This phone doesn't do me justice.
This phone doesn't do me justice.
asking it wrote:
oh the horror wrote:
So they took pictures that were in one room, and put them in multiple rooms? That's it? That's what you're complaining about?
why though?
Why does it matter? History isn't being 'erased,' just moved to other parts of the building.
Harvard was likely worried there weren't enough Asian pictures in there. They are going to get absolutely destroyed by what's going on right now with them discriminating against Asians.
DiscoGary wrote:
humm is this so outlandish wrote:
I guess they don't want their racist, chauvinist past staring diverse peoples in the face as they walk the hallowed halls of Harvard Med. Sch.
I have an idea that will solve this problem. Harvard should make a deal with all the minority dominated world class medical schools around the world that have existed for as long as they have, and agree to trade some of their pictures of white dept heads with minority dept heads. This will solve the problem of diversity, both at Harvard and wherever world class medicine has been taught in places without any whites.
Excellent :)
How about we transplant some of the coddled white male department heads to a delapidated hospital in an inner city somewhere and see how well they perform?
What's the problem wrote:
just moved to other parts of the building.
why?
Another great thread to laugh at conservatives
FOX News also provided reason for hilarity today, by being too scared to run the video of the children at the border
humm is this so outlandish wrote:
I guess they don't want their racist, chauvinist past staring diverse peoples in the face as they walk the hallowed halls of Harvard Med. Sch.
Are you referring to the ones that got in because of certain quotas that needed to be filled? And yes, it happens much more often than you think. Remember that the next time you need your appendix taken out.
Ya, im sure the evil white oppressors in South Africa who are getting murdered and beaten daily who are also the minority who are also getting their land taken away by the government for the sole reason being that they are white are not experiencing any sort of racism in any way.
hi there wrote:
Stupid idiot wrote:
A definition isn't malleable. You can't use it as you please. On note of your correction; I am typing on a phone and didn't notice the auto correct.
The people in power can't be racist. They can be prejudiced, but racism requires institutionalized power.
And yes, the victims of racism are the ones who get to define it. It's happening to them.
Ummm, sweetie? you don't get to redefine words that I know, that's oppression!
If whites could they would keep you as slaves my black friends
yyy wrote:
What's the problem wrote:
just moved to other parts of the building.
why?
Pictures of white people are very oppressive, especially when they all in one place. You'd understand if you knew anything about history.
another one1 wrote:
"white people are all crap" all the time = racist
True, but African-Americans themselves favor light-skinned people of their own race, and mixed race people even more (0bama, B.)
read the nooz wrote:
Harvard was likely worried there weren't enough Asian pictures in there. They are going to get absolutely destroyed by what's going on right now with them discriminating against Asians.
They also discriminate against non Jewish whites.
But this part of the story cannot be discussed.
hi there wrote:
Stupid idiot wrote:
A definition isn't malleable. You can't use it as you please. On note of your correction; I am typing on a phone and didn't notice the auto correct.
The people in power can't be racist. They can be prejudiced, but racism requires institutionalized power.
And yes, the victims of racism are the ones who get to define it. It's happening to them.
I think you mean "the people who aren't in power can't be racist."
But of course, they CAN be racist. Anyone can be racist. The definition of racism has nothing to do with your leftist idea of group power dynamics. I know that some radical sociologists tried to redefine the word so that they could use it as a cudgel against white people while keeping everybody else free from criticism, but fortunately academics can't just change the definition of words as they please.
hi there wrote:
Stupid idiot wrote:
A definition isn't malleable. You can't use it as you please. On note of your correction; I am typing on a phone and didn't notice the auto correct.
The people [who aren't] in power can't be racist. They can be prejudiced, but racism requires institutionalized power.
And yes, the victims of racism are the ones who get to define it. It's happening to them.
Many posters on this thread think that this is an example of racism against whites. The whites perceive themselves as the victims of racism and therefore, per your own logic, they are the ones who should get to define racism in this instance.
Captain Snowflake wrote:
yyy wrote:
why?
Pictures of white people are very oppressive, especially when they all in one place. You'd understand if you knew anything about history.
I think this is focusing on the wrong thing. The university doesn't want to focus on the past, they want to focus on the future. By removing the static past, you can make room for the new, dynamic future of Harvard.
Two Way Street wrote:
hi there wrote:
The people [who aren't] in power can't be racist. They can be prejudiced, but racism requires institutionalized power.
And yes, the victims of racism are the ones who get to define it. It's happening to them.
Many posters on this thread think that this is an example of racism against whites. The whites perceive themselves as the victims of racism and therefore, per your own logic, they are the ones who should get to define racism in this instance.
So what you're saying is that if a (or a number of) black gentlemen approached me and said 'Excuse me young sir, I have happened to notice that you are a white individual, and it seems the demographics of this area seem to show that the area is populated by predominantly non-white folk. Therefore I feel it is necessary to inflict a certain level of violence on you, perhaps up to and including the fatal use of weapons such as guns and knives' that this wouldn't be a racist attack?
hi there wrote:
Stupid idiot wrote:
A definition isn't malleable. You can't use it as you please. On note of your correction; I am typing on a phone and didn't notice the auto correct.
The people in power can't be racist. They can be prejudiced, but racism requires institutionalized power.
And yes, the victims of racism are the ones who get to define it. It's happening to them.
But the people in power are racist towards white people, as this is just one example (Harvard taking down pictures of white people).
Most of the African slave trade was carried out or mediated by powerful black tribal chiefs. Does this mean there was no racism involved in it?
The entire concepts of race, and in particular, the concept of 'racism' (as in 'anti-racism'), were uniquely European white male concepts. Technically speaking, only white males should even be taking part in this conversation, as all others are appropriating our language and concepts.