Smithsonian Publishes, Deletes Shocking “Whiteness” Infographic; Self-reliance, Objectivity, Hard Work Condemned

Buckle up, because this is a deep and snarky analysis of the Critical Race Theory that our major institutions are pushing these days.
The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) published, and then subsequently removed, the following infographic from their online portal called “Talking About Race.” It was included as part of an online race-based curriculum and was apparently intended to educate you on what the leftist progressives in social and political power consider white supremacy these days, and which are therefore damaging and must be eliminated.

In case you missed it:

The Smithsonian Museum put out a list of bad white people traits.
Those included hard work, objectivity, politeness, and having both a dad & mom leading a family. pic.twitter.com/LB4Omdth2n
— BDW (@BryanDeanWright) October 31, 2021

The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification, more. (via @RpwWilliams)https://t.co/k9X3u4Suas pic.twitter.com/gWYOeEh4vu

— Byron York (@ByronYork) July 15, 2020

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley wrote a letter to the institution asking for more information on the incredibly divisive infographic, to which the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute responded with his own letter.
Now, I’m a cisgendered super-straight white conservative woman, so my opinion matters to these people about as much as teets on a bull (although slightly more than my cisgendered super-straight white conservative husband), but I don’t personally agree with these. Like “bland is best?” No thank you. Give me all the flavor, all the seasonings, all the spices. I honestly don’t think it’s worth the calories to eat something that’s bland. (Oh, look, there I go perpetuating fatphobia and diet culture by referencing calories and whether or not they’re worth it to eat…) And I certainly have a problem with the insinuation that these are all inherently “white” concepts, despite incredible Americans of all races who have previously and continue to espouse these values and ideals.
But then again, they preempted this argument with a convenient blanket statement noting that “since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized some aspects of white culture–including people of color.” So to them, even if you’re one of the many incredible non-white individuals or families in this country who espouse these values and ideals, any success you’ve seen as a result of them is racist and perpetuates racism and white supremacy.
Wow, what a racist philosophy. And this, my friends, is Critical Race Theory in a nutshell.
Some noteworthy items included in this list of concepts that are apparently tantamount to racism and white supremacy are as follows:
–The concept of self-reliance.
Didn’t you know that it’s essentially white supremacy to work hard to prepare and equip yourself for success rather than relying on the hard work of others to carry you or on the government to take care of you? Why work hard to take care of yourself when your all-powerful, benevolent, equitable government could just take care of you instead. Yeah, your standard of living would be reduced to abject poverty and political slavery (take a look at Venezuela these days), but on the bright side, you wouldn’t have to put forth any effort to take care of yourself because the government would keep you alive. Maybe. Just enough to work for them.
–The concept of a nuclear family being ideal.
Despite literally centuries of evidence and innumerable scientific behavioral studies and analysis on the subject suggesting that nuclear families generally provide the greatest advantage for a child’s future success, we are supposed to believe that the concept of nuclear families is actually destructive and racist because there currently happens to be a greater prevalence of non-nuclear type families in minority demographics. I would argue that leftist political policies (that actually are racist and were initially intended to keep minority citizens dependent on the government rather than incentivize them to create their own success), are to blame for this disparity. The answer to this differential isn’t to abolish nuclear families that absolutely are an advantage to children. The answer is to encourage and facilitate nuclear families for all people in all situations so that all children of all races can have the advantages afforded by nuclear families. It’s just backwards thinking to consider abolishing something that is positive and advantageous because some don’t have it, rather than to find a way for everyone to have access to the positive and advantageous thing. I call it the lowest common denominator theory.
–The concept of objectivity.
You’re not supposed to ACTUALLY be objective, because that’s racist and might actually lead to conclusions or evidence that don’t fit your preferred political narrative. But it’s OK to PRETEND like you are objective, as in the current media and scientific communities, in order to convince the masses that your conclusions are the result of objective investigation. Seems weird though, because if objectivity is racist, then shouldn’t pretend objectivity also be racist? So why don’t they just own their substantial bias and admit to their blatant non-objectivity? Honestly, that would probably be good for society because a lot of people are being duped by thinking the media and scientific community are giving them “objective truths” that must be accepted by all, when they are actually being fed a bunch of partisan propaganda that isn’t the least bit objective.
–The concept of hard work leading to success.
You see, not everyone is sufficiently motivated or personally capable of the kind of hard work that leads to quantitative “success.” Interestingly, both the concept of “quantifying” things and the concept of “success” are both considered white supremacist and racist concepts, so it’s white supremacy to perpetuate the “myth” that hard work leads to success that could be measured when it doesn’t lead to equitable success for all people across all situations and despite all levels of “hard work.” Again, we can discuss this entire argument in the framework of the lowest common denominator theory. Why would you abolish something that is good because not everyone has it, rather than facilitate everyone being able to have it?
–The concept of property and goods ownership.
Makes sense for them to cast this in a socially undesirable way considering that in the dystopian socialist or communist “utopia” they seem intent to make, you won’t be permitted to have ownership of anything, including goods, property, or yourself. The government will own everything and decide what to allow you to use. They’d rather you just voluntarily surrendered ownership of everything to them after being convinced that it’s racist to own things. It saves them the energy and trouble of overthrowing a resistant society.
–The concept of planning for the future or that progress is a positive things.
Why would you ever need to plan for the future when you aren’t supposed to espouse the concept of self-reliance? You’re just supposed to rely on your all powerful, benevolent, and equitable government to give you everything they’ve decided you need, and so there’s really no need to plan for any future beyond your next government allotment anyway. And why would you waste energy trying to make progress on something, whether personal or social, when the government will decide what “progress” is allowed to be made once they’ve determined that would be the most “equitable.” Because not all progress positively impacts every single person “equitably,” so the whole concept must be abolished in order to prevent some from seeing less progress than others. Again, the theory of lowest common denominator.
–The concept that intent must be considered in the justice system.
This one is especially interesting to me because it’s exactly how leftist progressives operate, so I’m not sure how they can condemn it as white supremacy. You see, if a white person, or a person of color who deigns to espouse conservative values and ideals, doesn’t actually commit a crime but is believed by leftist activists to have even the intent to promote or support something that woke progressive leftists claim is discriminatory or dangerous (and thus tantamount to actual violent crime), then the intent is really ALL that matters. For example, parents opposing school board policies being condemned as domestic terrorism. But if someone who toes the leftist progressive party line commits actual crimes but claims an intent that is considered acceptable to those leftist progressives, then they are essentially absolved if any guilt for the actual crimes they committed. For example, the billions of dollars worth of actual crimes committed and absolved in the name of social justice last year.
–The concept of decision-making and action orientation.
How dare you promote the white supremacist concept that people should be making decisions for themselves and taking action to pursue success, improve their situation, or protect themselves. The all-powerful, benevolent, equitable government is supposed to make all your decisions for you. That way you won’t accidentally make a decision that disproportionately benefits you more than someone else. That simply can’t be allowed. Instead, they want to make decisions that create an “equitable,” albeit probably inferior, outcome for all, rather than allowing people to make different decisions and take different actions that might lead to different outcomes for different people depending upon differing abilities, motivation, and circumstances. Because you aren’t an independent individual (another concept that is on the list as racist). You are property of your overlords who decide what’s best for you and everyone else. Once again, the theory of the lowest common denominator.
The Smithsonian later apologized… for getting caught.

“Since yesterday, certain content in the ‘Talking About Race’ portal has been the subject of questions that we have taken seriously. We have listened to public sentiment and have removed a chart that does not contribute to the productive discussion we had intended.”