are traffic, it'd be true in at least some of those senses of "collective."

See how this statement puts every single person with a certain skin color into a group? demonizes every individual in that group? and condemns every individual in that group? This is what Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot and all Marxists do! This is exactly what Martin Luther King CONDEMNED. This is why these people don't appreciate what he said.

I don't see that at all. How does this demonize all white people? It says all white people aren't perfect, but all people aren't perfect, period. Nothings news there.

"[White people] are socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority that we either are unaware of or can never admit to ourselves." 

Isn't that saying that current American society treats white folks better, and we were raised in that society? Are we questioning whether society still favors white folks? Or are we arguing that some people are fully aware of all the racism everywhere in society? It's pretty dang hard to be aware of ALL of anything.

Many of the people on this website who are supporting this ideology, these books, and this route redaction may have good intentions. But the ideological basis for their actions is fundamentally EVIL.

Are you SURE though? I mean, if your basing that statement of all-caps evil on the quotes here, or similar ones, it seems like a bit of a stretch. I appreciate that lots of folks have been TOLD these folks are evil, but it doesn't seem to be born out by the things these evil people are actually saying.

SinRopa wrote:

You giving out brakes?  My Jeep needs new ones.  I’ll take that break if you’re offering!

But please, no jake braking...

(Can one jake break?? I’d like to try)

JonasMRwrote:

Dangerous or wrong? I'm assuming we're on the same side that dangerous would be fine if it's not wrong.

So is it wrong? 

Sure seems like it's wrong.  Take this statement and in the blank at the end of it, fill it in with a negative characteristic and then ask yourself if what you've written is racist:

All black people are _____________.

If that's not acceptable for one or more races, then it's not acceptable for any.  You know, because it's racist.  This ain't rocket surgery, Holmes.

Kristian Solemwrote:

That there is some word salad. Is it racist to notice a black person in a room full of white people? How could one not? So, to that point I’m racist. Would I be curious about that person? Probably. Am I a racist? What do you mean by “who isn’t at all racist?” I’d sure as hell notice a white person in a predominantly black Baptist Church congregation. As would everyone else there. It is actions, not observations impossible to avoid, that are racist. 

Sorry what I said seemed convoluted, but it sounds like you got the gist of it. Yes, treating people differently, even in your mind, because of the color of their skin is a little racist. That doesn't mean you and I are the same as the Nazis or the Proud Boys or whatever. But it is still a little racist. And I don't see what we gain by pretending it isn't.

You make a point here, especially after a few readings. But since it’s in my nature, I must raise a question. Does progress, and its best result, momentum in the direction of further progress, stand for anything? The point I tried to make in my previous post is that we have a history of progress with respect to racist practices unmatched by any other country. I say practices because a person’s private thoughts are their own business so long as they don’t act out on immoral one’s. I say momentum because this idea that we fight racism with racist practices pushes against any momentum we carry forward based on historical accomplishments. 

Am I advantaged because I’m born into our society white, not black? I’ll buy into that, to a point. Each of us is advantaged, or the opposite, in many ways. Some of us are more attractive than others. That’s a big advantage, black, white or otherwise, especially if you know how to leverage it. Is prejudice based on appearance less significant than by race in this country today (as opposed to 50 years ago)? Ask the person with a weirdly proportioned body and an ugly face standing in line next to a beautiful black man. My point? We have ground to cover as concerns racism, but eventually it will become a Zeno’s Paradox. While we’re moving forward, as we have been in fits and starts from the beginning, we’re a long way from that. Critical Race Theory threatens to impede that progress.

I mean, Germany was pretty different just one 80 year lifetime ago. But I think I get your point; it's not about what country changed the most, it's about appreciating how far we've come. And it is good how far we've come. But it also sounds like we agree we can keep getting closer to our goal of "a more perfect union."

As for 'momentum,' I think that ignores all the individual work that has been done and is still being done. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't a historical inevitably, it was work and risk taken on by a lot of individuals.

As for Critical Race Theory threatening progress, I think you're right. People have decided to demonize it, based not on what it says (as far as I can tell) but on what they think it might say. And that has been an effective talking point for folks that want to move equality backwards. For a politician, or a culture warrior, that's an important consideration. For a regular schmo though, I don't see why I would pretend people are saying something they're not so as not to anger folks.

Yes. A number is not a Hitler Mustache, I don’t accept your comparison. A person assuming that someone wearing one number or another is sending a message is way to easily triggered. Maybe it’s some sort of message, maybe not. I’ve never heard about this stuff. Is my Wayne Gretzgy jersey, #99, a signal? If it is, I couldn’t care less.

Hey man, no one can make you care about how other people see things. Equally, you can't tell those people to stop seeing things the way they do. If I want to wear my climbing clothes to a professional presentation, I can. But if I choose to be unaware of how people will see that, I'm going to be surprised by their reactions a lot.

SinRopa wrote:

You giving out brakes?  My Jeep needs new ones.  I’ll take that break if you’re offering!

Doh! I mean, I know frustrated you get when folks away from their keyboard wait a few days to post. But I reckon those are your options: typos and autocorrect, or wait a few days.

Dave K wrote:

There's an old saying:

If you argue with a fool, the world won't see the difference.

You are arguing with a fool. And you still managed to lose.

Ya know, I'm gonna take that excellent advice. And since you seem all psyched about winning and losing, lemme just say, "Good job, buddy! You win!"

don'tchuffonme wrote:

Sure seems like it's wrong.  Take this statement and in the blank at the end of it, fill it in with a negative characteristic and then ask yourself if what you've written is racist:

All black people are _____________.

If that's not acceptable for one or more races, then it's not acceptable for any.  You know, because it's racist.  This ain't rocket surgery, Holmes.

"All black people are disliked by the KKK." Is that racist, or is it just about racism? Racism that exists. 

And that's exactly what the quote Tony provided above is saying. "All white Americans grew up in a society with racism. And sometimes it favored them." "All non-white Americans grew up in a society with racism. And sometimes it didn't favor them." It's not about an "us vs. them" thing, it's about making statements about society. It's elementary my dear Watson. 

Tony C wrote:

1) The belief definition of Racism: Belief in the superiority of one race over another race.

2) The behavior definition of Racism: Discrimination based upon race.

These definitions are logically TRUE, morally neutral, and not at all divisive.

What makes DiAngelo's ideology (and this statement) particularly dangerous is the logical conclusion of what must be done IF it were true. She doesn't go down that road because her publisher would not publish the book, but I'm sure some of you can. There is only one solution. And that solution is dangerous and wrong.

Where do the quotes you provided come across as racist by either of those definitions? Again, if you assume that she is saying something she isn't, then sure. Maybe the thing she didn't say is racist. But one could also assume she didn't mean those things. Is your decision that she is EVIL based on things she said, or things you think she would say?

JonasMRwrote:

And that's exactly what the quote Tony provided above is saying. "All white Americans grew up in a society with racism. And sometimes it favored them." "All non-white Americans grew up in a society with racism. And sometimes it didn't favor them." It's not about an "us vs. them" thing, it's about making statements about society. It's elementary my dear Watson. 

It's pretty telling when your defense of the book involves portraying your own words as quotes from the book, instead of having to actually quote and defend the source.