The immiserating racism of the Left 17

The following quotations come from The Left’s War on Whiteness by John Perazzo, a booklet recently published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center:

With the university as its launching pad and megaphone, the left has set out to systematically demonize whiteness through the rapidly growing field of Whiteness Studies, which first began to appear in college curricula in the mid-1990s and since then has become a growth industry. …

Whiteness Studies programs … stigmatize whites as malevolent oppressors of  “people of color” and as authors of crimes against humanity. (pp.12,13)

The whole booklet is worth reading. These statements are the most interesting to us:

With its stranglehold on higher education secure, in the last few years leftists waging a war on whiteness have opened another battlefront in K-12 schools. Its first target has been teacher-training programs, turning them into indoctrination projects designed to produce K-12 teachers who are committed to the leftist worldview, especially the idea that “white” values and traditions pose a mortal threat to the well-being of nonwhite minorities. (p.21)

The mission of making whites feel guilty and ashamed must begin as early as possible in their childhood.

There is no virtue associated with whiteness that is not a vice in disguise. In an article published in September 2017, Pennsylvania State University professor Angela Putman criticized “whiteness ideologies” that extol the virtues of “hard work” and “meritocracy”. (p.16)

Heather Hackman, a former professor of multicultural education at St. Cloud University, exhorts schoolteachers to become political activists who reject “the racial narrative of White”, which, by her telling, aims to develop children who are “honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful”, and capable pf speaking “proper English”. These goals, says Hackman, are actually the racist objectives of what she terms a “Super-Whitey” mentality that disrespects the cultural values of nonwhites.  (pp.21-22).

The implication is that nonwhite cultural values are: dishonesty, idleness, sloppiness, superficiality, incompetence, failure, and the inability to speak proper English. And that these are the better values.

It is a prescription for poverty, misery, and despair.

Posted under education, Leftism, Race, United States by Jillian Becker on Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 17 comments.

Permalink
  • Jeanne

    In all seriousness, I wonder how well this idiotic notion plays in rural and fly-over America…and on all variations of skin color. I can’t help but believe that even students who buy into this crapola at universities, lose this when out in the real world….when they are even minimally successful as adults, living in communities with mixed-race families and the rest of the adults coping with everyday life and jobs and in-laws and school-aged children. This crap-reasoning just doesn’t show up there.

    It shows up where it plays well as a blame game. If losers feel inclined to lay blame on someone’s skin color…well “When you point at someone, look at how many fingers are pointing back at you.” That admonition is spoken to little children and should shame great big and fully grown men and women who want someone else to give them something in payment for their skin color. I think if They keep this up, that it eventually will.

    When I observe people living in the real world together the best they can, I sort of have hope that this mess will dwindle away and become just a footnote of a bump in history and the greater victory will remain a color-blind and multicultural melting pot of citizens, who call themselves Americans.

    • I like much that you say here, Jeanne, but have one objection. “Multiculturalism” and “melting-pot” are mutually exclusive. Of course people can enjoy the traditional cultures of their countries of origin in a melting-pot – ie. the USA. But the term “multiculturalism” has come to mean NOT integrating; adhering only to the law and culture, and speaking only the language, of the old country. As do most of the Muslim immigrants into Europe. In the melting-pot, “rus” – national identity according to the LAND of the forefathers – must be given up, and unity, a single nationality, forged by the acceptance by all comers of the “ius”, the LAW (and language and customs) of the new land.

      • Jeanne

        I understand what it “has come to mean” but the fact is that the word means that there are many cultures in a society. When melted together, they form America…or at least they used to before identity politics created victims of America. I am tired of giving up definitions of words in our common language because some group has appropriated them for a “cause.” America is supposed to be a multicultural melting pot and that is what I referred to it as. If I want to denigrate the term, I place it within quotation marks.

        • As a political term, “multicuturalism” was INVENTED by the Left to mean that individuals are to be defined first and foremost as belonging to a certain nation or race or religion. Yes, strictly by its origin, it should just mean many-culture-ideology. But it doesn’t. That’s why I said “it has come to mean” – because it is commonly used, by pretty well everybody who does use it, as meaning what the Left intended it to mean.

          • Jeanne

            Yes…I used the term “multicultural” without any “ism” and used it the way it is defined. A multicultural melting pot is much like a stew. The whole is the meal with support from the separate ingredients. The gravy is what makes America different from other nations…perhaps our Constitution or perhaps just that certain “spirit.” OMG! Not spirit!

  • liz

    If the “white” values listed by Hackman are bad, and the opposite values implied are good, then achieving them is easy – shut down the universities!
    You don’t need training or education to be dishonest, lazy, and incompetent. That’s been the unstated goal of the system for years – to “dumb us down”.
    Now that they’ve got it out in the open, there’s no point in continuing the charade of educating us! No education at all would be better than leftist brainwashing, anyway. The parasite is finally eating itself. Good riddance.

    • Jeanne

      Living as I do in a backwater locale, I must protest, Liz. If humanity is ever to rid itself of the stigma of “whiteness” the priests must be vigilant, as the full measure of their religion has not yet reached many backwaters, such as the one in which I unfortunately dwell. Those who will vote in the correct manner must forever fully outweigh the ones that would hold us back in the benighted belief that responsibility and hard work, honesty and thrift, plus a common language are means to liberty for all. Until They totally diminish the notion that skin color means nothing and destroy those groups of ignoramuses who think “white” is acceptable, They have their work cut out for them. I mean, They have many generations of such belief in so called “color blindness” with which to contend. They just can’t shut down the high cathedrals of their religion, yet.

      • liz

        Right, the “dumbing down” is only the foundation for the brainwashing, which is the ultimate goal. They’ll never stop with that. They’ll have to be forced to. I’d like to see all public schools and universities completely defunded. If some form of public school was still deemed necessary, then limit them to the 3 R’s. (Can you get their bias out of history?)
        The stranglehold of Leftists on future generations must be broken.

        • Jeanne

          How can all public schools be defunded, Liz? Even universities defunded would throw people into chaos.

          • liz

            Privatization. But that’s a tall order, given how dependent we have become on the system. We should start moving in that direction, though, as with everything else the government should get it’s tentacles out of, such as health care.

            • Jeanne

              I agree. It just can’t happen overnight. Nor can privatizing the sewer systems or garbage collection and landfills/recycling or infrastructure maintenance and building. We have a behemoth to tame and I don’t know how or when it will ever happen or who will do it.

      • Why “thrift”? Why is it always included in any list of virtues? Such a puritan, Protestant Christian, idea! If one has to be thrifty because one is poor, good and well, But if one can afford to be lavish, to enjoy luxury, why not? Extravagance isn’t necessarily wasteful. I’ll never be able to afford a private jet or a luxury yacht, but I’m delighted that there are people who can. I just wish they’d vote for the liberty and capitalism that allowed them to get what they’ve got, and not for socialism which would take it all away from them – as most of the new super-rich tycoons of Silicon Valley do, for instance.

        • Jeanne

          Thrift is a virtue that keeps people from spending money that they do not have. It aids in helping people prioritize their spending…less beer for more of their children’s needs. It gives a person a sense of control over their financial situation. I suspect that most self-made millionaires were thrifty when they were just plain folk. Thrift is a sign of responsible adulthood. If you got it in plenty, then spend it…or not. But if you don’t, then be thrifty. Nothing puritan about that as I see it. Just common sense.

          • People who spend money they don’t have are the poor. Thrift is necessary to them, as I said. Prioritizing spending is budgeting rather than thrift. Thrift is an inappropriate word for it. When thrift – meaning spending as little as possible – is held up as a moral virtue in everyone, rich and poor alike, it is essentially puritanical. There is an old formula for a joke, where the same characteristic in the first person, second person, and third person is described differently, according to who is speaking to whom. Using that formula, here’s the joke: I am thrifty, prudent, economical; you are parsimonious, penny-pinching; he is cheap, stingy, and mean.

            • Jeanne

              You are wrong, Jillian. Wealthy people spend money they don’t have and they abuse credit cards and second mortgage their homes and take out home-equity loans on the mortgaged homes. They take out loans to send their kids to Ivy League Universities, when the kid could stay at home and attend a local college AND work part or full time to help pay for his or her schooling. They throw outrageously expensive weddings and pay for honeymoons to magnificent places for their kids and not on the cash in their piggy bank, but from another loan. They could use a good dose of thrift.

              Thrift: the quality of using money and other resources carefully and not wastefully: the values of thrift and self-reliance… from whatever dictionary comes with my iMac. And…parsimonious: unwilling to spend money or use resources; stingy or frugal: parsimonious New Hampshire voters, who have a phobia about taxes.

              Careful use of funds and resources: Thrifty. That to me is a valuable principle to hold and not just something that poor people should practice.

            • Those wealthy people do have the money to do all that. Obviously. They may have to juggle the times of their expenditure. But they couldn’t get the credit if they didn’t have the security to offer. Why do you disapprove of them so? With the greatest respect (I enjoy and value your contributions very much), I think you are unaware of how censorious you sound in a puritan strain. I strongly recommend the Epicurean philosophy to you.

              Forget the dictionaries. Common parlance will do. Or the fun of the joke simply evaporates.

            • Jeanne

              Keep in mind that “wealthy” refers to people who may only make $200,000, or maybe even much less, a year per household. That is not very much, but they feel pressure to keep up with all the new “must-have” and “must do” that their idea of presenting wealth means to them. If you don’t know a lot of families like this, then I don’t know how to explain it to you. The assumption of wealth that they present makes them constantly assessing how they appear to others and remedying their self-perceived lack by buying and buying and buying. It is an unhealthy situation and it “spoils” children.

              I disapprove mostly because of the example they set for their children, that of instant gratification. Consideration of thrift is a warning to those who may stumble, fail to make payments, get in over their heads, make bad decisions to try to get out of debt, have their credit destroyed, pay ever higher interest rates on their loans and perhaps end up having to divest themselves of all they own at a loss.

              The truly wealthy that can take a hit or a stumble and not notice, don’t have this problem. They can be anyway they want to be for all I care.

              I know it was a joke, and I laughed at the joke, but your definition of “thrift” was off. I don’t reason that it is a puritanical value, anymore than I reason that honor or duty is a puritanical value.

              As children of those who lived through the Great Depression and whose families’s roots were in manual labor of farming and steel mills, my husband and I were bred to thrift (my definition of it) and struggled to limit debt as much as we could, but when it piled up despite our efforts (disasters, farming business involving inescapable debt, a change in the tax laws) we worked hard to get out of debt and stay out of debt. We tried to instill that mindset into our children because we believed it was important to not put oneself in a position of enslavement to debts owed. Not ever knowing just how our economy will be from administration to administration, it still seems like a reasonable thing to consider.

              If situations become dire, it would be better to be clear or nearly clear of debt and you know how us preppers are… ever expecting disaster. We sleep better knowing that what we have, we have free and clear or nearly so. That is just us and certainly not the way everyone must live their lives.

              Like the “tangled web you weave” with lying, it is simpler to not depend upon credit in order to get what you do not need. We have just witnessed too many friends stumble due to health or disaster or loss of job, divorce, disability, old age and lose their homes and just continue to fall. That happens all over the country, because people who should not do so, live way beyond their means.

              End of explaining myself and sorry if it sounds too much like a sermon or of an interfering mother-in-law.

              I make use of a discerning reason. That could seem to be censorious, I suppose. What values do you think are important to pass along to a following generation, Jillian? Anything goes, I guess, since we are only a group due to lack of deity belief and a general sense of conservatism, each here is a very different animal from the other.