Several debates are being conflated in this thread. Let me try to separate them.
Debate A: Is it appropriate to hold or voice racial/ethnic stereotypes?
As I wrote earlier, BOTH "sides" will take EITHER side of this question, as it suits them. For example:
During my travels in the 20th century, Americans were noted for hard-working, no-nonsense, don't-procrastinate attitudes. I met people who had immigrated to USA, then returned, not liking the hard-driving ethic.
Different ethnic groups have different cultures, but a national stereotype generally applies, by default, to the dominant culture.
Funny, as I view the poor Hispanics to be the hardest workers in the US.
This, from Mr. Higgins who, I think, is taking the anti-stereotype side in the discussion!
IMHO, ethnic stereotypes DO sometimes have utility,
when used in moderation. BUT it IS rude and "politically incorrect" to apply them frivolously or wrongly, as the bureaucrat condemned in OP does. This brings us to
Debate B: Should the bureaucrat have bothered with the silly sentence, even if that's what she believed?
NO. And should we care?
Take a breath. Let it out. During that breath NINETEEN THOUSAND Americans did 20,000 stupid or criminal things. Did Whatshername incite a rebellion in our country's capital? Did she shoot an unarmed man? Was she the National Security Advisor who committed treason? No?
Then what the F**k are we bothering with it for?
If she is a bird colonel (or the civilian equivalent) I'll join in the misogynistic chorus of "Who did she **** to get her job?" But if she's only GS-13 we just laugh. Is it important to research her exact pay-grade to see exactly how much angst we should feel? I don't think so.
While the rest of us are watching new revelations from the J6 committee, someone has the time to browse Raisin.Com (!!) and find THIS story? Pathetic!
Debate C: America's new political reality has been called "The Post-Truth Era." Is it OK to lie?
. . . In Oregon, the Oregon Health Authority
delayed a meeting already scheduled between multiple parties because not delaying it plays into the hands of white supremacy:
In an email obtained by Reason, Regional Health Equity Coalition Program Manager Danielle Droppers informed the community that a scheduled conversation between OHA officials and relevant members of the public would not take place as planned.
"Thank you for your interest in attending the community conversation between Regional Health Equity Coalitions (RHECs) and Community Advisory Councils (CACs) to discuss the Community Investment Collaboratives (CICs). [In being responsive to partners from across the state, we're hearing the timing of this meeting is not ideal and that people would like more time to prepare for this important conversation]. wrote Droppers. "We recognize that urgency is a white supremacy value that can get in the way of more intentional and thoughtful work, and we want to attend to this dynamic. Therefore, we will reach out at a later date to reschedule."
It will come as no surprise to those familiar with lying by FoxNews, Trumpists, and others pimping for the GOP-Kremlin axis, that a key sentence was omitted from the above quote. I've taken the liberty of adding it, red and in brackets, to the above quote.
If anybody thinks that the quote from "Reason" was NOT a lie — they didn't CHANGE words, they just omitted the key sentence — please raise your hand.
"In being responsive to partners from across the state, we're hearing the timing of this meeting is not ideal and that people would like more time to prepare for this important conversation."
I would not have bothered with the click (to "Reason" har-de-har-har!) , but I was pretty sure there was an omission or other lie. What do I win?
Except even with that sentence added in context, it doesn't make the "supremecy" statement any less nonsensical and ridiculous. I mean how in the heck is "urgency" a white supremecy thing to begin with? I'd also say a letter isn't exactly the basis for presuming the beliefs across a movement either.
I think statements like that are the result of liberal arts graduates trying to think too hard.
So the fact that Raisin.Com "lied" doesn't bother you? You can only focus on the politically incorrect "white supremacy value"? (And is it amusing that those who consider this "incorrect" argue against "political correctness" when non-white races are at issue?)
I think the way Reason lied is a bigger issue than Whatshername's stupidity.
@ Jimmy Higgins — Do you agree that the omission here constitutes the moral equivalent of a lie?
If not, where do you draw the line? Can colors be altered to affect apparent skin color? Was it OK to slur Ms. Pelosi's words?
I think such lying is a far bigger problem in the U.S.A. than this "white values" silliness. Do you agree?
Debate D. Whether important or not, is it true that America places a value on "Urgency"?
In some respects, white supremacy functions smoothly because of the value-messaging around urgency: It's urgent to do this thing you are being prompted unto, don't think too much about it because it's urgent.
This ridiculous commitment to thoughtless "urgent" response very much is a "white people" thing and it's not really a coincidence.
Really we should be resisting such calls to urgency, giving thought, and then going ahead on that basis or at least affording thought at the first possible opportunity. If none presents itself, it is better to risk death and failure and make an opportunity than continue forever without the proper application of doubt.
This goes against the dictates of white culture, however. We would be much better off looking at such a "virtue" with dubiousness.
As I've said, I have some experience, and there is some truth in stereotypes,
including this one.
Consider the 2000 Presidential election. In most countries, a new chief of government takes office just days after his election. In USA the delay is 70+ days. Yet Americans expect to be told the winner on the night of the election. In 2000, the result was still inconclusive in early December and, although there were still six weeks until Inauguration it turned into a "Selden's Crisis"! The Supreme Court over-rode all other authorities because the country couldn't tolerate the suspense!
I've been to engineering meetings in Silicon Valley. Often technical issues are ignored; the meeting is all about brow-beating deadlines!
So yes, America does place a premium on "urgency."
Oi! This is reading way too deeply into something. Also, I'd question the use of urgency verses immediacy! Urgency implies a matter of importance that needs immediate attention. Immediacy merely means something getting attention quickly.
You're bringing a dictionary to a political-babble fight?