I am proud to be white!

[AngusThermopyle]

I personally am proud to be a middle aged male who can still put together a stiff pecker.

well thanks for the info!

Is that so exceptional though?

What a weird thread.

And getting wierder by the moment.

Edited January 30, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[DogOnPorch]

well thanks for the info!

Is that so exceptional though?

No...but, indeed, a good thing...

-------------------------------------

I have about 100 pairs of pajamas. I like to see people dressed comfortably.

---Hugh Hefner

[kimmy]

Ah, so let's mangle the language for the lulz. Way to stick it to the man University of Delaware, kimmy!

As with any other field, debate on racial issues has a glossary of its own that's not always in complete agreement with what Merriam or Webster consider accurate. While Merriam and Webster would probably agree with the view that racism is racism regardless of which race is the hater and which is the hatee, that does not seem to be the accepted academic view on the subject. The Dr Butlers of the world argue that racism is when white people hate not-white people. Which leaves apparently, no word available to describe the reverse situation; "reverse racism" seems as apt as anything.

If you're opposed to the mangling of the language in this way, complain to the people who've redefined "racism" in the first place.

Then you won't complain if I refer to you as, say, "shitcock" instead of kimmy, then? I mean, you wouldn't want to be pedantic or anything...

Go right ahead. If you feel like being a dick, who am I to stop you?

How about some context around your definition of what this "movement" is? It's not a stretch to say the NAACP, the ACLU, the ADL and the Black Panthers are part of the "anti-racist movement", but that doesn't mean any are representative of the whole.

Why need it be representative of the whole to be worthy of discussion?

ArchAngel has been pilloried in this thread for suggesting that "anti-racist" rhetoric caused her to lose sympathy for that cause. I've presented a couple of examples of that rhetoric, and simply asked whether her claim is all that unrealistic in the face of this kind of hyperbole.

Yeah, which is why I'm here, discussing it.

You're not here discussing it. You're here trying to limit the terms of the discussion to exclude it.

If we limit the discussion to exclude Dr Butler (and presumably any other "anti-racist" whose views make you uncomfortable) then what should we concentrate our attention on?

That such material exists isn't at issue here. The relevance and application is. I know very well that there's a lot of such wankery in academic circles, but that's where it tends to stay.

Earlier you dismissed Dr Butler as "a fringe academic from nowheresville." You now concede that there's "a lot of such wankery in academic circles" (are they all fringe? are they all in nowheresville?) but you still wish to avoid it discussion because "that's where it tends to stay".

I think the claim that "that's where it tends to stay" is pretty suspect. I have not closely followed the "black school" topic, for instance, but I would anticipate that folks in academic circles were heavily consulted. Likewise, I'd anticipate that they're heavily consulted any time lawemakers or large employers draft policies regarding workplace diversity, equity, affirmative action, and the like.

I also point out that these academics and activists have means to advance their views beyond the academic world. It's the information age. Everybody can publish and distribute anything they want; all they need is a willing audience.

And finally, I suggest that the "who really cares, it's just academic wankery" attitude is the main reason the disgraceful University of Delaware "diversity program" was able to reach the point it did. Most likely, somebody asked "diversity experts" to come up with a "diversity training" course without ever bothering to find out what kind of bullying was going to be inflicted on the students.

Maybe. But who cares? There's a multiplicity of approaches that can be taken and I don't see anything wrong with putting out views that challenge and prompt discussion. Half the time, this stuff is so outrageous, I can't help but imagine the whole point is to provoke.

Well, I'm provoked. I'm discussing. I find it quite sad that so many people are scared shitless to challenge views. Perhaps some are afraid they'll be branded racists if they disagree with people like Dr Butler.

-k

[White Doors]

I consider myself lucky to be Canadian, more so than proud.

I can also look at all the great things that Canada has done, and if I had been involved in them, I would be proud.

So you are not proud to be Canadian?

[Argus]

Maybe. But who cares? There's a multiplicity of approaches that can be taken and I don't see anything wrong with putting out views that challenge and prompt discussion. Half the time, this stuff is so outrageous, I can't help but imagine the whole point is to provoke.

So generous. I can't help wondering how broadly accepting you'd be of outrageous right wing views given your general antipathy for even moderately conservative opnions.

[M.Dancer]

So you are not proud to be Canadian?

I am proud of Canada, and that humbles me.

[Black Dog]

As with any other field, debate on racial issues has a glossary of its own that's not always in complete agreement with what Merriam or Webster consider accurate. While Merriam and Webster would probably agree with the view that racism is racism regardless of which race is the hater and which is the hatee, that does not seem to be the accepted academic view on the subject. The Dr Butlers of the world argue that racism is when white people hate not-white people. Which leaves apparently, no word available to describe the reverse situation; "reverse racism" seems as apt as anything.

So, again, you're endorsing Butler's view that racism is a one way street? Alright then.

If not, why accept their terms of reference?

If you're opposed to the mangling of the language in this way, complain to the people who've redefined "racism" in the first place.

A view you apparently concur with. If you were really concerned with their perversion of the term "racism," you should probably be fighting to reclaim its proper usage instead of tacitly acknowledging the validity of his views.

Go right ahead. If you feel like being a dick, who am I to stop you?

It's not being a dick. I'm just redefining the definition of kimmy (or perhaps I should call you the Red Queen?)

Why need it be representative of the whole to be worthy of discussion?

It doesn't have to be. But it sure seems to me that you're intent on creating the impression that it is.

ArchAngel has been pilloried in this thread for suggesting that "anti-racist" rhetoric caused her to lose sympathy for that cause. I've presented a couple of examples of that rhetoric, and simply asked whether her claim is all that unrealistic in the face of this kind of hyperbole.

I think it's realistic. Rational or defensible, less so.

You're not here discussing it. You're here trying to limit the terms of the discussion to exclude it.

Yeah, I'm trying to limit the terms of a discussion around anti-racist rhetoric so as to exclude the discussion of anti-racist rhetoric. Makes sense.

If we limit the discussion to exclude Dr Butler (and presumably any other "anti-racist" whose views make you uncomfortable) then what should we concentrate our attention on?

And who said we should exclude Dr. Butler? And who said their views made me uncomfortable? That's your own little prejudices seeping in.

Earlier you dismissed Dr Butler as "a fringe academic from nowheresville." You now concede that there's "a lot of such wankery in academic circles" (are they all fringe? are they all in nowheresville?) but you still wish to avoid it discussion because "that's where it tends to stay".

How does the fact that there's academic wankery preclude Dr. Butler's status as a fringe figure? It does not.

I think the claim that "that's where it tends to stay" is pretty suspect. I have not closely followed the "black school" topic, for instance, but I would anticipate that folks in academic circles were heavily consulted. Likewise, I'd anticipate that they're heavily consulted any time lawemakers or large employers draft policies regarding workplace diversity, equity, affirmative action, and the like.

I don't doubt that academics have some role in setting policy: but it's incumbent on you to show that the more objectionable views (such as those of Dr. Butler) are making it into the mainstream.

I also point out that these academics and activists have means to advance their views beyond the academic world. It's the information age. Everybody can publish and distribute anything they want; all they need is a willing audience.

Same holds true with anybody, including neo-Nazis. BFD.

And finally, I suggest that the "who really cares, it's just academic wankery" attitude is the main reason the disgraceful University of Delaware "diversity program" was able to reach the point it did. Most likely, somebody asked "diversity experts" to come up with a "diversity training" course without ever bothering to find out what kind of bullying was going to be inflicted on the students.

The funny thing is, the program was canceled in large part because the students objected to the strident tone of the materials. So I'm not sure how citing this failed effort supports your view that that sort of anti-racist rhetoric is pervasive. the mighty free market wins again.

Well, I'm provoked. I'm discussing. I find it quite sad that so many people are scared shitless to challenge views.

Like whom?

Perhaps some are afraid they'll be branded racists if they disagree with people like Dr Butler.

You mean, like the students, faculty, staff at UDelaware that complained about the program and cause dit to get axed?

Argus:

So generous. I can't help wondering how broadly accepting you'd be of outrageous right wing views given your general antipathy for even moderately conservative opnions.

Wonder away. Quietly.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Black Dog

[Drea]

I was born in Canada through no choice of my own, so therefore would the same thing hold true to be proud of your country?

I choose to stay here... so yup I am proudly Canadian

[jbg]

ArchAngel has been pilloried in this thread for suggesting that "anti-racist" rhetoric caused her to lose sympathy for that cause. I've presented a couple of examples of that rhetoric, and simply asked whether her claim is all that unrealistic in the face of this kind of hyperbole.

If Archangel weren't a troll she'd be here to defend her magnum opus.

[kimmy]

Yeah, I'm trying to limit the terms of a discussion around anti-racist rhetoric so as to exclude the discussion of anti-racist rhetoric. Makes sense.

And who said we should exclude Dr. Butler? And who said their views made me uncomfortable? That's your own little prejudices seeping in.

Earlier you objected to me entering the views of "a fringe academic from nowheresville" into the discussion. Next up, while conceding that views like Butlers are hardly unique among academics, it's still not relevant to the discussion because they're just ivory tower types.

So yeah, I do feel as though you've been trying to limit the scope of the discussion. "That guy's a kook; that other stuff is just academic wankery. It's not relevant. Let's talk about mainstream anti-racists instead."

How does the fact that there's academic wankery preclude Dr. Butler's status as a fringe figure? It does not.

First it was one guy you wanted to dismiss as a fringy figure. Now it's the views of many academics in the field. At what point does it become worthy of your attention?

Here's an article that examines the U of Delaware fiasco, and argues that a lot of diversity programs are actually poorly designed, poorly implemented, and that there's no means of evaluating the credentials of so-called diversity experts, and no agreed-upon standard for these programs:

http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish...cle_10543.shtml

I don't doubt that academics have some role in setting policy: but it's incumbent on you to show that the more objectionable views (such as those of Dr. Butler) are making it into the mainstream.

Same holds true with anybody, including neo-Nazis. BFD.

A couple of questions for you.

First of all, are you aware of any universities in North America that have Neo-Nazi Studies departments? Can you provide examples of Neo-Nazis being consulted by school-boards or employers or universities in establishing policies? Are neo-Nazis being sourced as expert opinions for newspaper articles? Wouldn't you kind of agree that being university professors and having courses and programs and departments dedicated to advocating their views confers an appearance of legitimacy to people like Dr Butler that the neo-Nazis will never have? And if so, don't you think that makes a discussion of these views somewhat more pertinent than neo-Nazis, Frank Chu, or other run-of-the-mill kooks? I mean, we've had hundreds of pages of discussion about PolyNewbie's theories, and that guy didn't even have a job let alone a university department.

Secondly, do you feel that neo-Nazis should just be ignored? They're not "mainstream", so BFD?

The funny thing is, the program was canceled in large part because the students objected to the strident tone of the materials. So I'm not sure how citing this failed effort supports your view that that sort of anti-racist rhetoric is pervasive. the mighty free market wins again.

I'm of the opinion that the program got canceled once the program got sufficient amounts of negative media exposure.

I don't see evidence that student complaints got the program axed. The university's initial reaction, when the press picked up on the story, was not to do anything, other than try to explain it away. "oh, the students are mistaken. it's not a compulsory program." Only when bloggers, media, and the "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" turned it into a PR disaster did the university take action.

Did student complaints get change? Like crap they did.

-k

[cybercoma]

"A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality."

You've been socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist system. You're a racist. Now don't you feel ashamed?

If you don't think he's telling white people to be ashamed, then how do you think people should feel when they're told they're racist?

-k

The system socializes you as a white person into a privileged life. By that, I take it that he means white people are given opportunities that black people and other minorities are not... and this is true. White people are racist because they're born into a racist system that leaves you no choice but to take advantage of that privilege, you're unable to do otherwise. Since white people don't have a choice, I don't think it's a matter of being ashamed; it's simply a matter of fact statement. Instead of shame, people should look at ignoring race as a factor in anything. This is currently impossible with "affirmative action" among other things.

[Black Dog]

Earlier you objected to me entering the views of "a fringe academic from nowheresville" into the discussion. Next up, while conceding that views like Butlers are hardly unique among academics, it's still not relevant to the discussion because they're just ivory tower types.

Again: butler is a fringe figure from nowhereseville. If others share his view, that doesn't change the fact, does it? This is not hard.

So yeah, I do feel as though you've been trying to limit the scope of the discussion. "That guy's a kook; that other stuff is just academic wankery. It's not relevant. Let's talk about mainstream anti-racists instead."

Ah, so you concede these views aren't mainstream. That's a start. Anyway, again, I'm fine with discussing folks like Butler and academic wankage in general, just not with the implication that these views are all that influential.

Here's an article that examines the U of Delaware fiasco, and argues that a lot of diversity programs are actually poorly designed, poorly implemented, and that there's no means of evaluating the credentials of so-called diversity experts, and no agreed-upon standard for these programs:

Wow. Poorly functioning bureaucracies. I'm shocked, just shocked by these revelations.

First of all, are you aware of any universities in North America that have Neo-Nazi Studies departments?Blah blah blah blah

May I remind you of the statement to which I was responding?

I also point out that these academics and activists have means to advance their views beyond the academic world. It's the information age. Everybody can publish and distribute anything they want; all they need is a willing audience.

Secondly, do you feel that neo-Nazis should just be ignored? They're not "mainstream", so BFD?

Again, i didn't say neo-Nazis or people like Butler should be ignored. You're arguing in extremely bad faith here. That, or you're being pedantic.

I don't see evidence that student complaints got the program axed. The university's initial reaction, when the press picked up on the story, was not to do anything, other than try to explain it away. "oh, the students are mistaken. it's not a compulsory program." Only when bloggers, media, and the "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" turned it into a PR disaster did the university take action.

And would anyone have picked the story up if the students didn't complain?

To digress, what's really funny about this is you haven't even tried to analyze Butler's views. Sure, you've dismissed them completely with smarmy remarks about "he wants us to feel ashamed!" But you haven't bothered to explain what it is you find so objectionable, which gives your complaints the appearance of a knee-jerk "how dare he call me racist!" reaction.

[Oleg Bach]

Again: butler is a fringe figure from nowhereseville. If others share his view, that doesn't change the fact, does it? This is not hard.

Ah, so you concede these views aren't mainstream. That's a start. Anyway, again, I'm fine with discussing folks like Butler and academic wankage in general, just not with the implication that these views are all that influential.

Wow. Poorly functioning bureaucracies. I'm shocked, just shocked by these revelations.

May I remind you of the statement to which I was responding?

Again, i didn't say neo-Nazis or people like Butler should be ignored. You're arguing in extremely bad faith here. That, or you're being pedantic.

And would anyone have picked the story up if the students didn't complain?

To digress, what's really funny about this is you haven't even tried to analyze Butler's views. Sure, you've dismissed them completely with smarmy remarks about "he wants us to feel ashamed!" But you haven't bothered to explain what it is you find so objectionable, which gives your complaints the appearance of a knee-jerk "how dare he call me racist!" reaction.

I am as pure white as you get - and I am PROUD to be black on the inside....I really do not consider myself white - for the most part I really don't appreciate white people..they oppress and harm the world - so I would rather be cool and not relate to the race - by the way, wonder if I could grow and Afro at my age - grey thinning blonde hair....sure would like to be black - or maybe anything other than a pesky cold blue eyed preditorial wolf that is ANGLO SAXON? Actually - never mind - my eyes are pale grey green and I could be a lizard!

[kimmy]

Wow. Poorly functioning bureaucracies. I'm shocked, just shocked by these revelations.

I can tell. The article identified several key reasons why these programs function poorly, including a couple that I thought were of particular interest:

-poorly identified goals

-little means of measuring the qualifications of the people who are supposed to be providing this education.

So, basically, governments and schools and employers want to have diversity programs, but nobody is really sure what these programs are supposed to be, or how to tell if the people running the programs have any idea what they're doing.

And would anyone have picked the story up if the students didn't complain?

Possibly. I don't actually know the history. They may have filed formal complaints to the university, made anonymous complaints, or just sent a copy of the training manual to a reporter.

The one student interviewed for the Diversity in Education article said she questioned the material being presented and was told to STFU.

What is clear, though, is that complaining didn't actually do anything until bad press reached a furor. Prior to that, the university defended the diversity program. (or, as somebody's signature reads, "Shut up and be tolerant.")

To digress, what's really funny about this is you haven't even tried to analyze Butler's views. Sure, you've dismissed them completely with smarmy remarks about "he wants us to feel ashamed!" But you haven't bothered to explain what it is you find so objectionable, which gives your complaints the appearance of a knee-jerk "how dare he call me racist!" reaction.

I've read the document, and it's chock full of interesting material, taking particular aim at white liberals and people who say "we're all just one race, the human race." Fascinating stuff. If you decide to read it and there's anything you're interested in discussing, give me a shout.

I have not taken it upon myself to present Dr Butler's views here or debate their legitimacy. Why are you criticizing me for not debating the merits of Dr Butler's case when you've been arguing for several messages that she's a fringe wank who's not relevant to a discussion of "the anti-racist movement".

Here's what I think. Feel free to agree, disagree, or respond as you wish:

-views that most people consider "anti-racist" have been quite thoroughly absorbed into mainstream thought.

-to continue to exist, or justify their existence, academics and activists need to advance theories that are outside of mainstream thought. They have to advance increasingly radical theories; otherwise they're not performing scholarship, or don't have a cause to be active for.

-views like Butler's create antipathy among white people who might well be inclined to be sympathetic to the cause.

-increased public sensitivity to "diversity" has created an audience or market for scholarship of this type.

-the standards for scholarship of this type are not well established and as a result little means of discerning its merit.

-being declared a university department, professor, course, or program, may confer a prestige or legitimacy upon such materials that is unmerited.

-questioning the merit of such materials might get one branded as an undesirable of some sort.

-k

[xul]

I don't think proud to be white is wrong. If a person can proud to be a member of a football team or a student of a school, why he or she can not allowed to proud being a member of a nation or race or a group of people identitied by a certain aspect trait such as stature or skin color?

But when we proud of to be the group of greatness we belonged, we must be fully aware it will not guarantee the greatness of ourselves. For one if a movie get a Oscar, it does not mean every actors in the film is the best around the world. The achievements of them eventually depend on their individual efforts not their group's.

In a country with several of different races, using the same way to retaliate the insolent assaults from some mumbers of other races is not a correct way for good of the country and the race we love.

[iForgot]

I'm tried of whites crying reverse-racism. It is there yes, but the extent of it's damage is so exaggerated. Fuck off that we are being as oppressed in any way as what happened in the US, Africa and India under American and British rule. There is an argument that the Black Death plague INCREASED European intelligence which is why the scientific revolution followed shortly after. It may be a theory, but it brings up the potential of European hegemony being the result of a bitter sweet "Black Death".

Edited February 9, 2008 by iForgot

[jbg]

I'm tried of whites crying reverse-racism. It is there yes, but the extent of it's damage is so exaggerated. Fuck off that we are being as oppressed in any way as what happened in the US, Africa and India under American and British rule. There is an argument that the Black Death plague INCREASED European intelligence which is why the scientific revolution followed shortly after. It may be a theory, but it brings up the potential of European hegemony being the result of a bitter sweet "Black Death".

Your post is incherent and verges on incomprehensible.

Yes, there is reverse racism. The fact that one never hears the end of it if a police officer states, truthfully, that one looks among Jamaicans and Vietnamese for drug dealers, and among Jews for financial frauds, speaks volumes. The fact thaat any statement that Muslims seem to be involved in most of the ongoing wars in the world, and most of the utterly senseless attacks speaks even louder.

It is ridiculous to search, at airports, Jewish grandmothers from Queens (New York) for bombs when it's obvious who the likely attackers are. This reverse racism is not only obnoxious; it is tremendously costly in monetary terms and terms of inconvenience.