The Institute For Social Advancement Family Care Plan: Fill & Download for Free

In its current incarnation, yes.Millennials are avoiding marriage like Black Death because they associate it with money—they can’t afford a ring and wedding, they can’t afford a house, they can’t afford children. None of which have anything to do with love, or even marriage, except that all of these things are narratives society made up and imposed historically. They’re fairy tale endings that end with a running tab.Marriage equality was a real game-changer. During the struggle to make marriage legal for our GLBT friends, many people realized that this is an institution dragged down by dogma. Now, this may not be problematic for traditional/churchy types whose belief in permanence belies their fear of death. But dogma makes marriage quite unpalatable for those who don’t believe in a Sky God or the Biblical interpretation of marriage, which is to say that a woman “belongs” or “submits” to her husband, as though she were chattel. And also that men are the designated “providers” by default.This group is also realistic, which is to say they know that they could change and grow over time, and being legally obliged to one individual over a lifetime may become impractical, if not impossible.This group is growing in numbers, and the government must find a way to sell marriage to them by going back to the basics—back to the tenets of what it means to show care and consideration. Buying a split-level with a two-car garage you can ill afford isn’t love—it’s mutual devotion to capitalism. Obtaining the legal right to put your spouse on your health insurance plan is love.I think that the marriage we know won’t really disappear, but rather, (mercifully) transform and evolve. It may go by a secular name, such a civil union. These unions will be more business-like and contractual in structure, with the terms laid out quite clearly in advance. There will be an agreed-on predisposition for assets and debts, such as that accrued with real property. Some unions will last five years, others ten or twenty, and some will endure a lifetime. The dissolution of a union will not be considered shameful or a “failure.” Marriage will no longer be an endurance sport; in that way, it will be genuine. Couples will stay together because they want to, not because they feel they must.I predict that community property laws and spousal support will completely fall by the wayside. Think about how backward these laws are in their current incarnation. Can any close family member—your parents, your siblings—stake claim to half of your income and retirement by virtue of being related to you? Of course not. Then why should this apply to any other family member? So the new-fangled marriage will be highly attractive to couples with an egalitarian outlook. Men will no longer worry about their wives divorcing them and taking them for all they’re worth. Women won’t even consider staying in shitty marriages to maintain a certain lifestyle. If memory serves correctly, Swedish laws are like this—you leave a marriage with what you brought and if you didn’t make anything of yourself in the interim, too bad for you. We can already see this happening with child support laws—both parents are financially responsible for the child’s upbringing using a formula that calculates support equitably and independent of who is the conservator.This will be wonderful for women’s progress, allowing us to reach our full career potential. The folks in H.R. won’t low-ball women’s salaries, neglect to promote them, or shut them out of entire industries because they’re viewed as secondary wage-earners with “hobby” jobs.I think that marriage laws will be determined by state, and some red states will still adhere to Ye Backward Old Ways. Like Utah. And Mississippi. The Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington State, and possibly California) will take the lead in transforming marriage into an egalitarian institution. We’re not quite there yet, though. We’re still too enamored with our current social scripts.But as long as two people are capable of loving each other, they will want to give each other the basic legal protections and benefits that marriage provides by law, regardless of the name it goes by. Star Trek: The Next Generation takes place in the year 2364, and Gene Roddenberry, a man of extraordinary vision, wrote married couples in his storylines.That should tell you something.Thanks for the A2A! :)

Candidates who want to take up Post Graduate, Undergraduate, Diploma and Certificate Courses can apply before 15th July 2019 and others are apply before 31st July 2019. Willing students can apply for the admission process online by visiting the official site of IGNOU at IGNOU - The People's University.Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has initiated the online registration procedures for the admission to 150 Programs for the July 2019 Session. The institute has invited application for the Master’s Courses, Bachelors Courses, Diploma Courses and various Certificates Programs. The candidates who are interested to apply for the courses must submit the online application form on the official website of the University.BACHELOR DEGREE PROGRAMMES:ONLINE: Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA); Bachelor of Social Work (BSW); Bachelor of Library & Information Science (BLIS); Bachelor of Arts (BA); Bachelor of Commerce (http://B.Com); Bachelor of Science (http://B.Sc)OFFLINE: Com (A&F)*; http://B.Com(CA&A)* and http://B.Com(F&CA)* in collaboration with the Institute of Chartered Accountants Of India, Institute of Company Secretaries of India and Institute of Cost Accountants of India.MASTER DEGREE PROGRAMMES:ONLINE: Master of Computer Applications (MCA); Master of Science(Food Nutrition); MA (Rural Development); Master of Science (Counselling and Family Therapy); Master of Tourism and Travel Management (MTTM); MA (English); MA (Hindi); Master of Social Work (MSW); Master of Social Work (Counseling); MA (Philosophy); MA (Economics); MA (History); MA (Political Science); MA (Public Administration); MA (Sociology); MA (Gandhi & Peace Studies); MA (Psychology); Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS); MA (Anthropology); MA (Development Studies); MA( Adult Education); MA (Gender & Development Studies); MA(Women and Gender Studies); MA (Distance Education); Master of Commerce (http://M.Com); MA (Translation Studies);OFFLINE: MA (Education)*; http://M.Com (F&T)*; http://M.Com (BP&CG)*; and http://M.Com (MA&FS)* in collaboration with the Institute of Chartered Accountants Of India, Institute of Company Secretaries of India and Institute of Cost Accountants of India.PG DIPLOMA & DIPLOMA PROGRAMMES:ONLINE: PG Diploma in Library Automation and Networking; Disaster Management; Gandhi & Peace Studies; Rural Development; Counselling and Family Therapy; Translation; International Business Operations; Environment and Sustainable Development; Analytical Chemistry; Applied Statistics; Journalism & Mass Communication; Audio Programme Production; Higher Education; Educational Technology; School Leadership and Management; Educational Management & Administration; Pre-Primary Education; Adult Education; Pharmaceutical Sales Management; Information Security; Intellectual Property Rights; Criminal Justice; Urban Planning & Development; Folklore & Culture Studies; Food Safety and Quality Management; Plantation Management; Book Publishing; Women’s & Gender Studies; Mental Health; Sustainability Science; Social Work (Counselling); Development Studies; Environmental and Occupational Health.OFFLINE: IGNOU also invites application for admission to PG Specialization Diploma (Direct entry) in Human Resource Management (PGDHRM)*, Financial Management (PGDFM)*, Operations Management (PGDOM)*, Marketing Management (PGDMM)* and Financial Markets Practice (PGDFMP)*.Note: The prospectus for these programs can be downloaded from IGNOU website link http://ignou.ac.in/userfiles/Management-2018.pdf. The filled-in application is to be submitted along with the requisite fee at the Regional Centre concerned.ONLINE: Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education; Nutrition & Health Education; Panchayat Level Administration & Development; Tourism Studies; Aquaculture; Creative Writing in English; Urdu; HIV and Family Education; BPO Finance & Accounting; Women Empowerment & Development; Para-legal Practice; Value Added Products from Fruits and Vegetables; Dairy Technology; Meat Technology; Production of Value Added Products from Cereals, Pulses and Oilseeds; Fish Products Technology; Watershed Management; Retailing; Event Management.CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES:ONLINE: Advanced Certificate in Power Distribution Management; Information Security.ONLINE: PG Certificate in Adult Education; Cyber Law; Patent Practice; Bangla-Hindi Translation; Malayalam-Hindi Translation; Agriculture Policy; Gandhi & Peace Studies; Information & Assistive Technologies for the Instructors of Visually Impaired; Geoinformatics; Acupuncture; Climate ChangeONLINE: Certificate in Visual Arts-Painting; Applied Arts; Performing Arts- Theatre Arts; Hindustani Music; Karnataka Music; Bharatanatyam; Arabic Language; French Language; Russian Language; Disaster Management; Environmental Studies; NGO Management; Business Skills; Teaching English; Functional English(basic level); Urdu Language; HIV & Family Education; Social Work & Criminal Justice System; Health Care Waste Management; Newborn & Infant Nursing; Maternal & Child Health Nursing; Home Based Health Care; Community Radio; Tourism Studies; Food & Nutrition; Nutrition & Child Care; Rural Development; Sericulture; Organic Farming; Water Harvesting & Management; Poultry Farming; Beekeeping; Human Rights; Consumer Protection; Co-operation, Cooperative Law & Business Laws; Anti Human Trafficking; International Humanitarian Law; Information Technology; Guidance; Communication & IT Skills; Laboratory Techniques; Teaching of Primary School Mathematics; Value Education; Energy Technology Management; Competency in Power Distribution; Library & Information Sciences; Life and Thought of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar; First Aid; Tribal Studies; Japanese Language; Korean Language & Culture; Spanish Language & Culture; German Language; Fashion Design; General Duty Assistance; Geriatric Care Assistance; Phlebotomy Assistance; Home Health Assistance;OFFLINE: Community Health*.APPRECIATION/AWARENESS LEVEL PROGRAMMES:ONLINE: Appreciation Course on Environment; Appreciation Course on Population and Sustainable Development; Awareness Program on Value Added Products from Fruits and Vegetables; Awareness Program on Dairy Farming; Awareness Program on Goods and Services Tax.OFFLINE: Applications are also invited for admission to MBA (Banking & Finance)* Program, developed collaboratively by School of Management Studies, IGNOU and the Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (IIBF), Mumbai.Note: In order to seek admission to this Program, a candidate should: (a) be a graduate of not less than 3 year duration from a recognized University/Institution, (b) have passed the CAIIB examinations of the Indian Institute of Banking & Finance, Mumbai and awarded the requisite qualification/credentials thereof by the Institute, and (c) have been working in the Banking or Financial Services Sector for a period of at least two years.Student Handbook & Prospectus of MBA (Banking & Finance) can be downloaded from IGNOU website link http://ignou.ac.in/userfiles/MBA(B&F).pdf and submitted along with a DD of Rs. 1000/-, in addition to the Program fee at the `Regional centre. For detailed advertisement, please visit the IGNOU website.Admission to these programs is in offline mode. Applicants willing to apply for these programs may download the relevant Prospectus from the website and submit the filled-in application along with relevant documents and fee at the Regional CentreIGNOU Admission 2019 July Application Process-The Applicants can submit the forms through online mode only at IGNOU - The People's University or https://onlineadmission.ignou.ac.in/admission/Steps for filling Online Application Form-Download the Information Brochure in July 2019 and read it carefully. http://ignou.ac.in/userfiles/Prospectus%20English%20July%202019%20(9_0_2)%2015_05_2019.pdfPlease ensure your eligibility for the program before filling the online application formClick on the button “REGISTER YOURSELF” that appears in the applicant login area and fill the required registration details.After filling the mandatory information, click the “SUBMIT” button.Your username will be instantly sent to you via e-mail and SMS.If you have already registered i.e. you are an existing user, click the “LOGIN” button from the homepage of Online Entrance Test and then login with your Username and password by clicking the “LOGIN” button given on the login screen.Fill personal details, program details, qualification details and correspondence details.Upload Scanned Photograph (less than 100 KB) and Signature (less than 50 KB)Pay your Application Fee through debit/credit card (Master/Visa/Rupay) and Net banking:Once you have uploaded your photograph and signature, click the next button. You will get the Form preview option. Save/Print your form for future referenceFor details, visit IGNOU Website IGNOU - The People's University or contact nearest IGNOU Regional Centre/City CentreSOURCE: IGNOU, New Delhi website.Indira Gandhi National Open University (A central university under MHRD, established by an act of Indian Parliament), Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068, Website IGNOU - The People's University

When I was a kid, we were taught very clearly, very explicitly, and very often the meaning of “racism.” Racism, at least to 3rd-grade me and everyone else in the 1990s, meant to treat someone differently because of their skin color.Merriam-Webster defines racism a bit more distinctly:"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."Between the two, you have what most people believe about racism. It’s a good definition, and operating by it has served us well. We’re objectively one of the least racist countries in the world and, at least until about 2013, we’ve only been getting better. But recent changes in the way racism is framed have fundamentally changed the word’s meaning, at least in practice.And, in all honesty, it’s a giant hairy mess. Deconstructing the modern-day meaning of the word “racism” is the only way to understand how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideals—that one day his kids would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character—absolutely do not apply anymore.“Privilege”The idea of privilege entered the cultural lexicon as little more than a list of assumptions and generalizations about the power and luxury afforded to different classes and groups. It began when I was very young, with phrases like “a privileged upbringing” (referring to someone who is very wealthy). The term always carried with it a hint of shame and guilt. Later, the idea of privilege no longer meant simply being rich. Any group which people decided has been historically empowered against a different group (according to what can only be called a bizarre list of unfalsifiable assumptions, generalization, and dichotomies) became “privileged.” The idea of privilege was couched in the language of neo-Marxism and steeped in the concept of “oppression,” where everyone was either the oppressor or the oppressed.Men had male privilege; women were disadvantaged as a result. The old had privilege, while the young did not. Rich had privilege when compared to the poor. “Abled” people were privileged, and the “disabled” were not. All straights oppressed all LGBTQ, all Christians oppressed all other religions. Ignore the fact that these generalizations were antithetical to traditional liberal values (one of the foremost of which is “don’t make generalizations“). These hasty and often contradictory generalizations were now discussed as indisputable fact in many college classrooms and activist circles. It was a strange new blood libel that was beyond question.It wasn’t just that the privileged were blessed or fortunate in some way. No, we were shifting into an era where the mere existence of a difference (in some cases the mere perception of a difference) between two particular groups created some measurable disparity between them. And if there was a disparity, it became a zero-sum game. The group which was privileged won, and the non-privileged group(s) lost. And the benefit which privileged groups derived from their privilege could only have come about via intentional actions taken by that privileged group throughout history to ensure that it remained privileged and the other groups remained oppressed.Worse yet, only certain exceptions were allowed to be made. Never mind the fact that “some whites are poor.” That was covered in interclass conflict, but there was a hierarchy to privilege, wherein your white privilege mattered more than the oppression you received from being poor. Being poor didn’t matter as much as being white, simply put.So, by the beginning of 2010s, a new and obnoxious phrase became both a progressive rallying cry and an undefeatable rhetorical tool, handy for shutting down opposing views.“Check your privilege.”It was a tyrannical form of social censorship that disallowed nearly everyone from voicing their views, experience, knowledge, or even raw facts—because the individual was deemed bereft of the correct characteristics to participate in the debate. I take it back—that’s not really accurate. You could be white, or male, or Christian, or rich if you spoke against your group as an “advocate” of the “other.” That was totally fine, and in practice, the only acceptable position for one with “privilege.”For those of us who first encountered this sort of thing college (and have been encountering it ever since), it’s a familiar pattern. A white man could silence another white man if the first white man was an ally of black women (or the oppressed group du jour). Essentially, white privilege was the privilege of being intimidated with accusations of racism by people who see nothing else about you but the color of your skin, and believe you share the blame for the crimes of people of that same skin color to whom you are unrelated, and whom you have never met.Something else that was going on: many people were seeing that racism was more commonly shown by nonwhites towards whites than the reverse. Racism against whites suddenly became a thing, and everyone talked about it. A 2013 Rasmussen poll showed that most Americans, including blacks, felt blacks were more racist than whites and Hispanics. The results of this poll have been replicated numerous times since, most recently this year. [1]Numerous other inconsistencies were piling up in race-based discussions. Despite the left’s claims to the contrary, there was a distinct lack of supporting evidence that the police were systematically targeting and murdering blacks. Or that the economic inequality in black neighborhoods was actually caused by policies dating from the 1960s rather than white racism. Rather than address these inconsistencies, however, the left doubled down, pushing for stronger forms of affirmative action. Colleges and corporations instituted racial quotas, and minority students and job seekers were selected over better-qualified white candidates. Criticizing these obviously racist and illegal practices was viewed as racism and could get you fired. However, student newspapers printing articles saying “your [white] DNA is an abomination” (written by a Hispanic female student) were tolerable, even celebrated as free speech.What happened was that the old familiar definition of “racism” which we all grew up with had been intentionally transformed by the artificially applied context of oppression. Now, “treating someone differently based on the color of their skin” wasn’t sufficient, as it pointed to far too many examples of blatant racism among the wrong people. The left adapted by changing the definition of racism toRacism = Prejudice + PowerThat massive leap acknowledged the difference between prejudice and racism. Prejudice now became a negative feeling towards some generalized groups, whereas racism was racial prejudice in practice. But it included the idea of “power.” Power could mean many things, but in the new paradigm, privilege meant power. And going back to what we discussed earlier, it became unacceptable to generalize about any group except for privileged ones. It became acceptable to say that all whites were privileged and all blacks were oppressed. As our first black president took office, progressives claimed—with straight faces—that blacks systemically could not have power and… here’s the big one… black people could not be racist.So, being told that skin color alone should be why we pick the next president — not racist.Getting beat up for being a white kid — not racist.Whites needing higher admissions scores to attend the same colleges (and Asians as well) — not racist.It’s important to understand that wealthy whites who, by and large, live lives segregated from the problems of blacks and other minorities, but close enough to be aware of it, don’t experience these problems. Here’s a racial dot map of New York City. Look and see that the liberal dominated epicenter of culture and wealth is one of the most segregated cities in the world.That is to say, wealthy whites experience the problems of racism theoretically. They feel bad about the obvious disparity they witness. It’s hard to say privilege doesn’t exist when you were born into an area where all the white people live in nice homes and all the black people blocks away don’t. I get the guilt, but that experience isn’t universal. The sense of guilt is why so people many push to make things better for blacks, but rarely push anything that will tangibly affect themselves. They aren’t actually affected by new policy or theory and don’t suffer any reduction in opportunity or change in their way of life. But poor whites, such as those in rural districts and the Rust Belt, bear the brunt of these new “balancing the scales of history” measures. They are forced to work even harder with less (declining education standards and economic opportunities).In the United States, poor white people outnumber poor black people by 3 to 1. There are almost as many poor whites as there are blacks of any economic standing, period. But because a higher proportion of the African-American population is poor, the actual numbers of poor whites and poor blacks become irrelevant. In truth, whites and blacks in America are poor for the same reason. Blindly attributing poverty to racial issues, as many wealthier and more liberal whites do (disconnected, as they are, from the experiences of rural whites) is a mistake. This approach misses the actual source of many common problems. Often, as is made abundantly clear in the book Please Stop Helping Us by Jason Riley, the causes of poverty are themselves the unintended consequences of many poorly thought-out measures to help the poor, black or white.Instead, these policies make it even more difficult for poor whites to get ahead, and even lay the groundwork for saying that hatred by other races isn’t racism if it’s directed towards them. Remember, these are people who actually interact, as opposed to areas segregated by wealth. When we say that “black people can’t be racist,” it immediately and demonstrably creates an environment of animosity where bigotry towards poor whites is acceptable.Sad as it is to say, we are far from done.Some good news is that, despite whatever you may think, and despite the events of the last decade, America is objectively one of the least racist countries in the world. Various studies, such as this study from the early 2010s, have been conducted. These studies typically ask participants if they’d be OK with someone of another race living next to them. Most American participants answer “yes.” The United States, regardless of its current racial obsession (or perhaps because of it), is one of the most tolerant in the world. We’re actually the least racist right now than we’ve ever been, again by objective measurements and not perceptions.That’s something good and we should be happy about it. But we’re not. For various reasons, various groups gain a great deal of influence, power, and funding through furthering racial narratives. In so doing, they advance the idea of the “deep racism” in American culture. Whether this news is within the Overton window or not, America is far more racially tolerant than most places on the planet. Be happy.But inequalities still exist. Unless someone really wants to bite the bullet and say that decades of social science pointing to white racism as the cause of society’s inequalities was wrong, progressives have only two options: contest the data, or change the narrative on prejudice. How can they account for racial inequalities in a way that maintains narratives of oppression, when all evidence shows racism (at least the one we care about) has an inverse relationship with the inequality we’re angry about?Enter “unconscious bias.”Unconscious bias, alternately called “implicit bias,” states that even if people aren’t outwardly racist, or even if they don’t internally hold racist views, or are even trying to do the least racist thing possible even where it doesn’t make sense to frame a problem around race, racially prejudicial feelings lie within our subconscious minds affecting our conscious thoughts and actions.In effect, no matter what we think or do, we are still racist deep down inside.Of course, there’s little objective evidence for this, which is why so many scientists disagree with the validity of not just the tests[2] , but the notion.[3] Most of the tests for unconscious bias center around forcing people to make snap judgments based on the oppression matrix I shared previously. These tests don’t measure if unconscious bias is real, but to what extent a person is biased based on the time they spent giving their response—down to fractions of a second. This is not enough to form a valid social theory, let alone enough to justify sweeping policy changes for an entire nation.Yet that’s what we’re doing. Many of the “corrective policies” regarding race assume that racism, particularly white racism, is still the driving factor behind inequality. Racism leaches from deep within the minds of those in power, unbeknownst to even them, trickling into our laws, culture norms, and societal mores from the highest to the lowest levels. Where it can’t be proven that a person, or even whole groups, have a racially biased culture, racism is still blamed—thanks to the idea of unconscious bias, an accusation which no one can ever even defend themselves against.Essentially, no matter how hard we try, we are all racists.Don’t forget, however, that thanks to the dynamics of power and oppression, people of color can’t be racist. Let that stew for a while.It’s a problem because these anti-racist policies do hurt some people. Poor whites are again disadvantaged here. People are trained that they must recognize and compensate for their unconscious bias, and that certain groups (oppressed groups) are always the victims of this unconscious bias. It is then suggested that the way to do this is to show favoritism toward the groups delineated by oppression-based theories. The decision-makers then feel compelled to compensate for their own bias by looking for some reason to fail a white candidate for a position or opportunity. Again, this is actual racism. In practice.Following its singular evolution, the word “racism” was no longer a thing that people did to people of a different color. It wasn’t even prejudice, the views people had. It was something that whites did to peoples of color without even meaning to.Now we’ll shift the discussion of racism to a different realm: from the individual to the institution.Institutional racism, also called “systemic racism,” occurs when racism is built into the bylaws and policies of an organization. Slavery, and subsequently Jim Crow laws, which tried to prevent black participation in electoral process, and permitted businesses to discriminate against blacks by segregating them to separate facilities or barring them from entry completely, are examples of institutional racism. They are rules on the books intended to treat one race differently.The prevailing argument today is that institutional racism from America’s past, rules that were practiced hundreds of years ago, affect the lives of people today. The theory is that institutions which were around during those dark times and still survive today are forever marked by their “racist legacy.” Racism was present at their inception and for that reason, it has informed all follow-up decisions which the organization has made and its development, all the way up to the present day. Put differently, adherents of the theory of systemic racism say that whether or not racism exists in individuals, it exists at the organizational level. This is particularly true if those organizations and institutions were created during racist epochs, having inherited the racism of their founders, who subtly built racism into the very structure.It really doesn’t matter what events have transpired since then, what reforms have been made, or what apologies or policy changes these organizations have made—even when racist employees or members were purged, or racist policies stricken either by an act of law, or by the institution itself, voluntarily. The extremist view (which is gaining significant steam) is that an organization that in any way held a different standard of ethics than we do today, be it racism, sexism, or otherwise, is irredeemable and must atone for its crimes or be abolished. If the institution existed during a time more racist than today, they are part of whatever problems exist for racial minorities at present and therefore… racist. Worse still, any greater institution, such as the United States itself, which doesn’t solve the problem as the accusers see fit, is a bastion of institutional racism, and by that argument, a racist country.The problem with this idea is that it leverages history selectively.Systemic racism did exist. I gave examples of it. Jim Crow was systemic racism. But the Civil War was also fought, in large part, to end one form of systemic racism. Numerous bills were passed following in the aftermath to end systemic racism further, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal to treat people differently based on race. That didn’t make racism magically go away, but provided a legal framework for unfair policies in any organization to be challenged and for any racist policies to be stricken from the books. It preserves the organization, but removes the immoral parts.But modern proponents of systemic racism want to go further. Whole institutions which have a legacy of disparity, or are held to be guilty of racism in some way, shape, or form in the modern day, must be abolished in their entirety. The police are a good example of this. In spite of numerous studies demonstrating that police do not target blacks specifically, high-profile examples of white cops killing blacks have led to the widely believed assumption that the police are racist. Even in places where investigations show that the police are not acting in racist ways, in traditionally Democratic districts, with black chiefs of police and Democratic city councils, mayors, and governors, white racism is believed to be the cause of disproportionate violence perpetrated against black people by white cops. Administrators are absolved of all responsibility; the eternal bogeyman of racism is to blame. Where it can’t be proven that current racism explains a regrettable event, historic racism in the institution (the police, in this case) does. The police are institutionally racist, meaning that they will forever be racist because it is written into the system.Again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about finding and identifying the specific causes of racial disparity written into the system and removing them without breaking the system. The system matters. While it may not be perfect, it works. While you be disadvantaged for a time, you do not face the consequences of famine and war. Getting rid of the system gets rid of the good as well as the bad. It’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is wisest to correct a system’s problems without destroying the system entirely and causing untold pain and woe to everyone dependent upon and existing within that system. That was the chief victory of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not in removing racism, but allowing the system to correct itself over time. Eventually, once all the racist laws and corporate policies are systematically removed, we’ll have a functioning structure where people will be free to raise themselves up to equality. At that point, whatever inequalities still remain will not be due to racism, but other factors. Such processes take time. Undoing norms that have existed since the dawn of human civilization takes time, but time is better than famine and war.The idea of systemic racism does away with all that logic. An institution that has, for any reason, profited from or practiced racism in any way must be abolished to make up for past sins. This is the current argument against the police, where a need for vengeance is masked in nonsensical and unworkable plans to create better communities by getting rid of the police all together.Yeah, that won’t cause any obvious unintended consequences.Why have these almost predictably destructive ideas taken root? That has to do with something else we need to talk about: critical race theory.First, a basic definition:Critical theory is a social philosophy pertaining to the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures.[4]Critical theory, race or otherwise, tries to identify, criticize, and undermine social institutions by viewing them from “the perspective” of disenfranchised or marginalized groups. Like Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, Critical theory tries to reframe anything it views from the perspective of those who haven’t prospered under it, often going as far as to say that those systems were built to oppress them. Mind you, there is no one perspective of any group, unless we really want to say that all blacks have the same experience, or all women, or all anything. So the assumptions of marginalization are from “advocates” who speak for the whole population, whether anyone asked them to or not. These assumptions are also based on many of the same faulty metrics and produce wildly aggressive revisionist versions of history from the perspective of the “victims”. This can be seen in works like the New York Times’ 1619 Project, where revisionists have reframed American history around the implicit desire to enshrine slavery and the subjugation of blacks—even calling Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist.There are critical theories about everything on our our privilege axes, all producing nearly identical theories about how society was in some way manufactured with the expressed purpose of subjugating those on the bottom half of the axes. Only the supporting evidence changes, but the narrative of oppressor/oppressed remains.Despite the obvious fallacies involved in such a framework of thought, evidence to support it is abundant. That’s because history is an ugly place filled with things we would no longer countenance. Or perhaps it’s better to say that the ease of 21st-century civilization gives us the luxury to judge those who came before us. Critical theory doesn’t investigate how society has evolved, but instead looks to the history of any institution, be it the United States, Christianity, the US Army, the nuclear family (but not the Democrats), with the purpose of finding some evidence of its wrongdoing and inherent injustice. If the United States, at one time, supported racism (by engaging in slavery, for example), then the reforms made, the Civil War fought, the laws created to remove the power of racism don’t matter. Critical theory does not account for attempts made to improve the institution, only the negative weight of the institution’s misdeeds. This skewed approach justifies its adherents’ view that some predetermined group is marginalized today based on events which happened in the past. Specifically, this is done with the goal of reducing, and even destroying, the power of the institution in question.With all of that said, we need to talk about the left’s habit of inventing of institutions that need to be criticized. And that’s how we’ve arrived at the mother of all racist ideas, “Cancel Whiteness.”The new social theory of whiteness (as a social construct) takes the ideas of institutional racism and critical theory to their absolute limit. For our definition of “whiteness,” we will defer to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture:Whiteness refers to the ways white people and their traditions, attitudes and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practice in the United States. And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized some aspects of white culture — including people of color.Which is to say that, in America, due to…(a) that thing called “privilege”(b) the preconceived notion that all relationships within a society are based on power(c) and the idea that one’s place in society is a zero-sum game, and(d) the theory that absolutely everything is about race…the mere fact that different groups have coexisted with one another throughout history has enabled one group to make itself superior to the other groups, and then consolidate their exalted position in society by promulgating pro-white traditions, attitudes, and “ways of life,” which have subsequently leached into our institutions and even into people of color, systematically keeping certain groups low and white people high.In other words, our race—which is prevalent in absolutely everything we do or say, every attitude we hold, every tradition we observe, every aspect of our lives—makes it harder for others and we should hold some sense of obligation to minimize the effects of our culture on them, even in our most mundane and innocuous cultural norms and practices.The idea of whiteness doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the same thing happens literally everywhere on Earth. There are social norms in India, China, and Africa. There are social norms I don’t even know exist, but that I’d better learn to adapt to if I were to move there. This opinion that others should assimilate into our culture by adapting to our norms, or even that we are successful as a culture because of these norms, it is a racist notion—but only if the culture demanding assimilation is a white culture.What specifically is mentioned? You’d be surprised at some of the things that the Smithsonian Institute are “too white”.Individual effort and traditional families are too white.Both reason and religion in America are too white.Wealth, being on time, and thinking ahead are all too white.Our holidays and the concept of law is too white.Competitiveness is too white.Finally, communicating well and being polite are too white.What this report is attempting to do is to list many of the traits common to Occidental culture (though also present in many other successful cultures) and stigmatize the very behaviors which make those cultures successful with a narrative of racial oppression. Being on time, nurturing strong families, working hard, taking responsibility, communicating effectively, etc. are simply behaviors that produce cultures that survive and thrive, as opposed to cultures which stagnate and die. That our culture is doing them isn’t something to stigmatize or be ashamed of.By its very nature, whiteness is oppressive to all other people throughout the world, innately subjugating them in subtle ways, especially those unfortunate enough to be forced to emigrate here. That’s because Western predominance forces the rest of the world’s people to subjugate themselves to white history, white culture, white ideas, and the damnable tyranny of being expected to clock in on time. Viewed through the context of critical theory, we see why whiteness causes harm and, if you are against racism in the form of institutional racism, you must therefore cancel whiteness.None of this is explicitly saying that white people should be punished or wiped out. Well, that’s not totally true. Sarah Jeong of The New York Times tweeted out a series of racist tweets against whites all the way back in 2014.And quite honestly, there are a lot of people who say these things outright. But rarely does this and even more explicitly violent racist talk directed towards whites get any major pushback.“Whiteness,” for now, is about saying that many, many behaviors common to white cultures are actually harmful to people of other races, as they were built for and by whites to empower themselves. The idea of whiteness combines many of previously discussed ideas—implicit bias, systemic racism, white privilege, and critical race theory—to suggest to people in positions of power that the only way to correct for the past is to “balance the scales” today. How? By taking actions which show preferential treatment to nonwhites in ways that, to 3rd-grade me anyway, seem pretty racist.Moving on.Let’s say you’re reader somewhere on the left. You might be a liberal, a progressive, or maybe a centrist. You might even be a conservatives who thinks I’ve gone too far. Somewhere in this write-up, I’ve said something many of you disagree with. Perhaps I was too vague somewhere, or perhaps I generalized too much. Okay. That’s fine. I’ve had to cover a lot of territory in a relatively short amount of space. You have the comments to hash it out. I like to engage with respectful people, if I have time, and go deeper where I can. It’s important that when we disagree that we first seek to understand the other person. That’s not to force them to agree with us, but to be more right ourselves.But there are others who would say differently. There are many who would say that this entire answer—anything I could have ever written critical towards the evolution of the idea of “racism”—is itself a form of racism. How? Because it is proof of my “white fragility.”It’s believed by many that we need to “talk about race.” We do, but not in the way they often mean. The Smithsonian Institution’s guide is one such example of how they think we need to talk about race. An older term is “have a national discussion.” The implication is that we aren’t already talking about race or having a discussion unless and until certain agreements are reached and concessions are made. We must talk about it until people agree with all the points I’ve listed above, including specific policy recommendations I’ve haven’t even talked about, and if we don’t, we really haven’t had a talk. That’s not a talk and it’s not a discussion. That’s a one-sided lecture, sometimes a sermon, and sometimes an interrogation demanding us to admit our guilt to crimes we didn’t commit. America doesn’t need to be lectured on race by people I’ve demonstrated can’t and won’t even agree on what racism means.My continued presence on the other side of the argument—actually having the discussion but not agreeing with the narratives—makes me “fragile.” If you disagree, you’re being defensive, and demonstrating fear or guilt. The assumptions of the white race are, in this case, beyond question, and anyone disagreeing shows “fear and guilt”. Never mind the possibility that they may be pointing out legitimately fallacious flaws in your logic or ideology, and never mind that their facts may better explain the narrative than the ideologues’. Literally any response, save acquiescence—arguing, silence, or even leaving the conversation—are evidence of white fragility.I have to ask the question now:How fragile is your ideology if it needs to codify dissent as proof of its opponents’ guilt?Debate—and the meticulous dissection of ideas in search of flaws and inconsistencies—is necessary to finding truth, and truth is necessary to solving problems. The “fragility” rhetoric can, and is, copied-and-pasted into literally every “marginalized group” on the axes of oppression. Nothing even needs to be restated other than the adjective of “white” or “male” or “straight.” It’s an unfalsifiable ad hominem against people who disagree for any reason. If your ideology faces so much criticism that it must stigmatize the criticism rather than acknowledge and correct for the faults, then it isn’t a valid theory. It’s not a theory at all. It’s little different than a bad religion, or a cult.Lastly, “anti-racism.”Ibram Kendi, the author of the book How to Be an Anti-Racist says, “There’s no such thing as being ‘not racist.’ We are either being racist or antiracist.”Anti-racism is a new movement within the racial debate. Anti-racism says that simply being “not racist” isn’t enough. Being tolerant and being inclusive aren’t enough. You must be actively fighting against the forces of racism to be considered an “anti-racist.” It isn’t just about saying, “I don’t support the KKK or Nazis. Everything in this answer so far is the ‘forces of racism.’” And unless you fight all of them… you’re a racist. Kendi breaks from the definition of racism I stated earlier, believing that race is the primary determinant of human traits and that some races are distinctly better. He defines racism as:"One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea."Who determines what actions are enough, or which ideas are racist? The same people who say that being on time or working hard are too white, or that all whites and all blacks have the same experiences and can therefore be generalized as one oppressed the other merely by existing, or that history only matters if it’s bad and that reforms to bring about equality don’t count. Nearly anything an average person could or would believe falls under “racist ideas.”The idea that some elite class of activists gets to determine what “racist ideas” are or aren’t should set off more red flags than a May Day Parade in Moscow. There’s a whole host of “you’re either with us or you’re against us” problems that opens up. It gets even worse in this Forbes article, 5 Disturbing Signs That You Might Not Be An Antiracist After All.Indeed, while the discrimination focus in years past was rejecting blatant, egregious, confederate flag flying, “where did I put my hood” white supremacist racists, in 2020 there seems to be much more focus on the middle of the road, self-proclaimed white progressives who dangerously straddle the fence just enough to allow the fire to rage on. While they may reject racism in its most obvious and overt variety, they haven’t necessarily made concrete changes in their daily lives to fully embrace antiracism.The article attacks people for not speaking up soon enough or loud enough, not explaining why they didn’t do more, and not personally sacrificing something. It even claims that people who the anti-racist crowd have deemed to be racists are too comfortable around you is itself a form of racism. I’ll repeat that last one. You’re a racist if people they think are racists don’t hate you.How is it possible to argue that someone is guilty of thought crime based on the actions of other people? How is that a real thing?It is this “nothing is ever good enough” mentality that fundamentalist regimes throughout the world and throughout history have used to indoctrinate extremists. Fundamentalist rhetoric is deadly—most of all to people nearest the movement. The sort of progressives and liberals called out in the article will be the first attacked for noncompliance and they will suffer the most if they don’t comply perfectly. No one is allowed to disagree on a single point, even if they agreed with 99% of everything else that was said. Those most indoctrinated have privileged speaking rights, and those who don’t follow the doctrine and dogmas are to be punished first. No part of me is speaking hyperbolically to say we’re dealing with pure fundamentalism.That is to say, unless you agree with literally every notion I’ve demonstrated thus far — you are a racist.If you believe there are problems with critical race theory — you’re a racist.If you believe that America and numerous American institutions don’t systemically oppress black people and other peoples of color — you’re a racist.If you believe that the 1964 Civil Rights Act helped overcome the major legal hurdles blacks and other races face in the United States, and that now we just need time for the system to correct — you’re a racist.If you agree with historic systemic racism, but think today’s inequalities are caused by other things — you’re a racist.If you believe that racism is no longer one of the greatest problems in America — you’re a racist.If you think writing policy, public or private, which corrects fuzzy notions of unprovable happenings in someone’s unconscious are sketchy — you’re a racist.If you disagree with the specific policies being called for, such as abolition of the police — you’re a racist.If you think being on time isn’t racist — you’re a racist.If you haven’t made it clear to everyone in your social spheres that you’re an anti-racist — you’re a racist.If anyone who believes any of the things on this list (racists, in other words), don’t hate you enough — you’re a racist.If you believe that creating a social construct of “whiteness” and stigmatizing it may be kind of racist — you’re a giant racist.If you argue at all — you’re a fragile racist.If you don’t show your support of all of these things loudly enough and often enough, and if you don’t sacrifice yourself enough while publicly shaming and ostracizing your friends, family, and associates whom others have determined are racist — then you too are a racist.I could go on. That’s the issue. “Anti-racism” is fundamentalist rhetoric applied to racism in America. It says that you must agree with all the many flawed narratives surrounding racism, agree with literally any piece of legislation called anti-racist, and never criticize any of them, campaign for policy that isn’t grounded in reality, and do it so loudly as to place your jobs and relationships at risk. If you don’t, you’ll suffer for it, because you’re a racist and that’s what racists deserve.To answer the question fully, the definition of racism remains the same as it always was to most Americans:"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."Most people still believe that. But that isn’t the script which the hardliners who control the narrative are using. That group includes many policy-makers, activists, media figures, and most of academia. They are functioning under a different set of assumptions than most of us, and they prize their views to such an extent that questioning them is… well, racist. And they’ll punish us for saying so.So we go along with it. Partly, it’s because commonly understood ideas like racism and their implications can change radically in a single decade. This answer was difficult to write, not just because of everything that went into to, but because of everything left out. Very little of this was talked about ten years ago. Partly, it’s because the systems which perpetuate this rhetoric are so vast and pervasive, and the ideologues are so inured to it, that no amount of reasoning or discussion can make a dent in the ideology. Discussion that isn’t a one-sided lecture is racist to the advocates of these ideas. What hope could there be?But also, it’s because so many of us fear being called racists ourselves. Throughout my life, racism has not been something that has been tolerated, at least not when whites do it. It is a moral evil and frankly, the universal acceptance of that fact is why the extremism I’ve listed is tolerable. The fear of being labelled a racist is so great that people don’t push back against the excess. They don’t say, “No. I’m not a racist. I disagree with racism. Racism is evil. But this stuff you’re saying. It’s wrong and it’s crazy.”Why? Because they’ve seen how their friends who did it before were treated. It’s not worth sticking your neck out to be attacked by a radicalized friend or family member. It’s not worth being ostracized, dogpiled on, bullied, stalked, or harassed online — fired. So little bit by little bit, things get worse. Notice that this era isn’t making things better for blacks either. Prescribing medicines when you’ve failed to diagnose the real disease will only make the patient sicker.So the meaning of racism has changed. The definition may still read the same, but what started off as a description of an attitude is now a weaponized term used to intimidate some, radicalize others, and create far more hatred on all sides.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] Americans Say Blacks More Racist Than Whites, Hispanics, Asians[2] Science's problem with unconscious bias[3] Implicit Bias Gets an Explicit Debunking | National Review[4] Critical theory - Wikipedia