Anti-Racism Assembly Today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

I agree. White people can experience prejudice but racism is about power and systems.

Ibram X. Kendi disagrees with you:

"Kendi is also less dismissive of the individual agency of nonwhite people — including the power to be racist themselves. The notion that people of color are too weak, politically and culturally, to be racist “underestimates Black people and overestimates White people,” he writes. “It erases the small amount of Black power and expands the already expansive reach of White power.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

There's a reason people reject Catholicism (and other religions) that isn't just the pedophilia stuff. If all anti-racism work is just self-flagellation and feeling bad (Catholic), you get people rejecting it.

My preference is actually Kendi, who seems to point to racism in systems/behaviors, not an individual, permanent stain.

The rest of us don't self-flagellate over this. When we find out that we've been messing up, we fix it and move on, instead of wallowing in grief and blaming the people who helped correct us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

Maybe because those elementary schools weren't as high-performing as those WOTP? Are they now?

White kids at Shepherd perform higher than white kids at any WOTP school. So there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

I can speak to this for my experience - because Janney (and Key) are the top schools and a strong foundation from a good elementary school is 100% necessary to leverage good education in later years. If your elementary education is crummy, then the rest won’t matter. So getting deal without Janney is too late. Also, in addition to good schools, there is a safety concern. It is no secret that DC is one of the most dangerous cities in terms of shooting and violent crime in the country. AUPark and surrounding areas have the lowest incident of crime in the entire district, particularly violent crime. Sure, I get that has to do with a history of white supremacy structures. But that isn’t going to cause me to avoid the safest and best education options for my kids that I can afford. That’s not supporting racism; that’s being a good parent and sensible human being.

Maybe in the 80s, but it's fun to be hysterical, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

And that is true because it is in the definition of racism. Absolutely they can experience prejudice and bigotry from other people, but in America, no, they cannot experience racism as the power differential is what helps define it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

And that is true because it is in the definition of racism. Absolutely they can experience prejudice and bigotry from other people, but in America, no, they cannot experience racism as the power differential is what helps define it

Ibram X. Kendi disagrees with you:

"Kendi is also less dismissive of the individual agency of nonwhite people — including the power to be racist themselves. The notion that people of color are too weak, politically and culturally, to be racist “underestimates Black people and overestimates White people,” he writes. “It erases the small amount of Black power and expands the already expansive reach of White power.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/...eal-white-fragility-is-flawed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

And that is true because it is in the definition of racism. Absolutely they can experience prejudice and bigotry from other people, but in America, no, they cannot experience racism as the power differential is what helps define it

Ibram X. Kendi disagrees with you:

"Kendi is also less dismissive of the individual agency of nonwhite people — including the power to be racist themselves. The notion that people of color are too weak, politically and culturally, to be racist “underestimates Black people and overestimates White people,” he writes. “It erases the small amount of Black power and expands the already expansive reach of White power.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/...eal-white-fragility-is-flawed/

To add, I agree whites won't experience systemic racism, but not all racism is systemic (I know this statement is against your dogma).

[Anonymous]

This thread will be locked by page 20 and the Janney parents want it that way. They are starting to show their true colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

I agree. White people can experience prejudice but racism is about power and systems.

What flavor was the Kool Aid when you drank it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

And that is true because it is in the definition of racism. Absolutely they can experience prejudice and bigotry from other people, but in America, no, they cannot experience racism as the power differential is what helps define it

This became the artificial "definition" of racism a very short while ago. Until a couple of years ago, you would have been ridiculed for asserting such a vacuous idea. Now, you can rely on other cult members to cheer you on, but others still think it's dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

There's a reason people reject Catholicism (and other religions) that isn't just the pedophilia stuff. If all anti-racism work is just self-flagellation and feeling bad (Catholic), you get people rejecting it.

My preference is actually Kendi, who seems to point to racism in systems/behaviors, not an individual, permanent stain.

The rest of us don't self-flagellate over this. When we find out that we've been messing up, we fix it and move on, instead of wallowing in grief and blaming the people who helped correct us.

But you cannot "fix" your racism, by the Diangelo school of thought. You are racist, period. You can try hard but that is all.

I mean, Diangelo would probably say that what you are doing *at present* -- trolling on the internet to call out racism -- is an example of white fragility. Your expression that you can battle racism is in fact expressing your fragility (and your racism).

This is neat, isn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread will be locked by page 20 and the Janney parents want it that way. They are starting to show their true colors.

I highly doubt it's only or even primarily Janney parents who post the stuff you object to.

But I agree, this thread will soon get locked or deleted, because conversations like this always are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread will be locked by page 20 and the Janney parents want it that way. They are starting to show their true colors.

I highly doubt it's only or even primarily Janney parents who post the stuff you object to.

But I agree, this thread will soon get locked or deleted, because conversations like this always are.

Why, though? There's like two comments that verge on being explicitly racist. And there are trolls (who are arguing a variety of ways, for different portions of the issue). But what right now means that conversation should stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

There's a reason people reject Catholicism (and other religions) that isn't just the pedophilia stuff. If all anti-racism work is just self-flagellation and feeling bad (Catholic), you get people rejecting it.

My preference is actually Kendi, who seems to point to racism in systems/behaviors, not an individual, permanent stain.

The rest of us don't self-flagellate over this. When we find out that we've been messing up, we fix it and move on, instead of wallowing in grief and blaming the people who helped correct us.

But you cannot "fix" your racism, by the Diangelo school of thought. You are racist, period. You can try hard but that is all.

I mean, Diangelo would probably say that what you are doing *at present* -- trolling on the internet to call out racism -- is an example of white fragility. Your expression that you can battle racism is in fact expressing your fragility (and your racism).

This is neat, isn't it.

You'll probably be surprised to hear this, but I accept that I am racist because I come from a racist society. When I uncover particular racist thoughts or behaviors, I fix that particular issue and move on, while accepting that I will never be a perfect non-racist person. The real fragility is in not being able to accept this about yourself (i.e. your comments about self-flagellation and rejecting anti-racism).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

There's a reason people reject Catholicism (and other religions) that isn't just the pedophilia stuff. If all anti-racism work is just self-flagellation and feeling bad (Catholic), you get people rejecting it.

My preference is actually Kendi, who seems to point to racism in systems/behaviors, not an individual, permanent stain.

The rest of us don't self-flagellate over this. When we find out that we've been messing up, we fix it and move on, instead of wallowing in grief and blaming the people who helped correct us.

But you cannot "fix" your racism, by the Diangelo school of thought. You are racist, period. You can try hard but that is all.

I mean, Diangelo would probably say that what you are doing *at present* -- trolling on the internet to call out racism -- is an example of white fragility. Your expression that you can battle racism is in fact expressing your fragility (and your racism).

This is neat, isn't it.

no one cares about your concern trolling

you are here defending the most fragile of white behaviors--white tears and refusal to do anti-racist work because you didn't like the way it was explained to you--by attempting to co-opt language that you neither understand nor care about.