Pentagon training manual: white males have unfair advantages

This is in no way meant to be a racial thread in any way, shape or form but is to simply inform ATS members what our government is trying to do, mainly is our government trying to cause racial tension on purpose?
Here is the first paragraph from an article by Todd Starnes:

"A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

For those that might not believe it exists, here is an excerpt directly from the manual:

personal.crocodoc.com...

The entire story:
www.foxnews.com...

The manual, also instructs troops to “support the leadership of people of color. Do this consistently, but not uncritically,” it states.


Please check it out.

I actually find that insulting.....I grew up in a small town of Oklahoma, very homogeneous.....My first real experience with a black male was my first roommate at West Point....He is to this day one of my dearest friends and we would take a bullet for each other. My class are now LTCs, and again, this is not what the Army Thinks. We do not judge on race or color or creed, but whether you are a slug.

wulff
"healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

Is there anything even remotely controvertial about this?
I was under the impression that this is the very reason why "affirmative action" programs exist. To prevent the "white male club" that was present in the past.

Indeed, much of the rest of this article speaks as if it is saying affirmative action programs are a good idea.

Its not saying that white _genetics_ are _better_. It was taking about "unearned advantages of social privilege" and "socioeconomic privilege" ... etc...

reply to post by pointr97

We do not judge on race or color or creed, but whether you are a slug.

While this is intrinsically false whatever you consciously accept it or not, I get your point, but we, humans are attracted toward the similar and despise the different, this is hardwired in us and has served us good or we wouldn't be here today it still is a two edged sword and racism and group-think is one of the consequences...

We even have a hard time in discriminate individual faces of distant races, we also fail to identify emotional overtones in their expression. We can even find objectionable smells, air differences (even the lack of it) and body shapes, this without including cultural stupidity to the mixture.

I just wish that people stopped being so sensitive and politically correct and fully addressed the issues and the work required to overcome differences. In a few decades there will not be anymore extreme racial traits and a few decades later one will be hard pressed to find a distinction in skin color, even the beautiful reed aired ones will be gone in just a few generations...

alfa1

wulff
"healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

Is there anything even remotely controvertial about this?
I was under the impression that this is the very reason why "affirmative action" programs exist. To prevent the "white male club" that was present in the past.

Indeed, much of the rest of this article speaks as if it is saying affirmative action programs are a good idea.

Its not saying that white _genetics_ are _better_. It was taking about "unearned advantages of social privilege" and "socioeconomic privilege" ... etc...

Remotely controversial? YES! It's discrimination! Why is it okay to discriminate against whites, but not anyone else?

And affirmative action, don't get me started. Let's pass RIGHT OVER the qualified white person and hire the black (or whatever) person who ISN'T QUALIFIED just because they are black! That how you want your doctor or lawyer chosen? By race? Because it should be the most qualified person for the job, not the person with the right skin color for the job!

Ameilia
Remotely controversial? YES! It's discrimination! Why is it okay to discriminate against whites, but not anyone else?

Agreed.
But thats the politically correct view of today, so its not "controvertial".
My point was that the manual supports affirmative action, so its not clear to me why its a news item. Probably every large organisation has a training manual saying the same thing.

Panic2k11
reply to post by pointr97

 

We do not judge on race or color or creed, but whether you are a slug.

While this is intrinsically false whatever you consciously accept it or not, I get your point, but we, humans are attracted toward the similar and despise the different, this is hardwired in us and has served us good or we wouldn't be here today it still is a two edged sword and racism and group-think is one of the consequences...

We even have a hard time in discriminate individual faces of distant races, we also fail to identify emotional overtones in their expression. We can even find objectionable smells, air differences (even the lack of it) and body shapes, this without including cultural stupidity to the mixture.

I just wish that people stopped being so sensitive and politically correct and fully addressed the issues and the work required to overcome differences. In a few decades there will not be anymore extreme racial traits and a few decades later one will be hard pressed to find a distinction in skin color, even the beautiful reed aired ones will be gone in just a few generations...

Actually.....no, that is entirely not true.....when individuals are put into an environment when they have to rely on others of different genders, races, and creeds against a common foe.....the differences fade, and the ability of the team member becomes the vital aspect.....we learn to look past the physical differences and rate an individual on what they do.......actually what they do.....I am not hardwired, i give everyone a chance,.....if i don't like you...it is because you are an arsehole......I don't care if you are blue if i can rely on you to do your job, stand by me, and not turn on me when the proverbial brown stuff hits the round spinny thing......If you have not gone through a military training environment, do not judge....we are not norm or status quo

alfa1

Ameilia
Remotely controversial? YES! It's discrimination! Why is it okay to discriminate against whites, but not anyone else?

Agreed.
But thats the politically correct view of today, so its not "controvertial".
My point was that the manual supports affirmative action, so its not clear to me why its a news item. Probably every large organisation has a training manual saying the same thing.

I disagree (nicely) because I believe politically correct views can definitely be controversial. On both sides of the line. In fact, as I type this, I realize I believe it VERY strongly. You have raised a good topic.

reply to post by pointr97


My understanding is that tests have proven you wrong, and I myself am honest enough to agree to what I said, while my logic thinking states that "I should not judge a book by its cover" I continually do so even if I dislike doing it (and can easily notice other doing the same even in more "objectionable" ways).

This is not even only about race, at times I dislike certain people just by the way they "look" (physical attributes) without any specific rational why I don't like them.

I also can state honestly that I cringe to observe some physical deformities, even behavioral and will do my best to avoid them, my self realization is also what permits me to notice attempts to force acculturation of this type of barriers some I agree with some I don't but I certainly dislike the methodology used in general.

This pussy-footing and political correct spiel is sic, cynic and creates the notion of general acceptance to something that was not agreed upon and builds upon itself by social pressure to compliance...

reply to post by wulff

White privilege   
      
    

Interesting the copy paste function is scrambled. It said whites don't acknowledge their "superiority" and are in denial about their privilege. They have a lot of excuses.

All of section G. on page 188…

personal.crocodoc.com...

Panic2k11
reply to post by pointr97

 

My understanding is that tests have proven you wrong, and I myself am honest enough to agree to what I said, while my logic thinking states that "I should not judge a book by its cover" I continually do so even if I dislike doing it (and can easily notice other doing the same even in more "objectionable" ways).

This is not even only about race, at times I dislike certain people just by the way they "look" (physical attributes) without any specific rational why I don't like them.

I also can state honestly that I cringe to observe some physical deformities, even behavioral and will do my best to avoid them, my self realization is also what permits me to notice attempts to force acculturation of this type of barriers some I agree with some I don't but I certainly dislike the methodology used in general.

This pussy-footing and political correct spiel is sic, cynic and creates the notion of general acceptance to something that was not agreed upon and builds upon itself by social pressure to compliance...

Your understanding my friend is wrong.....have you been in a combat environment with others against a common foe? Or even a training environment against a theoretical foe? These stresses are what allow us to tear down the physical differences and look to the things that matter, who is doing their job and adding to the team.....those who aren't....worthless and dead weight.

Regardless of your studies, speak to what you know.....can you say you see color or religion as something that biases you to someone else....because i can say i don't.

i didn't see the date that was written, back when i was in the Corps 30+plus years ago.
we were all one color, that was green,and i had officers and nco's of all races. i guess times they are a changein

ETA: i went back and looked, so it was published in 2012. pretty sad.

Society favors white men... there wasn't a civil rights and women's rights movement for nothing...

If people can't handle hearing reality then that is their personal problem.

Hmmm, someone is looking to racially divide the military now...
They fire the generals to remove leadership.
Someone or someone's are trying to start a civil war.
Stand together and stop complying with stupid laws and ordinances.

alfa1

wulff
"healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

Is there anything even remotely controvertial about this?
I was under the impression that this is the very reason why "affirmative action" programs exist. To prevent the "white male club" that was present in the past.

Indeed, much of the rest of this article speaks as if it is saying affirmative action programs are a good idea.

Its not saying that white _genetics_ are _better_. It was taking about "unearned advantages of social privilege" and "socioeconomic privilege" ... etc...

Yea that's the drift.....which is worse.

What this is basically is a license to hamstring whites because they are afflicted with all the notions that come with the above nonsense. It also suggests that we need more minority officers because they are not inflicted with the same ideas about themselves.

Anyway its all trash. Its like saying blacks are not as desirable as whites because of lower IQ. Whites should be outraged over this.

Folks need to cross reference this as well. I have seen this line of reasoning applied to whites in other areas. It has become and is becoming a doctrine that young minds at the "university" level are being brainwashed with. I saw a young woman, not white, talking about this on a public forum. Without even blinking she talked about this white mindset the way folks used to talk about blacks as having socioeconomic and cultural mindsets that made them unfit for leadership ect. Its simply racist. The new anti white socioeconomic illegitimacy approach.


After reading I would call the material in the manual to be typical neo-Marx race divisionary history and race interpretation based nearly totally on a mythological economic and religious interpretation of whites and blacks. Its little more than indoctrination hidden behind the mask of accurate historical and economic interpretations and social justice.

WaterBottle
Society favors white men... there wasn't a civil rights and women's rights movement for nothing...

If people can't handle hearing reality then that is their personal problem.

edit on 1-11-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

This is not reality. Its broad brush sexist and racist against whites as a whole.


My son was offered West Point because of his high GPA and athletic ability. he earned and worked for both.

But he's not coming from some GOD#$M white privilege. His great granddad was a coal miner and raised a family in a shack. His granddad was a bus mechanic for public transportation. His dad is a wood cutter and cleans up dog crap at the kennel on the weekends and so dos he.

So get around me talking white privilege I will stick my hand in your mouth all the way down to the shoulder.

reply to post by Logarock


It is reality, even if you don't want to admit it. The fact is you don't feel as if your family has been particularly privileged. But the other fact is you simply do not know with any degree of certainty what all was factored into your son's application being accepted. All you know is that he worked very hard and did get in. But you simply do not know whether or not a person of a different ethnic background that worked just as hard didn't get in because they were ethnically different.

Just because the view from your particular fish bowl says otherwise doesn't make it a matter to ignore. Nor does it diminish your son's accomplishments to discuss them. He worked hard hard and got in, that is an accomplishment. But if people refuse to acknowledge that racism exists and that certain groups tend to enjoy a privilege that they didn't necessarily ask for, want or even realize they enjoy; that would diminish that accomplishment.

As a society we have to always be working to make the belief that if you work hard and play by the rules you will get ahead into reality. Because people naturally work contrary to that belief.

Is the current system we use to achieve that goal perfect? No it isn't, and that largely stems from people that like you that do not feel particularly privileged refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem and therefore do not work to find better more equitable solutions.

reply to post by Ameilia


That is what I get out of this, mainly "it's okay to treat white people poorly, but you have to watch everything you say or do to other races (non-Caucasian)!"
Some of my best friends are black and my dad taught all of his kids to be 'colorblind' but this is nothing but the all too often said 'reverse discrimination'! When he was in the 3rd Army (Patton) during WW2 he had some black friends but they weren't allowed to do anything but be cooks or drive trucks so I think we have come a long way.
As a former military (Air Force) I think the general feeling is we have each others back and we are all family, but this type of stuff is what keep the so-called racial equality wars!
The more people try to make us a 'vanilla' society the more they keep the racial issues alive!
When we have groups wanting to take the word "God" out of ceremonies and oaths running the military I think it's the end of common sense!

Everyone turns white when bullets start flying over your head ...USMC Vet

reply to post by pointr97

Your understanding my friend is wrong.....have you been in a combat environment with others against a common foe? Or even a training environment against a theoretical foe? These stresses are what allow us to tear down the physical differences and look to the things that matter, who is doing their job and adding to the team.....those who aren't....worthless and dead weight.

Regardless of your studies, speak to what you know.....can you say you see color or religion as something that biases you to someone else....because i can say i don't.

You are wasting your time my friend trying to explain real life versus theoretical life to someone who has no concept of life and death team situations. Team leaders try to evaluate each individual by their merits and weaknesses not the color of their skin.. At least in my experience.