Gee, what about those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to people of color, and devalue, stereotype, and label white people as "other", different, less than, or render them invisible?

What does "having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" mean, anyway?

Where have white people been labeled as "other"?

That is beside the point. What we are talking about is the school boards de-emphasizing individualism.

I'm confused by future time orientation, too. Does that mean no time travelers in Seattle?

I'm troubled by what Seattle is doing. I'm also troubled by people making (what seem to me to be) unfounded claims with respect to reverse discrimination.

What if it is quantifyably the case that "white" people have contributed more to writing and composing than "other" people? Would that statistic itself be racist?

Your view of the history of Western civilization would be distorted in some fashion if the actions of "white" people are de-emphasized.

On the other hand, histories of other civilizations are up for grabs too. If our children only have a limited amount of time for education, which civilizations ought they learn about?

White men did a lot more than people of races (and genders) throughout the history of western civilizaion. That's an indisputable fact, I would think - not because of any inherent superiority of white men, but because white men happened to have all the money and later, all the guns. (And having all the money and guns had nothing to do with inherent superiority, either - it had to do with things that were largely accidents of history.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing that point.

I'm simply asking the very narrow question of where white people are labeled "other." I've never seen any form, anywhere, that has a checkbox for race that lists all sorts of minorities but then just says "other" for caucasian, non-Hispanic (i.e., white) people. I just want some examples of this particular claim.

I didn't interpret "other" as referring to those race classification check boxes. I thought it meant treating people as outsiders--the "them" in "us and them." Interpreted that way, there are contexts in society where white people are considered "other." Ask any white kid who has gone to a majority-black or majority-latino school. You know, the whole "the man" mentality.

I don't think we should moderate our childrens edutation based on race. If someone did something great then they should get due credit wheather no matter their race or gender. It is true that caucasian males have contributed more to society, but that it only because those "others" simply weren't given an opportunity. Now that this is changeing, maybe we will see more of these "other" people make the history books.

Someone passed this along in my email today, and it seemed, well, relevant to post it in keeping with the original post and subsequent comments. Please note that Mr. Lamm is the former Governor of California and a Democrat:

I Have A Plan To Destroy America
Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:

I. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:

The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon - all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

II. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

III. We can make the united states a "hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently:

...the apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.

I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

IV. Having done all this, i would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated - I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school.

V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority - I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other-that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia. Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's world history tells us:

The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Aeus and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors . . . (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions . . .)

If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can Balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

VII. Then i would place all these subjects off limits - make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" that halts argument and conversation.

Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology", I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra - "that because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

VIII. Lastly, i would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia — this book is dangerous — it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please — if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed — please, please — don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." — Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media and foreign policy critic.

Cultural racism? New to me. From what I can gather it's the belief that "non-Europeans are not racially, but rather culturally backward in comparison to Europeans because of
their history: their lesser cultural evolution"...

That "Europeans have always been the most progressive people, and non-Europeans are backward, and permanently the recipients
of progressive ideas, things, and people from Europe."

That sounds a lot like good old-fashioned ethnocentrism to me, except that it only targets Europeans and their descendants.

Anyway, before I either go all Richard D. Lamm or instead decide to put "Say No To Future Time Orientation" and "Emphasize A Collective Ideology" bumper stickers on my non-existent car, I wanna know what they mean.

Duly blogged, finally.

First thing I thought of was a passage in Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education, which is recalled in an old Cato Institute article:

That whole mindset obviously is hostile not just to reason but to individualism. At the University of Pennsylvania several years ago a student was censured for turning in a paper in which she talked about her "deep regard for the individual and my desire to protect the freedom of all members of society." An administrator sent the paper back to her with the word "individual" underlined and with a note in the margin: "This is a red-flag phrase today. Arguments that champion the individual over the group ultimately privilege the individuals belonging to the largest or dominant group."

The Seattle Public Schools' definition of "racism" is identified as:

Racism: The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.

Merriam-Webster defines "racism" as: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.

I also found this definition by just doing a Google search for "racism, definition": racism or racialism is a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequality between races. www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia-wiki/ra/Racism

There were several other definitions, too many to copy here, but of all the definitions of racism, only a couple included the obvious bias of the Seattle Public Schools' definition. [Incidentally, IMO, the application of most affirmative action programs seems to fit definitions NOT drafted by people with an axe to grind, but that's a subject for another day.]

The greater Detroit area recently addressed the question of what to do with the Detroit Zoo, and certain members of the City Council made blatantly racist remarks about people who live in the suburbs.

Specifically, Councilwoman Barbara Rose-Collins said: '"This is not a plantation," Collins said. "We are not owned by everyone else. Black folks are not owned by white folks anymore. I made the point Saturday that the state Legislature was pimping the City of Detroit, and that we should not play the role of prostitute. That upset a lot of people, but I stand by my words. The symbolism is that Detroit is a black city, and we're not able to govern ourselves. It's a racist attitude and I resent it."

Despite her own obviously racist remarks, there was no outcry - no one called for an apology, no one demanded her resignation - but employees of a Madison Heights business were fired for sending e-mails to Rose-Collins and for not reporting the emails to management.

All Rose-Collins said afterwards was that she regretted the statement but then she said that it was aimed at the state Legislature, which "seems to make a habit interfering in Detroit's business." How is that not racism? And how, by any stretch of the imagination is her subsequent statement any less offensive?

I'm reminded of the lesson of the frog in the pot: The story goes that if you try to put a frog in a pot of boiling water, he will sense the danger and jump right back out again. If, however, you put him into a pot of cold water and gradually increase the temperature, he won't realize he's in hot water until he's boiled. Race relations in this country are being increasingly polarized, and the temperature is steadily rising.

The problem with travesties like the Seattle Public Schools' policy is that they're fueling the problem. If we're ever going to have any meaningful resolution of racial tension in this country, it will only come when BOTH sides, including the side taken by people of color, stop making excuses based on race or blaming every ill on racism and mistreatment and start focusing on achievement. It's not what you look like, it's what you do with the opportunities you have that make you successful and that make you a better person individually and as a member of society.

I'm tired of hearing people say that they did poorly in school because the courses were biased against them, or that the test asked them questions based on socio-economic factors that did not give them the experience to understand the possible options or that they are stuck in the ghetto because they didn't have the opportunity to get out or some other nonsense.

You go to school to learn things you didn't know before you got there. Of the things you learn in school, one is that you have to work to succeed; another is that sometimes, you have to make your own opportunities.

The way to learn things you don't know is to work - hard - and study and ask people who know more than you do about whatever the subject is. There are libraries chock full of books on every conceivable subject and they're there just. so. people. can. READ. them.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that it is somehow "racist" to point out that entire races of people are incapable of working and learning and understanding things they didn't know or understand before studying them - EVERYBODY has to work and study to learn stuff.

Yes, some people have more advantages - there will always be someone out there who is smarter, who has more opportunities, who had better preparation, who had more money, more power, more control, etc. That is true for everyone, regardless of race.

Ultimately, it comes down to hard work and a willingness to sacrifice - to not settle for what comes easiest but to work for something better - and willingness to accept responsibility for the choices made along the way.

Rudyard Kipling said,
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!"

I don't care if it WAS written by a 19th century Englishman from India - it's as true today as it was when he wrote it.

That is all.

By quoting Rudyard Kipling in a discussion on racism, you have displayed either a highly developed sense of irony or an utter ignorance of Victorian norms. Some light on the issue is shed by your belief that hard work can overcome racism, as the hard work of the sharecroppers persuaded white Southerners to grant blacks full equality (or the white Californians of the nineteenth century to welcome the Chinese immigrants).

Was Kipling characteristic of Victorian norms? Whatever the case, there's a lot of wisdom that comes from fault-ridden eras, and that poem is an example.

The Seattle Public Schools' definition of "racism" is identified as:

Racism: The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).

I wonder what Sherman Helmsley would say about that...

America is more or less on board with Seattle's Public School System's attitude towards Racism, Individual Racism, Active Racism, Passive Racism, and Institutional Racism.

The weird paragraph noted by Josh concerns something called cultural racism.

According to Prof. James M. Blaut of the University of Illinois, in the 1960s academics were assigned the task of, "formulating a theoretical structure which would rationalize
continued dominance of communities of color in the Third World and at home. Such a theory would have to accept two anti-biological-racist propositions which were axiomatic in Non-European communities: that Europeans are not innately superior, and that economic development can bring non-Europeans to the same level as Europeans. The problem
was to show that non-Europeans, though equal to Europeans in innate capacity, cannot develop economically to the European level unless these societies voluntarily accept the
continued domination by European countries and corporations, that is, neocolonialism.
 
The outcome of this truly massive theory- building effort was the theory of "modernization." This theory argued, in essence, that non-Europeans are not racially, but rather culturally backward in comparison to Europeans because of their history: their lesser cultural evolution."

While Seattle's gobbeldygook about "having a future time orientation" and "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology") may be easy to dismiss, the idea of "cultural racism" seems worthy of discussion to me.

I forgot, here's a link to James M. Blaut's paper on the Theory of Cultural Racism.

If "cultural racism" simply means the belief that one culture is superior to another, then it's not racism, it's culturism. (Nothing wrong with that if the "culturist's" cultural assessment is sound.) If it means that certain races are biologically prone to inferior cultural traits, then it's racism.

Where have white people been labeled as "other"?"

China, Japan, Korea, Congo,...

yeah, pretty much everywhere the population isn't majority white.

My next door neighbor went to African (I forget where) for three months and said that one of the children introduced her at his school as - translated - "this my white person".

r4d20: Well, fair enough. But that wasn't quite what I meant by the question. :)