Wednesday, May 17, 2006

White supremacy in reverse

As Radley Balko says, "We're all racists, now":

Apparently, stressing the importance of saving, planning, and critical thinking is now a form of racism. As is rugged individualism.
Public education in action in Seattle:
Cultural Racism:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

40 comments:

Mack the Plain Little Turtle said...

Unbelievable. Americanism (rugged individualism) is, according to that Seattle education web site, "cultural racism".

At what point, exactly, do we get to shoot communists as threats to freedom?

Anonymous said...

Seattle Public School Board - what a heinous bunch of racists. If educating children isn't blatant proof of having a future time orientation, then I don't know what is. They should dissolve their tawdry little red-necked organization immediately, and return all monies collected to the taxpayers. And the nerve of those racist pigs, publishing their screed only in one form of English - utterly disregarding and alienating Ebonics, Pidgin, Spanglish, Chinglish, Hinglish and Japlish linguistic minorities. For shame.

Pietr said...

Sorry to ask, but can anybody name a great black skinned writer?
I'm a white individualist by the way.

As for racialism, Ayn Rand was Russian and she despised Russians.

Honey Pot said...

Sore, here is a few of them. There probably would of been many more in history if they had been allowed to learn to read, and write. Used to get the shit kicked out of them when they were caught even looking at a book. That was not that long ago. You have to take in to account the white man's ability to steal ideas. History is always written by the victor. Doesn't make it true.

Booker T. Washington
Sojourner Truth
Phillis Wheatley
Randall C. Bailey
Leonard E. Barrett
John Beilensen
Derrick Bell
Josef Ben-Jochannan
Martin Bernal
Andrew Billingsly
William D. Borders
Thea Bowman
Edward K. Braxton
Roy L. Brooks
Joseph A. Brown
Frederick Buechner
David Buttrick
Harold A. Carter
James H. Cone
Nicholas C. Cooper-Lewter
Eric V. Copage
Melva Wilson Costen
Margaret Washington Creel
Cyprian Davis
Alex Haley
Vincent Harding
Diana L. Hayes
Arthur C. Jones
Albert J. Raboteau
Aylward Shorter
Anne Streaty-Wimberly

JC and the apostle's were more than likely black, and hell we know they have kept people spell-bound with their fairy tales for centuries.

Pietr said...

Thanks for the list.
I've never heard of any of them.
But then, I haven't read any modern books for a while, or old ones.
Generally speaking, anything the critics say is good, black or white skinned writers, is a bag of crap.

Most writing is just so damned precious.
And no. There aren't many black people in the Middle East, not until you go South to Ethiopia, where there was a sizeable, black Jewish community.(After the Russians tried to take over, the Israelis evacuated the entire community to Israel,under operation 'Magic Carpet'.And only a couple of them tried to light fires on the planes to keep warm.They are in a better place now).

Honey Pot said...

You should get out more Sore. Looks like you have missed much that has been going on in the world around you. It makes me understand you more though. How could you possibly form a sensible opinion on anything, if you have never been exposed to much more than the four walls in your apartment.

Pietr said...

That's all right Honey.You settle for a bunch of regurgitated opinions off the pages of a book.
I'll use my eyes, senses and judgement outside in the real world.

Honey Pot said...

That is too bad Sore. Nothing quite as stupid as a person who can't learn from others. You must have been raised by wolves to have such a disdain for human intelligence.

Pietr said...

Human intelligence?
Once you've experienced the real thing, other people's substitutes aren't quite up to it.
Nothing nearly as stupid as a person who can't work anything out for themselves. By not taking part, I leave them to thrash around without stealing my credit.
But don't fret it; you are completely safe.
By the way, in the last six months I've read about 4,000 pages of computer software training manuals,while working through them on my computers, because some of their stuff is really very useful.

What I don't do is live life vicariously through the pages of some crap fiction("the writer sat down at his word processor and thought,'I must write about what I know'" ).

Honey Pot said...

Next you will be telling me you discovered binary code. Computer software is rather boring and repetitive, but whatever floats your boat buddy.

Pietr said...

I did invent a remote sensing system and a couple of imaging software devices.
Not at all boring, and certainly not repetitive.
After all if I knew this gear already I wouldn't study it.

Brent Gilliard said...

Surely you read to be entertained then? Life has its moments, but it's no novel!

Pietr said...

Actually, when I have time I'm working through the 'Early Ayn Rand'.
Fascinating, but I got so stuck into 'Red Pawn' I neglected a whole evening lesson on Database programming.
And I'm one of these innocent types that thinks 'if you have the skills you will get a job'.

Brent Gilliard said...

From the wikipedia entry, it looks like a biography of Rand would be an interesting read. Immigration, extramarital affairs, HUAC testimony, possible BDSM, lung cancer, anti-WWII... wow.

Pietr said...

Yes.Also a genius.
WW2?I knew she was against Roosevelt getting the US involved, but I find it difficult to believe that she would be against liberating Europe from a system of applied evil that murdered millions;and that was just the Cold War.

No.She was no friend of either the Nazis or the Commies(HUAC).
And what the fucking jesus christ hell is BDSM?
Not the swearing disease by any chance?
Sounds to me like you could do with reading what she said, not what people said about her.

bonnie abzug said...

Talk about lowering the bar. Ayn Rand. A genius? Apart from being almost completed self-absorbed, and a flake to boot, her prose was nearly impenetrable. And I don't mean this in a Bertrand Russell kind of way.

Pietr said...

Her prose is about as 'impenetrable' as the crash-barriers on the 401.
If you can't think in a straight line, you will wander into the sides and think it impenetrable.
The thing about the 'Early Ayn Rand' is that the book supplies a great deal of the context in which her style evolved.

As for being self-absorbed, why else would anyone want to write?
Examples of people who were absorbed with 'others' include Hitler(he was obsessed with Jews, and ignored any conscience he may have had in that direction),Stalin(he was obsessed with dragging all other Russians into the '20th century'-even if he had to kill all of them) and the Catholic Inquisitors, who were so concerned with souls they would kidnap and brainwash Jewish children.

But as someone who is (rightly) concerned with his own happiness,I 'get' her.
If you don't(or won't),you are saying more about you than her.

Honey Pot said...

Rand suffered from classism. Her praise and love for everything wealthy is pretty obvious. It is so easy to be selfish, and uncaring when you are wealthy. Ann had no morals and was quite proud of the fact. I think she was just your run of the mill evil bitch.

Sore I thought you didn't read other people's drivel. If this is all you have read, it explains much as to your uncaring callous opinions.

Pietr said...

Ayn Rand created a penniless bum called Howard Roark, who worked his way to success.
He was what she regarded as her 'Ideal Man',and this was not connected to the mere scale of wealth('Gail Wynand' was rolling in it-yet a huge failure.Also Jim Taggart in Atlas Shrugged).

Oddly enough, the only one calling anyone 'classist' is Honey Nut.And she bases her definition of 'class' on 'wealth'.

I'd be intrigued to know how wealthy one is allowed to be before all the Honeys persecute and exploit one.
As for calling Rand an 'evil bitch', everyone has their opinions, and I wouldn't be surprised to see people say that from time to time, as she wsa liable to be cryptic, which can piss someone off when they are working hard at figuring something out; I suppose she never stopped acting the woman, which was what was in it for her.

And I certainly don't go out to work unless it is for me.

Honey Pot said...

Come on, if you broke Ann Rand's work down you could see she just copied from a 12 step program, minus the belief in something existing more powerful than her.

The woman was a subserviant masochist, not my idea of someone anyone would take too serious. She was a tad confused if you ask me.

bonnie abzug said...

Come on, Honey Wagon, Ms. Rand may have been a flake, a literary poseur, one-dimensional and not nearly as clever as she pretended to be, but even I have to step forward and defend her from the charge of being "subservient". She thought far too highly of herself, and was immersed far too deeply in the sensual life, to be subservient to anyone.

bonnie abzug said...

Oh, I almost forgot, sorehead. I've known a few people whose conception of the class they inhabited had nothing to do with the wealth they possessed, for they possessed little.

As for Ms. Rand being "cryptic", I'd say that this was a very polite way of saying she was often so far out of her depth that she lost her way. You say cryptic. I see gibberish.

Brent Gilliard said...

In case you haven't figured out the definition of BDSM from the preceeding criticisms of ms rand, I highly recommend a google image search for the unenlightened.

But not at work. Or when children are in the room.

Pietr said...

Sorry Ent.I did the search straight after, and I suppose it is a reference to her attitudes on the desire of her heroines to submit.
Still, the social climate of the 30s to 50s was very different, eh? Women like that were still pretty easy to find,presumably as a reaction to all that buttoned-up stuff.
As for 'gibberish', I think you'll find(show a little trust in yourself and Rand)that the stuff you don't understand has a strange habit of coming back to you months, years later, when you formulate an understanding of real things in the real world which agrees with something you thought was 'gibberish' originally; the first couple of times it happens, you will begine to realise that it is going to go on happening, and that there is something going on.
In other words, she is so damn smart, many people can't even see it.
And that's just how she wanted it.

I'm much more generous, as my explanations show.

Honey Pot said...

Didn't say she wasn't smart. Lots of smart people .... Hitler, Saddam, and the like. Doesn't make their uncaring,inhumane, cold qualities something one should aspire too.

Her main objective in life was making herself into a cult leader to be worshipped by her minions.

bonnie abzug said...

Sorehead, we each have our own filters through which we process information we receive from outside of ourselves. The result of this processing is "understanding of real things in the real world" - individualized, of course, but no less internally coherent for being that.

Having said this, I can certainly accept that you consider Ms. Rand to be a genius. If what she says resonates with you, then I'm happy for you. Jane Austen is considered a great writer as well. I consider both to be second-rate talents.

Pietr said...

Well you know, I've got little to say about Jane Austen;never appealed.All she wrote about was little people having little melodramatic adventures;but in her time she was one of the first, so 18th century soap opera has endured.

As for judgements on the rating of other people's talents, I should say that so much depends on whether the subject doing the judging is objectively jaded, and a lot of that depends on just one thing:-do you ever feel a wild joy about anything and hold it somewhere nobody can touch?Does anything make you laugh for no(apparent) reason?
And have you ever read Rand talking about precisely these things and filed it with all the rest of the unprocessed stuff?

Let's face it, unless we're talking about Computing, my reading isn't run like a race or a factory or an addiction.
I drink pints of beer every day.
Only once a year do I take Navy Rum.

Honey Pot said...

I sort of like Jane Austen myself. Maybe because I am a female, and I like all that romantic goobley goop stuff.

That is just a given guys, how one sees the world, and processes in their mind what may be going on.

Sore, everyone is objectively jaded, even you. It all depends on what they were taught, their life experiences, etc, etc. Every once in awhile someone objects to the hypocrisy of conformity, but not often.

Pietr said...

If freedom was legal, we could choose to accept or reject conformity as often as we liked.
As for being jaded, we all have the opportunity every day of our lives to be fresh;all it takes is a little of the madness called freedom.

Honey Pot said...

What you want is anarchism. What you don't seem to understand is, that rules are in place to protect the weak from the strong. Did you not consider you might be one of the first to be taken out? What great gift of strength, or ability to kill, would you have to offer to an anarchist world? You are under some illusion that you would be welcome in a world, where only the fittest are accepted.

Pietr said...

First, it is an illusion that arrogating self-defence to the state results in protection;the appearance of police forces was the apogee of civility in civilisation, a logical extension(but not replacement) of civic functioning of the individual.
In Saxon times in England there was law, and punishment for causing physical harm.This wsa replaced by an imposed state when the Normans invaded, a situation which was not addressed until Magna Carta produced an ugly compromise.

Second, you assume that people are evil; there are evil people, (I am currently being offered continual provocation by a dumbass thug neighbour to 'get me into trouble and beat me up'.
I am going through channels because the law prevents me from buying a gun and blowing his head off.
Note that he can probably do that to me regardless of the law, 'because I'm worth it'.
But if we both had guns, he wouldn't take casual pleasure in looking for trouble, because he would know that if he didn't get me at random(and yes, we should have laws for that) sooner or later I would get him.Regardless of who drew first.
Nobody is untouchable.
Unless they are nobody, and I am very good at being nobody.

But people like him are in a minority, and Freedom doesn't produce sheep/victims for the evil to prey on.

Honey Pot said...

There is lots of evil people in the world Sore.Take a look at places like Dafur. Do you think that slaughter will stop without the intervention of a law abiding, civilized country? I think not.

Every law takes a governing body to oversee, and enact. You are not really seeking freedom, more like a world according to Sore.

I have no problem with sane minded people having guns. I don't want to live in a country where only the government, military, and police have access to weapons. Something really weird and scarey about that. I also don't want to live in a country where I could mistakenly drive over my neighbours tulip patch, and have my pumpkin blown off either. There has to be balance.

Pietr said...

Devilish detail is the essence of Law.
On the BBC today in my cab, I was waiting for the music to start when they interviewed the Rwandan Hutu man that they made the film 'Hotel Rwanda' about.
He saved 1200 souls from the massacre in April 1993.
The fact was that people, people in charge, political people, were what drove the Hutu Militia to kill anybody that looked like a Tutsi(including Hutus).The radio stations fed the frenzy; but the Tutsi people were not all innocent either; Tutsi guerillas were killing civilians, and both the (Hutu) presidents of Burundi and Rwanda, which are sister countries.
The Rwanda and Darfur atrocities are financed and instigated by governments, the very governments that are supposedly there to protect rights to life and property.

It is government that needs to be governed by a system of Law.
This is a Constitution, and there must be sufficient redundancy in the structure that no, single arm of government can take over.

Honey Pot said...

They don't really have a government in Dafur, more like that anarchy that you want to dip your body in, and wallow like a pig.

Very uncivilized, corrupt, barbaric government they have. I would even venture to say, in the western world we are a few steps ahead of them in human rights. I know you don't think there should be such a thing as human rights, but if your's are ever taken from you, you will remember them with fondness.

Pietr said...

Actually I'm a Political Capitalist; that's the 'system' which is Rights and nothing else.
As for Darfur, the government is funding and motivating the tribesmen to ethnically cleanse the locals in case they aren't loyal.
Because the UN 'respects' the 'rights' of governmentsto be free, intervention is discouraged.
And it should be Anglo-Egyptian intervention, as it had been in Sudan
for hundreds of years.
By the way, it's a Muslim government fighting a Christian minority.

Honey Pot said...

What are you talking about
Sore? The Fur and Masalit people practise Islam. The Baggara practise Islam. Not anything to do with religion. More to do with tribal warfare gone wild. Imagine that, a war not being faught over religion. Doesn't seem to fit somehow.

Pietr said...

I'm sure you know what's what in Darfur; but more generally, the Sudanese Civil War is faith based;the government is majority Islam, and the Christian minority rebelled.
But not necessarily in Darfur-further South.

Honey Pot said...

Christians make
up 4 percent of the national population, and perhaps between 10-15
percent of the southern population.

Nawww, not religiously based. Nutty little think about the Sudan, they are tolerant towards the religion of your choice. For now anyway.

Pietr said...

Fine.Okay then.
I'd just like to say that I think that this thread is about exhausted, but I would really like to see the comment count breach the big 4-oh.

Pietr said...

Some people;ornery,eh?
If you want a job doing properly,do it yourself.
Now we're over 40.