LogFAQs > #955345955

MedeaLysistrata posted...
I'm on page 8 of the article and it says nothing unusual, what of the five tenets do you disagree with? Can you point to what in the text you think is misguided? I havent followed the whole topic so sorry if you have to repeat something

My foot note break down of my contentions with the tenets is:

(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational;

I actually agree with this sentiment as studies have already shown people already instinctually side with people who look more like their family than people who don't look like their family with humans becoming less loyal and more innately fearful the further away from looking like their family unit they become.

However, he takes this too far. This is the part where he argues the entire basis of education is racist (he absolutely is NOT just talking about funding differences between schools), which I don't think he provides anywhere near enough evidence to suggest (again, America is basically doing what the rest of the world is doing from a high level) and provides many scholar quotes insinuating the standard way of teaching naturally disenfranchises POC, which I again take contention with.

Keep it a litte less subjective and talk about race in regards to economic impact, but teaching anyone below college level that the entire learning system is rigged against them is a dangerous accusation to make. College kids can handle this as they already made it through HS and are actively paying for school, but this particular message will resonate most strongly with kids who already hate school/the system, and it will help them justify poor performance.

(2) the idea of an interest convergence;

If he wants to talk about the idea of interest convergence and how it relates to disenfranchising people, he needs to be FAR more specific.

For example:
https://images.app.goo.gl/8gBXnyLDXqwo5tTa6

The following document is unacceptable and premotes white supremacy. White people didn't invent or moniker half of this shit and it insinuates virtually every aspect of western society is designed to premote white people and hurt non-white, which is simply not true.

If there are PARTICULAR western values you feel are racist...you should point them out. You can't just blanket statement call ALL western values as inherently "white," especially when if you're 8 pages deep, you know the document absolutely does not have a positive connation of things that are inherently "white."

(3) the social construction of race;

I didn't have any contentions here. If anything, teaching people that race is largely a social construct is just factual.

(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling;

I HAD no contention with this, until the author suggested we should be teaching fictional stories about how it would be completely unexpected for white people to sell out all black people to aliens as slaves if they promised us a bunch of stuff, which is unproven and premotes that white people will ALWAYS be racist and will throw black people under the bus.

We have enough stories of the past of attrocities to teach those, we don't need to brainwash people into thinking they have nothing but a bleak racist future to look forward too.

and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.

This is mostly true, but they really should add the word "some" in front of whites. It makes the statement more provably true, and helps not demonize low income whites, many of which probably didn't benefit from the power grab of using free labor.

---

Sanity is a one trick pony, all you get with it is rational thought, but with crazy the sky's the limit.