Althouse | category: race consciousness | (page 4 of 63)



an endless succession of beans and nuts.

"[T]he 'Lebensborn' program — meaning wellspring or fountain of life... created in 1935... provided luxurious accommodations for unwed, pregnant women."

"Part of the program’s attraction was that unwed pregnant girls could give birth in secret. In 1939, about 58 percent of the mothers-to-be who applied to the program were unwed... by 1940, that number had swelled to 70 percent. Often, the homes were converted estates decorated by Himmler himself, using the highest quality loot confiscated from Jewish homes after their owners had been killed or sent to camps. Girls who were already pregnant or willing to be impregnated by SS officers had to prove their Aryan lineage going back three generations and pass inspections that included measuring the size of their heads and the length of their teeth. Once accepted, they were pampered by nurses and staff who served them delicacies at mealtimes and provided a recreational diet rich in Nazi propaganda...."

From "A new novel tells the story of Nazi birthing farms" by Kathleen Parker (WaP).

The new novel is "Cradles of the Reich" by Jennifer Coburn.

Here's the article in the Holocaust Encyclopedia about the Lebensborn program.

I found that as I was looking for photographs showing how a place "decorated by Himmler" would look. Here's a propaganda photograph with a caption that translated into "Everything for the healthy child":

From the Holocaust Encyclopedia article:
Himmler had hoped that the program would become the wellspring of future generations of Nazi Germany’s racial elite. However, Lebensborn disappointed these expectations. Although the program’s homes claimed to uphold the highest standards of modern medicine, serious complaints about the quality of medical care emerged....
Himmler had estimated that 100,000 “biologically valuable” German women obtained abortions illegally each year, despite increased penalties. However, only around 7,000 children were born into the Lebensborn homes during the program’s nine-year-long existence. 
Lebensborn ultimately fostered many more kidnapped foreign children, although the precise numbers are difficult to establish. The legacy of the Lebensborn program includes broken homes and devastated parents. It also left a generation of children forced to contend with identity crises as well as the social disapproval that often accompanied their association with a Nazi eugenics program.

I'm not going to read the new novel. I'd rather read nonfiction on this topic, but I would like to read a novel set in the near future that envisions a similar program in America, addressing the problem of declining birth and acknowledging that outlawing abortion won't work.

Of course, the racial aspect of the story would need to be changed, but how much? We'd have some sort of ideology of "diversity" or racial balancing, and it would be interesting to depict various American leaders attempting to work that out and needing to worry that what they are doing is like Lebensborn. Like Lebensborn. 

It would also be interesting to show American leaders attempting to draw in young American women through architecture and interior decoration... displayed on TikTok and Facebook. The novel could be very funny if you got just the right sort of obtuseness as the old try to imagine what these young women today want.

Offers of great food and a wonderful health care system would be part of the draw. More things to go wrong in this novel's twists and turns.

I could write this novel, but it will remain forever on my shelf labeled "Unwritten Books."

Here are 9 TikToks, carefully curated for you. Some people love them.

1. Réttir — sorting out the sheep in Iceland.

2. The woonerf — a type of street.

3. The Finnish way to live through winter — on Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

4. If Arabic were English.

5. Choosing the boring life.

6. Overnight evolution.

8. Talking to the salad.

9. Hello, darkness, my old friend....

“I failed, failed and absolutely failed to understand just how exhausted by and disgusted with the perpetual representation of Muslim men and women as terrorists or former terrorists or potential terrorists the Muslim people are."

Said Abigail Disney — grandniece of Walt Disney, "a titan in the documentary world" — who was the executive director of “Jihad Rehab,” called it “freaking brilliant” in an email to the director, then disavowed it.

She is quoted in "Sundance Liked Her Documentary on Terrorism, Until Muslim Critics Didn’t/The film festival gave Meg Smaker’s 'Jihad Rehab' a coveted spot in its 2022 lineup, but apologized after an outcry over her race and her approach" (NYT).

Advised by a PR firm to apologize, the director Meg Smaker said "What was I apologizing for? For trusting my audience to make up their own mind?"

Smaker spent 16 months inside a Saudi rehabilitation facility interviewing former Guantánamo detainees.

The attacks came from what  the NYT characterizes as "the left":

Arab and Muslim filmmakers and their white supporters accused Ms. Smaker of Islamophobia and American propaganda. Some suggested her race was disqualifying, a white woman who presumed to tell the story of Arab men.

The filmmaker Assia Boundaoui, said: "To see my language and the homelands of folks in my community used as backdrops for white savior tendencies is nauseating. The talk is all empathy, but the energy is Indiana Jones."

A nice even 10 in the TikTok selection tonight. Some people love them.

1. A series of drawings with an invitation to visualize the artist.

2. Something called "manner leg" in Korea.

3. Living the barefoot life for 25 years.

4. When it's a woman's video at first, but then the edit switches to a man.

5. When white people speak to black people, they only seem to notice that you're black.

6. When you visit your parents, and it's 6 a.m.

7. When he called the little old lady "lovely." 

8. Queen Elizabeth and David Attenborough discuss a sundial.

9. What do you do with a big old baldface hornet's nest?

10. The old bun-in-the-oven metaphor.

It's hard to say a racist incident never happened, but why was it so easy to say that it did?

"Brigham Young University said Friday that it had completed its investigation into accusations of racial heckling and slurs at a volleyball match against Duke University last month and found no evidence to confirm that the behavior took place."

Note the careful language — "no evidence to confirm." They don't and can't say that nothing at all happened. The language in the BYU statement is: "we have not found any evidence to corroborate" ("From our extensive review, we have not found any evidence to corroborate the allegation that fans engaged in racial heckling or uttered racial slurs at the event").
The Duke player’s father, Marvin Richardson, told The New York Times after the game that a slur was repeatedly yelled from the stands as his daughter, Rachel Richardson, was serving and that she feared the “raucous” crowd. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment on B.Y.U.’s findings on Friday. 

That link goes to the NYT story from August 27th, which begins:

A Duke University women’s volleyball player who is Black was called a racial slur during a game Friday night in Utah....

Boldface mine. The Times stated it as a fact. Now, the NYT is very precise and says "no evidence to confirm," but when the allegation was made, it wasn't equivalently precise. Was it careless of precision, or did it consciously choose to leave out the "allegedly" before "called"? Why stir up discord, when so often these allegations turn out to be false?

I see the name "Jussie Smollett" is trending on Twitter. It's the easiest snark in response to the BYU story.

Why hasn't the NYT learned — at the very least — to leave itself an out? Is it carelessness? Is it blinded by the perverse hope that racism — which must be simmering everywhere — will burst forth in a vivid incident? Boosting these stories so eagerly, the media is cultivating doubt.

Stop luring young people into tainting their reputation by concocting another one of these poisonous morsels you're so eager to serve to America!

"Such a large amount is certainly going to make institutions around the country take notice, and to be very careful about the difference between supporting students and being part of a cause."

"It wasn’t so much the students speaking; it’s the institution accepting that statement uncritically. Sometimes you have to take a step back."
The incident that started the dispute unfolded in November 2016, when a student tried to buy a bottle of wine with a fake ID while shoplifting two more bottles by hiding them under his coat, according to court papers.

Allyn Gibson, a son and grandson of the owners, who is white, chased the student out onto the street, where two of his friends, also Black students at Oberlin, joined in the scuffle. The students later pleaded guilty to various charges.
After the 2019 jury award against Oberlin, Carmen Twillie Ambar, the college president, said that the case was far from over and that “none of this will sway us from our core values.” The college said then that the bakery’s “archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.”
The highest-rated comment (by a lot) quotes "Archaic chase-and-detain policy" and asks "What should a storekeeper do about a shoplifter?" Good question. Is the answer that what's not archaic is not to have any sort of shop that is open to the public?

Anyway, I'm glad the bakery is getting its money, and I hope colleges learn how to support student speech without joining the speech. Only join the speech if you stand behind it. Your speech is your speech. You're not absolved from your lies because you were echoing what somebody else said. That should have been obvious all along.

"Earlier, I made an ironic reference to a term used by some on the left about black people who are deemed traitors to the cause through joining the Tory Party."

"After I posted it, I realised this joke might give offence and deleted it. It was unacceptable language, wide open to misinterpretation, and I am sincerely sorry for the distress I have caused.  I have repeatedly applauded the Conservatives for having the most diverse cabinet in British history. Indeed, I tweeted earlier that the Truss cabinet made the Scottish government look 'hideously white.' I have always championed racial diversity in my columns and I am dismayed that my cack-handed attempt at humour suggested otherwise."

Wrote Iain Macwhirter, quoted in "Journalist apologises for ‘coconut cabinet’ jibe" (London Times).

He used a term no one should even consider using but apparently thought it could work because he was portraying other people as having used it and he's trying to attract offense and redirect it over to them. That's way too tricky a move, plus you are still causing the offense by reminding people of the insult.

He's "dismayed that my cack-handed attempt at humour." What is "cack" anyway? It's ca-ca — excrement.  The OED says that "cack-handed" is only "perhaps" based on "cack." But "cack-handed" has always meant clumsy, going back to 1854. "Cack" is much older word, going back to the 1400s. I'll just quote you one quote from the 1500s:
a1556    T. Cranmer in J. Strype Mem. Cranmer (1694) App. 105   Because the Devil could not get out at his mouth, the man blew him, or cacked him out behind.

"[O]ver $40 million somehow became little more than the price of vanity of a college to refuse to admit its original error and to apologize for its conduct."

"It was a complete failure of leadership by the president, the board, and the college. No one seemed willing to take the responsibility to say 'enough' and stop the burning of added costs year after year. So the college continued to gush money as it racked up losses in court. They have frittered away the assets and reputation of a school with a wonderful history and stellar academic reputation ... all to pursue a small grocery like Captain Ahab and his whale. Indeed, the final filing should just quote Melville to capture the blind rage needed to sustain this ill-conceived effort: 'From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.'"

"One of the puzzling aspects of this incident is that despite Richardson's report that the racial slurs occurred every time she served..."

"... and continued throughout the match, even becoming more threatening as the match went on, no one - not the Duke coaches, BYU coaches, BYU players, officials - called for play to stop and the heckler be ejected. Nor did the fans surrounding the heckler respond by either reporting or confronting the heckler. The only action taken, according to the original report, was that BYU stationed a police officer at the Duke player's bench, where the officer reportedly took no action. With just those facts reported, it makes pretty much everyone except the Duke players appear complicit in the heckling and racial slurs. And BYU is a pretty easy target for those kinds of allegations."

The commenter continues:
Now additional information is released that compounds the mystery. 
1. No one - not any of the BYU players or coaches, Duke coaches (who complained about the lack of action by BYU police, but did not report hearing the slurs), officials, the police officer standing at the Duke bench, or a single fan - has come forward to say they heard the racial slurs. Given the claim the slurs continued throughout the game, this is exceptionally unusual. 
2. To the contrary, the BYU police officer reports that he heard no racial slurs, only players being called out by name. 
3. The specific racial slur was reportedly shouted out every time Richardson served the ball. This type of act, repeated every time a unique part of the match took place (a serve) would be very notable. If Richardson could hear it, it is likely that all of the players, coaches, and officials would also be able to hear it, especially since it was predictably repeated. 
4. Despite Richardson's claim that the racial slur occurred every time she served, ushers and a police officer who were sent into the stands to try and locate the heckler were unable to do so. 
5. The [Utah Valley University] student who approached the Duke player after the game has come forward and admitted he did so, believing it was a friend. He denies making any slurs. 
6. Reviews of video of that same UVU student during the match - who the Duke coaches and players identified as also responsible for the heckling with racial slurs - have not yet been able to confirm he was doing the heckling. To the contrary, the video review shows he was not even present during the second set, and during the later sets show him playing with his phone. 
I have no particular insight into the incident, and I know nothing more than what is being reported. But having interviewed hundreds and hundreds of witnesses over my law enforcement career, and having had the opportunity to observe crowd behavior in venues such as the Salt Palace, Delta Center, and Rice Eccles stadium, there is something here that clearly doesn't add up.

"Commuters expected to have less pleasant rides if they tried to strike up a conversation with a stranger."

"But their actual experience was precisely the opposite. People randomly assigned to talk with a stranger enjoyed their trips consistently more than those instructed to keep to themselves. Introverts sometimes go into these situations with particularly low expectations, but both introverts and extroverts tended to enjoy conversations more than riding solo. It turns out many of us wear ridiculously negative antisocial filters.... People underestimated how much they’re going to enjoy deeper conversations compared to shallower conversations. They underestimated how much they would like the person. They underestimated how much better their conversation would be if they moved to a more intimate communications media — talking on the phone rather than texting. In settings ranging from public parks to online, people underestimated how positively giving a compliment to another person would make the recipient feel. We’re an extremely social species, but many of us suffer from... undersociality...."

The top-rated comment: "Notably missing is the fact that many women protect themselves from unwanted, insistent intrusion and comments, even the possibility of being followed and harassed, by immersing themselves in phones or books in public places."

Yes, Brooks says nothing about sex or gender at all. Also nothing about boredom or the fact that trains are noisy.

Nothing about race or religion either, as the third-highest-rated comment shows: "As a white, Christian male, David Brooks has no earthly idea how dangerous it may be for some of us to 'strike up a conversation' with strangers...."

Reading these comments, I'm finding the word "Your" in the headline obtuse and perhaps mean.
"[T]he 'Lebensborn' program — meaning wellspring or fountain of life... created in 1935... provided luxurious accommodations for unwed, pregnant women."

Report "Althouse"

Are you sure you want to report this post for ?