SWS has jumped the shark
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This. |
Anonymous
No one here is denying racism; they are objecting to the structure and agenda of this particular program. Gotta open your ears and minds and actually hear what people are saying. |
Anonymous
So language matters in one direction only? Some people are rightfully allowed to be offended by skin-based insults, while it's open season on other groups? This mindset is exactly that displayed in the SWS program description and is what is likely to undermine the program's presumable goals. |
Anonymous
Also, one of the PPs also mentioned how there are Black-only events at SWS? Is this pre-1954? |
Anonymous
No it’s white fragility by textbook definition and the faulty logic presented by the offended white folk on this thread is a tragically ironic example of why these initiatives are sorely needed. In all honesty, they basis of this work is pushing past the feelings of defensiveness and discomfort for the sake of growth. It is quite known and discussed that many families will feel the way many of you are feeling. The goal of the work is to being forth those who are open and willing to push past that discomfort and learn something. This change is painfully and deeply rooted. This is century work and thank goodness for those who embark on it. |
Anonymous
That’s fine, but governement officials still can’t make negative characterizations based on race. It is illegal. That includes “white fragility.” Beyond that, it is HIGHLY unlikely that your idea about “work” and “change” by white people will result in any lessening of historical inequalities. Because at the end of the day, fixing those problems has little to do with individual feelings or confessions of faith. For a school, the actual “work” is things like ensuring the school has a good phonics program so the kids can read; strong math instruction; and so forth. |
Anonymous
I really think the organizers should get a clue because they are losing people who would otherwise probably be fierce allies. This is a ultra-liberal population in an ultra-liberal city. It’s basically the epicenter of “woke” (dumbest word ever) ideology. I personally agree with 98% of SWS’s agenda and when people of color share their perspectives, my default position is to close my mouth and listen. But I also think that it’s problematic for a public school to hold a race based group with the description served up by SWS. And when the response to questioning these problematic descriptions is “you’re so fragile,” that makes me think you don’t really have anything of substance to say to the legitimate concerns raised on this thread. It’s the equivalent of the republican “F your feelings” line. Do better. |
Anonymous
Being "discussed" does not make it scientific. Being in a textbook does not make it factually correct, as our 20th century sorely shows. That the recognition and remediation of unconscious bias entails discomfort is logical. But twisting that logic around to claim that anything goes as long as it causes defensiveness and discomfort is bollix. |
Anonymous
It’s only bollix if you don’t see the discomfort as *the entire point.* What PP is describing is a struggle session, and the whole point is to make the subjects feel distress and thereby strengthen the power of those conducting the struggle session, and send a clear message about conformity to those watching. It’s no accident that this happens at schools. Some historical background: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leninism)#Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session I realize this sounds hyperbolic. To be clear, I don’t believe that the “white fragility” discourse has the same power structure as Soviet Russia or Maoist China. That would be an overblown accusation, obviously. But I do believe the underlying social dynamics are very, very similar, in that public confessions of shame are utilized in order to bring other people in line and reinforce an orthodoxy. |
Anonymous
There is a chasm between "whiteness not being centered" and "perpetuation of whiteness and racism". The latter necessarily requires people to apologize for their existence and accept it as a failing. If you don't understand why these two things are not the same and why you alienate people by conflating the two then you are part of the problem. "Woke" is being used derisively to describe people like you who don't understand there's a difference. It is most ironic that you embody the new "woke" stereotype while demanding people stop using it to describe an exemplar of it. "Allies" are important because we have learned over the history of oppression and war that the marginalized cannot often successfully advocate for themselves without people in positions of power working with them from the inside. You and others have perverted that concept to mean creating puppets who must pass some kind of purity test. Anyone who fails to agree 100% with your position is labeled a racist and becomes in your mind no different than a hood wearing, KKK white supremacist. That's counterproductive, false equivalence and succeeds only in alienating people who may agree with a great deal of what you say and advocate for, but may not agree with every last word. |
Anonymous
This is worth a repost... if the "affinity group" strategy has not been successful, why double down on it? |
Anonymous
Dissenting opinions are by their nature blasphemy. |
Anonymous
Fair points, but how much of that dynamic was due to racial differences and how much was due to economics/class? |
Anonymous
I'm not understanding why this doesn't apply to all groups though? Your own post is full of feelings of defensiveness and discomfort, and you seem unwilling to push past that for the sake of growth. |
Anonymous
If you'd studied the Scripture you'd know that only the white race possesses original sin and must repent. |