As an example from my son, a 13 year old white kid, gave me is that if you have one of the "diversity cards" (minority, LGBQT+, female sometimes, or some other thing) than you get to joke and talk in a way than those that don't have such a card. So his friends that are gay or black or indian or disabled are able to tease each other about it and have more liberty to use terms that my son is not allowed to. The gay kid can joke with the indian kid about wearing a turban (they are middle schoolers, their understanding of life is still a bit shaky) or whatever. My son is on the bottom of the pack for all of that. We talk about it and we're still working through the fairness of the situation. He's an empathic kid, and is decently informed for his age, so he gets it, but it also sucks to grow up in a world of "bias is wrong except against white people and especially against white males".

I see this often with gangs I grew up around. Black people can call each other niggers in a casual, non-attack way. But as soon as a white person does it, it’s racist.

It will be interesting to see if music changes this. I mostly listen to classical and older pop/rock/folk but recently decided to see what is current and so listened to the entire Billboard Hot 100.

There was a lot of rap and hip-hop with lyrics that prominently and repeatedly used that word. I wondered then about what happens when non-Black fans sing along with such a song on radio or streaming or at a concert.

I did some research and it seems that a small minority of the artists think that people who sing along should sing all the words regardless of race, with most thinking non-Blacks should not sing that word. Some in the latter group also feel that it is a losing battle to try to stop it.

I think those that want to stop it can succeed--for now. If I ever feel the urge for example to sing along to some rap or hip-hop song I'll have no trouble remembering to skip the N-word part. I've long known that this is a word I should not be saying except under special circumstances where it is clear I should say it and that singing along is probably not special circumstances.

That works for me because I'm adult and when I learned the word as a kid I learned it as a derogatory term.

But now that the N-word is in popular music that plenty of non-Blacks listen to, there will be kids who grow up from the start with that in the music they listen to. It will be a word they naturally learn as part of normal language acquisition without learning the most negative connotations.

I bet it will be lot harder to get that generation to not use it when singing alone, or to not adopt it with the positive meanings that it sometime has when used in rap or hip-hop.

kendrick lamar is a good example regarding your first example. he has this song, good kid maad city, where nigga is used in about every single sentence. the whole hook is full with it.

at a concert, he invited a white girl to rap the song on stage. of course she went full with it. he stopped the track after she rapped nigga a few times during the track l and began to.blame her on stage for it. of course the whole crowd went with it.

i mean. what a god damn motherfucker. seriously. i dont want to know what the girl was going through mentally. it must have been horror.

the obsession with the n word is crazy anyway. of course i dont use it in mh regular life..but when i quote a rap song, i quote it literally ofc.

It means different things coming from different people for very clear historical and cultural reasons.

Pretending not to understand this is being willfully ignorant at this point.

Because there is a contextual difference! Historical context matters, and saying things like "all lives matter" or "we're all the same (so we should be able to use the same words?)" actually undermine the collective struggle this group of people has had to deal with. Life isn't binary, it's always more complex than that. It's not rational to just do a "reset" at this point in time and say "oh, i have nothing to do with what my predecessors have engaged in, so i can't be held accountable"... because that's not true, the predecessors lives and actions directly affect ones life. I understand that sometimes the direct outrage over something small might seem ridiculous, but at the same time I don't understand why people have such a problem with just not using a certain word. It really isn't hard...

It means "servant" basically, and it's about an apparent difference in social classes. If I ask a barista "you can also mow my lawn if you want to make some money" it's an insult that the barista can't even refute, but if I ask my friend the same, he'll take it as a joke.

I understand this quite well, I've felt this myself in the past too, that feeling of being "not in the club". Thanks for your explanation. One does get over it, and one also learns eventually that it's something not restricted to race / sexual orientation etc., it can be similar just with a group of people from a certain neighbourhood etc. But having it be based on race can be hard for a kid in the "out" group. How to deal with that, basically, to learn to let it roll off your shoulders, to learn how to navigate your own position in a group, is a lesson to be learned, sometimes not easy to get the intricate ins and outs of how to behave. I completely get it.

Thanks for the nuanced understanding! We've been giving our son basically that advice as he learns to navigate the situation. It's tough because he's a pretty strict rules-follower, and so it upsets him to hear kids breaking the "ism" rules! We say, "let it roll of you like water off a duck's butt" :) He's learning ... I think.

Intersectionality at play here, your son is part of the "oppressor" class and is essentially viewed as beneficiary of privilege by virtue of his melanin content, therefore he is not allowed to say, do or question certain things. It's a sad state of affairs.

FYI I'm an immigrant from Africa with 3 daughters but I've instilled in them the values I was raised with, that everyone is deserving of respect, dignity and are precious in the eyes of God.

No one teaches that you because you are a minority you are allowed to tease other minorities

I'm curious how white (as a percentage) the school is, as I could imagine a correlation with the extent/intensity of this experience. If white kids are enough of a majority, that alone probably offsets the effect somewhat, but where white is also a local minority, perhaps the collective privilege starts to get so cloudy that the notion of "punching up/down" starts to fall apart. And substitute "straight white male" as needed, of course, although I've refrained above in order to use the words "majority/minority" in simple terms.

And what are the consequences of not following this rule?

>he gets it

What is there to get?

The systemic repression of non-white-males for many, many decades/centuries?

I feel so sorry for your boy. He deserves a dad who loves him more than virtue signaling. Your boy is thrown into the world with no preexisting moral guilt. And you, his father, are justifying rather than decrying the racial discrimination of your own son, while apparently trying to stand on the alter of that very discrimination.

My son is fine, he is well loved and he knows it - I teach him compassion and understanding while still standing up for himself. I'm sorry you live in such a black and white world lacking nuance. It must be a struggle for you such that you need to tell an internet stranger how little he loves his son.

Huh? What a weird comment.

“[born with] no preexisting moral guilt” — Is that some attempt to re-frame ignorance?

I have teenage kids and they sure as hell have been raised to understand, from a young age, that while they are in an unfairly advantaged group today, a few generations ago and they would have been rounded up, stripped of everything they worked hard for, and put in camps. And yet, even that fate was objectively better than other groups at the same time. What you call “moral guilt” I call empathy. Maybe this is simply what you mean by “virtue signaling”, but I want my kids to always look for those around them who are stumbling, unable to get back up, or who may just not have enough, and then to give help. But they won’t see them without empathy for those situations, and they won’t have that empathy without an understanding of the struggles.

Which he had no part in. This treatment of kids is disgusting.

Just commenting to confirm that they are not actually handing out anything called a diversity card that gives you permission to do anything.

edit: also want to make sure that "teen mental health" includes the 75% of kids that are not straight, non-disabled white boys. If those kids are included then this probably isn't a reasonable explanation.

So ... funny story there. There is the concept of the "N-word pass" that black kids will "give out" to non-black kids "allowing" them a use of the n-word in front of them. I had heard about this several years ago, but now several of the black kids in my son's school are giving them out occasionally. I advised my son to never use the option were he to receive one!

Not a physical card in this situation, but there are stories that some kids in other schools actually give out physical cards.

It's not a real concept.. it's just a meme. There's no "pass" that will grant you anything, and if there is a black person who says such a silly thing to a white person it's just shenanigans. Still won't change the context of the white person using the N-word after that anyway, especially it's historical context in the US. Also what I surely find interesting is that I only ever hear white people talk about an "N-word pass"...

It's a very real thing, literally happens weekly in my son's friend group, and yes kids are allowed to "redeem" it. Ask a teacher at a diverse school if it is real or not.

Knock it off. These are children who had no say in what their ancestors did.

Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? We've already had to ask you this and, I'm sad to say, you've posted a ton of such comments. That's not ok here, and we ban such accounts.

I don't want to ban you because your substantive points are interesting and welcome, but this sort of internet attack is not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

They have a say in what remains of the power structures created by their white supremacist ancestors, the privileges that system provides and the inequities those privileges feed on. They could be working to dismantle those power structures, but they have to recognize that they exist first and that yes by default all things are not equal.

Ignoring that fact or obsessing over petty things like not having a pass to say the n-word doesn't help anyone or accomplish anything productive.

I'm going to put this as simple as possible: Stop having kids fight or worry about adult problems.

Surely, we don't have to write a five paragraph essay on the problem with perpetuating hate cycles among children in a thread about plummeting teen mental health.

Let it go. You got a million other places to open this debate.

>Stop having kids fight or worry about adult problems.

Have you ever seen Mister Rogers, or grown up poor or in a bad neighborhood? Kids have to worry about adult problems all the time. They often don't have a choice in the matter.

Leaving them to learn about the adult world only when they become adults is cruel, and beyond the point at which they will have ceased to care unless they were taught to at an early age.

>Surely, we don't have to write a five paragraph essay on the problem with perpetuating hate cycles among children in a thread about plummeting teen mental health.

I never said anything about hate, nor does the linked article make any implication about "hate cycles," but it's telling that you immediately tried to make that link.

They don't have to be fighting for your cause, even if you believe that cause is noble. If someone driving a white honda totals your car, you don't harass random drivers of white cars. This cult of skin & genitals, that's called "progressive" for unknown reasons, is a shallow lunacy that's appealing to people who can't see further than the skin color.

Please grow up.

Hah, what does that mean? Grow up and start exploiting kids? No thanks. I don't need to recruit kids to fight culture wars for me

Sir. We're talking about 13 year olds.

Your white son is at the bottom of the pack because he can't openly tell bigoted jokes about his peers?

I don't understand this intentional misreading of comments that's so pervasive. Even if they're not entirely clear, you can usually deduce what they mean.

Why is his son singled out based on his skin color and unable to do things that his peers are officially sanctioned by the school? Not sure what that sounds ok to you? That seems like regular ole racism to me. That's a bit insane don't you think?

You lost me at this:

> officially sanctioned by the school

You interpret the anecdote as involving something official? I interpreted it as pertaining to social norms being enforced by only the students themselves. Kids hassling each other for "playing nonexistent white/straight/male cards" or "playing a card they don't have" is quite different from authority figures imposing equivalent policies. I mean, on some level the subject of the enforcement is in a similar position regardless of the nature of the enforcement, but we should at least agree on what we're dealing with here.

People tell stories on hackernews. If you don't take the story to be true, take it as hypothetical value. Not everything on the internet needs a scientific study to be discussed.

I'm confused. Perhaps some threads got crossed because I didn't mean to say anything about the truth or verification of the story.

I would think the existence of an inherently inequal standard here, and/or the idea of watering down the impact of harmful speech, is the problem more than wanting some perverse privilege to tell bigoted jokes. When and where I grew up I still remember black leaders critical of hip-hop for trying to normalise the n-word - the view being it was objectionable for anyone to launder the term.

In all seriousness, I think the freedom to tell (and receive) bigoted jokes as a youth was an integral part of my maturation.

Why?

Not OP, but the processing of learning that being X isn't a joke in and of itself taught me respect for other groups. You compare the joke about being gay vs a joke that someone is gay. One is a funny commentary on the gay experience, and the other is homophobic. Learning that difference, through experience help teach me where to draw the line between appreciating other cultures and cultural appropriation. And yeah a lot of these lessons can be taught other ways, but I have often found experience to be the best teacher. We should encourage kids to discover better morals and not just follow the morals they are taught. We learned a lot over the past century letting kids do that, we shouldn't stop now. The youngest generation has constantly shown the older how to be more accepting of neighbors, and kinder to our friends.

if you are unwilling to make a joke about someone, you do not believe they are your equal. it is really that simple

Because everyone dies in the end

Yes, others can tell bigoted jokes, or joke around in a bigoted manner, where he cannot.

He is saying that the gay kid can make bigoted jokes about arabs to an extent.

We like to “celebrate diversity”, but if you diverge from whatever the people in charge are doing, or worse, whatever they think you should be doing, you’re very much on the outside.

Kids and teenagers need stability and trust. As adults, we’re bad at fostering that environment in our institutions for a variety of reasons.

What does it mean to "diverge from whatever the people in charge are doing", with respect to diversity?

Considering your overall comment, my initial response is, well, in school I did, and everyone else constantly did, things that pissed off the people in charge. Pushing the envelope has always been part of being a teenager. Exploring the boundaries is how they begin to understand society and their relation to it. Enforcing rules and making teens see why some actions are okay and some are wrong, is part of the whole idea of teaching and nurturing and bringing up healthy adults.

However, I'm not sure how any of this applies to "diversity".

In any case, I get the overall sentiment that there is not enough stability, but doesn't this just stem from adults in fact not agreeing with each other on what the rules are/should be? What can be done about that? Adults will always disagree on basic principles, because having a personal point of view is part of being human. Perhaps the earlier kids learn that, and that they have to start forming their own opinions, the better.

The important thing is to guide them on forming those opinions, for example helping them be informed opinions instead of "gut feelings", helping them distrust what they read online for instance, and helping them pick up clues on when to trust or distrust a source. It's too bad that even adults are bad at that, though. (I include myself here.) I think the problem is also that we are _all_ learning that skill these days, not just kids.

The types of diversity that is celebrated includes culture, race, sexuality.

What's an example of diversity that you are punished for?

In my mind it stood for things like "risk-seeking" or "adventurous", basically being a kid. Not everything has to be political.

Okay thanks, that actually works here. I'm still not sure it's what OP meant, but I prefer to assume apolitical motivation unless otherwise stated, so I like your interpretation. I actually couldn't get what he was trying to say, not trying to posture.

I was equally confused as you are.

You absolutely know what they're referring to, playing coy about it was understandable a decade ago but the mask is obviously off. If you live in the western world, even living in a shack in the middle of wyoming, the fact you are online means you are fully aware and these types of comments are not only non-productive, but disingenuous which is a becoming a trend among people that propagate the diversity initiative as a way of being openly anti-european while retaining a moral high ground. It has to stop or hatred will come full circle.

Sorry if you see it this way but I very, very honestly did not understand what he was trying to say. Yes I'm quite aware of the issues you are talking about, but it was more the structure of the sentence that I just could not follow.

I assume they mean for you to insert any minority? Black, brown, whatever. With words companies and schools and whatever like to be diverse and woke, but their actions are often the opposite. I'm just guessing.

any term taken from the 50% of diversity can fill that blank. i think they are referring to the cancellous but ostensibly tolerant culture

Sorry, still lost. What is "the 50% of diversity"? Are you trying to say "white"? (Not sure that's 50%...) Not judging, literally just trying to understand the semantics here. This is some kind of code that I'm not getting.

yes that s a good example. "being proud to be black" is diverse, being proud to be white is not.

There is definitely a level of doublespeak here, although i'm not sure if teens are really annoyed by it

That’s because we have a history of white supremacy in that country though. Similar to how in Germany you’ll get weird looks if you’re echoing nazi talking points; there’s an existing history and cultural context to that sort of thing in that country that the country now wants to not repeat.

There are effectively no Nazis in Germany but there are still ethnostates and genocide in Africa. I really don't see how White people are special here.

EDIT: As usual with the social justice crowd: no discussion just downvotes. It makes a lot of us feel like there legitimately is no argument for your position.

I think this is whataboutism. I’m merely making it makes sense that white pride is viewed at less positively than black pride in a country that has experienced nationwide, systemic, brutally violent white supremacist behavior within living memory.

I think the original idea is much more whataboutist(?.) It's literally "What about the Nazis in a different country a century ago?"

> There are effectively no Nazis in Germany

Gee, I wonder why people are downvoting an obvious fascist stooge.

[1]

> Twenty-nine police officers in the western German state of North-Rhine Westphalia have been temporarily suspended after their unit was found to have shared extreme rightwing content on a WhatsApp group.

> Images shared by the officers, most of whom are members of a unit in the town of Mülheim an der Ruhr, reportedly depicted Adolf Hitler, the swastika flag, a collage of a refugee inside a gas chamber and the shooting of a young black person.

[2]

> A far-right extremist has confessed to murdering a pro-refugee German politician who was found dead outside his house on 2 June having been shot in the head.

[3]

> A gunman killed nine people in two apparently racially motivated shootings at shisha bars in the German town of Hanau, police said. The suspect then killed himself, according to officers, after also killing his mother at his home.

> [...]

> The Bild newspaper said the gunman had expressed extreme rightwing views in a letter of confession he left behind. A video in which he explained his motives is believed to be part of the investigation.

----

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/german-police-...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/26/far-right-susp...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/shooting-germa...

That's why I said "effectively." Yes you can find small groups or individuals but if we want to trash an entire race based on behavior of small groups then maybe you should have another look at US homicide statistics.

The Nazis in Germany have absolutely no political influence and no real cultural influence. The whole ideology is literally illegal there and people get fired just for talking about it.

This is not correct at all, sorry to inform you. For example, people like Götz Kubitschek[0] for example have close ties to the dominant groups in e.g. the AfD, his rethoric is full of antisemitism and fascist dog whistling. The "entnazification" never really happened. In the 60s, there were more people in the ministry of justice who had an active NSDAP membership during 1933-1945 than there were in the 30s and 40s. It took several decades to repeal fascist laws, influential politicians (federal minister e.g.[1]) stated his admiration of the Waffen-SS and held speeches full of anticommunism and antisemitism - these are the core tenants of german fascism and they get regurgitated ever since the few innocent German citizens were liberated at the end of WW2. One of the the main representatives of the german green party unironically defends the Person giving orders to fascist paramilitaries for the extrajudicial killing of communist and social democratic leaders in the 20s. The influence and long lasting after-effects of fascist thought and leadership in Germany must not be underestimated. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_Kubitschek [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Strauss

>held speeches full of anticommunism

What's wrong with anticommunism? Maybe his constituents don't want communism either.

It's not about their personal preference of economical system vut about Strauss literally using nazi-rethoric. Anticommunism is a core part of that.

Ya, but a lot of the time you have ostensibly well-meaning people spread around the attitude that it's wrong to be intolerant of others, unless that person is white, or a man, or you're a transphobic woman if you didn't use a particular definition of woman, or you're a creep by default if you're a man. In the last 8 years this sort of rhetoric has been amplified more than ever before, and not just in the states (though arguably that's the dumb dumb epicenter). It also sounds like sort of meme right-wing talking points, and I'm tired of those conversations too (which are also amplified by social media in the same way), but they do come from somewhere.

It shouldn't be controverial to say "This is a space that's welcoming for everyone, unless you start obviously making people feel like they don't belong. It's not ok to harass or attack someone because of their skin colour, or religion, or gender, no matter what that is."

Can you source me how social media has made “this is a welcoming space for everyone unless you start behaving badly” a controversial statement?

Also I am super confused by your rhetoric. Earlier on you mentioned that people have spread intolerance of, say, transphobic women or people who have wrong definitions for women. But in your second paragraph you also say you want a space where it’s not okay to make people feel like they don’t belong— a transphobic person obviously makes a trans person feel like they don’t belong… so… wouldn’t it make sense to be intolerant of transphobes by that logic? Can you explain plainly what you actually mean with concrete examples, maybe with a behavioral rubric, of what you want?

No, I can't provide concrete sourced examples with a rubric. I'm not writing a paper. These are largely impressions I get from speaking to people in the world, and kind of being taken aback when people have what I think are kind of absurd views. Some, I know from speaking to people, are amplified by YouTube recommendations, and Instagram feedback loops. I don't really think it's a controversial take to say that recommendation algorithms paired with bubbles that match a few different tropes are going to amplify those views.

If you're confused by my rhetoric, that's ok. I'm confused from time to time.

I’m merely asking for something more concrete because the logic stated in the post appears self contradictory. I feel I don’t have a great sense what you want in your social media experience.

I guess re-reading it, it seems I could have used 'except' instead of 'unless' and that might have been more clear, but it wasn't very eloquent in retrospect. The idea that everyone is entitled to equality, except some people have a somewhat exclusive definition of everyone and equality. Growing up, I was taught that even if you have good reasons (in the realm of prejudice, probably not good reasons) to not get along with someone, being in a healthy society means you should try and treat people with the respect you'd hope to get from them regardless. I don't expect that I'd change a racist person's mind about ingrained prejudice, but I'd expect them to treat everyone equally anyway, or leave. The examples I used weren't great, but in the real world situation I merely said everyone in this outdoor space should be treated and welcomed as people. The person I was speaking to assumed that I was implying everyone experiences discrimination with the same magnitude, and therefore are equally likely to be targets. Obviously that's not true, but regardless of current inequal distribution of various kinds of discrimination, this is a space of equality and peace. If people want to act on prejudice, this isn't the place for it, and I think that's what we should be aiming for.

I don't think I've ever experienced that. I mean, I've lived my whole life in the US, but never experienced anyone being intolerant of me because I am a man or because I am white, nor have I ever heard of that happening to anyone else. Honestly I just don't think that's a thing that ever happens.

>It shouldn't be controversial to say "This is a space that's welcoming for everyone, unless you start obviously making people feel like they don't belong. It's not ok to harass or attack someone because of their skin colour, or religion, or gender, no matter what that is."

But where is that controversial though? That's what we have now.

This was from a recent conversation I had in the world. In Canada, by someone I later discovered was regularly posting rants and shaming people and businesses on Instagram. They essentially accused me of drawing from hypothetical strawmen to paint myself as a victim, but all I said was (it's important that I said this after saying this is outdoor public space is basically a safe space from discrimination) "If a white straight man harassed or attacked someone because they're X, that's not ok, and they won't be welcome to stay. Do you think it would be ok if someone did the same, but they happened to be Y attacking someone because they're white or a man?" and they dodged the question, which to me justifies the question in the first place. I don't feel unsafe as whatever I am, and nobody should be made to. Seems like a pretty liberal viewpoint.

I'm sick of people getting sucked into right wing YouTube and then trying to rope me into the most boring imaginable anti-cancel-culture shit on one side, and I'm also sick of the surprising reality of what they're pissed about actually sometimes happening, possibly as a result of both groups' own polarization. Not a lot, but enough to vibe me out from being around them, not remotely enough to be prejudiced against any particular identity. It just happens sometimes, it's a form of social grandstanding, and it's very tiresome.

When someone expresses black pride my interpretation is that they are reclaiming, trying to manifest and celebrate that they no longer live in times where being born black meant that you were a second hand citizen and that you should/could feel no pride.

When someone express white pride I can't interpret it the same way because there hasn't been a time where the structures were so that being born white made you inferior to someone born black purely based on skin color.

So the difference is the history and the context.

I'm from east Europe. In my country there have never been black slaves. There have been white slaves. The rich would sell the poor as salves to other rich people.

However if I wanna be proud of being middle class white person today, that would raise a lot of eyebrows and not a few people would assume I'm a "white supremacist". You cannot be proud of being white. Doesn't matter what your country history is, or what your personal context is.

My hypothesis is that American history has been conflated with "white" history so now all white people are privileged and oppressed black people and have no reason to be proud.

If someone is a descendent of white slaves and they want to be proud of how that group overcame their predicament, they wouldn't say they're proud to be white (not only because it would raise eyebrows, but because it's not nearly precise enough), they'd say they're proud to be Slavic or whatever the case may be, right? And hopefully that doesn't raise eyebrows.

> And hopefully that doesn't raise eyebrows.

I fully expect it to raise many eyebrows. Anything dependent on context on the internet will be used against you.

But yes, I don't even expect an European to describe race in terms of "white" or "black". Those are contextual to the American continent.

Are you suggesting that Europe hasn't had any significant problems with white supremacists? because uhh... that's a little inaccurate.

I don't think I ever said anything about Europe not having problems with white supremacists. Can you point to the part of my comment that made you think that I said that?

> I'm from east Europe. In my country there have never been black slaves. There have been white slaves. The rich would sell the poor as salves to other rich people.

> However if I wanna be proud of being middle class white person today, that would raise a lot of eyebrows and not a few people would assume I'm a "white supremacist".

Maybe I misunderstood, but this comes across to me as "Even though there have been no black slaves here, I still can't say I'm proud of being white"

And my point is that Europe, despite not having black slaves, still has a very good reason for that (the time a European white supremacist tried to conquer the continent).

You did not misunderstand, that was indeed the core of my argument. The parent argument seems to say being proud of being black is good because you went through slavery (well, your ancestors did, not you). But white people should not be proud cause they were responsible for slavery.

I'm not from Germany, I'm for a poor east European country that never was part of any empire and never conquered another country. Why can't I be proud of my heritage? Why do I have to hide the fact that I'm proud of my heritage because English and Americans enslaved African people? Also wasn't it white people that then fought to abolish slavery? Wasn't Wilberforce white? Wasn't Lincoln white? Didn't British ships then police the international waters to stop the slave trade? Why do you decide that being white means "the ones that started the slave trade" and not "the ones that stopped the slave trade" and assign a negative connotation to it?

But I fail to understand your argument in this last phrase. Your argument is because someone in Europe was a white supremacist, then nobody in Europe can be proud of being white (aka proud of their heritage)? Because the mustache man took advantage of the German people living in really poor conditions and being miserable after the first WW and brain washed them into committing hideous acts, being born a German now is forever a curse? You can never be proud of your heritable before and after mustache man? What exactly is the algorithm based on which you decide if someone can be proud of their heritage or not?

It comes down to interpretation. Droping the word pride, the idea is that you can love yourself and be comfortable in the skin you are born with, and see value in your family culture and history.

We should teach this to all children and encourage them to feel this way. We should not teach some children that they are inferior or carry the the guilt for crimes committed by others just because they share the same skin color.

How does that apply to 13 years old kids?

Is it doublespeak? It seems to me that we have Black pride but not White pride for the same reason we have Black history month but not White history month.

We don't have White history month because every month in the US is White history month. Same for Gay pride month but no Straight pride month. Or National American Indian Heritage Month, National Deaf History Month, and many others.

“White man” is popular example. “Asian” also works depending on the context.

yeah this one is weird, is it supposed to be racist/sexist?