Inside the Madness at Evergreen State
wsj.com
wsj.com
These retaliatory attitudes towards 'white' people are hostile and racist and do not work towards building an inclusive society.
Edit: Why was this flagged?
I (and many others I grew up with) think of Evergreen in the same way I think of avant garde fashion: It's sometimes a precursor of trends to come, but those trends are heavily watered-down and altered versions of the original.
I don't worry about a cultural revolution stemming from Evergreen any more than I worry about a nazi uprising stemming from 4chan.
EDIT: That is to say, both can be influential in their own way but in both cases their particular viewpoints get really watered-down by the time it becomes "mainstream" in any way.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This article is that.
The people advocating this idiocy are unaware of history. The end result of their advocacy is genocide. They will end up being accused of the things they oppose, by people even more radical than themselves.
For me, all of the despotic ideologies are the same. This kind of political correctness, communism, anti-semitism, etc. They all want "good" people to destroy the "bad" people.
Reality be damned. Consequences be damned. Humanity be damned.
They ruin it for the rest of us.
That swas the sentiment of many before WW2 broke out. Holocaust happened. Cultural Revolution took off.
"In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor's motto, 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"
Any professor teaching anti-(any other race'ness') would be instantly a pariah and unable to keep a job.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/health/college-course-white-co...
I have a question. When I grew up I heard 'colorblindness' was a good thing. What happened to that? It appears we are going in the opposite direction.
Whiteness isn't really a race, so that's not the same thing. In America, it's been a social construct whose members have shifted over the years.
> I have a question. When I grew up I heard 'colorblindness' was a good thing. What happened to that? It appears we are going in the opposite direction.
People started to realize that it ignores the lived experience of black people.
You got the answer yourself:
> I think you are saying that Whites do not constitute a race in the same way that Blacks do?? Does that make sense?
Culture is the issue. And by bypassing that and focusing on race it instantly makes the conversation taboo and kills any progress through conversation and public discourse.
This happens often in society and it's a shame, especially when cultural defects result in oppression or mass inter-community violence. These are serious problems that can't be addressed honestly.
For one you cite a phenomenon that was unique to a certain time/place (the irish).
> The point is that whiteness in America isn't a race at all; it's a social construction
My objection is how this misses the forest for the trees. There's a weak correlation between some rednecks in appalachia who hate blacks and, say, the hiring behaviour of wealthy whites in business, or the politics driven out of middle-class America which push out ineffective criminal justice policy.
These need to be confronted on a culture-by-culture basis.
For example, just look at how so many people with honest concern about violence in ghettos often blame it on the black race, or because of the popularity of the former, non-racists who criticize it will get dismissed as merely being racists. But just because they are primarily black doesn't mean the problem is racial nor does it mean their race is entirely why they got into that position. There are plenty of non-black ghettos with high violence and low educations in many countries.
If you lump it all into a racial issue you will only get a huge push back as we see here in this thread. For good reasons too, it's as reductive and irrational as the racists or anti-semites.
You could get all social-science academia about it, but all cultures are partially social constructs. And pretending it's only a social construction is similarly reductive, there is more than enough resesrch on the genetic S culture.
where irish ever required to use 'colored' restrooms? did anti-miscegenation laws outlaw 'white and irish' marriage or sexual relations?
consider that 'paddy wagon' is a term from irish association with policework in the 1800s... does it seem likely that 'white' citizens of that time would be content with 'non-whites' arresting them and carting them off to jail or court?
You are free to disagree with the thesis, of course.
So Whites select a social construct, while all others select a race? This is remarkably convoluted and confusing. Maybe I am just not smart enough to understand this.
I personally estimate that in 100 years Hispanics are going to be considered white as they lose their undesirable status, just like happened to the Irish.
Black people often don’t either, but are forced to based on skin color.
No, it's not.
> How does it ignore the experiences of 'black' people?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/26/do-not...
Colorblindness advocates that while you may subconsciously classify people into different groups, you shouldn't let that classification get in the way of evaluating a person as an individual.
The problem with tribalism is that it doesn't allow me, someone trying to view another as an individual, to do so. It asserts that we can only view each other as faceless expressions of 'our' groups. This is counterproductive and the essential problem with identity politics.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
> What are the merits of basing everyone by the hue of their pigmentation?
This is a strawman; it's not what I'm advocating. What I am advocating is to recognize that black people have a different lived experience than white people. Colorblindness erases that.
> Again, these ideas only serve to segrate groups and will likely lead to create civil strife.
Like racism isn't causing civil strife right now?
There are many problems in many communities (poor rural white, inner city black, etc.) that are caused by the actions of those in the communities themselves, rather than by oppressive outside forces. Attitude and behavioral change within those communities is necessary for any lasting improvement in the lived experience of it's members.
Power plays a role but it's only one of many. But reducing everything to that is a recipe for missing the big picture.
Foucault's work is one of the great examples of this. He loved to reduce complex systems with many competing motivations as merely the products of power.
https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left...
They operate as a kind of dialectic with the antics of both sides serving to strengthen the other. Under the hood they share the same intellectual foundation in biological determinism, identity politics, postmodernism, and anti-rationalism.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
>[a person who helped organize the Day of Absence] observed that because Hitchens’s razor is an “Englishman’s popularization of a Latin proverb,” it “would seem to itself be the product of at least two traditionally hierarchical, imperialist societies with an interest in disposing of inconvenient questions.”
. . Wow, you really can't make this up.
Evergreen officially asked "white" students to not show up to campus one day.
Those who protested this decision were told that because their logic is of English and Latin origin, it's racist.
In the case of scholarships, that's a golden opportunity that is being squandered - an even greater exercise of privilege.
In any case, there appears to be many overheated claims around this event, with precious little context. This was a voluntary event, where both minority and white students were allowed to go off-campus for discussions around "identity politics";
https://evergreen.edu/multicultural/day-of-absence-day-of-pr...
It sounds more like an event encouraging and celebrating tribalism.
And again, I didn't think HN was a forum for debating these sorts of political / cultural issues in the first place. What does this have to do with science, technology, or startups?
> What does this have to do with science, technology, or startups?
...this has never been the criteria for a good HN submission. It has always been "something a good hacker would find interesting" -- this includes history, philosophy, good psychology, etc.