Children Are Now Schooled To Obsess Over Racial Differences
Public and even pricey private schools have become a sewer of this.
Bion Bartning writes in the WSJ:
My awakening to the new orthodoxy began during this past summer of discontent. In mid-June, a few weeks after the George Floyd protests began, the head of Riverdale Country School, the New York City private school my wife and I entrusted with the education of our two young children, sent a memo apologizing for unspecified past wrongs. "We have the responsibility to use our privilege to fight for change," he explained. "We are also free to shift some aspects of our culture more quickly than other institutions and organizations."In September, at the first assembly of the year, instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing "America the Beautiful"--longstanding school traditions--the head of the lower school announced that the "theme" for the year would be "allyship." He then played a video in which the school mascot told students, ages 5 through 11, to "check each other's words and actions." The lower-school head had earlier written that "it is essential that parents/caregivers and educators acknowledge racial differences (as opposed to a 'colorblind' stance)" and offered reading recommendations such as Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility." Families at Riverdale are encouraged to join school-sponsored "affinity" groups to bond with people from their ethnicity or skin color. One is called simply "the POC," short for "parents of color."
At this point in the story, perhaps "lived experiences" become relevant. I am half Mexican and Yaqui, an indigenous tribe native to the U.S.-Mexico border region, and half Jewish. I spent the first year of my life on a commune in Berkeley, Calif. Growing up, I was aware that I had darker skin than my mother and my classmates, but I was never taught to define my identity by the color of my skin. My mixed background and ancestry made me feel like nothing more than a typical American.
My wife came to the U.S. as a refugee from the former Soviet Union. She spent the first five years of her life in an intolerant society where her "group identity" as a Jew was stamped in her passport. In school she was taught to keep tabs on friends and family, and after one particularly effective lesson, she was inspired to turn in her own father to the local police for "crimes against the state." Fortunately, no harm came of it. But suffice it to say we are both allergic to forced conformity, especially when young, impressionable children are trained to obsess over "racial differences" and be on the lookout for deviations from orthodoxy.
We started to ask questions. I have always felt a strong connection with Martin Luther King Jr. 's dream of an America where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I advocate genuine antiracism, rooted in dignity and humanity. But the ideology underlying the "racial literacy" guide distributed by the school wasn't like that. Instead of emphasizing our common humanity, it lumps people into simplistic racial groupings. It teaches that each person's identity and status is based largely on skin color, and leaves no place for people like me, who are of mixed race or don't place race at the heart of their identity.
After confirming that the curriculum, obtained from a nonprofit called Pollyanna Inc., was "one of many resources" the school was using, I became concerned by the emphasis on grievance over gratitude and by the stated goal of turning young children into committed activists. "By the end of the unit," one section of the curriculum explains, "students will set commitments for rectifying current social ills, such as learning and planning how to carry out anti-racist activism and/or social advocacy in their communities."
...We had chosen Riverdale based on its promise to develop "character strengths" like grit, optimism and gratitude and to promote open-minded inquiry and critical thinking. How had it, like so many other schools, gone so quickly down this path?
While many of us have encountered this intolerant orthodoxy only recently, it debuted on college campuses more than 40 years ago. Sensible people thought it was a joke--or at least that it would remain on campus, since it could never survive contact with the "real world." That was wrong. Masquerading as "antiracism," this cynical worldview is being spread like a virus by an army of paid consultants and true believers. Few people have been willing to stand up against it. At Riverdale, many parents privately express concerns but aren't willing to speak up. They fear being called racist--or, worse, losing their coveted spots.
...Almost 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, there is an urgent need to reaffirm and advance the core principles of the civil-rights movement. This isn't an issue of left versus right. The defining question of our time is: How do we break through the demonization and division, and find the courage to move forward together, as Americans?
Steve Smith, in a comment at the WSJ, sums this up well:
Educators' race policy: if a minority child isn't concerned about his skin color, we will make sure to change that to teach him he is a victim.Racism begins in our schools.
In mid-June, a few weeks after the George Floyd protests began, the head of Riverdale Country School, the New York City private school my wife and I entrusted with the education of our two young children, sent a memo apologizing for unspecified past wrongs.
Agreed you should find another private school. Surely there's another one that dings parents for $54K a year to teach ABCs and addition/subtraction that doesn't do that. In fact, I'd suggest you could hire a private tutor for less than $50,000 per year.
In any case: free market, capitalism, etc.
At Riverdale, many parents privately express concerns but aren't willing to speak up. They fear being called racist--or, worse, losing their coveted spots.
Congratulations: you got parental priorities right in one. You're just disappointed your status-symbol school isn't teaching what you want it to teach.
Kevin at March 8, 2021 11:46 PM
I predict a major backlash as a lot of white kids grow up and decide, "Fuck it, I'm evil, I'll embrace it and become a nazi"
NicoleK at March 9, 2021 5:33 AM
The more stuff like this I read, the more I think I should volunteer to help parents homeschool their kids.
Patrick at March 9, 2021 5:43 AM
That already happened NicoleK. At least the fuck it part. Roughly 30 years go. The very vast majority didn't embrace violence and evil. That is too much work and people are lazy by nature. Instead they became apathetic.
Interestingly the election of Obama has been a turning point in race relations here in the US. Not by how it provided a role model or anything specific Obama did. For black people Obama's election was more or less irrelevant. It changed nothing. But for white people things were different. On one hand the excuse that you are oppressed due to the color of your skin doesn't work when the government is mostly run by people with your skin color. And on the other hand when there was racial violence it was really obvious the chosen solution was to look for some white guy and blame him no matter how unrelated they were to the problem. So whites became largely apathetic to race issues/complaints and race grifters started having more trouble raising funds.
This Riverdale Country School stuff is actually fallout from the Obama presidency. As funding starts to dwindle people don't just pack up and find a new line of work. They double down and increase advertising trying to keep the old business going as long as possible. Consequently the race grifts are getting less and less believable and more shrill as people stop patronizing them.
Ben at March 9, 2021 5:59 AM
Two of the main ways the left has twisted schools was done over the last few decades, and was so accepted few even think to question it. But it predicates much of this current conflict. 1. Without voters or politicians noticing or commenting on it in the 70s the parties “switched sides”. The Democrats are and were the party of segregation, racism, identity groups based on color. But they supposedly switched sides. According to academics and the media.
2. The National Socialist party is right wing? This is why I try to use the non abreviatied name. It really causes people to scratch their heads when the say Socialists were right wing.
These two lies were put out by a leftist academia and taught in all schools. But they are the cornerstone to the thought that those on the right are racist, by definition.
Joe j at March 9, 2021 6:45 AM
NickoleK gets to the heart of what's coming. The people who've spent the last couple decades trying to divide people up according to their tribes are going be very disappointed when "white" people decide that's also necessary.
We have to get there, first. But if/when that happens, then comes Yugoslavia.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 9, 2021 8:34 AM
A relentless focus on race is going to have a horrific blow back as people ask why race should matter so much and begin to resent that it does.
As someone on this blog pointed out, humans inherently hold that if a person does more work or better work, or shows greater ability in a field, that person should be rewarded over those who do not or cannot match that output.
That someone was born with a different skin color should not matter with regard to the work being done. Saying that a person with a certain skin color "deserves" a greater reward creates an animosity toward people with the preferred skin color - no matter the justification for the preferential treatment.
That performance alone counts creates a system of rewards that emphasizes performance and aptitude. No one is arguing that Kevin Hart should replace LeBron James as a professional basketball player; nor that LeBron should be a comedian. We understand that some people have skills or an aptitude for endeavors that surpass those of the madding crowd and that those folks will receive greater rewards in that field than others. Using skin color as the determinant for adjusting the reward in any endeavor is an invitation to resentment and anger.
The way to level the playing field is not to adjust outcomes in adulthood, but to adjust inputs - i.e., education and skills development at an early age. There will be cultural and intellectual hurdles to overcome in doing this, but it's the only way to actually level the field.
Conan the Grammarian at March 9, 2021 8:49 AM
Nationalism was the main, perhaps the only, arguably right-wing characteristic of National Socialism.
The German Workers Party was founded by Anton Drexler, aided by Karl Harrer. Drexler emphasized "the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism, in order to create a popular nationalist-oriented workers' movement that could challenge the rise of Communism and internationalist politics."
Drexler had proposed the new party be named the German Socialist Worker's Party, but Harrer objected to "socialist" in the title, so the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).
Following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, the German military was greatly reduced in size and influence. The army intelligence agents to join the various Weimar political parties. Adolf Hitler was assigned to infiltrate the DAP.
At Hitler's first party meeting, he got into a debate with a visiting professor about capitalism and a new South German nation. His arguments impressed the party faithful, defeated the professor's arguments, and launched a new political career for Hitler.
In 1920, the party changed its name to National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler objected to adding "Socialist" to the name, but the executive committee felt it would help the party reach out to more left leaning workers. Colloquially, the party was known as the "Nazis."
The NSDAP put forth a platform that promoted racial purity and opposed capitalism, big business, the bourgeoisie, democracy, internationalism, and communism. In his 1920 speech, Hitler proposed the confiscation and abolition of "unearned" profits, state control of land and use of land (including confiscation without compensation), state confiscation or heavy taxation of corporate profits, exclusion of Jews from German citizenship, and the eastward expansion of a Greater Germany.
Harrer resigned from the party in opposition to Hitler's raising its public profile so significantly. Drexler would be replaced as party chairman by Hitler in 1921 and die of alcoholism in 1942.
Hitler would go on to be heavily influenced, both in style and substance, by Benito Mussolini's Italian fascists and their 1922 rise to power, borrowing their straight-armed Roman salute, their love of black, and their "March on Rome" tactics.
In the 1930 elections, the NSDAP emerged as the dominant alternative to the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists. Too many political parties meant Weimar Germany had almost no political unity and was left with weak political parties and weak coalition governments.
The NSDAP, being the dominant nationalist party was able to project strength, unity, and competence. In the 1932 elections, the NSDAP and the Communist Party combined to win over 50% of the votes.
Since neither of those parties supported the existing political structure, forming a coalition government that could withstand the buffeting of the political winds in Weimar Germany was impossible.
Since it had 34% of the seats in the Reichstag, the NSDAP was invited to join a coalition of weak right-wing parties in forming a government. And so, the fox was invited into the hen house.
With the death of Paul von Hindenburg, the Reichstag Fire and the resulting emergency powers granted to Hitler, and the arrest of the Communist and SPD delegates to the Reichstag, Germany became a one-party dictatorship.
Conan the Grammarian at March 9, 2021 9:45 AM
Racial differences? Only the approved "racial differences".
The race hustle must not move in a way that hinders cash flow.
This is yet another thing that China is not doing.
Radwaste at March 9, 2021 12:13 PM
China's got a million Uyghurs in concentration camps… We need to chose our competitors thoughtfully.
Crid at March 9, 2021 1:47 PM
Or as Hitch once put it, "Power is only what you allow it to be."
(As is, I affirm, competition.)
Crid at March 9, 2021 1:49 PM
> The more stuff like this I read,
> the more I think I should
> volunteer to help parents
> homeschool their kids.
I would seriously, seriously, seriousballs admire you for doing so. And if you turned a profit, I'd pay for your firm's first Christmas party.
(Cash bar, though… And domestic… only Ramada or Hyatt ballroom, no Ritz-Carlton or Intercontinental.)
Crid at March 9, 2021 1:59 PM
> The more stuff like this I read,
> the more I think I should
> volunteer to help parents
> homeschool their kids.
A little help goes a long way. I send links and info about free or cheap educational events that are good for kids, to the homeschooling parents I know. Mostly was history re-enactment type things or science things such as. https://usasciencefestival.org/ was virtual last year.
Got to meet Mike Rowe at it a few years back.
>Nationalism was the main, perhaps the only, >arguably right-wing characteristic of National >Socialism.
True, but though some would argue that's the Anarchy /Authoritative axis not the right left one but that's the only part that could be argued to be right wing.
Joe J at March 9, 2021 2:47 PM
The traditional right-left political axis (conservative vs. liberal) comes from the French Revolution where the supporters of the Ancien Régime sat on the right and the reformers sat on the left.
The truth is, today, political movements vary along authoritarian-anarchist, individualist-collectivist, and other axes, mixing philosophies as they see fit. A matrix along two or more axes better describes the relationship between them than does a two-dimensional axis from the 18th century.
Conan the Grammarian at March 9, 2021 4:35 PM
> A matrix along two or more
> axes better describes the
> relationship between them
> than does a two-dimensional
> axis from the 18th century.
Say more about this.
Crid at March 9, 2021 4:57 PM
The Atlantic had this to say about it,
Wikipedia offers several alternatives to the simplistic two-dimensional left-right model.
The problem is when ideologies cross, but don't mesh. For example, both fascism and communism are collectivist and authoritarian with state control over both the means of production and capital, but fascism is also traditionalist and nationalist whereas communism tends toward modernist and internationalist. So, in some ways, they're both anti-capitalist lefty ideologies, but in other ways, they're diametrically opposed. Left vs. right is inadequate to describe the degrees of their differences.
Conan the Grammarian at March 9, 2021 5:22 PM
Paglia tried to move things to Apollonia vs. chthonian, but it was too hard to spell, and no fun besides. For the past couple decades, I've taken more meaning from Postrel's stasists vs. dynamists, as described in the Wiki.
Crid at March 9, 2021 7:40 PM
"The problem is when ideologies cross, but don't mesh."
The scrum is well illustrated by the idea of "liberal" describing someone who wants government to force others to do as they wish.
Radwaste at March 10, 2021 8:17 AM
Any one-dimensional attempt to diagram the political spectrum is insufficient.
I like Postrels dynamists vs. statists as a way of looking at how people embrace the future, as open-ended and exciting or as frightening. I like that, in her spectrum, even a hide-bound traditionalist might embrace an open-ended future.
Her system is somewhat better than the single axis (dimension) in the traditional left-right spectrum. She puts the second dimension inside the first one - e.g., dividing stasists into technolocrats and reactionaries.
Socialists, even the self-proclaimed democratic socialists, have always struck me as technocrat stasists in that they want to control the future, to tame it, to bend it to their will; and seem afraid to let it unfold without them to guide it down the path they've set for it.
The problem for her spectrum as a political one is it does not reflect how politics are organized. Republican dynamists are forced into coalition with Republican reactionary stasists. Likewise Democrat dynamists find themselves in a shotgun marriage with Democrat technocrats.
Likewise, people are not always pure dynamists or stasists. Embracing dynamic and random change in one aspect of society does not mean embracing it an all aspects. Some people just don't like having to constantly adjust.
Postrel, of course, concedes that to some extent, admitting in a 2017 AEI blog interview that "most people are not all one thing or the other." She sees both parties as "mixes of both – as coalitions of dynamists and stasists who are together for reasons having to do with other issues or background, ethnicity, those kinds of things that link people to party affiliation."
The problem with the traditional left-right spectrum is that it does not recognize that not all Republicans are bible-thumping social conservatives and not all Democrats are plotting a socialist takeover. However, there are enough of each to give the other pause and confirm their left-right prejudices.
Today, both parties are moving further away from the center as their more fervently ideological base voters are pulling them in opposite directions; and that bodes ill for the country in the near future. We've withstood such divides in the past, but technology has accelerated the divide this time and the voices of cooler heads are being drowned in the media chaos. Perhaps the centrist Republicans and Democrats will find a way to work together (Postrel's coalition of dynamists?) to restore sanity and order, defying their more ideological bases. If not, the short-term is gonna be rough.
Conan the Grammarian at March 10, 2021 9:30 AM
> The problem for her spectrum
> as a political one is it does
> not reflect how politics are
> organized.
I can't imagine how it would be more useful if it did. It recognizes how human nature is organized, which makes it very handy indeed, because it applies in touch football games and school board meetings no less than the halls of Congress. Specifically—
> Socialists, even the self-proclaimed
> democratic socialists, have always
> struck me as technocrat stasists
> in that they want to control
> the future
Call me twitchy, but that seems far too generous. People with socialist enthusiasms seem most to want to control the lives of others, and their presumptions & pretensions about universal kindness are merely fig leaves for their elemental neediness and brutality.
Sit at a table for an hour of conversation with lefties. Don't interrupt, but take notes on a little top-spiralled notepad. The concluding sentence for every topic will be an agreement that the solution is irresistible authority, and how much they're looking forward to it.
In a podcast with Gillespie for her new book a few months ago, she criticized Libertarians for a bad habit, but the scold applies across the spectrum, including within our dear little forum: "There is no 'scratch.'" No one will be permitted to start from scratch, rebuilding the culture and the hearts of others as they see fit. You can't demand that other people be generous, or atheist, or heterosexual, or articulate, or submissive to conformity, or non-nationalistic, or inherently charitable, or liberal or conservative.
(Lenona: …or eager for book-learnin' or your other preferred forms of discipline.)
To imagine sitting at a table and making such improvements as a member of the committee does not flatter. Such people are most always backhandedly expressing their desire for social removal from others.
They can have it, but they won't be permitted to burn things down.
Crid at March 10, 2021 10:09 AM
I don't think she intended it to serve as solely a political spectrum, more of a societal observation. He own admission of the limits of it as a political spectrum confirm that.
She seems pretty well dialed into human nature. In addition, her future-embracement spectrum fits societies beyond Western ones, and so becomes a useful descriptor beyond politics.
Conan the Grammarian at March 10, 2021 1:14 PM
One great thing about TFAIE, and I'll buy you a copy if you need one, is her blunt acknowledgement of the necessity of enforceable contracts for composing the modern miracle… And that means cops & courts & regulators. Just when you're ready to pull a bong hit and say Yeah man, the FEW-CHUR, she brings it back home.
Crid at March 10, 2021 3:14 PM
(Crid at March 10, 2021 10:09 AM)
Heh. Wild applause for the non-trivial from Crid.
And this view is consistent over more than 15 years! (I read back, I have that kinda time)
Radwaste at March 11, 2021 5:33 AM
Leave a comment