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.
I do think schools shouldn't emphasize either collectivism or individualism over each other and I don't think the text you are quoting here advises that, either. Only a pretty narrow-mindes reading of that text would suggest that in any way. At any rate you would have to look at the actual implementation of that policy to really criticise it. As is this text is quite tame.
Please also note that schools can hardly be idiologically neutral. That is not possible - they have to find a way to spproach how they depict individualism and collectivism no matter what.
To connect this in any way to the linked situation is downright absurd.
It's one thing for an institution to position itself against emphasizing individualism. It's a couple steps further to define emphasizing individualism as a form of racism.
Is there somethig that I as a non-american don't get that makes this newspeak palatable? Have american racists historically been more individualistic or something?
EDIT: this comment from elnate nails it:
"They're conflating racism with enthnocentrism, the idea that one culture (usually yours) is better than others."
> Have american racists historically been more individualistic or something?
Not to my knowledge. As far as I can tell they are doing nothing more than using existing strong negative connotations of racism to slander an unrelated ideology. It doesn't make logical sense, but it doesn't have to; they are counting on the strong emotional response it evokes to be sufficiently persuasive.
If anything, individualism and racism are incompatible since individualism considers people as individuals and not as members of groups such as races or nationalities.
"s there somethig that I as a non-american don't get that makes this newspeak palatable?"
Not a chance; I was born and raised in the US in the consolidation period of the Civil Rights struggle (came of political age in the '70s) and it's just as unpalatable to me.
I am not going to pretend to be able to understand it, but this part seems to be the most lucid explaination:
"Just as monochronic and polychronic cultures have different time perspectives, understanding the time orientation of a culture is critical to becoming better able to successfully handle diplomatic situations. Americans, for instance have a future orientation. Hall indicates that for Americans “tomorrow is more important" and that they "are oriented almost entirely toward the future” (Cohen, 2004, p. 35). The future-focused orientation attributes to at least some of the concern that Americans have with “addressing immediate issues and moving on to new challenges” (Cohen, 2004, p. 35)."
So... maybe a "future time orientation" is a "What's done is done."/"Let's do better in the future." attitude? I am guessing that the connection between this and "racism" comes up when discussing reparations.
Future time orientation is also used to refer to a person having a low discount rate. I.e. suffering the pain of school now is worthwhile if it helps me avoid the pain of being uncredentialed in the future.
"It is better for you to do things that will benefit you" is practically a fucking tautology. How could that be controversial, let alone racist?
Here is what I think; the statement:
"saying 'future time orientation is superior' is racist"
is itself racist, just like saying,
"saying 'the ability to drink water from your cupped hands without
drowning yourself is normal' is racist"
is itself racist.
In other words, you are implying that some appreciation of the value of planning is something that only some cultures possess. That is racist. Consider the possibility that you simply do not understand their goals, and are thus unable to perceive them.
Those two things aren't equal in the slightest. "future time orientation is superior" versus "the ability to drink water from your cupped hands without drowning yourself is normal".
> In other words, you are implying that some appreciation of the value of planning is something that only some cultures possess.
Actually, it is something only some cultures practice. (Not possess, just practice. Everyone can view time with a perspective in the future, but not all cultures default to that view.) It's just like how some cultures do not distinguish between green and blue colors (or how we do not distinguish between different types of snow.)
But no, you go ahead and claim the real racists are the ones examining racism. I'm sure that's not what people backed into a corner do or anything.
> Actually, it is something only some cultures practice.
> Consider the possibility that you simply do not understand their goals, and are thus unable to perceive them.
The ability or willingness to inconvenience yourself at the present in order to achieve something in the future is really a very basic thing. Hence my comparison to the absurd "ability to drink water without drowning yourself". You are accusing them of having a ludicrously extreme shortcoming.
This is all nothing more than "mexicans are lazy, germans are great engineers" wrapped up in the trappings of academia.
The issue they raise is not that future time orientation or individualism are per-se racist, but rather that the "attribut[ion] of value and normality" to those positions, treating other views as "different, less than, or render[ing] them invisible," constitutes what they are referring to as cultural racism.
It had never previously occurred to me that people of color lacked a "future time orientation", but thanks to Seattle Public Schools I have an exciting new racial stereotype to add to my quiver of prejudices.
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.