- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Smithsonian responds to senator about their "whiteness chart".
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:02 pm
Wypippo
The Smithsonian Institution finally responded to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) after the lawmaker demanded answers in a letter last week about the taxpayer-funded museum's publication of a controversial teaching curriculum on the topic of "whiteness."
Within days of its release, the "Talking About Race" curriculum came under fire over a chart in it that broadcast seemingly racist assumptions, including the notion that ideals such as hard work, objectivity, politeness, the nuclear family, and Christianity are normalized characteristics of "white dominant culture."
Soon after, the chart was yanked.
But last week, Hawley, not entirely satisfied, sent a letter to the institution requesting information about the initiative and specifically questioning what he viewed to be its assertion that "these attributes are actually emblems of 'structural racism' in American life [and are] to be rejected rather than embraced."
Nearly a week after Hawley's requested deadline, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch got back to the Missouri senator in a letter obtained by the Federalist.
In the letter, Bunch mostly dodges Hawley's pointed questions, giving non-answers, and walks back the chart's assertions.
Hawley asked: "Why did the Smithsonian suggest that self-reliance, the nuclear family, objective and rational thinking, hard work, planning, quantitative emphasis, concern about intent, and politeness are distinctly 'white' qualities?"
Bunch responded: "That content was not meant to suggest that certain qualities listed on the chart exclusively defined one particular race."
Hawley asked: "Does the Smithsonian believe the nuclear family to be a construct of white supremacy that should be deemphasized?"
Bunch responded: "No. That content was not meant to suggest that the nuclear family should be deemphasized."
In yet another place, Hawley asked: "Why did the Smithsonian suggest that white people believe 'wealth is worth' and 'bland is best,' that white people are uniquely capable of 'decision-making,' and that white people are characterized by a drive to 'master and control nature?'
Bunch responded: "That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
In his response, Bunch mostly stuck to the line that the chart didn't intend to make any specific assertions about race, but instead was intended to "foster meaningful dialogues" and "raise issues for discussion."
Bunch did acknowledge, however, that the chart "presented de-contextualized information that did not contribute to productive, informed conversations" and that "we erred in including the chart, and therefore we eliminated it from our portal."
"Additionally, we are conducting a comprehensive review of the site to ensure that it remains a helpful tool in fostering meaningful dialogues and shared understanding about race and its historical and contemporary impacts," he added.
The Smithsonian Institution finally responded to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) after the lawmaker demanded answers in a letter last week about the taxpayer-funded museum's publication of a controversial teaching curriculum on the topic of "whiteness."
Within days of its release, the "Talking About Race" curriculum came under fire over a chart in it that broadcast seemingly racist assumptions, including the notion that ideals such as hard work, objectivity, politeness, the nuclear family, and Christianity are normalized characteristics of "white dominant culture."
Soon after, the chart was yanked.
But last week, Hawley, not entirely satisfied, sent a letter to the institution requesting information about the initiative and specifically questioning what he viewed to be its assertion that "these attributes are actually emblems of 'structural racism' in American life [and are] to be rejected rather than embraced."
Nearly a week after Hawley's requested deadline, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch got back to the Missouri senator in a letter obtained by the Federalist.
In the letter, Bunch mostly dodges Hawley's pointed questions, giving non-answers, and walks back the chart's assertions.
Hawley asked: "Why did the Smithsonian suggest that self-reliance, the nuclear family, objective and rational thinking, hard work, planning, quantitative emphasis, concern about intent, and politeness are distinctly 'white' qualities?"
Bunch responded: "That content was not meant to suggest that certain qualities listed on the chart exclusively defined one particular race."
Hawley asked: "Does the Smithsonian believe the nuclear family to be a construct of white supremacy that should be deemphasized?"
Bunch responded: "No. That content was not meant to suggest that the nuclear family should be deemphasized."
In yet another place, Hawley asked: "Why did the Smithsonian suggest that white people believe 'wealth is worth' and 'bland is best,' that white people are uniquely capable of 'decision-making,' and that white people are characterized by a drive to 'master and control nature?'
Bunch responded: "That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
In his response, Bunch mostly stuck to the line that the chart didn't intend to make any specific assertions about race, but instead was intended to "foster meaningful dialogues" and "raise issues for discussion."
Bunch did acknowledge, however, that the chart "presented de-contextualized information that did not contribute to productive, informed conversations" and that "we erred in including the chart, and therefore we eliminated it from our portal."
"Additionally, we are conducting a comprehensive review of the site to ensure that it remains a helpful tool in fostering meaningful dialogues and shared understanding about race and its historical and contemporary impacts," he added.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:05 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
"That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
And that content was highly racist.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:06 pm to Crimson Wraith
Imagine the press's response if a white supremacist, after publishing a manifesto saying that hard work, objective thinking, and being on time was characteristics of whites, turn around and say that his manifesto wasn't meant to be read as if it was ascribing those characteristics to white people.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:07 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
"That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
It needs to prompt a discussion about the complete public defunding of their institution.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:14 pm to Crimson Wraith
IT STARTED A CONVERSATION, BIGOT
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:16 pm to Crimson Wraith
Imagine if they made a Blackness Chart.
Racist fricks.
Racist fricks.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:22 pm to Crimson Wraith
Why would the Smithsonian even start this postmodern bullshite? That ideology doesn’t want rational discussion and wants to change and eliminate history it doesn’t believe. Entire wings of museums will have to go if postmodern ideology takes hold.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:22 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Imagine if they made a Blackness Chart.
Well, it was the National African American Museum's production. So I'm sure we should soon see a Blackness Chart to replace the erroneously released Whiteness Chart.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:25 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:Sure. Can you imagine someone saying: "The KKK rally was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences".
Bunch responded: "That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
Utter nonsense.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:31 pm to Crimson Wraith
Why focus on just the chart? That whole page is fricked beyond repair. Focusing on the chart makes it seem like the rest of it was not under question.
LINK
The entire thing is ridiculous.
LINK
The entire thing is ridiculous.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:33 pm to Crimson Wraith
I can't produce enough vomit worthy of that dude's response.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:34 pm to GeauxTigerTM
If a blackness chart was created heads would roll.
Progs have zero shame.
Progs have zero shame.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:36 pm to roadGator
quote:
If a blackness chart was created heads would roll.
And there is no way one could be created as offensive to both races as the "whiteness" one was done. No way it could be any more grounded in White Supremacy (tm) as the "whiteness" one was.
:letthatsinkin:
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:37 pm to roadGator
quote:
If a blackness chart was created heads would roll.
I'm telling you guys, don't be distracted by the chart. Go into the page and start clicking around. The actual information posted as fact on the Smithsonian's own webpage is FAR more damning than anything they posted on the chart.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:37 pm to Crimson Wraith
Jesus
Just one long "started a conversation" rationalization
frick these lying pieces of shite
Just one long "started a conversation" rationalization
frick these lying pieces of shite
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:38 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Bunch responded: "That content was meant to begin and prompt discussion to engage participants in exploring various perceptions and experiences."
classic
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:39 pm to ShortyRob
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/2/23 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:40 pm to Azkiger
That chart was actually pretty accurate. Many non Whites resent the culture of Whiteness even as they demand their right to be all up in it.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:50 pm to GeauxTigerTM
That site is disgusting and filled with prog lies for sure.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 3:53 pm to Crimson Wraith
Stereotyping frickers
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News