<p>
I haven’t heard any white take this position. Either one is for racially discriminatory AA or they aren’t. And there are plenty of Asians supervising whites - it’s not at all unusual.</p>
<p>Are you for individual acheivement?
watch out! that will make you a racist in Seattle</p>
<p>from the school district website</p>
<p>Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as other, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include
defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored,
having a future time orientation,
emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology,
defining one form of English as standard,
and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.</p>
<p>I especially am intriqued by the criticism of a “future time orientation”.
You mean planning ahead is racist?</p>
<p>You still chafed about that, Emerald? I was under the impression (perhaps, wrongly so) that that ridiculous and incendiary bit of verbage had been expunged from the official school board website. According to you (and rightfully so), it received widespread condemnation. In light of this, to what good end are you resurrecting it in the context of this thread? Just Curious.</p>
<p>just because the district recieved flak for it- and then removed it- which is similiar in my view to stores selling racist/sexist merchandise and only removing it when enough people complain-
does not mean that they have changed the way that they view caucasian parents, teachers & students in the district & the community.</p>
<p>This as I see it, harms everyone, because it assumes that so much to be the fault of racist behavior on the part of whites- when you don’t see accurately- you can’t address the real problem.</p>
<p>So that is why I am so “chafed” about it, no statement has ever been issued to indicate that wasn’t what their practices are intended to address.
They simply removed the statement from the public eye.
It recieved widespread condemnation mostly among the community that don’t have their children in public schools, it didnt’ receive condemnation in the district & to the contrary, its pretty much accepted belief.
Now that the district is in front of the Supreme Court, if you say that you are not for children being forced to attend schools in order for them to add diversity, it is tantamount to saying you are for the reversal of Brown vs Board.</p>