If David Duke Didn't Write This Infographic for the Smithsonian Institute How Is It Different From What He Would Have Written?

Today, I learned that if I show up for work on time and plan for the future, then I am, more likely than not, embracing Whiteness. I plead guilty.

I’m not joking. The Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of African American History & Culture (NMAAHC) has decided to address racism in American society by beating on Whitey. This is a sport that has had professional status on the left since the 60s, at least, and now seems to be trying to develop its own Super Bowl.

White dominant culture describes how white people and their practices, beliefs, and culture have been normalized over time and are now considered standard in the United States. As a result, all Americans have all adopted various aspects of white culture, including people of color.

There are two bullet points under “White Dominant Culture.” Those would be ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white nationalism.’

Racism is perpetuated by deeming whiteness as superior and other racial and ethnic groups as inferior. The prevalence of white dominant culture and racism leads to an internalized racial superiority for those who adhere to it. This internalized dominance “describes the experience and attitudes of those who are members of the dominant, privileged, or powerful identity groups. Members of the [dominant] group accept their group’s socially superior status as normal and deserved.” [as defined by CARED: Calgary Anti-Racism Education(link is external)]

When people of a nondominant group (people of color) are discriminated against, targeted or oppressed over time, they often believe the myths and misinformation about their group. Known as internalized racism, it happens when an oppressed group believes the racial views that society communicates are true, and they act as if they were true.

I don’t have much patience with all the critical race theory bullsh** that is being dredged up and strewn about due to the emergence of Black Lives Matter as a cult/secular religion. The academic discussion of racism might as well have been developed by a couple of white guys: Franz Kafka and Lewis Carroll. Kafka’s contribution is the ‘Kafka Trap,’ or when your denial of an accusation serves as proof of that accusation. Lewis Carroll’s contribution would be the dialog between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ”Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

For instance,

RACISM = Racial Prejudice (Unfounded Beliefs + Irrational Fear) + Institutional Power

Racism, like smog, swirls around us and permeates American society. It can be intentional, clear and direct or it can be expressed in more subtle ways that the perpetrator might not even be aware of.

Racism is a system of advantage based on race that involves systems and institutions, not just individual mindsets and actions. The critical variable in racism is the impact (outcomes) not the intent and operates at multiple levels including individual racism, interpersonal racism, institutional racism, and structural racism.

This, in my view, serves to turn the entire argument about racism into nothing more than finger-pointing combined with some low brow academic jerkoff material. It is also profoundly dysfunctional. If a conversation about race can only start when I acknowledge a) that I am racist because of my race and b) use some profoundly stupid definitions, then I no longer see the purpose in talking, and I no longer see the purpose in caring to talk. Demanding that I engage in some sort of racial equivalent of a Maoist struggle session as the price for you thinking I’m not racist simply makes me want to tell you to f*** right off. It is not going to happen. The downstream effects are going to be something the clowns producing this propaganda will not like. If you tell a child over and over that he is stupid and incompetent and worthless, the child eventually internalizes the criticism and lives up to expectations. I’m willing to bet this tactic being employed by the left has exactly the same result.

Back to the Smithsonian — as part of their program, they have produced this infographic.

If David Duke Didn't Write This Infographic for the Smithsonian Institute How Is It Different From What He Would Have Written?

Left out of this, of course, is the English language and the alphabet, without which the same cretins bitching about ‘Whiteness’ would have to do it in some way that would annoy us because we wouldn’t be able to understand this gibberish.

You can’t really read this and not be reminded of this epic scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

So much of this is utterly ridiculous. Scientific method=whiteness? Wife is homemaker and subordinate to the husband is Whiteness? Planning for the future is Whiteness? Bland food is Whiteness?

This is not a list of cultural norms; it is a list of counterfactual nonsense and racial stereotypes that aren’t really racial at all. Most of them are the marks of most cultures across geography and time. Some, like conceptions of time, are products of the industrial age and arise wherever there are trains or factories. The irony is that if the Smithsonian wanted to produce material for the KKK or any white nationalist group, they really couldn’t have done better than this. Rod Dreher at American Conservative observes:

What kind of neighborhood would you expect to have if most of the people in it devalued hard work, rejected the idea that they needed to be on time, refused to defer gratification, did not respect authority, sought out conflict, laughed at politeness, rejected the traditional family model, and so forth? You’d have communities that were beset by crime and generational poverty, without the cultural tools to overcome the chaos.

And, though Dreher doesn’t say it, the implication in that infographic is that communities such as those would be preferable because that meant they had rejected ‘Whiteness.’ No thanks, I’ll pass.

streiff
Managing Editor at RedState
Former infantry officer, CGSC grad and Army Operations Center alumnus.
RedState member since 2004.
polite emails to [email protected] Jerk emails will be blocked.
Follow me on Twitter
Read more by streiff