THE MYTH THAT “MINORITIES” GET MORE SCHOLARSHIPS DEBUNKED SINCE 5EVER
This is something that comes up time and time again like clockwork.Here’s a”just the facts” post.
Racists LOVE this tired old saw. The problem is that it’s complete and utter bullshit, it always HAS been, and IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY.
Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population.
Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. These statistics demonstrate that, as a whole, private sector scholarship programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution of scholarships according to race.
BUT WHAT ABOUT FINANCIAL NEED BASED SCHOLARSHIPS????
It debunks the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share of scholarships. The reality is that minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian students. Among undergraduate students enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor’s degree programs at four-year colleges and universities, minority students represent about a third of applicants but slightly more than a quarter of private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students.
STOP PARROTING RACIST MYTHS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY FACT CHECKING
So stop saying this shit. you’re just plain fucking WRONG. Also, racist.
Thanks to Catholic Cultures
GREAT WORK BLAMING BRUTALLY COLONISED COUNTRIES FOR THEIR OWN COLONISATION JUST TO MAKE A CHEAP POINT ABOUT RELIGION
*cracks knuckles* Let’s get some history up in here, kids.
People appear to be ignorant about “the vital role Christianity played in the spread of Western empire and the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures and peoples,” so here are a few notes:
- “Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale.”
- “ The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth...”
- “We talked about William Carey, but we didn’t talk about how the British used “protecting missionaries” like Carey as an excuse for imperial expansion in India. We talked about Christianity in China, but we didn’t address the gunboat diplomacy of Britain which was – again – justified as defending Christian missionaries. Or we could turn our attention to the Americas, where Christianity was nearly without exception the primary logic used by the so-called Indian reformers who set up boarding schools in which they took native children away from their homes, forced them to adopt western customs, and punished them for observing traditional practices. (The system they created unsurprisingly made it much easier for whites to steal practically all of their ancestral lands.)”
- “According to Edward Andrews, Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery.” However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.” As the colonial government was taking African land, the missionaries were preaching that it was God’s will that the Europeans do so and that Africans should not resist but be patient since their riches await them in heaven.”
- “The church acted as a legitimating institution for various colonial projects, at times as financier, and profited tremendously from the revenue generated by its increasingly global presence…”
- “there were ample resources for legitimating the use of force to create social, cultural, and political conditions in which conversion by “persuasion” was more likely to be successful.”
- “The Spanish and English colonial projects both constituted empires on which the sun never set, yet the reach of global Catholicism exceeded them both by constituting forms of colonial relations even where there was no formal colonial jurisdiction.”
- “The identification of Christianity with European cultural norms was therefore itself a historical product of significant cultural transformations in European history and in Christian thought and practice. The necessity of differentiating between what was European and what was Christian became important enough to be codified as instructions to missionaries in Vatican documents by the seventeenth century. Hence Christianity’s views of its own history, attitudes toward other religions, and theological reflections on how God orchestrates history and ostensibly uses empires for his own purposes would deeply affect the ways that the church would interact with various colonial projects.”
- “The Catholic Church played a central role in both cases by sending missionaries to work in Spanish territories from California to Paraguay, and in the Portuguese territories from Africa to Japan. The church also granted ideological and institutional legitimacy to those imperial projects, if not always to what it perceived to be the excesses of the conquistadors.”
- “Yet the extension of Spanish jurisdiction over the New World, accompanied precisely by the use of violence, and ostensibly for the purposes of evangelism,…”.
- The most vocal apologist for the conquests of the Americas as just wars was the Spanish royal historian Juan Gines de Sepulveda (ca. 1490-1573)….[He is] known today almost exclusively for his claim […] that the American Indians were ”natural slaves” and fit to be ruled by ”natural masters” like the Europeans. […] This so-called School of Salamanca became a formidable critic of the Spanish conquests of the Americas, and of the use of coercive force for the purposes of evangelization—both of which Sepulveda vigorously defended.
- The primary difficulty with the just war argument […] was that it simply did not describe the realities of the Spanish conquest nor exhaust the many reasons why the Spanish claimed legitimate title to the Americas—and especially why the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued to receive the support of the Catholic Church quite in spite of their ruthlessness and systematic exploitation of indigenous peoples and expropriation of what one Spanish critic called their ”lands, liberty, and property in exchange for their faith in Christ.” […] the massive Spanish colonial enterprise that nearly covered two continents was self-evidently not about saving innocent Aztecs from human sacrifice or cannibalism. Jose de Acosta (ca. 1540-1600), […] was not alone in thinking the language of just wars […] something of an ideological distraction from the violent effects of the wars of conquest
- “As the consolidation of colonial control was most often the means through which the church sought to ”civilize” indigenous peoples, cultural conflicts continually erupted in most missionary contexts. In some areas colonial administrators forcibly resettled populations, forced indigenous people to submit to religious indoctrinations and attend mass, and used force to ”extirpate idolatry” by destroying indigenous religious sites and prohibiting participation in indigenous religious practices.”
- “Although not all of the missions were amenable to colonial control, most of the religious encounters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tended toward religious paternalism and the affirmation of colonial institutions as the order necessary to both civilize and evangelize indigenous populations. By the nineteenth century, new theories of scientific racism replaced earlier classicizing models of humanity and civilization, creating a perhaps more insidious version of the ”white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize under the auspices of empire.”
In conclusion: if you blame colonized people for Christianity’s many, many sins, you need to sit down, shut up, and school yourself.
I’m actually kind of done with white cishet dudes jerking off to “science”
Okay so the word “science” means a couple different things and I have different feelings about those different things.
There’s “science” the subject and field of study, which means like botany and zoology and physics and chemistry and all that good stuff. I enjoy learning about “the sciences” and how shit works.
Then there’s “science” the process. It involves observing, forming hypotheses, testing them and drawing conclusions from the results. Anyone can do this. Babies do this. When you threw shit off the side of your high chair as a baby to see what would happen you were doing science. I am cool with science the process until it gets tangled up with science the institution (see below).
Science the institution is run mostly by white cishet dudes who had enough social privileges to go to a place like Caltech or MIT for their education. Science the institution is fucked up and oppressive. There is all kinds of fucking bias in the way studies are performed and even more bias in the way the results are reported. There are usually controls, such as double-blinds, within the study to prevent observer bias, but that does nothing to help when the basic premise of a study is based on oppressive bullshit. Science the institution tells indigenous people their healing methods are bullshit. It tells women that diseases that occur more often in female-bodied people must be all in their heads. It’s full of corporate sponsorship and conflicts of interest, and I don’t for a minute believe that “this was totally proven in a study” means a goddamn thing if it doesn’t line up with people’s lived experiences of reality.
I’m sick of science worship. Science can be oppressive. Science can be wrong. Stop fucking fapping to Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins (both of whom have suggested, by the way, that child sexual abuse is not something to be taken seriously). Stop using “because science” as an argument to deny the lived experience of oppressed people. Stop shaming people for not embracing your culture of white male atheism. And really please just go fuck yourself with the whole “social sciences aren’t real sciences”, because then you’re pretty much just saying “oppressed people don’t matter because they don’t behave as predictably as my lab rats”.
If you really love science as a process and a field of study, stop backing the scientific institutions that impede true unbiased implementation of the scientific method.
Oh one more thing: Maybe stop shaming women and PoC for not being interested in STEM majors and careers that are a giant fucking white cishet dude circle jerk, and start figuring out how you can make science less dickish and more welcoming to people with different cultural perspectives.
Also don’t use “SCIENCE!!!” as a means of justifying dogmatic atheism because that is way more frequently used to attack majority-POC religions than white US fundamentalist Christianity.
This whole post is perfect.
It’s a fact so jaw-dropping it’s unbelievable — people thought it was a crazy Internet rumor until Politifact verified it. But it’s true: More Americans have died just since 1960 from gun incidents — suicides, accidents, and homicides — than died in every war in U.S. history. The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves.
"The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim: he or she has become a threat."
James Baldwin (via eatcakey)
"A white college student from a private college goes into a poor neighborhood and volunteers four hours a week and that’s considered exemplary. [Whereas] a poor kid who lives in that community and takes care of all the kids in that neighborhood four hours every day is not seen as a volunteer."
Patricia Hill Collins (via ellomaria)
Ha this is so relevant to people at my college who win “service awards” for tutoring a child a few hours a week versus people who live and work in those communities who don’t win them
Why I had to stop volunteering at the poor neighborhood in the city my school is based in. The people in my school went into these places to look like cool volunteers. Then there was me, a person who looked, spoke, and appeared to be just like them.
I saw how I wanted to see what these kids and their parents wanted us to help with, and how those coming from more privileged facets of society, were inclined to assume their own ideas of what the kids needed.
TW: domestic violence
You can stop pretending that guns protect women now.
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.”
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.
What saved Holten was not another gun, but a phone. She dial 911, then hid the phone. “The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life and quickly directed officers to the scene,” the report tells us.
“For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented,” NYT goes on. “Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.”
I know that the NRA would argue that Stephanie Holten would’ve been better off had she been armed too. But exchanging gunfire with a lunatic does not guarantee success. And since her kids were present, tragedy would be all that more likely. Gun fanatics live in a fantasy world, informed by action movies, where the “good guy” always comes out on top. But in the real world, criminals aren’t automatically incompetent. Justice is a human construct, not a law of physics. In a gun v. gun confrontation, either party can lose. This is why people with guns are more likely to be shot — if I’m a criminal and someone pulls a gun on me, they’re my primary target. And of course, belief in the “good guys always win” theory promoted by the NRA causes people to take stupid risks.
The fact is that there are people who should not have guns. More guns is not the answer here, fewer guns obviously are. There are situations — and this is one — where meeting the NRA’s definition of “pro-gun” is in reality just pro-crime. Cory Holton is obviously scum. He can live without his guns.
And his ex-wife and kids would stand a better chance of living as well. A woman’s chance of being killed by an abuser increases by 700% if he has access to a firearm. That’s just a fact. And it’s a fact the NRA doesn’t want you to know, because they want to be able to sell guns and ammo to criminals like Stephanie Holton’s stalking, abusive ex-husband.