Friday, July 17, 2020

Have You Seen This Tripe?

White People, explained by a graphic created by people who - apparently - have never MET a White Person.

Here shown (You may want to open it in another window to get the full effect):

If The Smithsonian was TRYING to make an offensively bigoted graphic, that had little relation to reality, they couldn't have come closer to this.

Let's just start with the first one:

Rugged Individualism.

OK, I give up - Guilty as Charged.

Seriously? That's supposed to be an out-there, bad thing?

Let's break down all of those Bad (BAD, BAD, BAD) aspects:
  1. The individual is the primary unit
  2. Self-reliance
  3. Independence and autonomy highly valued and rewarded.
  4. Individuals presumed to be in control of their environment - "You get what you deserve"
OMZ, just bring on the guillotine now and put me out of my misery.

# 1 = The individual is the primary unit, reflects the truth of the idea that the individual is the one held responsible for their own actions, and the one who is legally the "citizen" described in the Foundational documents. It is the individual who has rights, legal responsibilities, and is the object of government's attention.

That this was important - and is so today - is, in part, because the Crown was accustomed to punishing groups of people for the presumed crimes of a few. A group would be held responsible for actions of the few. See the situation of the Boston Tea Party, in which the actions of a relatively small number of people were followed by punitive efforts to re-coup the money from the whole of Boston.

In fact, today, whole cultures/tribes are the unit - the individual almost does not exist apart from that group. That brings us to #2, Self Reliance. In those other cultures, when a person has some misfortune fall upon him - whether or not is was his own fault - the group is made responsible for his support. In some cases, the affected individual will berate the group/family that does not provide that support to his liking or perceived status.

Yeah. "Hey, this food you are providing me due to my dumbass mistakes? TOTALLY not up to my standards. Impoverish yourselves to meet my exacting requirements."

That imaginary conversation? Not cray-cray. I've read books by foreign authors about similar situations in their own lives.

Independence and autonomy highly valued and rewarded.

Well, yeah. The sooner everyone in the family/community pulls their own weight, the better. If they just sit around and wait for someone else to take charge of a situation, they put the whole group in jeopardy.

Those are the family stories I grew up on - many of you did, too.

When money was lost, and starvation seemed near, all the members of the family chipped in. Men/boys, women/girls, old people/kids. No need to ask/beg/wait to be rescued, just find a way to help.

Yeah, when someone was in crisis - home destroyed by fire/natural disaster, Indians came in and killed everyone who was home - everyone jumped in to help with the EMERGENCY.

But, once the crisis was over, you were on your own. No one had extra time, money, or inclination to babysit those who wouldn't take care of their own family's needs. That was life on the frontiers - and, to some extent, now, for those with that heritage.

The frontiers bred some tough people. Those who didn't give up easily. Those who didn't lounge around, failing to prepare for hard times. Those who would pick up a gun, if necessary, to protect their own. Those who raised their kids to do the same.

Those who weren't tough enough died. Or, returned to the Eastern cities to complain about the lack of culture and grace the Western people displayed.

Individuals presumed to be in control of their environment. Yes, and No.

To some extent, you get what you sow. If you put aside food and supplies in anticipation of future need, you are provident - you prepared, and normally, should be OK.

In extraordinary cases - unusually bad natural disasters, war, plague - if your preparation wasn't enough to keep you from starving or becoming homeless, the community would jump in to help you.


Because your ACTIONS showed that you had taken care not to be a burden on others. In other words, you had acted prudently to secure your fate. That such care did not always protect you was understood. But, failure to take basic precautions meant that you didn't deserve to be helped.

But, the assumption is that you were presumed to be in enough control of your environment, that you could have, and should have, taken actions to keep yourself from having to demand help from others who had worked and planned for the future.

But, as far as those pointing out the "typical White traits" on this graphic are concerned, that attitude is horrible.

The nuclear family, father, mother, and 2.3 children, is the ideal social unit.

First, the nuclear family in America is a recent phenomenon. It started in the post-WWII period. It was a combination of desire, and necessity.

The desire to live apart from family has always been present - most people would rather not have in-laws butting into their every family decision. Living in crowded homes and apartments puts most of the family dynamics in the middle of a pressure cooker.

The positive side of that is that is often served as a spur to saving what income came in, and putting it all towards setting up a house, ASAP. To buy a farm, for many young couples, was a dream. Then, in America, for the price of getting away - FAR away - from the rest of the family, the new couple, and their children, could achieve that dream.

Most couldn't bring themselves to do it. The actual number of people who headed West was a small portion of those in that situation. But, for the first time, the possibility existed, and the dream was possible.

Later, in WWII, the government's military pay, combined with the alternative of not seeing one's spouse for many years, led many women to follow their husbands to distant locations. It was tough living far from family; but the other families in the same situation provided some comfort. Over time, women found that it was possible to live far from their extended family.

Single people moved where the military told them to go; they, too, found that they could survive without constant contact with their kin. Together, these factors led young Americans to resent the need to shelter with their families, once returned after the war. The lack of post-war housing made this situation even more difficult (remember, the average house at that time had ONE bathroom - no matter how many occupants).

So, when the opportunity to move into the new suburbs appeared, they jumped at the chance. And, those homes had no room for the in-laws. Hence, the nuclear family became the norm.

Other neighbors replaced the roles once filled by the birth families.

BTW, that 2.3 was an average - in includes a lot families without children at home (either newly-formed or empty nesters). The average sized family, when I was a kid, was 4-6 - but, families of 8-10 weren't uncommon. With the Baby Boomers, that shrunk to 2-3 children (that number was affected by the staggering numbers of divorced parents of that time).

That low average number of children represents not desire, but money pressures of modern families.

Husband is breadwinner and head of household.

If husbands are the primary worker in the household (in paid work), the overall income rises. That's because jobs that men are more likely to do have things like paid overtime, which makes working longer hours a profitable use of time. If, instead, they have to cover childcare responsibilities, that drops household income considerably.

Head of household? Well, that depends. Many families split responsibilities, giving women a lot of say into decisions affecting the home. They often make most of the decisions regarding children, home upkeep, purchases, and social life. Money management, rather than being a prestigious task, is one of those despised 'things you have to do'. Often, the one relinquishing responsibility for handling and managing the money is thrilled about it.

It's hard to see that men are "Tyrants of the Home". In fact, if anyone could be described with that term, it would be most women, who take no advice, and accept no criticism of their decisions.

Wife is homemaker and subordinate to the husband.

The change in common earning patterns has lead to the evaporation of homemaker status; even after birth, most women work, at least part-time. Many would love to be able to give up the role of wage-earner, if they could reduce their workload.

Subordinate to the husband? The people writing this have obviously never met an American wife. In no family I've ever known, has the women heading it ever been anything less than a full participating partner in the family. Well, except for recent immigrants from other cultures.

But Americans? Please!

Children should have own bedrooms, be independent.

Nope, nope, and - nope.

Sharing a bedroom is the norm. Kids having their own bedroom is a dream (anyone who has had to referee a fight over territory or housekeeping shares that dream).

Being independent and in charge of their own entertainment used to be the norm, but today's children are - sadly - passive followers of parental dictates and cultural fads.

It is true that White Americans prefer to raise their children so as to maximize their ability to resist the pull of the crowd - crowds being one of those influences that tend to lead to bad outcomes. The 'wisdom of the crowd' promoters have obviously never seen a crowd egg a kid on to a stupid move.

That push to independence is White America's way of prodding their children to reach the point where they can capably assist the family with chores, meal prep, and household maintenance. That, despite the Left's suspicion of some nefarious motivation, is an outcome that benefits ALL of the family.

I could go on and on with this.

But, just one example proves the stupidity, and inaccuracy, of this list:
Respect Authority
Dear God, have they EVER met an actual American? One who actually LIKES this country?

Americans are some of the most ANTI-authority people on the planet. A common retort to some governmental edict is: Who died and made you a policeman?

Oh, that, and F*** You and the horse you rode in on.

It's virtually in our DNA. Our country was founded on resistance to the Lawful Authority. One of the first things Americans did after kicking out England was to initiate several Rebellions against the new lawful authorities - Shay's, against tax collection, and Whiskey (also against taxes, particularly on that liquid product).

What have the Left been screaming about all this year? That Americans are not following the rules.

The Left's response to not following the suggested rules (because, not liking Authoritarian types to tell them what to do) is to impose actual LAWS forcing compliance with masking and staying isolated. And, sending people with the power to fine and arrest after them, which has lead to further protests.

On what world is that Respect for Authority? 



In other words... channeling Instapundit... every single "marker" for actual success is being questioned / dissed.

Why, it's almost as though the Left's culture warriors want blacks (etc.) to keep them on the vote plantation.

Paul Bonneau said...

I thought that was amusing. They described characteristics with an aim to degrade "whiteness", but ended up (mostly, inadvertently) praising it. The characteristics were almost all positive.

Linda Fox said...

Yep. We'uns take pride in our self-sufficiency, adherence to cultural norms, and family.