When Racial Progress Comes for White Liberals - The Atlantic - "A startling number of formerly anti-apartheid white people began to voice bitter criticisms of post-apartheid society. An Afrikaner poet who did prison time under apartheid for aiding the Black-liberation cause wrote an essay denouncing the new Black-led country as “a sewer of betrayed expectations and thievery, fear and unbridled greed.”... Not infrequently, white South Africans who identified as progressive confessed to me that they wanted to withdraw from public life because they felt they couldn’t speak the truth about what they did see. Many felt that only Black people could point out certain realities—for example, that Black-majority rule hasn’t reduced economic inequality since apartheid or that half of Black people under 35 are unemployed. If a white person expressed too much pessimism, they could be considered demeaning. Too much optimism, and they could be accused of neglecting enduring racial inequalities. The window they had to exist in, intellectually, could appear so narrow as not to exist. At a Johannesburg party I went to, two voluble white women who called themselves “socialists” started to debate with me about the U.S. As Africans, they wanted me to know that American greatness was a sham and American-style consumerism was a pox on Africa. The party’s lone Black guest—a young woman—crouched silently in front of the fireplace, pushing embers around with a poker. Suddenly, she spoke. The two white women misunderstood America, she said, without rancor. She had gone to high school in California. And, yes, there was racism. But she found the country much less racist than South Africa, and exciting—a land of opportunity. The party went silent. The white women’s lips were pressed into half-gracious, half-bitter twists. They had been shamed, and they wanted to argue. But their stated values—always to foreground historically marginalized voices—meant they had to take the Black guest’s word for it. Shortly afterward, they left. A pair of German tourists once told me about stopping at a remote South African bed-and-breakfast and telling the owner they were going to take a walk. She informed them that it was too dangerous. Politely, the tourists said they had checked the crime stats ahead of their trip and felt it was safe. Outsiders can’t understand, the owner whispered back. She never walked anywhere, not even to her car, without a pair of metal knitting needles stuffed into her pocket in case she had to poke out an assailant’s eye. The Germans got the impression that she relished reporting this detail... Giliomee, the historian, told me he thought that what dogged white progressives after apartheid ended was less a concern for physical safety than a feeling of irrelevance. Under apartheid, many of them felt they belonged to a vanguard. One of Giliomee’s friends, a liberal white politician, left a secret 1987 meeting about a transition to Black-majority rule believing that he and the prominent ANC leader Thabo Mbeki were “best friends.” He expected the aftermath of apartheid to be an exciting time, full of the same thrilling work he had done to help build a democratic, multiracial future for the country. Once Black leaders secured political power, though, they didn’t have to rely as much on white allies. When Mbeki became Mandela’s deputy president, he wouldn’t return the white liberal’s calls. The politician sent policy proposals and got no reply. After apartheid, the friend “started drinking heavily,” Giliomee said. “He drank himself to death.”... I also saw historically dominant people—especially those who criticized their own authority—become fully aware of their dominance only as it started to ebb. Many white South Africans told me that during apartheid they’d sincerely believed that their country was, demographically speaking, majority white... One white friend told me that he and his wife felt “deep down” that white people in South Africa had “got[ten] away with hundreds of years of injustice.” Perhaps the strangest thing I saw was how deeply troubled white South Africans were by this feeling—that white people had never faced a full reckoning for apartheid... He just couldn’t forgive Black people for forgiving him."
Some white progressives didn't double down and blame apartheid for everything that was wrong in South Africa, and hate themselves even more. And of course the writer can't admit that South Africa is moving in the wrong direction
The British press and radicalisation - "One pattern which the computer analysis identified was a trend away from labelling Muslims as extremist. Figure 1 below shows the percentage of times the word Muslim or Muslims is preceded or followed by one of the following words: extremist(s), fanatical, fanatic(s), firebrand(s), fundamentalist(s), hardline, hardliner(s), militant(s), radical(s) or separatist(s). For all newspapers examined, there have been reductions in these sorts of labels over time... It could be argued that the continued references to ‘radical Islam’ are simply a more subtle way of referring to individuals, without naming them. A different perspective is that frequent mentions of ‘radical Islam’ are just as harmful as they label the entire religion as radical. We note that references to moderate Islam or moderate Muslims are less frequent in the corpus... Any possible role that newspapers themselves have to play, for example, considering whether their representation of Muslims and Islam could contribute towards such radicalisation, tends to be unremarked upon. Finally, we note that increasingly over time, the influence of extremist Islam is given as the reason for radicalisation, as opposed to other reasons such as government policy, Islamophobia or economic deprivation."
From 2015. We are still told that the press is racist and Islamophobic, being quick to label Muslims terrorists
Weird. We are told that "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean masculinity is toxic
Looks like pointing out a problem causes it. Time to stick your head in the sand
Come to Londonistan, our refuge for poor misunderstood Islamist victims - "The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July’s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain’s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a “gentlemen’s agreement” that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was “Londonistan”, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe. This intelligence debacle, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Among Britain’s governing class — its intelligentsia, its media, its politicians, its judiciary, its Church and even its police — a broader and deeper cultural pathology persists to this day. Londonistan is more than the physical presence of Islamist extremists. It is also a state of mind. To a dismaying extent, the British have signed up to the false narrative of those who are laying siege to their society. The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or “Islamophobia”. They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West. In large measure, this is the outcome of a profound loss of cultural nerve. The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country’s own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted. As a result, it ignored the radicalisation of many British Muslims by extremist Islamic institutions. Worse still, “grievance culture” has meant that instead of fighting the paranoia and lies driving the Islamists’ hatred of the West, British society is afflicted by the very same pathology. Minority rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a “victim” group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the “oppressive” majority. Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or “anti-racists” who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people’s livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer. This was disastrous because Islamist violence is fuelled by precisely this false sense of victimisation. The mendacious message preached by Islamist leaders, that Britain and America are engaged in a war on Islam rather than a defence of their societies, is a potent incitement to terror by whipping up a hysteria that Muslims are under attack. So any attempt by the West to defend itself against terror becomes a recruiting sergeant for that terror. The more atrocities committed against the West, the more the West tries to defend itself; and the more it does so, the more hysteria among Muslims rises that they are under attack, and the more they are thus incited to hatred and to terrorism. The circle is completed by British fellow-travellers who promulgate the same morally inverted thinking, and thus help further to incite both Muslim extremism and Western defeatism. After the London bombings, this gave rise to the widely expressed view that the major problem was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. It is impossible to overstate the importance — not just to Britain but to the global struggle against Islamist extremism — of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa."
You can see the moral inversion with Gaza too
OPINION: It's time to defund LGBT activism on campus - "I recently became aware of the level of support provided to what we call the Q Center at the University of Washington where I work, and I was surprised to find how much the university is spending... The official job description lists as one of the qualifications, “knowledge and understanding of intersecting, multiple identities and interlocking systems of privilege and oppression.” Why should managing a resource center for all LGBTQ community members require an ideological litmus test that only the most woke progressives can pass? Clearly the center has been—and plans to continue to be—under the control of progressive activists who are more interested in reshaping society than in building an environment welcoming to all members of the LGBTQ community. I have no objection to progressive activists working to achieve their goals. I happen to favor other goals, but our system is designed to allow us to fight that out in the arena of politics. I object to turning what should be a support center into a base of operations to advance a narrow set of political objectives. It is particularly galling to know that university funds are used for this purpose. As I have written about elsewhere, the new closet on campus is occupied by conservatives, libertarians, and deeply religious individuals. They are pressured into silence for fear of being accused of hate speech if they dare to disagree with the progressive narrative that is prevalent on campus. Students are required to take a diversity course that is expected to lead them to a contrite acknowledgment of past and present oppression of all traditionally marginalized groups, and if you don’t want to be accused of homophobia you must pledge allegiance to gay marriage, the Equality Act, equal adoption rights for LGBTQ parents, and transgender orthodoxy (“trans women are women”). Those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender have to accept that we aren’t queer anymore. We’ve become the mainstream."
Academics called breastfeeding 'ethically problematic' because it endorses 'gender roles.' Their view is gaining traction. - "Martucci and Barnhill explained that in the 1950s and 1960s, a movement of women sought to promote breastfeeding in the wake of advances in medical formula technology — an approach that the researchers find “ethically problematic” because it may “support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family” — for example, “that women should be the primary caretakers of children.” “Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion, then, may inadvertently endorse a controversial set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” they state. The researchers were also concerned that such rhetoric “may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.” As recently as 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed its stance that “breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition.”"
EXCLUSIVE: Dept of Ed opens investigation into treatment of Jewish students at Brown University - "OCR will investigate whether the University failed to respond to alleged harassment of students based on national origin (shared Jewish ancestry) in a manner consistent with the requirements of Title VI."
Of course, targeting Israelis is good because they're evil
Systemic racism claims in Canada: A fact-based analysis - "Contrary to the narrative that racial minorities in Canada suffer widespread disadvantage, a Statistics Canada analysis of the weekly earnings of Canadian-born individuals based on 2016 Census data found many visible minority groups out-earn the white population (Figures 2 and 3). This is true for both men and women... 5 minority groups had earnings statistically higher than the white population after controlling for employment and sociodemographic factors (South Asian men, Chinese women, South Asian women, Filipino women, and Southeast Asian women)... at the Peel District School Board, grade six students from East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern backgrounds all outperform the white students on average on the EQAO mathematics tests (Figure 6). White students in Peel are actually underrepresented among those meeting provincial standards in mathematics... after controlling for level of education and work status, Indigenous Canadians earn close to the same incomes as non-Indigenous Canadians"
Meme - *Dane drawing Muhammed as a normal person*
*Muslim drawing The Jew as a demon with horns, a forked tongue, fangs, bloody claw-like hands and a Nazi swastika armband, in the flames of hell*: "Do you have any idea how offensive that is?"
Meme - Never Again @Never_Again2020: "Welcome to the The Rowley Village (@rowley_village), an Indian restaurant in the West Midlands. Jewish people, and anyone else who stands against antisemitic extremism, should avoid this place. @WMPolice"
the Rowley Village restaurant @rowley village: "Worse of all is Jewish mega rich rape our children as young as seven years old and through that child to other filthy maga rich jews and they control our whole news media and our politicians which is Worse"
"Jackson this so called Jewish zionist are worse than mad animals. And no shame plus they are above law. Can you imagine people saying they were raping women and passing to others to do same this people are disgusting our low life political class sold their souls for money."
"Now is up to our spineless government of rishi sunak. His Jewish zionist corrupted colleagues are hiding because if any one of those open their mouth they will be exposed and one led to another. Good luck crooked"
"Is he mega rich Jewish than he is entitled because his people control everything"
"Come on Germany take your country back from crooked Jewish zionist criminal who control your country"
Clearly, this is just anti-Zionism
Meme - "Rice University has a course called "Afrochemistry" where students will "apply chemical tools and analysis to understand Black life in the U.S.""
‘Apparently, I am the wrong kind of black’: California equity director fired for viewpoint diversity - "Dr. Tabia Lee, faculty director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza College, alleges that she is being terminated for not adhering to anti-racist “orthodoxy.” Lee, a Black woman who grew up in central California, was fired last week from her position as a tenure track Faculty Director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at the community college in Cupertino, California... Among the alleged reasons for Lee’s termination include her objection to the school’s indigenous land acknowledgment statement, successful hosting of a “Jewish Inclusion” event, her reasoned objection to “Latinx” and “Filipinx,” and her questioning of the ideological implications of capitalizing “Black” and lowercasing “White” in the school’s official Educational Master Plan. In particular, Lee’s thoughts on race in America are heterodox compared to the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) status quo. Critical Race Theory (CRT) ideologies “have become dominant in educational discourse and beyond, threatening to push us backwards and further into the deeps of racial strife and division,” Lee argues in a February 28 article published on Substack in the peer-reviewed Journal of Free Black Thought... Other professors who hold similar perspectives on DEI and CRT ideologies have also experienced pushback from fellow faculty and their administrations. Campus Reform Higher Education Fellow Nicholas Giordano has similarly observed that overzealous DEI efforts have “had a chilling effect on college campuses as the cancel culture mob seeks to destroy those who speak out.” University of Alabama geology professor Matthew Wielicki, who publicly announced his voluntary departure from academia due to the influence of DEI, concurred, noting that “you’re essentially required to toe the line and state your ideological values as they want them stated” to advance your career. Lee perceives, however, that her termination is in part because her viewpoint does not correspond to how leftists presume that she ought to think based upon her race. In a statement posted by FAIR on Twitter, Lee is quoted as saying that the college “said they wanted a black person to do this job. Apparently, I am the wrong kind of black.”"
Inside Tabia Lee’s firing as De Anza College’s diversity director - "She said she is neither a liberal nor a conservative, but “a scholar, a teacher, a humanist and learner.”... “I was one of the early proponents of gender pronouns,” she told The Chronicle. But staff “began to talk about starting every meeting by saying your pronouns. Every class. I said that sounded like compelled speech, and I have a problem with that.” She said the practice made some of her nonbinary and gender-fluid friends uncomfortable. Yet the defining moment of her tenure, Lee said, occurred during a staff meeting weeks after she arrived. She said she was explaining how the group could use Google Docs to collaborate and share agendas when a staff member told her to stop what she was doing. “I was told, ‘What you are doing right now is you are whitespeaking and whitesplaining,’ ” Lee said. She said she felt jarred not only because she is Black, but because her accuser told her she was being “transactional” and therefore “supporting white supremacy.” (The person who Lee said made the accusation did not respond to an interview request.)... Some of the strongest opposition came when she argued against giving a vote in the Academic Senate to formal affinity groups — including her own Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators Network — on grounds that unrepresented “racialized groups,” as she put it, don’t get that vote. She lost both arguments. An ally, computer science instructor Ron Kleinman, said, “Lee’s story is that she’s a very independent person who really believes in equity — but she doesn’t agree with the groups she’s supposed to be fighting for. She’s more inclusive.”... After Jewish students complained about feeling unwelcome on campus, Lee invited Sarita Bronstein, executive director of Hillel of Silicon Valley, a chapter of the global nonprofit that supports Jewish students, to share recommendations with the school’s Equity Action Council, which supports multicultural education. During Bronstein’s remarks, Lee said, an Equity Action member dropped names of pro-Palestinian groups into the Zoom chat, while another, a professor, made distracting comments about a chef who had worked for the Nazis, and about the practice of pardoning turkeys at Thanksgiving, according to a screenshot Lee shared with The Chronicle. Bronstein said her recommendations — including condemning antisemitism on De Anza’s anti-racism page and considering Jewish holidays in planning the academic calendar — went nowhere. Fall classes are scheduled to begin on Sept. 25, which is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar." Lee went on to organize a Jewish Inclusion & Anti-Semitism Community Education Summit on campus. When Lee’s critics asked the trustees to oust her, Jorge Morales, a counselor from the Latinx Association, referenced her support for Jewish students. He said she was “placing individuals with institutional and structural privilege and power on the same footing as marginalized groups.”... “Being color-blind is a big red flag. It says, ‘Don’t think about race, just like whites don’t think about whiteness.’”"
DEI is about hating groups with "power"
The left explicitly wants to racialise everything. Martin Luther King Jr was a racist
I was a DEI director — DEI drives campus antisemitism - "I saw antisemitism on a weekly basis in my two years as a faculty “diversity, equity and inclusion” director. In fact, I can safely say that toxic DEI ideology deliberately stokes hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people... As a black woman, I was the perfect person for the job — on paper. Yet I made the mistake of trying to create an authentically inclusive learning environment for everyone, including Jewish students. Turns out, a toxic form of DEI (which is more accurately called “critical social justice”) demanded I do the opposite. Before I got to campus, Jewish students had endured a litany of hateful and hostile acts. The school had hosted a Hanukkah party that featured no Hanukkah imagery but plenty of pro-Palestinian protesters... Multiple Jewish students told me the campus was essentially an antisemitic environment. I tried to right this wrong. First, I hosted Jewish speakers on campus, with the goal of promoting diversity and inclusion by sharing different perspectives. Critics called me a “dirty Zionist,” and the school refused to promote the events. I then pushed the administration to issue a strong condemnation of antisemitism. My request was refused. Some campus leaders and colleagues repeatedly told me I shouldn’t raise issues about Jewish inclusion or antisemitism. I was told in no uncertain terms that Jews are “white oppressors” and our job as faculty and staff members was to “decenter whiteness.” I was astounded, but I shouldn’t have been. At its worst, DEI is built on the unshakable belief that the world is divided into two groups of people: the oppressors and the oppressed. Jews are categorically placed in the oppressor category, while Israel is branded a “genocidal, settler, colonialist state.” In this worldview, criticizing Israel and the Jewish people is not only acceptable but praiseworthy. (Just as it’s OK to attack America and white people.) If you don’t go after them — or worse, if you defend them — you’re actively abetting racist oppression. I have never encountered a more hostile environment toward the members of any racial, ethnic or religious group... Countless faculty and students on campuses nationwide have told me the DEI ideology encourages antisemitism. One study found 96% of Israel-focused tweets by campus DEI staff criticized the Jewish state. And that was before Hamas launched its brutal assault on Israel this month. Now the colleges and universities beholden to DEI are hurting Jewish students with their silence, their moral equivocation about terrorism against Israel or their outright praise of the terrorists. Many of the student groups most invested in DEI are actively siding with Hamas. Look no further than “White Coats for Black Lives,” a national group of medical students with chapters in more than 100 public and private universities. On Tuesday, just days after Hamas murdered Jewish families in their beds, the DEI-driven group proudly declared it has “long supported Palestine’s struggle for liberation.” How could a Jewish patient ever trust a medical trainee or professional who subscribes to such blatant antisemitic hatred? It’s tantamount to threatening their lives, and it raises questions about whether such hate-filled people should even be allowed to practice medicine. This outpouring of antisemitic hatred is the direct result of DEI’s insistence that Jews are oppressors. What started with rhetorical attacks has morphed into defending and calling for violent attacks. It’s inevitable for an ideology that demeans an entire group of people while accusing them of perpetrating massive injustice. When you stoke that kind of division and anger, you unleash fires you can’t control. Sure enough, the fire of antisemitism is now burning bright on college campuses. It needs to be extinguished immediately so it doesn’t spread and do more damage. I know just the place to start. Administrators and lawmakers need to get toxic DEI out of higher education."
White parents, Black kids, and racial slurs: parenting advice from Care and Feeding. - "My husband and I are white, and they are Black, but we’ve done our best to have honest, age-appropriate discussions on race, our privilege, and how messed up the systematic oppression and racism in our country is. I thought we had done an OK job … until yesterday. Taylor asked us after dinner if she could talk to us in private and showed us screenshots a friend had sent her. Apparently, Martin has been selling “N-word passes” to kids at his middle school for $20-50! It’s been going on for weeks, and he had offered it to Taylor’s friend’s sister, who screenshot it and sent it to Taylor. They go to diverse schools for our area, but there are still a lot of white/non-Black kids there. Taylor told us that kids have been sending Martin money via Venmo, and she thinks he’s made almost $1,000. My husband and I are shocked and angry, and we don’t know what to do. Martin’s actions must have made his fellow Black classmates upset and uncomfortable, and I feel like a horrible mother and person. I thought we did a good job, but we must have done something wrong. We need to give him consequences, but I don’t know how extreme to go. Right now, I’m leaning toward taking away device privileges for a long, long time and confiscating the money. What else can or should we do? How do we confront him about this and apologize and tell other parents?"
Of course, the reply championed racist double standards (and pretended all black adults would be woke too) and championed the BLM grift
‘Woke weaning’ is coming to a school near you - and parents are too scared to question it - "Imagine a world in which “woke weaning” is the dominant educational ideology – one you, as a parent, are too scared to question. That world was blown wide open in a US-based exposé published on Sunday – one in which, tellingly, not a single parent from any of the schools mentioned wanted to be named. “There is a growing group of parents who are desperately unhappy with how things are going,” said the mother of one child at Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles, the £31,000-a-year school of choice for the kids of Hollywood’s elite. “But we talk in secret.” Parents of pupils at New York’s Grace Church High School also chose to remain anonymous as they decried the institution’s 12-page Grace Inclusive Language Guide, which suggested that phrases such as “Mum and Dad” and “boys and girls” be avoided, as the school works to “do more than ban hateful language”. Because to speak out against the narrative being perpetuated at the San Diego Unified School District, for example – where, according to one whistleblower, teachers attended a training course in which they were told schools “don’t see blacks as human” – is to risk everything. That world could only exist in the US, right? In La La Land and the kind of liberal American states so famous for their extremist stances that they sometimes appear to be spoofing themselves? Wrong. If this exposé into the phenomenon known as “woke weaning” tells us anything, it’s that we can no longer afford to feel the smug enjoyment we once did at reports such as these from across the pond. Because it’s a world we’re all living in now, and the seeds of woke weaning have already been sewn here. It was three years ago, after all, that after questioning on this page the extreme identity politics narrative being propagated in schools, I received some of the most impassioned emails I have ever read from Telegraph readers. Those emails came from doctors, psychologists and teachers, but most of all from parents who were questioning the reading material being given to children as young as three. Books such as Michael Hall’s Red: A Crayon’s Story – about a blue crayon mistakenly labelled red who is suffering an identity crisis – and Sara Savage’s Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl? One teacher emailed to tell me of the “transgender organisations coming to talk in schools like mine and giving really aggressive advice”. Another got in touch to say that many school staff members were “too scared to speak up”. All stressed that they wished to remain anonymous. And when I asked a London-based friend whether she might consider speaking out on the record about the “talk” her son was given in the wake of Sarah Everard’s tragic killing – a talk in which all the Year 7 boys were taken aside and urged to “respect girls and women” – she declined. “Of course children should be educated about misogyny and harassment,” she told me, “but the narrative seemed to be that boys were, by definition, not just ‘bad’, but capable of extreme evil. That’s a lot for an 11-year-old to take on.”... I thought about what that long run should look like when my daughter’s school sent us all a letter about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) last month. Right there, listed in the general principles, were “Respect for the views of the child: every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them”, and “Freedom of expression: every child must be free to express their thoughts and opinions and to access all kinds of information, as long as it is within the law.” No parent should have to explain to their child why those rights have been taken away – much less that they no longer apply in adulthood."
