>>14207436I am skeptical of this puritan-missionary to white liberal genealogy. I do want to believe it, but what is there to show for it other than family similarity of political zeal? Unitarian Church is usually leveled as the prime example but honestly they are a bit too much influential to just credit their lineage to progressives. You seem to be outright calling them colonial, on what basis?
To be frank aside from the racialization this isn't actually that bad. It is trying to scream to you none of these mores or institutions or expectations are innate or outside history. What irks you, rightly, is the underlying assumption that 1. These constitute a relationship with whiteness close enough that demarcation of whiteness is to identify these traits 2. whatever whiteness is, it must go. 1 is especially pernicious if you are a race realist, which basically just flips the racialization of non whites on its head. However in all likelihood, they are racial constructivists hence they mean no such thing.
And there really isn't the unanomity you think there is. Just take that poster for example, by no means "the left" agrees on what whiteness is and by no means "the left" agrees what's to be done. The most you can do for finding a common stance is just signaling, no actual content. Depending on how the issue will demarcate right from left, you could see people(who you would call of the "left", making the old left and tankies seethe, very based) argue any position is racially charged either way. It's levied on political grounds, not racial.
Btw I confused the Smithsonian poster with this, which literally was done by one retard undergrad. I remain of the impression most of the atrocities you see are actual misteps and incompetence rather than any meaningful shared assent.
