JANE ELLIOTT, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR OR
QUEEN OF BRAINWASHING?
How One Woman Invented White Privilege
July 14, 2016
July 14, 2016
You have probably never heard of Jane
Elliott. But you've probably been effected by her ideas. You can read
some about her here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott
But what you need to know is that she did a sadistic and
manipulative social experiment in her classroom back in the 1960's.
It was filmed several times. But if you have seen any of it, it is
most likely the ABC film of it. There are shortened sections of it
available on YouTube. But on PBS under Frontline, there is an episode
called, A Class Divided. She says you should watch it to see what
effect her experiment has on children for the rest of their lives,
how as adults they can never go back to being what they were before
the exercise. And she's obviously proud of it. She thinks they are
better off for having gone through it because they now understand
what it's like to be black and how much suffering they have to go
through because we as whites force it on them.
She says she came up with the idea the
day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. She came to the
conclusion that he was killed due to our whole society being racist.
She believes we are all racist and that the best hope of changing
this is with children.
The next day one of her students came
into her classroom and asked, "Hey, Mrs. Elliott. They shot
that King yesterday. Why'd they shoot that King?" When all of
the other students were in the classroom she asked, "How do you
think it would feel to be a Negro boy or girl?" "It would
be hard to know, wouldn't it, unless we actually experienced
discrimination ourselves. Would you like to find out?" The
students were enthusiastic about this idea and she had counted on it
and planned what she was going to do.
This is how she set up the experiment.
She divided her students up according to those with blue eyes and
those with brown eyes. The first day those with brown eyes were given
power and status. When people are subjected to this experiment, the
first group receives rewards and favoritism. They are even allowed to
join in on the taunting and insults that the blue eyed group are
subjected to. The next day she reversed the roles. Now it was the
blue eyed students who were in the favored position. Only there is a
difference. They are reluctant to mistreat the brown eyed students
because they understand what it feels like. She saw this as proof
that black people's underachievement was due to white racism. If you
reversed the position of whites and blacks, whites would become
underachievers too. "We had one (brown-eyed) girl with a mind
like a steel trap who never misspelled a word until we told her that
brown eyes were bad," she told a campus audience years later.(
"Jane Elliott Attacks Racism in UNCP Address," University
Newswire, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, October 10,
2002). This was the beginning of diversity-training as an industry.
But her experiment is based on the
supposition that all white people are racist and that they must be
reprogrammed to accept their guilt and change because of it. That
being fortunate is wrong if everyone is not as fortunate as you.
Jane Elliott says that we should
educate people rather than indoctrinate them. The word indoctrination
is often used in connection with religion, but not always.
Indoctrination--to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas,
opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other
ideas, opinions, and beliefs.--Merriam-Webster. Other definitions
include the idea of force. Indoctrination is the process of forcibly
inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional
methodology (see doctrine) by coercion. She says that in this country
we don't educate students. And her definition of educate is one who
is engaged in leading people out of ignorance. Martin Luther King
disagreed with her. “The function of education is to teach one to
think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus
character - that is the goal of true education.”-- Martin Luther
King, Jr. But she is an indoctrinator. She seems to think that what
she is doing is teaching empathy.
Her claim to be the benevolent teacher
is belied in her manner and shown for the brainwashing that it is. I
found this quote on her website, and it's pretty accurate. "It
won't help much to be prepared to face Jane Elliott. This elderly
woman will tear down any shield. Even we, the spectators in BLUE
EYED, can't get rid of this feeling of uneasiness, embarrassment,
anxiety and utterly helpless hatred when she starts keeping people
down, humiliating them, deriding them, incapacitating them. No doubt
about this: for three quarters of the time in this documentation Jane
Elliott is the meanest, the lowest, the most detestable, the most
hypocritical human being hell has ever spit back on earth. But she
should be an example for all of us". - Stuttgarter Zeitung
Apparently, we aren't irredeemable as a
race, because we can still be taught. And we do require being taught
and she's just the one to do it. We are all in denial about our
racism and we tell ourselves that it doesn't exist. She was
interviewed by PBS in 2002 and had this to say, "We are
constantly being told that we don't have racism in this country
anymore, but most of the people who are saying that are white,"
she said. "White people think it isn't happening because it
isn't happening to them."
Her claim to fame began soon after
that. Some of her students wrote essays about the experiment that
were published in the local paper in her town of Riceville. Iowa.
This garnered her a guest appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny
Carson. People all over the country were angry that she would subject
her students to this.
The people in Riceville weren't happy
and still aren't. She says she has been threatened with firing by the
school board and angry parents. She also said she was Riceville's only
“nigger lover”. She says her students were harassed too. And all
this anger only served to further convince her that white people
needed to be reprogrammed.
ABC television produced the half-hour
documentary, in 1970 "Eye of the Storm," in which she is
show demonstrating her experiment on her class. During the same year,
she did a demonstration of it at a White House Conference on Children
and Youth. PBS also did a documentary in 1985 called, "A Class
Divided." Progressives quickly accepted her methods as a way to
further their own beliefs and agendas.
She retired a few years later, and
began teaching her ideas in the corporate world. She said at one time
she was making $6000 a day from companies, the government and
institutions. Her videos cost $225 a piece. How did she sell the
idea to them?
She convinced them that a work force
that was free from racism would have higher morale and therefore
bring in higher profits. This was also true of government agencies.
With affirmative action being instituted, there were more minorities
in those sectors of employment.
A Supreme Court ruling in 1986 said
that employers could be sued for damages if there was a hostile work
environment even if there was no intent to harm the employees.
Companies were sued for allowing any racial bias at all. And it was
expensive. Lawyers and the Department of Justice cost companies huge
amounts of money. If your company lost one of these suits you could
be subjected to heavy fines and your company had to put diversity
plans into practice, overseen by the DOJ.
In order to avoid the bad publicity, it
was easy to convince them that diversity-training was cheaper even if
unpleasant. Enter Jane Elliott. Her training films that started with
“Eye of the Storm” and “A Class Divided” were followed up by
"Blue-Eyed," "The Angry Eye," "The Stolen
Eye," and "The Essential Blue-Eyed." “Indecently
Exposed,” “Eye Opener,” and “Wide Eyed.” Her videos are
promoted on the web by the National MultiCultural Institute in
Washington, DC. They are a consulting company for diversity-training.
She also has her own website. http://www.janeelliott.com/
Business Training Media, Inc., which sells "The Essential
Blue-Eyed" for $299.99.
Government and Universities use her
videos too.
She teaches or lectures things that are
false and she will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with her. She
has a very forceful, overbearing and rude manner about her. After you
read some of her arguments, watch some of her videos and you will see
what I mean. In a 1998 interview with an Australian Internet
magazine, Webfronds, she said: “You're all sitting here writing in
a language [English] that white people didn't come up with. You're
all sitting here writing on paper that white people didn't invent.
Most of you are wearing clothes made out of cloth that white people
didn't come up with. We stole these ideas from other people. If
you're a Christian, you're believing in a philosophy that came to us
from people of color.”
English developed from Germanic
dialects spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland,
and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes known as the Angles, Saxons,
and Jutes. In the fifth century, the Anglo-Saxons settled Britain and
the Romans withdrew from Britain. I will agree with her on paper. The
Egyptians had papyrus, but the Chinese invented paper. Nålebinding
is Danish in origin. It means literally "binding with a needle"
or "needle-binding". We call it felt. There are examples of
it that date from 6500 BC. But nobody knows for sure who invented
cloth because cloth deteriorates. We didn't steal ideas from other
people. It's called cultural exchange and it is as old as mankind. It
goes back to the time when humans were nomadic and would encounter
peoples from other areas who did things differently. There are a few
things that we have invented that minorities benefit from too.
Classical music, parliamentary government. There are too many
literary contributions to name.
She says white people invented racism
too. It's a fact that the ancient Mesopotamians had slaves. One would
imagine they justified this with racism.
It would be hard to estimate the
damage done by programs she is associated with. With her morally
superior attitude she accuses us all of being morally complicit. If
we are complicit in anything, it is in allowing liberals to take
control of our government and society.
I found a YouTube video of a recent
interview she did. Jane
Elliott Speaks On The Blue Eye/Brown Eye Test,Racism,Pres. Election &
Why Whites Are In Fear
I am going to tell you some of the
things she says and address the ones I can.
She says that the curriculum taught
white superiority and that she refused to teach that and that she
also refused to teach that there were different races. I don't know
how to disprove this. But I know that I was not taught that I was
superior to other races in public school.
She says that the idea of different
races originated about 500 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition.
And that we have to wipe that idea out of our students heads. She
says we are all members of the same race whether we like it or not.
The Bible explains where all of the races came from and it a lot
older than 500 years old. The ancient Hebrew people were prohibited
from mixing races. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4 “Neither shalt thou make
marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son,
nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
Biologically, we are very similar. But
to say that biologically there is only one race, denies DNA evidence.
A scientist can tell you the racial heritage of a person by looking
at their DNA. A lot of scientists will tell you that you can't do
this because everyone's DNA is so similar. But mitochondrial DNA does
have differences that can be used to determine when an individual's
ancestors left Africa. In 2003, Tony Frudakis developed a test called
DNAWitness and he used it to help the FBI determine the race of a
serial killer. But it's not used much because, it's expensive and
because it's not politically correct. The theory is that it could be
expanded. "Once we start talking about predicting racial
background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about
how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that
rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says
Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological
Association. A New DNA
Test Can ID a Suspect’s Race, But Police Won’t Touch It
I'm not saying that people should be
discriminated against because of those differences. But a teacher
should know better than to say something that isn't strictly true.
She says that the reason white people
don't want people of color to have power is because we are afraid
they will do to us what we have done to them. How then does she
explain Barach Obama?
She says that we still have slavery in
the form of all of the young black men who are in prison for
victim-less crimes. And she says that it is due to the Three Strikes
law. According to her, Bill Clinton instituted it because he needed
somewhere to put all the young men of color to get rid of them. The
three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of
persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of
two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the
ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life
sentence. How is a violent crime victim-less? There may be more blacks
sent to prison under this law, but they are also the ones committing
the majority of the violent crimes. Blacks commit about 52% of
violent crimes but they only make up 13% of the population.
She says we should have offered them
the choice to go to school and get an education instead of sending
them to prison. Why should the American people pay to educate them as
a reward for crime? I completely agree with the idea that paying for
education is cheaper than supporting uneducated people in the long
run. But that needs to happen before they become criminals.
She said that prisons make money for a
community by employing about 300 people. But what about the costs to
the community to house and take care of the inmates? The Vera
Institute of Justice released a study in 2012 that found the
aggregate cost of prisons in 2010 in the 40 states that participated
was $39 billion. The annual average taxpayer cost in these states was
$31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an
average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate.
She says that white people take it as a
personal insult that black people have survived and that many of them
have been successful . That's kinda funny because in saying that, she
acknowledges that not all black people have been unable to succeed
because of the supposed institutional racism. Some of them are able
to do the same thing as everyone else, rise to their own personal
challenges. Black people did not create affirmative action by
themselves. They did not free themselves from slavery. Some white
people are actually proactive in their survival and success.
She says that we are afraid because we
know that within 30 years, at the current rate of population growth,
we will be a minority; and we are afraid that we will be treated the
way we are treating other people now. She says we should fix this by
treating people better so that we can have a better future.
She attempted to speak on white
people's perception of Christianity in America, saying basically,
that we think Mary was pale and blonde and that Jesus was too. She
then proceeded to tell another lie. She said that the Bible says that
Jesus had feet of bronze and kinky woolly hair. The feet of bronze
thing comes from the Bible saying that his feet shined like bronze.
John was describing a vision he saw of Christ in heaven, no longer in
his earthly form. Revelation 1:14- 15 New Living Translation: His
head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his
eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze
refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean
waves. The reference to wool was to the white color. There is nothing
there saying kinky, woolly hair, as in texture. And the bronze meant
the metal bronze. Not dark colored skin. Jesus was a Jew. In
(Leviticus 19:27) they were commanded not to cut their beards or the
hair on the sides of their head, like right in front of their ears.
This is why Orthodox Jews today wear those long curls in front of
their ears. Other than that, we can only speculate on what he looked
like according to what other Jews in his community looked like.
Because the other descriptions of him in the Bible say, “(Isaiah
53:2)He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His
appearance that we should desire Him.” (Psalm 45:2) Thou art fairer
than the children of men.That likely means he beautiful as opposed to
fair complected. But it isn't due to physical appearance but inner
beauty. (Lamentations 4:7) "Her Nazarites were purer than snow,
they were whiter than milk, they were more swarthy in body than
rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than
coal;" as referring to eye color.” That would indicate that he
was fair complected, possibly relative to the color of other people
around him. He had dark eyes as well. Not that I would give it any
credence, but the Koran says that Jesus had curly hair and a ruddy
complexion. And other writers say his hair was lank, indicating
straight hair.
It really doesn't matter that Medieval
depictions of Christ were European. Because there were also
contradictory opinions of learned writers. Some of them describing
him as short and ugly. And others saying that from a theological
point of view he had to be beautiful. The point she was trying to
make was that we think we have a straight line to God because we
think he looks like us. Some people probably do, because they are
just like her, they never read the Bible before passing on incorrect
information. She and the black people who agree with her misquote the
Bible because they want Jesus to look like them too so they can
relate to him better. If you buy into the Black Christ theory, it is
possibly that some of his ancestry was black. Some of the men in the
Old Testament married women of other nationalities and races.
Whatever he looked like, it probably wasn't either black or white.
For someone who is supposed to be an educator as opposed to an
indoctrinator, she certainly says a lot of things that are false and
easily disputed.
I just love the racist generality of
her saying that white people all have the same beliefs when it comes
to religion. People would jump up and down if I said that about
blacks. The truth is neither blacks or whites as a group behave in a
very Christian manner. But many individuals live exemplary lives.
She says that when you talk to people
you are less likely to be prejudiced toward them. And yet she says
all of these things that are prejudiced. And she doesn't talk to
people she brow beats, shames and berates them.
She says the Bible talks about the
family of men and doesn't talk about people of all these different
colors, that we are all members of the same race. She said this
right after going out of her way to lie and indicate that Jesus was
black, which is a race. I've already addressed the inaccuracy of this
statement.
The host who is interviewing her says a
lot of racist things too. Between the two of them, they say that the
reason white people point out Martin Luther King as a role model for
black people is because he is dead, that we don't get to tell them
who they should look to for a leader, and that white people in power
killed him. She says that we weren't smart enough to know that he
would become a martyr if we killed him. And that he stood not for
equality but treating people equitably. Then goes on to say that the
Constitution doesn't guarantee equal rights, but equitable treatment
under the law. I don't think she's read it. It doesn't say either. I
don't know whether she is saying EQUATABLE or EQUITABLE. The first
means two things that are similar or comparable. The second means
fair, impartial, or proportionate. Since she says the Constitution
doesn't guarantee things to be equal, I will assume she was saying
EQUITABLE. Because equal does mean the same amount.
As I said, she must not have read the
Constitution. The second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence
states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal. Although it isn't part of the Constitution, it
is still part of the basis it was written on. The Fourteenth
Amendment uses the word equal in section 1. nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. We
almost had an amendment called the Equal Rights Amendment. She is
free to interpret the Constitution however she wants to. But the fact
remains, neither equitability or equality are guaranteed in the
Constitution in any other area than treatment under the law. So if
there were to laws enacted to insure equality, we would have been
free to treat people unequally according to the Constitution. But any
laws enacted have to be applied equally to everyone. Anywhere there
isn't a law to constrain us or give us guidelines, we are free to
treat people unequally. I guess Constitutional Law doesn't play much
into being a 3rd grade teacher, but it is something that
every American should be familiar with so that when someone says
something incorrect like she did, you will know it.
She says that white people are scared
to death that if one black man was able to gain enough political
power to become POTUS that others can get organized and do the same
thing. But at least 49% of white people voted for him in 2008 and
39% of white people voted for him in 2012. So not all white people
are scared of him.
She says that Donald Trump means to
take America back to the way it was before civil rights and equal
rights, back to the 1950's. But he wrote a book about it and it seems
to be a feasible idea to stick to what he says it means. “We need a
government that is committed to winning and has experience in
winning,” Trump writes in “Crippled America: How to Make America
Great Again.” “This book is about how we do that.” “We will
have the strongest military in our history, and our people will be
trained with the best weaponry and protection available,” he
writes. “We’ve dumbed down the curriculum to the lowest common
denominator,” Trump argues. “In many schools, we’ve eliminated
grading entirely and diplomas have been practically devalued into
certificates of attendance.”
He rails against the federal programs
Common Core, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, which “allow
progressives in the Department of Education to indoctrinate, not
educate, our kids.”
Trump consistently argues the
competitive advantage remains with private enterprise.
“In Washington, D.C., I’m
converting the Old Post Office Building on Pennsylvania Avenue into
one of the world’s greatest hotels,” he points out.
“My home in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago,
was once the greatest mansion in the country, but its previous owner,
the United States government had let it deteriorate,” he writes.
“Nobody had the vision to see what it could be. I restored it,
rebuilt it, and now – go online and see what I’ve accomplished
there. We brought the property back to the greatness it once was –
and then made it better!”
Trump believes in restoring law and
order,“both on the street and in our courtrooms,”. And he
believes that we should do that by supporting law enforcement and
providing them with the equipment and training needed “to protect
themselves and our honest, hardworking citizens”. He also believes
we should put judges on the bench who understand the Constitution and
leave lawmaking up to the legislators.
“Crippled America” reminds citizens
that the strongest middle class in the history of the world has been
built not by relying on government handouts but by unleashing the
creative intelligence and determined ingenuity of the people.
“Making America Great Again begins at
home,” Trump concludes. “It means restoring a sense of dignity to
the White House, and to our country in general.
“The president of the United States
is the most powerful person in the world,” he writes. “The
president is the spokesperson for democracy and liberty. Isn’t it
time we brought back the pomp and circumstance, and the sense of awe
for that office that we all once held?”
It really isn't relevant whether you
support that or not. The point is this woman says so many inaccurate
things and assumes so much prejudiced nonsense it is difficult to
take her seriously when she sets out to educate others on the
injustice of racial prejudice.
A lot of the inequality she rails
against come down to money if you really think about it. At one point
during her interview, she jokes about the fact that she gets paid
large amounts of money to give speeches. She's been on "The
Oprah Winfrey Show" at least five times. She's personally led
diversity-training sessions for General Electric, Exxon, AT&T,
IBM, and other major corporations, plus federal agencies such as the
Department of Education and the U.S. Navy. She's lectured at more
than 350 colleges and universities. She's been the subject of
television documentaries. A Disney made-for-TV movie about her life
reportedly has been in the works since 2003. Textbook publisher
McGraw-Hill has listed her on a timeline of key educators of history,
right up there with Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Horace Mann, Booker
T. Washington, Maria Montessori and nearly two dozen others.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1019.
I've pointed out how she makes $6000 per lecture she gives and that
she makes A LOT of money marketing her videos.
She doesn't seem too ashamed of her
white privilege.
Not everything written about her is
very flattering. Alan Charles Kors, a distinguished historian at the
University of Pennsylvania who has written a thorough and perceptive
analysis of the movement Elliott embodies, describes her as the
“Torquemada of thought reform.” And he’s not alone. Linda
Seebach, a former columnist for the former Rocky Mountain News
(perhaps it couldn’t survive her retirement) wrote in 2004, quoted
in a Smithsonian article, that Elliott was a “disgrace” and
described her exercise as “sadistic,” adding, “You would think
that any normal person would realize that she had done an evil thing.
But not Elliott. She repeated the abuse with subsequent classes, and
finally turned it into a fully commercial enterprise.” The BBC said
that her training style is “uncompromising, brusque and
authoritative. She tells her captive audience, she is their “resident
BITCH for the day – Being In Total Control Honey.” Strong critics
of Elliott, such as Carl F. Horowitz call her the “Dominatrix of
Diversity” who wages “…psychological warfare against employees
– more specifically, white employees….”.
If she lies about so many things or is
just wrong about them, how in the world is it a good idea to allow
her to teach people about how we are all racist?
No comments:
Post a Comment