What's America's beef with white men?

[TronCat]

As soon as the "National Women's History Museum" is erected in Washington, every group that is chartered by the government for special privileges will have their own national museum, every 'group' will be represented, EXCEPT for white males. Oh wait, maybe they already are... They're represented in the Holocaust Museum as the perpetrators of a great evil... They're represented in the National Museum of the American Indians as the perpetrators of a great evil... They're going to be represented in the Museum of African American History and Culture as the perpetrators of a great evil... A museum of the history of white men will never be built because the people who are in charge of defining and imposing politically correct "groupism" do not include white men in their definition of diversity. 'Diversity' means to them - everyone EXCEPT for white males. Most of the greatest artists, scientists and philosophers, are white males. These "special" museums are created to pander to a demographic of underachievers and make their paltry accomplishments seem noteworthy, while appeasing to white guilt. What I take issue with, is that the achievements of white men are not viewed as achievements by 'White men' but rather they're viewed as personal achievements or achievements of individuals, unlike the achievements of people among these other demographic groups. 'White men' only exist as an identity group as VILLAINS, that are shamed for their supposed "privilege" in the name of "white guilt".

 

So what's the beef?

[kalmia]

It could be a desire to retreat into collectivism whenever it will serve someone's interests. It allows people to take credit for accomplshments they had nothign to do with or blame people for evils they had nothing to do with. It allows people to avoid finding out the reality of a person's actual experience and just assume an experience because of group identity.

 

It might say something about the culture where psychological leveling has become increasingly popular as socially acceptable.

[TronCat]

 

It could be a desire to retreat into collectivism whenever it will serve someone's interests. It allows people to take credit for accomplshments they had nothign to do with or blame people for evils they had nothing to do with. It allows people to avoid finding out the reality of a person's actual experience and just assume an experience because of group identity.

 

It might say something about the culture where psychological leveling has become increasingly popular as socially acceptable.

 

 

None of this really considers my question of why it's only white men as a group that are being condemned.

[PatrickC]

Well, it just so happens that it has been white men that have (at least historically) been in the most powerful positions throughout western society. Not entirely surprising given white people have been the racial norm within the west. And men tend to take more risks than women and have had more time to dedicate to their careers, whilst the woman raised children.

Of course since the indigenous population are having less and less children there has been a huge rise in immigration so as to keep the population from declining to bankruptcy levels. This has been going on for some 30/40 years now. Racial tension was very high back in 1970’s England. Having indoctrinated your population into believing that Great Britain was great because of its people, it was hardly surprising that people took umbrage to many black and brown faces appearing in their towns and cities. However, this racial tension has declined substantially since then. People have been trained to think of these groups as having special powers (multiculturalism) as a means to us all just getting along with each other. This has been at the expense of the perceptions of the white population and in particular men. Since part of that training has been to assume that all white men were responsible for slavery. I still hear white men apologising for such things. Philosophically speaking this is barmy thinking of course, since no one alive today is responsible for the slavery in the cotton fields.

Of course those tensions are rising again with the rise of islamic terroism and economic decline. But denegrating the white man has always been about livestock control imo.

[Victor]

Conceptual vs. Perceptual.

A mind incapable of dealing with elaborate conceptual constructs will experience a great deal of anxiety when attempting to understand the complexity of the world around it, when some level of understanding is required to propose any quasi-solution to a problem. The cheat irresponsible minds invariantly rely on is to substitute reasoning with emotions; to elevate the perceptual (what they can readily see superficially) to the level of the reasoned (non-contradictory identification).

They see men having success, but they lack the capacity to abstract the particular aspects of their actions and endeavors that differentiate these and propel them over the rest. Without analyzing the content of their thinking, the reasoning behind their actions, the weaknesses of their enemies, the strengths of their ideas, the believes of societies, they choose the weakest, most superficial identifiable characteristic, the color of their skin.

Even worse, these weakened minds resolve to correct the imbalance by proclaiming and celebrating the skin color or the collection of symbols, rituals and institutions (culture) of the vanquished and oppressed.