Let's talk about that hideous, bile-inducing infographic the Smithsonian just removed from their website (after a justified public outcry). The critical race theory prattle is italicized; my own responses are written in standard text.
(And yeah, I'm going to break this up over multiple posts because, as there's so much nonsense here to unpack, I suspect it's going to get suuuuper long.)
White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways in which white people and their traditions have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States.
There's a teeny, tiny nugget of truth in this. While the people who created this document don't really know much of anything about white culture (as we will soon see), it is in fact true that white people are, generally speaking, seen as "standard" here while people of color tend to stand out. But there's nothing necessarily nefarious about this reality. White people are seen as "normal" because they are the majority in the US. If we drop a white person in, say, Tokyo, this sense of white average-ness would radically change.
As a matter of fact, as a white person living in the US, I've actually personally experienced the aforementioned Tokyo effect. I live and work in a community that is majority-minority. In other words, the vast majority of my neighbors are people of color. Consequently, I have often been the only white person in the room -- and have felt that exact sense of dislocation that people of color feel in white-dominated environments.
So what does my own experience indicate? Namely this: if you're not in the majority in a particular context, you're bound to feel a little weird. That's a universal - and unavoidable - human experience. And to automatically attribute fault to the people around you for this discomfort is to engage in the cognitive distortion of mind-reading. In other words, you are assuming people are looking down on you for being different without actually confirming that this is how they really feel.
"Normal" is not necessarily evil, and the majority should not be attacked simply for being the majority. What matters is how people who fall outside the norm are treated, not the fact that there's a norm at all. And compared to other existing societies, we do an excellent job integrating people who are different. There's still room for growth, of course; I'm not denying that. But this idea that the US is somehow uniquely racist because our dominant cultural mores are European is to pretend, stupidly, that Japanese culture is not overwhelmingly Japanese, that Chinese culture is not overwhelmingly Chinese, and so on.
And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America...
Your definition of "institutional power" is shallow and deeply flawed. It's true that most of our politicians, CEO's, and media moguls are white. But in my observation, there are plenty of other forms of institutional power that people of color definitely possess -- and routinely use to their own advantage. Is it not power that people of color can persuade college administrators and business leaders to completely stop their operations for the sake of cooling nonwhite rage? Is it not power that people of color can agitate to get people fired for crossing certain ideological lines? Is it not power that people of color have, in recent weeks, forced white people to literally bow and scrape before them in abject humiliation because a bad cop in Minnesota murdered a black man?
Focusing on the skin color of those who hold the top positions in our society completely misses how those people actually behave. White guilt is a critical variable -- one that's especially relevant among white elites. (As a matter of fact, I bet you good money that this trash infographic was probably made by some socially privileged, credentialed-but-not-educated white person.)
... we have all internalized some aspects of white culture -- including people of color.
And this is bad because...?
(Whew. See, I told you this was going to be long. We've only just now gotten to the idiotic bullet points!)
Rugged Individualism
- The individual is the primary unit
Yes. Yes, he is. And there's a reason why Western society - and US society specifically - has come to that conclusion after many centuries of discussion and wrangling: because respect for the individual allows us to have societies that are comparably tolerant, just, and functionally diverse. If, on the other hand, you make one's collective the primary unit, what results is a loss of freedom and an enforcement of orthodoxy -- which can, in the most extreme cases, lead to mass graves. Please, for the love of God, examine the evidence of history.
Now to address the baseline worry that drives many to embrace this BS collectivist drivel: the fact that dominant Western culture considers the individual the primary unit does not in fact mean that, in said culture, the individual must be left ruthlessly alone to confront the vicissitudes of life. No: no serious student of European thought could possibly come away with that impression. European liberalism as it has been traditionally practiced in the US allows all sorts of intermediary groups to serve as buffers between the individual and the world at large, including one's family, one's church, one's clubs and lodges, etc. No: what centering the individual actually does is ensure that no group can brutally hammer down the nails that stick up without facing censure from the public at large. An individualist orientation needn't abandon you to the wilds.
- Self-reliance
- Independence and autonomy highly valued + rewarded
Please see above. Yes, traditionalist US culture does encourage you to, as one might say, "handle your own business" and not leech off of others, but that doesn't mean you must do so with zero help whatsoever. The hollowing-out of our civil society and the resulting isolation of many is a perversion (caused, incidentally, by leftist policy), not what our forefathers intended.
- Individuals assumed to be in control of their environment, "You get what you deserve."
I don't think any white person believes that we have 100% control over the environment. I think we all understand that outside factors sometimes play a role in differential outcomes. But if we completely discount the possibility that people often do get what they deserve - if we suppose that individual choice has no effect - we will wreak much harm.
If you prepare for a test for several days and ultimately get an A, did you get what you deserve? If you scrimp and save for years until finally - finally - you're able to afford a down payment on a beautiful house, did you get what you deserve? If you immigrate to the US with two cents in your pocket but, after hustling for half a lifetime, you end up making six figures, did you get what you deserve? Most people agree that the answer to all these questions is yes. Why? Because according to natural human intuition, that's what actually fair. Most people balk at the idea that a self-satisfied lay-about who does nothing to better himself should get the same rewards as a person who actually puts in an effort -- and rightly so!
If you prepare for a test for several days and ultimately get an A, did you get what you deserve? If you scrimp and save for years until finally - finally - you're able to afford a down payment on a beautiful house, did you get what you deserve? If you immigrate to the US with two cents in your pocket but, after hustling for half a lifetime, you end up making six figures, did you get what you deserve? Most people agree that the answer to all these questions is yes. Why? Because according to natural human intuition, that's what actually fair. Most people balk at the idea that a self-satisfied lay-about who does nothing to better himself should get the same rewards as a person who actually puts in an effort -- and rightly so!
It's true that some people get dealt a crappier hand than others. Nobody disputes that. But that doesn't mean they're absolved from the obligation to improve themselves and reach for high goals -- or that they shouldn't be expected to play their hands as effectively as they possibly can. Speaking as a teacher, I would never, ever tell a student - no matter his skin color - that he's a mere pawn of systemic forces and therefore doesn't have any agency of his own. What a way to disempower a kid! It is important for us adults to remain conscious of the unique challenges certain children face due to the circumstances into which they were born, but cultivating external loci of control in these children and teaching them to be dependent on the largess of more fortunate folks is no way to help them rise up.
It is healthier, in the long run, to teach people to do their best -- not to lie down in surrender.
No comments:
Post a Comment