12 ms·

Or worse, if you hold idea X, Y, or Z, then you're a racist. See this: https://twitter.com/byronyork/status/1283372233730203651?s=21 https://twitter.com/byronyo

Or worse, if you hold idea X, Y, or Z, then you're a racist. See this: https://twitter.com/byronyork/status/1283372233730203651?s=21 https://twitter.com/byronyork/status/1283372233730203651?s=2... "The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification, more."Oh, and emphasis on scientific methods. So, for the sake of identity, let's attack modern civilization. This. Is. Fucking. Insane.

banads 6y ago
>"The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification, more."Oh, and emphasis on scientific methods. What does that say about the life works of Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Isn't it obvious? "They were acting white."
  - banads 6y ago
    I'm more concerned with what that implies about the content of their character, rather than color
steverb 6y ago
The article and the infographic in question did not call those signs of whiteness, they are referred to as some aspects and assumptions of Whiteness and WHite Culture. Most of which cause me to wonder what kind of person wouldn't agree with those things... which just goes to show how fully a part of my culture I am. :-) I didn't see the article refer to those things as right or wrong, merely default positions.
escape_goat 6y ago
There is a lot — a LOT — to criticize about the infographic tweeted by Byron York here (based on a table produced by Judith Katz in 1990) and frankly this entire page [1] of relentlessly abstracted and ahistorical discussion of 'Whiteness' and cultural identity is a dumpster fire even from the perspective it is attempting to communicate, and I am shocked to see scholarship of this quality featured at the Smithsonian. However, absolutely nothing about it suggests that "internalizing aspects of white culture" makes you a racist. It's fine if you don't respect or understand the idea that the web page is trying to communicate here because frankly they did a shamefully bad job. They are preaching to the choir. But absolutely nothing about it suggests the thing that angers you. You are bringing that idea to the infographic with you. [1] https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiten...
- hintymad 6y ago
  Actually, you may well be right. The infographics didn’t explicitly judge “whiteness”. I may indeed have brought the idea with me given how whiteness is used and connotated nowadays. I hope I’m totally wrong about my interpretation about the infographics and I hope my frustration is unsubstantiated.
  - escape_goat 6y ago
    It's frustrating because the style of the entire page is completely consonant with the thing that it is trying to describe.
  - x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
    By calling it whiteness, it implicitly discourages "brown" people from adopting the enumerated values.
    - scruple 6y ago
      I am unsure how else to parse it, too. Is this infographic telling black children that "doing science" is "acting white?" This entire infographic reads like white supremacist rhetoric. What the hell...
formerly_proven 6y ago
Utterings from both the left- and right-wing discourse in the US (and increasingly in Europe) have been reaching almost 100 % applicability of Poe's law, where it is virtually impossible for me to tell whether someone is serious.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  That is likely deliberate, and allows you to pull quotes from the craziest of people and claim it's the view of the mainstream.
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    This is a very astute observation -- thank you for sharing this idea.
vidarh 6y ago
The graphics did not attack anything. It described a set of assumptions that are cultural. It did say they were good or bad, or racist. Your perception of it as an attack is your own.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > It described a set of assumptions that are cultural. Yes, but most social scientists would describe these as bourgeois values (or "bourgeois virtues"), not "Whiteness". Why bring race into it? I mean, I get it that they're looking at this from a US-centric point of view, but even then it makes zero sense other than as an intentionally provocative and sharply divisive statement. (But why would the Smithsonian Institution want to blatantly troll their patrons like that? It's mind-boggling.)
  - korethr 6y ago
    Because whiteness is the new bourgeois.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Because "white" in US is de facto a cultural category that is heavily intertwined with those proclaimed virtues. Note that this doesn't mean that people who don't exemplify them are not considered white, or that people with non-white skin who do exemplify them are considered white. What it means is that it's assumed to be the norm for whites, and ideal for other groups to strive towards - and the lack of attainment is deemed as the root cause of their troubles. Furthermore, if public perception shifts on this for some group - i.e. if they are deemed as having largely attained the ideal, when they weren't perceived as such before - they get to partake in "white privilege" to the corresponding degree; first, promoted to "honorary whites", separate but (gradually more and more) equal; and then finally fully adopted into the fold. This happened historically with e.g. Catholics (especially Irish and Italians), Eastern Europeans, and Jews; and is ongoing with some Asian nationalities, and some subgroups of Hispanics. Note also that this is about perception of those groups by the dominant group in society, not the actual degree to which they really manifest or don't manifest those virtues. The determination to exclude the group comes first, and then their supposed failure to adhere to the virtues is used to morally justify it, and shift the blame onto those excluded. Conversely, the dominant group becomes dominant first, and then claims that its dominant status is merely an inevitable and justifiable outcome of adherence to the virtues.
andrepd 6y ago
Quote the actual infographic rather than the uncharitable interpretation provided by the (biased) guy posting it. As I read it, it's a list of traditional WASP traits. Some mostly good (hard work, objectivity, delayed gratification) others much less so (respect for authority, religious intolerance, commoditization of time, normalisation of the "rat race" as the only acceptable path to the only acceptable idea of success, etc)
- BrandonM 6y ago
  I don't really have a dog in this fight (I'm neither WASP nor a person of color), but to me, equating the nuclear family with whiteness is a negative stereotype in practically every direction. If my parents got divorced, am I not truly white? If I have a nuclear family, am I not truly a person of color? It's extra frustrating because it's historically inaccurate: > A study of 1880 family structures in Philadelphia, showed that three-quarters of Black families were nuclear families, composed of two parents and children. Data from U.S. Census reports reveal that between 1880 and 1960, married households consisting of two-parent homes were the most widespread form of African-American family structures. > In the Harlem neighborhood of New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related Black households had two parents. [By 1965,] out-of-wedlock birthrate had increased to 25% among the Black population. This figure continued to rise over time and in 1991, 68% of Black children were born outside of marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_struct... Similar arguments can be made against just about every point, but I'll address "Protestant Work Ethic". The NBA is majority African American, and players routinely share their workout regimen on social media: Jimmy Butler touted his 3:30a wake-up before his first Heat practice (https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nba/miami-heat/article235562122.html https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nba/miami-heat/article235...), Dennis Rodman—can anyone label him as a symbol of whiteness?—was admired for his grueling post-game workouts, Kobe and countless other players were known for hours-long shootarounds that would exhaust anyone. Are NBA players embodying white culture? It's worrying to me that if you shared the "White Culture" traits with racists from the past, they would agree vociferously, especially when you consider the implied inverse of those traits. They would use it as an argument for white superiority. It seems that the modern left has somehow embraced the racist stereotyping of the past, with the only difference being that they are painting the same traits—many of which are correlated with individual success—as otherness and a source of oppression. I don't understand how infographics like this could possibly make the world a better place. Are we meant to embrace them? As an individual of any group, should I somehow be factoring "information" like this into my beliefs and actions, and if so, how is it making my life and the lives of the people around me better?
scruple 6y ago
Wow. This is put out by the Smithsonian Institute. So, this is tax dollars at work. Great.
soulofmischief 6y ago
My problem with this infographic and general point of view is that it completely ignores the fact that there is a huge counterculture which not only rejects most of these concepts but also is generally accepting of people of all kinds, and many white people within this demographic are not afforded the same privileges and luxuries commonly associated with "whiteness". Instead of recognizing these people as not part of the problem, it throws us in with the rest of the "whiteness" and creates major group division, reducing our ability to change things collectively. I've gotten in arguments with a couple of black people here and there about how because I'm "white", I shouldn't involve myself in black politics and have no right to fight for black civil rights in America. Nevermind that I'm 4th-generational Italian and come from a long line of poor indentured servants, and that my ancestor was met with racism and segregation when entering the US. My ancestor was an illegal immigrant stowaway because of racist immigration laws targeting Italy at the time. I fight for them as well as any other person whose family has a history of oppression. Reminds me of the Niemöller poem... "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist."
- ihsw 6y ago
  > it throws us in with the rest of the "whiteness" and creates major group division, reducing our ability to change things collectively Not true, it makes it much easier and simpler for whites to behave collectively. The rise of BLM and its related trappings obviates that the collectivization of whites on the basis of race is inevitable. In essence, BLM is accomplishing what the Nazis and KKK could only dream of -- unifying white America under a single banner on the basis of collective race-based identity and race-based destiny.
vertbhrtn 6y ago
I see the "inclusiveness" rhetoric is getting very aggressive and is approaching the state "if you are not with us, you are against us." In other words, they want to divide the society along the skin color, so people would forget that it's really about poor vs rich.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
That isn't what the sign says. It's what York is trying to imply from it, because York's made his entire career out of race-baiting. The purpose of the sign is to show how people who DON'T have those things have been discriminated against because of circumstances beyond their control. If you're poor, rugged individualism is less important than getting through the day. Collectivism is the more intelligent approach in that situation. Hard work for a lot of white folks is seen in the context of having "a job that matters." Objectivity in this situation is a farce. Yes, it's stupid to take out a payday loan. But when your wife just lost her job or you lost your child care benefits and you have to pay rent, you do what you have to do. Nuclear families are great if you're born into them. What happens when you aren't? And so on, and so forth. And the funniest thing about this whole thing? White society is trending away from AAAAAALLLLL of these as the cost of living outpaces inflation and wages stay stagnant. Turns out that it's pretty easy to check the items off of that list if you have the means to do it.

banads 6y ago

>"The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification, more."Oh, and emphasis on scientific methods. What does that say about the life works of Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?

zozbot234 6y ago
Isn't it obvious? "They were acting white."
- banads 6y ago
  I'm more concerned with what that implies about the content of their character, rather than color

steverb 6y ago

The article and the infographic in question did not call those signs of whiteness, they are referred to as some aspects and assumptions of Whiteness and WHite Culture. Most of which cause me to wonder what kind of person wouldn't agree with those things... which just goes to show how fully a part of my culture I am. :-) I didn't see the article refer to those things as right or wrong, merely default positions.

escape_goat 6y ago

There is a lot — a LOT — to criticize about the infographic tweeted by Byron York here (based on a table produced by Judith Katz in 1990) and frankly this entire page [1] of relentlessly abstracted and ahistorical discussion of 'Whiteness' and cultural identity is a dumpster fire even from the perspective it is attempting to communicate, and I am shocked to see scholarship of this quality featured at the Smithsonian. However, absolutely nothing about it suggests that "internalizing aspects of white culture" makes you a racist. It's fine if you don't respect or understand the idea that the web page is trying to communicate here because frankly they did a shamefully bad job. They are preaching to the choir. But absolutely nothing about it suggests the thing that angers you. You are bringing that idea to the infographic with you. [1] https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiten...

hintymad 6y ago
Actually, you may well be right. The infographics didn’t explicitly judge “whiteness”. I may indeed have brought the idea with me given how whiteness is used and connotated nowadays. I hope I’m totally wrong about my interpretation about the infographics and I hope my frustration is unsubstantiated.
- escape_goat 6y ago
  It's frustrating because the style of the entire page is completely consonant with the thing that it is trying to describe.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  By calling it whiteness, it implicitly discourages "brown" people from adopting the enumerated values.
  - scruple 6y ago
    I am unsure how else to parse it, too. Is this infographic telling black children that "doing science" is "acting white?" This entire infographic reads like white supremacist rhetoric. What the hell...

formerly_proven 6y ago

Utterings from both the left- and right-wing discourse in the US (and increasingly in Europe) have been reaching almost 100 % applicability of Poe's law, where it is virtually impossible for me to tell whether someone is serious.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blaser-waffle 6y ago
That is likely deliberate, and allows you to pull quotes from the craziest of people and claim it's the view of the mainstream.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  This is a very astute observation -- thank you for sharing this idea.

vidarh 6y ago

The graphics did not attack anything. It described a set of assumptions that are cultural. It did say they were good or bad, or racist. Your perception of it as an attack is your own.

zozbot234 6y ago
> It described a set of assumptions that are cultural. Yes, but most social scientists would describe these as bourgeois values (or "bourgeois virtues"), not "Whiteness". Why bring race into it? I mean, I get it that they're looking at this from a US-centric point of view, but even then it makes zero sense other than as an intentionally provocative and sharply divisive statement. (But why would the Smithsonian Institution want to blatantly troll their patrons like that? It's mind-boggling.)
- korethr 6y ago
  Because whiteness is the new bourgeois.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Because "white" in US is de facto a cultural category that is heavily intertwined with those proclaimed virtues. Note that this doesn't mean that people who don't exemplify them are not considered white, or that people with non-white skin who do exemplify them are considered white. What it means is that it's assumed to be the norm for whites, and ideal for other groups to strive towards - and the lack of attainment is deemed as the root cause of their troubles. Furthermore, if public perception shifts on this for some group - i.e. if they are deemed as having largely attained the ideal, when they weren't perceived as such before - they get to partake in "white privilege" to the corresponding degree; first, promoted to "honorary whites", separate but (gradually more and more) equal; and then finally fully adopted into the fold. This happened historically with e.g. Catholics (especially Irish and Italians), Eastern Europeans, and Jews; and is ongoing with some Asian nationalities, and some subgroups of Hispanics. Note also that this is about perception of those groups by the dominant group in society, not the actual degree to which they really manifest or don't manifest those virtues. The determination to exclude the group comes first, and then their supposed failure to adhere to the virtues is used to morally justify it, and shift the blame onto those excluded. Conversely, the dominant group becomes dominant first, and then claims that its dominant status is merely an inevitable and justifiable outcome of adherence to the virtues.

andrepd 6y ago

Quote the actual infographic rather than the uncharitable interpretation provided by the (biased) guy posting it. As I read it, it's a list of traditional WASP traits. Some mostly good (hard work, objectivity, delayed gratification) others much less so (respect for authority, religious intolerance, commoditization of time, normalisation of the "rat race" as the only acceptable path to the only acceptable idea of success, etc)

BrandonM 6y ago
I don't really have a dog in this fight (I'm neither WASP nor a person of color), but to me, equating the nuclear family with whiteness is a negative stereotype in practically every direction. If my parents got divorced, am I not truly white? If I have a nuclear family, am I not truly a person of color? It's extra frustrating because it's historically inaccurate: > A study of 1880 family structures in Philadelphia, showed that three-quarters of Black families were nuclear families, composed of two parents and children. Data from U.S. Census reports reveal that between 1880 and 1960, married households consisting of two-parent homes were the most widespread form of African-American family structures. > In the Harlem neighborhood of New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related Black households had two parents. [By 1965,] out-of-wedlock birthrate had increased to 25% among the Black population. This figure continued to rise over time and in 1991, 68% of Black children were born outside of marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_struct... Similar arguments can be made against just about every point, but I'll address "Protestant Work Ethic". The NBA is majority African American, and players routinely share their workout regimen on social media: Jimmy Butler touted his 3:30a wake-up before his first Heat practice (https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nba/miami-heat/article235562122.html https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nba/miami-heat/article235...), Dennis Rodman—can anyone label him as a symbol of whiteness?—was admired for his grueling post-game workouts, Kobe and countless other players were known for hours-long shootarounds that would exhaust anyone. Are NBA players embodying white culture? It's worrying to me that if you shared the "White Culture" traits with racists from the past, they would agree vociferously, especially when you consider the implied inverse of those traits. They would use it as an argument for white superiority. It seems that the modern left has somehow embraced the racist stereotyping of the past, with the only difference being that they are painting the same traits—many of which are correlated with individual success—as otherness and a source of oppression. I don't understand how infographics like this could possibly make the world a better place. Are we meant to embrace them? As an individual of any group, should I somehow be factoring "information" like this into my beliefs and actions, and if so, how is it making my life and the lives of the people around me better?

scruple 6y ago

Wow. This is put out by the Smithsonian Institute. So, this is tax dollars at work. Great.

soulofmischief 6y ago

My problem with this infographic and general point of view is that it completely ignores the fact that there is a huge counterculture which not only rejects most of these concepts but also is generally accepting of people of all kinds, and many white people within this demographic are not afforded the same privileges and luxuries commonly associated with "whiteness". Instead of recognizing these people as not part of the problem, it throws us in with the rest of the "whiteness" and creates major group division, reducing our ability to change things collectively. I've gotten in arguments with a couple of black people here and there about how because I'm "white", I shouldn't involve myself in black politics and have no right to fight for black civil rights in America. Nevermind that I'm 4th-generational Italian and come from a long line of poor indentured servants, and that my ancestor was met with racism and segregation when entering the US. My ancestor was an illegal immigrant stowaway because of racist immigration laws targeting Italy at the time. I fight for them as well as any other person whose family has a history of oppression. Reminds me of the Niemöller poem... "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist."

ihsw 6y ago
> it throws us in with the rest of the "whiteness" and creates major group division, reducing our ability to change things collectively Not true, it makes it much easier and simpler for whites to behave collectively. The rise of BLM and its related trappings obviates that the collectivization of whites on the basis of race is inevitable. In essence, BLM is accomplishing what the Nazis and KKK could only dream of -- unifying white America under a single banner on the basis of collective race-based identity and race-based destiny.

vertbhrtn 6y ago

I see the "inclusiveness" rhetoric is getting very aggressive and is approaching the state "if you are not with us, you are against us." In other words, they want to divide the society along the skin color, so people would forget that it's really about poor vs rich.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

That isn't what the sign says. It's what York is trying to imply from it, because York's made his entire career out of race-baiting. The purpose of the sign is to show how people who DON'T have those things have been discriminated against because of circumstances beyond their control. If you're poor, rugged individualism is less important than getting through the day. Collectivism is the more intelligent approach in that situation. Hard work for a lot of white folks is seen in the context of having "a job that matters." Objectivity in this situation is a farce. Yes, it's stupid to take out a payday loan. But when your wife just lost her job or you lost your child care benefits and you have to pay rent, you do what you have to do. Nuclear families are great if you're born into them. What happens when you aren't? And so on, and so forth. And the funniest thing about this whole thing? White society is trending away from AAAAAALLLLL of these as the cost of living outpaces inflation and wages stay stagnant. Turns out that it's pretty easy to check the items off of that list if you have the means to do it.