Study: Whites Must Not Be Civil To Non-Whites (really!)

White Civility is Racist, Promoting White Supremacy and Whiteness
Evil, Evil, Evil)

Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students' Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution

ABSTRACT

In this study, the authors draw upon critical whiteness studies to explore how White students' understanding of race-talk within higher education (re)produces whiteness. Through an analysis of interview data, they generated 3 categories describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC): (a) WIC functions to create a good White identity, (b) WIC functions to erase racial identity, and (c) WIC functions to assert control of space. These thematic concepts show how WIC is characterized by logics of race-evasion, avoidance of race-talk, and exclusion of people of color. The authors conclude by offering ways for instructors to interrogate WIC through classroom practices informed by critical communication pedagogy.

…"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

The authors (both white) have defined 3 categories of "civility" describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC):

(a) WIC functions to create a good White identity: I.e., treat with courtesy. This is bad because it promotes “Good Whiteness” and thus White Supremacy.

(b) WIC functions to erase racial identity: “I don’t see race; I see a person”. This is race-talk evasion, and that is Whiteness and White Supremacy.

(c) WIC functions to assert control of space. Segregation.

Civility is therefore a racist tactic used by whites to suppress/oppress non-whites. Apparently what is desired by these two white authors is blunt race-talk, which is not civil.

It is interesting that in all Leftist attacks on Whites and Whiteness, the criticisms leave no alternative for the white person to use. For example, if courtesy is not allowed, and ignoring race is not allowed, then the resulting “race-talk” when encountering a non-white must be non-courteous, and race-oriented.

Think about that the next time you encounter a POC (person of color). You must be rude and address that person’s race and zis/zer place in the hierarchy of man, based on skin tone (the only marker of race for the Left). Now that would certainly be an event to observe from a safe distance.

Now this: …"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

As a white potentially encountering a non-white, I imagine that this is quite valid; at least within current cultural social connections race is hard to ignore. And perhaps civility is always “racialized” in that context. It certainly will be under the direction of these authors.

But whose fault is the perpetual class war between races? Class war is not a white value; class war is a Leftist value, and has been since the days of Democrat-dominated Slavery. And this entire “study” is following the skeletal Leftist narrative which demands that there be conflict engendered by whites against non-whites, and never peaceful community with non-whites. This study, by virtue of prejudicing the inputs, intends to show that there is no way around it; racism is a first principle of Whiteness, a Leftist condemnation of the souls of whites everywhere.

The rational error here is obvious: The original premise goes against the larger observation, which is that it is not – NOT – necessary to have “race-talk” with every “not my race” person, every time one meets one. In fact, this would be a disaster of the first order, especially given the conditions which the authors place on such race-talk contacts.

Further, the three “types of civility” are fully bogus. Types (a) and (b) are pegged as actual, genuine civility between the white and the non-white, which is condemned out-of-hand as promoting the white as a “good” white, which immediately connects imaginarily to White Supremacy.

So being a civil, “good” person is damned as a racist act of suppression/oppression by the white, against the beleaguered non-white.

As is all too common with Leftist projections, the unreasonable presuppositions are in place in order for the Left to place class condemnation on the selected Oppressor Class. In this instance, the whites have no recourse. Any and everything they do within the boundaries of this set of presuppositions is declared officially racist. Further, the consequential, if unmentioned, choice – rude race-talk – with all People of Color, in every encounter, is also racist.

Finally, it is apparent that rude race-talk is, in fact, what many campus radicals want: except they want to be the rude party, screaming "shut up and listen" while they spit expletives and hate in the faces of their victims. When one does listen, what one hears is eliminationist Marxist rhetoric in full hate mode, which cannot be hate speech because only whites can do that.

If the POC actually obtain their desire to eliminate or at least completely nullify the White race and Whiteness in general, what will remain is visible in the blue cities - Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore - where Leftism has ruled for decades. And of course in the No Go Zones of France, Germany, Sweden, Britain. Under Leftism, no options are pretty.

What's With Democrats and Lunch Counter Discrimination?

Lunch Counters THEN:

.
.
.
.

Lunch Counters NOW:



At least in the 50's they got to sit at the counter.

Then Suddenly, Without Warning... Google Clams Up

What is Google afraid of? Oh, Right. Antifa.

Exclusive: Google Refuses to Disavow Political Violence

They were able to take a firm position on James Damore, but not on political violence. In fact Google HR was complicit in the violent speech of Tim Chevalier, who was allowed to promote Leftist lies and hatred until just recently. Chevalier has been connected to Antifa.

Apple: Diversity is About Race and Sex and Nothing Else.

This black woman -OMG- DEFENDED -OMG- WHITE -OMG- MEN OMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!

Apple fires Diversity Chief for suggesting that intellectual and life diversity is important too.

Apple’s diversity chief is stepping down after only six months on the job — after causing an outcry by saying that being a minority or a woman are not the only criteria for diversity, according to reports.

Denise Young Smith, who was named vice president of diversity and inclusion in May, made controversial comments last month during a One Young World Summit in Bogotá, Colombia.

“There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation,” the inaugural diversity chief said.

“Diversity is the human experience,” she said, according to Quartz. “I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”

Her comments appeared to defend Apple’s overwhelmingly white and male leadership at a time when the company’s makeup is markedly uneven.

The 20-year Apple veteran, who previously served as the company’s head of worldwide human resources, later apologized for her remarks, telling the staff that they “were not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it.”

“For that, I’m sorry,” she said in an email. “More importantly, I want to assure you Apple’s view and our dedication to diversity has not changed.”

Smith will leave the company at the end of the year, TechCrunch reported. Taking over as VP of inclusion and diversity will be Christie Smith, who spent 17 years as a principal at Deloitte.

“We deeply believe that diversity drives innovation,” an Apple spokesman told TechCrunch in a statement. “We’re thrilled to welcome an accomplished leader like Christie Smith to help us continue the progress we’ve made toward a more diverse workplace.”