Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That would be on the EO/EOA conduct and how he/she presents the subject material.

Each EO/EOA are brought up differently in the military world. A lot of it is how they developed their Leadership style. Training is the same to be a EO/EOA but an individual leadership style covers a wide range of NCO's he/she been exposed to.

Simply put. You as an individual will take the positive side from NCO's over time and incorporate it into your own leadership style.

The EO who presented the class and added in the "White Privilege" portion screwed the pooch royally. The EO immediately put everyone Integrity into question regardless of race.

 sebster wrote:
I think race issues and privilege are important topics that need to be discussed in any organisation... but it's the military, you follow the doctrine as it is given to you, and present what you've been told to present. Adding your own slides is, well, this particular officer is currently learning how much that's appreciated.

 Slarg232 wrote:
A Black person is more likely to get aide for college tuition than a white person.
A Black person wins all ties in employment jockey-ing simply for being black and "promoting diversity".

You know, I don't particularly like minority preferences in college applications, scholarships, or corporate employment. But arguing that those things in any way offset the disadvantages is fething delusional.

Just, please, look at the numbers. When black americans earn 35% less on average than white americans, there are two possible reasons. The first would be that they are inherently, genetically less capable, which is something I hope we can all accept is total bs. The second possibility is that history, along with existing institutional and social factors mean that it economic opportunities are rarer and harder to take.

There's also a third possible reason: Cultural factors (not necessarily unique to African Americans) and some African American leaders actively discourage academic achievement and involvement in the mainstream US work force.

 Jihadin wrote:
Saw this on Fox News this morning but this is from USAToday

WASHINGTON — Army officials are investigating a diversity training briefing at Fort Gordon, Ga., in which a slide about "white privilege" was inappropriately shown to soldiers, according to an Army spokeswoman

The Equal Opportunity briefing took place Thursday for about 400 soldiers of the 67th Signal Battalion, Capt. Lindsay Roman, an Army spokeswoman, said Friday. The slide titled "The Luxury of Obliviousness" has bullet-point items about "white privilege."

One item reads, "Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them. 'To be white in America means not having to think about it.' "

An image of the slide appeared later Thursday on a Facebook page and generated a torrent of negative comments about political correctness run amok.

The presentation was not authorized, nor was it part of the standard slides shown to soldiers, Roman said.

"The unit (Equal Opportunity) instructor deviated from the authorized topic and content which was provided," Roman said. "To prevent further instances, all unit instructors will receive additional training on the importance of following Army EO training requirements."

The slide appears to have been adapted from work by Allan Johnson, a sociologist and author, according to Wayne Hall, an Army spokesman. Johnson, in an email, said the concept is consistent with his work. Although he noted that part of the quote should be attributed to author James Baldwin.

The Army, Roman said, is committed to offering all soldiers equal opportunity.

"The Army reflects the diversity of American society," she said. "We are all members of one team."

The Army has struggled with diversity in its ranks for decades. It is of particular concern among the service's top leadership. Last year, USA TODAY reported the command of the Army's main combat units had only a few black officers. Less than 10% of the active-duty Army's officers are black compared with 18% of its enlisted soldiers, according to the Army.

EO lost his/her frame of mind at that time

I remember this being policy in the Uk. I don't know if it still is. If not it isn't because people don't think that way but because its being questioned slightly more.

In my official training as part of the County Council Youth and Community Services, which I had to 'believe' in order to pass Equal Opportunities accreditation, which in turn was mandatory for continued employment, I was told that:
Women could not be sexist, non-whites could not be racist, because white males were the de facto political majority. They could be discriminatory, but at a much lower level of culpability.
Furthermore all white males were inherently sexist and racist, if they didn't think they were they just didn't know it. we were even encouraged to confess.

I kept reminding myself of the scene from the classroom in Killing Fields, and decided to sit back and shut up about it. This was the early days of PC dogma.

The US is in the same early days, gak like this is coming out because society hasn't enabled people to call bullgak yet on the worst of PC dogma. When it does stuff like this will formally disappear, but in actuality be still there just a little more concealed.

Thing is the US is undergoing other changes. Blacks are now the official persecuted minority in need to a helping hand and a highlighted recovery. Hispanics aren't, and the benefits of 'equality' don't yet extend to them in anything like the same way.
The main lesson to learn from the UK is Equal Opportunities aren't. People get squeezed both ends, the formal political majority is morally squeezed and sometimes even directly disadvantaged by the state, while the status underprivileged to be elevated are also banded, and selective exclusion is rife.

Just looking at the thread there is a lot of mention of African Americans, no one bothers to mention Hispanics. Are they all rich? No one discriminates against them? Quite. The focus is not on them, and that goes from the government to the popular media and business. Its much easier, and in some cases more common to hold back a Hispanic in the workplace than an African American. Taking the OP, I hear its harder for them to advance in the US Army, most have a glass ceiling at one star, and are called to take the fall from time to time.

LOL I can say some of the insanity in the early 90's in the US Army

Like one could be allowed in a Extremist group as long as they are passive.
The November word being freely used within a group
Clique's
to name a few

 Hordini wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

'To be white in America means not having to think about it.'

That's ... correct.

It can be correct in some circumstances, but it is certainly not true across the board.

Sure, there is a tiny amount of outlier situations in which it is not true.

 djones520 wrote:
If the discussion was a fair and open one, then I'd say it might not be a bad idea. I've spent plenty of years undergoing military training though... that is not how it goes.

I would guess the main purpose is to create optics of accountability. But in any case the point is certainly not to sincerely discuss something as complicated as prejudice.

 Orlanth wrote:
In my official training as part of the County Council Youth and Community Services, which I had to 'believe' in order to pass Equal Opportunities accreditation, which in turn was mandatory for continued employment, I was told that:
Women could not be sexist, non-whites could not be racist, because white males were the de facto political majority. They could be discriminatory, but at a much lower level of culpability.
Furthermore all white males were inherently sexist and racist, if they didn't think they were they just didn't know it. we were even encouraged to confess.

I kept reminding myself of the scene from the classroom in Killing Fields, and decided to sit back and shut up about it. This was the early days of PC dogma.

I believe this was around the time that there was a push to change the definition of racism from the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races., to the power and privilege standard.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
In my official training as part of the County Council Youth and Community Services, which I had to 'believe' in order to pass Equal Opportunities accreditation, which in turn was mandatory for continued employment, I was told that:
Women could not be sexist, non-whites could not be racist, because white males were the de facto political majority. They could be discriminatory, but at a much lower level of culpability.
Furthermore all white males were inherently sexist and racist, if they didn't think they were they just didn't know it. we were even encouraged to confess.

I kept reminding myself of the scene from the classroom in Killing Fields, and decided to sit back and shut up about it. This was the early days of PC dogma.

I believe this was around the time that there was a push to change the definition of racism from the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races., to the power and privilege standard.

This still is the dominating stance in politics, at least in Western politics.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well in fairness there's too many mixed signals already in the army, i can't imagine it would be hard to send the wrong one accidently.

Spoiler:

This made me laugh way too much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest there is a vast amount of well founded research that shows the comparative advantages or privileges of being white in the USA. That is not to say there are no poor whites or rich blacks.

As for the army case, I believe it is counterproductive to blame white soldiers for being white, it simply emphasises the differences and leads to stronger group formation. It would be better to ignore differences and concentrate on everyone being part of the same team.

Completely.

The entire concept of "privilege", while conceptually sound, has been perverted by online hijacktivism. It's a term that now promotes divisiveness and exclusion, which is why it's not taken seriously. That EO shouldn't be retrained. You can't retrain stupid.

The reality is the military is a harsh, unforgiving place for everybody, and concepts like privilege don't apply. In fact, http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow">racial minorities make up nearly half of the senior enlisted (p.28), making the military a disproportionately friendly employer to minorities in terms of advancement potential. So introducing the concept of "white privilege" in a military EO briefing is not only irresponible and unprofessional, but it's fairly stupid too. If there's anywhere in America where being white gets you nowhere, it's the military.

I like this quote by Air Force Gen Daniel “Chappie” James Jr: "The Marines don’t have any race problems. They treat everybody like they’re black." He said it in the 70s, and about the Marines in particular, but it holds true even today about the military.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
In my official training as part of the County Council Youth and Community Services, which I had to 'believe' in order to pass Equal Opportunities accreditation, which in turn was mandatory for continued employment, I was told that:
Women could not be sexist, non-whites could not be racist, because white males were the de facto political majority. They could be discriminatory, but at a much lower level of culpability.
Furthermore all white males were inherently sexist and racist, if they didn't think they were they just didn't know it. we were even encouraged to confess.

I kept reminding myself of the scene from the classroom in Killing Fields, and decided to sit back and shut up about it. This was the early days of PC dogma.

I believe this was around the time that there was a push to change the definition of racism from the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races., to the power and privilege standard.

Which was a thing called Institutionalized racism which was the case of an overall societal meaning and makes no sense applied to individuals, except now we've got people saying even if your white and in Asia, Japan, or Africa, you are somehow still in power and in privilege despite being in the minority, which obviously makes no sense.